National Press - Pistol Appeals [read MOD NOTICE in post #6 before posting!]

meathshooter

Blazher wrote: »

Thats going to cost.

I think a fund of some type would be good. As we all know its all of our interest for this to get its full day in court!

this will probably go all the way to the high court and above didn't really expect much from the district court anyway my sympathies to pat Its gutting whats been done. a true sportsman and law abiding citizen been told you cant continue in your chosen sport what is becoming of this country and whats next.there are details of a fund on the nasrpc web site.

rrpc

meathshooter wrote: »

this will probably go all the way to the high court and above didn't really expect much from the district court anyway my sympathies to pat Its gutting whats been done. a true sportsman and law abiding citizen been told you cant continue in your chosen sport what is becoming of this country and whats next.there are details of a fund on the nasrpc web site.

To be fair, that's a personal decision Pat has to make, he's not some sort of stalking horse for the rest of us. There are issues of personal privacy involved in being the first one to take such a case and it's his decision as to whether he wants to subject himself and his family to that level of public scrutiny.

bunny shooter

Tough call, for anyone tbh

bunny shooter

Do/can we know the reason/s for the refusal? I would have thought he had a very good case tbh

deerhunter1

rrpc wrote: »

Don't expect someone else's District Court appeal to have any bearing on another one unless it's to the same District Court Judge. The DC is not a court of record so each case will stand on its own merits.

correct and right will only apply to the individual or other cases that come under the same judge,needs to be a high court case

supermac

bunny shooter wrote: »

Do/can we know the reason/s for the refusal? I would have thought he had a very good case tbh

it was a Very complicated issue, too long to discuss here.!!!

murph226

supermac wrote: »

it was a Very complicated issue, too long to discuss here.!!!

I've got all day Mac!

bunny shooter

supermac wrote: »

it was a Very complicated issue, too long to discuss here.!!!

Have to wait for the papers version so

Sparks

Merging threads to keep stuff tidier...

tonysopprano

supermac wrote: »

it was a Very complicated issue, too long to discuss here.!!!

Supermac, can you elaborate more (about your use of a capital V, in very)

I think that the grounds of the refusal are very important to us all, can you shed some more lite?

Bananaman

bunny shooter wrote: »

Have to wait for the papers version so

I would take the papers version with a pinch of salt.

Although 'we' may be reticent to discuss our sport or tools in the public arena the Minister will have no such qualms.

We are virtually garaunteed that there will be a few stories primed by the DOJ/Gardai to crow about the Judiciary supporting the Minitsers position and keeping the streets safe for everyone by upholding the decision of Ch. Super such and such.
Our friend in the Indo would be the first one to print what he is handed no doubt.

Whereas a DC decision does not create a precedent in law it could create a trend in decision making. That should, however, not cause people to lose hope. If you take part in Target Shooting, howsoever, with the firearm you seek to re-license, then you have a valid argument - the state, gardai and courts have not yet outlawed target shooting, as a sport. Talk to your club and/or NASRPC to benefit from the group wisdom on these matters.

The case in question was indeed a very good case to bring and I am sure was based on sound and fair argument. He would have fought the good fight and whereas it is of course a personal decision, I have no doubt the good fight will continue.

It does not bode well, particularly for that district, that the argument could not persuade the Judge that our sports are just that - sports - and that our security, vetted by the Gardai and as yet un-breached - is insufficient.

As to the matter of funding. As pointed out by an earlier poster, NASRPC have a pledge fund. You can get details of it from your club or from their website.

B'Man

milkerman

Very sorry to hear of this decision - so bloody unfair and yes the law can be an ass and goes out of it's way to prove the point from time to time.
As a matter of interest, were all the firearms fullbore or did it include any .22 guns?
I have said it before, we just have to wait until we can be rid of this arrogant bunch of *ssholes and hope that the next government are more reasonable. The Gardai's treatment of decent citizens leaves a LOT to be desired also.

bunny shooter

Bananaman wrote: »

I would take the papers version with a pinch of salt............

I will and do

It is a dark day. Very dark indeed.

I surrendered my 9mm a few months ago after getting a nod and a wink from a few people "in the know". Thought that they might be wrong but looks like they were right

The senior Gardai, Supers & Chief Supers are responsible for the current treatment of the shooting community and the courts are backing them up BUT are they just taking orders from their paymaster/s, the minister and/or the civil servants in the DOJ ?

