Today's the day for processing the licensing system.

BornToKill

Sikamick wrote: »

________________________________________________________________

If it is not a typo and it means that you cant shoot stationary clays with a rifle it's PC gone made.

Sikamick

Okay, so - I think - we are agreed that people do shoot clays with rifles. Now, the guidelines don't say that you can't do it, just that it is done. Which it is.

Grizzly 45

. As the passage is describing how tactical/military firearms are more 'dangerous' and no more suitable for target use than conventional target firearms (not my sentiment btw), the other stuff that you are talking about is moot.

Guess thats alot of Remington,Steyr,Sako,etc folks screwed ,as there are plenty of the dreaded "tactical,police and military evill black guns"monikerd Bolt Actions out there as well...:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Just goes to show whomever put this together hadnt a clue about guns....
A good man with a bolt action who knows how to use it is more fearsome in these "doomsday situations"than an idiot with an inaccurate hicap ammo waster.
Obviously the semi auto high capacity rifle has now replaced the former boogeyman of the handgun as being "especially dangerous"..:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

rrpc

PJ Hunter wrote: »

it is but still don't know what this means if you know what i mean, Sikamick renewal of currently licensed guns; what you have is what you keep:)


35.—Section 9 (as substituted by section 53 of the Act of 2006) of
the Act of 1964 is amended by the substitution for subsection (6) of 35
the following:
“(6) An application for renewal of a firearm certificate shall
be in the prescribed form.”

Was there a point in there somewhere PJ? And what's the connection between the above quote and my post?

rrpc

BornToKill wrote: »

Okay, so - I think - we are agreed that people do shoot clays with rifles. Now, the guidelines don't say that you can't do it, just that it is done. Which it is.

BTK, you've also taken that right turn with Sikamick The passage in the guidelines that Sikamick quoted had nothing to do with whether or not you could (are permitted to) shoot clays with rifles or not.

And people should realise that these are guidelines. They are not the law. This bit is very important; they are an interpretation of the law for the (supposed) purpose of clarifying the licensing system for the Gardai and the applicant alike.

In a straight fight between statute law and the guidelines, statute law wins every time.

BornToKill

rrpc wrote: »

BTK, you've also taken that right turn with Sikamick

I really doubt that I could have taken a right turn with Sikamick since I have neither an idea of where he is coming from nor where he is going. ;) I'm totally lost.

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

In a straight fight between statute law and the guidelines, statute law wins every time.

Yes... in a courtroom.
Thing is, it's a pain if you have to drag it to the court every time. Which is why the guidelines should have been gotten right, instead of being borderline sedition in some parts and out-and-out wrong in others.

(BTW, if it's a logical right turn, then Sikamick was right to take it )

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

Yes... in a courtroom.
Thing is, it's a pain if you have to drag it to the court every time. Which is why the guidelines should have been gotten right, instead of being borderline sedition in some parts and out-and-out wrong in others.

Well it's district court first now, so wrinkles will be ironed out in short order I'd imagine. But the bit we're discussing here will have no bearing on actual licence applications except for those looking for restricted firearms of the 'dangerous/tacticool' persuasion. :rolleyes:

(BTW, if it's a logical right turn, then Sikamick was right to take it )

Mr. Pedantic strikes again. Nice to see you back Mr. P.

clivej

Original Post ==

Well did anyone find out if the new licensing system works or did it crash??

I hope it works because I'm waiting since April for my .308 to go through.


HOW MUCH MORE OFF TOPIC IS THIS THREAD GOING TO GET????????

rrpc

clivej wrote: »

Original Post ==

Well did anyone find out if the new licensing system works or did it crash??

I hope it works because I'm waiting since April for my .308 to go through.


HOW MUCH MORE OFF TOPIC IS THIS THREAD GOING TO GET????????

It's a bit early Clive if the processing only started on Tuesday for anyone to know if it works or not. We'll really only know when the first 'new' licences are issued.

clivej

rrpc wrote: »

It's a bit early Clive if the processing only started on Tuesday for anyone to know if it works or not. We'll really only know when the first 'new' licences are issued.

