Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Organise appeals by county

Options
2»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,385 ✭✭✭murph226


    A friend of mine got his refusal letter today for a 22 revolver:rolleyes:

    Forgot to add, he had " all the boxes ticked".


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    Seems the FPU have no "teeth" now either :rolleyes:

    I got same answer on my moderator refusal :(

    That was the only thing of any use to come from the FCP. Now it seems more than ever that was a complete waste of time
    Bunny, have you ever actually read the firearms acts?

    Nobody can tell an issuing officer what to do. The Commissioner can issue guidelines, the district court can overturn a decision, but the decision to grant or refuse is that officers to make and only his or hers.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,053 ✭✭✭BornToKill


    rowa wrote: »
    a publically announced "ban" by him in his area should get him suspended or sacked

    Do you have a link to this publicly announced ban? I must have missed that announcement. Thanks.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,096 ✭✭✭bunny shooter


    rrpc wrote: »
    Bunny, have you ever actually read the firearms acts?.

    Yes, and your point is ?
    rrpc wrote: »
    Nobody can tell an issuing officer what to do.

    Agreed, but "he who pays the piper calls the tune" seems appropiate
    rrpc wrote: »
    The Commissioner can issue guidelines.

    Guidelines :rolleyes:.................I am going to use my copy as loo paper same as some Supers and Chief Supers are
    rrpc wrote: »
    the district court can overturn a decision

    and in the real world ........................ ?
    rrpc wrote: »
    but the decision to grant or refuse is that officers to make and only his or hers.

    So why have guidelines and legislation ?

    Don't piss on me and tell me it's raining :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    Yes, and your point is ?
    You obviously don't retain well so ;)

    Jeez, did you have to chop what was a small post in the first place in to so many tiny pieces??? I'm not sure what I meant any more :confused:
    Agreed, but "he who pays the piper calls the tune" seems appropiate
    Back to the firearms act with you so, with a quick pitstop at Dunne v Donohoe on the way :)
    Guidelines :rolleyes:.................I am going to use my copy as loo paper
    Ooooohhhh! Hope you didn't use that heavy bond paper to print them out on :D
    and in the real world ........................ ?
    We've only seen one case so far, January's going to be a busy month from what I hear, and guess who's got jury duty that month? :D
    So why have guidelines and legislation ?
    So far, and I'm open to correction on this, I don't recall hearing of any laws being broken. There certainly isn't a "thou shalt apply and verily thou shalt get a licence forthwith" in the firearms act.*

    *Please read this in the spirit of bunny and I taking pot shots at each other in the absence of bunnies and targets. It in no way reflects on any person living, dead or in limbo on a shooting range or their aaplication and/or grant or refusal of said application.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,296 ✭✭✭rowa


    BornToKill wrote: »
    Do you have a link to this publicly announced ban? I must have missed that announcement. Thanks.

    it was contained in the letter of refusal given to one of the former centrefire pistol owners on here , and i think the chief super in question is not particularly shy about what he says on the matter.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    rowa wrote: »
    it was contained in the letter of refusal given to one of the former centrefire pistol owners on here , and i think the chief super in question is not particularly shy about what he says on the matter.
    I don't think it was in the letter rowa. It was mentioned in the post that it was said, but it transpired that the letter didn't contain any such wording. I remember asking at the time and it being confirmed that the letter was the standard one.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,296 ✭✭✭rowa


    rrpc wrote: »
    I don't think it was in the letter rowa. It was mentioned in the post that it was said, but it transpired that the letter didn't contain any such wording. I remember asking at the time and it being confirmed that the letter was the standard one.

    my mistake .


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,096 ✭✭✭bunny shooter


    rrpc wrote: »
    You obviously don't retain well so ;)

    Memory (and hung) like an elephant :p
    rrpc wrote: »
    Jeez, did you have to chop what was a small post in the first place in to so many tiny pieces??? I'm not sure what I meant any more :confused:

    It makes it easier for people, like you seemingly, to digest my comments
    rrpc wrote: »
    Back to the firearms act with you so, with a quick pitstop at Dunne v Donohoe on the way :)

    Seems like more loo paper to me at this stage
    rrpc wrote: »
    Ooooohhhh! Hope you didn't use that heavy bond paper to print them out on :D

    Recession here, feeding loo paper into printer as it's ****e I'm printing onto it anyway
    rrpc wrote: »
    We've only seen one case so far, January's going to be a busy month from what I hear, and guess who's got jury duty that month? :D

    Pointless waste of time
    rrpc wrote: »
    So far, and I'm open to correction on this, I don't recall hearing of any laws being broken. There certainly isn't a "thou shalt apply and verily thou shalt get a licence forthwith" in the firearms act.*

    Same as no politican or priest has ever broken one :rolleyes: There are listed reasons when I can't have one so therefore why can't I if I ain't excluded by said reasons ?
    rrpc wrote: »
    *Please read this in the spirit of bunny and I taking pot shots at each other in the absence of bunnies and targets. It in no way reflects on any person living, dead or in limbo on a shooting range or their aaplication and/or grant or refusal of said application.

