Limerick District Court Appeal success again!!

knockon

I haven't been here for a while. Here is the reason.....

After much thought and assessment of my circumstances I had decided to write this post earlier in the year but considering the matter was due to be before the Courts I decided to wait until the appeals were heard. I have decided so because just over 3 years ago I like many others was refused licenses for 2 restricted pistols.At that time I posted on this forum my dismay and frustration. Quiet a number of guys reached out to me and a few have become some of my good friends. So I owe it to all of you to let you know what's happening so you may be prepared. I believe you should all know whats happening. I have offered fact and no opinion and there is nothing confidential in this.

I received 3 pre populated FCA1's in Sept 10th. 1 for a non restricted shotgun and 2 for the restricted pistols I own. Those pistols are a sig .22 Mosquito and a 9mm Sig Pro. I received 3 letters back saying a decision will normally be communicated by Dec 14th (All FAC's expired on Oct 31st). Then the alarm bells started going off. Why do they (Chiefs) need so much time for a renewal? Also having dealt with the same office in the past I was concerned that my application may be mislaid. It was essential that the applications had to be on the CS desk and I wanted verification of same. I immediately contact the CS Office. "Did you receive 2 restricted FCA1 applications this morning"? "Yes" answered the Sgt.

I contacted the CS office in mid Oct. "Can you please tell me what's happening as I do not want this to go into November", I asked. "The Chief is on Holidays and back on the 19th" replied the lady who works in the CS Office..

What I have ascertained in the last few years is more notice if taken of a letter from your legal representatives than phone calls from your self. On Dec 15th a letter from my Solicitor is sent to the CS Office to inquire why a decision has not been made.

On December 19th I received a phone call to invite me to a private meeting with the CS on Dec 20th. I called my Solicitor to inquire about my attendance and more importantly , his attendance.
I decided on his advice to attend on my own. I also know the only reason I was summoned to a meeting for the sole purpose of trying to find a reason to refuse me.
I attended Henry St Garda Station for a 2.30pm appointment. He firstly apologized and said exactly the following. "The first I saw of you application was last week when it appeared on my desk"
Now you can draw your own conclusions given the information his staff gave me in mid Sept and Oct.

The meeting was an hour and ten minutes long. He asked about, security, storage, competitions taken part in the past, range attendance, types of competitions etc. We discussed in particular what competitions I used each pistol for. I was extremely concise and I made a very detailed record of my meeting. I made my point that I could not see any reason that I was summoned to a meeting. I informed him that I was previously refused and had to endure a very costly District Court Case. I also made him aware that nothing about my circumstances had changed other than I had a new baby in the house. I am an upstanding citizen with huge respect for An Garda Siochana. "Your character is without question" he replied. He was courteous and polite and seemed like a nice chap. He concluded " Knockon , I'am not the kind if guy to chat away and be all nice and then turn around and mess you around, will you give me two weeks?"

I never heard from him again and I never received a refusal in writing.

As the 90 days had passed it is considered an automatic refusal so appeals were lodged on Jan 10th and we heard that it would be before the DC on May 9th

On Feb 15th I received a FAC Grant Notice which read

With reference to the above and your application for a Restricted Firearm Certificate for a .22 Sig Sauer Etc...has been sucessful and is granted and is subject to the following conditions. "All Magazines for the firearm to be restricted to hold no more than five rounds of ammunition"

So to recap I received a Restricted FAC Grant Notice for a Firearm that now makes it unrestricted issued by the CS.


So I wrote the following letter back to him on March 1st.

---

Dear Chief Superintendent,

I received a Firearms Certificate Grant Notice dated 13th February 2013 for the renewal of my .22 Sig Sauer Pistol. The Grant notice is for a restricted Pistol but you have imposed a condition making the pistol unrestricted limiting the magazine capacity to 5 rounds.
At our meeting on Dec 20th 2012 you specifically asked me what competitions I take part in with this Pistol. I replied Time and Precision. I also specifically mentioned that this competition required a magazine of more than 5 rounds. You asked me to verify that this competition can be performed with a magazine with 5 rounds. I explained then it could not and I am now attaching the competition rules stating same.
I also have had this Target Pistol since 2007. I am no longer a member of the Munster Target Shooting Club as I have no FAC’s since Oct 31st last year. You have removed the tools I used for my sport and you now want to give me a License for a firearm that I can’t use in a competition that I take part in. You have also chosen to do this 5 months after my FAC’s expired.
In conclusion the condition you have imposed on the FAC makes it impossible for me to use the Target Pistol for the purpose I applied for. Consequently if that is a condition of Certificate Number &*&&&* then I will not be applying for same and the Appeal in the District Court on May 9th will proceed.
Yours sincerely,
Knockon.

---

On April 29th I eventually received my refusal for the 9mm in writing and the week before the court case.

a) No good reason
b)Military type
c) T & P 1 & 2 have dynamic shooting elements to them.
d)Public safety

On May 9th the only guy heard that day got his 9mm back. I was put back till July 25th with another guy.The State were representated by Insp Brooks from Ballistics, The CS and some other guys and the State Solicitor.

