fpu versus garda ballistics dept

rowa

When i applied for my licence for my .22 revolver i took the trouble to ring the firearms policy unit in the phoenix park to ask if my particular model was restricted or not.
They told me to either plug a chamber in the cylinder or ask the super if i could sign an undertaking to only ever load five rounds at once. i wrote what the guy in the fpu had told me and stapled it to my application and sent it in.

I was told last week when i rang the firearms officer that it looked as if the application will be refused as it is classed as a restricted firearm. i told the f/o that the fpu had told me it wasn't restricted and if the super took 5 mins to ring the fpu they would tell him the same thing.

The f/o told me that both the super and chief super are not dealing with the fpu anymore but are instead ringing the garda ballistics department and they are telling the super and chief super that only semi automatics are used in the olympics and so no revolver can be licenced for "olympic" shooting.

What is the point of having a fpu if the gardai can ignore it and find someone else to back up there own ideas on firearms licencing ?

bunny shooter

Some Supers & Chief Supers are ignoring everything unless it suits them including the legislation :mad:

But you can go to the DC :mad:

rowa

but what they are doing is a direct challenge to the lawful legislation the government brought in , the law states in black and white that you can have a smith and wesson 617 revolver (e.g. its on the list ) and a friend of mine in the same district as myself has been refused because the ballistics dept have taken it upon themselves to say no revolvers are suitable for target shooting.
haven't they learned anything from the gunsafe case years ago ?

bunny shooter

My Super has a blanket ban on revolvers too. I was told "the Gardai use them so you can't have one" :rolleyes:

That list and the guidelines are not worth the paper they are written on :mad:

They look good and fair until you apply for something then your told they are "guidelines" and are not legally binding on the Super/Chief Super BUT they are legally binding on the shooter though eg the security "guidelines" :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

To get justice you need to go to court and spend your money while they also use your money (tax) to fight you. Great system isn't it.

And our largest shooting organisation dosen't seem to be able to do much to sort this ****e except give us their solicitors details :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Interesting point is that the "ballistic" department "experts" are being used by the Chief Supers to defend their refusals of C/F pistols in the courts.

Has anyone queried why the ballistics department and the FPU exist? Obviously they are giving conflicting advice/instructions to Supers & Chief Supers ? Has "ballistics" department any place in firearms licencing ? I believed the FPU was there to advise Gardai on legislation and interpretation of same

johngalway

bunny shooter wrote: »

My Super has a blanket ban on revolvers too. I was told "the Gardai use them so you can't have one" :rolleyes:

Anyone owning a Ford Mondeo or mobile phone, run now before the long arm of the law gets ya. Damn fools that make up those kind of nonsense rules.

Dvs

johngalway wrote: »

Anyone owning a Ford Mondeo or mobile phone, run now before the long arm of the law gets ya. Damn fools that make up those kind of nonsense rules.

Same goes for boots, shoes, transit vans, jackets, trousers, pens, pencils,
toilet paper, tea bags, cups, kettles, computers and the written word.

The Garda use all of these also,
we know this line of excuses that if the Garda use it,
then an ordinary citizen unanointed with the blue aura of infallibility could not possibly do so,
is utter crap and they know it also.


It is just another tactic to use against us,
the reason for Chief Superintendents and Superintendents ignoring the FPU when it suits them,
and using Garda Ballistics as their preferred source of information is because as others have said,
they only want justification for their decision, not facts truth or anything else mere mortals must rely on.

Some have demonstrated, ignoring the legislation is not a problem for them either if it suits their purpose,
firearm licensing aside, it is an awful thing to be presented with the fact that some senior ranking Garda members entrusted with enforcing the law are not above bending or ignoring it if it suits them, as a law abiding person it makes me sick.

At one time I would have treated claims by people accused of crimes that they were fitted up, or that senior Garda had flat out lied in their evidence as obviously false, because I believed senior Garda would make sure they and the officers under their command, enforced the law as written without fear or favour, told the truth, investigated matters to ascertain the facts, and let the courts decide on those facts alone.

But having dealt first hand with some of them,
I know better, some senior Garda are politically motivated,
not by party politics, but by internal Garda politics, decisions and actions are taken on the basis of how will this benefit my career, and what can I use to justify my decision, now I have made it on a uninformed whim?

