>Compensation<

happyjack

How hard would it be for a few hundred shooters to take a case looking for compensation because they were either;

1/ Forced to get a safe even though as a one gun owner they did not need one under the old and new firearms law.

2/ Forced to hand a gun to be crushed because they were refused a renewal unless they they got a gun vault they could not at that point in time afford, one gun owners.

3/ Target shooters who were made fit expensive alarm systems and still refused their renewals.

4/ Get refunded for paying costly storage where under current firearms law it should not of been needed. eg; some RFD charge as much as 120 per year for a pistol!

5/ Shooters forced to sell kit under the going rate at a loss because the CJB was not applied fairly.

6/ Any particular type of case where a shooter has lost money.

What you think lads, I reckon the time is ripe.

premier1

getting people to stand with you will be the hard part .i agree with you in full and would be willing to help if you get it up and going ,getting shooters to pull together... as in the safe and alarm it should be there just for your own safety. the rest i agree with as do many more count me in, the law should be the same all over i have some refusals myself as people in other county have no prob. the right to be equal is your right why should it differ from county to county

rrpc

happyjack wrote: »

How hard would it be for a few hundred shooters to take a case looking for compensation because they were either;

1/ Forced to get a safe even though as a one gun owner they did not need one under the old and new firearms law.

Only single shotgun owners don't have to have a safe, all other firearms require one. Even then, the law specifies minimum standards of security so a Super or Chief Super can ask for a higher standard.

2/ Forced to hand a gun to be crushed because they were refused a renewal unless they they got a gun vault they could not at that point in time afford, one gun owners.

They're not forced to get it crushed, they could leave it with a dealer or put it on a club authorisation until they could afford a safe. Bearing in mind also that most people have had a minimum of three months to get their security in order and that it has always been a good idea to have a safe, not just now.

3/ Target shooters who were made fit expensive alarm systems and still refused their renewals.

That's what's wrong with the system IMO; that you have to have the security in place before you get a licence which runs completely counter to natural justice. The UK always stipulate that you are not to effect any security upgrades until you've got your licence granted, but you can't get the firearm until you have the security. That's the proper way to go about it. Strangely enough, the requirement for a firearms dealer here is that the work is only done after the dealer's licence is granted.

4/ Get refunded for paying costly storage where under current firearms law it should not of been needed. eg; some RFD charge as much as 120 per year for a pistol!

To be honest, that's not bad, I've heard a lot worse! The law allows you three choices, get it destroyed, sell it or get it stored. Where you have such a range of choices, it becomes difficult to make a good claim for costs.

5/ Shooters forced to sell kit under the going rate at a loss because the CJB was not applied fairly.

Which comes under the heading above. It's not a good set of choices, but at least there's a choice whereas in 1972 there was none.

I wouldn't bet my house happyjack, there could be a case made on the security issue as it's putting the cart before the horse and placing an undue burden on people that may turn out to be unnecessary in the unhappy event that they are refused. But there's no such thing as a 'class action' in this country; everyone has to bring their own case on it's own merits and banding together will have no effect other than providing a support group.

BornToKill

happyjack wrote: »

1/ Forced to get a safe even though as a one gun owner they did not need one under the old and new firearms law.

2/ Forced to hand a gun to be crushed because they were refused a renewal unless they they got a gun vault they could not at that point in time afford, one gun owners.

Under the Secure Accommodation Order you have to have a gunsafe - the only exception is where you have one single solitary non-restricted shotgun. Before embarking on legal action, which is not something to be entered into lightly, be very sure of the ground.

happyjack

I wouldn't bet my house happyjack, there could be a case made on the security issue as it's putting the cart before the horse and placing an undue burden on people that may turn out to be unnecessary in the unhappy event that they are refused. But there's no such thing as a 'class action' in this country; everyone has to bring their own case on it's own merits and banding together will have no effect other than providing a support group.[/quote]

Not a bad idea, a support group for folks who feel that they have been shafted by the Gardai. I still reckon that thousands of firearms have been crushed in this country because the Gardai pushed the requirement overly hard for gunsafes, it should have been phased in. Again I'll repeat, the Gardai are ignoring the fact that you do not under the CJB need a gun safe if you only own one shotgun, plus lots of guns were confiscated whilst we under the supreme court win that guns safes were not a legal thing. So back date those cliams. Has anybody out there been told there single shotgun license would not be renewed unless they fitted a safe and or alarm? If so please come forward. I think a lot of these cases will come from farmers and not target shooters, but if you feel that you were made to hand a gun in cause of made up gun law, come forward, lets start a support group and action group.

I'm am not stating that folks should not fit safe storage arrangements, what I'm saying is that just because your short on money for awhile it's been made a sort of crime to be hard up. By making shooting a rich mans sport, fewer folks will apply for licenses. So please ask around, who do you know that lost a shotgun cause the Gardai insisted on an instant gun safe fitted, time frame, last ten years.

We need to stick together and help each other out.

HJ:)

happyjack

premier1 wrote: »

getting people to stand with you will be the hard part .i agree with you in full and would be willing to help if you get it up and going ,getting shooters to pull together... as in the safe and alarm it should be there just for your own safety. the rest i agree with as do many more count me in, the law should be the same all over i have some refusals myself as people in other county have no prob. the right to be equal is your right why should it differ from county to county

Thanks for your support, I believe that there are a lot of folks around the country that used to own one shotgun and because of the Gardai forcing their own made up version of the law they lost their guns, in some case heirlooms that we're decades in the family. I believe a lot of folks got guns crushed or handed in rather than buying a gun safe. These shooters hopefully would now be able, with support to take compensation claims to the cost/ value of the gun crushed or needlessly sold or put in storage.

