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
New Minister for Justice
Options
Comments
-
Thanks Sparks, Having been a senior public servant for many years I am somewhat aware of the role of a Principal Officer :rolleyes:
My bad. There are some who don't know that though. (You might actually lay it out for those who don't know in a bit more detail - it's not a part of life that many people see day-to-day).
My bad for not being clear enough - it wasn't meant as an accusation against you personally. As you've said yourself though, there are those who do, and from what I can tell from their complaints, it's purely on the basis that he did the job he's paid to do.Also, I never said that I hated the guy, please do not publish your erreonous interpetation on my comments just because they do not agree with your perspective :mad:
First time we met the Department they were absolutely convinced you used 9mm pistols in the Olympics because someone had told them definitively that that was the case. The DoJ having bad information is a problem that's been there for years. It's gotten much better in recent years, but it's something you have to keep working at. There's so much to learn in our sports that you could be learning for twenty years and still not know everything.I questioned the source, accuracy and truth of some of the information that the former Minister (who, incidentally I do hate, for many reasons) spoke and acted upon. I can only speculate at the the motivation for this!0 -
From Irish Shooting Politics:
Still, it's not exactly the kind of response that would warm the cockles of your heart. But then, we weren't ever going to get that, I think. But given that we could fix the vast majority of our issues with one SI (maybe two at the most), one minor bit tucked away in the back end of some random bill somewhere, and that restatement that the Law Reform Commission have been calling for for years, it's not like we needed him to be a cheerleader for us right now or to be in the programme for government.April 28, 2011
The new Justice Minister’s plans for Firearms
Shortly after Alan Shatter was appointed as the new Justice Minister, people were wondering was he in favour of private firearms ownership or against it because of his past history with the Irish Council Against Blood Sports, which saw him voting both in their interests (on hare coursing) and against their interests (on carted stag hunting). I thought it’d be more productive to ask him than to speculate, so I wrote and sent off this (both by email and by old-fashioned letter):Minister,
Firstly congratulations on your appointment to your new position at the head of the Department of Justice, Equality and Defence. Those of us in the shooting community wish you the best in this office, and look forward to the years to come.
I have been an Olympic target shooter for many years, shooting air rifle, air pistol and smallbore rifle. I also help run http://targetshooting.boards.ie, which is the online discussion forum for target shooters in Ireland. Your appointment has been a much-discussed topic in even the short time since it was announced today. As such, I thought I would send you an email to ask if you could write a few brief words for the shooting community upon your appointment, because at present, the community (of some 200,000 people) has spent some three years feeling as though your predecessor had a personal grudge against the community and was biased in his drafting of legislation as a result.
Prior to the election, another of the targetshooting.boards.ie moderators met with Charles Flanagan on this topic, and was assured by Deputy Flanagan that following the election, if a Fine Gael TD was appointed to the role of Minister for Justice, he would undertake to:
* to meet with the shooting community (via the Firearms Consultation Panel) and discuss the finer points at length
* to see the Firearms Consultation Panel made a permanent feature in any future legislation drafting.
* to fully review the centerfire pistol ban.
He also stated that Fine Gael would, in principle, like to see the minor changes require to expand Olympic air rifle shooting brought into law.
As your principal officers within the department can explain at length, the Firearms Consultation Panel is a body created by Micheal McDowell in order to facilitate the implementation of the 2006 Criminal Justice Act (which re-wrote the vast majority of the Firearms Act). It is chaired by the Department of Justice with the Minister normally represented through the Principal Officer of the Firearms Section, Garrett Byrne (who has worked with community representatives in a highly productive manner in the last seven years, and who is highly regarded by all in the administrative side of the shooting sports who have worked with him). The various shooting bodies, An Garda Siochana, the Department of Sport, and other stakeholders are all represented on the Panel and it is widely held within the shooting community to have been the most successful endeavour ever undertaken by the Department to consult with the shooting community. We would strongly hope to see it established on a permanent basis, instead of as a temporary panel concerned only with the 2006 Act (and the changes brought in since, which have been added to the original remit). A meeting of the Panel attended by yourself would be a strong gesture to the community indicating that your office intends to consult with stakeholders when considering policy changes.