I know I will call in an "expert" that agrees with my decision or will come up with something to support it



Dvs.

rowa

The thing is though that the fpu has been set up at the taxpayers expense during very straitened times and it is being ignored completely, the famous list was drawn up in negotiations with the minister and the firearms on it accepted as being unrestricted.
Along come the senior ranks of the gardai and they ignore everything that doesn't suit them, surely this falls under the area covered by the garda ombudsman ?
I think if the gardai can make up the laws they want as they go along then that is a very dangerous situation.

rrpc

rowa wrote: »

but what they are doing is a direct challenge to the lawful legislation the government brought in , the law states in black and white that you can have a smith and wesson 617 revolver (e.g. its on the list ) and a friend of mine in the same district as myself has been refused because the ballistics dept have taken it upon themselves to say no revolvers are suitable for target shooting.

The guidelines aren't the law, so the list has no real standing other than as a guide.

If it came to court, the underlying legislation would be the focal point and not the guidelines.

rowa

rrpc wrote: »

The guidelines aren't the law, so the list has no real standing other than as a guide.

If it came to court, the underlying legislation would be the focal point and not the guidelines.

ok , then why the hell bother getting people to give up their valuable time and sit down and work out this list in the first place, no wonder the world laughs at irish logic :mad:.

rrpc

rowa wrote: »

ok , then why the hell bother getting people to give up their valuable time and sit down and work out this list in the first place, no wonder the world laughs at irish logic :mad:.

Well it's supposed to be helpful to FO's, Superintendents etc. that they can look at a list and see if an application is for a restricted or unrestricted pistol.

It has other downsides as well. I know of a couple of people who were told that air pistols were restricted because they weren't on the list and another guy who has a single shot .22 pistol who was told the same thing.

When you want them to read the list, they read the legislation and vice versa. :rolleyes:

In the end it's up to the Super or Chief Super and ultimately the courts if required and availed of.

rowa

rrpc wrote: »

Well it's supposed to be helpful to FO's, Superintendents etc. that they can look at a list and see if an application is for a restricted or unrestricted pistol.

It has other downsides as well. I know of a couple of people who were told that air pistols were restricted because they weren't on the list and another guy who has a single shot .22 pistol who was told the same thing.

When you want them to read the list, they read the legislation and vice versa. :rolleyes:

In the end it's up to the Super or Chief Super and ultimately the courts if required and availed of.

but you miss my point rrpc , the guy i shoot with has a s+w 617 revolver with a chamber plugged which under the legislation (and on the list) is unrestricted and the decision to grant the cert should be down to the super , he gets a letter from the chief telling him that the gun is a restricted firearm and he has been refused the cert.

i am in the same area and the local f/o has told me that any quiries the super or chief super have are being refered to the garda ballistics dept, and they have said no .22lr revolver is elegable for olympic shooting.
you're involved in the target shooting scene rrpc , is there anything in the rulebook about about revolvers being not allowed for this shooting ?

rrpc

rowa wrote: »

but you miss my point rrpc , the guy i shoot with has a s+w 617 revolver with a chamber plugged which under the legislation (and on the list) is unrestricted and the decision to grant the cert should be down to the super , he gets a letter from the chief telling him that the gun is a restricted firearm and he has been refused the cert.

i am in the same area and the local f/o has told me that any quiries the super or chief super have are being refered to the garda ballistics dept, and they have said no .22lr revolver is elegable for olympic shooting.
you're involved in the target shooting scene rrpc , is there anything in the rulebook about about revolvers being not allowed for this shooting ?

The rules only specify the maximum length of the barrell, the maximum sight radius, the minimum trigger weight, the overall size and the type and shape of the grip.

The problem is in the wording of the SI, it says: "designed for use in Olympic Competition". As there are only two disciplines shot in the Olympics using automatic pistols: 25m pistol for women and Rapid Fire Pistol for men, the issue is whether or not a revolver could be considered "designed for use..". Certainly the rapid fire pistol event would be nearly impossible to compete in with a revolver as you are required to fire five shots at five targets in 8 seconds, 6 seconds and four seconds so only the women's event would be possible.

It would require a court case (probably at High Court level) to establish what exactly is meant by the wording, but it would be a high risk strategy as there's always the strong possiblity of restricting the list even further based on the above paragraph.

rowa

as expected i was refused the licence for my .22 revolver, i just came home and the letter from one of irelands finest :rolleyes: was waiting for me.
he quotes the ballistics section in the letter.

"i have received written conformation from the ballistics section in garda headquarters the even if this revolver is modified to only 5 rounds, it must still be considered as a restricted firearm by virtue of statutory instrument No.337 of 2009 firearms (restricted firearms and ammunition) (amendment)order 2009".

the 5 rounds of .22lr ammunition that this revolver fires must be more deadly than the 5 rounds of .22 lr ammunition that the non-restricted pistols fire.:mad:

bunny shooter

I know your pain