Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Licence applications, it's not all horror stories.
Options
-
04-06-2010 6:05am#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Grizzly 45 wrote: »Glad to hear this works folks,but have we heard a story of a resticted application going this easy???I'd love to hear that somone out there had no problems liscensing their restricted rifle,shotgun or handgun???
I did an interview for a Glock 40 Cal, 26 mins of nervousness.
But worth it I believe. I'm glad that eejits can't have pistols. (I mean someone who could not answer a few simple questions with simple answers)
I'm not mean your good self.
4 or more in a pump gun or semi? well i only ever load 3 in any hunting shotgun anyway. Most fellas who go after pheasant will only see one or 2 in a day anyway.
Most times I go out with the shotty I never fire a shot in the field.
Saying that most times lately i went out with bird shot i saw Bambie, Typical
Don't give up hope Grizzly, hope is all we have 0 -
-
-
-
Tac answered that to you fairly directly Bunny (in the deleted posts, by pointing out that he wasn't talking about that subset of applicants -- and we both know that there were applicants who were described fairly as "eejits"). Back on topic please.
And obviously some of those applicants that got a licence could be called "eejits" too
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Their individual cases cannot; but the statistics are anonymised and no such restriction exists.The data is being correlated but as many of those in question are seeking legal recourse their circumstances cannot be specifically discussed in a public forum such as this.
That's okay, a few of us feel that way about the main sources of that particular belief tooMany of them have no time for boards and see it as a problem
The problem is that you can't tell from that whether the problems (which everyone agrees exist) are caused by the system being changed, or by something more policy-driven, or by specific problems with specific individuals.I just gave you anecdotal evidence from my own reasoning that there are massive problems with the system and that is to do with specific individuals.
That would be an arguement against such a policy, because a policy wouldn't be district-specific like that, it'd apply everywhere, to every case.It is patently obvious to those that live in certain districts that it does indeed exist.
Agreed, there are serious problems with the system's design (and we've talked about them before, like the requirement to give up medical confidentiality and so forth) - but you're talking about overt problems there. We need statistical data to determine if an undisclosed policy is being implemented on the ground in violation of stated legislation. And we don't have it.Then there are the colossal oversights in the system such as the fact that there is no such thing as a hunting endorsement on the new license, a requirement of the DOE. This was obviously missed in the rush to implement a solution to a non-existent problem.
They're not. The vast majority are held for farmers for vermin control, not for hunting (which are the licences which need the licence attachment).Considering that of the > 200,000 licensed firearms in the state the vast majority are for hunting0 -
Their individual cases cannot; but the statistics are anonymised and no such restriction exists.
I think the issue is that they do not want it publicised or discussed on boards due to the negative nature of the sentiment here.That's okay, a few of us feel that way about the main sources of that particular belief too
I happen to believe that. It is very disheartening to actually try and find information here - it is most likely there but is nigh on impossible to find between the mental diarrheaThe problem is that you can't tell from that whether the problems (which everyone agrees exist) are caused by the system being changed, or by something more policy-driven, or by specific problems with specific individuals.
If you are being affected by the problems or take the time to understand the problems of those that are you can. I don't need the CSO to tell me most people live in the cities same as I do not need correlated statistics to tell me what is going on with the new licensing system.
For example refusals - you have people that were licensed to shoot pistol since the 50's and 60's - had to hand them in in the 70's for safe keeping, got them back in 2004 returned to their sport and in 2009 were again refused. This latest refusal was a result of a direct policy as if the merits of their particular case were actually taken into account there would have been no question of renewing their licenses.That would be an argument against such a policy, because a policy wouldn't be district-specific like that, it'd apply everywhere, to every case.
In this context a policy means that, on any level, people applications are being dealt with in a common way based on the opinions of beliefs of a group or individual as opposed to based on the particulars of the application itself, as is required by the law.
To believe that that is not happening - statistics be-damned - is head in the sand time.Agreed, there are serious problems with the system's design (and we've talked about them before, like the requirement to give up medical confidentiality and so forth) - but you're talking about overt problems there. We need statistical data to determine if an undisclosed policy is being implemented on the ground in violation of stated legislation. And we don't have it.
You don't have it and I assume have no intrinsic interest in collecting it.
Open your eyes and you will see, Open your mind and you will believe.
B'Man0 -
You'll have to excuse my finding both those sentiments ironic, since prior to boards, that was exactly how things were with all of the NGBs. No information at all, any new ideas rubbished by default, and heaven help you if you ever criticised anything in public because that was your ticket stamped for the rest of your days.I think the issue is that they do not want it publicised or discussed on boards due to the negative nature of the sentiment here.
I happen to believe that. It is very disheartening to actually try and find information here - it is most likely there but is nigh on impossible to find between the mental diarrhea
Personally, I'll accept the few faults boards.ie has if it means I also get the many strong points it has - in my honest opinion, its weaknesses are far, far outweighed by its strengths, something I can't say about other NGOs in our little community.
Actually, you do.I don't need the CSO to tell me most people live in the cities
Otherwise, it's a guess. You might think it accurate because it's your guess, but that doesn't make it so. And the data doesn't have to come from the CSO - but it does have to come from somewhere that can measure it properly. And we don't have that data yet.
But can you say that about everyone who was licenced in the 50's and 60's, handed in in '72 and got them back in 2004? Because I know of people who fit that description and who were not refused.For example refusals - you have people that were licensed to shoot pistol since the 50's and 60's - had to hand them in in the 70's for safe keeping, got them back in 2004 returned to their sport and in 2009 were again refused. This latest refusal was a result of a direct policy as if the merits of their particular case were actually taken into account there would have been no question of renewing their licenses.
This is what I mean by anecdotal data - you know some folks, and they've all had bad experiences. I know some who have had bad experiences and some who've had good experiences, with similar classes of firearms. I'll bet there are others who've only heard of good experiences. You can't rely on anecdotes - you need actual, hard data.
Except that that's not a policy. A policy has to come down from the Minister or Commissioner (or equivalent rank) to the Superintendents making the decisions. Otherwise, it's not a policy, but individual Supers making the decision - and the recent Supreme Court losses mean that that would be perfectly legal.In this context a policy means that, on any level, people applications are being dealt with in a common way based on the opinions of beliefs of a group or individual as opposed to based on the particulars of the application itself, as is required by the law.
But we're reassured that those losses have no ill-effect for the rest of us, so that can't be right, can it? :rolleyes:
0 -
-
-
A policy has to come down from the Minister or Commissioner (or equivalent rank) to the Superintendents making the decisions. Otherwise, it's not a policy, but individual Supers making the decision - and the recent Supreme Court losses mean that that would be perfectly legal.
But we're reassured that those losses have no ill-effect for the rest of us, so that can't be right, can it? :rolleyes:
That is your opinion and, of course, you are entitled to your opinion.
I, however, believe that is not the outcome of the SC ruling.
According to those rulings The Commissioner, Ch. Super, Super or DC i.e. licensing authority, can take the type of firearm into account as part of their decision - they always did - that ruling just says that you cannot challenge the decision on the basis that they took that factor into account as PART OF the decision making process. That only affects, as far as I am aware, the appelant in that case.
They are still required, however, as per legislation, to process each application on it's own merits.
They are not entitled to decide that 'I draw a line, you cross it you die' (As Dermo does) as that is implementing a policy as opposed to fulfilling their requirements under law.
B'Man0
Advertisement