To make a long story short I won my appeal again!! I got the 9mm back and the .22 also with a condition that I plug the magazine for 6 shots (the .22 only). The Judge asked the CS whats the difference between 5 and six rounds as Mr Knockon said he needed it for competition. The CS did'nt tell the Judge that his objective was to get rid of a restricted license which he failed to do. The judge asked me about T & P1 and Bullseye and the rules of the competition and who administers them. Based on the loss the Sate had on May 9th they offered no evidence on that dynamic shooting crap that we are all supposed to be engaged in. The Judge did remark to the State "Is it true that there has not been 1 single arrest for practical or dynamic shooting despite the assertion by Garda Ballistics that we are all engaged in this activity. According to the CS in a letter to me he stated that T & P 1 and 2 have levels of practical and dynamic shooting bla bla bla....



This has been another costly and stressful outing. Thanks to Grizzly45 who stood shoulder to shoulder with me and a great guy in Dublin who reads here occasionally who shall remain nameless. I me these two guys during the first case - thanks guys. I am delighted to have them back but the HC ruling by Pearth means that I cannot get my costs. This action by the CS and his colleagues is after costing me the bones of €4,000. If anyone needs more information please PM me.

Note: More correspondence added on page 2

Cass

First and foremost congratulations. I applaud your determination, and conviction to see it through.

It eats at me to think any person would have to deal with such nonsense, but i'm delighted you came through the victor.

Some of the facts you have described scare me. The restricted license on an unrestricted firearm (as the CS intended to do). The difference in stories between what you were told by staff and the CS himself. Lastly the immense waiting times, lack of communications and general indifference in attitude towards you.


Again my hat is off to you sir. I don't think i would have the stomach for the same fight every three years.


Well done.

hiddenmongoose

I would also like to say hats off to you for persevering with your fight, especially in these economic times when 4k is not something that is easy come by.The fact that you cannot be awarded your costs is a disgrace and is something the gardai know full well and are using to their advantage as not everyone will take their case to court knowing they have to pay out win or lose.I have the height of respect for the majority of an garda siochana however its their stance on treating legitimate law abiding sportsmen like criminals and their anti shooting sports stance that disgusts me and is a disgrace.Shame on them.they make things purposefully complicated and drawn out .
Its about time that they had to answer for their actions ,simply losing their case and being forced to issue licences is not enough .There should be some sort of reprimand for these people who are proved in court for making life difficult for law abiding citizens .until then they will continue to do as they please turning down applications and bulling people into not applying again or substituting for what they actually want,need in the first place.
once again I applaud you for seeing this out

rowa

Cass wrote: »

The general indifference in attitude towards you.


Again my hat is off to you sir. I don't think i would have the stomach for the same fight every three years.


Well done.

Its not indifference, its complete and utter barefaced contempt. Its probably the way the remainder of c/f and restricted licence holders will be dealt with , a costly court case every three years. Republic me arse.

Grizzly 45

Indeed it was another unnecessary and ridicilous waste of everyones time and money.Especially the tax payers for having a Cheif Super,a ballistics expert and his understudy,state solicitor advising the Gaurds,and state council down from Dublin to have to argue pointlessly over established ground as to why Knockon and another lad couldnt have their 9mms :mad:

What peeves me off even more at the end of the day is the congratulations and best wishes offered by the Garda side if we have the liscenses granted!!
Its like they are treating this as some sort of game,that we are all in here for the craic and a day out in court.They have been doing everything possible to make sure we dont win or are not granted and we dont have the states resources of wastable tax payers monies to play at this nonsense.:mad::mad:
Do us a favour,just GRANT the damn things in a timely and efficent matter and save us all a wasted day in the courts,and saving the taxpayer money,and you the judges ire in having to deal with these cases.

However the district judge summed it up most nicely,in stating that [paraphrasing]
"To use non legalistic terminology this legislation is "wishy washy "at best,and fustrating to the legislator as there are no clear and proper definitions as to what certain firearms are in either the statute or the guidelines......Also,the inconsistencies of the various Garda districts in handling these applications is also vexing to both the legislature and applellants.Recently we had a case of a man being granted a liscense in Clare,but by having the misfortune of finding his address coming under the Limerick district in the new movement of the Garda division boundaries found himself being refused......"
Sums it up very nicely.

Oh Well,looks like I will be having MY day in court soon RE my Glock.:mad:
Book your seats folks in the DC Limerick for this rematch TBA :rolleyes:!!!
@ Knockon.
Well, in future you might as well apply for the .22 SIG as being unrestricted.Whats the point in having a restricted .22 pistol with a restricted mag capacity??:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Its about time that they had to answer for their actions ,simply losing their case and being forced to issue licences is not enough .There should be some sort of reprimand for these people who are proved in court for making life difficult for law abiding citizens

.

While about as effective as trying to push a rope.I would recommend anyone who has to suffer this off handnedess and indifference by senior Garda personel ,make a complaint to the Garda Ombudsman about their handling of these matters.

As this carry on certainly makes a mockery of certain points of the Garda Customer Charter.
Maybe when they see enough complaints on this subject,they might consider investigating them too.But I wont hold my breath on that either.:rolleyes:

Tackleberry.

Do you think you will have to do this again in 3yrs time, and then again and again...
Can it not just be accepted that your genuine shooter and the judge make a judgement and tell the CS that he's not to stop you next renewal either...

