Supreme Court Appeal [READ POST 115 BEFORE POSTING]

rowa

has there been any good news cases from the district courts lately ? there must be a glut of them coming up in the next while .

meathshooter1

good news on one cant post details still ongoing but can say refusal was overturned,there are a good few cases coming up in the district court over the next few weeks keep the fingers crossed

CeeBeeYou

Mine is adjourned 'til September at Chief Supt.'s request.

rowa

CeeBeeYou wrote: »

Mine is adjourned 'til September at Chief Supt.'s request.

can you request to have the case adjourned yourself ? i am at college and can't afford to retain a solicitor now but can in a few months time when the year is over.
i don't want to let the pistol go forever just because of money.

Rovi

Probably best to talk to your NGB for specific advice on your particular situation.
Are you a member of NARGC or NASRPC? They've both got access to legal professionals.


edited to add:
If your application has been refused, you must lodge your appeal before the 30 day limit expires. It'll go into the court diary at that point and will be called in due course.
Adjournments can and have been granted, but it'd be best to get professional advice on how to go about doing it.

Tricky1127

CeeBeeYou wrote: »

Mine is adjourned 'til September at Chief Supt.'s request.

I know of two others adjourned untill after they come back from summer break...??? Why would the Chief Supt want to do this..?? both of them came B4 the court in mid Jan/2010

rowa

Tricky1127 wrote: »

I know of two others adjourned untill after they come back from summer break...??? Why would the Chief Supt want to do this..?? both of them came B4 the court in mid Jan/2010

could it be they are waiting to see if the tide has turned against them and the courts are overturning their refusals to issue licences ?

Tricky1127

Hi Rowa, Both of them are finding it hard on there lifes! the courts the money and the stress of it all
Going to court for most people isn`t the norm and then to have it hanging over your head

quigley

An appeal can be tough going but one should remember the following:

1. The CS Refusal is not personal - review his reasons outlined on the refusal letter. Your subsequent appeal will turn on these reasons - so it is not your character that is being argued in Court, rather it is the destruction of the CS's generally spurious reasons.
2. Despite the stress of the situation, you are fully entitled, as a citizen of a Republic where the writ of law still applies to appeal what you percieve is a WRONG decision by a member of the Gardai.
3. Before all else, agree a fee with your solicitor - at least you are then sure of your financial exposure. You should also discuss with your solicitor the possibility of seeking costs in the event of a successful outcome.
4. The Appeal itself is a legal game, played out by both sides to achieve a result - you should expect that the CS might well seek to have your case put back - remember two can play that game - as an attempt to frustrate you; however there will come a day when it will be heard by the Court. There is a lot of gamesmanship involved, but as the Texas Executioner said - "its not personal, its business!"

Really, what I am trying to say is that if you feel that you have strong arguments to refute the reasons for refusal put forward by the CS, you should appeal. Look at it this way, if nobody appeals, then the politics of the sound-bite has won, despit what is stated in law.

chem

rowa wrote: »

could it be they are waiting to see if the tide has turned against them and the courts are overturning their refusals to issue licences ?

OR waiting a change in law. Can Mr. Murphy and the Minister for justice, not declare types of firearms as especially dangerous, and so ban them? This might be the next move on the chess board

And in doing so, alot of court cases, will have no grounds to go ahead.

Tricky1127

chem wrote: »

OR waiting a change in law. Can Mr. Murphy and the Minister for justice, not declare types of firearms as especially dangerous, and so ban them? This might be the next move on the chess board

And in doing so, alot of court cases, will have no grounds to go ahead.

Thats an non-runner because of the fast one pulled in the early 1970`s and people today aren`t going to let it happen again :cool:

meathshooter1

chem wrote: »

OR waiting a change in law. Can Mr. Murphy and the Minister for justice, not declare types of firearms as especially dangerous, and so ban them? This might be the next move on the chess board

And in doing so, alot of court cases, will have no grounds to go ahead.

and if they do that they will have to compensate handgun owners but to me its not about the money I would deeply miss the enjoyment I get from the sport .they already had the chance to ban outright and the gardai are whittling away with the numbers as we speak how many handguns certs have been granted How many just handed theres up,they have the sport at its knees,No new centrefire pistol certs ,peoples club memberships ticking away,cant train in my chosen sport,cant compete because of no cert,Pistols in storage costing money,alarm monitoring fees ,solicitors fees etc,Baning world recognized shooting sport ,some people haven't even been giving a reply from the chief supers on there applications,We are vetted law abiding citizens in the first place what have we done to deserve this treatment Criminals are treated better and better armed thats another matter and has noting to do with our sport.I just hope when we get a new government they will see the difference but I fear there all the same at the end of the day promise the moon and stars and I have seen noting so far that will change that

quigley

What Chem suggests may happen in future has always been a possibility, but I think you can only play the hand you are dealt ie the law as it now stands, and appeal if you feel you have a strong enough case. A future Govt with FG input does not offer any greater hope if one is to judge by the comments of Mr Deasy on this topic - (something I find strange in a party that always potrayed itself as the party of Strong Property Rights and Strong Law)

rowa

to be honest i was wondering if it was or is going to be worthwhile having a centrefire at all now that there are so few of them about, i do love shooting the thing and and it is completely different to shooting a rimfire pistol .
but will the clubs be running competitions , would it be worth their while either ?

Bananaman

chem wrote: »

OR waiting a change in law. Can Mr. Murphy and the Minister for justice, not declare types of firearms as especially dangerous, and so ban them? This might be the next move on the chess board

And in doing so, alot of court cases, will have no grounds to go ahead.

Ever hear of Chicken Licken?

They are not prohibited - the Minister cannot change the law to suit his personal whims in order to subvert the course of Justice - once a case is lodged before the courts the courts will eventually hear it make a determination.

You either want to achieve your license to continue in the sport or you don't - if you do then you have a right of appeal for your refusal - which you can avail of or not.

rowa wrote: »

to be honest i was wondering if it was or is going to be worthwhile having a centrefire at all now that there are so few of them about, i do love shooting the thing and and it is completely different to shooting a rimfire pistol .
but will the clubs be running competitions , would it be worth their while either ?

NASRPC have a full competition calendar outlined for 2010 which has National Centrefire Pistol Competition, among many other disciplines, almost every month.

I am sure that all of the Centrefire Pistol Clubs - including yours - will also have a full competition Calendar.

There are Centrefire Pistol Licenses being issued by the Gardai - I have mine in my pocket at this very moment (the license that is).

I do not know what the numbers are like but there were only ever a small percentage of the licenses issued being actively used. If that small percentage all achieve their licenses again then the range and competition attendances will be no different from last year or the year before.

I for one am optimistic - things have gone well for me - but we are starting to see good news trickling through.

B'Man

chem

Bananaman wrote: »

Ever hear of Chicken Licken?

They are not prohibited - the Minister cannot change the law to suit his personal whims in order to subvert the course of Justice - once a case is lodged before the courts the courts will eventually hear it make a determination.

You either want to achieve your license to continue in the sport or you don't - if you do then you have a right of appeal for your refusal - which you can avail of or not.

B'Man

Glad it worked out well for you B`man. Im point is the Gardai and minister can still outlaw pistols, if they come to the conclusion that they are a type of firearms that is dangerous to the public. Its in the law.

2C.—(1) The Minister may, in the interests of
public safety and security, by order—
[2009.] Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous [No. 28.]
Provisions) Act 2009.
(a) declare specified firearms to be prohibited
firearms for the purposes of
this Act by reference to one or more
than one of the following criteria:
(i) category;
(ii) calibre;
(iii) working mechanism;
(iv) muzzle energy;
(v) description;

Noone said that people dont have the right to go to court, but if pistols are outlawed as your waiting for your case to come up, The Judge on the day has only one choice.

If its true that alot of cases for pistol certs are been put off by the Gardai, maybe this is why? Or at least they are trying to come up with a different approach, as the one they are using now does not seem to be working.

Hope im wrong!

Tricky1127

The refusal to grant licence 4 a .22 colt, 45 colt revolver, 7.63mm mauser pistol, 45 colt pistol "1911"

knockon

Quote from the Irish Times:"The weapons were semi-automatic and he had concerns about the so-called “tiger” kidnappings by criminal elements, Supt Kerin told Michael O’Connell, barrister for the ......"

I find it unusual that the judge did not request reporting restrictions on the appellants. Now that the Gardai have dragged more good citizens through the courts where they were named in Ireland's leading broadsheets they have certainly given publicity to 2 guys who really should'nt have had their names made public.

So much for crime prevention. They (The State) should have insisted on reporting restrictions.

rrpc

knockon wrote: »

Quote from the Irish Times:"The weapons were semi-automatic and he had concerns about the so-called “tiger” kidnappings by criminal elements, Supt Kerin told Michael O’Connell, barrister for the ......"

I find it unusual that the judge did not request reporting restrictions on the appellants. Now that the Gardai have dragged more good citizens through the courts where they were named in Ireland's leading broadsheets they have certainly given publicity to 2 guys who really should'nt have had their names made public.

So much for crime prevention. They (The State) should have insisted on reporting restrictions.

It's possible that it wasn't requested. You can't assume that it's the State's fault and especially not from a newspaper report.

rowa

knockon wrote: »

Quote from the Irish Times:"The weapons were semi-automatic and he had concerns about the so-called “tiger” kidnappings by criminal elements, Supt Kerin told Michael O’Connell, barrister for the ......"

I find it unusual that the judge did not request reporting restrictions on the appellants. Now that the Gardai have dragged more good citizens through the courts where they were named in Ireland's leading broadsheets they have certainly given publicity to 2 guys who really should'nt have had their names made public.

So much for crime prevention. They (The State) should have insisted on reporting restrictions.