But before that everyone will be getting a payment letter in the post to pay for their licenses.

WHO's GOING TO BE THE FIRST to get this????

I heard that you will have to send off your payments as the Post Office is not yet set up to take the payments over the counter.

iwsf

another delay :eek:

PJ Hunter

Guidelines badly written contradictory and worded wrong i.e.


EXAMPLE 1:COMMUNICATION OF THE DECISION ON THE GRANTING OF A FIREARMS CERTIFICATE
Section 3 of the Firearms Act 1925 as amended,
*provides that a decision on an application for a firearms certificate or its renewal shall be given within 3 months from the date on which the applicant submitted a completed application. Where an application is refused, the applicant shall be informed in writing of the refusal and the reason for it.
*If a decision on an application is not made within this 3 month period then this is deemed to be a refusal under section 15A of the Firearms Act 1925 as inserted by section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006.


Minister Ahern said: "This Act is about halting the emergence of a gun-culture in Ireland. Experience in other countries shows us that any relaxation of controls on gun ownership or registration very quickly results in dramatic growth in firearms with many longer term negative downstream consequences. I will not allow that happen on my watch."



Guidelines badly written contradictory and worded wrong i.e.


Example 2: Rifles
Rifles should be single shot or bolt action with calibres up to .308 inch. (7.62mm). There can be cross-over between rifles used for hunting or those for target shooting.

*Rifles designed for military/police tactical use or with large magazine capacity are more dangerous and the difference between them and ordinary rifles does not make them any more suited to target and clay shooting.


Sikamick;
This section should have been used as guidelines, they are more truthful:
"The Act introduces the most far-reaching gun control measures since the foundation of the state including":



· A ban on handguns.

· A ban on ‘practical shooting’ (a self styled extreme shooting activity).

· Ministerial powers to prohibit particular firearms or categories of firearms in a precise manner.

· A requirement for referees, background medical checks and standards for the safe keeping of guns in the home for all firearms licence applicants;

· Radically tightened licensing procedures for the renewal of currently licensed guns;

· New regulations governing target shooting Clubs and Ranges.

· Those involved in target shooting (rifle and pistol) will be subject to a more rigorous authorisation procedure by the Garda Commissioner;

· A new three year licence with outsourced fee collection and licence production resulting in greater efficiency and improved customer service at garda station level;

· New guidelines on licensing matters, published by the Garda Commissioner, which will be available to the public.


Minister Ahern continued: "The modernisation of the licensing system is a big step forward and will result in a better system all round, with benefits accruing at many levels. This Act gives the Garda Commissioner the additional powers he needs to address matters relating to firearms licensing."


To deal with the issue of ‘realistic imitation firearms‘, the Act introduces a range of measures including restrictions on their import, sale and use. Three of these measures will be introduced:



· it will be an offence to brandish a realistic imitation firearm in public;

· Garda Superintendents will have the power to authorise ‘airsoft’ venues; and the establishment of a register of dealers.


Minister Ahern concluded: "The vast majority of licensed firearms holders have nothing to fear from the bringing into force of these provisions of the Act. Instead, the Act provides for a modern, comprehensive licensing regime, while at the same time outlawing unacceptable practices."




www.dermotahern.ie/newsdetails.php?id=196 from Aherns website.

Sikamick



"Radically tightened" in red tape for the renewing of currently licensed guns.

Grizzly 45

iwsf wrote: »

another delay :eek:

Another FF F%"K up more like!:rolleyes:

rrpc

PJ Hunter wrote: »

Guidelines badly written contradictory and worded wrong i.e.


EXAMPLE 1:COMMUNICATION OF THE DECISION ON THE GRANTING OF A FIREARMS CERTIFICATE
Section 3 of the Firearms Act 1925 as amended,
*provides that a decision on an application for a firearms certificate or its renewal shall be given within 3 months from the date on which the applicant submitted a completed application. Where an application is refused, the applicant shall be informed in writing of the refusal and the reason for it.
*If a decision on an application is not made within this 3 month period then this is deemed to be a refusal under section 15A of the Firearms Act 1925 as inserted by section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006.

