50 handgun owners to mount legal challenges

Lemon3

From yesterdays Sunday Business Post

http://www.sbpost.ie/news/ireland/up-to-50-handgun-owners-to-mount-legal-challenges-over-licences-47402.html

Mods can move this to press clippings

cavan shooter

I see something about going back to court on the NARGC website

bunny shooter

From the NARGC site:

"NARGC Returns to the Courts to Defend Shooting Sports

In another District Court case in Killorglin on 11th February 2010, the appeals of a father and son against a decision by a Chief Superintendent not to renew their centre fire handguns was upheld and the judge granted all licenses. National Director Des Crofton gave evidence in the case on behalf of the appellants concerning the de facto administration and the intended administration of the new firearms licensing code. Once again he was struck by the evidence given by the Chief Superintendent which was completely at variance with what all shooting associations were lead to believe at Firearms Consultative Panel (FCP) meetings.

There can be no doubt after now listening to the sworn evidence of two Chief Superintendents (the other being a similar case last month in Mallow) and the unsworn suggestion of a cross examining Superintendent in two separate courts that we have been misled. The issue for NARGC is not just about these handguns. The issue is about the totally unacceptable behaviour of the Garda Siochana as an institution across many parts of the country in how they are administering the new legislation. There is a significant rump at senior officer level which are causing mayhem and they couldn’t give a hoot for the completely unnecessary trouble, inconvenience and expense they are visiting on law abiding taxpayers.

As the leading shooting Association in Ireland we are done talking and as we warned, NARGC is now returning to the courts to defend the interests of our club members and all shooting with no apology to anyone. Several strategic challenges to the new licensing code are at an advanced stage of preparation by our legal team which has been reunited for the task.

NARGC National Director Des Crofton said, “Having given my time and that of the NARGC for the past two and a half years at no cost to the state to achieve something which was positive and which would serve all parties well into the future, we are no longer able to support the administration of the new firearms legislation. I and others in the NARGC defended it at no small cost to ourselves personally but the Gardai didn’t deliver on their side.”"

cavan shooter

bunny shooter wrote: »

From the NARGC site:

" Once again he was struck by the evidence given by the Chief Superintendent which was completely at variance with what all shooting associations were lead to believe at Firearms Consultative Panel (FCP) meetings.

.”"

How has this been let happen, its as if the work done, good will and relationships forged at the FCP has been thrown out. Looks like the only winners here are the barristers:mad::mad:

bunny shooter

To be fair there are a few senior Gardai who are most of the problem and they need to be dealt with and I reckon the easy way is one central office authorising applications that way we would get the desired consistincy

Dvs

cavan shooter wrote: »

How has this been let happen, its as if the work done, good will and relationships forged at the FCP has been thrown out. Looks like the only winners here are the barristers:mad::mad:

When the legistlation passed and was signed off on by the President,
I posted on the shooting forum about how the deals and IOU's, weren't worth the paper they weren't written on, the post was removed and got an infraction for mud slinging for my trouble, It gives me no satisfaction to now be proved right.

Dvs.

Dvs

bunny shooter wrote: »

To be fair there are a few senior Gardai who are most of the problem and they need to be dealt with and I reckon the easy way is one central office authorising applications that way we would get the desired consistincy

It is not a central office that is required, it is even application of the legistlation across the country, without the Garda mindset of how can we twist the legistlation to not issue a firearms licence to this law abiding person that has a legitmate reason for it.

And it should also be the case in the event that an applicant has not complied with a requirement, assist them in how they go about doing so and when they do comply issue the licence.

Senior Garda dictate policy, the commisioner is the most senior Garda ultimately he is responsible for this farce.

Dvs.

bunny shooter

DOJ could promise anything they wanted on FCP but Super/Chief Super cannot be told what to do by anyone as a result of their status as persona designata (or something along those lines) therefore, DOJ on FCP were making promises they realistically couldn't deliver on with consulting all the Supers/Chief Supers

rrpc

Dvs wrote: »

It is not a central office that is required, it is even application of the legistlation across the country, without the Garda mindset of how can we twist the legistlation to not issue a firearms licence to this law abiding person that has a legitmate reason for it.

And it should also be the case in the event that an applicant has not complied with a requirement, assist them in how they go about doing so and when they do comply issue the licence.

Senior Garda dictate policy, the commisioner is the most senior Garda ultimately he is responsible for this farce.

Dvs.

A central licensing authority is the only way to get consistency. Other jurisdictions including our nearest one in Northern Ireland do this and it works very well. In the UK it's more divisional in nature but it's staffed by and large by civillians who build up an experise and operate as a service to the taxpayers.

Which is what it should be, not an inconvenient part of a senior officer's job.

