New Restricted List sneak peek

Sparks

Sparks wrote: »

It's legal right up to when the status of the firearm licenced changes.
At that point, it gets... interesting.
Put it this way, if someone asked to see my paperwork, I'd not be happy if I knew that the guy who signed my licence was not legally empowered to grant such a licence. Especially since the DoJ has, in writing, put the onus on us to know the difference rather than the Gardai.

It is still legal. Laws work 'going forward'. The super is no longer legally allowed to issue any more licences for that gun, since it is now on the restricted list, but my licence (or B'mans really) was issued legally and justly. He won't get a renewal, he may have it confiscated under a 'temp' order but, but you cannot retrospectively make something illegal. That has been proven in court.

Sparks

you cannot retrospectively make something illegal. That has been proven in court.

There's no retrospective element involved. B'man wouldn't be hauled up over the first few weeks where the licence was issued; but if he went on using that licence after the firearm for which it had been issued changed to a restricted firearm, that is where the problem arises. And it's not retrospective. You see what I mean?

bunny shooter

The "List" .................................. :eek:

Vegeta

bunny shooter wrote: »

The "List" .................................. :eek:

Took you long enough

fat-tony

Sparks wrote: »

There's no retrospective element involved. B'man wouldn't be hauled up over the first few weeks where the licence was issued; but if he went on using that licence after the firearm for which it had been issued changed to a restricted firearm, that is where the problem arises. And it's not retrospective. You see what I mean?

I think you're making a potential issue out of this, where none exists at present. The Commissioner has extended all our licences until at least 31/10/09 until they sort out exactly what pistols are going to be licensed as unrestricted or restricted. Obviously anything with a calibre of over .22 is already in the restricted group. The issues arises only over whatever the Gardai / DoJ deem as in the "Olympic" category. Until that is nailed down I would suggest that no Super is going to authorise any .22 pistol. They can get on with issuing restricted class licences (or referring them to the Chief Super or whatever way the Commissioner has devolved the responsibility:)) until this new SI is published.
Obviously it needs to be soon as otherwise they are painting all .22 pistol owners and themselves into a corner as the 31/10 extension looms.;)

Sparks

fat-tony wrote: »

I think you're making a potential issue out of this, where none exists at present.

That's sortof the definition of potential issue...

The Commissioner has extended all our licences until at least 31/10/09

Wrong licence. B'man is talking about a licence issued now against a buckmark. Only licences issued before 31/07/09 have the extensions.

Obviously anything with a calibre of over .22 is already in the restricted group.

And banned. And not a buckmark. So doubly irrelevant.

Look, all this stuff can be ignored.
Just not legally.
And it strikes me that if we've all just put ten years or more of our lives into the legislative end of things, and the entire Act has been rewritten; that it says some rather dismaying things that we have to resort to a nod and a wink to get by, instead of having clear and easy to read legislation; or even comprehensive legislation, even if convoluted.

Sparks

Sparks wrote: »

And it strikes me that if we've all just put ten years or more of our lives into the legislative end of things, and the entire Act has been rewritten; that it says some rather dismaying things that we have to resort to a nod and a wink to get by, instead of having clear and easy to read legislation; or even comprehensive legislation, even if convoluted.

That is not exclusive to shooting.
Very little legislation is 'clear'

At the end of the day, if the super doesn't like it he can cancel your licence. At any time. So our legal/retrospective/not retrospective debate is a moot point really.

bunny shooter

Vegeta wrote: »

Took you long enough

Ya was busy today just logged on

Imagine my surprise when I looked at the new "list" Sparks has had a peek at and it reminded me of another I had seen recently. I went to check the site I saw it on and low and behold it was gone :eek:

Luckily, when I checked the internet history on my PC I found the site has been updated

The attachment is from the page BEFORE it was updated and comes from approx early August THIS year :cool:

The lad/s who look after this site should definately do the Euro Lotto this week as if they get as many numbers in the Lotto as they did on these two lists they will definately win the jackpot :P

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

I went to check the site I saw it on and low and behold it was gone :eek:

Actually, it's still there.

Sparks

Deleted User wrote: »

That is not exclusive to shooting.
Very little legislation is 'clear'

That's not a valid excuse, not after the number of Acts and SIs we've had fired our way in recent years.

At the end of the day, if the super doesn't like it he can cancel your licence. At any time. So our legal/retrospective/not retrospective debate is a moot point really.

