Limerick DC Appeal - SUCCESS!!!

Grizzly 45

Wonder though Sparks,as there have been groups who have sucessfully won actions here.[The deaf army men for example].Ok Class action isnt proably the right legal term,but there is somthing there all right.

Sparks

There wasn't a single army claim Grizzly, there were almost 17,000 cases...
http://www.tribune.ie/news/home-news/article/2009/dec/13/army-deafness-claims-still-being-heard-after-a-dec/

pedroeibar1

Sparks wrote: »

Not sure if you can do that Grizzly, as McGarr's pointed out last month over the Ryanair refusal to refund those left stranded by the volcano. No such thing as class action suits in Ireland.

(If there were, shooters would probably be amongst the first to take such a case against the Minister).

No class actions per se but there have been several that are class actions in all but name. The asbesteosis ones spring to mind, where a few law firms represented dozens of workers in various companies/places e.g. B & I.

Wait until the reports on a bank or two are published, and wait to see the shareholders lining up for a pop at the auditors!:D:D:D
P.

Sparks

Well, I'd pause before arguing that McGarrs didn't know the law, myself

pedroeibar1

Sparks wrote: »

Well, I'd pause before arguing that McGarrs didn't know the law, myself

That is not what I’m saying – I've no argument with McGarrs, the Irish legal system does not allow for class actions. (Not that I'd be worried about arguing with a lawyer anyway )

But we have an Irish solution - multi-plaintiff litigation - which is commonplace in Ireland e.g. Grizzley was right in mentioning the Army deafness claims; could also add the Blood Transfusion Board claims and claims on asbestos. Actually, to a layman there is not a lot of difference between the two types of litigation.

However, (as a non-lawyer) I cannot see how the “refusals” as currently construed could constitute the basis for any sort of “Group” action, other than as a the motivator for the creation of a fund for a judicial review. That, I think, could be an option, given the wide range of interpretation of the legislation and continuing changes to the CS guidelines.

OK?;)
P.

daveob007

Its great to see the unfair decisions being overturned by the dc judge but my question is will we have to go through the same procedure again in 3 years when these granted certs expire and will the costs be as high again.
Was there anything in the judgements that state anything for the future???
Just curious as many of ye have spent a few thousand euros to appeal+range fees for the next 3 years and the ammo costs,thats a fair big whack of money.
Not trying to say thats its a waste of money or anything,its not and should be fought all the way if you can afford to do it.
hopefully in 3 years we will have a different government who will hopefully again see our side of things and stop all this b___s__t and let us do our thing unhindered.
My gut feeling is that this minister will come back again and shift the goalposts again in the near future and make it harder for us.
Some of us who cannot afford the money to appeal along with other reasons have already taken the hit and become victims of an unfair regime.
They have picked off the weakest of us in a disgracful manner but will they go again and try to get more pistols out of our hands????

guns4fun

daveob007 wrote: »

Its great to see the unfair decisions being overturned by the dc judge but my question is will we have to go through the same procedure again in 3 years when these granted certs expire and will the costs be as high again.
Was there anything in the judgements that state anything for the future???
Just curious as many of ye have spent a few thousand euros to appeal+range fees for the next 3 years and the ammo costs,thats a fair big whack of money.
Not trying to say thats its a waste of money or anything,its not and should be fought all the way if you can afford to do it.
hopefully in 3 years we will have a different government who will hopefully again see our side of things and stop all this b___s__t and let us do our thing unhindered.
My gut feeling is that this minister will come back again and shift the goalposts again in the near future and make it harder for us.
Some of us who cannot afford the money to appeal along with other reasons have already taken the hit and become victims of an unfair regime.
They have picked off the weakest of us in a disgracful manner but will they go again and try to get more pistols out of our hands????

Don't blame you for thinking like that either,last thing you want to do is spend a fortune and find yourself in limbo again in 3 years time or worse trying to sell a pistol which is worthless on the european market.
I know 3 others just like you who cannot get the money together for the appeal and who cannot get a decent price for their pistols.
How many others are in the same boat????
As for future legislation. It's very likely that the goalposts will be moved again before this government expires,and where will that leave us then.
If the ff party gets elected next time then cf pistol shooting could well be doomed.
Whats needed now is for the other parties to make a definite stand on firearms legislation so we know where we stand if ff gets ousted at the next election.
The N.G.B.s need to start talking to these people and get some sort of plan for the future so as to protect whats left.