4gun

Not to be dragging up old questions again, but if they are going to mount a challenge to the new licencing system why not go all out and get the ban on new licences ccenter fire pistols lifted, how can you have a system that allows one shooter to own a cfp while others are not simply bases on the date they first bought their gun
and have it put down as a legal privelage(as opposed to right) that any person in the state is entitled to hold CFP for target shooting so long as he/she meets all the correct requirements of security and character

Dvs

bunny shooter wrote: »

DOJ could promise anything they wanted on FCP but Super/Chief Super cannot be told what to do by anyone as a result of their status as persona designata (or something along those lines) therefore, DOJ on FCP were making promises they realistically couldn't deliver on with consulting all the Supers/Chief Supers

It is not the case that Supers/Chief Supers are being told,
or not told what to do.

But it is a fact that those that are refusing to renew licences, are quoting the commisioners guidelines and makey up, we have to make sure these guns dont fall into criminals hands justification, even though you have already complied with the safe storage requirements prior to your application being dealt with.

They say how it is a very high calibre with absolute authority, while having no idea what calibre means, the differences between them, or their uses.

They do not use the law as justification for considering refusal in meetings with applicants, unless you call quoting Justice charlton and saying it was a judgement in a supreme court case that they are quoting from legal justification.

In fact the only time they quote the section of the fireams act that they are using as a club to beat you namely section 4 of the fireams act is in the refusal letter.

The statements made by Chief Superintendents in a number of District court appeals to date, shows that dealing with individual applications on their merits as persona designata is not being followed in practice.

The commisioners guidelines were supposed to deal with inconsitent application of the firearms legistlation they have clearly not done so,
the DOJ drafted legistlation that was pushed through the Dail to give Supers/Chief Supers the means to refuse licences to law abiding shooters that had met all requirements.

Because in a Supers/Chief Supers opinion you had not satisfied them, that it was the only type of firearm appropriate for a purpose, that they know absolutley nothing about, and are in no way qualified to determine.

rrpc wrote: »

A central licensing authority is the only way to get consistency.

Not if the Senior Garda in charge is one of the Chief Supers that is point blank refusing licences for restricted firearms.


Dvs.

rrpc

Dvs wrote: »

Not if the Senior Garda in charge is one of the Chief Supers that is point blank refusing licences for restricted firearms.


Dvs.

True

But easier to deal with one than to be trying to herd chickens with dozens :rolleyes:

Dvs

rrpc wrote: »

True

But easier to deal with one than to be trying to herd chickens with dozens :rolleyes:

I think we would all agree that the ideal situation would be,

1.fair treatment for law abiding shooters under fair firearms laws,
this would not include bans on internationally recognised shooting sports or restricted lists, a firearm is a firearm, if you want to licence a firearm for a sporting purpose, either you are suitable to have a firearm or not.


2. a central firearms licencing office.
with staff that are properly trained for one purpose, to assist law abiding shooters in complying with the requirements for licencing their firearms for their chosen sport.

3. For the DOJ and the Garda to stop harassing law abiding shooters and apply the same time and effort and resources they have expended in in the last year "dealing with us" to deal with armed criminals on an ongoing basis.

4.That everyone with a firearm must have a firearms safe period, plus the appropriate level of security for the number of firearms they have and where they live, everyone must be a club member, target club or game club those shooters that are not in clubs do not have a voice or access to information on what is effecting their sport, until it is too late, every shooter must have insurance for their shooting sport.

Dvs.

bunny shooter

Dvs wrote: »

2. a central firearms licencing office.
with staff that are properly trained for one purpose, to assist law abiding shooters in complying with the requirements for licencing their firearms for their chosen sport.

+1

Dvs wrote: »

3. For the DOJ and the Garda to stop harassing law abiding shooters and apply the same time and effort and resources they have expended in in the last year "dealing with us" to deal with armed criminals on an ongoing basis.

+1

Dvs wrote: »

4.That everyone with a firearm must have a firearms safe period, plus the appropriate level of security for the number of firearms they have and where they live, everyone must be a club member, target club or game club those shooters that are not in clubs do not have a voice or access to information on what is effecting their sport, until it is too late, every shooter must have insurance for their shooting sport.

Dvs.

+1

Grizzly 45

1.fair treatment for law abiding shooters under fair firearms laws,
this would not include bans on internationally recognised shooting sports or restricted lists, a firearm is a firearm, if you want to licence a firearm for a sporting purpose, either you are suitable to have a firearm or not.

+1

2. a central firearms licencing office.
with staff that are properly trained for one purpose, to assist law abiding shooters in complying with the requirements for licencing their firearms for their chosen sport.