In January of this year, you presented a written question on firearms licencing to your predecessor (question 499 on 11/01/11). The question summed up the main concern of the shooting community at the time:Question 499: To ask the Minister for Justice and Law Reform the number of judicial reviews currently before the High Court arising out of a refusal to grant firearms licences; his plans to undertake a review of existing firearms legislation or to issue further guidance to the Garda Commissioner regarding the licensing of firearms; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48108/10]
Dermot Ahern (Minister, Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform; Louth, Fianna Fail)
I can inform the Deputy that in the region of 175 judicial reviews have been lodged arising from refusals to grant firearms licences by designated persons within An Garda Síochána. As the matter is currently before the Courts, I cannot comment in any substantive way but I understand that a small number of representative test cases will be heard.
As the Deputy will appreciate firearms licensing is an operational matter for An Garda Síochána. Each application is judged on its own merits and the decision on whether, or not, to grant a firearm certificate rests solely with the issuing person. The decision of the issuing person cannot be fettered in any way and I have no role in the matter. Finally, as of now, there are no plans to review the existing firearms legislation.
At the time, a serious problem was arising over the licencing of sporting pistols; since then, this problem has worsened and today nearly 200 cases are now before the courts. Despite your predecessors statement above, a resolution to the problem was within his aegis, and now lies within yours. If you were to amend the restricted firearms list to include all pistols covered by the International Olympic Council’s rules on suitable short firearms for use in competition, it would do away with the majority of these cases at a stroke of a pen (a statutory instrument would be all that would be required), and the resulting goodwill could easily be leveraged to find non-judicial resolution in the few remaining cases.
Lastly, there are some legislative changes which most of those in our community would feel are deeply necessary at the present time. For a start, a legal restatement of the Firearms Act has been badly needed (and recommended by the Law Reform Commission) for several years now – at present it consists of eight Firearms Acts, portions of several other Acts (such as the Wildlife Acts and at least one Road Traffic Act), two EU directives and over fifty Statutory Instruments, all of which must be read together to understand the current law. We estimate that there are no more than two dozen people in the state who truly understand the Firearms Acts as a whole, most of whom sit in the Firearms Consultation Panel meetings.
We would also strongly support legislative changes to harmonise our Firearms Act with those of our partners in the EU. For example, we are the only member state in the EU where Olympic airguns are considered legally firearms (to give a sense of the low power of these airguns, consider that paintball markers have more than twice the muzzle energy of an Olympic air rifle). As a result of this status in Ireland, one of the safest and most popular sports in the world, airgun shooting (which is as popular as soccer across half of Europe) is not as popular as smallbore or fullbore shooting here. Were we to change the 1 Joule muzzle energy limit in section one of the Firearms Act to 7.5 Joules, we would promote Olympic airgun shooting enormously; given that our Olympic Shotgun team has won the World Championships (in 2002) and one of the team won the individual World Championships again in 2010, we have proven we have a significant pool of talent for the shooting sports here, and if airgun shooting was less restrictive, we believe we could pursue and attain an Olympic medal in the sport within ten years.
While we realise that you have enormous demands on your time at present, it would make an enormous impact with the 200,000 people in the shooting community if you could make a general statement as to your feelings regarding our sport, no matter how brief; and while we also realise you must consult with your Department and be more fully briefed by them, if you could give a general statement in principle as to the points above, that would greatly excite our community and give them cause to hope for several years of a productive relationship with the Department and yourself.
Yours in Sport,
At the time, I didn’t expect a rapid answer, and indeed it wasn’t rapid – the letter was sent on March 10 and the reply was drafted on April 20 and only received on April 27. As you can surmise from the letterhead modifications (click on the image to see the full letter), the department is undergoing some organisational changes. So while the answer I received was not encouraging, I don’t believe it is a final, unalterable roadmap for the next few years; and with that caveat in mind, it’s not the worst response we could have seen.
Response from the Minister for Justice
And at least we didn't get back some ICABS stuff!0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
bunny shooter wrote: »I believe that is the proposal
Airsoft limit is 1 joule afaik
Best of irish with that.0 -
-
Hey bunny,
Some good points to talk about in there,
I await you're replybut just before we do, could I ask you to answer one quick question?
