High Court Case - anybody get their centrefire pistol back?

rowa

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsnLyHKWtrg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Too much of this more like.

BattleCorp

The next chance I get, I'll go to my local Fine Gael TD, Michael Deering in Co. Carlow and see what he has to say.

Maybe if some other boardsies did the same with their local TD, then maybe (pipe dream) something could be done to further the chances of cf pistols being licenced.

Personally, I think that they should bring in a system along the lines of the system that they have for motorbikes.

Do your lessons.
Get a 125 or lower,
Drive for a year.
Then move up to a 250 if you wanted.


So if this was applied to pistols:
Do a pistol safety course.
Get a .22 pistol.
After a year or two of using the .22 pistol, showing the authorities that you are both competent and sensible, then be allowed to move up to a larger calibre pistol.

I dunno, it kind of makes sense to me.

Witcher

BattleCorp wrote: »

So if this was applied to pistols:
Do a pistol safety course.
Get a .22 pistol.
After a year or two of using the .22 pistol, showing the authorities that you are both competent and sensible, then be allowed to move up to a larger calibre pistol.

I dunno, it kind of makes sense to me.

The NASRPC wanted something similar to that along with a stepped system of eligibility based on competition or such.

Sparks

Blay wrote: »

The NASRPC wanted something similar to that along with a stepped system of eligibility based on competition or such.

If by 'something similar' you mean 'an illegal monopoly and only 266 pistols in Ireland owned by those they liked'...

JasonBourne

BattleCorp wrote: »

The next chance I get, I'll go to my local Fine Gael TD, Michael Deering in Co. Carlow and see what he has to say.

Maybe if some other boardsies did the same with their local TD, then maybe (pipe dream) something could be done to further the chances of cf pistols being licenced.

Personally, I think that they should bring in a system along the lines of the system that they have for motorbikes.

Do your lessons.
Get a 125 or lower,
Drive for a year.
Then move up to a 250 if you wanted.


So if this was applied to pistols:
Do a pistol safety course.
Get a .22 pistol.
After a year or two of using the .22 pistol, showing the authorities that you are both competent and sensible, then be allowed to move up to a larger calibre pistol.

I dunno, it kind of makes sense to me.

it sounds like a fair idea BUT it would end up like the HCAP. one body in full control and a monopoly on the situation. personally i did the HCAP and passed 1st time (so i have sour grapes towards it) but i found the whole thing overkill (no pun intended) yes there was some great information and i did learn plenty but i just think its expensive and doesent REALLY solve any of the real issues surrounded by deer stalking. i see it as a club for some of the right people to make a few pound and have an excuse to meet up with there old friends & discuss old times. everything else is a distant second.

BattleCorp

JasonBourne wrote: »

it sounds like a fair idea BUT it would end up like the HCAP. one body in full control and a monopoly on the situation. personally i did the HCAP and passed 1st time (so i have sour grapes towards it) but i found the whole thing overkill (no pun intended) yes there was some great information and i did learn plenty but i just think its expensive and doesent REALLY solve any of the real issues surrounded by deer stalking. i see it as a club for some of the right people to make a few pound and have an excuse to meet up with there old friends & discuss old times. everything else is a distant second.

At least after all that you got to go stalking. We can't licence centerfire pistols if we didn't have them before November 2008.

Any system that gets you where you want to go eventually, even with additional hoops that you have to jump through, has got to be better than the *No you're not getting it, now fcuk off* system that we have at the moment.

Personally I think that NASRPC document went way way way too far, but a much simplified version of it would probably be the way to go.

Just my two cents.

JasonBourne

BattleCorp wrote: »

JasonBourne wrote: »

it sounds like a fair idea BUT it would end up like the HCAP. one body in full control and a monopoly on the situation. personally i did the HCAP and passed 1st time (so i have sour grapes towards it) but i found the whole thing overkill (no pun intended) yes there was some great information and i did learn plenty but i just think its expensive and doesent REALLY solve any of the real issues surrounded by deer stalking. i see it as a club for some of the right people to make a few pound and have an excuse to meet up with there old friends & discuss old times. everything else is a distant second.

At least after all that you got to go stalking. We can't licence centerfire pistols if we didn't have them before November 2008.

Any system that gets you where you want to go eventually, even with additional hoops that you have to jump through, has got to be better than the *No you're not getting it, now fcuk off* system that we have at the moment.

Personally I think that NASRPC document went way way way too far, but a much simplified version of it would probably be the way to go.

Just my two cents.

I take your point, but do you really think a trusted shooter (if you already have firearms you are considdered as such) should have to jump through hoops to further your use of firearms?? Its a silly system wide open to abuse, cronisym and nepitysim (please excuse spelling using an iphone!!) as i said its just an excuse for "the old boys" to meet up for a chat and make some money in the mean time.

This country was built on brown envelopes and shady dealings what makes you think this system any differenet.....

Sparks

BattleCorp wrote: »

Any system that gets you where you want to go eventually, even with additional hoops that you have to jump through, has got to be better than the *No you're not getting it, now fcuk off* system that we have at the moment.

What we've got at the moment is two rules.
One says you may not licence a restricted short firearm. That rule is in the Firearms Act, and changing it would be a chunk of work - you'd have to convince the Minister to draft a Bill (or add the change to another Bill), then fight to protect that change as it went through the AG's office, then the Dail, then the Committee, then the Seanad, then the Dail again.

The second rule says what is and is not a restricted short firearm. That rule is in a statutory instrument, and changing it would require convincing the Minister to make the change, drafting the new SI, and signing it.

You'll notice there's a fairly short and easy path through that second rule as opposed to the first. And that short and easy path has been there since 2008. And known about for as long.

The truth is, centerfire pistols are currently not licenced on a Minister's decision. He could bring them back overnight if he wanted to.

Which is why that NASRPC document was so stupid, why the FCP was so vital, why losing it was so damaging to our sports, and it's why taking the Minister to court as a political ploy is so bad for all of us.

In short - the problem is fixable, and quickly, but not unless we all sit at the same table with the powers that be and get along. We have been, and still are, our own worst enemies here.

BattleCorp

Sparks wrote: »

In short - the problem is fixable, and quickly, but not unless we all sit at the same table with the powers that be and get along. We have been, and still are, our own worst enemies here.

If the problem is fixable, why not see if the FCP can be reformed. I know one party won't sit at the table but why not try and move forward without them?

Grizzly 45

Proably because they are the second biggest organisation repersenting gunowners in Ireland,next to the IFA,and without them it isnt going to go very far.

Cass

As a member myself they don't represent me or my opinions on most matters. I wonder how many more are of the same opinion. I mean it's thought that they represent the views of all their members, but if put to a vote of their members i wonder how many would actually go with the "party line"?

BattleCorp

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Proably because they are the second biggest organisation repersenting gunowners in Ireland,next to the IFA,and without them it isnt going to go very far.

Why wouldn't it go very far? It's not as if we are moving forward the way things are.

Surely some sort of FCP must be better than no FCP? Would it not be better to get it going in some form, even if certain members won't agree to join in, because no progress is being made at the moment.

The organisation that won't come to the table has approximately 28,000 members and as far as I am aware, there are over 220,000 firearms licenced in the state. That's not much more than 10 % of shooters in the country represented by them. And as Ezridax said, they don't represent the views of all 28,000 members. Now I'm not knocking them, if they want to persue a different avenue, so be it. I'm just saying why not try move ahead with the FCP. Surely somebody should be engaging with the powers that be so that the voice of the other 90% of shooters is being heard.

ace86

just a question there does any political party at present have any problem with people actual owning pistols? why can't Ireland be in par with other European country's since the drink driving limit has come in line with there's and other laws its like they pick and choose the ones they want.

Witcher

ace86 wrote: »

just a question there does any political party at present have any problem with people actual owning pistols? why can't Ireland be in par with other European country's since the drink driving limit has come in line with there's and other laws its like they pick and choose the ones they want.

EU can't dictate firearms legislation once the state prohibits CAT-A firearms. Anything outside that is left to each member states discretion, that's how I understand it.

rowa

ace86 wrote: »

just a question there does any political party at present have any problem with people actual owning pistols? why can't Ireland be in par with other European country's since the drink driving limit has come in line with there's and other laws its like they pick and choose the ones they want.

It wasn't a question of having a problem with handguns , they were simply used as a scapegoat by a highly unpopular and ineffectual minister for justice (ahern) because he was under pressure from deasy in fg and the media over a murder in limerick. He claimed at first it wasn't because of this , but eventually did admit it.

Grizzly 45

Whole point shouldnt be argued on the firearms laws with the EU,but on a EQUALITY issue.IE why are we as Irish discriminited as a minority against our own Govt on the issue of owning handguns of a large calibre when people in the remainder of the EU CAN own them under their firearms laws...Even the UK still allows it under extreme circumstances.

There will be no doubt eventually a challange on this here as well in the courts..If say Rowa hasnt got a 9mm but wants one,there is a very good legal arguement that he could say,well Grizzly,Battlecorp,and Sparks all have one,why cant I?"Thats discriminiation.
However it could just happen then that the PTB say "fine ,ban them all above .22" To which then anyone who has one and a pistol range,etc are saying "COMPO!!"And back to the courts we all go again!!

The problem with taking it to the EU court is it is a very long and expensive procedure that has to exhaust the Irish judical system options first,and we know how long that could take!:rolleyes:
And then those who could dump a million euros to start getting the ball rolling on somthing like this wouldnt be arsed,as if you have a million euros for a shooting hobby ,how many cheap Ryanair flights is that to Germany or Belguim to go shooting for a long weekend??:(

Those that dont have the money do care about this,and those who do have the money dont care!:(

@Battlecorp..
a few months ago Sparks and I had a big long debate about this very point here.Yes I agree a FCP is needed but I got the impression from Sparks that it needs to be a all together option or not at all.[He will be along soon no doubt to correct me on this:p]

However FWIW after reading the main mans reasons of that organisation for throwing his toys from the pram,and it seems to be there was a heck of alot of very underhanded and dirty dealings by both DOJ and AGS with relation to that organisation and that man personally,both overtly and covertly and if true.Seeing that he published this in various shooting magazines,I will have to assume they are..I wouldnt be surprised that he took the course that he did and is steering.No one throws a wobbler like that without some good reason...
As to why the remainder arent talking...Well,take that up with your organisations...Thats up to the top brass.:rolleyes::p

Sparks

It wouldn't work Grizz. If it had half a chance, don't you think the UK lads would have pursued it? They had a lot more cash and people at the time (and they did pursue some court actions to get the long-arm pistols in).

As to the FCP and the main man you're talking about, I'll just say that he's printed stuff in public; the other side can't respond freely (not without the nod from the Minister, and he doesn't care enough about us to bother). And I'm of the opinion that just because you read it in the Digest, doesn't mean it's so...

I will say that I think it's telling that the NARGC has been calling for FCP version 2.0, just with anyone that ever disagreed with the main man fired from the AGS and Civil Service. I wouldn't be of the opinion that disagreeing with Des was grounds for dismissal...

rowa

Sparks wrote: »

It wouldn't work Grizz. If it had half a chance, don't you think the UK lads would have pursued it? They had a lot more cash and people at the time (and they did pursue some court actions to get the long-arm pistols in).

As to the FCP and the main man you're talking about, I'll just say that he's printed stuff in public; the other side can't respond freely (not without the nod from the Minister, and he doesn't care enough about us to bother). And I'm of the opinion that just because you read it in the Digest, doesn't mean it's so...

I will say that I think it's telling that the NARGC has been calling for FCP version 2.0, just with anyone that ever disagreed with the main man fired from the AGS and Civil Service. I wouldn't be of the opinion that disagreeing with Des was grounds for dismissal...

If the nargc do rejoin the fcp , what are their main objectives going to be when dealing with the doj etc ? Whats head of the list ?

Grizzly 45

[

QUOTE=Sparks;78859675]It wouldn't work Grizz. If it had half a chance, don't you think the UK lads would have pursued it? They had a lot more cash and people at the time (and they did pursue some court actions to get the long-arm pistols in).

ASFIK the Shooters Rights Assoc and a few others of the lesser groups were/are looking at this.BUT as I said monies is the problem.Those that have the monies have moved to more gun friendlier countries,with a "FU I m alright Jack..Not wasting my money on somthing futile in this dump." Those that are left behind are the poor SOBS who have no money to fight it..IE us all here both IRL and the UK. The whole long arm pistol is a fudge and sop anyway,its neither fish or flesh,and was just a way of still giving the UK PTB an up yours !! We still have pistols.