The Clash song that says "I fought the law and the law won" seems appropiate here.

Fighting this new draconian law is not the answer changing or removing it is !!!!!

meathshooter

remember there has been a number of centrefire pistols successfully licensed not many but they have been licensed but are these been done as some sort of strategic ploy by the gardai

BornToKill

bunny shooter wrote: »

The Clash song that says "I fought the law and the law won" seems appropiate here.

It does? Are you sure? 'Robbin' people with a six-gun, I fought the law and the law won'.

Sparks

BornToKill wrote: »

It does? Are you sure? 'Robbin' people with a six-gun, I fought the law and the law won'.

Ah, it's only a six-gun. Nowhere near as dangerous as a nine mm...

rowa

its not fighting the law anyway , its fighting how its being interpreted and enforced , roll on the next general election , i'll be at the polling station door at 7.30 with my card in my hand doing my bit to get rid of this load of offal AHern included .

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

Ah, it's only a six-gun. Nowhere near as dangerous as a nine mm...

Yes but you'll have to plug one of the cylinders :rolleyes:

Bananaman

Nobody needs to fight the law.

I own a centrefire pistol - I am not in breach of the law -I never have been - I do not need to fight it.

I still qualify under the new law - I have done no wrong - my firearm has done no wrong.

If I am refused - I will fight the mis-application of the law.

B'Man

BornToKill

rrpc wrote: »

Yes but you'll have to plug one of the cylinders :rolleyes:

Ha Ha!

happyjack

Your all bananas, my twopence worth is this, they picked the fight,
the Gardai want total control, and nothing else.

Very angry about this new bit in the CJB that gardai of any rank think they can enter my castle without a warrant, what kind of a country do we live in, this is scary stuff, what do you suggest lads if Gardai call around unannouced looking to enter for tea and biscuits without a warrant?

Just because I own a gun the Gardai now have the power, at least they think they do to come into my house without a warrant, I didn't notice this the first time I read the CJB.

Whats your assorted opinions on that?

Also guys taking district cases need our support, I'm game for a good laugh at anything myself, but todays a bad day for us, the wars not over though, theirs still a few good torpedos in the water that might hit their mark yet.

I reckon we'll win given time and win big, cause the High Court and Supreme Court should'nt be as inclined to kiss ass.

When the going gets tuff the tuff get going, this things not over yet lads.

I liked that song years ago, duke box in Ballyb blasting it out on a Saturday night.

Anything worth while was never got easy and if it was folks hadnt any value on it, we'll win cause were right and also because we're being blagguarded beyond belief, and when we do win it will be all the sweeter cause of the hard work getting their.

Shakespeare, "Sweet are the uses of adversity"

Theirs another side to this coin, all the military crap was thrown out today yet again, that in itself is a victory, it's not all bad.

That said I'm of the opinion that folks who havent a proven target shooting history should not take cases to court, to easy to lose and most likey will make us look bad in the eyes of the courts, make us look like messers.

Fair play to PH today for giving a good fight and not backing down.

Rovi

tonysopprano wrote: »

Supermac, can you elaborate more (about your use of a capital V, in very)

I think that the grounds of the refusal are very important to us all, can you shed some more lite?

Much as we'd all (myself included) love to know the nitty-gritty details of the cases presented and the reasoning behind the judgement, I'd STRONGLY suggest that such specific details NOT be posted here or anywhere else in the public domain.

It's been said here many times before but it's worth saying again: this is an open public forum, and the DoJ, the Gardai, and the esteemed members of the press all lurk in the shadows here, all looking for titbits of useful information with which to pursue their agendas. Needless to say, in the vast majority of cases, their agendas do not concur with those of shooting sports enthusiasts.

While it runs contrary to our ethos here of open discussion on all things to do with sport shooting in Ireland, hard experience has shown that the above named actors are utterly amoral and have absolutely no qualms or scruples about using whatever (dis)information they can get by any means to further their objectives.
I ask everyone to bear this in mind specifically when responding to this thread, but also when posting anything in the forum generally.

Sparks

happyjack wrote: »

Very angry about this new bit in the CJB that gardai of any rank think they can enter my castle without a warrant, what kind of a country do we live in

The kind where that sort of thing goes unnoticed for five years?

what do you suggest lads if Gardai call around unannouced looking to enter for tea and biscuits without a warrant?

