Numbers of Appeals

Kimber

Sparks wrote: »

Well, firstly we're talking about looking to make it possible to take new applications, so the lack of people shooting it in Ireland isn't an issue; and secondly, weren't you the one arguing last night that anyone in the country with a fullbore could shoot this right now? How many .38s and 9mm pistols are out there? True - but the PPC shooting groups have pretty much screwed the pooch on the PR side. If they hadn't, and everyone in the country knew we had Irish PPC shooters ranking in the world's top ten, I'd fully agree with you. But until that gets fixed, the best approach from a PR standpoint is the ISSF side because of the work done over the past decade on PR by the NTSA and its clubs. And if you want to roll back a law, PR's got a large part to play. And after it gets fixed, the good PR that ISSF shooting enjoys is still going to be an asset.

Sparks,
Thanks for info on .32.
Totally agree with the PR,
I said this years ago. Went to the states and Trained as an Instructor.
Part of the Curriculum was Public Relations for Shooting and swaying the mind set of the public.

Nobody listened then. For a while I actually thought maybe I was the problem trying to hard. When I raised a concern for posing for photos with hand guns in hand and standing in a row with no uniformity. I was more or less told to shut up.

The wrong image was given out. Don't get me wrong I am not knocking people here but I am knocking that Public Relations was not adopted then. It was a dimension not taken on board and also I suppose no one saw the long term picture. If it was, today's fiasco may be different.

Going forward this is a dimension we must embrace.
In 2 years from now I know I will be typing "I said this 2 years ago".

For argument sake, lets say Centre fire Pistol amongst the Shooting Community ceases this year.

Rim fire Pistol will be focused on again in the future. Mark my words.
Why because the Shooters will apply for "Non Restricted" .22 Competition Pistols.

In 2 years from now. There will be a press release or a Parliamentary Question emanating from a murder on how many Hand Guns are in Ireland. The reply will depend on how many of us purchase the Competition Pistols on the CJB List.

It will exceed 1800 in a few years. Bet your bottom dollar.
No matter if it is .22 Pistols in Ireland then. It will be dressed up in the media as a gun culture in Ireland akin with the US.
Oh yes- The media will use archive photos of a Glock 9mm or probably some archive footage of IRA stashes with an m-60 on a Tri-Pod in the background for good measure..
The media don't give a rats arse about our sport. Bad news sells the paper. No more no less.

I have had to deal with the media on NON Gun Related issues and they are just scare mongers. They tried to sneak into a Facility in Limerick to get statements from high ranking directors. Thankfully Security caught them. But did they care that a Security Guard would loose his job if the media had gotten past him. No-they did not care if a person lost their job.

All Shooting Sports need to adopt this culture of improving the image of the sport.
We have done nothing to taint the image. Others will do that for us.
However we have not worked hard enough to improve the image either.

I have seen the PR from ISSF.
First Class, Crystal Clear. I don't see the Gun. I just see a Professional Sport.
PR job done.
Well done.

DMZ

Sparks wrote: »

Well, firstly we're talking about looking to make it possible to take new applications, so the lack of people shooting it in Ireland isn't an issue; and secondly, weren't you the one arguing last night that anyone in the country with a fullbore could shoot this right now? How many .38s and 9mm pistols are out there? True - but the PPC shooting groups have pretty much screwed the pooch on the PR side. If they hadn't, and everyone in the country knew we had Irish PPC shooters ranking in the world's top ten, I'd fully agree with you. But until that gets fixed, the best approach from a PR standpoint is the ISSF side because of the work done over the past decade on PR by the NTSA and its clubs. And if you want to roll back a law, PR's got a large part to play. And after it gets fixed, the good PR that ISSF shooting enjoys is still going to be an asset.

What sort of PR are we talking about, to benefit the sport or to benefit NTSA to the detriment of other shooting sports?

I think this is a reasonable question, as the way I see it now, is that no new centrefiire pistols can be certified, those who have had them are having difficulty getting them renewed if at all.

I believe we are the only country in Europe or indeed the world that defiens the type of firearm that can be licensed as an Olympic Style Pistol, approved by the Olympic Concil of Ireland.

If this is the good PR work done then you can keep it! Job well done from the smallest representative group in the country!

I noticed a post earlier by one contributor on this subject that has been pulled, I'd expect that the censor who pulled it will also pull this because it dares to get the core of the terrible situation faced by the shooting community.

rrpc

DMZ wrote: »

What sort of PR are we talking about, to benefit the sport or to benefit NTSA to the detriment of other shooting sports?

