recommend a solicitor

meathshooter

can anybody recommend a solicitor who would be familiar with these appeals I think willie Egan in baggot street Dublin does a lot of work for the nargc does abody have any experience with him? or any other solicitor .I haven't heard anything about my pistol and by what I'm hearing its not looking good so I just want to have ground work done on my options REMEMBER YOU only have 30days to appeal I will only appeal as a last resort if I have exhausted all other avenues. (it is better to have tried and (lost or won) than to have never tried at all)

rrpc

Just a tip; the District Court is local and everyone tends to know each other. Bringing a 'big cheese' into that environment is more than likely to raise hackles and put you on the back foot immediately.

Pick a local guy who is familiar with the Judge and the court.

And no, that's not professional advice, so don't sue me if it's wrong.

Grizzly 45

OTOH,a local might be influenced by the local scene later down in the 18th hole of the Golf club,where the DJ,the Super and all the others are members!!!And where quite alot of busisness is decided!!!Fact of Irish life people,and one to consider as well...
If you use a local,or any of them I suggest[and this is advice from a oldwell known in the media Barrister] Get somone who is young,lean and very,very hungry!!!

thedragon

RRPC has a good point here and its always been my popular belief too, stick to a local that knows the judge, the kops and maybe ows a few twists and vise versa. But not here !! NO!. Get that Willie egan if your after a good appeal, this is not a localised situation like a speeding conviction or drunk driving issue, this is at national level and preecedents need to be set if anything is to happen for the rest of us. I think once cases start hitting the courts, outcomes have got to be good from day one, otherwise that preecedent has been set for the next poor c**t that goes up the steps. Thats just my take on it, make what you will of it.

rrpc

thedragon wrote: »

RRPC has a good point here and its always been my popular belief too, stick to a local that knows the judge, the kops and maybe ows a few twists and vise versa. But not here !! NO!. Get that Willie egan if your after a good appeal, this is not a localised situation like a speeding conviction or drunk driving issue, this is at national level and preecedents need to be set if anything is to happen for the rest of us. I think once cases start hitting the courts, outcomes have got to be good from day one, otherwise that preecedent has been set for the next poor c**t that goes up the steps. Thats just my take on it, make what you will of it.

Except that the District Court is not a court of record and doesn't set precedents.

Remember that the court has three choices when looking at your appeal:

To refuse the appeal - that's it case closed go home and think do you want to take a judicial review to the High Court.

Adjourn the appeal and ask the CS to review his decision in light of the appeal - He may continue to refuse, or he may grant at this point, so nothing lost but you'll be back in court to review his decision or to tell the Judge that it's all over and you've now got a licence.

Allow the appeal - Best result, the Judge has effectively granted you your licence. Go directly to range

So unless your plan involves a trip to the High Court and the expenditure of the cost of a house, the District Court will probably be your starting point and your finish line.

And therefore your strategy should be to make the best of it in whatever way you see fit.

meathshooter

thedragon wrote: »

RRPC has a good point here and its always been my popular belief too, stick to a local that knows the judge, the kops and maybe ows a few twists and vise versa. But not here !! NO!. Get that Willie egan if your after a good appeal, this is not a localised situation like a speeding conviction or drunk driving issue, this is at national level and preecedents need to be set if anything is to happen for the rest of us. I think once cases start hitting the courts, outcomes have got to be good from day one, otherwise that preecedent has been set for the next poor c**t that goes up the steps. Thats just my take on it, make what you will of it.

To much backscratching goes on in the district court Ive often seen the super going for lunch with the judge this is what up up against you know what they say what goes on behind closed doors .but precedents have to be set by ourselves.and case law has to be made .any idea how much it would cost €1000/1500 I'm guessing correct me if I'm wrong

johngalway

If I were in that situation, I would also be looking for the person with the most familiarity with the proper laws. Local solicitors are good and well but most of them are better acquainted with conveyancing, minor traffic and drug offenses etc. The local guy you pick might also be a tosser in the judges eyes, and if you go into him with business he's not exactly likely to tell you that. Just my two cents.

rrpc

johngalway wrote: »

If I were in that situation, I would also be looking for the person with the most familiarity with the proper laws. Local solicitors are good and well but most of them are better acquainted with conveyancing, minor traffic and drug offenses etc. The local guy you pick might also be a tosser in the judges eyes, and if you go into him with business he's not exactly likely to tell you that. Just my two cents.

This is a bit like "what have the Romans ever done for us.." in the Life of Brian.

Apart from not getting a tosser and making sure he knows something about the firearms acts (or is willing to read them) and he plays golf with the Judge, what's wrong with the local guy?

Seriously, not everyone can get Willie Egan, and even if you could, the firearms acts are not that complicated.

Most people are being refused on 'Good Reason' and even the Commissioner's guidelines say that membership of a target shooting club is good reason for a target firearm.

If you spent a day reading the stuff yourself, you'd be up to speed.

But you're all so used to being spoonfed here, you couldn't be bothered

rrpc

meathshooter wrote: »

To much backscratching goes on in the district court Ive often seen the super going for lunch with the judge this is what up up against you know what they say what goes on behind closed doors .but precedents have to be set by ourselves.and case law has to be made .any idea how much it would cost €1000/1500 I'm guessing correct me if I'm wrong

That would be the max cost of the District Court and you'd expect a top solicitor for that as well as a couple of appearances.

But the DC does not set precedent. Everyone who's been refused and wants to appeal, needs to run their own appeal. There's no waiting for precedents to be set and the clock is ticking on your thirty days.

And btw, the only solicitors who are familiar with this stuff are those who've gone to the High Court on judicial review cases. And this is uncharted territory even for them.

johngalway

rrpc wrote: »

This is a bit like "what have the Romans ever done for us.." in the Life of Brian.

Apart from not getting a tosser and making sure he knows something about the firearms acts (or is willing to read them) and he plays golf with the Judge, what's wrong with the local guy?

Seriously, not everyone can get Willie Egan, and even if you could, the firearms acts are not that complicated.

Most people are being refused on 'Good Reason' and even the Commissioner's guidelines say that membership of a target shooting club is good reason for a target firearm.

If you spent a day reading the stuff yourself, you'd be up to speed.

But you're all so used to being spoonfed here, you couldn't be bothered

Remember what they say about assumptions?

I commented on what I would do if I were in that situation in my area.

I've dealt with three solicitors locally over the years, and I can safely and reliably tell you they need someone to wipe their own arses.

Now, if you can find a solicitor in my area, familiar with firearms law and you wish to use them in any future cases, away with ya. I wouldn't, I've seen the ineptitude firsthand.

BUT.

In other areas, if you can find such a solicitor then fine.

:rolleyes:

rrpc

johngalway wrote: »

Remember what they say about assumptions?

I didn't assume anything

I commented on what I would do if I were in that situation in my area.

And said you'd look for someone familiar with the law. You won't find more than a handful in the country

I've dealt with three solicitors locally over the years, and I can safely and reliably tell you they need someone to wipe their own arses.

I know the type, silver in their hair, gold in their teeth and lead in their arse

johngalway

rrpc wrote: »

And said you'd look for someone familiar with the law. You won't find more than a handful in the country

Which is what Meathshooters thread is about...

thedragon

meathshooter wrote: »

To much backscratching goes on in the district court Ive often seen the super going for lunch with the judge this is what up up against you know what they say what goes on behind closed doors .but precedents have to be set by ourselves.and case law has to be made .any idea how much it would cost €1000/1500 I'm guessing correct me if I'm wrong

This is where it gets sh#ty, the cost. I think your looking closer to 3 grand. Could be wrong but if the likes of willie Egan see's this becoming a big regular earner, Id say the cost might be kept down in order to get lads making cases.

rrpc

johngalway wrote: »

Which is what Meathshooters thread is about...

Indeed, but there are too many cases likely to be heard for that handful to be able to run them all. Anyone who's been refused in the last two weeks has barely three weeks to lodge their papers. Add in finding a solicitor, briefing the solicitor and getting the paperwork done and there's precious little time left at all.

So waiting around for the 'big guns' might be a mistake and most solicitors are starting from the same place; which is the land of 'never done this before'.

Sparks

I'm reasonably sure, by the way, that if you do lose and choose to appeal, that you'll be in the Circuit Court before the High Court, it's not usually a single step (though there have been cases where judicial reviews of DC cases were taken and those go right to the high court because they were about the judge, not the case).

If you're going to court though, you need to keep in mind that it might well go all the way and that's something to mull over before going all-in for the courtroom route.

However, thedragon does have a point on precedence, not from the point of view of the judiciary who don't take DC cases as setting precedents, but from the point of view of reluctant Supers who would be there in the DC with you. If they're going to the DC to avoid taking the decision themselves to grant or not, then a DC ruling for a particular class of firearm like a handgun is going to have more real-world impact than the rules of the court suggest.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

However, thedragon does have a point on precedence, not from the point of view of the judiciary who don't take DC cases as setting precedents, but from the point of view of reluctant Supers who would be there in the DC with you. If they're going to the DC to avoid taking the decision themselves to grant or not, then a DC ruling for a particular class of firearm like a handgun is going to have more real-world impact than the rules of the court suggest.

As in the Judge is the precedent

Good point.

Sparks

Yup. A case of "I know Commissioner, but the judge said I had to grant it so what could I do?". Mind you, if there was less evident opportunistic animosity from the Minister and Commissioner towards licenced firearms, this wouldn't even arise

pedroeibar

rrpc wrote: »

Just a tip; the District Court is local and everyone tends to know each other. Bringing a 'big cheese' into that environment is more than likely to raise hackles and put you on the back foot immediately.

Pick a local guy who is familiar with the Judge and the court.

And no, that's not professional advice, so don't sue me if it's wrong.

+1.
MeathStevie, do everything you can to avoid going to court. It’s usually not worth it. Believe me, I’ve been there (non-firearms.) I’m not a lawyer but have been in court on all sides, usually as an expert witness.

The following is not advice; it is my opinion of what I would do were I in your position:

If my pistol really was important to me, I would consider an appeal to the DC only AFTER all other avenues were explored. The refusal is based on ME, not the gun, so my grounds for the appeal would probably be different to everybody else in that position. I would not expect financial support from sporting bodies; everyone is on their own on this at DC level.

I believe no hotshot Dublin/Cork solicitor would go to Meath/Kanturk for a new client on a firearms case in the District Court. If they are that good, they will be too busy to take a day out to do a poxy DC case. If he/she does, I would expect them to cost. Bigtime.

Instead, I would call into my local gunshop, ask the owner if there are any local solicitors who are shooters and who buy from him. Then call one of them for a preliminary chat on the case. It is hard to be objective on your own case, LISTEN to the solicitor. ASK about THE FEES involved in a win AND lose situation.

Past experience has shown me that local solicitors always are best for the DC, they know the judges, their politics, even their hobbies. They know what will pi$$ them off, when to push and when to back off. If an “anti” is on the bench they will know that and will try to get an adjournment until the “right” one is sitting. In the past I’ve benefitted from a young hungry JC who did not know all that, pissed off the judge and blew the case. I would not be put off by everyone eating dinner together, I know that is normal and have seen them tear strips off each other in court and then go for a pint after.

Bear in mind that the Chief S has open chequebook to appeal you all the way to the Supreme Court if you win and he wants to make a point. The costs of that would mean your house is on the line. Even if he loses and has to pay all costs, he just has to say to the DoJ "Well, you wanted a clampdown on restricted firearms."

Do not bother with that site that rates solicitors, it is total crap and run by a guy with very weird views and hides, offshore, behind anonymity for obvious reasons.

The above is not advice, it my opinion.
Let's hope you are not refused!
P.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

Yup. A case of "I know Commissioner, but the judge said I had to grant it so what could I do?". Mind you, if there was less evident opportunistic animosity from the Minister and Commissioner towards licenced firearms, this wouldn't even arise

Even though the district court doesn't set precedent, as the Judge is in fact the only arbiter, a couple of losses in a particular district could snowball if many cases with the same facts came before him.

That could be both a good thing and a bad thing depending on the quality of the first few cases he hears.

In my view any case citing 'good reason' where the refused person was a regular club attendee and firearm user would be a good case. In fact cases where someone has competed nationally and internationally are not so good because they may set an unattainably high bar for those following.

rrpc

Just to expand on 'good reason' and the types of refusals I've seen quoting the applicants lack of sufficiency in that regard. Firstly, for restricted firearms, good reason is one of two tests that the applicant must meet; the other is whether the firearm is the only one appropriate for the purpose it's required.