It is still being applied here in my county, if you refuse to get a safe for a single gun the Gardai will refuse to renew or issue the first license, this is now and always was unlawful. A really good friend of mine was asked to fit a monitored alarm to his house for two guns, lives in a good area, never broken into, excellent background and no criminal offence ever, he was told, no monitired alarm no license renewals, the Ban Garda did'nt have a clue about firearms law, but was still quick to make up the requirement to fit 1000 euro alarm to his house.

Most applications here take 6 months to process, thats a lot of expense in storage fees.

And then theirs the "We've lost your application", in a Police Station! All your personal details about you owning guns, where you live etc, I've heard this over a dozen times down here, happened three times to me personally.

So who out there wants to consider applying for compensation?

Maybe then it might stop happening.

HJ:)

BornToKill

happyjack wrote: »

if you refuse to get a safe for a single gun the Gardai will refuse to renew or issue the first license, this is now and always was unlawful.

Did you read the Secure Accommodation Order I linked above? It is not unlawful. Again, it's only for a single shotgun that you may not be required to have a gunsafe but even then a Superintendent can require a higher level of security. That isn't making up the law - that is the law!

happyjack wrote: »

I believe that there are a lot of folks around the country that used to own one shotgun and because of the Gardai forcing their own made up version of the law they lost their guns, in some case heirlooms that we're decades in the family. I believe a lot of folks got guns crushed or handed in rather than buying a gun safe.

'I believe the children are our future ...' Have you anything to base any of this on? The only handing in guns I've heard of has been in the last couple of months and even then it's been voluntary and more to do with the three year fee or the new form than anything else.

gunhappy_ie

To be honest i dont see what the crib about gettin a gunsafe is, sure people are hard done by the new firearms act myself included but whatever firearm you have. Be it a heirloom or an airrifle you SHOULD have a gunsafe if not for legal reasons then for moral reasons !

rrpc

happyjack wrote: »

Again I'll repeat, the Gardai are ignoring the fact that you do not under the CJB need a gun safe if you only own one shotgun, plus lots of guns were confiscated whilst we under the supreme court win that guns safes were not a legal thing.

The judgment of Justice Keane in Dunne v Donohoe did not prevent a Superintendent from requiring a gun safe of a particular applicant for a particular firearm. It held that there could be no blanket preconditions applied either to all firearms licences in the country or even all licences within that district.

However, even if he could be regarded as having exercised an independent judgment in the matter, I am satisfied that a superintendent who imposed a precondition in the case of all applications for the grant or renewal of firearm certificates that the applicant should, at the least, instal a gun safe and have it available for inspection, would be acting ultra vires the provisions of the 1925 and 1964 Acts.

That legislation empowers the superintendent to grant the firearm certificate where he is satisfied as to three matters i.e., that the person has a good reason for requiring the firearm, can be permitted to possess, use and carry it without danger to the public safety or to the peace and is not one of the persons disentitled by the statute to hold a firearm certificate. For a superintendent to add, in effect, a fourth condition, by requiring every applicant to provide a gun safe which would be available for inspection by the gardaí, would be to place the applicants in the same position as if, in the case of that particular district, the Oireachtas had so prescribed by primary or secondary legislation. Neither the Commissioner nor the district officers have been empowered by the legislature to impose such preconditions.

Finally Section 4(5) of the firearms act states:

The Minister, in consultation with the Commissioner, may by regulations provide for minimum standards to be complied with by holders of firearm certificates in relation to the provision of secure accommodation for their firearms.

westwicklow

happyjack wrote: »

We need to stick together and help each other out.

HJ:)

We wouldn't stick together in a barrel of tar!

happyjack

BornToKill wrote: »

Did you read the Secure Accommodation Order I linked above? It is not unlawful. Again, it's only for a single shotgun that you may not be required to have a gunsafe but even then a Superintendent can require a higher level of security. That isn't making up the law - that is the law!


A lot of folks were made to hand in guns over the last ten years for not having a gun safe, the gun safe law was brought in under criminal law recently, but if you know your facts you will know that the Gardai invented a gun safe law and it was appealed to the supreme court by the NARGC and they lost, in spite of that they still refused new or existing licenses and guns were crushed, hundreds of them, needlessly and unlawfully.

It is a very rare Police force that invents firearms law as they go along, ours did in the past and still are, also remember the 30 day custody order? It lasted 32 years and was unlawful. I still maintain that shooters are being refused licenses for a single shotgun unless they fit a gun safe and that is unlawful.

Now are you a shooter and if so what type of shooting are you into? and how long are you at it?

EastTyrone

could we not get the shooting organisations to put up a grant as such that will help firearm holders to obtain such safety measures

Sparks

EastTyrone wrote: »

could we not get the shooting organisations to put up a grant as such that will help firearm holders to obtain such safety measures

(1) Where would they get the money? Most shooting organisations are funded via their members, so we'd be paying them to pay us...
(2) Why should they be the ones? If anyone has any form of moral (as opposed to legal) culpability here, it's not the shooting organisations, but the DoJ and Gardai, whom we're already paying our licence fees to...