€4000 every 3 yrs why would anyone bother and that's what there hoping i guess, we'll done sir and enjoy.
I'm waiting myself for a date in court for a GSG .22 cal pistol.

bravestar

Knockon, fair play to you, delighted to hear you won.

yubabill1

Obviously, the Gardaí have covered their asses for another 3 years, at everyone's expense, but their own.

Anyone remember the palaver about the new licensing system - get your licence at the post office, less hassle etc?

The word you're looking for is "disingenuous".

The whole thing is a legal minefield. The state is correct in disallowing recovery of costs. it is also extremely difficult to take a class action or quote precedent, as everyone is on a "case by case" evaluation.

I can see some judge getting fed-up, maybe in 3 years and throwing cases out on a "case by case" basis.

Losing cases does not go well for ambitious CS's seeking promotion, however, the CS in a dead-end is free to lose as many cases as he wants.

kkshooter

hi,
well done .
the time and monies expended on these cases is considerable to the individual.
im in a similar situation in relation to some licences .
im on holidays at the moment ,but i would like to pm you next week.if that s ok with you.
again ,well done.
kk shooter

daveob007

well done,I have still not challenged my refusal in court due to the cost and probably never will,gun in storage since my refusal and not a hope of selling it either,i now owe storage cost which i do not have and may have to surrender my g17 to the gardai for destruction which would kill me to do.
this whole bull**** needs to be challenged by the fcp if they still exist and we need need to keep fighting.
good luck to those who can afford the cost and win but every 3 years at that cost is bollox and something must be done.

rowa

daveob007 wrote: »

well done,I have still not challenged my refusal in court due to the cost and probably never will,gun in storage since my refusal and not a hope of selling it either,i now owe storage cost which i do not have and may have to surrender my g17 to the gardai for destruction which would kill me to do.
this whole bull**** needs to be challenged by the fcp if they still exist and we need need to keep fighting.
good luck to those who can afford the cost and win but every 3 years at that cost is bollox and something must be done.

Buy a .22lr conversion kit for the glock from triebel in germany , you'll get some use out of it that way.

daveob007

rowa wrote: »

Buy a .22lr conversion kit for the glock from triebel in germany , you'll get some use out of it that way.

tried that too but was told by the cs that it was still restricted because the firearm was still a military type and not on the .22 allowed list.

rowa

daveob007 wrote: »

tried that too but was told by the cs that it was still restricted because the firearm was still a military type and not on the .22 allowed list.

You should have said no "military" pistols are chambered for the .22 rimfire. What exactly is a military pistol anyway ? The whole american government have been debating for decades what constitutes an "assault rifle" without success, but mick the guard in the back of beyond has it nailed :rolleyes:.

hiddenmongoose

AFAIK that list is a guideline and not to be definitive. correct me if Im wrong ?

daveob007

hiddenmongoose wrote: »

AFAIK that list is a guideline and not to be definitive. correct me if Im wrong ?

have heard that it depends on area and cs involved,here in limerick the now retired cs placed his own blanket ban on restricted firearms and thats what led to so many appeals which still go on,we need a new system that works,the past few years have proven that it does not work,supers and c,supers making their judgement on the guidelines which makes the whole system a joke.
are the fcp still in place and fighting for us? been a while since i was on here so maybe a bit out of touch.

knockon

As I said I received a refusal for the 9mm that is exactly as below (I have removed names and some parts of paragraph 1)

---

From the CS.....


29th April 2013.

Dear Mr Knockon,

I have carefully deliberated on your application for a restricted FAC in respect of a 9mm Sig Sauer and our subsequent meeting on 20th December......Firstly let me state that I have no issue whatsoever with your character or integrity.......
....The fundamental "Good Reason" that you wish to license this firearmis for the sport of target shooting. I am not satisified that you-as now required under the new legislation - have demonstrated to me that this particular firearm is the only weapon that is appropriate for target shooting. This will be elaborated hereunder.

Indeed your own attendance at the Munster target shooting Club in 2011 and 2012 where you attended twice and five times respectively would not reassure me that you have a fundamental "Good Reason" for having a license for the 9mm Sig Sauer.

It is the opinion of my Ballistics Expert, this particular firearm is a military/police type and one which is used by An Garda Siochana. It is also a firearm used ny the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and by many law enforcement agencies and military units worldwide. It is also my opinion that this firearm was primarily designed to kill human beings and not designed for sport or target shooting. It is not the most suitable gun for precision target shooting where the object is accuracy alone.

Section 4 (h) (2) requires the applicant to demonstrate the firearm is the only type of weapon appropriate for the purpose required. You indicated that you require the firearm for target shooting in a number of center fire target shooting diciplines and that the pistol which you seek to have licensed is the only firearm appropriate for engagement in the target shooting disciplines identified.

It is my opinion that the pistol you are seeking to license is not a "target pistol" but rather a combat pistol that you wish to shoot at targets. It is expert opinion that genuine target shooting is best achieved with a handgun using a low recoil but highly accurate calibre.22 inch rimfire or .177 inch air, a pistol with no combat characteristics and low magazine capacity i.e. a non restricted pistol.

You have nominated a number of handgun shooting competitions which you wish to use this 9mm Sig Sauer pistol for;-

Timed & Precision 1, Timed & precision 2 have activities within them which in the opinion of the Ballistics expert constitute "Practicle & Dynamic" shooting prohibited by Section 4 B of the Firearms Act 1925 as inserted by Section 33 of the CJA (Misc Provisions) 2009. These activities include - using two handed combat stance, reloading as part of timed practice, using a target that simulates a human adversary i.e. Dispersed pattern - DP2(a) firing handguns from different positions, firing handguns from the weak hand, using a post to simulate shooting from cover and using a pistol specifically designed for combat.

The other competitions - 25 metre precision and Bullseye- can be shot using non-restricted .22 pistols and therefore a 9mm Sig Sauer is not the only weapon appropriate for engagement in all of the target disciplines identified.

In the circumstance I am not satisfied that the applicant meets the criteria a set out under Section 4 of the Firearms Act 1925 as substituted by Section 33 CJA 2006.

In considering your application I have also taken into consideration a broad number of factors such as public safety if this firearm was to get into the wrong hands, the good order of the community and the proliferation of these types of firearms in this Division over the past number of years.

I have also considered the following factors which I consider to be of high importance; the high calibre of the firearm allied to its ease of concealment, its lethal effect, the velocity of the ammunition and the use to which the firearm may be put.

I must also consider this type of firearm is the desired weapon of criminals within my division who have designs on using these types of weapons against each other.

Yours faithfully,

CS

---

My reply

Chief Superintendent #####

Henry St. Garda Station,
Henry St.,
Limerick.


1st May 2013.


Firearm Application Number #######.


Dear Chief Superintendent ,

I eventually received you letter of refusal 6 Months after my FAC’s expired and 1 week before I appeal your decision in the District Court.

I must also remind you that I provided information on my attendance of the MTSC ONLY in 2011. As you and the Retired Supt ##### from Kilmallock are well aware that the MTSC only commenced in Autumn 2011. The record will show from the previous range operator which is in the possession of the Gardai that I attended the range in Ballyhoura a number of times in 2011 until the range was closed down by your colleagues for 4 months.

With regard to your second letter regarding the Sig Sauer .22 pistol. I have no intention of licensing the pistol with the condition that you imposed as I have already explained to you in my letter of March 1st. I will be appealing your decision with this firearm also.

You have seriously underestimated me if you think that I am still in possession of an unlicensed firearm. Both my Target Shooting Pistols were handed in to a RFD about the time you were supposed to revert to me after our meeting in December 2012. Please find the receipt attached.

I have forwarded both your letters to my legal team who will deal with it in the District Court.

Yours sincerely,


Knockon.

---

I believe its important to share the refusal letter. The Judge did ask the CS. "It appears you seem to have adopted a Carte Blache refusal".

BattleCorp

yubabill1 wrote: »

The whole thing is a legal minefield. The state is correct in disallowing recovery of costs. it is also extremely difficult to take a class action or quote precedent, as everyone is on a "case by case" evaluation.

.

Why do you think that the state is correct in disallowing recovery of costs?

Why should a law abiding shooter, who through no fault of their own, had their renewal refused be denied fair play in the courts.

Surely it's an injustice to have to pay costs when the law abiding shooter has done nothing wrong and the court proved that the refusal was unwarranted?

If that's the case, only the rich can afford fair play in the courts.

1shot16

Imo a pistol is a feckin pistol.Doesn't matter if its .22 or 45 acp okay the 45acp is more powerful bla bla bla but its coming out of a concealable weapon which is a pistol.Guards need to cop on just coz hes a 9mm doesnt mean hes goin to rob banks etc.

Fairplay for going through the hassle to keep ur 9mm.One day i hope to own such a thing but most likely not in this country.

Grizzly 45

The "fairness" doesnt come into it at all.It is from a high court ruling on our laws as they currently stand.Which is simply that a DC cant or hasnt the power to award costs to a successful plantif.

If that's the case, only the rich can afford fair play in the courts.

Closer to the truth than you would belive.Justice for all,if you can afford it!:mad:. thousands for the DC,tens of thousands,for the DC upwards to the high court,hundreds of thousands to the supreme court,and starting at a million for anything going to Europe.

The simple fact is these cases should be nowhere near a DC.The cause of this is simply IMO supers and cheif supers having a bee in their bonnetts about firearms of a certain type and plenty of our tax monies to waste on these cases,and either one of two hopes.[1] That you give up and cant afford the DC cases on the cost issues. or [2] They are abjurgrating their responsibility of issuance to a district court judge,in which case if you loose it and shoot up the nearest school yard they can publically wash their hands and say to the media whores."Wasnt my call that Mr Grizz had a liscense when he shot up the local chipper..I tried to refuse him,but the DC judge over ruled me..Go talk to him!"

rowa

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

The "fairness" doesnt come into it at all.It is from a high court ruling on our laws as they currently stand.Which is simply that a DC cant or hasnt the power to award costs to a successful plantif.




Closer to the truth than you would belive.Justice for all,if you can afford it!:mad:. thousands for the DC,tens of thousands,for the DC upwards to the high court,hundreds of thousands to the supreme court,and starting at a million for anything going to Europe.