So the guidelines don't include that bit of the act, so what?? What would you expect to happen if a Super doesn't decide inside the three month period for whatever reason? that it keeps running on ad infinitum as before and the applicant has no recourse because he's not been refused?

Minister Ahern said: "This Act is about halting the emergence of a gun-culture in Ireland. Experience in other countries shows us that any relaxation of controls on gun ownership or registration very quickly results in dramatic growth in firearms with many longer term negative downstream consequences. I will not allow that happen on my watch."

Don't know why you stuck this bit in, doesn't seem relevant to the passage above.

Example 2: Rifles
Rifles should be single shot or bolt action with calibres up to .308 inch. (7.62mm). There can be cross-over between rifles used for hunting or those for target shooting.

*Rifles designed for military/police tactical use or with large magazine capacity are more dangerous and the difference between them and ordinary rifles does not make them any more suited to target and clay shooting.

Again, apart from the ludicrous 'more dangerous' wording, the contention that 'tactical' rifles are no better for target shooting than conventional rifles is at worst disingenuous. The passages you've drawn from the guidelines are not going to cause any problems for people making applications as they don't affect the applications themselves. They may have some ramifications for people wanting to use 'tactical' rifles for target shooting, but those firearms are restricted anyway and the rule on restricted firearms is the test of whether they are the only suitable firearm for the job.

Sikamick;
This section should have been used as guidelines, they are more truthful:
"The Act introduces the most far-reaching gun control measures since the foundation of the state including":

Do you think you're telling us something we don't know Sikamick?

www.dermotahern.ie/newsdetails.php?id=196 from Aherns website.

Sikamick

"Radically tightened" in red tape for the renewing of currently licensed guns.

What you have missed Mick is that all the stuff Ahern said about 'radical tightening' of the firearms laws had already taken place some two years before he made his statement.

It's the 2006 Criminal Justice Act you're having a problem with. The only significant new bit was the ban on future licensing of centre fire handguns.

PJ Hunter

They may have some ramifications for people wanting to use 'tactical' rifles for target shooting, but those firearms are restricted anyway

t3 tactical 223 / 308, are restricted anyway?

rrpc

PJ Hunter wrote: »

t3 tactical 223 / 308, are restricted anyway?

Sorry Mick, I should have been more specific and said semi-auto.

Tackleberry.

Our superintendent told our a member of our gun club that he expects Fac's to roll out over the next week and a half, he was asked as this lad lads is waiting 3 months for a rifle, he gave up chasing the local garda and rang the super.

Sikamick

rrpc wrote: »

Sorry Mick, I should have been more specific and said semi-auto.

_______________________________________________________________


Sorry rrpc, if I'm the Mick you are referring to in the above, this is not my post and I am not PJ Hunter.

Please look back at the post that you are referring to.

Sikamick

Grizzly 45

rrpc wrote: »

Sorry Mick, I should have been more specific and said semi-auto.

Not necessarily...It states Tactical rifles,doesnt specify an exclusion on everything BUT semi rifles...:(

Cass

I didn't want to start another thread as my question is based on the new licensing procedures.

1) You submit your application to your FO. He fills in the necessary details and forwards it onto the Super or Chief Super as the case dictates.
2) The Super/Chief Super renders his decision and fills in sections 8 and 9 accordingly.
3) The application gets returned to the FO for entry to the new system.

I hope i'm right so far. Its after this point i a bit sketchy.

Do your details only get entered to the system if its a pass/successful application or do all applications get entered and the applicant notified of the result.

Do all details get entered and a final decision happen in Dublin then the applicant notified.

Either way, what happens next. The Supers/Chief Supers or Dublins decision is a good one, do they process the details (if entered) on the new system and print you off your card/licence/passport book type thingy or if the Supers/Chief Supers decision is good and the FO enters yours details onto the system is that considered a successful appliation.

Does anyone know or have an idea as to how it may go. If this has been discussed on another thread just give me the link. TIA.

jwshooter

ezridax wrote: »

I didn't want to start another thread as my question is based on the new licensing procedures.

