how many guns

johnnymolloy

just wondering how many guns your allowed own until its required u have the monitored house alarm

cheers

Sparks

From the great big flashing red announcement at the top of all of the shooting forums:

|Type and number of firearms| Secure accommodation standard

1 |One non-restricted shot-gun.| The shot-gun shall be disassembled and each part shall be stored securely and separately when not in use. The trigger housing shall be secured against use with an appropriate trigger lock.

2 |One restricted firearm or three or fewer non-restricted firearms. |Each firearm shall be stored securely in a gun safe which complies with BS 7558 and which shall be securely fixed to a solid structure.

3 |Two restricted firearms, or more than three non-restricted firearms. | Each firearm shall be stored in a gun safe which complies with BS 7558 and which shall be securely fixed to a solid structure. The place in which the firearms are stored shall have an alarm fitted and the external doors to the place shall be fitted with locks which comply with BS 3621.

4 |Three or more restricted firearms or six or more firearms, of any type, kept in the same place. | In addition to the standards specified at reference number 3, the place in which the firearms are stored shall have an intruder alarm system, installed and maintained by installers licensed by the Private Security Authority, which complies with I.S. EN 50131 or an equivalent standard approved by the Commissioner of the Garda Siochana. The alarm shall be connected to a monitoring service, operated by a person licensed by the Private Security Authority, and supported with GSM Mobile telephone service back up signalling facilities.

In other words, you need a monitored alarm when you get either three restricted firearms or a total of six firearms (made up of any mix of restricted and non-restricted). You need an ordinary alarm when you get either two restricted or four non-restricted firearms.

However, these are the minimum guidelines. Your Superintendent is allowed to ask for levels of security that are more stringent than this.

johnnymolloy

apologies never even taught of lookin in their cheers

Hibrion

In reality, the local super can insist on one at any time. They make the final decision on security at the end of the day.

Sorry Sparks, I've just seen that you already said this at the end of your post.

Sparks

Hibrion wrote: »

In reality, the local super can insist on one at any time. They make the final decision on security at the end of the day.

In reality, they can't really, not without an actual concern that they could stand over in court. If they didn't have such a concern, doing so would be a blanket precondition, which would be in contempt of court following Dunne-v-Donohue. Before the 2006 Act, that was an academic point unless you could finance a trip to the High Court for a Judicial Review (which couldn't even produce an order for the Super to grant the licence, but merely one to have him go away and think of another reason for his decision) - but since the '06 Act, the Persona Designata status the Supers had has been taken away and you could appeal on those grounds to the district court, which can order a licence be granted.

There are catches:

• No-one should ever think a court case is a sure thing. There's no such thing as a "sure thing" court case. Ever.
• You shouldn't ever go to court unless you have no other choice (and the FCP and FPU are alternatives that should be tried first)
• Even if you win and costs are awarded to you, it isn't free

But nonetheless, the days when the Super could make up the law on his own without any real avenue to challange that decision are gone. Even if it's a mucky way to have to go down.

Sparks

Hibrion wrote: »

Sorry Sparks, I've just seen that you already said this at the end of your post.

Well, not really
It's no longer as black and white as it used to be (and even then, there was a little bit of gray in the middle, it was just far more expensive gray ). There's a line between the Super imposing preconditions on your individual licence and on everyone's licence; though that's hard to prove, obviously, it can be done. There's also a line between what's a legitimate, reasonable security measure (eg. telling someone with a shotgun in a house with kids that feck the SI, they need a gun safe) and what's not (eg. telling someone they need 24 hour security personnel guarding the gun safe), and that line gets fuzzier the more you look at it.

Basicly, there are the minimums; the Super is allowed to ask individuals to exceed those minimums if he has a reason to ask; but the courts will rap him on the knuckles if he's playing silly buggers or trying to make up the law as he goes along. (And the courts are the ones to decide if that's what he's doing, not the shooter or the super).

Hibrion

Sometimes it's easier (and definitely cheaper) to just go with the flow and give yourself as little hassle as you can.

I already had a monitored alarm, so when I was asked for one before it was needed according to the commissioners guidelines, I didn't mind. I did point out the fact that I technically didn't need one, but they were quick to say they wanted me to have one.

Sparks

Hibrion wrote: »

Sometimes it's easier (and definitely cheaper) to just go with the flow and give yourself as little hassle as you can.

Agreed - almost 99.9% of the time, according to the actual figures, we don't have problems with Supers. That final 0.1% are a pain, but I suspect that of that final 0.1%, not every case is one that needs the courts. Some are clear cases of the super acting the maggot, yes, but some are clear cases of the shooter being in the wrong. And I'd bet that an livable compromise could be found in at least half those cases...

It is nice to know that in those few cases where something that really is unacceptable, there are avenues by which a solution can be found, even if one of them is a courtroom...

Hibrion

Sparks wrote: »

It is nice to know that in those few cases where something that really is unacceptable, there are avenues by which a solution can be found, even if one of them is a courtroom...

I'll certainly agree with that anyway. I just hope it never comes to that. All in all, I have to say that I'm very happy with my local FO and super.

Tackleberrywho

Hibrion wrote: »

I'll certainly agree with that anyway. I just hope it never comes to that. All in all, I have to say that I'm very happy with my local FO and super.

+1, and Chief Super

johnnymolloy

so ill have 4 unrestricted guns in the house the safe we have is already bolted securely to a concrete wall theirs an alarm on the house does that cover the third point or do you need an alarm on the safe itself??
cheers

Sparks

johnnymolloy wrote: »

so ill have 4 unrestricted guns in the house the safe we have is already bolted securely to a concrete wall theirs an alarm on the house does that cover the third point or do you need an alarm on the safe itself??
cheers

That covers the third point. Your super might ask for an alarm sensor on the safe itself though, and that wouldn't be unreasonable - as was pointed out here recently, some thieves have lifted tiles and cut through felt to break into houses via the roof, and there's rarely any sensors in the attic for that kind of thing, so the alarm wouldn't go off even if they got to the safe itself.