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

BornToKill

rowa wrote: »

i believe that some people have already spoken to the parties that will form the next government about fair legislation , time to get really organised .

Did they get to meet John Deasy?

SIG

Rowa.

I agree.
But lets get going an form an action group well in advanceof the end of this administration.

rowa

BornToKill wrote: »

Did they get to meet John Deasy?

no but the other t.d. flanagan from fine gael was very scathing of aherns legislation during the debate in the dail , i think deasy was just looking for a hobby horse to ride to get his name in the media , and anyway aherns legislation went much further than even deasy wanted . pat rabbitt also defended us during the debate and seemed to have a very level headed position .

SIG

rowa wrote: »

no but the other t.d. flanagan from fine gael was very scathing of aherns legislation during the debate in the dail , i think deasy was just looking for a hobby horse to ride to get his name in the media , and anyway aherns legislation went much further than even deasy wanted . pat rabbitt also defended us during the debate and seemed to have a very level headed position .

Rowa,

Just what we need to be doing. Talking to level headed politicians NOW.
Lets get a MOVEMENT going now. These need to be planned in advance, not sticking plaster affairs.

supermac

rrpc wrote: »

They are renewals. Anyone saying otherwise has neither read the firearms acts nor understood them. Section 9 of the 1964 Act is the operative piece of legislation and it's still in force and was even updated under the 2009 act.

I challenge anyone to point out that part of the firearms act that says you don't renew every three years. In fact here's the bit that says you do, and that's also been updated in 2009:



Your firearms certificate was extended and then you applied for a renewal of it. The fact that the form is the same as for a new application does not stop it being a renewal.

these are NOT renewals, it,s a completely New application for a gun licence.!!!What planet are you on.???:(

rrpc

BornToKill wrote: »

I don't know about the renewal v. new application but I don't see that the extract from the Firearms Act establishes your position. This is a provision for the future. Any certificate granted will be of three years duration (so therefore the new three-year cert.) and may be renewed.

Ohh! a debate! Lovely

The temporary subsection that allowed for extensions says:

(f) The Commissioner shall notify each holder of a relevant firearm certificate of the new date of expiry for that certificate determined under this section and shall invite each such holder to apply in due course under this section (as substituted by section 30 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006) for a new 3 year firearm certificate within a prescribed timeframe before the new date of expiry.

Now you can say that "under this section" means a new application, but it can also mean a renewal as that's also contained in section 3. "a new 3 year firearm certificate" can mean just what it says: that it's a new 3 year as opposed to an old 1 year certificate, not a new application for a firearm certificate.

Furthermore in subsection 8 it says this:

(8) The holder of a firearm certificate may apply for renewal of the certificate within three months before it ceases to be in force.

Now since everyone that got an extension was informed that they had three months to apply before the expiry date of their extension it follows that that application would be for a renewal.

I accept that the 'prescribed time frame' in subsection 3 could be the three months but only a renewal meets both tests of a certificate being in force and a three month time frame to reapply.

On that basis a Garda Inspector or Sergeant could renew the firearms certifcates for all non-restricted firearms.

rrpc

supermac wrote: »

these are NOT renewals, it,s a completely New application for a gun licence.!!!What planet are you on.???:(

Earth. Where are you from?

And if so, please be so kind as to provide support from the firearms act. We don't do hyperbole backed by bluster here

BornToKill

rrpc wrote: »

Ohh! a debate! Lovely

The temporary subsection that allowed for extensions says:
Now you can say that "under this section" means a new application, but it can also mean a renewal as that's also contained in section 3. "a new 3 year firearm certificate" can mean just what it says: that it's a new 3 year as opposed to an old 1 year certificate, not a new application for a firearm certificate.

Section 30 CJA 2006 was only a very temporary measure to make the transition arrangements. I think applications are governed by s43 CJA 2009. I'll take a look tomorrow but, for now, it's too late to debate.

I concur with m'learned friend:

supermac wrote: »

these are NOT renewals, it,s a completely New application for a gun licence.!!!

rrpc

SIG wrote: »

Renewal , means that you have something renewed. I.E. the Permit you had is re-issued. your car licence is renewed, your golf club membership is renewed. This is not what is happening.
What IS happening is that each one of us is being asked to justify / explain / support an APPLICATION. See NARGC / Balbriggan issue.

If it was a renewal then this would not be necessary.

Ah no, really?

Application for a renewal will be in the prescribed form

FCA1 in a word.

The information required from an applicant is virtually the same from new to renewal.

(8) Before renewing a firearm certificate, an authorised member shall be of opinion that the conditions to which it is subject have been complied with and will continue to be complied with during the period for which the certificate is renewed.

In other words you have to provide all the same supporting documentation that you did when you first applied.

Oh and all this was provided by Michael McDowell. The only thing he didn't do was actually commence the legislation he wrote.

Dermot Ahern did that for him.

rrpc

BornToKill wrote: »

Section 30 CJA 2006 was only a very temporary measure to make the transition arrangements. I think applications are governed by s43 CJA 2009. I'll take a look tomorrow but, for now, it's too late to debate.

That's what I quoted. Remember my rollup? And we are in the midst of said transition arrangements which were not in 30/2006 because it hadn't been envisaged back then as to how to carry it out.

Section 30 2006 was completely replaced by section 43 2009. Absolutely nothing remains of it or the original section 3 of 1925.

So it's all brand spanking new and highly relevant.

It no longer exists in the rollup or law

SIG

Devious laws - watch

When I received my 'extension of licence' I got a letter . I did not get a licence, therefore I HAD no licence in my hand. My plan to shoot in Scotland proved that. PSNI wanted a licence. BYE BYE laddie .

The wording in the letter is such that I had to apply 3 months before my licence elapsed for a renewal. FACT

They are playing with words.

Even if you take the wording to mean that your permit/licence was now valid for another 3 months, I having received an extention to the 30Th October 2009, I was already out of time when I did receive the extention letter on the 3rd Ausust 2009.

Does a Catch 22 style sound far fetched now !?.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

While I completely agree with your assessment rrpc, you might want to let the DoJ, Gardai and several others know about that because they've been saying the exact opposite for a little while now...

It did cross my mind a couple of times, but the reality is that it's a difference without any real distinction. Even if a Sergeant could possibly sign off on a licence renewal, the reality would be that the chain of command would be respected and they would defer to the Super in any case other than the downright bolshie.

I'm in a bolshie mood tonight

Which is why I'm bringing it up. There may be someone reading this of a legal persuasion who might like to file it away in his armoury for when he's in the District Court with a refused client. It may have a bearing in some situations.

freddieot

Just to throw fat on the fire...

As the Commissioner has agreed to allow substitutions for firearms which are being covered by extension then it seems logical that you can't subsitutute for something which you don't already have a licence or authority for.

Therefore, I agree with the Renewal rather than New assessment.

civdef

This is something I've been saying for ages:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=63072241#post63072241

Sparks

civdef wrote: »

This is something I've been saying for ages:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=63072241#post63072241

Actually, rrpc, what happened to change your mind between the post just after civdef's there and your earlier one here?

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

Actually, rrpc, what happened to change your mind between the post just after civdef's there and your earlier one here?

Nothing

There's no conflict between what I said on that thread and what I'm saying here. I said it was an application for a renewal, which it is.

As I said earlier, it's a distinction without any real difference for all the reasons stated. However (as I also said) it may have some bearing in a DC case which is why I brought it up.

knowall

daveob007 wrote: »

the word WEAPON crops up yet again SPORTING FIREARMS is the correct term for our equipment.

I am really going to puke the next time someone mentions sporting firearms.Come on lads get your heads out of the sand,we all know that the chinese did not invent guns to fire at paper targates on the range.Yes I too have a pistol,now in storage,and some of the equiptment that Ive seen on the ranges would make Dirty Harry green with envy.Lets face it out of the 1800 licences issued,how many left their licences lapse.Yes they wanted a handgun licence,but by not turning up on their ranges they cut the stick to beat themselves.The amount of handguns licensed does not match the attendances at ranges.

Rew

knowall wrote: »

I am really going to puke the next time someone mentions sporting firearms.Come on lads get your heads out of the sand,we all know that the chinese did not invent guns to fire at paper targates on the range.Yes I too have a pistol,now in storage,and some of the equiptment that Ive seen on the ranges would make Dirty Harry green with envy.Lets face it out of the 1800 licences issued,how many left their licences lapse.Yes they wanted a handgun licence,but by not turning up on their ranges they cut the stick to beat themselves.The amount of handguns licensed does not match the attendances at ranges.

Were surrounded by military technologies that are now used for something else now. Target shooting is around as long as guns are. If were going to pull our heads out of the sand then there are a **** load of sports that are in trouble. Javelin, archery, fencing, all martial arts etc. even marathons have military roots for gods sake.

hk

Rew wrote: »

Were surrounded by military technologies that are now used for something else now. Target shooting is around as long as guns are. If were going to pull our heads out of the sand then there are a **** load of sports that are in trouble. Javelin, archery, fencing, all martial arts etc. even marathons have military roots for gods sake.

as does the TINTERNET, boards will be next, using military technology!

murph226

knowall wrote: »

I am really going to puke the next time someone mentions sporting firearms.Come on lads get your heads out of the sand,we all know that the chinese did not invent guns to fire at paper targates on the range.Yes I too have a pistol,now in storage,and some of the equiptment that Ive seen on the ranges would make Dirty Harry green with envy.Lets face it out of the 1800 licences issued,how many left their licences lapse.Yes they wanted a handgun licence,but by not turning up on their ranges they cut the stick to beat themselves.The amount of handguns licensed does not match the attendances at ranges.

Did you have a weapon certificate for you pistol or a firearm certificate?

Dvs

knowall wrote: »

Lets face it The amount of handguns licensed does not match the attendances at ranges.

This argument seems to have no bearing in practice on the pistol licenses that have been refused, range attendance and competition participation did not appear relevant in the eyes of the Garda during the decision making process.

Dvs.

Sparks

knowall wrote: »

I am really going to puke the next time someone mentions sporting firearms.Come on lads get your heads out of the sand,we all know that the chinese did not invent guns to fire at paper targates on the range.

I'm pretty sure the Chinese didn't invent firearms full stop. There's a record for the original idea of using a propellant to fire a projectile coming from Germany in the 1300s, but the first recognised cannon, the madfaa, was invented by the Arabs. The chinese are generally credited with the invention of gunpowder, not cannon (though the Koreans get the nod for gunpowder-rocket-powered archery, which is close, a sort of medieval MLRS system called the hwacha).

As to saying they're not "sporting firearms", look, it's like this. My pistol is for target shooting. It's a firearm, not a weapon, because "weapon" implies intent. Not all weapons are firearms, but all weapons are intended by their wielders to cause harm to another person, by definition. Which is a crime in our country. So if you want to confess, go for it - but don't go accusing me of a crime, if you wouldn't mind.

The amount of handguns licensed does not match the attendances at ranges.

I know the number of competitive shooters is not as high as the total number of shooters, but the total number of people who whack a ball round a golf course or on a driving range is larger than the number of professional competitive golfers too. So unless you have collated numbers of people who show up on their range once a fortnight or so to shoot recreationally, you don't really have any legs to stand on here.

knockon

knowall wrote: »

I am really going to puke the next time someone mentions sporting firearms.Come on lads get your heads out of the sand,we all know that the chinese did not invent guns to fire at paper targates on the range.Yes I too have a pistol,now in storage,and some of the equiptment that Ive seen on the ranges would make Dirty Harry green with envy.Lets face it out of the 1800 licences issued,how many left their licences lapse.Yes they wanted a handgun licence,but by not turning up on their ranges they cut the stick to beat themselves.The amount of handguns licensed does not match the attendances at ranges.

You sound like my C.S. and not someone involved in "Sporting Firearms". There is your cue ....hock it up!

love to shoot

well said knockon .

knowall

are you trying to say that you should be entitled to have all the handguns that you want and any calibre?Only a moraun would think like this

Sparks

knowall wrote: »

are you trying to say that you should be entitled to have all the handguns that you want and any calibre?Only a moraun would think like this

Why? If I want an air pistol to shoot olympic air pistol, then that's all the handguns I want and in any calibre. And if I want to shoot olympic 25m smallbore, that's another pistol (.22cal, 5-round magazine), and if I want to shoot olympic 50m pistol, that's yet another one (.22cal, single-shot). Why shouldn't I be able to have all three?

knowall

murph226 wrote: »

Did you have a weapon certificate for you pistol or a firearm certificate?

yes for a few years

Grizzly 45

?

Only a moraun would think like this

It's MORON btw;):D

Sparks

rowa

does knowall possibly mean that we were never going to be allowed to keep our pistols after the the doj/gardai/minister decided that we might hurt ourselves with them ?
it is said that we copy what the uk does sooner or later , and it certainly does look like it as the legislation introduced is very like the british system , referees etc .