Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Ammo Laws
Options
Comments
-
-
Section 2 of the act says a lot of things and quite a few more than just the penalty for possession of a firearm without a certificate. It goes on for over two pages and lists eighteen different exceptions to the requirement for a firearms certificate. The most important subsections of section 2 (which relate to this) are subsections (3) and (4) which outline the situation where it is not an offence to have a firearm without a certificate.BornToKill wrote: »No rrpc. Section 2 of the 1925 Act says:
I'll point you to one of those subsections which I believe the Superintendent could have acted upon
Subsection 3(a): the possession or carriage of a firearm under and in accordance with a permit issued under this Act and for the time being in force
You may have some axe to grind with people taking Supers to court, but that's not germane to this discussion.A Superintendent doesn't write the laws - that's the function of the Oireachtas. I do think there should be some flexibility in the system. Other people have been demanding that Superintendents must slavishly implement the law and were quite quick on occasion to go to court to make sure that they did.
In fact it seems that you are jumping on this case as a supposed example of double standards in that where it suits the shooter, it's OK for the law to be bent but where it doesn't it's not. Am I correct in my supposition?
You have only the OP's word on this forum that any law was broken. The Superintendent may not have had such evidence and if he wished to pursue it, he was free to do so. He obviously decided to follow a different but equally valid route and grant a permit to the OP.In this case, the law is quite clear and the OP had broken it. It's quite a serious law too and he could have faced 1-7 years in jail. Now, I'm not claiming anything would have been served by prosecuting someone for this offence but either we want the law fully implemented (applications) or we want Superintendents to use discretion (prosecution).
He could have also issued a 2(4)(d) authorisation, but a 3(a) permit is quite sufficient for his purpose.One final point, the Superintendent has no power that I am aware of to issue an authorisation in this situation. Perhaps it was a non-residents FAC?
By the very same reasoning that you are using here, thousands of people every year are guilty of possession of a firearm without a certificate (myself included). Every July, I get my renewals and travel to my local station to get the new licence. As it is a rural station it's not manned all the time, so I drop my renewal in the letter box with the cheque.
Invariably it's some time in August or even as late as September befiore I get my new licences. Even when I track a path daily to the station, the new licences are never there until at least the first or second week of August in which case I'm in considerably more trouble than the OP.
So by your reckoning we should really just walk into the Gardai and hand ourselves over to be arrested and prosecuted :rolleyes:
If we want to be consistent of course
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
I can't agree with the idea that a visiting guest, who has already paid an entry fee and airline fees and is dumping money into our restaurants and hotels and so forth, shouldn't be able to get a free visitor's permit but should have to get a three-year licence, subject to all the fun of the fair that that entails. I mean, it'd be like asking all the Olympic shooters going to London in a few years to go through the process of getting an FAC, it'd be an embarressment.
If you're coming in for (on average) two to three days, and we know where you're going, why you're going there, what firearms you have with you and what match you're shooting in (and a contact in the organisers), then what possible extra benefit is there to demand a 3-year licence from someone, bar the base one of dumping an extra 80-odd euro into the kitty?
Seems a bit like an overlooked use case to me. Which is a shame after ten years of crud dealing with new legislation
0 -
I can't agree with the idea that a visiting guest, who has already paid an entry fee and airline fees and is dumping money into our restaurants and hotels and so forth, shouldn't be able to get a free visitor's permit but should have to get a three-year licence, subject to all the fun of the fair that that entails. I mean, it'd be like asking all the Olympic shooters going to London in a few years to go through the process of getting an FAC, it'd be an embarressment.
If you're coming in for (on average) two to three days, and we know where you're going, why you're going there, what firearms you have with you and what match you're shooting in (and a contact in the organisers), then what possible extra benefit is there to demand a 3-year licence from someone, bar the base one of dumping an extra 80-odd euro into the kitty?
Seems a bit like an overlooked use case to me. Which is a shame after ten years of crud dealing with new legislation
I'm not saying that the three year licence is the answer for everyone. I know it's a lot better for people in NI coming here for competitions and takes a lot of the headache out for a small enough outlay against the amount of uses it would get.
For the occasional visitor, I still think the EFP is the best bet, but obviously there's been problems with that in the past as well, so there needs to be some other control mechanism (even if only to protect our telecoms cables).
Something combining a permit or a 2(4)(d) or (e) with the EFP perhaps.0 -
Advertisement