1) You submit your application to your FO. He fills in the necessary details and forwards it onto the Super or Chief Super as the case dictates.
2) The Super/Chief Super renders his decision and fills in sections 8 and 9 accordingly.
3) The application gets returned to the FO for entry to the new system.

I hope i'm right so far. Its after this point i a bit sketchy.

Do your details only get entered to the system if its a pass/successful application or do all applications get entered and the applicant notified of the result.

Do all details get entered and a final decision happen in Dublin then the applicant notified.

Either way, what happens next. The Supers/Chief Supers or Dublins decision is a good one, do they process the details (if entered) on the new system and print you off your card/licence/passport book type thingy or if the Supers/Chief Supers decision is good and the FO enters yours details onto the system is that considered a successful appliation.

Does anyone know or have an idea as to how it may go. If this has been discussed on another thread just give me the link. TIA.

say your fairly correct there, this well take weeks more than days

PJ Hunter

Sikamick wrote: »

_______________________________________________________________


Sorry rrpc, if I'm the Mick you are referring to in the above, this is not my post and I am not PJ Hunter.

Please look back at the post that you are referring to.

Sikamick

rrpc

Sikamick wrote: »

_______________________________________________________________


Sorry rrpc, if I'm the Mick you are referring to in the above, this is not my post and I am not PJ Hunter.

Please look back at the post that you are referring to.

Sikamick

Muchas apologistas Mick, don't know how I got it into my head that I was talking to you.

Maybe it was the way PJ posted a quote from you and it appeared to be signed Sikamick?

fat-tony

PJ Hunter wrote: »

Originally Posted by Sikamick
_______________________________________________________________


Sorry rrpc, if I'm the Mick you are referring to in the above, this is not my post and I am not PJ Hunter.

Please look back at the post that you are referring to.

Sikamick

PJ / Sickamick / Paddy Enfield

Please stop posting under multiple identities - it's way beyond amusing at this stage:rolleyes: .... finger poised over Report button;)

IRLConor

fat-tony wrote: »

PJ / Sickamick / Paddy Enfield

Please stop posting under multiple identities - it's way beyond amusing at this stage:rolleyes: .... finger poised over Report button;)

Then next time use the report button lest you be considered to be back-seat modding.

PJ Hunter is not Sikamick.
Paddyenfield303 was permbanned months ago.
Sikamick was tempbanned at the time.

If you or anyone else thinks that X is a duplicate account of Y then let me know by PM or by reporting a post. Do not bring it up in the forum.

ivanthehunter

What?

Sikamick

fat-tony wrote: »

PJ / Sickamick / Paddy Enfield

Please stop posting under multiple identities - it's way beyond amusing at this stage:rolleyes: .... finger poised over Report button;)

_________________________________________________________________

fat-tony, yes I did use a second name (Paddy Enfield) and no I am not PJ Hunter. But all know who Sikamick is and what my real name is (Michael O'Connor Secretary to DTSC).

What's yours, come on Tony, time to come out of the closet.

Sikamick

Sparks

Can we all dial back a bit on the out-and-out dickishness please? Seriously, enough with the back-seat modding and playing the man instead of the ball. IRLConor's already pointed out that PJ and Sika are different people, but beyond that we're not hugely interested in who people are unless

1. They're acting the maggot,
2. They're trying to damage the forum, or
3. They're claiming to represent an association or a company officially (there are seperate rules for that case, yes it's allowed, yes it's welcomed, but it does have to go through a slightly different path)

So enough already everyone. Back on topic please.

fat-tony

Sikamick wrote: »

_________________________________________________________________

fat-tony, yes I did use a second name (Paddy Enfield) and no I am not PJ Hunter. But all know who Sikamick is and what my real name is (Michael O'Connor Secretary to DTSC).

What's yours, come on Tony, time to come out of the closet.

Sikamick

Apologies Mick - have been scolded and told not to be be a back-seat modder, but PJ has obviously adopted your many-coloured quote stylings;)