It being PR, presumably it'll be easy to point to this somewhere.

I believe we are the only country in Europe or indeed the world that defiens the type of firearm that can be licensed as an Olympic Style Pistol, approved by the Olympic Concil of Ireland.

That it'd be a real coup for Ireland if it were true. For the rest, try California, Canada, etc.

If this is the good PR work done then you can keep it! Job well done from the smallest representative group in the country!

Is that a sideways compliment for punching above one's weight?

sikasmicke

I Agree with DMZ, on my refusal from the CS he indicated that I could have a .22 Olympic Style pistol that was approved by the NTSA. Thanks a lot!

DMZ wrote: »

What sort of PR are we talking about, to benefit the sport or to benefit NTSA to the detriment of other shooting sports?

I think this is a reasonable question, as the way I see it now, is that no new centrefiire pistols can be certified, those who have had them are having difficulty getting them renewed if at all.

I believe we are the only country in Europe or indeed the world that defiens the type of firearm that can be licensed as an Olympic Style Pistol, approved by the Olympic Concil of Ireland.

If this is the good PR work done then you can keep it! Job well done from the smallest representative group in the country!

I noticed a post earlier by one contributor on this subject that has been pulled, I'd expect that the censor who pulled it will also pull this because it dares to get the core of the terrible situation faced by the shooting community.

IRLConor

sikasmicke wrote: »

I Agree with DMZ, on my refusal from the CS he indicated that I could have a .22 Olympic Style pistol that was approved by the NTSA. Thanks a lot!

Permanently banned for using a duplicate account.

rrpc

sikasmicke wrote: »

I Agree with DMZ, on my refusal from the CS he indicated that I could have a .22 Olympic Style pistol that was approved by the NTSA. Thanks a lot!

People (including the Gardai) are getting completely hung up on this list in Annex F of the guidelines. That last word should give an indication of exactly what standing the list has in law: NONE.

That bears repeating; the list in Annex F is a guideline list as an aid to interpreting 4(2)(e)(iii) of SI 21/2008 as amended by SI337/2009. That's excatly one third of the exceptions to pistols being restricted and has led to the most unbelievable decisions by Gardai who seem to be treating the guidelines as the law; which it most assuredly is not.

I have heard of people being told that air pistols: 4(2)(e)(i) and single shot .22 pistols: 4(2)(e)(ii) are restricted because "they're not on the list" :eek:

If the list had been published as an SI as was originally mooted (see this post) then it would be a different matter, but as it's a guideline, the SI is the primary piece of legislation governing this aspect of licensing.

In other words, from a legal standpoint, the list is meaningless. People need to remember this and keep it in the shotlocker if they have an appeal coming up which concerns a .22 pistol which has been deemed restricted and refused. Even where such a pistol has been deemed restricted and granted, there is still the issue of it being deemed restricted and all the hoopla that accompanies that.

I don't think anyone felt that the list was a 'good idea' or that it would be at all helpful. The fact that it's not law should be uppermost in people's minds and that the SI is the important part.

Cass

I'm stating the obvious and trying to keep within the theme of the thread.

Would the number of refusals, hence appeals not be reduced if a more thorough method of accepting pistol licenses were to be introduced. When an applicant enters his local station with his pistol application he should be taken to one side and processed seperately. The FO (and i'm not blaming them) should ask certain questions or if necessary have the firearm inspected there. Check that the firearm meets the criteria of either a restricted or an unrestricted application. Then attach a note to the application stating that the firearm was inspected and although not on the list is under the law an unrestricted (or restricted as the case deems it) firearm.

I say this in response to the amount of lads saying how their applications are being treated, refused as restricted firearms when they are clearly not. If the exact nature of the firearm was established prior to going up to the Super (or Chief Super) irrespective of being on the list or not it may cut down on the number of lads being refused and having to take pointless appeals.

Now i don't know if a person can have the refused status of their application overturned by a Super if they show the firearm is indeed an unrestricted or when a decision/refusal is made it is set in stone pending an appeal.

rrpc

ezridax wrote: »

Now i don't know if a person can have the refused status of their application overturned by a Super if they show the firearm is indeed an unrestricted or when a decision/refusal is made it is set in stone pending an appeal.

This is the interesting bit, we had a discussion earlier about whether a Chief can usurp a Superintendent's authority and I felt that he can't which leads into this area.

If a non-restricted pistol is treated as restricted incorrectly and this decision is made at Garda level, there could well be a case to make either that the Chief was acting ultra vires and/or that incorrect criteria were used to decide on the application; as retricted firearms applications have two extra criteria that must be satisfied.