Grizzly 45

OTOH, by then we will have numerous High court cases hopefully through the system,and hopefully somone will pick up on how much this has cost the taxpayer.:(

freddieot

Guys, the more I hear of faint heart the more I am DETERMINED to go to court. Justice is what is at stake here.

I was at Midlands today and I spoke to one guy who had decided not to contest his case for a 9mm. Now,after a new view on things, I think he is going to fight for his corner. Eveyone should appeal.

Once more into the breach dear friends !

Lets show them it's not the 1970's, the Superintendant is not always God's favourite son and you really can't trust Brother Thomas.

Sparks

freddieot wrote: »

Justice is what is at stake here.

Yeah. You're going to a court of law mate, not a court of justice. If you walk into a courtroom expecting the judge to put fairness above the letter of the law, you might as well set fire to the thousands of euro you're about to throw away.

Lets show them it's not the 1970's, the Superintendant is not always God's favourite son and you really can't trust Brother Thomas.

You're completely right, it's not the 1970s. It's 2010 and the law now gives the Minister the full legal authority to do what he did in 1972, but this time it won't be a simple policy which we can get appeal; it will be a fully legal ban which the legislation explicitly lets him do.

I can't stress this enough - people going to court in order to 'fight da powa' are doing nothing but harm for those people who are being forced to go to court to have legitimate grievances addressed.

Grizzly 45

Well,look at it like this;If that "minister" wants to do so .He will have to do it within the next 48 months or less if this Govt falls.Last time he announced it at the ASGI convention in May 08. That is like the Queens speech for what will happen in the next months in firearms and other revelant legislation.Once you have them happy as a minister you are on the way.He didnt dare show his face in Limerick at this years convention.:p.All in all unless the Irish people suffer 100% total amnesia and collective stupidity within the next two years.That horribe little man and his pals and their Green lickspittles and lackeys are OUT.The sooner the better!:mad:

Sparks

Grizzly, he doesn't have to announce anything. The current legislation means he can just write up an SI and release it. And if you think he doesn't know that, you've been ill advised by whomever told you it wouldn't happen!

Grizzly 45

Well why didnt he do it in the first place in Nov 08??I think you will find it is alot more complex that they let on..

Sparks

I think you'll find that the legislation's fairly clear cut on this one Grizzly:

2C.— (1) The Minister may, in the interests of public safety and security, by order—
(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;

and

(b) declare specified ammunition to be prohibited ammunition for the purposes of this Act by reference to one or more than one of the following criteria:
(i) category;
(ii) calibre;
(iii) weight;
(iv) kinetic energy;
(v) ballistic co-efficient;
(vi) design;

That's a decleration, done by SI. Doesn't have to go through the Dail, and doesn't need to be announced, and frankly in the current "Fight Da Powa" environment, is far more likely than it was in Nov.08, when there was reason for him to not seek a PR fight. Right now, it doesn't matter and everyone knows it - FF isn't getting in at the next election and they're going to spend the next few years in internal wrangling to get the internal succession sorted out anyway as Cowen is basicly done as soon as the election rolls around. And since FF reward hard-liners, why would Ahern decide to be reasonable?

rowa

Sparks wrote: »

I think you'll find that the legislation's fairly clear cut on this one Grizzly:


That's a decleration, done by SI. Doesn't have to go through the Dail, and doesn't need to be announced, and frankly in the current "Fight Da Powa" environment, is far more likely than it was in Nov.08, when there was reason for him to not seek a PR fight. Right now, it doesn't matter and everyone knows it - FF isn't getting in at the next election and they're going to spend the next few years in internal wrangling to get the internal succession sorted out anyway as Cowen is basicly done as soon as the election rolls around. And since FF reward hard-liners, why would Ahern decide to be reasonable?

does he have to justify the SI to anyone as its supposed to be in the interests of public safety and security, eg offer evidence ?

Grizzly 45

Well,Go ahead and do it Dermo...But I think he is smart enough to know the consequences if he does..Go figure.

It wasn't me!

rowa wrote: »

does he have to justify the SI to anyone as its supposed to be in the interests of public safety and security, eg offer evidence ?

Nope, as far as I know. Write it, sign it, publish it.

It wasn't me!

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Well,Go ahead and do it Dermo...But I think he is smart enough to know the consequences if he does..Go figure.

Problem is there aren't really any consequences for him.

Grizzly 45

Oh yes there are....He is so anti gun he could have done this in Nov 2008,so answer me this why didnt he??????

meathshooter1

freddieot wrote: »

Guys, the more I hear of faint heart the more I am DETERMINED to go to court. Justice is what is at stake here.

I was at Midlands today and I spoke to one guy who had decided not to contest his case for a 9mm. Now,after a new view on things, I think he is going to fight for his corner. Eveyone should appeal.

Once more into the breach dear friends !

Lets show them it's not the 1970's, the Superintendant is not always God's favourite son and you really can't trust Brother Thomas.

NEVER FORGET that we only have pistols from the courage of others who took it upon themselves to challenge in the courts it is not a question of fighting the power its a question of whats right and wrong and some CS making it up as they go acting as if they are untouchable is wrong we live in a republic not a communist police state .If I heard a valid reason for giving up my pistol I would gladly do so ,to date I havnt heard one,but all this nonsence that is currently going on I think the commisioner should step in and show some control I will do whatever I have to try keep it I have drawn my line in the sand I will have my day in court.

rowa

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Oh yes there are....He is so anti gun he could have done this in Nov 2008,so answer me this why didnt he??????

probabily too sneaky for that , ban any applications after nov 08 and then keep weeding out the one that are left , divide and conquer.

Sparks

meathshooter1 wrote: »

NEVER FORGET that we only have pistols from the courage of others who took it upon themselves to challenge in the courts

And because the Gardai and the Minister were in the midst of a public row at the time (why do you think the policy on issuing certs was dropped long before the policy on issuing import licences was?).

it is not a question of fighting the power its a question of whats right and wrong

Not all the time it's not. Look, if there's a real case where it has to be sorted by a court (like in Kilcock last year), then yes, we need to do that. But gung-ho, jingoistic, fight-da-powa type of cases, they do far more harm than good and are bloody expensive to boot. What's needed is a bit more judgement than we're seeing. Even the Supreme Court justice just said it:

Justice Fennelly wrote:

the communications between the appellant and the Minister had some of the character of a dialogue of the deaf.

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

does he have to justify the SI to anyone as its supposed to be in the interests of public safety and security, eg offer evidence ?

Nope. We could, in theory, appeal it - but that's a long expensive process and there's no guarantees about success. This is a case where it's far far better to prevent the problem rather than try to cure it.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Well,Go ahead and do it Dermo...But I think he is smart enough to know the consequences if he does..Go figure.

There aren't any of note for him. He's already lost his seat at the next election, what worse can we possibly do to him?

Dvs

Hello Sparks,
I have read your last few posts in this thread,
and wonder if you would be able to make this distinction between,
"fight Da Power" and genuine grounds for appeal through the district court,
if your firearms licence renewal had been refused?

For you this is just a theoretical discussion to debate to the enth degree,
Play devils advocate and having no dog in the race, climb the moral high ground.


Your argument that:

" it's far far better to prevent the problem rather than try to cure it. "

Is a wonderful idea in a ideal world, where those that you are dealing with, namely "Da Power", embrace and feel a moral and ethical obligation to truth, honesty, and the law.

And a willingness to engage in discussion to resolve anything,
this is simply not the case, the only "discussions" in recent times
which they have engaged in, were a smoke screen for an information gathering exercise, to Royaly shaft Irish shooting sports, a fact which the majority of the shooting sports participants in those discussions now admit.



In the Republic of Ireland that we live in.

"Da Power" has placed many requirements in the way of firearms licence applicants, for some that have met them, meeting them is still not enough, and refusals have been issued to those applicants, the law states that applicants so refused, have the right to appeal that decision through the district court.

Not exercising that right means it may as well not exist,
not exercising that right on the basis that it may do more harm than good,
empowers "Da Power" to continue to shaft those involved in shooting sports.


A man that lives in a field that has fence posts but no fence,
but refuses to cross the boundary because "Da power" might put a up an actual fence still lives as a prisoner, just one of his own making.



Dvs.

Grizzly 45

PLus 1 DVs.

Sparks

Dvs wrote: »

Hello Sparks,
I have read your last few posts in this thread,
and wonder if you would be able to make this distinction between,
"fight Da Power" and genuine grounds for appeal through the district court,
if your firearms licence renewal had been refused?

Yes.

For you this is just a theoretical discussion to debate to the enth degree

For me, it is not theoretical. Do you think that if the Minister, in response to all of the 'fight da powa' cases, decides to demonstrate to Fianna Fail that he can be a hardliner and bans all pistols, that I'll keep mine?
Do you think that the idiots who decided to 'fight da powa' in the 90s and refused to accept air and smallbore pistol licencing, but instead opted to continue to fight for 'all or nothing', had no effect on me?
Do you think that watching 'fight da powa' cases destroying everything that several of us (and I include myself in that 'us') poured ten years of our life into, is in some way amusing to me?

Your argument that:
" it's far far better to prevent the problem rather than try to cure it. "
Is a wonderful idea in a ideal world

Let me enlighten you slightly here DvS.
I live in a high-crime area. There's no road from where I live that has not had an executed drug dealer's body collected off it by the gardai in the last 18 months or so. Less than five minutes walk from my home is where a bunch of kids no older than 16 lured a man out of his home by throwing eggs, in order to shoot him in the stomach. So when I walk into my local garda station and they issue me my licences inside of five working days, despite my licences being the first they've seen and despite them never having met me before, I have to conclude that the system is capable of working even when things are not ideal. And when my initial pistol licence is granted in my previous district in five working days over the xmas and new year's holidays, I have to conclude the same thing. And when I note that well over 99.9% of all applications are treated properly, I have to conclude that the problems that are there do not require the pitchforks and torches in order to be resolved. And I find that the judgements in the reasonable cases we've seen taken in the last few years reinforce that - Goodison loses his case on a technical point, but is out-and-out told to reapply by the judge. O'Leary sets a valuable precedent on how licencing decisions should be carried out. And through all of this, we had a process with the DoJ that saw the NGBs getting a degree of contact with the department that ten years ago I was laughed at by one NGB committee for suggesting was possible.

But for some, all of that's just not sexy enough. They can't work with others, they can't exhibit any patience, they must have everything yesterday and for free and if they don't get it, they have to fight da powa. And those are the people who are happy to risk all of everyone else's gains.

the only "discussions" in recent times
which they have engaged in, were a smoke screen for an information gathering exercise, to Royaly shaft Irish shooting sports, a fact which the majority of the shooting sports participants in those discussions now admit.

As a consequence of pouring a decade of my life into this, I happen to know the majority of those in the NGBs and DoJ. That doesn't make me particularly special, but it does mean I've had a few phone calls, a few emails and a few PMs that you haven't, so let me share a piece of information with you.
You're wrong. McCarron is a prime example of why you're wrong. And the majority of the shooting sports participants in those discussions are not looking at the DoJ as the source of the problem. They're looking at those who are taking unnecessary cases, or very weak cases like McCarron, they're looking at the Judgements coming back from the High and Supreme courts that see justices asking openly why these cases weren't solved with a quick phone call.

I don't particularly have any love for the Minister, but I fail to see how we're served by trying to goad him into a fight we have no hope of winning. The law is on his side, and if we could find a way that the law wasn't on his side, how long do you think it would take him to rewrite it? You cannot stand there DvS, and tell me that the system is unfair, and in the same breath tell me that you will fight that unfairness through the same system, it's raw stupidity to think that that's a viable course of action.

the law states that applicants so refused, have the right to appeal that decision through the district court.
Not exercising that right means it may as well not exist,

Correct. And unopposed in its correctness, regardless of what you may think.

But walking into the Super's office, demanding a licence, insisting that he has no right to refuse, acting entitled beyond reason, playing the hurt idiot when the refusal comes, and then going straight to the barrister's office and down to the DC without trying any other path? That's not using a right, it's abusing it. And as to the current practise of taking JRs on DC decisions without appealing to the CC? That's a practice designed to antagonise the respondant, not resolve the dispute.

What's needed here DvS is not capitulation - what's needed here is to identify whether or not a fight is really necessary and then to go about that process in the most efficient manner. 'Fight da powa' cases are the antithesis of this - they're all about getting a day in court to stand up and yell at someone ineffectually and then suffer the great romantic Irish failure. And frankly, I'm sick to the back teeth of it, and sicker for knowing that the rest of us will get saddled with the bill when it arrives.

freddieot

Fight Da Power Cases - an interesting take on things.

I thought I was making a legitimate legal appeal as is my right. Maybe for some people it is still the 1970's after all

Well, I have no burning desire to fight Da Power. However, if I take the jist of what some people are saying here it would appear that anyone that is refused a licence should just keep quiet and not rock the boat for any other lucky people that were granted theirs (for now) !

the I'm alright Jack, please keep you voice down, I might lose my pellet gun or whatever I hold dear, is exactly the reason we are in this mess. Yes, the Minister could do an SI in the morning to ban all pistols, all black rifles and anthing else that is not flavour of the month. He won't becasue that would insitigate not only the political feeding frenzy he expects from his counterparts in opposition but also a raft of legal challenges and the potential for millions in compensation claims.

Like it or lump it that's my opinion.

Sparks

freddieot wrote: »

if I take the jist of what some people are saying here it would appear that anyone that is refused a licence should just keep quiet and not rock the boat for any other lucky people that were granted theirs (for now) !

Wrong. And frankly, disingenuous because it's been explicitly spelt out several times.
Court is a measure of last resort. If you've got a genuine greivance, if talking to the Super didn't sort it, if talking via your NGB to the FPU didn't sort it, if you've exhausted all avenues and what you want is the licence rather than to try to teach the Super a lesson, then yes, a court case is probably a good option.

But this stupid practice of demanding a licence, of insisting you have a right to one, of picking fights that have nothing to do with sport? That's the real "I'm allright Jack". People who do that kind of thing, they have no regard for anyone but themselves and frankly, I don't see why we should have any regard for them.

Compare McCarron and O'Leary. One applies for a calibre that is best suited to the task, encounters a Super who is being a complete arse, winds up having to go to court, and the result is a precendent that says that the applicant must be considered, not just the firearm. A good case, taken properly, and gets a result that's immensely useful for everyone. The other case, someone walks into the Supers office, has a row with him, then takes it to the Supreme Court with a weak case and has the immensely useful precendent overturned and the High Court judgement that comes out is used as cover for a ban on pistols.

Now are you really going to tell me that those two cases are equal? That one wasn't a bad idea?

He won't becasue that would insitigate not only the political feeding frenzy he expects from his counterparts in opposition but also a raft of legal challenges and the potential for millions in compensation claims.

His counterparts in opposition - like Deasy you mean?
Millions in compensation claims - like we had in 1972 you mean?
A raft of legal challanges - against something the law gives the Minister the explicit power to do you mean? (And who's paying for those challanges, btw?)

Grizzly 45

Court is a measure of last resort. If you've got a genuine greivance, if talking to the Super didn't sort it, if talking via your NGB to the FPU didn't sort it, if you've exhausted all avenues and what you want is the licence rather than to try to teach the Super a lesson, then yes, a court case is probably a good option.

On that I will agree with you 100% Sparks.It shouldnt be a decision to be taken lightly.

But this stupid practice of demanding a licence, of insisting you have a right to one, of picking fights that have nothing to do with sport? That's the real "I'm allright Jack". People who do that kind of thing, they have no regard for anyone but themselves and frankly, I don't see why we should have any regard for them.

Ok,lets break this down abit.Who exactly can walk in and demand a liscense for a CF handgun liscens post 18/11/08? Sofar we have had one case of this.There are proably now appx 400 CF pistol owners left who will fight for heir liscenses,are in the process of doing so ,or have been granted.[I am using ballpark figures here BTW]
So how many realistically do you think Sparks,are actually doing a Fight da power run??[Could we call this somthing else?That phrase sounds like somthing out of the 1960s LA Watts riots used by the Black Panthers?:(]

His counterparts in opposition - like Deasy you mean?

One man,who if there is a workable policy under FG,will be under the party whip to shut up?

Millions in compensation claims - like we had in 1972 you mean?

Different story,it was a tempoary custody order ,not a confiscation.As you have said yourself many times.The Govt had no case to answer then.

Not to mind times have changed since 1972.A whole new raft of law from the EU comes into play as well,not so much on firearms in this case,but on property and human rights and equality in the EU,belive it or not.
Not to mind we have become less subservient to our lords and masters than we were in 72.