firearm refusal

raptorman

Some people like cars others clocks, watches, horses etc. Why do guns get the bad brush.
I've said it before on here, some people have an in built fear of guns for some reason. It's like its instinctive.

Bananaman

Justice Charletons original decision to uphold a refusal for a firearms license was based on the fact that the applicant would not be able to keep it safe as he travelled the highways and byeways of Ireland (across the badlands) and that the public or Ireland would feel threatened if the license were to be issued (I believe - don't have it to hand - but I heard Dermo quote it often enough :-) )

Surely, a supreme court challenge to that decision, if won, would outline that
a) The People of Ireland would not feel threatened if the license were issued (and the legislative requirements met)
b) that it would be possible to travel to competitions with said licensed firearm without fear of roving hordes of bandits out in the badlands.

In essence copperfastening what we have said all along, that if a person is of suitable character to seek a license and implements the legislative requirements to 'hold' said firearm, that the 'public safety' should not be a valid reason to refuse. They will, of course, have to prove that they are using it for the reasons stated for requiring it in order to keep it.

Mr. Aherns also used this decision as one of the primary reasons for introducing the draconian legislation we now have.

So I would not discount the case or the value of a positive outcome from it.

People need to be, and seen to be, using their firearms for the reasons we argue are valid to have them - namely regular target practice and/or competition - people seeking to have it simply because they want it only skew the figure and provide too many indefensible positions which makes it difficult to argue for the defensible ones.

B'Man

raptorman

Oh I agree, we have to play with the hand of cards we're dealt, I was just stating my personel opinion.
On the other side though, I think we should have to prove to be of sound mind and charecter to own a gun and pass a competency test.

Sparks

raptorman wrote: »

I think any sane individual should be allowed own whatever type of firearm they wish.
I also think one should have a psychologists exam and pass a firearms course of some kind.

Nice idea, let down by the twin details that (a) a psychologists exam doesn't exist and (b) a firearms course that covers all firearms doesn't exist...

I certain level of IQ wouldnt go astray either.

Oh believe me, you don't want to go there

Sparks

raptorman wrote: »

I started of with a .22 CZ and a few tin cans. Purely for the fun of it. Surely someone can own a handgun because they like shooting it? Doesnt seem unreasonable to me.

Because they like shooting it? Sure. Because they want to own it? Nope.
There's a difference and it only appears to be a subtle nuance. It's actually a Great Big Screaming Thing.

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Justice Charletons original decision to uphold a refusal for a firearms license was based on the fact that the applicant would not be able to keep it safe as he travelled the highways and byeways of Ireland (across the badlands) and that the public or Ireland would feel threatened if the license were to be issued (I believe - don't have it to hand - but I heard Dermo quote it often enough :-) )

I think one of us is confusing a more recent District Court judgement in Donegal with Charleton's High Court judgement?

Surely, a supreme court challenge to that decision, if won, would outline that
a) The People of Ireland would not feel threatened if the license were issued (and the legislative requirements met)
b) that it would be possible to travel to competitions with said licensed firearm without fear of roving hordes of bandits out in the badlands.

Depends on the grounds for appeal really.
But frankly, while Charleton's decision is odious and should be consigned to the shredder (and so an SC appeal is a good idea), the outcome won't come to bear on the current DC appeals because the Charleton case was heard in the context of the law pre-2006; we're two Firearms Acts along now, it wouldn't have any real application in our current context.

'public safety' should not be a valid reason to refuse.

Except that there's no way the SC could ever say that because 'public safety' is the foundation stone for all the basic prerequisites for a firearms licence. So if they ruled that 'public safety' wasn't a valid reason, they'd be ruling that the Firearms Acts weren't necessary.

Mr. Aherns also used this decision as one of the primary reasons for introducing the draconian legislation we now have.

And you think that the case being overturned would lead to the Misc.Bill being struck down? Seriously? You think he'd do something that was that damaging to his political career when the dogs on the street can smell the next election coming up?

I think maybe you're making the mistake of assuming that someone who's ignored logic up to this point would suddenly start using it now...

People need to be, and seen to be, using their firearms for the reasons we argue are valid to have them - namely regular target practice and/or competition

Absolutely, completely agree with you on that one. We've had way too much legislation and far too little competition in the last few years

rrpc

McCarron v Kearney was an unusual case in that the applicant believed that once he had applied for a licence and was not ineligible he should get it.

He argues in this judicial review application that once he has decided in good faith to buy a weapon that it must be licensed by the respondent provided he is not a person who is ineligible under the Act to hold a firearm and provided he has been trained to safely use it.

The refusal centred on 'Good reason' and in particular the applicant not having provided sufficient good reason other than effectively being 'entitled'

[ I ] outlined to him that I was not satisfied that he had a good reason for acquiring a .40 Gloc pistol in respect of which the certificate was applied for, s. 4(a) of the Firearms Act, 1925, as amended refers. My reason for this is that I do not believe that the firearm for which the application refers is a suitable weapon for target practice.”

