Letter of receipt of FCA1 form

Rovi

Attached is a scan of a letter (with identifying content obliterated) a friend of mine received in the post this morning.
As you can see, it's an official record of receipt of his FCA1 form for a restricted firearm, hence the 'Chief Superintendent' under the obliterated signature.

A couple of points of interest:

1. This is just one of several letters he received, all enclosed in the same envelope. They're for a mix of restricted and non-restricted firearms.
2. The three month consideration period has been commenced from the day the forms were lodged into the system, and expires in mid-December. The current licence/extension for this firearm expires on 30/10/2009, and there's no guidance or information on what happens if the decision hasn't been made by that date.

Anyone else get anything like this yet?
My applications went in last Thursday and I've heard nothing back on them yet.

Jonty

Ah yes, that wonderful word is there again -"weapon" or as the local lads call it a "wheppin"!!

A Country Voice

I lodged my form for a new shotgun on 7th September.
No acknowledgement letter yet.
We'll see what happens I suppose

A Country Voice

jwshooter

all there saying is he will have word with in the 3 months time frame.

it will be after christmas before there will be licences issues


what a F up

johngalway

I will guess, and it's only a guess, that the "Ah sure it'll be alright" method will be used. That's what used to happen with the old system if either you or the Gardai were late doing something.

Yes, I know, it's dodgy. I'd prefer a new round of license extension letters to be honest.

Greenacre

I got the same letter this morning

Sikamick

Rovi did he get extensions for his firearms to cover the time between the end of his existing extensions and a decision on them being licensed or not.

Sikamick

derek_g34

Rovi wrote: »

Anyone else get anything like this yet?

My applications went in last Thursday and I've heard nothing back on them yet.

Got the letters for the shotgun and rifle today, but none for the pistol:eek:

Rovi

Sikamick wrote: »

Rovi did he get extensions for his firearms to cover the time between the end of his existing extensions and a decision on them being licensed or not.

Sikamick

Nope, and that's his main concern; besides the whole 'will I be re-licenced at all' thing of course.


Whatever desk-jockey genius decided that the application period (the final 3 months of the current licence) should match exactly the period in which the Gardai can make their deliberations before the application is deemed 'refused' by default (also 3 months) clearly didn't allow for how stuff happens in the real world... ...or did they?;)

And that's before we even consider the SNAFU that was/is the changeover process currently in train, where people were issued 3 month extensions well before many of the necessary Statutory Instruments were published, and before any of the official forms and guidelines were available to either the public or the unfortunate Gardai at the front desk.
The best part of 6 weeks of the application period passed before anyone had the means to make an application.

griffdude

Sikamick wrote: »

Rovi did he get extensions for his firearms to cover the time between the end of his existing extensions and a decision on them being licensed or not.

Sikamick

Would that be an elastic extension?

Sort of a bungee licence It only lasts till the real licence is issued.

Sikamick

Correct me if I'm wrong, this person already had firearms licenses.

3.1 - Firearm Details (M) Complete 3.1, as follows: Record details of the new firearm, if; (A) you are applying for a new certificate for a new firearm, or, (B) you are substituting a newer firearm for a current one on a like for like basis. Record details of your existing firearm if you are merely renewing the certificate for it.

Renewal? 37 days left to the end of his extensions, this should be more than long enough to process a person who already has a history of licensing firearms.

Why is he been left in limbo until December possibly with unlicensed firearms. This is not good enough.

He should contact his Station and get it sorted out.

Sikamick

Sikamick

griffdude wrote: »

Would that be an elastic extension?

Sort of a bungee licence It only lasts till the real licence is issued.

_________________________________________________________________



Maybe the extensions should have said (in place, until decisions have been made on license by Garda)

Sikamick

griffdude

I might be wrong here, but isnt the Chief Super only saying what we all know? He has three months to make his decision.

Doesnt mean he'll take three months though.

Sikamick

griffdude wrote: »

I might be wrong here, but isnt the Chief Super only saying what we all know? He has three months to make his decision.