No bother, I'll stand over what I've written
What was in the letter you wrote to the Minister?
I haven't written to the current Minister BUT I have written to a previous one and tbh it did me more harm than good in the end I reckon. Sometimes it doesn't pay to ask questions :eek:
I reckon individuals and/or associations writing to the Minister with their own version of Utopia causes everyone else problems ............ the list of photos of pistols which looks like it is now incorportated in the Commissioners Guidelines, the submission from NASRPC on pistols and the fact that my Super has latched on the compulsory competition element for target shooting and that range membership & attendence is not sufficient. And recently I've heard that a Super who was previously issuing moderators has just stopped issuing them. Incidentilly afaik "public safety" is being given as the reason for refusal. Sounds familiar. I wonder if members of the deer shooting communities recent letters to the national press explaining that most poachers are using lamps and moderators has had an adverse effect on legitimate shooters.........................................................but then again surely the DOJ wouldn't use what we tell them against us :rolleyes:
While I agree the FCP may have done some sterling work like the FPU, which I think is the best thing to come out of this mess, it has no real "power" it's just there for show IMVHO.0 -
-
-
Grand so. I just wanted to be clear, this wasn't me gazumping something you were doing, it's just you complaining about something someone else did while you didn't do anything.
OK so :rolleyes: you can have the last word on that one
No such thing in law - and that's come up before, the first time being about four seconds after the whole "competency" question came up a few years back. That's why it's competency and not proficiency in the law. Have you had a word with the nearest FCP rep to hand or called the FPU yourself?
However, a Super/Chief Super can now put ANY conditions they want on a licence. What's to stop them making this a condition? And to answer you're question an FCP Rep. intervened and it was sorted, but you already know that, I reckonIt would, they've been citing that since long before I started shooting.
And it will take a court case to resolve why I can have a rifle without danger to public safety but not a moderator. Pity they're not used in "Olympic shootingI've highlighted the problem there for you bunny. You'll note it's (surprisingly) not the DoJ. I'd have highlighted the word Minister there as well, but you omitted it....
Of course, DOJ don't read national papersYou're half-right. The FCP has no "real power" in that it can't veto a minister or draft a law. The clue is in the name - Firearms Consultative Panel. They consult, they do not dictate.
I know :rolleyes: my point was that the vast majority of those they claim to represent don't even know that the FCP exists or what is being discussed until it has been "sorted"Now, if you have some idea that'd work that would let us veto a Minister, let's be having it.
Politics, no matter what part of life it's in ................. a dirty world I'd rather stay away fromOtherwise, you're just complaining about stuff the rest of us pointed out in 2005. (Seriously, 2005. You want the link?) edit: scratch that, it was 2007, not 2005. My bad)
Wow betide those who dare to complain about what people do in their name without asking them if they agree :eek:Truth is, once you accept it for what it is instead of what someone dreamt it should be able to do (a dream devoid of the concepts of democratic process by the way), and once you compare it to what we had before this point, you'll realise that it's worth a damn sight more than anyone has give it credit for. Even leaving aside the daft legislation it's saved us from (do you need to cite your dentist on your FCA1 form?), there's the point that the FCP is the first time the NGBs came together and worked together properly (or as well as they could, at any rate).
If I had to provide my dentist's details would it be any worse than having to provide my doctors details ?And remember - in five years, if the FCP goes away now, you'll be the one complaining that we need the FCP back.
Maybe, maybe notNow, those original points:
Yes, of course.I don't. I'm reporting what I'm seeing.As I said in the original post, it's not the best answer in the world. But compared to what some of us expected (given his past history with ICABS), it's a damn sight better than it could have been. It's noncommittal - not a win, not a loss.
Reporting what you see is fine BUT it is not the whole storyNot really - with 2012 only next year, the Olympics has a lot of clout at the moment. Only an idiot doesn't use the tools to hand if they're fit for purpose.
Olympics is important to your style of shooting, which is fine, BUT it is not that important to all the 200,000 members of the shooting communitya bit more than 6 fl.lb.
Thanks, saves me having to do the calculationsIf we could get 12 ft lbs, that'd be brilliant. Hunting wouldn't be the lead argument for that though - paintball would. (Paintball markers are 12 ft lb or so).
Paintball is irrelevant here, might as well mention golf :rolleyes:
If 12ft lbs was sought it would by default get what you want and I quarantee that you'd get LOTS of support from those 200,000 shooters and many more as you said above and as you rightly stated above it would revitalise the dealers trade in a heartbeat and this would solve many more problems than it might create.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
bunny shooter wrote: »OK so :rolleyes: you can have the last word on that one :pac:
Well, Dunne for a start. They can put individual preconditions on individual licences, yes, but a blanket precondition is a no-no; and if they said you had to maintain a set standard in matches for your licence, I can't see any DC judge upholding that unless the standard was so low as to be basicly a competency test anyway.However, a Super/Chief Super can now put ANY conditions they want on a licence. What's to stop them making this a condition?
I actually didn't, but it's an interesting point to remember!And to answer you're question an FCP Rep. intervened and it was sorted, but you already know that, I reckon
Centerfire rifles and pistols were still in use in the Olympics in '72, they were taken in anyway. The Olympic brand is a useful thing Bunny, but it's not omnipotent.And it will take a court case to resolve why I can have a rifle without danger to public safety but not a moderator. Pity they're not used in "Olympic shooting
No, the Minister's PR people do. Embarrassing a Minister has side effects that aren't fun BS, you know this. And the Minister is the one who sets policy.Of course, DOJ don't read national papers
That's more a facet of the 2% problem than it is a conspiracy though - that thread in 2007 has a solid example of it, with someone complaining they'd not been told about the FCP invitation the NTSA received by the NTSA, when the NTSA had it on their website, front and center. The FCP's had two public conferences, it's been in the magazines and on here and talked about all over the place - if people don't know what it is, it's not because it hides itself away. Yes, its communications could be better - but that's a perennial problem shared by every aspect of shooting administration and the PTB in Ireland.I know :rolleyes: my point was that the vast majority of those they claim to represent don't even know that the FCP exists or what is being discussed until it has been "sorted"
So you've no ideas. Look, that's not a bad thing - I've no ideas as to what would let us veto a Minister either. It's just that I've spent some time looking, and I don't think there are any, by design (there's just no provision in the Constitution for doing that in Ireland).Politics, no matter what part of life it's in ................. a dirty world I'd rather stay away from
Once you accept that that's not possible, and see what you have to work within, the FCP stops looking like it's incompetent (or just not trying) and you see that anyone trying to do that job is going to be limited by law in what they can do, and frankly, the FCP's further towards a solution than anyone's been in the past. All we've managed till now has been either shady deals in back rooms with no transparancy which usually didn't benefit everyone, or people shouting and banging on tables and being ignored because they had no idea what the law allowed or prohibited (or even how the law worked in the first place - we've seen public protest meetings in the last few years where those who called the meetings didn't know really basic things like how bills progress through the Dail and Seanad to become law, or what could and couldn't be done during that process).
If the choice is between quiet pragmatic work that does the best it's possible to do; or the traditional romantic Irish failure approach, I know which I prefer.Wow betide those who dare to complain about what people do in their name without asking them if they agree :eek:
Yes. Because your dentist wasn't going to be asked about your teeth, but about your mental health. And no, I'm not kidding. There was a list of ten or eleven people who'd be asked about your mental state, including your GP (we saw that again of late thanks to the IMO's PR stunt), your psychologist or psychiatrist (which made some sense if you had one), various nurses, and I think your postman was on there at one point.If I had to provide my dentist's details would it be any worse than having to provide my doctors details ?
Well, it's up here now in black and white, so let's check back in five years :pac:Maybe, maybe not
Says you, but I've yet to come across someone who thinks the FCP was a waste of time and who (a) knows what the FCP is, (b) knows what the FCP does, (c) knows what the law permits anyone to do in this area, and (d) isn't lying themselves or hasn't been lied to by people with an agenda that goes along the lines of "I didn't do it so it's ****e, now let me run things like a small fiefdom or I'll sue you".Reporting what you see is fine BUT it is not the whole story
/facepalmOlympics is important to your style of shooting, which is fine, BUT it is not that important to all the 200,000 members of the shooting community
It is if it's what gets them what they want.