    Ya right :P


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    Memory (and hung) like an elephant :p
    Elephants never forget because they never remember anything to forget :p
    It makes it easier for people, like you seemingly, to digest my comments
    Well seeing as it was you that did the cutting...
    Same as no politican or priest has ever broken one :rolleyes: There are listed reasons when I can't have one so therefore why can't I if I ain't excluded by said reasons ?
    You're almost always given a reason for a refusal. You may not like it or agree with it, but its up to you to make something of it if you want to. If no reason is given then you get to have them trot into court and give one to the judge.

    Are you still going to court?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,096 ✭✭✭bunny shooter


    rrpc wrote: »
    ...............Are you still going to court?

    Got legal advice and the advice was "forget it ...................."


  • Registered Users Posts: 518 ✭✭✭knockon


    Got legal advice and the advice was "forget it ...................."

    I am dissapointed to hear that Bunny. The advice could not have come from a solicitor or did it? I can only speak for myself but I will fight tooth and nail starting with the appeal in early January. It might seem like a lot of hassle and cost but the decision to take on the State was not started by me but as sure as hell I will do my utmost to conclude it in a satisfactory manner (to myself).

    Lastly, both you and RRPC need to do dinner or something over Christmas!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,096 ✭✭✭bunny shooter


    Seems the "public safety" argument might be hard to overturn and a possible legal bill of €500ish is just a bit too much to swallow for the sake of a moderator :o

    RRPC would be welcome at my place for dinner anytime and we could discuss how all the things we were promised the FCP would achieve have come to nothing :P


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    Seems the "public safety" argument might be hard to overturn and a possible legal bill of €500ish is just a bit too much to swallow for the sake of a moderator :o
    I'll give you three good answers to the public safety issue and they're free :D

    1. High velocity rounds create a sonic crack which is non-directional, so people hearing you shoot won't know which direction it's coming from. They may as easily walk towards you as away from you.

    2. You've already been approved for a licence for a rifle to shoot game/vermin. If you're not capable of ascertaining if it's safe to shoot, you shouldn't have been given the licence in the first place.

    3. It's not up to walkers or other members of the public to take evasive actrion if you're shooting. It's up to you to make sure there's no-one anywhere near your line of fire before taking a shot. Whether you have a moderator or not will have no bearing on that procedure.
    RRPC would be welcome at my place for dinner anytime and we could discuss how all the things we were promised the FCP would achieve have come to nothing :P
    And I'd be happy to take up that offer :). Before I do, perhaps you'd outline those promises that were made and not kept and who exactly made those promises and when?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,612 ✭✭✭jwshooter


    there is a problem with the chef super , stating a mod on a fullbore is a danger to public safety.

    firstly and most importantly they would be talking MY professionalism into question also there bringing into question my capability to use and operate my firearm in a safe manor.
    therefore they are directly implying im not fit to use my firearm with a mod on it.
    why give me a licence for the firearm in the first place if there is any doubt in there minds of my capabilities.

    i would challenge them on these grounds .as basally there saying im unfit to operate a firearm.
    there lack of understand and knowledge of firearms/mods is outstanding .

    these people are being paid a large amount of money to enforce and be knolageable of the laws there being paid to enforce.

    but they are not .


  • Registered Users Posts: 653 ✭✭✭kakashka


    jwshooter wrote: »
    there is a problem with the chef super , stating a mod on a fullbore is a danger to public safety.

    firstly and most importantly they would be talking MY professionalism into question also there bringing into question my capability to use and operate my firearm in a safe manor.
    therefore they are directly implying im not fit to use my firearm with a mod on it.
    why give me a licence for the firearm in the first place if there is any doubt in there minds of my capabilities.

    i would challenge them on these grounds .as basally there saying im unfit to operate a firearm.
    there lack of understand and knowledge of firearms/mods is outstanding .

    .
    And if you lost such a challenge would the powers that be not be left with no choice but to revoke your gun licences?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,244 ✭✭✭rrpc


    kakashka wrote: »
    And if you lost such a challenge would the powers that be not be left with no choice but to revoke your gun licences?
    How? This isn't some game of jeopardy. The issue is whether or not you're fit to hold a firearms licence; they've already said you are by issuing it and renewing it for a number of years. Are they going to suddenly say they're wrong and they didn't understand what they were doing? :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 653 ✭✭✭kakashka


    rrpc wrote: »
    How? This isn't some game of jeopardy. The issue is whether or not you're fit to hold a firearms licence; they've already said you are by issuing it and renewing it for a number of years. Are they going to suddenly say they're wrong and they didn't understand what they were doing? :rolleyes:
    Is that not whats going on?have you not just outlined what is actually happening,several cases here where they have said they were wrong and refused to re licence supp???my point was that if its a competence issue and you lost your case how on earth could a judge let you walk out of court with a gun licence if your found to be unfit to hold a suppressor licence?? now i would also argue that you could not loose such a case if you already had gun licence,but your smarter than me rrpc,i use question marks for good reason...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 428 ✭✭Chipboard


    jwshooter wrote: »
    this is 3th hand but form a good source.

    the supers have been sent a memo, stating to licence pistols where the applicant and every thing in order .
    ie.
    a licenced pistol pre the cut off date , home security in order ,member of a pulse reg club etc.

    This is looking less and less credible by the minute.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,024 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    About as likely as Dermot Aherne taking up pistol shooting!!!:rolleyes:

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • Advertisement
Advertisement