Pistol license refusal

rrpc

rrpc wrote: »

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

Ah, but you are the undercover garda/EU/FF PR stooge!! You would say that!

You are right though.

Cass

rrpc wrote: »

Except that the 'short firearm' is further qualified by the phrase "for which the applicant held......" .

"for which the applicant for the firearm certificate held a firearms certicate on or before the 19th........". Again the wording. They are making reference to the certificate. The licence is whats in question here. A person receives a licence after being carefully vetted. Its the person thats licenced to use the firearm. So i'm deemded fit to use the firearm and granted a licence. Why then can i not change for a similar calibre but different model (that is more designated to the purpose i'm using it for i.e. tagert shooting) If i'm deemed fit to own one and they refuse me permission to change to another are they not contradicting themselves?

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.

You've made my point for me. By changing the format of the sport and the calibre used within the sport you are no longer participating in the sport but rather in a new sport that does not exist on international level.

................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

This one wouldn't. Someone asks me to try a Savage .308 instead of my Sako .308 for FTR shooting i'd listen, weigh the pros and cons and make a decision. If someone tells me you cannot use a .308 for FTR here but you can practice with a .22 and when you go abroad to partake in competitions well.............oh thats right i can't have a .308 so even if i try to compete on an international level i've no rifle. Same scenario with the centrefire pistols.

I get the points you're trying to make rrpc i really do and i don't want to go too far off topic. The laws, guidelines, SIs are all open to interpretation, by design, but they are pushing unusable calibres on people and by doing so are sounding the death knell of the sport. The government support all sports in this country some to a higher degree than others. What message does it send to the rest of the world when they look in on us.

Q) Why did you stop your centrefire sport?
A) Oh thats so as the criminals don't get training or we don't go on anymore drive bys. Can't have any law abiding citizen helping the criminals.
Q) But there is no evidence or history of the citizens arming, supplying, training, aiding or participating in gangland activities?
A) I know but sure what can we do. Sure at least we kept our .22s.
Q) Has the crime rate or gun related killings dropped?
A) Funny enough no, but i believe there is talk off banning butchers knives, cars, hurls, tennis racquets, javelins, studs on football boots etc so fingers crossed.

Sparks

jwshooter wrote: »

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)

Actually, in the next year or two, it'll become law for all bus drivers to undergo a set number of mandatory retraining hours per year, so they are actually heading in this direction jw.

rrpc

ezridax wrote: »

"for which the applicant for the firearm certificate held a firearms certicate on or before the 19th........". Again the wording. They are making reference to the certificate. The licence is whats in question here. A person receives a licence after being carefully vetted. Its the person thats licenced to use the firearm. So i'm deemded fit to use the firearm and granted a licence. Why then can i not change for a similar calibre but different model (that is more designated to the purpose i'm using it for i.e. tagert shooting) If i'm deemed fit to own one and they refuse me permission to change to another are they not contradicting themselves?

You can't take two halves of a sentence and analyse the meaning that way, if you could, every sentence could be construed in a dozen different ways depending on emphasis. And don't ask for sense in this, it's a grandfather clause and anywhere they have been written into law, has meant that the last one licensed is the last one to be licensed. We can dance arround the semantics of this all month, but it will take a court to decide finally what it actually means if you feel up to the challenge.

You've made my point for me. By changing the format of the sport and the calibre used within the sport you are no longer participating in the sport but rather in a new sport that does not exist on international level.

I said for training purposes and I also said 'some' sports. I'll deal with the ones I know best; the ISSF centre fire pistol competition has exactly the same course of fire as the 25m pistol discipline which is shot with .22 and it translates very well for training purposes. Those who do both maintain you lose about 10 points out of 600 moving up to centre fire due to the recoil, but all the other aspects of shooting the match are the same.

Similarly the guys shooting 50m pistol also shoot 10m air pistol and consider them to be very close in nature. In fact the Korean guy who was found to have taken Beta blockers at the Beijing Olympics had medalled in both events.

This one wouldn't. Someone asks me to try a Savage .308 instead of my Sako .308 for FTR shooting i'd listen, weigh the pros and cons and make a decision. If someone tells me you cannot use a .308 for FTR here but you can practice with a .22 and when you go abroad to partake in competitions well.............oh thats right i can't have a .308 so even if i try to compete on an international level i've no rifle. Same scenario with the centrefire pistols.

I think you need to read the question you first asked. I answered it. Now you're adding all sorts of qualifications; make up your mind

they are pushing unusable calibres on people and by doing so are sounding the death knell of the sport.

Or perhaps they are trying to find out how serious you are.

The main question in the act regarding restricted firearms is whether the firearm is the only one appropriate for the purpose for which it is required.

You can't blame them for asking the question they're required to under the firearms acts.

Bananaman

You can't blame them for asking the question they're required to under the firearms acts.

No you cannot - they are required to do so - simply stating the following is enough reason whyt a .22 is not a suitable alternative to a 9mm pistol.

You cannot use a rimfire pistol in a centrefire event - end of story.

As to whether or not you meet their requirements for having a cntrefire pistol to take part in centrefire competition will depend on what they regard as 'taking part in centrefire competition'

As to practice - if you have a rimfire pistol you will use it for practicing for rimfire events - e,g, NASRPC T&P Rimfire or Olympic Free Pistol.

If you have a Centrefire Pistol you will use it for practicing for a centrefire discipline such as NASRPC T&P or WA1500 Open Match.

B'Man

jwshooter

Sparks wrote: »

Actually, in the next year or two, it'll become law for all bus drivers to undergo a set number of mandatory retraining hours per year, so they are actually heading in this direction jw.

sence you deleted my last reply .Actually your on to the wrong bunch of boys to start telling us whats going to be come law in the next year or two.

Actually.

Cass

Originally Posted by rrpc

........every sentence could be construed in a dozen different ways depending on emphasis......

My point exactly. This has lead to the back and forth between me, you and every other lad here. Depending on how you interpret the sentence different people take different meanings from it.

....but it will take a court to decide finally what it actually means if you feel up to the challenge

Yes it will and i'm not there yet. Hopefully it won't reach that point but i'm (hopefully) prepared to take this as far as i have to or can.

I concede your point about the training. I shot .22 and centrefire pistol and find a big difference but if others find it helpful then who am i to speak for others when i don't know their mindset. My point on the rifles was if i can't licence/get a rifle of a certain calibre (as with centrefire pistols) then all the practice in the world with other rifles will not be good enough as i cannot own the calibre i need to compete internationally. You said about lower calibres or altering the format of the sport and thats fine but other countries do not have this problem so effectively Irish participation in these sports will end. Does that make sense to you. Again having a problem getting whats in my head out so that it makes sense.

Or perhaps they are trying to find out how serious you are.

The main question in the act regarding restricted firearms is whether the firearm is the only one appropriate for the purpose for which it is required.

You can't blame them for asking the question they're required to under the firearms acts.

Lads that travel abroad a few times a year, using their own money, their own time, ammo, weekends practicing etc are fairly serious. To test this is unfair and improper.

You talk about not blaming them for asking the questions but the DOJ in partnership with the Gardai (but mostly the Gardai) are the ones putting these questions or "good reasons" into the laws. Its their means to refuse or demand more info so as to curtail or restrict the spread of these firearms as they see fit. I understand the need for tight control of firearms. I make no secret of my opinion of the "i want one" club. Those who want one just to have one and do not participate or contribute to the sport, and with all i've said in previous posts about the Gardai i do have the upmost of respect for the Gardai (the ones i deal with directly anyway), but the treatment of sportsmen, the testing of their resolve is unfair and if this is the case then shame on the Gardai in question.

Grizzly 45

OTOH the following could be done with certain brands of pistols,but would require cooperation on both sides of this divide. Say,you wont get a 9mm for whatever reason,but they offer you a .22.Would it not be possible to say,fine give me a .22 conversion kit for my Glock,Sig,etc etc. You then hand in the 9mm PARTS to your dealer Thussly;
[1] making it an unlikely target for theft and a lot safer,as it is only half the gun,and reducing storage space and costs.
[2]Giving the Gardai and Co their propaganda coup of "removing" all evil 9mms Irish society.As I belive that old chestnut came up again in the first refusels again.
[3] Until or if this goes nationwide,we still have half a 9mm which is better than none at all in which case we can hold out til a more favourable Govt looks at this.
[4]If say you want to shoot in a match,you give the CS notice that you want to draw your parts and ammo for the certain match here or abroad,and he can issue you with a tempory cert for the 9mm .
[5] .22 ammo is alot cheaper than 9mm at the moment.:p
No doubt there will be much critique of this,as in its not the same,it doesnt work for training,etc etc.

BUT please consider this folks.
.22 conversion kits were developed for military/police training in the first place,so that people would know and have the feel for the firearm when they went to the real calibres. I personally want to keep my pistol,and if this was looked as a suitable compromise until better days ,I would be all for it.
It will require alot of cooperation and proably dual liscensing the 9mm as .22 as well.Not to mind amending the approved list.But it seems to be IMHO a relative win/win situation for certain types of pistols. This idea is just a throw out for you to chew or savage as you see fit.

Cass

I like it Grizzly, all of it. Licence the .22 conversion kit for the Sig, have a restricted licence for the 9mm with the stipulation that i may only use the 9mm when on international competitions (like the lads licencing the big game rifles for use abroad/ safari). About the most sense and best advice i read in days (including my own posts). Bravo sir, take your bow

foxshooter243

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

OTOH the following could be done with certain brands of pistols,but would require cooperation on both sides of this divide. Say,you wont get a 9mm for whatever reason,but they offer you a .22.Would it not be possible to say,fine give me a .22 conversion kit for my Glock,Sig,etc etc. You then hand in the 9mm PARTS to your dealer Thussly;
[1] making it an unlikely target for theft and a lot safer,as it is only half the gun,and reducing storage space and costs.
[2]Giving the Gardai and Co their propaganda coup of "removing" all evil 9mms Irish society.As I belive that old chestnut came up again in the first refusels again.
[3] Until or if this goes nationwide,we still have half a 9mm which is better than none at all in which case we can hold out til a more favourable Govt looks at this.
[4]If say you want to shoot in a match,you give the CS notice that you want to draw your parts and ammo for the certain match here or abroad,and he can issue you with a tempory cert for the 9mm .
[5] .22 ammo is alot cheaper than 9mm at the moment.:p
No doubt there will be much critique of this,as in its not the same,it doesnt work for training,etc etc.

BUT please consider this folks.
.22 conversion kits were developed for military/police training in the first place,so that people would know and have the feel for the firearm when they went to the real calibres. I personally want to keep my pistol,and if this was looked as a suitable compromise until better days ,I would be all for it.
It will require alot of cooperation and proably dual liscensing the 9mm as .22 as well.Not to mind amending the approved list.But it seems to be IMHO a relative win/win situation for certain types of pistols. This idea is just a throw out for you to chew or savage as you see fit.

Thats Marine corps stuff Grizzly-" adapt and overcome" :D

Grizzly 45

Thanks guys...But how do we sort out the revolver folk???
That is going to be a right puzzler.:(

foxshooter243

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Thanks guys...But how do we sort out the revolver folk???
That is going to be a right puzzler.:(

sleeve down the cylinders and fit morris tubes;)

Cass

ezridax wrote: »

I like it Grizzly, all of it. Licence the .22 conversion kit for the Sig, have a restricted licence for the 9mm with the stipulation that i may only use the 9mm when on international competitions (like the lads licencing the big game rifles for use abroad/ safari). About the most sense and best advice i read in days (including my own posts). Bravo sir, take your bow

Just to clarify lads, i like the idea of a .22 conversion kit regardless of other factors, but incase some take me too seriously, i would only consider this as a last ditch attempt if all other avenues, options, lawsuits, blackmailing etc failed and there was no way in hell i was geting my 9mm licence. Only then would i go for it rather than loose the majority of my gun, but only if.

I like my pistol (looks) but loosing the 9mm (barrel) and getting a .22 voluntarily is the same as accepting the letters the other lads got and changing to a .22. If i was going to do that i would get a target designated .22 pstol. Still not there yet. I have invested too much (both time and money) as have you all in the sport to simply take another option which still results in loosing my centrefire and as a result my sport.

Apologies for any contradicting, misleading or double talk. Not my intention and should have made my point clearer before now.

Bananaman

with the stipulation that i may only use the 9mm when on international competitions

Are you flocking serious??

We (the royal we - the Irish) are only starting to get really good at International competition.

We have the 3rd in the world in Precision Pistol and recently took something like 50% of the medals at the world championships.

We had been doing quite well at IPSC - it got squashed, for political gain - a great opportunity squandered.

It will simply not do to get stipulations such as what you have suggested - ye are off down the garden path and the neighbours garden path at that.

If you get a 'not satisfied' letter - you go talk to your chief super and 'satisfy' him/her that you require the pistol. If you have not been using it at all and cannot prove why (working abroad, injured, etc,) I don't think you will have much chance.

B'Man

Grizzly 45

Bananaman wrote: »

Are you flocking serious??

We (the royal we - the Irish) are only starting to get really good at International competition.

Thru no thanks to the Irish govt.

We have the 3rd in the world in Precision Pistol and recently took something like 50% of the medals at the world championships.

Admirable,and somthing that should be made more public.

We had been doing quite well at IPSC - it got squashed, for political gain - a great opportunity squandered.

Indeed we were,

It will simply not do to get stipulations such as what you have suggested - ye are off down the garden path and the neighbours garden path at that.

Would you rather have half a 9mm,with the chance somtime gettting it all back in the future.Or just nothing at all???Personally,I'd rather in the circumstances have half a loaf than demanding all and getting FK all!

If you get a 'not satisfied' letter - you go talk to your chief super and 'satisfy' him/her that you require the pistol. If you have not been using it at all and cannot prove why (working abroad, injured, etc,) I don't think you will have much chance.

Just on this,how many times can you go back to your CS and produce all this satisfactory requirements?He can keep moving the goal posts all he likes and you can keep playing catch up.Until in the end he can say [1] Why didnt you deliver this in the first place?Liscense refused for OTHER reasons or [2]Makes such unreasonable demands that you cant satisfy him anymore or meet those demands..Liscense refused!:(

PJ Hunter

[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]

Would you rather have half a 9mm,with the chance somtime gettting it all back in the future.Or just nothing at all???Personally,I'd rather in the circumstances have half a loaf than demanding all and getting FK all!

[/FONT][/FONT]


no 9mm danger to the public with that. the guidlines have the same idea
not as strict:rolleyes:


[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]ASSESSING [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]G[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]OOD [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]R[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]EASON

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]This section sets out the issues that a superintendent or chief superintendent may wish to consider in assessing "Good Reason" in individual cases. Some of the more common good reasons that the issuing person may consider ‘good’ for the possession of particular firearms and ammunition are also highlighted.
This guidance is simply illustrative, and cases may be encountered which are not covered here, but which may nonetheless form the basis of a "Good Reason".

[/FONT][/FONT]

Good Reason for requiring a firearm in respect of which the certificate relates

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]The case of William Goodison v Superintendent D. J. Sheahan (High Court, 2nd May 2008) is instructive. Peart J ruled that in relation to "Good Reason" a superintendent is entitled to have regard to the particular firearm and the use to which it is intended.
The effect of this judgment means that while the firearm in question can form the basis of considering the application, it is not the sole criteria to be considered, nor can it be the sole reason for refusing the application. The use to which the firearm is to be put is a significant element in deciding whether the applicant has ‘Good Reason’.
Each case ought to be judged on its own merits, being mindful of the need to apply the legislation in a fair and equitable manner to all applicants. An intention to acquire a firearm certificate should generally involve a genuine intent to use the firearm on a regular basis.

[/FONT][/FONT]

3: CONDITIONS THAT MAY BE CONSIDERED RELEVANT WHEN GRANTING A FIREARM CERTIFICATE AND CASE LAW

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Section 4(2)(g) of the Firearms Act 1925 as substituted by section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act, 2006 provides that when a firearms certificate is granted it may be subject to a condition or conditions. Furthermore in the case of Joseph Magee v Patrick Murray and Dennis Roche, a judgment delivered by Birmingham J. in the High Court on 24th November 2008, confirmed that the statutory scheme allows a superintendent to impose conditions when granting a firearms certificate under the Firearms Acts.
There are considerable obligations on firearms license holders to ensure that firearms are stored safely and securely, and in particular whilst traveling to a shoot or to a hunt.
The following conditions may be considered appropriate (although the list is not an exhaustive one) for inclusion by a superintendent or chief superintendent when granting a firearms certificate:

That possession and carriage of any firearm including a short firearm (barrel under 30cm or overall length not exceeding 60cm)/ammunition concealed on the person in public is not permitted at any time, save in circumstances where such possession and carriage on the person is necessary for a lawful purpose.

In the case of self loading (semi automatic) pistols and revolvers consideration may be given to a requirement to dismantle each gun when not at the range where it is intended to be used with some necessary parts held at the range.

During transport, firearms must always be stored in a case/sleeve, out of sight in a locked vehicle boot. They should not be immediately accessible to the driver or any passenger.

No gun should be loaded with ammunition while traveling to or from a shoot.

Where possible, rifle bolts and shotgun fore ends, pistol top slides and magazines should be removed and kept separately.

That the firearm is never left inside the seating area of a vehicle: whether occupied or unattended.