If it's not good enough that you get what you want, but you also have to get it using only the ideology that you prefer, you'll be waiting a looooong time to do what you want with what you want.
Pragmatism has a lot going for it Bunny, I wish people would give it a whirl sometime instead of just arguing because they prefer arguing to shooting.
Again, see above. Public opinion counts in this sort of thing Bunny, because this isn't us going to see the Minister about something that only affects a small subset of people. It's something that changes the laws that everyone works under and if 200,000 people like the change and 3.8million don't, then the change doesn't happen. But everyone and his cousin have gone paintballing for a stag party or something similar, they all understand that it's reasonably safe and harmless (barring taking off the mask and firing point-blank into your face or similar stupidity), and that's the argument for the 12 ft.lb that has more chance of success. Plus, there's a commercial aspect to that argument, and in this economy, that's a good thing.Paintball is irrelevant here, might as well mention golf :rolleyes:
If and only if 12 ft lbs was given. You're looking at it from the wrong end Bunny, you're looking at it from the far end of the process after a success; you need to look at it from this end of the process, with success far from assured.If 12ft lbs was sought it would by default get what you want
Yup. Now, that's 200,000 people supporting it. How do you get the other 3,800,000 people to support it? They don't hunt, they have no real interest in 12 ft.lbs because most of them don't know what a foot-pound is (half probably think it's a dance step from the 1950s).and I quarantee that you'd get LOTS of support from those 200,000 shooters and many more as you said above and as you rightly stated above it would revitalise the dealers trade in a heartbeat and this would solve many more problems than it might create.0 -
I agree 100% de-restricting air rifles should be seriously considered.
I would love to get back into "Field Target" shooting, which I did years ago while living in London. It was cheap & challenging compared to even .22lr target shooting.
With the price of fullbore even .22lr ammo an air rifle would be the way to go
I reckon de-restricted air rifles should still ONLY be sold by RFD's and buyers details recorded as firearms and ammo are currently to facilitate Gardai tracing any potential misuse etc0 -
-
-
Have to say, as nice as it'd be to pick up a little rimfire sporter for bunny bashing, I reckon that in a lot of cases, I'd kill a lot of rabbits with an air rifle, stalking hedges, and that could be even more satisfying, so say nothing of the cheapness. Bunnies at two cent a pop? Happy out! 0
-
bunny shooter wrote: »I agree 100% de-restricting air rifles should be seriously considered.
I would love to get back into "Field Target" shooting, which I did years ago while living in London. It was cheap & challenging compared to even .22lr target shooting.
With the price of fullbore even .22lr ammo an air rifle would be the way to go
I reckon de-restricted air rifles should still ONLY be sold by RFD's and buyers details recorded as firearms and ammo are currently to facilitate Gardai tracing any potential misuse etc
How long do you think it would be until an air rifle fell into the hands of a lowlife and it hit the front of the papers , it was only a short while ago the " pierce street sniper" was on the radio and in the papers , With all the usual misinformed nonsense being spouted by so called experts. I don't see it happening anytime soon.Though i would love a match air pistol.0 -
-
Well, Dunne for a start. They can put individual preconditions on individual licences, yes, but a blanket precondition is a no-no; and if they said you had to maintain a set standard in matches for your licence, I can't see any DC judge upholding that unless the standard was so low as to be basicly a competency test anyway.
That's fine if you can, or even want to, go to the DC. How many people just give in? A fair few I know have
I actually didn't, but it's an interesting point to remember!
Why am I worried............ The Olympic brand is a useful thing Bunny.........
Suppose soNo, the Minister's PR people do. Embarrassing a Minister has side effects that aren't fun BS, you know this. And the Minister is the one who sets policy.
He's a politican. How could you embarrass him :PThat's more a facet of the 2% problem than it is a conspiracy though - that thread in 2007 has a solid example of it, with someone complaining they'd not been told about the FCP invitation the NTSA received by the NTSA, when the NTSA had it on their website, front and center. The FCP's had two public conferences, it's been in the magazines and on here and talked about all over the place - if people don't know what it is, it's not because it hides itself away. Yes, its communications could be better - but that's a perennial problem shared by every aspect of shooting administration and the PTB in Ireland.