I'm not so sure if the same would hold if the applicant incorrectly applied for a restricted firearms certificate because the decision (and responsibility) as to what type of licence to apply for rests with the applicant.

Cass

rrpc wrote: »

I'm not so sure if the same would hold if the applicant incorrectly applied for a restricted firearms certificate because the decision (and responsibility) as to what type of licence to apply for rests with the applicant.

There is that point to it. I'm going under the assumption (i know) that each individual knows his/her firearm and the category under which it falls and in knowing this has marked the FCA1 appropriately.

Would a decision be able to be overturned without an appeal if the refusal was made in error, in other words refusing a .22 unrestricted firearm on the basis that it was processed as a restricted firearm.

rrpc

ezridax wrote: »

There is that point to it. I'm going under the assumption (i know) that each individual knows his/her firearm and the category under which it falls and in knowing this has marked the FCA1 appropriately.

There have been plenty of ancdotes of Gardai telling people to amend their FCA1 form even though it was correctly filled out.

Would a decision be able to be overturned without an appeal if the refusal was made in error, in other words refusing a .22 unrestricted firearm on the basis that it was processed as a restricted firearm.

I don't think so. Once you're refused, the appeals process kicks in and you're into court. However, where the firearm is non-restricted, there's no time limitation vis a vis 19/11/2008 so in theory you could apply again once the firearm was in a dealer's safe. You could still end up in court if the Gardai refused to accept the application as non-restricted and you'd have to get a ruling on that.

Edit: I strongly suspect that at some stage, 4(2)(e) will be tested in court to determine what exactly it means. This would probably entail a visit to the High Court with bucketloads of witnesses and could quite conceivably have pistol manufacturers giving evidence.

Cass

rrpc wrote: »

There have been plenty of ancdotes of Gardai telling people to amend their FCA1 form even though it was correctly filled out.

Tell me about it. A lad i was speaking to recently told me how the normal FO was out sick, and the young lad in his place made him change the calibre on his shotgun application from 12g to o/u.

I don't think so. Once you're refused, the appeals process kicks in and you're into court............. You could still end up in court if the Gardai refused to accept the application as non-restricted and you'd have to get a ruling on that.

That answers one aspect of it but confuses me on another. If the firearm is quite clearly unrestricted, how ( an i'm not really expecting you to answer) can the Gardai refuse it as restricted. I posted in another thread that unles there is a new "restricted - unresricted list" (firearms that are unrestricted but the Gardai want licensed as restricted) they really don't have a leg to stand on. And as you yourself pointed out the "list" they seem to be using as a yard stick, is only a guideline but is being enacted a matter of law. How can these cases be allowed go to court. If a chap is standing in front of a judge, shows his firearm is clearly unrestricted should the judge not direct the Gardai to properly categorise the applications to stop the wasting of court time and tax money fighting appeals.

This leads me back to my original question. Why not put a proper, more thorough method of pistol application examinations in place prior to the application going to the Super/Chief Super for approval/refusal.

rrpc

ezridax wrote: »

That answers one aspect of it but confuses me on another. If the firearm is quite clearly unrestricted, how ( an i'm not really expecting you to answer) can the Gardai refuse it as restricted.

I'll try . The first step is to try and prevent it getting to the application stage in the wrong form. If they're insisting that a particular firearm is retsricted and you believe it not to be, you could enlist the help of the FPU or your NGB in the process. You should do everything in your power including having the relevant legislation to hand to bolster your case. Only after you've exhausted all such avenues should you allow it to go forward with your objections noted on the form or seperately in writing. That way, you'll have evidence of your objections on file for a court appeal if necessary.

I posted in another thread that unles there is a new "restricted - unresricted list" (firearms that are unrestricted but the Gardai want licensed as restricted) they really don't have a leg to stand on. And as you yourself pointed out the "list" they seem to be using as a yard stick, is only a guideline but is being enacted a matter of law. How can these cases be allowed go to court. If a chap is standing in front of a judge, shows his firearm is clearly unrestricted should the judge not direct the Gardai to properly categorise the applications to stop the wasting of court time and tax money fighting appeals.

I actually believe that having no list would be better. That way (flawed as it is), the definition in 4(2)(e)(iii) would have to be followed and would allow for a bit more leeway than the current system seems to be presenting. In fact it would require Gardai to be cogniscant of all the parts of 4(2)(e) and not just one of them which should prevent the "air pistol is restricted because it's not on the list" scenarios.