And I could drop dead of a massive heart attack while crossing the road.
Doesn't mean I won't look both ways before crossing the next road I come to though.

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

Actually, it's still there.

yes, but where is "there" 'cause it ain't here though ?

Sparks

Dunno Bunny, but I had enough hassle with the joomla software that runs the site when trying to set up the document store that I'm not going to put down to malice what is more than attributable to fecking bugs...

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

Dunno Bunny, but I had enough hassle with the joomla software that runs the site when trying to set up the document store that I'm not going to put down to malice what is more than attributable to fecking bugs...

Ever heard the saying "bull****e baffles brains" ? :P :rolleyes:

As I said you should definately do the Lotto this week Should share the numbers with RRPC too

Wonder if them "bugs" are on the FCP

fat-tony

Sparks wrote: »

That's sortof the definition of potential issue...Wrong licence. B'man is talking about a licence issued now against a buckmark. Only licences issued before 31/07/09 have the extensions.

And banned. And not a buckmark. So doubly irrelevant.

Look, all this stuff can be ignored.
Just not legally.
And it strikes me that if we've all just put ten years or more of our lives into the legislative end of things, and the entire Act has been rewritten; that it says some rather dismaying things that we have to resort to a nod and a wink to get by, instead of having clear and easy to read legislation; or even comprehensive legislation, even if convoluted.

Sparks - you've picked me up wrong again:)
I dithered about putting in the word "potential", but I didn't want to be seen as having a go at you making mountains out of molehills;)
B'man was not talking about actually having a new licence - he said he was applying for a licence. You extrapolated from this into the actual granting of a licence and the sh*tstorm which might result from such granting, should the status of the pistol be subsequently changed from non-restricted to restricted. Don't forget that the Restricted SI of 2008 was placed into law with effect from May 2008. Last year's renewals didn't affect holders of restricted pistols AFAIK. Obviously, the primary legislation has been changed in the interim and now we are ALL faced with a new application for our licences.
My thesis is that no sane Super/Chief Super/Commissioner is going to actually grant any licences for .22 pistols until such time as it is clear which ones are restricted and which ones are not:)

fat-tony

bunny shooter wrote: »

yes, but where is "there" 'cause it ain't here though ?

Ah - the conspiracy theorists at work again.:D

The Joomla software (which the site is based on) and the Docman module have settings which restrict the number of displayed articles on the page.
Give us an hour or two and I'll get the brains trust together to fix the issue.:o

bunny shooter

fat-tony wrote: »

Ah - the conspiracy theorists at work again.:D

Except this time I've Scully & Mulder on the case :P "The truth is out there"

fat-tony wrote: »

The Joomla software (which the site is based on) and the Docman module have settings which restrict the number of displayed articles on the page.

Really :eek:

fat-tony

Ok fixed. There was a limit of 10 articles displayed in the menu on the sidebar. Now changed to 20 - have a look:D
I blame the DoJ and a certain someone for publishing all those SIs on the website;)

bunny shooter

fat-tony wrote: »

Ok fixed. There was a limit of 10 articles displayed in the menu on the sidebar.

Obviously not enough spaces , no conspiracy to hide a dodgy deal with the devil then Makes me wonder how did Sparks link work then ?

fat-tony wrote: »

Now changed to 20 - have a look:D;)

Will do, I like to keep up to date with all matters ISSF seems it will save me checking the DOJ site for updates

fat-tony wrote: »

I blame the DoJ and a certain someone for publishing all those SIs on the website;)

New theory ................. are they one in the same :eek:

Sparks

fat-tony wrote: »

B'man was not talking about actually having a new licence - he said he was applying for a licence. You extrapolated from this into the actual granting of a licence and the sh*tstorm which might result from such granting, should the status of the pistol be subsequently changed from non-restricted to restricted.

And on what legal basis will the Super refuse to grant the licence?

Don't forget that the Restricted SI of 2008 was placed into law with effect from May 2008. Last year's renewals didn't affect holders of restricted pistols AFAIK.

Because the relevant section of the Act wasn't commenced...



Look, here's my real problem tony - yes, the problem won't arise. But it won't arise because the legislation is clear and well-constructed, with contingencies like this accounted for. It won't arise because the Super will either throw the application in the drawer and sit on it until it's moot; or he'll just grant it in ignorance. An Irish solution.

In other words, we should have just fecked off and not wasted our time over the last ten years working with the DoJ to try to draft decent legislation, because we had a pig's ear of a thing at the start, and we're still stuck with a pigs ear today, ten years of hard graft down the road.