First of all, good reason has been in the Firearms Acts since before there was any talk of restricted firearms. What that means is that any application for any firearm up until the 1st August this year (and after) had to satisfy that test. So anyone with a current certificate for a firearm has already satisfied a Superintendent that they had good reason. Obviously they haven't satisfied a Chief Superintendent unless they are fortunate enough to have been granted by a Superintendent who subsequently was promoted. Nevertheless a high ranking Garda Officer has accepted their 'good reason'

Secondly, the Gardai themselves (through their ballistics department) have been authorising ranges for the use of centre fire pistols all around the country. In so doing, they have provided good reason to the members of those clubs and ranges to acquire and license centre fire pistols.

Thirdly, the Garda Commissioner has stated in his guidelines on the application of the firearms acts the following under the heading of 'Good Reason':

"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'."

"Reasonable inquiries may include a request for written authorities where possible..." "...in the case of target shooters, verification of authorised rifle, pistol club or shooting range membership"

Furthermore in the same Guidelines it goes on to say in the 'Ranges' section:

"Target shooting includes the use of firearms for sport and recreation. Membership of a particular club will generally be the core of the applicant‟s “Good Reason” and the focus of much of their shooting activity."

It is therefore accepted by the Commissioner himself that membership of a target shooting club is 'good reason' for owning a firearm. Whether a court would consider it sufficient good reason will depend on the Judge and on the facts of the case being heard.

Finally, because 'good reason' has been in the Firearms Act for a very long time there is plenty of case law that explores the whole area. It must be pointed out that not all the case law is supportive, but there is still a considerable body of it.

Goodison v Sheahan

McCarron v Kearney

O'Leary v Maher

It should be noted that McCarron v Kearney created an inconsistency in rulings and at some stage that inconsistency will have to be resolved in the Supreme Court.

These would not be the only cases, but all are quoted in the Commissioner's Guidelines under 'Good Reason'.

rrpc

I am now going to have a closer look at the 'is this firearm the only one appropriate for the purpose it's required?" question.

The first thing to consider is the obvious one; Well, is it?

Before we look at that, we need to decide how we are defining the purpose. Unlike 'good reason' we can't just point to our club membership and say "I'm a member here so I must have this firearm" because it's not the only firearm (obviously) you can use at that club. Effectively this eliminates the 'plinker' because it's much harder to argue the need for a particular firearm when you're usage of it doesn't define a specific calibre and model.

There are a small number of CF pistol sports being run in this country at the moment. Since the demise of practical shooting, those that remain include WA1500 and its derivatives under the auspices of the NASRPC and ISSF 25m Pistol under the auspices of the NTSA. (If i've left anything out it's because it hasn't had any prominence in either matches or publicity).

The obvious answer is that these sports are exclusively centre fire pistol sports. Coincidentally the minimum calibre for these is .32" and in the case of ISSF the maximum is .38". None allow .22 rimfire obviously.

So from the point of view of calibre and in relation to particular sports, the answer is yes, a centre fire pistol is the only one appropriate.

To get more specific, we also must ask the question; is the particular firearm the only one suitable for the purpose? This time the answer is no, because many different firearms will fit the bill once they tick the boxes to meet the rules of the competition or sport.

This leaves the decision tree at a point where you could conceivably have a Chief Superintendent pulling out a catalogue and showing you nice pictures and asking which one you'd like :rolleyes:.

Not really likely.

Well not quite. We've seen them reply to people with centre fire pistol applications with Annex F of the guidelines and saying: "pick one of these instead" :eek:. Apart from misspelling the NTSA's name and misrepresenting the OCI, those that chose this course of action have left themselves open to ridicule in court. I know one individual who had already got an 'Annex F' approval offered another one instead of a CF pistol. So what his Chief Superintendent was saying was: "I don't think that one's suitable for the purpose, but you can have two of these"

Very considered :rolleyes:

In some ways this strikes me as being somewhat like planning laws. You apply for planning permission and the local authority asks you for further information. The information requested limits the local authority from asking you for other information after you respond and so you whittle down the possible requests with each subsequent one.