Doesnt mean he'll take three months though.

________________________________________________________________


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.


He may or may not contact you ?

Sikamick

Sparks

Rovi wrote: »

Whatever desk-jockey genius decided that the application period (the final 3 months of the current licence) should match exactly the period in which the Gardai can make their deliberations before the application is deemed 'refused' by default (also 3 months) clearly didn't allow for how stuff happens in the real world... ...or did they?;)

This is where we ought to be looking embarressed so Rovi
They didn't originally say three months, they said one - and then we corrected them to three months. It was about the biggest concession we got from McDowell as the 2004 CJB went through the Dail.
In fairness, had the Powers That Be actually had their act in order before July 31 instead of waiting for over a month to publish SIs and guidelines, this wouldn't be a problem...

BornToKill

Sikamick wrote: »

Why is he been left in limbo until December possibly with unlicensed firearms. This is not good enough.

Hold on - who has been left in limbo? There's no issue until the extensions run out. Stay your wrath.

Cass

Three months from the time an application was submitted. They should have said 3 months from the time an application was processed. I dropped my applications in on the 12th August yet my details were only entered into the system 4 days ago. Thats 5-6 weeks with no action (apparently). I haven't gotten a receipt like the one Rovi posted but i'm now expecting one. If its like the others received it'll give the Super/Chief Super till Christmas to make a descision even though my extensions run out 31st October. So the 3 month decision period did not start from when i handed them in.

Sikamick wrote: »

........He may or may not contact you ?

Sikamick

I'm guessing the "not contacting you" part would only apply to new licence applicants. Existing licence holders looking to re-apply/renew will need to be notified as to the decision of the Super/Chief Super so as to surrender or dispose of their firearms in accordance with the law. Hardly going to leave unlicenced but firearm possessing people out there???????

Greenacre

"this application is in reference to the following weapon"

an unfortunate choice of words!

I applied for a restricted target pistol

berettadt10

I submitted my application on the 27th of August. Got a call yesterday for the station, saying they needed a written letter from my gun club saying that i was a member and what lands we shoot over. I submitted my NARGC card orgionally,but they said its not sufficient. I email NARGC and they said the card is all you need.
Any body else had same issue!

rrpc

Sikamick wrote: »

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.

He may or may not contact you ?

Sikamick

Funny enough Mick, this part of the act is supposed to be of benefit to the licence holder. The object was to have an appeals process kick in regardless of whether you were officially refused or not. When you set a deadline in law, there has to be some sort of procedure when the deadline is missed. In planning law, you get your planning permission by default, but in firearms licence territory you get to go to the district court and appeal your refusal.

At this point the Super has to give a reason because failing to do so will get you your licence; Section 15A of the firearms act:

(3) On the appeal the Court may—
(a) confirm the decision,
(b) adjourn the proceedings and direct the issuing person to reconsider the decision in the light of the appeal proceedings, or
(c) allow the appeal.
(4) Where the appeal is allowed, the issuing person shall give effect to the Court’s decision.

bunny shooter

berettadt10 wrote: »

I submitted my application on the 27th of August. Got a call yesterday for the station, saying they needed a written letter from my gun club saying that i was a member and what lands we shoot over. I submitted my NARGC card orgionally,but they said its not sufficient. I email NARGC and they said the card is all you need.
Any body else had same issue!

The request to confirm land shot over is in the "guidelines" and I have a feeling it will be used to revoke licences on the grounds that the land is unsuitable for shooting over with whatever calibres/firearms you have :eek:

The Super won't be saying you can't have them he/she will just be saying your reason or in this case the area you propose to ue them is in unsuitable :rolleyes:

I reckon my Super is going to pull some such stunt too

Sparks

Greenacre wrote: »

I applied for a restricted target pistol

Hmmm. Unless you had a licence for it before Nov.19, the Super can't grant you a licence for a restricted pistol...

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

Funny enough Mick, this part of the act is supposed to be of benefit to the licence holder.

