What to do if refused?

Grizzly 45

Guess the ERU will be busy then Nov1st.;):rolleyes:.

Grizzly 45

Some of us will be tipped off by friends in the Army ranger wing and sneak surrepetitiously across the border into Newry.
[/QUOTE]

So will that give Tom Clonan and Ciara Shanley another excuse to give us another hour of Clonan wizzing around in a landrover and weird camera angles of Shanley,on their new "what if" documentary.
" When gunowners from Boards.ie invaded!!":eek::eek::eek::D

Cass

Halloween and November 1st. 2 days of fireworks. Great

rrpc

I think Rew expressed it best:

"What do do if refused"

Says it all really. There'll be some do do hitting the fan alright

jwshooter

Sparks wrote: »

If things go the way I think they're going to go (though I wouldn't mind the pleasant surprise of being wrong), I'm not going to get my licence in time to go to Kuortane and train with lads who've got a small collection of olympic medals at home. That's me out a few hundred euro in deposit fees, and another shooter who's put in a load of logistical work after having his time wasted. And part of it is my fault for letting work eat so much time and part of it is down to the licencing procedure not being a well-oiled machine.

But regardless, come 1/11/09, my firearms are unlicenced (unless the new licence comes in by tomorrow ) and so in the safe in the firearms dealer they have to stay. Otherwise, if I'm stopped, that's possession of an unlicenced firearm and not only is there fines and possible jail time, but there's also the risk of losing the firearms for five years after that.

Not worth it. Even if the teething pains of the new system are a pain in the toucas. And even if we said it was a bad idea to push this through this year.

sparks , i just got a phone call from some in the know there is extensions on the extensions been given in dublin .

dont panic just yet .

rowa

ezridax wrote: »

Halloween and November 1st. 2 days of fireworks. Great

at least the neighbours won't be disturbed when the eru pop a cap in your ass , they'll think its just another scanger after blowing the front off an old persons house !

Rew

rrpc wrote: »

I think Rew expressed it best:

"What do do if refused"

Says it all really. There'll be some do do hitting the fan alright

Im a poet and I didn't know it!

BornToKill

Rew wrote: »

Im a poet and I didn't know it!

Yes, you surely are.

Meyer

jwshooter wrote: »

sparks , i just got a phone call from some in the know there is extensions on the extensions been given in dublin .

dont panic just yet .

Called my Super today and was told the same thing...After expressing my annoyance about the whole situation, he said "Dublin has grand ideas, but as always the reality on the ground is another thing." At least he was honest

rowa

Meyer wrote: »

Called my Super today and was told the same thing...After expressing my annoyance about the whole situation, he said "Dublin has grand ideas, but as always the reality on the ground is another thing." At least he was honest

it wasn't dublin that had the great idea but ahern , its up there with e-voting as ideas go. :rolleyes:

Bananaman

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwLB2Vei6tE

johngalway

rowa wrote: »

it wasn't dublin that had the great idea but ahern , its up there with e-voting as ideas go. :rolleyes:

In fairness to E-Voting, at least that system dispatched it's victims instantly, rather than this drawn out saga.

Sparks

Well, the thing with the e-voting was that you could never be sure of exactly how the decision got made, so I guess that makes it a fair enough analogy

johngalway

Sparks wrote: »

Well, the thing with the e-voting was that you could never be sure of exactly how the decision got made, so I guess that makes it a fair enough analogy

Yeah, but it made a decision

2.5 hours to go now, all aboard the ERU bus off to porridge, will send ye lucky few a postcard

DMZ

I am sure that I am not alone out there, a Garda car was despatched to my house and everyone in the district that had made application for renewal of their restricted pistols.

All having completed expensive alarm upgrades, with GSM dialers, double the monitoring cost contracted for a year and all paid for up front! Cost me €1,800.00. Conformance with the storage requirements tick box, send off application and then receive refusal on the grounds that the Super has the power under section 3 of the firearms acts 1925 as amended to refuse you on the grounds of not having sufficient reason, funny thing is I seemed to have good reason every year since 2004 for having my pistol certificates renewed! What has changed nothing other than the Gardai imposing an view of the legislation which I think is flawed!

Having looked at the legislation, it is the Garda Commissioners guidelines that is leading everyone to believe that they have to apply afresh for guns they have had for years, my simple reading of the act as amended would lead me to believe that the chief super should be evaluating my application as an application for renewal under section 9 and not Section 3, now before anyone gets up and says well the commissioner says....... the guidelines also state that they are not the legislation.

So I have decided to send the following letter to my Chief Super, really I want to get the challenge right in the District Court, incidently where every little scumbag and press reporter will know that John Doe has a pistol, high power hunting rifle, 2 x shotguns and live in x drive, etc........ a great prospect, no doubt my monitored alarm will get some exercise but I wonder will the boys in blue come to my aid or be too busy delivering Dear John letters to firearms holders........ I will also be seeking legal opinion on my view of the legislation but I don't think I am too far off!

Name

Address 1
Address 2
Co x
DatabaseID=DatabaseID|ContactID=ContactID|


Name Chief Super
Chief Superintendent of An Gárda Síochána
Chief Superintendents Office
Address 1
Co X
Sunday, November 01, 2009

Dear Chief Superintendent X

I am in receipt of your hand delivered communications of xxth October 2009, in which you have indicated your refusal of my application for restricted firearms, being xxx 9mm and xxx .357/.38 target pistols/rifle, Ref: xxxx and xxxx respectively.

You refer your decision to Section 3 of the Firearms Acts 1925 as amended.

Section 3 is exclusively for application for new firearms certificates, if you refer to Section 9 of Firearms Act 1964 you will note that it was amended in the Criminal Justice Act 2006 by the substitution of a new section “Renewal of Firearms Certificates”

As my firearms certificates were already in force they come under Section 9 as amended for consideration and not Section 3 as you have indicated in your communication.


I would respectfully request that you reconsider your decision with reference to the correct section of the act when dealing with the application for renewal of my firearms certificates.

It is my understanding that there as there is a clear misunderstanding of the firearms legislation by your office, I would expect that it is not unreasonable for you to extend my current firearms certificates while the matter is considered and rectified.

Should you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours Sincerely



Name

rrpc

I think you may have a point there DMZ. However, it's probably an exercise in semantics as it's within his powers to refuse to renew it under subsection (5).

So if I were you, I'd expect a revised letter.

I'd also point out freddieot's warning to be not giving away your strategies in advance

BornToKill

I don't think so. Just don't see it myself. Section 3(9) reads:

A decision on an application for a firearm certificate or its renewal shall be given within 3 months from the date on which the applicant submitted a completed application form.

There is an argument that since there never previously existed a restricted firearms certificate one cannot renew something which was never held. That argument though doesn't seem to matter here since Section 3 of the principal act is clear that a refusal may apply to either an application or a renewal.

DMZ

BornToKill wrote: »

I don't think so. Just don't see it myself. Section 3(9) reads:

A decision on an application for a firearm certificate or its renewal shall be given within 3 months from the date on which the applicant submitted a completed application form.

There is an argument that since there never previously existed a restricted firearms certificate one cannot renew something which was never held. That argument though doesn't seem to matter here since Section 3 of the principal act is clear that a refusal may apply to either an application or a renewal.

We will see what the wigs have got to say, I have no issue with the opposition knowing the direction we are coming from, my belief is that there is a much weaker case for a Chief Super to refuse a renewal than a new application. The bull about a .22 being a suitable substitute as agreed with the Olympic Council and the National Target Shooters Association is what really gets me, if a ,22 would have done I would have one already as it is less expensive and a lot less hassle.

Clearly I would like to know how the OCI got the remit to agree lists of guns that I may lisence, the NTSA is a given they are on record already.

In any case we will see, all will be revealed in less than 30 days and I would feel more comfortable defending a situation where my renewal was refused for a firearm that I have had since 1995 all be it in other jusisdictions and has been lisenced since 2004 here. Thats what it boils down to one had a reason prior to application for the previous 5 renewals and now no reason..

I am also disappointed to see the ignorance of the Chief super indicating that in his opinion a S&W revolver is a military Combat-Style Firearm, is he for real, the only record of a revolver used in the military is the one Patton carried.

Ah lets stop ranting anger is rising!