Ammunition - Total Amounts Allowed

German pointer

Sparks wrote: »

Technically correct.

Of course, technically, you'd have to be able to prove that you didn't use any of the ammunition on gun A's licence in gun B or C, so honestly, I wouldn't push too hard on the technical points like that

I am not talking about using them in different guns I am just talking about use posess and carry as your licence states.


Er, wrong.
Seriously, don't go thinking that because you have a licence, no garda can say boo to you; people have gotten into serious trouble because they thought that. As in, arrested, lost their licences, not getting them back, sort of trouble.

Sorry to be harping on about this but are you telling me that people have been arrested for having the legal amount of ammo in their poession and lost their licences because of it?

Vegeta

German pointer wrote: »

Sorry to be harping on about this but are you telling me that people have been arrested for having the legal amount of ammo in their poession and lost their licences because of it?

From my reading of Sparks post I don't think that is what he was saying. I think he was making the point that if you are stopped out shooting (all legal and above board) by a Gardai and become argumentative that things can go badly.

Grizzly 45

[

QUOTE=Sparks;80138739]Not sure if they can be, but they're usually signed by a garda superintendent.

Checked it,they can indeed be signed by a peace comissioner or judge.
,if no Super is availabe or no district justice,you can use a peace comissioner.
TBH I think it is being changed anyway,because of the recent HC judge stating that it is repugnent to the constitution that a garda super can sign warrents in his own juristiction??

Ah, but he's not looking for a range; he's looking for evidence of target shooting.
A range might be evidence of that; so might spent casings in your sock drawer. And the law is blissfully generous in the breadth of the powers of search he's granted by that section.

Teneous evidence at best in that case.:p

I think that's more an American concept really Grizz.

Standard format for any warrent in the Western worlds jurisprudence.
The wording might be different or the layout or the terminology.Contents tho are very much the same.

Sparks

German pointer wrote: »

Sorry to be harping on about this but are you telling me that people have been arrested for having the legal amount of ammo in their poession and lost their licences because of it?

No, for having more than the amount on their licences and thinking that the Gardai couldn't come and look.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

TBH I think it is being changed anyway,because of the recent HC judge stating that it is repugnent to the constitution that a garda super can sign warrents in his own juristiction?

From what I understand of it, it's being changed so that the superintendent investigating a case can't sign warrants for that case; but I don't think that change has been made yet, and it's questionable if that change would even apply in this case.

Teneous evidence at best in that case.:p

Given that there's no legal definition of "target shooting", it'd be hard to tell what'd be legally thought of as acceptable evidence of it

Standard format for any warrent in the Western worlds jurisprudence.

No such animal Grizz, not unless by "Western" you meant "American". Most countries have a search warrant in one form or another, but there's enormous variations in what's permitted, who issues them, what exceptions and exemptions there are to needing them, what limits apply to those executing them and so on.
And we seem to be quite a ways over to the side of giving powers to the police rather than the side of limiting the powers of the police.

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

From what I understand of it, it's being changed so that the superintendent investigating a case can't sign warrants for that case; but I don't think that change has been made yet, and it's questionable if that change would even apply in this case.

It has been changed,there were a whole bunch of cases dumped out[PM] because of it around April/May this year some were very guilty,some not so.

Given that there's no legal definition of "target shooting", it'd be hard to tell what'd be legally thought of as acceptable evidence of it

Fact,and that going to be one for a court to decide.:(

GADWALL

Hmm ! Been thinking .

Guidelines ?, Guidelines?, Guidelines?.

While Driving the Highways of our Country this Mid morning . I, By chance came around a bend in the Road and Spied 3 Of our Finest Standing in the Middle of it ! . Sure wasnt I alright . I wasnt Packing , they only wanted to see if my Windscreen was clean ! , it was of course . So off I went , about my bizz only to find a lady and 2 kids In the middle of the road at a Later bend . Never One around when you want one is there ?.

All true , but seriously . If I Did have a Gun in my car . In , as On the Back seat , or whatever inside the cabin , in a slip or otherwise and it was Spied Upon and pull in Im told to do .
What then ? Might happen to me as per the Garda Commissioners Guidelines page 16 . I am in breach of the guidelines ! . Is that sufficent grounds for revocation , or should I just get a boliking ?.

Back to Ammo . Why would a Super , who knows me not , cut the rounds allowed on one gun in half ?. He is within the Guidleines and No doubt within his rights , but why would he do it ?.
Might it be that , The Men in the Blue Blazzers with the Woodcock Badge were scoring well in Court ?. A way to get just a small one back , for the other Blue Team , one that wouldnt have much chance of being over turned ?.

Anyone got any idea what role if any the Nargc might play in an appeal of this nature ?.

For that matter would anyone like to tell me what role the NARGC should have , period . Re Shotgun shooters , Rifle shooters and Handgun shooters .
a somewhat wider question I know , but one that I will come back to ,

QUACK , QUACK , DONT , Shoot the messenger !

Please dont bite , if one cant have a laugh on a sunny evening , while discussing a Serious topic or otherwise , then ,
Mea maxima culpa

Witcher

GADWALL wrote: »

For that matter would anyone like to tell me what role the NARGC should have , period . Re Shotgun shooters , Rifle shooters and Handgun shooters .
a somewhat wider question I know , but one that I will come back to ,

I think the NARGC stated a while back that they will only offer support to people who are in full compliance with legislation and guidelines. So if you get in trouble for having a firearm on the back seat of your car etc...don't look to the NARGC for help.

GADWALL

Hi ,
you are correct . they make it Quite clear on their website that they will not support anyone that maybe found to have transgressed the list att.

I was Rather wondering In terms of my , Decrease in Ammo allowence and Being a person , Who Has Not Fallen Fowl ! The Commandments as set out below ,


1. Possession of a firearm without a certificate for that gun. This is an offence which every gun owner is aware of. Do not come to NARGC for assistance.

2. Threatening or the alleged threatening of another person. This is an offence and it is not for NARGC to convince the authorities that no threat occurred. That is for the person involved. Do not come to NARGC for assistance.

3. Gun stolen from an unattended vehicle. This has been highlighted so many times by both NARGC and the authorities. It can never be excused. Do not come to NARGC for assistance.

4. Theft of guns or ammunition from an unoccupied house where the guns are not stored in a gun safe and/or where the keys to the safe are left available and/or where the doors of the house are not locked and/or where the alarm, if fitted, is not activated. Do not come to NARGC for assistance.

5. Bringing a loaded firearm into a vehicle or dwelling. Do not come to NARGC for assistance.

6. Licence holder charged with or convicted of substance abuse, including alcohol abuse (e.g. drink driving). Do not come to NARGC for assistance.


7. Hunting on lands without the permission of the owner/occupier. Do not come to NARGC for assistance.

8. Shooting from a vehicle. Do not come to NARGC for assistance.

9. Shooting from a public road. Do not come to NARGC for assistance.

10. Loaning a firearm to another. Do not come to NARGC for assistance.

11. Any event, where you are blatantly in breach of the conditions which formed the basis of your having been granted a firearms certificate. Do not come to NARGC for assistance.

12. Shooting recklessly or in such a manner as would reasonably give rise to concern by members of the public, landowners or other sports shooters. Do not come to the NARGC for assistance.

Cass

Has your ammo limit been cut? Or is it only a "threat" that it will be cut?

The reason i ask is, as i said earlier, the pre-populated renewals have your current limit on them. Now while they can change this i think with renewals getting into full swing they will be busy and not have time to seek ot an individual to purposely cut their ammo limit.

The NARGC may be a tool to use, but without being defeatist, i doubt a reduction in ammo would be a major issue for them. I stand to be corrected there, and am only hazarding a guess with no official statement for or against to back it up or refute it.

I would not get too wound up about it just yet. The NARGC or any body cannot do anything until such a reduction has been made so there is o point contacting them until a cut has been made. Otherwise i suspect you will get "come back to us if anything happens" response.

GADWALL

A threat to cut .

I have 12 months to run before I get that , renewal , But my plan is Funds in hand and finding the Right gun I intend to Sub that with a 20 Gauge . So I will be sticking my Head above the Parapet , Again .

So In effect you would then be correct. Nothing has happened as yet and a wait UNTIL , response might be the one id get .

Well to be honest and please dont think I was Baiting a trap for anyone , what I was in fact doing was giving the NARGC , more time to come back to me before I mentioned it. I rang them and e mailed them 3 days ago .

My call was answered, number taken and e mail sent off to them and was being expected . Response Nada !

Now for the record . I had a question or 2 for Chris Gavican early this year and he went out of his way to help me , ringing me back several times . So maybe Im Im being to hard on them ?, or reading to many Issues of Irish Shooters Digest where you find the Bullets and pellets come whizzing off the Page , You know the Page or 2 , as you read ! Hot Lead ! going in all directions , Hence my Super gets Even Theory ! ???????????
Cynical or correct ?, a bit of both maybe ?.

Sparks

GADWALL wrote: »

Cynical or correct ?, a bit of both maybe ?.

A lot of both, I'd say (and have said). You can't poke a bear forever without it getting annoy and swatting you...

GADWALL

Plan, B in formation .

now wheres my Club Chairmans Number ?.

German pointer

Sparks wrote: »

No, for having more than the amount on their licences and thinking that the Gardai couldn't come and look.

I must have took it up wrong.

Tikkat3

surprised to see this thread is still going on? I would have thought that everything is answered and it is becoming a pedantic and hypothetical thread and if it is, thats ok too