Nowhere in the judgment does it specify what good reason the applicant had provided other than 'target practice'. There may have been submissions in this regard but they are not referred to. It does go on to say:

The applicant says that he is aggrieved by the refusal to allow him to have this high calibre pistol because so many of his shooting friends already have them

The kernel of the judgment was this:

I hold that under the legislation there is a duty on an applicant for a firearm certificate to satisfy a superintendent that he or she has a good reason for requiring the firearm in respect of which the certificate is applied for. The specific wording under the Act makes it clear that considerations of public safety, the good order of the community and the proliferation of weapons within a particular district, and within the community generally, are all matters which the superintendent of An Garda Síochána can and should take into account

There are some errors in the judgment, one paragraph mentions telescopic sights being considered firearms (the mistake many people here have made with the new form) :eek:, but it was not the best of cases in the first place and I'm not exactly sure where the grounds are for an appeal other than on a point of law such as the use of the uncommenced sections of the 2006 act as grounds.

As to how it may affect future DC appeal, I wouldn't be betting my house. Many of the refusals given lately are far better cases than McCarron v Kearney.

cooperjeff9

Sparks wrote: »

So if they ruled that 'public safety' wasn't a valid reason, they'd be ruling that the Firearms Acts weren't necessary./quote]

The penny finally drops,hooray. No doubt you will now explain WHY the Firearms Acts are necessary:(

Sparks

cooperjeff9 wrote: »

The penny finally drops,hooray. No doubt you will now explain WHY the Firearms Acts are necessary:(

Because there are people in this country whom none of us would trust with anything as dangerous as the remote control for the television, let alone a firearm.

Look, you want a firearm to do something sane with it? And you're going to do it safely? Grand, away you go. And I don't particularly care what kind of firearm it is, so long as you're being safe (it's pretty hard to be safe when shooting rats in a barn with a .50 cal, so stupid suggestions like that are out from the start). But the notion that anyone could just go out and buy any kind of firearm like it was a box of cornflakes is just monumentally stupid. There have to be some controls. We're just not mature enough as a population to do without those controls. We all point to the swiss as examples of how firearms aren't inherently bad things, but we fail to point to the Irish as examples of stupid immature behaviour when we do so; hence the need for some controls.

Mind you, the controls we have are an example of how the Irish Government tends to be an aggregation of little hitlers worried about keeping their ministerial merc's, but that's not an argument to throw the entire Firearms Act idea out as being daft.

Saddlebags

"McCarron v Kearney was an unusual case in that the applicant believed that once he had applied for a licence and was not ineligible he should get it."

This is indeed the case that's before the Supreme Ct in January (deferred from 30/11/09).

My belief is that the only positive affect of this case if won is that those people who had High Ct JR's before 19/11/08 but had not yet got to hearing stage may still be dealt with.
If McCarron wins, then pre existing challanges may go ahead in the High Ct and may then be referred back to the Gardai for review of their original refusals. A lot of if's and may's. A last shot in the dark for a small number of people.

rrpc

cooperjeff9 wrote: »

The penny finally drops,hooray. No doubt you will now explain WHY the Firearms Acts are necessary:(

I think that Judge Charleton put it quite well:

The purpose of licensing is to have control over firearms. It would not be right for this Court to construe the Act in such a way that the controls put in place by the legislature are abdicated in favour of a test of choice as if a firearm is not a lethal weapon and is something other than a most dangerous article. That is what the legislation is there to control. It is not within the legislative scheme to issue a firearm certificates to any individual simply having a genuine desire to hold a particular weapon for sport, no matter what its calibre, the velocity of its projectile or its especial killing potential. Nor do I regard it as right in law, as has been submitted on behalf of the applicant, that a person must first establish a poor safety record in using firearms before a refusal can be made under s. 4. I also reject the proposition that a superintendent is only entitled to refuse a certificate for a gun if an owner has already been shown to be negligent in securing or conveying it.

As Sparks said they're not packets of cornflakes. The problem from our point of view is to differentiate the cornflake eaters from the genuine shooters and have a system that is able to distinguish one from the other.

happyjack

As Sparks said they're not packets of cornflakes. The problem from our point of view is to differentiate the cornflake eaters from the genuine shooters and have a system that is able to distinguish one from the other.

Well said, I'd suggest that if a person wanted a target firearm of some sort, say a centerfire pistol that they should have to join a club and attend 6 shoots in the first year, after that year the club secretary would decide if they felt that person was really interested in target shooting or just looking to use the system to gain a firearms license. When other target shooter got to rub shoulders with the applicant they could see if the person was safe, showed to comps, and really was interested in target shooting. I reckon the gun jewellery brigde would'nt bother going to that much trouble to get a license. It's doing our cause a lot of harm that a lot of restricted firearms owners have no interest in using their guns on approved ranges, if the figures where smaller, say only those truly interested in target shooting maybe the Gardai would'nt have been so scared of issueing licenses. thats my opinion anyway.

HJ:)