As to the FCP and the main man you're talking about, I'll just say that he's printed stuff in public; the other side can't respond freely (not without the nod from the Minister, and he doesn't care enough about us to bother). And I'm of the opinion that just because you read it in the Digest, doesn't mean it's so...

Dunno about that,I still belive civil servants are entitled to sue for libel and slander in their professional capacity??Albert Reynolds and libel trials spring to mind??However I suppose being the former PM for Ireland does have its advantages.:rolleyes:

I will say that I think it's telling that the NARGC has been calling for FCP version 2.0, just with anyone that ever disagreed with the main man fired from the AGS and Civil Service. I wouldn't be of the opinion that disagreeing with Des was grounds for dismissal..

From what he described "disagreeing with him "would be putting it mildly.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

ASFIK the Shooters Rights Assoc and a few others of the lesser groups were/are looking at this.

But it came to naught because the EU law is very clear - member states are free to impose stricter laws than the EU directive when it comes to firearms. There's no issue of equality raised, any more than there would be if I sued the Irish government because a dutch citizen can smoke pot and I can't, or because an italian can get better pizza than I can.

We might not like it, but that's the way it is.

Dunno about that,I still belive civil servants are entitled to sue for libel and slander in their professional capacity??Albert Reynolds and libel trials spring to mind??However I suppose being the former PM for Ireland does have its advantages.:rolleyes:

One or two!

From what he described "disagreeing with him "would be putting it mildly.

I've highlighted the most important part of that sentence Grizz!

Grizzly 45

Sparks,
You keep looking at it on the FIREARMS LAW,I keep trying to point out to you that it is on the EQUALITY of citizenship law that this is where it needs to be looked at!!!! And no ...it isnt dead It is being looked at on that point and in the case where you are possibly flinging millions at the ultra high stakes poker game of the EU court,your legal mills need to be grinding extremely slow and on sub micron setting..ERGO it costs huge money in your legal team,which we dont have to fight this,hence it is dead.Not by legislation but by finance.

Same reason the Irish Govt can still enforce the blatantly illegal under EU law VRT on any car brought into the State.As they know no one has the money to challange this in the EU court,and those that would have it arent arsed,as they can pay the VRT and road tax anyway for a whole fleet of luxury cars.:(

The Dutch pot law being a case in point it is discriminating against all other EU and world citizens and favouring the Dutch.

Ok,what would you think if then as no doubt all nordic races like the Sewdes and Norewiegins comitt sucidie regularly under the influence of drink,we were to ban the sales of drink to those two peoples when they come to Ireland,as they might all go and hop off the cliffs of Moher???
Farsical isnt it??Well thats the exact same logic the Dutch govt is using as the pot ban.

Already there rumblings of that going to blow up in the Dutch govts face.
[Dumb move anyway as that was a goose who laid golden eggs for them and the city of Amsterdam].

We might not like it, but that's the way it is.

A sentence that should be banned from the day to day Irish expressionisms..:mad:
Ah the good old Irish answer to anything that looks too difficult or insurmountable,be it invasion or getting a better paperwork system so best not be arsed with it....

Heres one .
"Better to try and fail than never try at all."

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Sparks,
You keep looking at it on the FIREARMS LAW,I keep trying to point out to you that it is on the EQUALITY of citizenship law that this is where it needs to be looked at!

I'm trying to point out that we aren't being treated in an illegal manner. Under EU law, it is perfectly legal for different member states to have different firearms regulations, and because owning a firearm is not a right under EU law, you just don't get equality issues. This isn't like (say) the X case, where an actual guaranteed right under EU law (ie. freedom of movement) was being overridden by a member state and where you therefore had a case for the ECHR; this is a case where the EU law specifically says it doesn't have jurisdiction.

In other words, you can't ignore the firearms bit and say it's an equality issue just because we can't do something that (say) someone in France can. That kind of difference isn't treated as an inequality that requires a legal remedy in the EU.

A sentence that should be banned from the day to day Irish expressionisms..:mad:
Ah the good old Irish answer to anything that looks too difficult or insurmountable,be it invasion or getting a better paperwork system so best not be arsed with it....

No, it's the answer that says "if you're hanging on by your fingernails, be careful about waving your arms about".

Heres one .
"Better to try and fail than never try at all."

Very, very wrong; as proven by the McCarron case...

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

I

No, it's the answer that says "if you're hanging on by your fingernails, be careful about waving your arms about".

Very, very wrong; as proven by the McCarron case...

I meant that more in an everyday occurance rather than firearms related.One of my pet peeves that"thats just the way it is!"sentiment here.But applying it to firearms and the FCP,it should be tried anyway to get FCP2 established.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

I meant that more in an everyday occurance rather than firearms related.One of my pet peeves that"thats just the way it is!"sentiment here.But applying it to firearms and the FCP,it should be tried anyway to get FCP2 established.

Except that we don't need FCP2, we just need the FCP reinstated.
Frankly, everytime someone starts talking about "FCP2", it keeps coming out as either an imaginary construct where we get everything we want just for asking for it with no cost (so you know it would never work in the real world); or worse, it's something like that NASRPC document where we give up stuff which we want and which nobody else wants to take, and in return ask to give an illegal monopoly on entry into our sport to people who operate behind closed doors and frankly, usually not very competently.

gunhappy_ie

Anyone else think that im I right in saying that this has gone completely off topic ??

GH

Sparks

From the OP, yes... though oddly, not so much from the initial thread on what the OP's talking about...

ace86

rowa wrote: »

It wasn't a question of having a problem with handguns , they were simply used as a scapegoat by a highly unpopular and ineffectual minister for justice (ahern) because he was under pressure from deasy in fg and the media over a murder in limerick. He claimed at first it wasn't because of this , but eventually did admit it.

Ya i see where your coming from but organised crime and scumbags and them shooting each other has nothing to do with legally registered firearms holders, even if they were stolen from legally held civilians. I think the problem with these criminals lies solely with the government and there attitude to do nothing and not changing the laws and giving more powers to the gardai and resources to tackle them but i think the gardai are scared of them and as usual go for the easy targets.

JasonBourne

If a scumbags robs a car and kills someone do they ban cars below a 1L?? Course not. It makes no sense to ban centerfire pistols for simular reasons. We are sensible and trustworthy people we should have the option to choose to own one should we feel the need.

Its a stupid law and needs to be ammended to suit what the people want. Not what politicians think they want. We vote for them, we elect them, why is it that in this country they seem to think there higher than the people who put them there. Unfortuinaltly this is ireland 2012 and the people have NO say when it comes to what we want.

rowa

ace86 wrote: »

Ya i see where your coming from but organised crime and scumbags and them shooting each other has nothing to do with legally registered firearms holders, even if they were stolen from legally held civilians. I think the problem with these criminals lies solely with the government and there attitude to do nothing and not changing the laws and giving more powers to the gardai and resources to tackle them but i think the gardai are scared of them and as usual go for the easy targets.

yes, but to the public a gun is a gun , ahern gave an interview on the radio after the shooting in limerick saying he was banning handguns, to joe public and the media he was seen to "be doing something".

after the collins family left limerick recently it was patently obvious that the low life have the upper hand, if a minister for justice attempts to get really tough with them, the champagne socialist do-gooders in the law library are up in arms.

Grizzly 45

Not to mind that Dermott Aherne was himself extremely anti gun
It was pretty much on the cards that he would be doing somthing when he announced to an AGSAI AGM that he would be tightning up on liscensing of firearms in Ireland,and expressed "grave concern at the proliferation of handguns in the republic[all 600+/- of them!:rolleyes::mad:].
Then he went off to compare a field mouse to a blue whale when he stated it would prevent a "US style gun culture" in Ireland .....650 handguns to over 400 million known handguns in the USA.
Talk about comparing like with like or proportion.:rolleyes::rolleyes:
But then have we ever had an Irish politican who has ever said anything sensible of firearms law that benefits us??

As for the Collins story,Collins would have given the option as an endangerd person in Europe of being issued with a carry permit and firearms training by the local police force,as they dont belive in wasting resources and tax money on protection details once the threat is over.
You are on your own then.