The simple fact is these cases should be nowhere near a DC.The cause of this is simply IMO supers and cheif supers having a bee in their bonnetts about firearms of a certain type and plenty of our tax monies to waste on these cases,and either one of two hopes.[1] That you give up and cant afford the DC cases on the cost issues. or [2] They are abjurgrating their responsibility of issuance to a district court judge,in which case if you loose it and shoot up the nearest school yard they can publically wash their hands and say to the media whores."Wasnt my call that Mr Grizz had a liscense when he shot up the local chipper..I tried to refuse him,but the DC judge over ruled me..Go talk to him!"

Or the super/chief super could simply say "I followed the guidelines and laws (good reason, member of an approved club, has good club attendance records and competition participation, not a criminal or known to be a nutter) and I had no valid reason to refuse the application". I think the whole thing is strings being pulled much further up the chain of command.

Grizzly 45

rowa wrote: »

Or the super/chief super could simply say "I followed the guidelines and laws (good reason, member of an approved club, has good club attendance records and competition participation, not a criminal or known to be a nutter) and I had no valid reason to refuse the application". I think the whole thing is strings being pulled much further up the chain of command.

THAT would be like common sense,and common sense and Irish gun laws shall never be the twain that meet.:rolleyes:

knockon

3 Years ago after a DC Appeal the State tried to "Appeal the Appeal" in the Circuit Court and delayed the issuing of grant notices by a further 2 months.

Not this time. Two restricted grant notices arrived this morning, they were issued the day after the DC case. Time to go back to enjoying my sport for the first time in 10 months.

Sparks

yubabill1 wrote: »

it is also extremely difficult to take a class action

It's not quite difficult, it's completely impossible because class action lawsuits are not permitted under court rules in Ireland even though it'd be trivial to allow them.

hiddenmongoose wrote: »

AFAIK that list is a guideline and not to be definitive. correct me if Im wrong ?

No, you're correct, the list is a set of examples of pistols that meet the definition in the Act, it has no legal weight whatsoever and never has.
Hasn't stopped what the Firearms Policy Unit refer to as "problem superintendents" from trying to treat it as such though.

daveob007 wrote: »

are the fcp still in place and fighting for us

No, the NARGC threw the toys out of the pram and shut it down.

Half-cocked

knockon wrote: »

Two restricted grant notices arrived this morning, they were issued the day after the DC case. Time to go back to enjoying my sport for the first time in 10 months.

And hopefully you won't go through all this again in 3 years time. Just out of interest when they arrive let us all know if the new licences are valid from the date of issue, or from the date the old ones expired. Wouldn't put it past them to back date the licences just out of pure badness.

daveob007

I think we need to start from scratch again,the whole system stinks to high heaven and does not work,it was designed for the garda commish who wanted a full ban on all handguns and nobody else, with no regard for the hardship and costs incurred by us law abiding sports men/women.
So where do we begin? is there any shooting body who truly represents target shooting or anyone to represent all shooters equally? fair play to those who were successful in their appeals but they will have to spent 3 or 4k again in 3 years time,Ahern and co. did succeed in removing firearms from people but the murder rate has doubled since which proves his motives and action were a waste of time and money.
:(

Sparks

daveob007 wrote: »

I think we need to start from scratch again

/dies a little inside

Seriously, have you any idea of how much time, money, effort, blood, sweat and tears it took the first time round? And that wasn't initiated by us, that was us trying to avoid a swinging axe twice in three years and we weren't able to dodge either of them fully.
The last thing we need is to start from scratch. I mean, we don't even have scratch or square one or whatever you want to call it.

We need a restatement of the firearms act into one single document.
We need a revisit to the restricted firearms SI to fix it so that activities like answering the phone for a paintball field isn't a criminal act punishable by seven years in prison and twenty grand of fines.
Then we'll be at square one. And getting those two is about four years of hard work right there.

is there any shooting body who truly represents target shooting or anyone to represent all shooters equally?

Yes, and it was killed off because it worked as well as it could (and had the potential to push past those limits) and didn't stroke egos.
Changing legislation is a long, tedious, anonymous, unsexy, thankless, expensive, tiring and fustrating process, where you have to deal with everyone from the Firearms Unit of the DoJ, to Garda HQ to the Minister to the AG's office (and you'll go from DoJ to AG a lot - twenty or thirty times) to the backbenchers in the Dail and Seanad who want to be in the papers, to the AGS themselves when they implement it.

And that's the people who aren't trying to undermine your work from within the shooting community because they don't like you or don't like someone you're working with or haven't had their morning ego stroke yet, or who just want to f*ck about because apparently that's more fun than actually shooting for them.

Ten years of my life I spent doing this, along with a dozen or two others, and even reading the idea of looking at it being done again when so few people actually know what's involved is enough to make me want a stiff drink.

yubabill1

BattleCorp wrote: »

Why do you think that the state is correct in disallowing recovery of costs?

Why should a law abiding shooter, who through no fault of their own, had their renewal refused be denied fair play in the courts.

Surely it's an injustice to have to pay costs when the law abiding shooter has done nothing wrong and the court proved that the refusal was unwarranted?

If that's the case, only the rich can afford fair play in the courts.

Unfortunately, the state can disallow costs due to a previous judgement dealt with in another thread in this forum (I forget where, hopefully someone will dig it up)

that doesn't mean I think it's fair, especially when you see people found guilty of corruption this week getting their massive tribunal:mad: costs awarded.

yubabill1

1shot16 wrote: »

Imo a pistol is a feckin pistol.Doesn't matter if its .22 or 45 acp okay the 45acp is more powerful bla bla bla but its coming out of a concealable weapon which is a pistol.Guards need to cop on just coz hes a 9mm doesnt mean hes goin to rob banks etc.

and saying a .22 is not a military round is plain wrong, AGS.

A couple of special forces have used it for decades.

knockon

Half-cocked wrote: »

And hopefully you won't go through all this again in 3 years time. Just out of interest when they arrive let us all know if the new licences are valid from the date of issue, or from the date the old ones expired. Wouldn't put it past them to back date the licences just out of pure badness.

I will. I got stiffed for 10 months in 2010 so I'll be on that real quick this time..

FutureGuy

Lads, how much does it cost to appeal. My dad has 60 years of target shooting experience but can't use his Sig Sauer and I know he'd love to.

If you win the appeal, do you get the money back?

Sparks

yubabill1 wrote: »

Unfortunately, the state can disallow costs due to a previous judgement dealt with in another thread in this forum (I forget where, hopefully someone will dig it up)

That's not quite what the story is, Grizz had it right above, the DC has no legal authority to grant costs in these cases anymore, there's no "disallowing" involved, they simply don't have a choice in the matter.

Original thread is here.

FutureGuy wrote: »

Lads, how much does it cost to appeal.

I'll leave that to the others who have the receipts, but expect four-figure sums if it's just a DC appeal.

If you win the appeal, do you get the money back?

No.

daveob007

SPARKS Know what you mean,we have been over this so many times our heads hurt from banging them against brick walls.
restricted list and guidelines need to be looked at alright,guidelines should be black and white and not open to various outcomes by different districts.
not trying to open any cans of worms here,just curious.

Sparks

To be honest Dave, the first thing we'd have to do is get our own house in order, which means the NARGC getting back in line with the other governing bodies and not going off on its own again. Until that happens, we're never going to be able to look at the other stuff and even then we might still be stuffed because nobody in the DoJ was willing to sit down with them last I heard (which was several months ago) because of the things they were happily saying in the Digest or anywhere else that would print it. That burned a lot of bridges that we would need if we were to even try to get back to square one.

Tackleberry.

Sparks wrote: »

To be honest Dave, the first thing we'd have to do is get our own house in order, which means the NARGC getting back in line with the other governing bodies and not going off on its own again. Until that happens, we're never going to be able to look at the other stuff and even then we might still be stuffed because nobody in the DoJ was willing to sit down with them last I heard (which was several months ago) because of the things they were happily saying in the Digest or anywhere else that would print it. That burned a lot of bridges that we would need if we were to even try to get back to square one.

It would be great to have the different bodies sort there differences out so that they could get back to the table and chip away at sorting out our difficultlys within target shooting, as it is now I'm guessing no one is gaining anything anywhere in any shooting disipline/sport..?

Grizzly 45

yubabill1 wrote: »

and saying a .22 is not a military round is plain wrong, AGS.

A couple of special forces have used it for decades.

Dont even have to go to SF units using it.It has been used as a training round by.
The UK,Germany,[East&West] USA,Switzerland,Russia,thats off the top of my head
It also has been issued as a personal defence weapon round...In Northern Ireland to the UDR,especially to their female personel ,the "Green Finches" during the troubles,it was a .22lr Walther PPK style handgun.
Both the gun and the ammo round have a NATO designitation supply code as well.Which makes it an offical NATO military round too.
So to say that the lowly .22 is a civillian round only is bull manure these days.

Sparks

Tackleberry. wrote: »

as it is now I'm guessing no one is gaining anything anywhere in any shooting disipline/sport..?

Pretty much. You see a few low-level meetings reported as great events every now and then, but in real terms? Nothing.

yubabill1

Sparks wrote: »

That's not quite what the story is, Grizz had it right above, the DC has no legal authority to grant costs in these cases anymore, there's no "disallowing" involved, they simply don't have a choice in the matter.

Original thread is here.I'll leave that to the others who have the receipts, but expect four-figure sums if it's just a DC appeal.

.

thanks for the link, sparks.

I'm not pretending to be a legal eagle, but I remember the finding in the link was a result of another case (something to do with a (CIE -owned) hotel in the north west?)

It does relate to shooter's appeals, but it is a general thing.

Again, that doesn't make it right.

I really can't believe those politicos got their costs from the Mahon tribunal, which found they had acted corruptly (and they were cleared by a criminal court before the tribunal findings could be released this week)

BattleCorp

Sparks wrote: »

To be honest Dave, the first thing we'd have to do is get our own house in order, which means the NARGC getting back in line with the other governing bodies and not going off on its own again.

I'm not anti NARGC but why don't you engage with the authorities without the NARGC if they don't want to take part in discussions?

Surely some contact must be better than nothing happening?

Sparks

yubabill1 wrote: »

I'm not pretending to be a legal eagle, but I remember the finding in the link was a result of another case (something to do with a (CIE -owned) hotel in the north west?)

Nope, it arose from one of the firearms appeal cases. Someone else mentioned on here a case relating to hotels and other kinds of licencing arrangements, but the ruling is actually very specific and only applies to firearms licences (other kinds of licences have their own Acts and those Acts permit DCs to grant costs; the Firearms Act doesn't do so and so we're stuffed).

Sparks

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm not anti NARGC but why don't you engage with the authorities without the NARGC if they don't want to take part in discussions?

(a) Not my call;
(b) Like I said elsewhere, the NARGC's big enough to sink the whole thing (but not big enough to fix things on their own) so it's not really a viable option;
(c) Last time I remember something similar to this was when the NASRPC complained that they didn't have a seat at the FCP table (they were represented through the SSAI) and that led to an end run attempt that we've talked about at length before. A rerun of that could cause havoc.

Surely some contact must be better than nothing happening?

A part of me says you're right and feck the NARGC, they chose their path. Thing is, everyone would have to agree to that and act with the DoJ and Minister to cut the NARGC out of the loop completely. You couldn't just go on without them -- nobody would sit at the table if the NARGC seat was just empty, not when the NARGC was saying nasty things about them in the media and had the option to just show up at the next meeting when nobody in their right mind would think they were acting in good faith. And the thought of everyone acting to cut out the largest group in the community is one that is very unsettling.

A cynical person might think that that's exactly what people were counting on.

Personally, I've given up on the idea of us fixing anything for the next few years at least. We're not going to get traction from this Minister, key personnel have changed in the DoJ and we'd have to rebuild relationships there (good luck with that given the last few years of history), priorities for the government boil down to money for the foreseeable future, and all we'd be is an easy target for a crackdown if we were incautious in our lobbying. I don't see much light in that tunnel.

Basicly, we're screwed, years of work have been thrown away, a very promising long-term future thrashed, and worst of all it was done by ourselves, not the government or the gardai or any of those we'd think of as the usual suspects, and we got nothing out of it in the end and the odds are very high given our defamation laws that we'll never be able to tell the general public exactly what happened and who did what.

rowa

Why does it have to be "either or" ? if an organisation such as the nargc decides to head down the court route, what precludes another org or group of orgs from sitting down with the Doj/coppers ? it happened recently happened with the unions and the croke park deal, some played ball and some didn't.
Anyway with some of the underhand carry on the supers/chief supers went on with (and no reprimands) you might as well have talked to yourself, it was clear they wanted c/f pistols and practical gone as a media stunt after the murders in limerick.

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

Why does it have to be "either or" ? if an organisation such as the nargc decides to head down the court route, what precludes another org or group of orgs from sitting down with the Doj/coppers ?

Because they (the DoJ and the other powers that be) have no interest in sitting down with half the community and working out things through the FCP route while the other half takes them to court. They don't want the risk that some FOI-able statement to one half could stuff up the court cases with the other half and on top of that, they don't particularly see it as their job to both get sued and sit in open talks on the law with the same community at the same time.

Honestly, I can't blame them, I'd have made the same decision, but I'd have used more profanity when talking about it.

it happened recently happened with the unions and the croke park deal, some played ball and some didn't.

You know what the difference is between the shooting community and the unions?

The government need something from the unions. They need diddly-squat from us and have the completely legal power required to shut all of us down in the morning if they wanted to, and they know it, and they've done it before and they know they can do it again.

Do you think if the government could draft a Temporary Shut-up-and-get-back-to-work Order the way they can draft a Temporary Custody Order that the unions would even exist?

Anyway with some of the underhand carry on the supers/chief supers went on with (and no reprimands) you might as well have talked to yourself, it was clear they wanted c/f pistols and practical gone as a media stunt after the murders in limerick.

They didn't care about c/f and practical. They wanted guns gone. Not any one specific kind. And if you think the Commissioner and the Minister enjoyed being told by the Supreme Court in Dunne that there was something they weren't allowed to do and that they would never react to that, then you don't understand people very well.
Truth is, over 99% of the cases had no problems. We had problem supers, we had support from the FPU in trying to fix that but no tools that could do it in the short term and we got hammered because we made ourselves easy targets and easy tools for muppets like Deasy to use and we're now paying the price and will be for years to come.

And the depressing thing? Nobody learnt anything. Odds are we'll see all this happen again when we get the next opportunity to improve our lot.

Don't believe me? Go down to the club. Find some random shooter who doesn't sit on an NGB committee and ask them something specific about how the sport is organised or what the law is. Dollars to doughnuts, they won't know the answer because they don't care enough to learn. Now ask them if the olympic shooters screwed over everyone else or if the FCP was led up the garden path or if FLAG got pistols back for everyone or any one of the hundred other urban legends we have, and observe first-hand that the old adage about lies, truth, boots and world travel is completely correct.

yubabill1

Sparks wrote: »

Nope, it arose from one of the firearms appeal cases. Someone else mentioned on here a case relating to hotels and other kinds of licencing arrangements, but the ruling is actually very specific and only applies to firearms licences (other kinds of licences have their own Acts and those Acts permit DCs to grant costs; the Firearms Act doesn't do so and so we're stuffed).

Correct, but the hotel was a landmark case with widespread implications which was used to explain the firearms costs ruling, I think.

Ok, I've actually gone back and read it. The hotel case was used to say that the DC does not have an inherent jurisdiction and the judge goes on to say that the firearms act is silent on costs.

Basically, the DC does not have the power to award costs unless that power is given explicitly.

yubabill1

Just another thought, I think it's positive that the OP got his grants through so quickly after the DC hearing.

A sign of some movement, however glacial, maybe?

tomtucker81

yubabill1 wrote: »

Just another thought, I think it's positive that the OP got his grants through so quickly after the DC hearing.

A sign of some movement, however glacial, maybe?

I'd say it was quick because the D.C. had ruled in the op's favour. I doubt it means you'll see any improvement in the waiting times for applications in general.
Problem supers is an issue though, there are many that see handguns, moderators, and even hunting rifles as simply dangerous or sinister, and refuse applications.
The fact is there are many men and women who are supers or c . supers(and firearms officers for that matter) that have no interest or proper knowledge of firearms and their uses, and dealing with applications is a nuisance to them.

For example a previous super in my area was a shooting man, and knew his stuff. The new one hasnt a clue.(and the firearm officer said as much).

Anyway, I would say the fact that the chief refused the op was more a case of , well im not granting it, if he wants he can go to court and a judge can grant it. That way of anything goes wrong its not me or AGS that granted it.

I think there needa to be a dedicated unit for applications, with gardai who have an interest in firearms or know different calibres, accessories etc and know properly why each would he wanted. Imo it would make such applications more straightforward.

catastrophy

tomtucker81 wrote: »

Anyway, I would say the fact that the chief refused the op was more a case of , well im not granting it, if he wants he can go to court and a judge can grant it. That way of anything goes wrong its not me or AGS that granted it.

You've hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately, granting officers are exposed and act as such. Until such a time as there is a coherent and cohesive licencing system, this is how things will operate.

Grizzly 45

yubabill1 wrote: »

Just another thought, I think it's positive that the OP got his grants through so quickly after the DC hearing.

A sign of some movement, however glacial, maybe?

Not really, he was pulled on it in various cases in the last three years by counsel as he delayed issuing them three years ago by six weeks to me and Knockon.On top of the five months we were sitting around without firearms waiting for a court date from Dec/Jan 09/10.:mad:
As he was trying to appeal the judges decision to the circut court! !!
I'm no lawyer,but I could have told them that the circut court has no bearing whatsoever on the firearms laws or any mention in the firearms acts,and apprently this decision is now confirmed in a recent high court judgement on this matter just to prove that particular point in the firearms laws.Its the district court or the high court for decisions on points of law,and thats it!
Anyway the judge refused leave of appeal to the CC on those very grounds.

I logged over 30 phone calls between me and my solicitor to the cheifs office in that time period to get him to issue the paperwork.:mad:

By the time another case was heard in Sept 10 the judge commented that this was totally unsatisfactory behaviour on the part of AGS in unnecessary and vexatious delaying of issuing the liscenses in the Limerick division and that he was to issue all liscenses within a reasonable time frame once they had been granted.

daveob007

I have always though that it was stupid for one super/chief super to make a decision on any application,as last post stated half of them have no idea about shooting/firearms or simply hate anyone having one.
I would have preferred a panel of 3 or 4 people dedicated to the issue of firearms certs,some with an interest and some with knowledge.

rowa

daveob007 wrote: »

I have always though that it was stupid for one super/chief super to make a decision on any application,as last post stated half of them have no idea about shooting/firearms or simply hate anyone having one.
I would have preferred a panel of 3 or 4 people dedicated to the issue of firearms certs,some with an interest and some with knowledge.

The firearm licencing system seems to be a relic from the civil war days, after all it was drafted in 1925. An attitude of mistrust towards people looking for firearms was probably encouraged within the gardai. A much better system is the german system, the only real input the police have is a security and background check, the rest is done by a civilian staffed office.

Grizzly 45

rowa wrote: »

The firearm licencing system seems to be a relic from the civil war days, after all it was drafted in 1925. An attitude of mistrust towards people looking for firearms was probably encouraged within the gardai. A much better system is the german system, the only real input the police have is a security and background check, the rest is done by a civilian staffed office.

Their equivlient of the county council handles it all,and TBH the police have little to do if anything to do with it even on backround checks.About the only time the police get involved is if it is an application for concealed carry of a live gun for self protection,and the approved police firearms training.
For that you need an extreme good reason with clear and present danger to your life.
How ever, thing is the German firearms pre requsites put our system in the lassiez faire leauge.With written oral and practical tests.But once you have the liscense you have it for life,pending doing something daft,like DUI,or even tax evasion these days.

knockon

Half-cocked wrote: »

And hopefully you won't go through all this again in 3 years time. Just out of interest when they arrive let us all know if the new licences are valid from the date of issue, or from the date the old ones expired. Wouldn't put it past them to back date the licences just out of pure badness.

Information as promised .....

Both Restricted licences arrive this morning. Both have an expiry date of Oct 31st 2015 which means they have back dated the issue back last year when the last one expired. The 9mm has had its ammo reduced from 1000 to 500 rounds and the .22 as been reduced from 500 to 300 rounds. In the last 46 months I have been without my firearms for over 20 of those months. I have already expressed my opinion that I believe I am absolutely wasting my time communicating with the Chiefs office therefore I have referred it to my Legal representative for further action.