Change that slightly..With CIVILLIAN staff ,prefably with a academic and/or practical knowledge of firearms that apply the law in a non discriminitory and irrespective of personal prejudices of firearms ownership.

3. For the DOJ and the Garda to stop harassing law abiding shooters and apply the same time and effort and resources they have expended in in the last year "dealing with us" to deal with armed criminals on an ongoing basis.

More that the Minister for Justice and Comissioner are taken to account by the Dail to account for[1]the cost to the taxpayer,of instigating this liscense system [2] The amount of police time spent on triplicate paperwork,overtime and other time spent chasing upapplicants,inspections etc.[3]how much Garda time was used per division in sorting out and issuance of FACS[4] The benefits to FAC holders,the general public in saftey and state security,by instigating this procedure.[5]Accountability of each CS per division in front of a Dail comittee on public expenses for expenditure oftheir divisional budgets which is tax payers money on DC cases and why they considerd each case was justifiable in being refused and the subsequent costs being spent.

4.That everyone with a firearm must have a firearms safe period, plus the appropriate level of security for the number of firearms they have and where they live, everyone must be a club member, target club or game club those shooters that are not in clubs do not have a voice or access to information on what is effecting their sport, until it is too late, every shooter must have insurance for their shooting sport.

Agree in principle with you DVs,but it would be easier if target clubs were more common and easier to reach for some people.Plus make it mandatory then that club owners /comitties have then a duty to assist members with problems arising of liscensing,not just a make me money proposition.Also that other vexatious conditions are not added[EG how many competitions enterd per annum or other make it up as you go along "laws"].So long as the person shows up a minimum of 6 times per annum that is considerd a attendance record.

jwshooter

some short sighted ,narrow minded ,know alls hear wanted to slate des ,thats des crofton .
but then again thats the nature of the beast .

rrpc

jwshooter wrote: »

some short sighted ,narrow minded ,know alls hear wanted to slate des ,thats des crofton .
but then again thats the nature of the beast .

Indeed!

You won't have to dig deep to find posts of that nature alright.

rrpc

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Agree in principle with you DVs,but it would be easier if target clubs were more common and easier to reach for some people.Plus make it mandatory then that club owners /comitties have then a duty to assist members with problems arising of liscensing,not just a make me money proposition.Also that other vexatious conditions are not added[EG how many competitions enterd per annum or other make it up as you go along "laws"].So long as the person shows up a minimum of 6 times per annum that is considerd a attendance record.

Most clubs do what you're suggesting Grizzly and look after their members. And the law does state a minimum attendance, it's just that the application has been ahem.. shall we say patchy?

Dvs

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

+1



Plus make it mandatory then that club owners /comitties have then a duty to assist members with problems arising of liscensing,not just a make me money proposition.

I don't know about other clubs, but the club of which I am a member,
goes out of it's way to assist members in any way they can.

Dvs.

kowloon

What about antiques colllectors?
Do they have to join a club and turn up six times a year to not shoot their guns?

Grizzly 45

rrpc wrote: »

Most clubs do what you're suggesting Grizzly and look after their members. And the law does state a minimum attendance, it's just that the application has been ahem.. shall we say patchy?

But what is in law the "minimum"attendance specified???
Remember a post that I suggested that clubs should freeze membership for those who have paid up and are having liscense problems until their legal situation/court appeal is sorted??Anyone doing this...yet??
Would be a great help and showing some solidarity with members,rather than a feeling we want your money irrespective of wether you have a gun or not.

Dvs

kowloon wrote: »

What about antiques colllectors?
Do they have to join a club and turn up six times a year to not shoot their guns?

No, sport shooters have guns to shoot,
collecters that collect antiques firearms that they don't shoot,
are collectors not shooters.

but both are not mutually exclusive.
shooters can also be collectors.

Dvs.

bunny shooter

What is the legal attendance requirement ?

rrpc

bunny shooter wrote: »

What is the legal attendance requirement ?

the name of each member who holds a firearm certificate and who has not participated in any of the shooting functions organised by the club in the preceding 6 months.

Once a quarter would be sufficient to cover that. (on the basis that if you went in January and then in June, it would be once a quarter and just under six months apart).

daveob007

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

But what is in law the "minimum"attendance specified???
Remember a post that I suggested that clubs should freeze membership for those who have paid up and are having liscense problems until their legal situation/court appeal is sorted??Anyone doing this...yet??
Would be a great help and showing some solidarity with members,rather than a feeling we want your money irrespective of wether you have a gun or not.