In any case, I digress. The point here is that as of now, or more particularly as of the inception of section 3D, the only firearm available for the purpose is the one you currently hold. Any Chief Superintendent who uses this particular section as the basis for his refusal runs the risk of being asked in court for his advice as to what he would reasonably consider to be a suitable replacement.

Because there aren't any.

But as with the local authority, because he hasn't questioned your 'good reason' he has now limited himself to (as Judge Clark put it in O'Leary v Maher) being an 'arbiter of style'.

And he's effectively said you've a good reason for the pistol, just not that particular one.

QED

meathshooter

a couple of months ago I email the issf with a question could I use my pistol which I use for bullseye and 1500 the reply I got was if it a certain size and weight which is written in the issf rulebook http://www.issf-shooting.org/theissf/rules/english_rulebook.ashx the short story was I could as my personal choice .I checked it and it meets the rules of the issf and I could use my 1911 pistol if I wanted to in issf 25m centre fire pistol

Sparks

I could use my 1911 pistol if I wanted to in issf 25m centre fire pistol

Only if it's .38 caliber or under.

bunny shooter

So are we conceding that in order to have firearms for "target" shooting we have to be shooting in comp.s ?

Will club comp.s be sufficient ?

Or do we all have to qualify for/attend international comp.s ?

Looks like going to the range to shoot some paper for "fun" is not good enough :rolleyes:

meathshooter

Sparks wrote: »

Only if it's .38 caliber or under.

mine 9mm

meathshooter

bunny shooter wrote: »

So are we conceding that in order to have firearms for "target" shooting we have to be shooting in comp.s ?

Will club comp.s be sufficient ?

Or do we all have to qualify for/attend international comp.s ?

Looks like going to the range to shoot some paper for "fun" is not good enough :rolleyes:

no I'm not conceding it takes a long time to get to a standard of shooting no one can(in my case anyway doesn't stop me enjoying myself) and in the short time that we have had pistols we have produced some great shooters that's the sad part world class shooters gone with a stoke of a pen they ought to be ashamed of themselves its a injustice

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

So are we conceding that in order to have firearms for "target" shooting we have to be shooting in comp.s ?

That's not quite what rrpc said - he said if you're in a sport that uses CF, you need CF. But if all you want to do is plink at tin cans, you don't need a .45, a .22 would do equally well, that's just reality.
If you wanted to shoot PPC1500 or WA1500, a .22 won't do, that's equally reality.

But competing isn't part of that - I can play golf my whole life and never train for the US Open, if you follow me.

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

That's not quite what rrpc said - he said if you're in a sport that uses CF, you need CF. But if all you want to do is plink at tin cans, you don't need a .45, a .22 would do equally well, that's just reality.
If you wanted to shoot PPC1500 or WA1500, a .22 won't do, that's equally reality.

But competing isn't part of that - I can play golf my whole life and never train for the US Open, if you follow me.

There was a question mark

Just that it seems the "good reason" lads are offering, namely club membership & attendance, is not acceptable to some CS's :rolleyes:

Therefore, are we to assume competitions is a "good reason" and the only "good reason" was my point ?

Why can't you plink or as you say shoot tin cans with a C/F ?

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

There was a question mark

:pac:

Therefore, are we to assume competitions is a "good reason" and the only "good reason" was my point ?

I would seriously hope not - that would mean the majority of the ISSF shooters in this country and every other country have no good reason to own a firearm!

Why can't you plink or as you say shoot tin cans with a C/F ?

You can. You just don't need one to do so. But to shoot a CF sport (even if you never compete), you do need a CF pistol. It's like the golf analogy - you might never compete in the US Open, you might just play a round every other month on your own for fun, but you still need the clubs....

bunny shooter

I agree with you BUT all that means is that the powers that be will/may tell centrefire pistol/revolver owners to shoot rimfire disciplines as you don't have to shoot centrefire ones................... :eek:

Unfortunately there is no requirement to licence golf clubs Otherwise I'd be allowed 4 and no more according to my Super :P

Sparks

Yup, but now we've crossed over into the territory where the Gardai regulate sports...