If it is necessary to stop and leave the vehicle, reasonable steps should be taken to ensure the safety of the firearm in question. It is a good idea to also place in the boot anything which might indicate that a firearm may be in the vehicle e.g. hunting clothing, stalking stick, hunting knife, binoculars, decoys, hunting hat etc.
[/FONT][/FONT]

Cass

ezridax wrote: »

I like it Grizzly, all of it. Licence the .22 conversion kit for the Sig, have a restricted licence for the 9mm with the stipulation that i may only use the 9mm when on international competitions (like the lads licencing the big game rifles for use abroad/ safari). About the most sense and best advice i read in days (including my own posts). Bravo sir, take your bow

Bananaman in case my post was taken in the wrong manner i posted this:

Just to clarify lads, i like the idea of a .22 conversion kit regardless of other factors, but incase some take me too seriously, i would only consider this as a last ditch attempt if all other avenues, options, lawsuits, blackmailing etc failed and there was no way in hell i was geting my 9mm licence. Only then would i go for it rather than loose the majority of my gun, but only if.

I like my pistol (looks) but loosing the 9mm (barrel) and getting a .22 voluntarily is the same as accepting the letters the other lads got and changing to a .22. If i was going to do that i would get a target designated .22 pstol. Still not there yet. I have invested too much (both time and money) as have you all in the sport to simply take another option which still results in loosing my centrefire and as a result my sport.

Apologies for any contradicting, misleading or double talk. Not my intention and should have made my point clearer before now.

In this thread and others i have stated my staunch objection to any actions that result in the death of my sport. I have and will continue to argue for its survival. I also realise that the outcome may be beyond my control and that of others in a higher position of authority. For that reason i always look for a compromise be it as a last resort. Should the s**t hit the fan and the government go on an all out war/ban on centrefire pistols i need to have an alternative.

Originally posted by Bananaman

It will simply not do to get stipulations such as what you have suggested - ye are off down the garden path and the neighbours garden path at that

I admire your conviction and support you 100% on your determination, but the governments pockets are deeper than all shooters and while a victory may be possible in the long run they have money, time and patience to prolong this fight indefinitely. To stick so deadfast to a point of view without the possibility of compromise is a quick way to defeat. Always aim for the highest/best result but as the law writers they can change/amend sections as they go and be it an all out ban or stealth ban they can make it so we have no avenue for recourse.

I can say it no other way other than i will stand shoulder to shoulder and argue/fight for my rights and sport, but i also will keep all avenues or options open to me for any eventuallity.

Bananaman

There is no need for a compromise - no need for 'half a 9mm' - no need to 'take the.22 and get the centrefire back later'.

Whether or not you recieve a license for your centrefire pistol - you are allowed to apply for a license for a .22 pistol.
They are both pistols so the exact same criteria apply so if you have had a pistol license in the past you should have no problem getting a .22 license now.

I know i fully intend to - once I get a final decision on my existing firearms(s) - There is no need to give up a centrefire license in order to apply for a rimfire one.

If you have a centrefire pistol and have good reason for having it and fave fulfilled all the criteria - if you take part in the sport of centrefire pistol shooting then - if you have to go back to the chief super 100 times with more information or clarifications or to satisy his/her every whim - then that is what you should do.

If you are not arsed and feel that you should apply for a .22 pistol license and allow your centrefore pistol license to lapse then of course you are free to do so.

But do no discuss it as a compromise - because it is not.

B'Man

Grizzly 45

B man,one of the rules of negoation is;you have somthing the other party holds or has for sale and the other party wants somthing you have.
In this situation we have NEITHER!Irish centrefire handgun owners are in this position.We have nothing to negoiate with,politically or legally,if you have a few thousand handy to fight this in the high court,and proably in the supreme court,because that is what the "legal appeals route" will proably cost and go.I'll be right behind you if you do have to do this.
What exactly will you do if it comes down to "sorry lads..It is now Govt Policy not to issue any more centrefire handgun lics??"

Would you rather have the possibility of recovering half your gun at a later state,and continuing shooting in some shape or form or just have it rotting and costing you and not being able to use it for another 40 odd years???
I am not saying this is the immediate and all solution options.Or that this will happen ..This is a doomsday proposal to keep people like you and me shooting the guns we are fammilar with,with the option of not losing out on competitions outside Ireland or in recognised competitions.And we will proably have to cut our coats to the available cloth.

rrpc

+1 to what Grizzly said.

I'd just add that I've always thought it would be instructive to look at all the court cases we 'won' in the last ten or so years and map them to the firearms act.

I reckon that for every case won, there's been an addition to the Firearms Acts to reverse the court's decision.