Oh, and let's all just hope that in the second-most litigious country in the world, noone challanges any of this in court. Instead of, you know, having fair rules that noone would have any real problem with.

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

Wonder if them "bugs" are on the FCP

They must be, how else would Des get the contents of the Guidelines while they were still confidential?

fat-tony

No one was suggesting the Super was going to "refuse" the licence. It's the Irish way to "lose" the application for a time and then, either process the application once it's "found" or else brass-neck the whole thing and make the applicant re-apply.
My reading of the situation is that the Supers are just going to make no decision until they have to. They have a window (under legislation) of three months to do so, although in this particular circumstance the licence holders have an expiry date which is 11 weeks away.

As far as the Restricted SI of 2008 - yes it was commenced, but there were no Commissioner's guidelines issued, hence the Supers did not act on it.

Sparks

fat-tony wrote: »

It's the Irish way to "lose" the application for a time and then, either process the application once it's "found" or else brass-neck the whole thing and make the applicant re-apply.

And aren't you sick of that by now?
I know I am.

fat-tony

Sparks wrote: »

And aren't you sick of that by now?
I know I am.

Yes I f***kin' hate it and the whole uneven policy application by FOs around the country. I hate the way the current;) Minister has criminalised honest sports people and has railroaded legislation through the Dáil.
But ultimately, grasshopper, I'm a pragmatist. Times will change, governments will move on (maybe sooner than we think/hope), and we can continue to work for the return of centre-fire pistol sports:)

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

Okay, this is an unofficial sneak peek at Schedule One of the upcoming Restricted List from an anonymous source in the DoJ.

Sparks wrote: »

They must be, how else would Des get the contents of the Guidelines while they were still confidential?

Seems he isn't the only on with "deep throat" contacts :eek: Were you not giving off over his under the table dealing in a previous thread ?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61320092&postcount=140

Seems it's only wrong if "the others" get sneak previews

Question :P Did Des's wishlist get adopted too? :eek:

marlin vs

God help us,and we done nothing to anyone.

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

Seems he isn't the only on with "deep throat" contacts :eek:

There's a difference between boards.ie being used by the DoJ to distribute information and distributing a document that's still confidential...

rowa

fat-tony wrote: »

Yes I f***kin' hate it and the whole uneven policy application by FOs around the country. I hate the way the current;) Minister has criminalised honest sports people and has railroaded legislation through the Dáil.
But ultimately, grasshopper, I'm a pragmatist. Times will change, governments will move on (maybe sooner than we think/hope), and we can continue to work for the return of centre-fire pistol sports:)

next time you're in that polling booth you know where NOT to put your first ,second ,third or any other choice , hopefully we'll see the back of this odious shower for a few decades .
seriously though is this list a joke ? most of the shooters i know use .22's like the buckmark and the ruger mk 2 or 3 , and they're very good pistols for club shooting, i use a 50 year old webley revolver , that isn't going to be on any list but how is it anymore of a danger to public safety than any other .22 rimfire ?

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

There's a difference between boards.ie being used by the DoJ to distribute information and distributing a document that's still confidential...

Sparks wrote: »

Okay, this is an unofficial sneak peek at Schedule One of the upcoming Restricted List from an anonymous source in the DoJ.

Amounts to the same thing I reckon :rolleyes:

New theory = certain groups have been caught with their hand in the cookie jar and they need some other stuff included to make them look less guilty i.e. Ruger Mk 2's and Buckmarks or certain other groups will cry foul play and this leak is an attempt to pressure DOJ into changing "list" before it's too late

fat-tony

rowa wrote: »

...
seriously though is this list a joke ? most of the shooters i know use .22's like the buckmark and the ruger mk 2 or 3 , and they're very good pistols for club shooting, i use a 50 year old webley revolver , that isn't going to be on any list but how is it anymore of a danger to public safety than any other .22 rimfire ?

Indeed, it's difficult to understand the rationale of the Gardaí in specifying a list which excludes a venerable Webley revolver (which is not much use in a rapid-fire competition in the Olympics:)) but I'm assuming the brief they had was in interpreting the dictat of the Minister in regard to "designed-for" Olympic competitions.

Sparks

You reckon wrong Bunny.
It's unofficial because it's not finalised. It can still be modified. So feedback would be useful.
But we've got permission to reproduce it here.

Somehow I doubt Des had similar permission
Unless you know differently, of course Bunny