I think its a red herring thrown up by the police all to readily , the criminals regularly throw away the firearms used in murders/attempted murders as being caught in the possession of a "marked" firearm is simply not worth the penalties they'd get in prison time, neither is the chance of getting caught burgling a house to get a single pistol .

Anyway they have little or no problems getting them on the blackmarket, if you can smuggle massive amounts of drugs into the country a few pistols/ingrams/ak47's/grenades are no problem.

There was a case in dublin during the week when an attempted hit went wrong they simply dropped the glock and sawn-off shotgun and ran for it.

knockon

rrpc wrote: »

It's possible that it wasn't requested. You can't assume that it's the State's fault and especially not from a newspaper report.

One must assume that it is the State's fault given Patwell's direction in the D.C. in Cork last month -
"At Wednesday's sitting the judge instructed the media not to name or give the address of the applicant, nor outline any firing ranges discussed in legal argument." Now did he decide that or was he asked by one of the parties?

I agree that it may have not been requested but it would be fair to say that good sense should have prevailed and the Gardai should have requested same in the interests of security.

Grizzly 45

I think its a red herring thrown up by the police all to readily , the criminals regularly throw away the firearms used in murders/attempted murders as being caught in the possession of a "marked" firearm is simply not worth the penalties they'd get in prison time, neither is the chance of getting caught burgling a house to get a single pistol .

There has been exactly how many Tiger kidnappings of gunowners here??
ONE! of a gun dealer last year.And apprently you could have set your watch by his routine.Some very basic security precautions can be undertaken by anyone to make life difficult for anyone who has a few guns or is a dealer.Simply being aware of odd situations,odd calls or vechicles in your area and not having a set your clock routine helps immensely.All in all your CPO should be able to advise you on how to be personally aware of a possible threat.

rowa

i think simply keeping your mouth shut that you have pistols or any firearms in the house is the first step in security , no blabbing or boasting to collegues about what you have , i have seen it first hand with a work mate boasting he had a shotgun ,just after he recieved his licence .

chem

Tricky1127 wrote: »

The refusal to grant licence 4 a .22 colt, 45 colt revolver, 7.63mm mauser pistol, 45 colt pistol "1911"

I wonder why, he is only allowed use his 7.63 mauser, only 3 times a year???

meathshooter1

Nice to see that there are a few cases being overturned in the courts you think that the CS would stop wasting tax payers money forceing vetted law abiding citizens to appeal to the courts ,which we where forced to do as a last resort may I add.

rrpc

chem wrote: »

I wonder why, he is only allowed use his 7.63 mauser, only 3 times a year???

I think it's because it's an historical firearm and that it's just to keep it in working order, not something you'd be taking to the range every weekend.

Grizzly 45

What would the decision been if it had been a 9mm Mauser???

Sikamick

Below is a copy of an e-mail, which I had sent to the DOJ early this week; I have had to send it again as I have not received an answer.

I feel that the question is important i.e. the legal requirements that are placed on all Licensing Authorities in this country to inform the citizens of their legal right to appeal. This does not seem to have happened in any refusal letter I have seen to date.

Opinions please.

Sikamick


Copy of e-Mail sent to the Depart Of Justice. (Note sent twice and still no answer)
(Dear sir or Madam, I would be obliged if you could help by answering the questions below;

Where firearms license holders have been refused verbally or writing by Superintendent's / Chief Superintendent's, their license for a firearm in particular pistols, should the Superintendent not have made these people aware that they had thirty days from the refusal to appeal to the district courts. All refusal letters I have seen don't advise firearms holders of their legal right to appeal. This has left a large number of people in limbo and could result in them loosing their firearms. So the questions is, is there a legal requirement on the licensing authority to make people aware of the thirty days that they have to make an appeal.

Second question is, can you explain what section 9 and 3 are within the firearms act.)

Michael O'Connor
Secretary to Dublin Target Sports Club)

quigley

Does anyone know if the Law provides for the application of restricted usage of firearms like that applied in the recent case ie 3 times a year? If there is no basis in law, then the judgement is not legally binding. May I suggest that some comparison should be made with the law that covers classic motor vehicles - there is a reduced annual road tax applied to vehicles that comply with well defined criteria. Are there similiar criteria for historical/calssic firearms? In the present case, the criteria used was a reference to a historic figure

rrpc

Sikamick wrote: »

Where firearms license holders have been refused verbally or writing by Superintendent's / Chief Superintendent's, their license for a firearm in particular pistols, should the Superintendent not have made these people aware that they had thirty days from the refusal to appeal to the district courts. All refusal letters I have seen don't advise firearms holders of their legal right to appeal. This has left a large number of people in limbo and could result in them loosing their firearms. So the questions is, is there a legal requirement on the licensing authority to make people aware of the thirty days that they have to make an appeal.

Not in the firearms act, and a few I've seen have had that in them and others have been told verbally that they have the right to appeal.

Second question is can you explain what section 9 and 3 are within the firearms act.)

Section 3 is huge and section 9 is about a register kept of firearms dealers, what's your question more specifically?