Not originally - originally, it was justified by McDowell very differently:

Mr. McDowell: If [the Superintendent] does not make a decision because he simply does not want to do so on the basis of nothing, he will be deemed to have refused. The applicant will not be in a worse position in such circumstances. I honestly believe we have to be clear about this. To possess a firearm is a matter of some consequence. To apply to the State for a permit to have a firearm is also a matter of some consequence. It is not the case that one gets the right to have a firearm, by default, whenever the State cannot think of a reason to the contrary or whenever something goes wrong in the system. I make no bones about saying I do not want unsuitable people to get firearms because they were given a permit when something went wrong. It is not the end of the world if people have to go to the District Court. The suggestion that it costs money to go to the District Court is not accurate. If one contacts one’s local District Court clerk, either through their office or their website, one can fill out a form to make one’s appeal oneself. The District Court is not a lawyer-driven court. Anybody who has a statable case, particularly somebody who has simply been let down by the system, should win that case as of right at an early hearing. I do not agree with the proposition that the default mode should be to issue a firearms licence - the default mode should be not to issue a licence.

The argument was that if the Super couldn't get evidence in the three months (if he was unable to contact the psychologist is the original statement, this was when it was proposed that everyone had to have a shrink, but that shrink might be taking three months holidays :rolleyes: ), then the application ought to be refused and everyone should go to the District Court, by which time the Super might have gotten the evidence to refuse the application by.

At this point the Super has to give a reason because failing to do so will get you your licence; Section 15A of the firearms act:

That's just the most likely result though - there's nothing in law saying it must happen that way. And as I pointed out, the original Minister who drafted this mess wanted the outcome in that situation to be that the Super had more time to accumulate evidence against the application...

Bananaman

It's a load of bo-lax - unless they issue people with an extension to their current license to cover them until the date on their application receipt - which would stand revoked upon issue of a new license - they are extracting the michael.

To Martha,

B'Man

Tackleberry.

berettadt10 wrote: »

I submitted my application on the 27th of August. Got a call yesterday for the station, saying they needed a written letter from my gun club saying that i was a member and what lands we shoot over. I submitted my NARGC card orgionally,but they said its not sufficient. I email NARGC and they said the card is all you need.
Any body else had same issue!

I had 2 of our member's sent to me as i am the club Sec asking for a pulse number something we never had as it is a hunting club, these lads had submited back in july on the old system then got told that they had to reapply on the new system, so i rang the FAO who more or less told me he'd been collecting all the FAC1s and was going to put them all tru that week, so realy everyone was delayed as the the FAO was only collecting them not processing them,and this was only last week, my own FAC1's are sitting there 6-7 weeks.........WTF are they playing at......
I don't plan on handing my FIREARM in during the season i'll just camo up and keep shooting find me if you can copper....hopefully none of us own a WEAPON lads, if so you should hand that in.........

Rovi

It looks like these receipt letters are being generated by Pulse (or at least based on the data IN Pulse), and the 3 month evaluation period is being applied from the date the application appeared on the system.
Going by the reported experiences of posters here, anyone who lodged their applications from when the FCA1 form came available (31 July) was told at the time that their paperwork would be held until Pulse was capable of accepting it.
The new Firearms Certificate Application section of Pulse finally went 'live' (we're all doooomed!) on 14th September and the applications started being processed.
Thus we have these letters coming out dated 15th September and onwards, complete with 3 month evaluation periods extending to mid-December and onwards.

In fairness, the letter does state: "A decision will normally be communicated before..." and I don't doubt that the great majority will be rubber-stamped without delay or difficulty and will be in place before the expiration of the extension period, but there are bound to be some which will slip over the the extension date for whatever reason, and there needs to be some sort of clarification for applicants in that situation.

For the moment, I wouldn't panic and would let the system work away; these first letters appear to be arriving a week or so after the application is input to Pulse, so everyone should keep an eye out for theirs and perhaps start chasing them up if nothing appears after a couple of weeks.
If we get to the the latter part of October with no sign of a decision one way or the other, then's the time to be looking for information and instruction, if nothing has been issued in the meantime.

I would hope (vainly???) that the Gardai/DoJ have anticipated and planned for this, as it's something that can potentially happen with any application in the future under this new system; what with the application and evaluation periods being exactly the same length, unless an applicant somehow manages to get their application onto Pulse on the very first day they may make the application, the two periods are always going to be staggered.

Greenacre

Yes, i know and my license was issued before the dreaded Nov 19th nonsensical point in time chosen by the Minister.

I was just making the point(badly) that as far as i am concerned, i have a target pistol or a sporting firearm not a weapon

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

Not originally - originally, it was justified by McDowell very differently:


The argument was that if the Super couldn't get evidence in the three months (if he was unable to contact the psychologist is the original statement, this was when it was proposed that everyone had to have a shrink, but that shrink might be taking three months holidays :rolleyes: ), then the application ought to be refused and everyone should go to the District Court, by which time the Super might have gotten the evidence to refuse the application by.

That answer from McDowell is obviously to a question or suggestion that the default would be like planning - i.e. the applicant gets the benefit of a non-decision. McDowelll is obviously arguing the opposite which is what went into the act.

That's just the most likely result though - there's nothing in law saying it must happen that way. And as I pointed out, the original Minister who drafted this mess wanted the outcome in that situation to be that the Super had more time to accumulate evidence against the application...

I'm not sure how you're coming up with that conclusion. The option "allow the appeal" is very starkly in favour of the applicant and much more so than the current "revisit the decision" directions which was as far as the courts were inclined to go before this act came into being.

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

That answer from McDowell is obviously to a question or suggestion that the default would be like planning

Well, yes - but if you read the transcripts (or can remember the live session), the person who suggested it'd be like planning was McDowell in the first place. It was a rather bad straw man argument.

I'm not sure how you're coming up with that conclusion. The option "allow the appeal" is very starkly in favour of the applicant

It is - but where in the act does it say that that must be the outcome if the Super did not provide a response to an application within three months? All that that part of the act is doing is setting out the legal options available to the District Court Judge, it does not direct him to a specific verdict. And if you think about it, if the Act did direct the judge to allow the appeal in such a case, then McDowell's argument above that the default action shouldn't be to grant would make no sense, because that would be the de facto default action (if by a slightly extended process).

and much more so than the current "revisit the decision" directions which was as far as the courts were inclined to go before this act came into being.

Ah, here now rrpc. It was nothing to do with the court's inclination - they simply did not have the legal option to go further before this act came into being, even before the ruling in Dunne which clarified the persona designata status.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

Well, yes - but if you read the transcripts (or can remember the live session), the person who suggested it'd be like planning was McDowell in the first place. It was a rather bad straw man argument.It is - but where in the act does it say that that must be the outcome if the Super did not provide a response to an application within three months? All that that part of the act is doing is setting out the legal options available to the District Court Judge, it does not direct him to a specific verdict. And if you think about it, if the Act did direct the judge to allow the appeal in such a case, then McDowell's argument above that the default action shouldn't be to grant would make no sense, because that would be the de facto default action (if by a slightly extended process).

But the whole point of the district court appeal process is that it would allow anyone to make a case without undue expense. The three months deadline was to give them a starting point. Otherwise you would have the less than fair system of applications being sat on for months on end. That's the first advantage of the new system. And I stick by my original contention that this is of benefit to the applicant notwithstanding your quotation of McDowell which (straw man or not) does not argue against that contention but merely the possibility of licence by default.

Ah, here now rrpc. It was nothing to do with the court's inclination - they simply did not have the legal option to go further before this act came into being, even before the ruling in Dunne which clarified the persona designata status.

Inclined was probably the wrong word to use, but it doesn't change the fact that a district court can now actually; in effect grant a licence.

A Country Voice

no receipt yet, or anything else, maybe I'll call in next time I'm passin and see if there's any news :rolleyes: