Pistol license refusal

rowa

i heard that from the dealers too slug chucker , its not being done out of badness but out of solidarity with the shooters , they aren't going to cooperate with this rubbish and assist the doj/ AHern / the gardai in stiffing us .

if you have a northern ireland licence you might be able to store and us the pistol up there .

pedroeibar

Slug chucker wrote: »

I need a bit of sound advice:
1. How do you properly lodge an appeal with the distinct court in accordance with section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006
2. Does section 6 of the Firearms act 1925 still stand up:

Sale of firearm when certificate refused or revoked.

6.—Where a superintendent of the Gárda Síochána refuses an application for a
firearm certificate or revokes a firearm certificate and the applicant for or
holder of the certificate has a firearm, with or without ammunition therefor,
in his possession in Saorstát Eireann at the time of such refusal or
revocation, such applicant or holder shall forthwith deliver such firearm and
ammunition (if any) to such superintendent who shall retain the same, but such
applicant or holder shall be at liberty to sell such firearm and ammunition
(if any) to any person approved of by such superintendent a on such sale
taking place and the provisions of this Act being complied with by the
purchaser, the superintendent shall hand such firearm and ammunition (if any)
to such purchaser

I’ll need a place to put this firearm after the 31st of October, will the above work of can they destroy the firearm while waiting for the appeals process to come to court. I believe from what I’m hearing that the dealers are not going to store them period.

It would be a very brave or extremely foolish C. Super that would sell your pistol while you were in an appeal process. Firstly try to avoid Court - they will appeal you if you win, a barrister for the Circuit court will be 1-5k, one for the High Court will be 10k. . Try all other avenues first, but build your case for going to court should yoou have to. If you have to go there, DO GET a solicitor who knows the firearms laws, most do not as they rarely have exposure to them.

In your position I would immediately send a letter by registered mail to the C. Super who wrote to you. Be polite, but firm, it might have to be read in Court and you want to appear polite and reasonable!

Something on the lines of :

Date : 8 October 2009

Re : Firearm (Make) (Model) (Serial No.)

Dear Chief Superintendent,

As a firearms owner of longstanding, I am surprised by the contents of your letter of XXdate stating that you are not satisfied that I have shown good reason for requiring the restricted firearm referenced above. In the past I never encountered any problems with renewal of my licence and the Guidelines issued to the Gardai suggest that I meet the necessary requirements.

I reiterate my qualifications (already submitted with my FCA1 form) for holding the licence required:

• I’m a member of an authorised pistol range
• My club shoots centre fire pistol comps as part of the shooting calendar.
• I use the pistols for competitive shooting sports
• I use the pistols regularly.
• I have complied with all the new security arrangements required.
• I have them longer than three years.
• I have had the relevant training in their safe handling and use.

To enable you reconsider the granting of the permit required, I would like to know on what grounds under the Firearms Acts you are not satisfied. This would enable me take appropriate action to remedy any concerns you might have. If a Firearms Officer would like to visit my home and inspect my security arrangements I would be glad to offer you that opportunity. I look forward to hearing from you within 14 days, as time is now of the essence given the deadlines set both by the licence extension letter and the appeals process periods.

Yours sincerely,

You have 30 days to lodge an appeal, and if you do so you will be able to show that you have tried to be compliant which will be a big plus in front of the judge.
FWIW,
Good luck and I hope I do not have to do this myself!
Rs
P.

Greenacre

Is it really appropriate to discuss on an open forum every possible avenue a shooter may have for appeal or every argument that he or she may wish to use, if and when you eventually get to court?

Surely, at this point the correct course of action would be to approach your NGB with your club representative and decide on a course of action that can be implemented in a professional manner and not under the scrutiny of a public forum?

pedroeibar

Greenacre wrote: »

Is it really appropriate to discuss on an open forum every possible avenue a shooter may have for appeal or every argument that he or she may wish to use, if and when you eventually get to court?

Surely, at this point the correct course of action would be to approach your NGB with your club representative and decide on a course of action that can be implemented in a professional manner and not under the scrutiny of a public forum?

Why shouldn't we discuss it? The Gardai have a very good idea of what they want, they have free legal advice and they are paid while researching this stuff. Nothing we post here is going to educate them, other than giving an indication of (a) our sympathy for them for having to implement a crappy piece of legislation that is both badly drafted and the interpretations of which are unclear and (b) letting them know that we are not going to take crap lying down. I have spoken to FOs in two districts, one in Munster, the other in Leinster and both have said that a total bags has been made of all this by the DOJ and that it was stupid to target the existing licensed gunowners.

By all means get your club/association etc involved, but make sure you educate youself first.

Sparks

There's definitely no issue in discussing possible avenues. I'd hesitate before deciding on an actual course of action using boards.ie as your sole guide however. The best advice remains to retain a solicitor familiar with the relevant body of law and to follow their advice.

And it'd be nice if you told us of your experiences afterwards to build up a public knowledgebase on these matters.

But I'd run a mile from the idea of hiding all this away and not discussing it in public - after all, had we done that in the case of the Charleton judgement, a valuable lesson would have been lost - one which must be learnt before a problem arises since it concerns the first few moments when that problem arises.

rrpc

Before anyone starts going to court, they need to find out what he's not satisfied about and what it would take to satisfy him.

He's well within his rights to ask for more information to help him in his decision and knocking heads is not necessarily the best way to satisfy him that he's making the right decision.

this is from my phone so apologies for any misspellings

triskell

It's bad enough to not be allowed to relicence your pistol, but what about the fact that it's then going to be a on your permanent record that you have been refused a licence ( it's even a question on FCA1) so each time you apply for a new firearm licence this is going to be an issue. it also means that if you apply for a licence/permit outside of this country you have to explain this, a lot of the european countries would have an issue with this specific fact and it may hinder those applications. This is going to have more repercussions than just losing cost of the firearm.
Seriously pi$$ed off:mad::mad:

meathshooter

Greenacre wrote: »

Is it really appropriate to discuss on an open forum every possible avenue a shooter may have for appeal or every argument that he or she may wish to use, if and when you eventually get to court?

Surely, at this point the correct course of action would be to approach your NGB with your club representative and decide on a course of action that can be implemented in a professional manner and not under the scrutiny of a public forum?

I know where your coming from as it is well known the the powers that be read these boards but don't think for one minute that the powers that be don't no all the loopholes as well this piece of legislation is serious flawed we know and they know it too its up to us now to see how much we want to hold on to our sport I spoke to a friend who would be very qualified in this field he said its full of holes let the fun and games begin time to put our money where our mouths are

rrpc

meathshooter wrote: »

I know where your coming from as it is well known the the powers that be read these boards but don't think for one minute that the powers that be don't no all the loopholes as well this piece of legislation is serious flawed we know and they know it too its up to us now to see how much we want to hold on to our sport I spoke to a friend who would be very qualified in this field he said its full of holes let the fun and games begin time to put our money where our mouths are

A Superintendent (or Chief Superintendent) is well entitled to refuse a licence application where he feels the applicant has not demonstrated a good reason for requiring the firearm.

There are no loopholes here, it's been in the firearms act since the beginning. People advocating taking court action immediately are (a) not giving good advice, (b) not going to pay your legal bills and (c) probably not half as invested in the result as you are.

If you are faced with a refusal under the above grounds, you are duty bound to find out why the licensing person does not believe you've provided a good reason and what they would consider a good reason to be. Until you know the answers to those questions, you're going to have a very weak case in court and will quite probably lose it.

For all you know, you've left something out that may be obvious to you, but which is not half as obvious to someone else.

Why everyone's first option is to go to war is beyond me.

pedroeibar

triskell wrote: »

It's bad enough to not be allowed to relicence your pistol, but what about the fact that it's then going to be a on your permanent record that you have been refused a licence ( it's even a question on FCA1) so each time you apply for a new firearm licence this is going to be an issue. it also means that if you apply for a licence/permit outside of this country you have to explain this, a lot of the european countries would have an issue with this specific fact and it may hinder those applications. This is going to have more repercussions than just losing cost of the firearm.
Seriously pi$$ed off:mad::mad:

No.
Slugchucker has not been refused, he's been told that the CS is not satisfied he meets the requirements. There is a difference. That is why I said be nice to the CS , put the onus on him and ask what needs to be done to meet his requirements. Those requirements have to be reasonable and if the CS refuses to state them he will not have a nice day in court should it end up there. The CS already knows this because most judges give more preference to the man in the street than they do to officialdom.

Watch the deadlines, keep copies of everything. If no reply go to a solicitor. BS about the District court being user-friendly, it is not. Try every avenue first before going to court, that is a nightmare. Apart from an emotional strain that is head-wrecking, you have to pay your costs but the CS has the equivalent of free legal aid with the State and the AG's office at his beck and call.
FWIW
P.

pedroeibar

rrpc wrote: »

A Superintendent (or Chief Superintendent) is well entitled to refuse a licence application where he feels the applicant has not demonstrated a good reason for requiring the firearm.

There are no loopholes here, it's been in the firearms act since the beginning. People advocating taking court action immediately are (a) not giving good advice, (b) not going to pay your legal bills and (c) probably not half as invested in the result as you are.

If you are faced with a refusal under the above grounds, you are duty bound to find out why the licensing person does not believe you've provided a good reason and what they would consider a good reason to be. Until you know the answers to those questions, you're going to have a very weak case in court and will quite probably lose it.

For all you know, you've left something out that may be obvious to you, but which is not half as obvious to someone else.

Why everyone's first option is to go to war is beyond me.

Agreed. Sorry rrpc, I'm on dial-up speed here so we overlapped.
Rs
P.

rrpc

pedroeibar wrote: »

Agreed. Sorry rrpc, I'm on dial-up speed here so we overlapped.
Rs
P.

It probably needed to be said twice anyway . Some people are beginning to think I'm a Garda in disguise :rolleyes:, so having another voice say the same thing is useful.

4gun

if you think about it the Guard is actually using the clause of where "there is an unresticted alternative" by offering to consider an olympic style .22 to decline the FCP and the whole thing seem to be down to a matter of "opionion" by the local super, so back to square on as far as the new leglislation is concerned

rrpc

4gun wrote: »

if you think about it the Guard is actually using the clause of where "there is an unresticted alternative" by offering to consider an olympic style .22 to decline the FCP and the whole thing seem to be down to a matter of "opionion" by the local super, so back to square on as far as the new leglislation is concerned

All that could mean is that the applicant didn't adequately explain why the firearm was the only one suitable for the job.

I'm not saying it is by the way (before someone jumps on me and accuses me of being a Quisling) but that it's a possibility.

Actually for most people who are applying now with centre fire pistols, the reason could well be: 'It's the one I have and since I can't get another one and since the competition requires a centre fire pistol, it is the only one suitable for the job"

Hard to argue against seeing as the new act has made it impossible to change a centre fire pistol.

Cass

4gun wrote: »

if you think about it the Guard is actually using the clause of where "there is an unresticted alternative" by offering to consider an olympic style .22.........

Okay, people with a greater knowledge can correct any errors in specifics.

WA1500 and PPC1500 are the same and require a centre fire pistol of calibre greater than .32 in revolver and .35 in semi auto pistol. So how can a .22 do the same job when it cannot be used. I know some will say that practical shooting is gone but static target shooting is not and can be used as practice. (to some extent anyway).

Originally Posted by rrpc

Hard to argue against seeing as the new act has made it impossible to change a centre fire pistol

If someone/people are granted licences for their pistols they are deemed fit and able to own, use and possess the firearm. Once you have your licence you can then amend a licence to change from one firearm to another (if only like calibre to like calibre). Forget about importing and all that say the gun is in the country why can you not change the pistol?

rrpc

ezridax wrote: »

If someone/people are granted licences for their pistols they are deemed fit and able to own, use and possess the firearm. Once you have your licence you can then amend a licence to change from one firearm to another (if only like calibre to like calibre). Forget about importing and all that say the gun is in the country why can you not change the pistol?

The wording of the new act seems to make it impossible:

(c) a short firearm for which the applicant for the firearm certificate held a firearm certificate on or before 19 November 2008.

It seems to be specific to the firearm held before 19/11/2008.

jwshooter

ezridax wrote: »

Okay, people with a greater knowledge can correct any errors in specifics.

WA1500 and PPC1500 are the same and require a centre fire pistol of calibre greater than .32 in revolver and .35 in semi auto pistol. So how can a .22 do the same job when it cannot be used. I know some will say that practical shooting is gone but static target shooting is not and can be used as practice. (to some extent anyway).



If someone/people are granted licences for their pistols they are deemed fit and able to own, use and possess the firearm. Once you have your licence you can then amend a licence to change from one firearm to another (if only like calibre to like calibre). Forget about importing and all that say the gun is in the country why can you not change the pistol?

if the guy has been refused a licence for his pistols and given a licence for a high powered rifle.
he must be deemed fit to own and possess a firearm.

Cass

rrpc wrote: »

The wording of the new act seems to make it impossible:

How? It does not specify the firearm only that a firearm cert be held prior to 19/11/2008. So if granted a new cert/licence, under the law i can change the firearm listed on my cert/licence for another firearm as we have been doing for years. Granted they may impose restrictions such as if you have a 9mm it can only be another 9mm, but how can they refuse to allow you to change if they have given a new cert/licence?

rrpc

jwshooter wrote: »

if the guy has been refused a licence for his pistols and given a licence for a high powered rifle.
he must be deemed fit to own and possess a firearm.

You've kind of contradicted yourself there though: He's been refused one and granted another means he must be deemed fit? What happens if you're granted all your applications? Does that mean you're deemed superfit

That's only one part of the process though. He also has to give a good reason for having it and prove that he has a safe place to use it.

The law doesn't state that because you have a .22 Brno, you can get a 50 cal rifle :rolleyes:. There's a bit more to it than that.

rrpc

ezridax wrote: »

How? It does not specify the firearm only that a firearm cert be held prior to 19/11/2008. So if granted a new cert/licence, under the law i can change the firearm listed on my cert/licence for another firearm as we have been doing for years. Granted they may impose restrictions such as if you have a 9mm it can only be another 9mm, but how can they refuse to allow you to change if they have given a new cert/licence?

Maybe I should have quoted the whole thing in context:

3D.—(1) As and from the date of commencement of this section, no application for a firearm certificate in respect of a short firearm shall be considered by an issuing person other than for—
(c) a short firearm for which the applicant for the firearm certificate held a firearm certificate on or before 19 November 2008.

That's quite specific to the firearm in my view.

jwshooter

the hole problem is the way the this new system was worded .

A application .
next year il own a firearm 25 years, in that 25 years not once was i in trouble.
i should not like many have to reapply for a licence that i have held so long.

on account of so many road deaths and injurys on the roads to cyclists walkers, will the make every one with a driving licence reapply and sit the new driving tests for it.
NO

it would save many life's ,as a lot of HGV drivers cant even speck english or are to blind to read road signs .(fact)

Slug chucker

Hi Lads,
Look, I’m going to request a meeting with him to discuss the matter. On reflection he in fairness has not refused my license “he’s just not satisfied that I’ve given him good reason to need a centre fire pistol”. I wouldn’t say this will go down on my record as a refusal, it wouldn’t make a difference anyway as my other licenses have been approved and are on their way to the park. I’m sure the Chief Superintendent just needs more supporting information and to meet me to iron things out. He needs to be satisfied that the persons he is authorising to hold these firearms has the legitimate sporting needs to possess them. I do, I just may have not made it clear enough in my applications.
Cheers,
Slug chucker

rrpc

jwshooter wrote: »

the hole problem is the way the this new system was worded .

A application .
next year il own a firearm 25 years, in that 25 years not once was i in trouble.
i should not like many have to reapply for a licence that i have held so long.

And I'm thirty years this year, so I know how you feel . But.... there's been a lot of new law and it's been decided that everyone must prove their compliance with it. Apart from the fact that it was never stated in the firearms acts that a renewal should be a rubber stamp.

on account of so many road deaths and injurys on the roads to cyclists walkers, will the make every one with a driving licence reapply and sit the new driving tests for it.
NO

Pointing the finger at some other group as a reason why yours should be treated differently is a bad argument. You either get the bar raised for everyone or it's a free for all, neither of which are particularly palatable.

hk

Slug chucker wrote: »

Hi Lads,
Look, I’m going to request a meeting with him to discuss the matter. On reflection he in fairness has not refused my license “he’s just not satisfied that I’ve given him good reason to need a centre fire pistol”. I wouldn’t say this will go down on my record as a refusal, it wouldn’t make a difference anyway as my other licenses have been approved and are on their way to the park. I’m sure the Chief Superintendent just needs more supporting information and to meet me to iron things out. He needs to be satisfied that the persons he is authorising to hold these firearms has the legitimate sporting needs to possess them. I do, I just may have not made it clear enough in my applications.
Cheers,
Slug chucker

Best of luck, I just heard that the C super has sent my application back to me with a list of questions, its in the post so I dont know what the questions are. Ill let people know what my one is looking for as soon as I know myself. I supose its positive as, while its not being granted, it hasnt been refused and at least the C Super is giving me a chance to clarify any issues he might have. In fairness I didnt exactly put in huge ammounts of supporting documentation so we will see what he wants in a few days!

Cass

rrpc wrote: »

That's quite specific to the firearm in my view.

I'll word this as simply as possible because sometimes you type something that sounds/seems different to the way you may have intended it to be.

The law states that a person cannot get a licence (for a centrefire handgun) or even apply for one unless they had one before the 19th November 2008. The wording says "a short firearm". Not "your short firearm" or "the firearm owned by you". Its general in its discription to allow "wiggle room" for the Gardai to interpret it anyway they choose similar to the way we are all guessing and second guessing its meaning.

The main point i was trying to make was it still does not state anywhere that once a firearm certificate has been got that an amendment cannot be made. You can infer that the certificate granted only applies to the gun you get the licence for but i do not. Its not a case of who is right or wrong but to reiterate jw its the way its worded is the problem. Being specific to a particular type of firearm group then vague on the details of that firearm group and your options within that group.

PS. Any views on how a .22 can be used for centrefire pistol sports?

Grizzly 45

Pointing the finger at some other group as a reason why yours should be treated differently is a bad argument. You either get the bar raised for everyone or it's a free for all, neither of which are particularly palatable

.

While not palatable or pleasent.Realistically JW has a very good point.The standard of driving and road deaths in Ireland is absolutely dismal.If there were as many gun accidents or deaths in Ireland proportinate to the pouplation of car owners.We would have been shut down years ago.
A motor vechicle can cause more carnage than a nutter with a gun anyday of the week .Yet you can get a car or truck with less trouble than a gun and being secure or careful with it????:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:.The old excuse "ah well it isnt designed as a weapon ,its for transport" doesnt wash either anymore.Personally I would be very happy to see somthing like California being introduced here,every manjack of us re sits the driving test every five years.That would weed out the incompetant or correct bad habits.
Lets face it.If we have been preaching about saftey courses and refreshing our training.Why shouldnt it apply moreso to another bunch of people who own aspotentially deadly weaponary as us???

rrpc

ezridax wrote: »

The law states that a person cannot get a licence (for a centrefire handgun) or even apply for one unless they had one before the 19th November 2008. The wording says "a short firearm". Not "your short firearm" or "the firearm owned by you". Its general in its discription to allow "wiggle room" for the Gardai to interpret it anyway they choose similar to the way we are all guessing and second guessing its meaning.

Except that the 'short firearm' is further qualified by the phrase "for which the applicant held......" This makes it a specific short firearm and not any short firearm. Do you see what I mean?

PS. Any views on how a .22 can be used for centrefire pistol sports?

They can't if you're intending to take part in those sports at a top level. At club and possibly even national level, a derivation of the sport can be instituted for training purposes, but the international dimension is lost.

rrpc

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

.
While not palatable or pleasent.Realistically JW has a very good point.The standard of driving and road deaths in Ireland is absolutely dismal.If there were as many gun accidents or deaths in Ireland proportinate to the pouplation of car owners........Why shouldnt it apply moreso to another bunch of people who own aspotentially deadly weaponary as us???

Because the rest of the population won't understand that they're being asked to submit to more stringent rules to level them up with a small group of disgruntled pistol shooters.

On it's own merits, obviously the idea is good, but the 'levelling up' reasoning is very bad and smacks of the same kind of woolly thinking that got us benchmarking and other so called parity systems.

Bananaman

PS. Any views on how a .22 can be used for centrefire pistol sports?

They can't if you're intending to take part in those sports at a top level. At club and possibly even national level, a derivation of the sport can be instituted for training purposes, but the international dimension is lost.

It's not even worth discussing such - it's like eddie the eagle going to the winter olympics to do the ski jump only having jumped off his garage a few times with a helmet on him - sheer lunacy and makes you the laughing stock of the world.

B'Man

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

It's not even worth discussing such - it's like eddie the eagle going to the winter olympics to do the ski jump only having jumped off his garage a few times with a helmet on him - sheer lunacy and makes you the laughing stock of the world.

B'Man

I'm not trying to pick a fight here B'Man , but the use of lower calibre firearms to train for higher calibre events is not as idotic as it sounds. I understand that some sports don't translate well to lower calibres, but quite a few do.

And we're talking training and experience here rather than competing, which is obviously out of the question.

I've become a complete bore on how air pistol is a very cheap and effective training tool for other pistol sports and people who've listened to me (the mad feckers) have agreed