I think that membership should continue but fees should be frozen untill licences get sorted.
many of us who were refused were sent our renewal letters looking for fees even though we had nothing to shoot with.
maybe thats because the range operators still had to pay for the lease on their ranges whether they were beig used or not.
The ones who lease out the property to range operators should have asked to suspend these fees also.
For many shooters who were going down the appeal road there were big problems trying to fund the appeal and pay for range fees so soon after christmas.
For some that was not possible so some probably had to question whether they realy wanted to go ahead or not.
I do know of someone who just couldnot do this so was forced to surrender their pistol for sale and drop out of range membership for the year untill things get better,which by then a cfp will not be given.he/she will have to go for a .22 non restriced pistol at some stage.
there will be casualties from this whole situation and even some ranges are finding it a struggle and may not survive as a result.

rrpc

daveob007 wrote: »

I think that membership should continue but fees should be frozen untill licences get sorted.
many of us who were refused were sent our renewal letters looking for fees even though we had nothing to shoot with.
maybe thats because the range operators still had to pay for the lease on their ranges whether they were beig used or not.

It's not possible for rnage operators (or clubs) to know whether a member has nothing to shoot with unless they're told in advance. I know clubs will take a 'pay as you go' approach with people who can't afford a once off payment. But primarily the clubs are hogtied by the law which stipulates that members must pay a fee. In addition, without a current club membership, you're not going to be able to even apply for a licence.

Grizzly 45

Well, at this stage shouldnt it be a bit of basic cop on to say to your members.
Look lads we know some of you are in the process of legal wrangles and or disputes with getting your liscenses reissued.Therefore if you have paid a annual membership up front,and are not getting the use of it,we will flag your account and freeze the membership to start up again once you come back to us with your legal problems sorted out. EG So if you had used six months,you still have six months credit in the future,whenever that might be .
Be it in 6,12,or 18 months or whenever.If you have no joy whatsoever in aquiring your liscense and dont want to continue shooting the disiplines we have left here we will refund the membership fee or balance due.
Thats simple goodwill,accepting the reality of alot of people in the current climate, and book keeping.

Rather than "Your dues are up.Pay up or we are telling the Gaurds you are not a member."It is pretty rotten if clubs are using that law as an extortion exerciseas well.Thing is;when you had the liscense you were a club member of a ligit club.Why would you logically pay out more money to be a member of a club whose facilities you cant use if you lose your case??

Darr

and how many ranges will be left running after this spurt of generousity.I know for a fact that some are not exactly making a huge haul of cash. come on a bit of common sense wouldn’t go a miss in this climate any business is struggling .

it’s NOT the clubs fault .. it’s the governments , they made it a condition on your license , they made it difficult to get the FA licensed , they made the club inform who is going , who is a member , they also made it pay for the year and not pro rated ..

while I agree with your sentiments I also know that doing as you suggest would be the death of many ranges .

Range membership is a cost you should have factored in if you want to shoot for each and every year !!!!.
having your firearm to do so is up to you not the range, plus if I have a case to be heard in 6 months and its gets put back for another 6 months,oh super a free year no one is out of pocket ..well except the range of course!!.


Edited to add : if you are going to court might be somthing to ask your brief if you can claim that as an expense against the state

guns4fun

Darr wrote: »

and how many ranges will be left running after this spurt of generousity.I know for a fact that some are not exactly making a huge haul of cash. come on a bit of common sense wouldn’t go a miss in this climate any business is struggling .

it’s NOT the clubs fault .. it’s the governments , they made it a condition on your license , they made it difficult to get the FA licensed , they made the club inform who is going , who is a member , they also made it pay for the year and not pro rated ..

while I agree with your sentiments I also know that doing as you suggest would be the death of many ranges .

Range membership is a cost you should have factored in if you want to shoot for each and every year !!!!.
having your firearm to do so is up to you not the range, plus if I have a case to be heard in 6 months and its gets put back for another 6 months,oh super a free year no one is out of pocket ..well except the range of course!!.

While I see both points of view regarding range fees and costs,I do agree that something should be done to assist members who cannot afford to pay fees and appeal at the same time.
Is the legal fund not available to those members or is that for high court cases only???
At he end of the day it's the ministers fault FULL STOP for this.
This piece of legislation was very cleverly thought up because it weeds out the weakest and removes some handguns from the system.
After all thats what he wants and looks like he is winning in somecases.
And when all this is all over the ones who survive will have to constantly watch their backs because one way or another this government will seek to ban all handguns except for the olympic standard .22s.

CJhaughey

guns4fun wrote: »

And when all this is all over the ones who survive will have to constantly watch their backs because one way or another this government will seek to ban all handguns except for the olympic standardcommissioners listed .22s.

Fixed that for you;)

Greenacre

The NASRPC recently published a newsletter including guidelines on the management of their legal fund, see www.nasrpc.ie