I think Sparks contantly makes that point when people talk of taking stuff to court. Some stuff you win, some you lose but in the end all the wins are reversed.

The mills of God grind slow but exceeding fine.....

Bananaman

I never said anything about going to court

I said that if your chief super does have you running in and out with more info for the forseeable future then so be it. Do it.

What I do not agree with is people suggesting that they should take a rimfire license INSTEAD of their centrefire license. You can have a rimfire license AND your centrefire license - provided you have an actual use for them.

If the Chief Super pulls the plug on you or me and will not issue us with a new centrefire license for our existing pistol THEN I will look at options.

Until then - the glass is half full.

B'Man

rowa

anybody get any good/bad news about centrefire pistol licences today ?

hughhughp

The Restrictive list is a way of taking up all centre fire pistols,we are screwed.I have AN 8 MM Rifle, it will be the same situation as the pistols.I'm sure,seems no one is getting centre pistols Licenced,not to worry Criminals are armed to the teeth,most of them have 16 convictions lodged and these idiots in Justice cannot give us a justice system to deal with the Scum.A safe haven for Murders, lenient prison time,bandit Country really.However they can deal with us as we are law adbiding people.

Slug chucker

Epilogue time,
I started this thread as one of the first to have received refusal letters for CF pistols back in October of 2009 so I feel it fitting to submit this final update:
We got all four of our centrefire pistol licenses back on the 1st of October 2012 and are now looking forward returning to competitive centrefire pistol shooting sports once again.
Des Crofton has made a statement on the matter yesterday in The Sunday Times so its now public knowledge. Not a pyrrhic victory just a victory plain and simple.
Thanks to all who supported us along the way
That’s all,
Cheers,
Slugchucker.

Grizzly 45

Well done Slug chucker.
But what a collective waste of gunowners, tax payers,court and AGS time that could have been better spent on more important things than fighting an incredibly dirty,mean,rotten and petty war,all because a group of men& women decided that they were the law and had the sole right to interpert it as they saw fit.
And yet still it isnt over...:mad:
Along with a mean minded egotistical little politican with a personal agenda who scuttled off the sinking ship ofthe Irish state like a rat leaving the sinking ship with his big pension.Who was callous enough to hang his agenda on a murder of an innocent with an illegal firearm to peanalise the law abiding shooter of this country.It affected us all in some way or the other.

For that we should NEVER forgive and NEVER forget and be CONSTANTLY vigilant of anything that ever eminates out of the Dail regarding gun laws or hhunting laws in this country if we ever want to have a future sport of shooting in Ireland.:(
Grizzly45

knockon

Well done Slug Chucker and enjoy your range time. I too was refused in Nov 2009 but got them back in the DC with my friend Grizzly45 in May 2010. I am now without them again because the CS in Henry St has 3 months to consider my application and the pre loaded forms were only sent out in Mid September. My FAC's expired on 31st Oct and I am not permitted to use my sporting pistols. I have already written to the CS.

It seems my initial euphoria at winning my appeal in the DC has been short lived. The battle goes on. This situation is far from satisfactory and quiet frankly bloody distressing. I am pissed off to say he least.

meathstevie

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Well done Slug chucker.
But what a collective waste of gunowners, tax payers,court and AGS time that could have been better spent on more important things than fighting an incredibly dirty,mean,rotten and petty war,all because a group of men& women decided that they were the law and had the sole right to interpert it as they saw fit.
And yet still it isnt over...:mad:
Along with a mean minded egotistical little politican with a personal agenda who scuttled off the sinking ship ofthe Irish state like a rat leaving the sinking ship with his big pension.Who was callous enough to hang his agenda on a murder of an innocent with an illegal firearm to peanalise the law abiding shooter of this country.It affected us all in some way or the other.

For that we should NEVER forgive and NEVER forget and be CONSTANTLY vigilant of anything that ever eminates out of the Dail regarding gun laws or hhunting laws in this country if we ever want to have a future sport of shooting in Ireland.:(
Grizzly45

Grizzly, and that's why having an independent judiciary is so incredibly important.

From the Commissioner down to the newest Reserve recruit either directly or indirectly Gardai take their orders from the Government of the day.

An individual Chief Super or Super can be as gun friendly or unfriendly as they want to be but when push comes to shove the jig will be danced to the Government's tune and legislation will be interpreted as the minister wants it to be interpreted, that's the nature of the beastie.

Now if that legislation, it's rationale and it's interpretation are somewhat flawed you can't but pin your hopes on the courts to interpret it and give a ruling in your favour and quite often the courts will do exactly that.