MaybeSo you've no ideas. Look, that's not a bad thing - I've no ideas as to what would let us veto a Minister either. It's just that I've spent some time looking, and I don't think there are any, by design (there's just no provision in the Constitution for doing that in Ireland).
Once you accept that that's not possible, and see what you have to work within, the FCP stops looking like it's incompetent (or just not trying) and you see that anyone trying to do that job is going to be limited by law in what they can do, and frankly, the FCP's further towards a solution than anyone's been in the past. All we've managed till now has been either shady deals in back rooms with no transparancy which usually didn't benefit everyone, or people shouting and banging on tables and being ignored because they had no idea what the law allowed or prohibited (or even how the law worked in the first place - we've seen public protest meetings in the last few years where those who called the meetings didn't know really basic things like how bills progress through the Dail and Seanad to become law, or what could and couldn't be done during that process).
If the choice is between quiet pragmatic work that does the best it's possible to do; or the traditional romantic Irish failure approach, I know which I prefer.
Veto the Minister is not what I envisage or would I condone. BUT he has to remember his opinion is not the only opinion too!:pYes. Because your dentist wasn't going to be asked about your teeth, but about your mental health. And no, I'm not kidding. There was a list of ten or eleven people who'd be asked about your mental state, including your GP (we saw that again of late thanks to the IMO's PR stunt), your psychologist or psychiatrist (which made some sense if you had one), various nurses, and I think your postman was on there at one point.
Sure they may as well have added my gun dog too he knows more about my shooting than the postman :P .................... Cripes hope DOJ don't read this and think that's a good idea :eek::DWell, it's up here now in black and white, so let's check back in five years :pac:
:eek:Says you, but I've yet to come across someone who thinks the FCP was a waste of time and who (a) knows what the FCP is, (b) knows what the FCP does, (c) knows what the law permits anyone to do in this area, and (d) isn't lying themselves or hasn't been lied to by people with an agenda that goes along the lines of "I didn't do it so it's ****e, now let me run things like a small fiefdom or I'll sue you".
Some of your points may have merit :P/facepalm
It is if it's what gets them what they want.
If it's not good enough that you get what you want, but you also have to get it using only the ideology that you prefer, you'll be waiting a looooong time to do what you want with what you want.
Must be an Irish thing :P..........Plus, there's a commercial aspect to that argument, and in this economy, that's a good thing.
I agree.If and only if 12 ft lbs was given. You're looking at it from the wrong end Bunny, you're looking at it from the far end of the process after a success; you need to look at it from this end of the process, with success far from assured.
I'm looking at it from MY endYup. Now, that's 200,000 people supporting it. How do you get the other 3,800,000 people to support it? They don't hunt, they have no real interest in 12 ft.lbs because most of them don't know what a foot-pound is (half probably think it's a dance step from the 1950s).
One for everyone in the audience? 0 -
Yeah, and that's a problem, and it's what the FPU is supposed to address (and to be fair, they do - they just don't have a perfect success record yet)bunny shooter wrote: »That's fine if you can, or even want to, go to the DC. How many people just give in? A fair few I know have
And why I don't like the idea of the FCP going away. Hence the inclusion of that point in my letter.Why am I worried
The way Deasy did to Ahern.He's a politican. How could you embarrass him :P
YupMaybe
Actually, that's kindof the point of his job. He takes opinion from everyone (or is meant to) and then goes with whatever he decides is the best solution. That's what he's supposed to do, it's what the job is all about. Now we've seen people abuse that for years - taking what they decided was the best solution for them - but the system remains unchanged today. And we have to work within that.Veto the Minister is not what I envisage or would I condone. BUT he has to remember his opinion is not the only opinion too!
And there you have the official role of the FCP all laid outSure they may as well have added my gun dog too he knows more about my shooting than the postman :P .................... Cripes hope DOJ don't read this and think that's a good idea :eek:
Some? :P :pac:Some of your points may have merit :P
There's too much agreeing going on here, we're going to hurt other people's brains...Must be an Irish thing :P
I agree.
Which is the far end, after a success, when getting to use the outcomeI'm looking at it from MY end
Pretty much...One for everyone in the audience?0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement