Supreme Court Appeal [READ POST 115 BEFORE POSTING]

rrpc

rowa wrote: »

yep , that'll be any day now......

No, it'll be the starting pistols before that

Bananaman

Lads'n'lassies,

Less of the 'feck ye, I'm alright jack' sentiment now.

People are exercising their rights under law to appeal the unfair and unlawful decisions of some Gardai.

You, nor I , are in no position to criticise them for doing so nor try to insinuate that by exercising their rights they are in some way in the wrong.

They are not.

Walk a mile in a mans shoes........

If the Minister banned or restricted the use of Driver Golf clubs due to their being weapons (as they are favoured among Criminals) would the Pitch'n'Putt lads (who would obviously be ok) be sniping at the Golfers for trying to defend their sport ???

B'Man

BornToKill

Bananaman wrote: »

People are exercising their rights under law to appeal the unfair and unlawful decisions of some Gardai.

You, nor I , are in no position to criticise them for doing so nor try to insinuate that by exercising their rights they are in some way in the wrong.

The Supreme Court - and this thread is on the subject of the Supreme Court appeals - has determined that the decisions made by the two Garda Superintendents were neither unfair nor unlawful. The decisions were upheld.

I fail to see how sailing into the Supreme Court arguing that a Superintendent has no role in assessing good reason and no powers to impose any condition on a cert could ever have been considered a great idea.

Yes, I am critical of the decision to appeal the High Court judgements on such weak grounds and at such great expense. These judgements have implications for many more people than the individual appelants. The needs of the many can outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

And is there any chance that the overused and inappropriate golfing comparisons could be used more sparingly, if they must be used at all? There is no comparability. There isn't a Golf Act 1925. Clubs aren't subject to certification.

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

Lads'n'lassies,

Less of the 'feck ye, I'm alright jack' sentiment now.

People are exercising their rights under law to appeal the unfair and unlawful decisions of some Gardai.

You, nor I , are in no position to criticise them for doing so nor try to insinuate that by exercising their rights they are in some way in the wrong.

I really don't know where you're getting this from. I couldn't be arxed to go through the whole thread again, but nobody (AFAIR) is saying people shouldn't appeal unfair decisions.

This thread is for discussing the Supreme Court appeals which will have a direct affect on everyone. Understanding what the decisions mean and how they will affect us is of the utmost importance.

It would be a foolish man indeed who went into a district court without having analysed and understood the possible ramifications of these decisions. At a basic level, such an individual would not want to base their case on areas that the Supreme Court has clarified and adjudicated on.

These decisions now stand on the same level as the firearms acts, it's that simple.

Grizzly 45

Taking individual cases which obviously need arbitration to a DC, that's one thing and personally I think it's a necessary evil (though I think it should be a matter of last resort, following trying to sort it out through the NGBs and FCP and FPU first);

On this point.

In THEORY this should be a last resort.But what happens when the FPU doesnt respond,or doesnt want to do anything and says they cant influence anything a Super does?.
The FCP is in disarray,as usual[have they finally had their meeting after three years yet?] and one of the the NGBs dont even respond to emails , numerous phone calls etc,and the other basically tell you to go get a solicitor and fight it in the DC?
Belive you me.WE TRIED! We tried every diplomatic channel and every known possible shooting organisation to help out on this one.
NOT ONE spoke up or offered advice or assistance in a practical sense,apart from sympathetic noises.We went out and got in contact with members of different organisations who were willing to give their time and experiance to help fight this.It was again members of different organisations who got together to fight this,while comittiees,boards,organisations made sympathetic noises and did nothing!

Let me put it quite bluntly.YOU ALONE will have to fight this.Unless your case is unique and extraordinary,dont expect any worthwhile help from our organisations.And I would really love to know what will be considerd a case worthwhile fighting on those grounds.
This is from personal experiance not some theorising on what you should do.Once you have actually done this ordeal you can talk,and I've discoverd our support for gunowners going thru this HELL is non existant.Another thing ,as now numerous court cases are showing,the Gardai will fight this tooth and nail,if it is a CF pistol.So dont even bother wasting your breath ,time and money talking to them.Save it for your day in court.:( You want to keep your CF pistol liscense?Be prepared for a court day.Simple as !!


And is there any chance that the overused and inappropriate golfing comparisons could be used more sparingly, if they must be used at all? There is no comparability. There isn't a Golf Act 1925. Clubs aren't subject to certification.

Hmmm BTK,you obviously havent been following the antics recently in the courts of Lucan golf club members then? Fierce violent lot those golfers!!!Should immediately make golf illegal as it obviously is used as a cover for "fight club" style training.

rowa

I received advice from the fpu last year when applying for a .22 revolver licence and was subsequently refused , i told the local f/o what they had said and was informed that the super and chief super don't take a blind bit of notice what they say and are not legally obliged to do so.
whats the point of the fpu so ? the guards are now consultanting the ballistic's dept for firearms queries.
and anyway , surely the fact that you are a member of a club and can show a reason for possessing a c/f pistol is enough under the law ? its the guards making up laws to suit themselves again , just like the gunsafe case a few years ago .
pity they can't make life as difficult for the scumbags as they can for the law abiding.

rrpc

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

On this point.

In THEORY this should be a last resort.But what happens when the FPU doesnt respond,or doesnt want to do anything and says they cant influence anything a Super does?.

Well he's saying it's actually a last resort which you seem to be agreeing with.

The FCP is in disarray,as usual[have they finally had their meeting after three years yet?]

You're confusing the FCP with the shooting organisation's ad hoc committee. The FCP has met many times in the last three years.

and one of the the NGBs dont even respond to emails , numerous phone calls etc,and the other basically tell you to go get a solicitor and fight it in the DC?

There may be a misunderstanding of the role of the FPU and its functions. The FPU have no power to tell a deciding officer what decision he/she should make in any individual case, there is case law that clearly doesn't allow this. They can advise where there is a problem of misapplication of the firearms acts or where there are problems relating to delays in responding to applications, but they never could tell any deciding officer to either grant or refuse a particular license application.

They may be able to inform a particular deciding officer about the bona fides of a particular applicant on the request of an NGB, but that doesn't mean that they will magically get the right decision for that applicant. That's why the advice in cases of refusal is to take a DC case because there is no other avenue available. It's that simple.

There are many issues that the FPU can fix and they do so willingly and efficiently and it is very much to their credit, but a refusal is well beyond their ability to mend.

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Lads'n'lassies,
Less of the 'feck ye, I'm alright jack' sentiment now.

It's rather odd that someone can take cases which affect everyone and decry those who feel that it's a bad idea as being of the "I'm Alright Jack" camp; but there is no criticism whatsoever for those who take cases just to "Fight Da Powa".
Take the second case in that judgement for example. From Dunne onwards, and we said it here in public I don't know how many times, it's been accepted that the Super has the right to impose conditions on a licence on an individual basis; and it was even brought into law recently; but here's a case where someone went to the supreme court to fight the Super imposing a condition on his licence that said he had to use his pistol on a target shooting range; despite the only legal use for such a pistol now being on a target shooting range.

B'man, if a garda is being unfair and acting illegally, I'm not saying we need to lie back and think of Ireland; but that does not mean that every perceived inconvenience has to go to the Supreme Court and this current trend of losing in the DC and immediately going to a Judicial Review in the High Court (bypassing the Circuit Court) and generally being belligerent to the DoJ is going to have long term serious consequences for all of us; it'd be nice if we didn't lose pistols for target shooting completely because of ill-advised cases like the first two in this judgement. If we lose them because of a case taken over a real problem, that's a different matter - but you cannot, in all fairness, tell me that any of those cases in this judgement were worthy of the time and effort and resources it took to get them to the Supreme Court, nor that the end result of those judgements - which we are all going to suffer from - are just something else we should all accept as the price of someone else's agenda!

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

In THEORY this should be a last resort.But what happens when the FPU doesnt respond,or doesnt want to do anything and says they cant influence anything a Super does?.

That point has been made at higher levels y'know.
However...

The FCP is in disarray,as usual[have they finally had their meeting after three years yet?] and one of the the NGBs dont even respond to emails , numerous phone calls etc,and the other basically tell you to go get a solicitor and fight it in the DC?

(1) Everything is in a degree of disarray - those judgements came in on decisions made under the old laws and couldn't even have been taken under the current laws, they'd have been laughed out of court. We are not in a stable time for firearms legislation. I know, it's been years. Believe me, I know. But it's nonetheless true that we don't have a stable legal footing right now.

(2) The FCP have been meeting continually; it was the shooting panel (the shooting NGBs on the FCP) whose meetings were at issue in the complaint on the SSAI website. As to NGBs not responding, well, they're not the DoJ Grizzly, and if you don't show up to AGMs and kick arses and generally let them know that you don't find that acceptable and step up to do it right yourself or put someone else forward to do so if the committee don't change, well, that's on all of us in that NGB's membership.

(3) If someone says you need to get a solicitor and go to the DC and that's their first response (and they don't even mention the FCP or FPU)... well, you've got a problem with your NGB because that is an unconditionally stupid piece of advice to give anyone.

Belive you me.WE TRIED! We tried every diplomatic channel and every known possible shooting organisation to help out on this one.

That's not the same thing as the circumstances of this SC case though Grizzly.

dont even bother wasting your breath ,time and money talking to them.Save it for your day in court.:(

There's a nugget of good advice in there Grizzly, but you need to polish it a bit more. Don't waste breath, time or money yelling at them. But you have to try to reason with the Super; then you have to go via your NGB to the FPU; and only when the other avenues are exhausted can you walk into a DC and say you've tried to be reasonable. If you don't do that (and as you've told us here, you did), well, you'd be another McCarron case. And we've now all seen how that turned out and how much damage it has done to everyone else trying to get their licences.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

but here's a case where someone went to the supreme court to fight the Super imposing a condition on his licence that said he had to use his pistol on a target shooting range; despite the only legal use for such a pistol now being on a target shooting range.

Strangely enough there's a parallel case in point with regard to the Garda authorisations of ranges that started in mid 2006.

Back then the firearms act was juggled about with to the effect that taking all the ingredients for a cake, they came up with a curry.

I and others wrote about this cobbled together makey uppy justification for carrying out range inspections and authorisations as did Des Crofton in the Shooters Digest but nobody took anyone to court because:

(a) the law to certify ranges was already on the statute books but uncommenced so we would have been fighting an unwinnable fight, and
(b) It was an inevitable consequence of the growth in shooting and we were investing in the future safety of our sport. In other words it was in our long term interest.

Even though as a consequence of that system, Rathdrum's range was closed for five months with no reason given or remedial work recommended.

Sparks

That particular example has two things of interest about it rrpc, the first being what you've just pointed out; the second being the reaction of the shooting community to it. If you recall that FCP seminar on the new rules for ranges, we all showed up having seen the havoc you described there, worried at whether or not we were about to see a longer redux of that process; and the seminar was completely hijacked by pistol owners who wanted to protest their treatment.

Now, don't get me wrong - I don't think pistol owners were treated well or fairly, and I do believe they have a legitimate grievance and that that grievance needs to be addressed by a fair government policy, but I also think that that wasn't the time or place to do it; that the entire shooting community was trying to address an equally serious potential problem that could have shut down the entire target shooting community (including pistol shooters), an effort that was derailed by poorly made and ineffectual protests which did more harm than good; and that one speaker in particular did enormous damage to the pistol cause with a single careless throwaway comment made in front of an audience whose constituent members were, I believe, not fully known by the speaker. Very cathartic for him, I'm sure, but it put nails in the coffin for the CF pistol shooters at the time.

It is very hard to remain sympathetic to people who do stupid things like that, harming all those around them through sheer bullheaded refusal to do things the smart way; regardless of how unfair their treatment has been.

Grizzly 45

[


(1) Everything is in a degree of disarray - those judgements came in on decisions made under the old laws and couldn't even have been taken under the current laws, they'd have been laughed out of court. We are not in a stable time for firearms legislation. I know, it's been years. Believe me, I know. But it's nonetheless true that we don't have a stable legal footing right now.

(2) The FCP have been meeting continually; it was the shooting panel (the shooting NGBs on the FCP) whose meetings were at issue in the complaint on the SSAI website.

Apologies!!!Thats the crowd I meant.

As to NGBs not responding, well, they're not the DoJ Grizzly, and if you don't show up to AGMs and kick arses and generally let them know that you don't find that acceptable and step up to do it right yourself or put someone else forward to do so if the committee don't change, well, that's on all of us in that NGB's membership

.

Well, it certainly doesnt say much for them,if you ring their director numerous times,email numerous times and dont even get an acknowledgement.I would consider that VERY POOR.At least the DOJ responds somwhat.OH dont worry on that one Sparks,my size 12 combats are being polished at this very moment for this event.

(3) If someone says you need to get a solicitor and go to the DC and that's their first response (and they don't even mention the FCP or FPU)... well, you've got a problem with your NGB because that is an unconditionally stupid piece of advice to give anyone.

OOOHHH! Careful there Sparks!;) There a few folks on this board who know what I am talking about and where and when.I dont think they would like their advice to be called stupid!

That's not the same thing as the circumstances of this SC case though Grizzly.

Nope indeed.Just developing on your point on how things should be done.

There's a nugget of good advice in there Grizzly, but you need to polish it a bit more. Don't waste breath, time or money yelling at them

.
Never did...Was insulted plenty though in one meeting with a then Supt!!:mad:
Which really got my goat to see this thru.

But you have to try to reason with the Super; then you have to go via your NGB to the FPU;

Sympathetic noises made by NGB,and then put on very looongg finger,and no further communication.Rang the FPU myself,and dealt with them,and in their credit they did deal with it professionally,but the same answer was forthcomig.Cant influence,change a supt mind or decision.So what exactly would a NGB achive that I could not????

and only when the other avenues are exhausted can you walk into a DC and say you've tried to be reasonable. If you don't do that (and as you've told us here, you did), well, you'd be another McCarron case. And we've now all seen how that turned out and how much damage it has done to everyone else trying to get their licences.

[/QUOTE]

Cant see how this decision makes the blindest bit of differenceto the law now anyway.Even the SCJ said so in the 1st paragraph.We are kind of discussing now,wether the bolt on the stable door should be upright or down in its hasp.The Horse is long gone..:(

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Apologies!!!Thats the crowd I meant.

No worries, many others made the same mistake. It's important that we make the difference clear though, for various reasons. The word "we" can have serious consequences if you don't know what group it refers to, after all!

Well, it certainly doesnt say much for them,if you ring their director numerous times,email numerous times and dont even get an acknowledgement.

It definitely doesn't. If your NGB gives you less acknowlegement than the DoJ (with the obvious caveat about timeframes given the volunteer nature of all our NGBs), then you have a legitimate concern right there.

OOOHHH! Careful there Sparks!;) There a few folks on this board who know what I am talking about and where and when.I dont think they would like their advice to be called stupid!

They might not like it, but if that was their advice, then 'stupid' is an apt description. Advising someone to skip all the intermediate steps and go straight to an expensive and risky court case that impacts on all future cases? That's stupid advice, and even the recent Magee case said so in the High Court:

Justice Birmingham wrote:

this was a matter that was eminently capable of being sorted out by a quick phone call

Saying someone with a licencing dispute should treat the courts as a first resort is, basicly, stupid and wrong.

Never did...Was insulted plenty though in one meeting with a then Supt!!:mad:

See, to me, that's a gift. McCarron's case failed in part because he made accusations at the Super; if you could document the Super's poor behaviour towards you, or had a witness to it, then that's just weight on your side of the case when talking to the FPU or others.

Sympathetic noises made by NGB,and then put on very looongg finger,and no further communication.Rang the FPU myself,and dealt with them,and in their credit they did deal with it professionally,but the same answer was forthcomig.Cant influence,change a supt mind or decision.So what exactly would a NGB achive that I could not?

Well, first off, your NGB was remiss to not talk to the FPU and you should have a word over that. As to the FPU, yes, there's a problem there in that the law doesn't permit them to overrule the local Super -- but that's what we as shooters argued for in Dunne-v-Donohue. By arguing a case that said that the Minister had no right to impose rules on the local Supers about licencing, we brought about this state of affairs. It can be fixed, but yelling about it as if we were completely innocent of any part in the matter isn't helping.

Cant see how this decision makes the blindest bit of differenceto the law now anyway.

I thought so initially (and it's worrying to see Egan's assessment agreeing with my earlier thoughts on it while ignoring the events of the case itself), but there are aspects of the cases that are on points in law that remain unaltered, or which carry over.

I'm still writing up a blog post on Irish Shooting Politics about this in detail, but for a brief example, the case touched on the concept of how to interpret "good reason" and what was said there will apply to future cases because (a) those aspects of the law remain unchanged by the recent Criminal Justice Acts, and (b) the Justice was talking about how to interpret a basic term in the law rather than the law itself -- so I believe Egan was wrong in his assessment that these rulings will have no impact on us.

I think that this was a case of heads they win, tails we lose. If the cases had been won, the gains would have been at best minimal because the laws have since granted the Minister and Gardai the authority to do what the cases were arguing that they couldn't do; but with the cases lost, the damage may be substantially more long-lasting than the half-million euro bill I'd expect the NARGC to now have to pay in legal costs (and initial asking around says that taking three High Court judicial reviews and then appealing them - even combined into one case - to the Supreme Court would see a half-million euros as being a very conservative costs estimate).

Even the SCJ said so in the 1st paragraph.We are kind of discussing now,wether the bolt on the stable door should be upright or down in its hasp.The Horse is long gone..:(

Indeed - which is why winning the McVeigh case and the comments by the Justice about the Minister's actions is cold comfort right now.

freddieot

Have to be honest - did not read all the reams of posts and replies re the supreme Court Decision. Some of it is defeatist and I don't do 'give up'

One point, I'm in Court in June re my Case, Incidentally, brief says Supreme Court decisions only adds to our arguments

2 of them were off the wall buy one has copper -fastened the concept that there should be NO BLANKET POLICIES !!

There are those that are accessing these hallowed Boards for the purpose of putting off those that are seeking to exercise their rights to appeal to the Courts - one wonders why ?? Is it 'I'm alright Jack or is it something far more sinister, Minister ?

Bottom line -lots of appeals are being won - (to hell )with the begrudgers, the worriers and dare I say it (yes I dare) the conspirators, lets keep the train rolling

I've gone past worrying if I'll win, I've decided to fight, that's the main thing ! Let loose the dogs of war....:D

I urge all those who have been refused a licence to fight it all the way. Don't twist and turn in bed a year or two from now wishing you had had the ba*lls to take on the powers that want to be.

Sparks

freddieot wrote: »

Have to be honest - did not read all the reams of posts and replies re the supreme Court Decision. Some of it is defeatist and I don't do 'give up'

Ah, the "I didn't bother reading about it your honour" approach.
Excellent way to prepare for a court appearance...

Incidentally, brief says Supreme Court decisions only adds to our arguments

Can't agree with your brief.
The decisions are not good for us in any practical terms.

2 of them were off the wall buy one has copper -fastened the concept that there should be NO BLANKET POLICIES !!

No, it hasn't. As Justice Fennelly put it,

it will be difficult to draw the line between permissible guidelines and impermissible rigid and inflexible policies

In other words, yes, technically a blanket policy is still not legal; but since guidelines are now given the Supreme Court's stamp of approval, distinguishing between a blanket policy and a guideline is going to be very difficult.

Bottom line -lots of appeals are being won - (to hell )with the begrudgers, the worriers and dare I say it (yes I dare) the conspirators, lets keep the train rolling

Lots are being lost as well, and frankly, the damage being done by the losses outweighs the gains in the wins.
McCarron, for example, has now seen the Supreme Court overturn the precendent set by O'Leary which said that the licencing decision had to be based on the applicant, not the firearm sought.
How's that a victory for us?

I've gone past worrying if I'll win, I've decided to fight, that's the main thing !

/facepalm
On behalf of those of us you're putting at risk, would you at least do some more thinking about what you're doing first?

freddieot

On behalf of those of us you're putting at risk, would you at least do some more thinking about what you're doing first?

I think that statement sums up your thinking. Sorry if you're at risk because I need to exercise my legal right to appeal. If you believe that's the case, that your position is so weak, perhaps you should be supporting me before they come for you anyway.

I have thought long and hard about my actions. I intend to fight for my Justice, not because I want to, but because there is no choice left open to me - (giving up is not an option as I have a requirement for my firearms). My heart goes out to guys that can't afford to take an appeal and I know a few of them but I'm lucky that I can afford to so at least I will have mny day in court.

I'll pass on your legal advice to my brief, maybe he can get a bigger Mercedes if he is prepared to take your counsel on board (Interesting how we get plenty of legal opinion on Boards when it suits some people and at other times such things are taboo) :rolleyes:

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

On behalf of those of us you're putting at risk

To think that your sport and licenses are only put at risk NOW by someone appealing an unlawful decision says it all.

Of course it will be his fault when the hammer falls - not the Ministers.

It's always the fault of someone in shooting

B'Man

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

To think that your sport and licenses are only put at risk NOW by someone appealing an unlawful decision says it all.

Of course it will be his fault when the hammer falls - not the Ministers.

It's always the fault of someone in shooting

B'Man

Bananaman, that's not what he's saying, or at least that's not how I read it.

I think he's already said that taking cases to the DC to appeal unfair decisions is everyone's right (it's in the firearms act after all), after exhausting all other avenues.

That's not the issue.

Taking vexatious cases for no other reason than to make a fuss about something that's already enshrined in the law does no favours to you, me or anyone else involved in legitimate target shooting.

You've stated here on a number of occasions that people with pistols who are not members of clubs and have no intention of joining one, deserve all that's coming to them.

They also, have recourse to the courts and are muddying the waters for those people who are legitimately taking part in target shooting and are appealing unfair decisions.

For example, the written judgment in McCarron v Kearney either in the High Court or the Supreme Court made no mention of the appellant being a member of a target shooting club or range. He may well have been, but there's no evidence in the judgments that says so, so by your standard that's not a valid case. That case may have major implications for target shooters in this country.

Grizzly 45

For example, the written judgment in McCarron v Kearney either in the High Court or the Supreme Court made no mention of the appellant being a member of a target shooting club or range.

Ah! Now we hit a most intresting point.He stated ,as in the judgement stated that he wanted to compete in IPSC/practical pistol.At that point in time three years ago,IPSC was a ligitmate pastime here.The IPSA didnt have a range per se,as it was a starting sport,hadnt the money to build a range, and used to travel to different ranges.
That must have been considerd good reason at the time,as I also was granted my liscense to participate in IPSC,target shooting ergo the IPSA must have been recognised as a ligitmate club shooting organisation at the time.
So yes he was a POTENTIAL club member.As the rules of IPSA stated you had to be liscensed first to your handgun,before you could join to liscense as a IPSC qualified shooter. However that is now ancient history,and wouldnt qualify for any good reason.Just to clear up a legal POV.

rrpc

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Ah! Now we hit a most intresting point.He stated ,as in the judgement stated that he wanted to compete in IPSC/practical pistol.At that point in time three years ago,IPSC was a ligitmate pastime here.The IPSA didnt have a range per se,as it was a starting sport,hadnt the money to build a range, and used to travel to different ranges.

That's the difficulty with some of these cases in that they were taken at different points in the implementation of the firearms acts and we're looking at them with the benefit of hindsight.

It probably wasn't a good example (but there aren't that many that were widely reported on - and aren't subjudice) but all I'm saying is that wherever you draw the line there are bound to be cases on either side.

People are taking the extreme side of the argument when it's much more complex than that and very hard to explain in a couple of short posts. Have a look at the thread about .22-250s for deer culling on the hunting forum for a prime example