"Thank you very much for calling round, would like a cup of tea?" would be my idea of a good response there. You could ask them to go away and come back later, but frankly, do you need that much hassle in your life?

Just because I own a gun the Gardai now have the power, at least they think they do to come into my house without a warrant, I didn't notice this the first time I read the CJB.

It's worse than you think. The range inspector (or his deputies) may enter any place or vehicle, at any time, if he believes there's target shooting happening somewhere other than an authorised range. They require no warrant and cannot be refused entry (the same as for customs agents).
There was no definition in law of what "target shooting" is when that was written though...

Whats your assorted opinions on that?

In the main shooting forum, open "Important Threads" and read the CJB2004 and CJA2006 threads for those opinions.

I reckon we'll win given time and win big, cause the High Court and Supreme Court should'nt be as inclined to kiss ass.

Yes, that'd be Dunne v Donohue, which we won in the High and Supreme Courts after years of effort, lots of money and considerable risk... and it was overturned with a one-line amendment buried in the miscellaneous section of a criminal justice bill.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: You cannot use the Judiciary as a stick to beat the Government with.

A fence to ensure noone goes completely off the reservation, yes, but not a beating stick.

Traumadoc

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1201/1224259803866.html

Samson

Traumadoc wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1201/1224259803866.html

Target-shooter loses appeal to keep guns

by Olivia Kelleher

A TARGET-SHOOTER, who claimed a Garda decision to refuse him licences for six high-powered competition handguns was like asking Pádraig Harrington to tee off in the US Masters with a hurley, yesterday lost an appeal of his case at Cork District Court.

Patrick Herlihy, who lives in the Carrigaline area of Co Cork, held licences for the weapons for four years. However, tightening up of firearms legislation earlier this year led to the refusal in October by gardaí in Cork to renew his licences for the Sig Sauer pistols and Smith and Wesson revolvers.

The appeal was effectively a test case for Irish gun owners who face losing handguns under Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern’s new crackdown on gun licences.

The Firearms Act enacted last August effectively banned all handguns and short-barrelled weapons with the exception of Olympic competition .22 calibre guns.

Mr Herlihy who is a member of the Shooting Sports Association of Ireland told Judge David Riordan last month that he needed all six guns to compete in various World Association 1500 precision pistol competitions.

He said he could not understand how the Garda Síochána had granted him licences for firearms for four years, but now suddenly regarded the weapons as a threat to society.

The court heard the weapons are always disassembled and locked away in safes when they are not in use.

Chief Supt Michael Finn, who turned down Mr Herlihy’s application for the firearms said his decision not to grant the licence was not in any way related to the applicant himself but arose out of a legislative change. He said public safety was paramount and that it was not in the interest of society to have such weapons in the hands of non-military or police personnel.

Meanwhile, ballistics expert, Det Insp Kevin Brooks, said the firearms for which Mr Herlihy applied for a licence for were of the type used by German and Dutch police as well as members of an Garda Síochána. He said the firearms were primarily associated with military and police use and were for “practical shooting.” He added the weapons were “combat” in nature and could cause devastation if they got in to the wrong hands.

Judge Riordan described Mr Herlihy as being a man of “exemplary character” but said that the legislative intent was to tighten the control on firearms.

He refused Mr Herlihy’s appeal application paying regard to the lethal nature of the weapons and the change in firearms legislation.

rowa

how can det insp kevin brooks stand up in court and say that the guns were for "practical shooting" when practical shooting is outlawed here ? if patrick said that the guns were intended to be used for wa1500, he had proof that he had shot such competitions .
the press at it again too,everything is "high powered" from pellet guns to .50 bmg :rolleyes: .

meathstevie

The fact that you're a law abiding gun owner gives the Gardai more powers to enter your house than they have to enter the house of a known scumbag, at least they need reasonable suspicions and most of the time belief to do that.:mad:

bunny shooter

A travesty :rolleyes:

Have they read the new legislation or are we missing something ?

Remember we were told "restricted is NOT prohibited"...................ya right

Sparks

Actually, the range inspector could enter any house of any criminal drug dealer searching for evidence of target shooting that wasn't taking place on an authorised range, without needing a warrant or to announce the inspection ahead of time. So the new firearms laws could, in theory at least, help crack down on gun crime... :rolleyes:

rowa

as the judge refused mr.herlihy's appeal application can he take it any further in the courts ?