This leads me back to my original question. Why not put a proper, more thorough method of pistol application examinations in place prior to the application going to the Super/Chief Super for approval/refusal.

I'm not sure what that would entail or whether it would improve things or not. You'd be (at the least) requiring that very many Gardai be equipped to adjudicate on the meaning of 4(2)(e)(iii) with respect to every .22 semi-auto pistol application and in fact with regard to most others under 4(2)(e).

Cass

Its one of those scenarios where i know the answer before i ask the question but as i'm no legal eagle i don't know how any of what i'm saying would/could or should stand up in law. Thanks for the explanation.

With regards to what you were saying on the applications........

If they're insisting that a particular firearm is retsricted and you believe it not to be, you could enlist the help of the FPU or your NGB in the process

...........i would be curious to know if any lads out there have came across either problem when applying. Have you had an FO or or member of the Gardai at any point in your application process insisting that your unrestricted firearm is actually a restricted one and not allowing you to apply for it as unrestricted. Then the other side. You filled in your FCA1, marked it as unrestricted, have had no communication in the assessing stage and received a refusal on your RESTRICTED firearm application.

rrpc

ezridax wrote: »

...........i would be curious to know if any lads out there have came across either problem when applying. Have you had an FO or or member of the Gardai at any point in your application process insisting that your unrestricted firearm is actually a restricted one and not allowing you to apply for it as unrestricted. Then the other side. You filled in your FCA1, marked it as unrestricted, have had no communication in the assessing stage and received a refusal on your RESTRICTED firearm application.

I know of two air pistol applications that were initially judged to be restricted (Sparks being one if I remember correctly) but were subsequently corrected due in no small part to the perseverance of the applicants coupled with assistance from the relevant NGB and the FPU.

In the latter case, there's a guy posted on this thread who's had a single shot .22 pistol restricted and refused when it seems that it falls under 4(2)(e)(ii). I don't know (as he didn't say) whether he applied as restricted, non-restricted or was changed subsequently but it could be a case in point.

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

Sparks being one if I remember correctly

You do, but in my case the FO called the FPU and it was sorted before I ever knew it was even a problem!

Cass

rrpc wrote: »

In the latter case, there's a guy posted on this thread who's had a single shot .22 pistol restricted and refused when it seems that it falls under 4(2)(e)(ii). I don't know (as he didn't say) whether he applied as restricted, non-restricted or was changed subsequently but it could be a case in point.

Could be the same person, if not its the same scenario with this guy......

Originally Posted by syconerd
hi everyone
I have been refused a licence for a single shot Thompson pistol .22 rimfire caliber the reason given is "I am not satisfied that you have shown good reason for requiring a restricted firearm where a non-restricted firearm will not fufil the purpose for which the firarm is required "
and they want to know when i will send them acceptable written evidence of permanent destruction of the firearm yeah right not before I appeal this and exhaust every avenue this is one guy who wont give up without a fight,..

.........i would like to hear from this guy again to see if he spoke to the Super/Chief Super/FPU/NGB and to see how its going. This, to me, is a blatant case of an application processed on wrong information/understanding.

Orogonally Posted by Sparks
You do, but in my case the FO called the FPU and it was sorted before I ever knew it was even a problem!

Case in point. Due to the competency of the FO, and using his initiative (and assuming that Sparks ticked all the right boxes on his FCA1) he passed the application up the chain of command and it was processed as it should have been. Had the FO not bothered to take the time Sparks could have found himself being refused and facing into a pointless and unnecessary appeal.

Sparks

I think my specific case isn't a great example though ezri, because (through my own fault) it was a real rush job to get my licences in the end. The FO and the system as a whole did manage to do it (four working days for the granting of the licences and two more for An Post to get the licences to me) but I can't say how much of that was routine and how much was down to my pushing it from the start.

Cass

Thats far enough Sparks, but my point is still a valid one (i think). Your FO seems to be alot like my own. My FO is a sports shooter himself. He knows about firearms, calibres, makes, models, restricted, unrestricted. He took the time to study up on the Act and the SIs as they came out, so when people came into him with or without the appropriate information, knowledge or correct forms, etc he was able to correct any mistakes there and then and when they were forwarded on up for processing/approval none were returned for more info, incorrect info or refused on wrong information (to the best of knowledge anyway).

It gives an applicant great peace of mind knowing that if the forms are filled in correct then they will be judged on their merits and not refused due to misinformation or incorrectly filled in FCA1s. The problem is through inexperience, lack of interest, lack of knowledge not all FCA1s are being examined before being sent on up the line.

Now i'm not suggesting that all applications be scrutinised, too long and would bring the system to its kness, but with pistols seeming to be the main bone of contention why not start there and if the need arise from another type/categroy of firearm take it on a case per case basis. How long would it take at the counter to ask the applicant:

Garda - "is this a restricted or non-restricted firearm application.
Applicant - "unrestricted"
Garda - Its for a .22 single shot pistol, correct"
Applicant - "yeah"
Garda - "under the SI337/2009 Article 4(2)(e) this falls under unrestricted. So i'll pass that on as an unrestricted application"

(Sorry for the child like dialogue)

It takes 30 - 60 seconds, and confusion, mistakes hence refusals and appeals are dramatically reduced. I'm not naive enough to think it will eliminate the problem but the Super will now get an application with a note from the FO saying "unrestricted application confirmed" , and it couldn't hurt.

Anyway, i think i've talked this one to death, and am just repeating myself at this stage. It could all be a moot point as its the Gardai that need to remedy their end and the applicants that need to make sure the FCA1s they are submitting are marked and filled in correctly. You don't want a situation were people are dropping in applications and then blaming the Gardai for not picking up on their (applicants) mistakes.

rrpc

ezridax wrote: »

Garda - "under the guidelines this falls under unrestricted. So i'll pass that on as an unrestricted application"

Except he'd be wrong as there's no mention of single shot unrestricted pistols in the guidelines :rolleyes:

Cass

Sorry, have guidelines on the brain, changing it now.

Sparks

ezridax wrote: »

You don't want a situation were people are dropping in applications and then blaming the Gardai for not picking up on their (applicants) mistakes.

You definitely don't -- problem is, that is precisely the way the system and legislation has been set up. Officially, the onus is on the applicant, not the Gardai, to get the form right.

Cass

This is what i was saying earlier about answering my own questions. As i was writing that line i thought to myself, this is the exact issue the Gardai will want to avoid, and by leaving the onus completely on the applicant they are doing so.

Think i'll try this whole thinking before writing thing.Might be worth a go.:o

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

You definitely don't -- problem is, that is precisely the way the system and legislation has been set up. Officially, the onus is on the applicant, not the Gardai, to get the form right.

Well that's the way we wanted it. The previous situation where the forms were guarded like the crown jewels and filled out for you left a lot to be desired.

Including things like not being able to fill in the ammo amount or the correct calibre or make/model. The presumption is that we should know best what we're applying for and why :rolleyes:

Sparks

I'd agree with you rrpc, if it wasn't for the way that filling out the form wrong can now become a criminal offence! I suspect the ideal is somewhere in between, where someone who knows what they're doing can do what they need to, but those who need help can get it and where making a mistake on a form doesn't lead to a criminal offence under the Act.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

I'd agree with you rrpc, if it wasn't for the way that filling out the form wrong can now become a criminal offence! I suspect the ideal is somewhere in between, where someone who knows what they're doing can do what they need to, but those who need help can get it and where making a mistake on a form doesn't lead to a criminal offence under the Act.

Only if it can be proven that you filled it out wrong on purpose. Which should be a criminal offence IMO because we're talking about a very serious breach of the law where firearms are concerned.

Although you raise an interesting point. What happens if your form is amended by a Garda and amended incorrectly and furthermore amended against your wishes (a propos my discussion with ezridax on restricted/non-restricted applications)?

Is that a criminal offence?

Sparks

The wording of the bit in section three keeps the Garda officer safe from prosecution in that case I think rrpc, from how I read it. And I agree, it is necessary to prove intent in the case of an error; but you'd have to do that in court and frankly, that's just not a pleasant thought to me, to go in front of a judge and argue as to my state of mind when I filled out a form (an act that might well have happened many months earlier). I mean, how do I prove what I was thinking when I filled in a form? What if I know something wasn't right, but was having a senior moment at the time (and let's face it, I've done dafter things)?

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

The wording of the bit in section three keeps the Garda officer safe from prosecution in that case I think rrpc, from how I read it. And I agree, it is necessary to prove intent in the case of an error; but you'd have to do that in court and frankly, that's just not a pleasant thought to me, to go in front of a judge and argue as to my state of mind when I filled out a form (an act that might well have happened many months earlier). I mean, how do I prove what I was thinking when I filled in a form? What if I know something wasn't right, but was having a senior moment at the time (and let's face it, I've done dafter things)?

I think in your case you'd have a blog somewhere to attest to your state of mind

Sparks

Possibly