Parlimentary Questions - Pistols & license reviews.

Sparks

Dec 10 2013:

Niall Collins (Limerick, Fianna Fail)
372. To ask the Minister for Justice and Equality if he is reviewing Garda firearm license policy in view of a recent court case that granted licences which had previously been refused on the advice of Garda ballistic experts; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52971/13]

Alan Shatter (Minister, Department of Justice, Equality and Defence; Dublin South, Fine Gael)

I can inform the Deputy that my Department is examining key issues relating to firearms licensing, in conjunction with An Garda Síochána. I expect to receive recommendations as a result of this process in February 2014. That process will have regard to any relevant court cases.

Poopsticks.

rowa

Sparks wrote: »

Dec 10 2013:


Poopsticks.

Is there no end to the damage fianna failure do to this country. I heard a reliable whisper on sunday that there is a storm approaching regarding all pistols , not just centrefires.

Sparks

There are few reliable whisper sources rowa, the reliable sources don't tend to whisper. They don't shout and pound tables either, mind, they just talk.

Dian Cecht

Hasn't it been shown more than once in Court and at considerable expense to shooters, shooting organisations & the DOJ that Garda "policy" on firearms licencing is not necessarily 'legal' and that what the legislation actually says, which is currently a joke in a lot of ways, is all that counts?

Sparks

Dian Cecht wrote: »

Hasn't it been shown more than once in Court and at considerable expense to shooters, shooting organisations & the DOJ that Garda "policy" on firearms licencing is not necessarily 'legal' and that what the legislation actually says, which is currently a joke in a lot of ways, is all that counts?

It was shown more than once before the law changed in 2006, when the commissioner and minister got a lot more power under the law with regard to "policy". The situation at the moment is not like it was before 2006.

I should have this as a keyboard macro, but: "You can't use the courts as a stick to beat the government with".

Seriously, you can't. There's no contest - the government writes the rulebook, the courts just see that its adhered to. If the state wants to do something and the rules say "no", then the state rewrites the rule to say "yah, sure".

Dian Cecht

Sparks wrote: »

It was shown more than once before the law changed in 2006, when the commissioner and minister got a lot more power under the law with regard to "policy". The situation at the moment is not like it was before 2006.

So they can ignore basic legislation & make up a "policy" & it will stand up in a Court? :eek:

Sparks wrote: »

I should have this as a keyboard macro, but: "You can't use the courts as a stick to beat the government with".

Yep, that's true

Sparks wrote: »

Seriously, you can't. There's no contest - the government writes the rulebook, the courts just see that its adhered to. If the state wants to do something and the rules say "no", then the state rewrites the rule to say "yah, sure".

So much for democracy, eh :eek:

It wasn't me!

Dian Cecht wrote: »

So much for democracy, eh :eek:

Democracy doesn't mean you just get the laws you like. Even if democracy were 100% direct, with citizens voting personally on every single issue, you'd be amazed at the motions that would be popular, and you certainly wouldn't like the results, with regard to firearms legislation. There may be serious issues in terms of the information used to write laws and the gulf between intention and interpretation but let's not pretend the format of our democracy is what's at issue.

Sparks

Dian Cecht wrote: »

So they can ignore basic legislation & make up a "policy" & it will stand up in a Court? :eek:

In effect, yes. (In practice, they do it, we yell and go to court, court says "that's not on", government rewrites the law to make it legal, court says "well, nothing we can do so" -- so in practice, it's the same as in effect, but we pay more money and lose more manhours that could have been spent building ranges or training shooters).

This is why it was so depressing to see the FCP pissed away for nothing in favour of going to the four courts. Bang heads with the Minister and you lose. Maybe not on day one, but you live longer than day one and he'll win in the end - that's how the constitution is written. But sit down at the same table with him and argue out a compromise and okay, neither of you will like the end result because neither side ever does, that's what compromise means -- but you'd get what you need and it will stick, unlike a court ruling that's unfavorable to the government.

So much for democracy, eh :eek:

Well, (a) we're not a democracy, we're a republic; and (b) that's not what that word means anyway

Basicly, the constitution and the law that flows from it all says that this is how things work, and the government operates within that framework. Now if they stepped outside that, they would get walloped (if caught at the time), but they rarely if ever do, because they don't need to.

And it's hardly new or the worst example in Irish life. Me, I don't understand why we didn't stop complaining about forty years ago and learn the rules and play the game back then. I mean, complain for 40 years; or work for 5-10 and get to enjoy your sport for 35. Why did we choose door number 1?

Dian Cecht

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Democracy doesn't mean you just get the laws you like. Even if democracy were 100% direct, with citizens voting personally on every single issue, you'd be amazed at the motions that would be popular, and you certainly wouldn't like the results, with regard to firearms legislation. There may be serious issues in terms of the information used to write laws and the gulf between intention and interpretation but let's not pretend the format of our democracy is what's at issue.

I was more so hinting that those charged with enforcing the law should not be the ones who make the law

Sparks

Dian Cecht wrote: »

I was more so hinting that those charged with enforcing the law should not be the ones who make the law

Ah, but that's why they call it a policy

Dian Cecht

Thanks Sparks Looks like shootings' future is ................ bend over & smile

I'm away to do a bit of shooting ....................... while I still can

Sparks

See, everyone always says it's bend over and smile. As if all of shooting was a table and all we could do was either thump it and yell, or bend over it, and no other choice was possible. It's an odd list of things to have as the only things you can do with a table, I'd hate to see what whomever came up with it does for their xmas dinner. The turkey wouldn't be safe either way.

Wouldn't it be better just to sit at the table and talk? Okay, you won't get everything, and yes it's slow (but courts are slower) and it's not very sexy (but if you think a judges robes are sexy, you... actually, there are some shops on capel street that cater to you, but you probably don't want to go to court after going there) - but does everyone need a glock 18? If you could have whatever centerfire pistol you wanted so long as you just shot at the standard bullseye targets, would that compromise have been better or worse than the current state of affairs, where only a few hundred centerfires are out there and you're not allowed have more, even to replace them as wear and tear take their toll?

Dian Cecht

Pissing down ..................... shooting cancelled

I'd like to see a transparent & simple system. You do/have a,b,c and you can have x,y,z. None of this postcode lottery :rolleyes:

Sparks

What, you mean a list of things?

Sorry, old joke.

Yes, it would be nice to have a set law and everyone followed it explicitly, but given the way we draft laws in Ireland and the way they're enforced, that'd be damned hard to implement. The FPU is supposed to help, by advising the local supers, but it would seem that Ballistics are an opposing voice from our vantage point out here, and if there are opposing voices in the AGS... well, we get the resulting mess.

Dian Cecht

Sparks wrote: »

What, you mean a list of things? .

Be easier surely? Instead of dealing with "I don't like the look of that" attitude some lads get over a pimped out 10/22 :rolleyes:

Sparks wrote: »

Sorry, old joke. .

Do share

Sparks wrote: »

Yes, it would be nice to have a set law and everyone followed it explicitly, but given the way we draft laws in Ireland and the way they're enforced, that'd be damned hard to implement. The FPU is supposed to help, by advising the local supers, but it would seem that Ballistics are an opposing voice from our vantage point out here, and if there are opposing voices in the AGS... well, we get the resulting mess.

Dealt with the FPU ................. VERY helpful I found.

rowa

But the ballistics department frequently contradict the fpu and seem to over ride them, which begs the question why bother to continue to keep the fpu open and not just use the ballistics dept for all queries ? Its a case of a super/chief super looking for the answer he wants and that answer is more often than not found in the ballistics dept.

Sparks

Dian Cecht wrote: »

Be easier surely? Instead of dealing with "I don't like the look of that" attitude some lads get over a pimped out 10/22 :rolleyes:
Do share

Not everyone likes the idea of a list, given the example that's in the Commissioner's guidelines. There was uproar and accusations of perfidity at various groups in shooting when it was published.

Dealt with the FPU ................. VERY helpful I found.

Yup, if they had a little more weight in the AGS, it'd make our lives a bit easier.

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

But the ballistics department frequently contradict the fpu and seem to over ride them, which begs the question why bother to continue to keep the fpu open and not just use the ballistics dept for all queries ? Its a case of a super/chief super looking for the answer he wants and that answer is more often than not found in the ballistics dept.

Because the two groups are meant to do different things....

Dian Cecht

Sparks wrote: »

Not everyone likes the idea of a list, given the example that's in the Commissioner's guidelines. There was uproar and accusations of perfidity at various groups in shooting when it was published.Yup, if they had a little more weight in the AGS, it'd make our lives a bit easier.

Really

To me it surely makes things easier You pick something that's on it and all things being equal you get it. Surely, better than going to Court?

Sparks

Dian Cecht wrote: »

To me it surely makes things easier You pick something that's on it and all things being equal you get it. Surely, better than going to Court?

To be honest, I like the system we have now better than that - there's a list of examples of pistols that conform the the actual law, which is a list of characteristics of pistols. So if walther bring out a new pistol tomorrow that meets those characteristics, you don't need to change the law, and you can add to the list of examples easily but you don't need to wait for that addition before getting the licence.

Dian Cecht

A buddy of mine was told if it ain't on that list he couldn't have it

He wasn't too bothered as he got Ruger MK II, which is a lovely pistol.

rowa

Dian Cecht wrote: »

Really

To me it surely makes things easier You pick something that's on it and all things being equal you get it. Surely, better than going to Court?

What happens when you want something thats been out of production for decades or is a bit obscure or rare , but otherwise perfectly acceptable ? Using a technical spec is a better bet imho. Eg. maximum five shots, barrel length minimum 4.5 inches , minimum overall length 8 inches or whatever. This was also in the commissioners guidelines but seems to have been dropped, it was probably inconvenient for them :rolleyes:.

Sparks

People have been told the wrong thing like that for as long as I've been shooting - Gardai don't get enough training in firearms legislation when being given the job of administering it. End result, daft things happen

richiedel123

Sparks wrote: »

People have been told the wrong thing like that for as long as I've been shooting - Gardai don't get enough training in firearms legislation when being given the job of administering it. End result, daft things happen

I agree with that. My cs told me she knows nothing about pistols but her experts told her that my pistol was military etc etc.
In fairness how can a cs make a decision on something he/ she doesn't know the first thing about. In my opinion that system is completely wrong and unjust for all involved

BattleCorp

richiedel123 wrote: »

In my opinion that system is completely wrong and unjust for all involved

How wrong and unjust would it be if they banned all pistols?

What purpose would it serve?

What purpose does the current ban on new centrefire pistols serve?

Bans like that don't serve any purpose other than to penalise law abiding shooting enthusiasts. It does fcukall to reduce crime.

Our pistols aren't the ones being used by scumbags to hold up cash in transit vans or to knock each other off.

richiedel123

BattleCorp wrote: »

How wrong and unjust would it be if they banned all pistols?
The way it is now is like they are banned. The only way we can hold onto them is if we can convince a judge we need it. We have to go to court to try to hold onto something we were licensed on for a few years and held in our possession.
What purpose would it serve?
None the criminals still get their hands on illegal guns and still do harm with them

What purpose does the current ban on new centrefire pistols serve?
None at all it is a complete joke. It's scapegoat tactics by our then minister.

Bans like that don't serve any purpose other than to penalise law abiding shooting enthusiasts. It does fcukall to reduce crime.
Agreed
Our pistols aren't the ones being used by scumbags to hold up cash in transit vans or to knock each other off.

Agreed

BattleCorp

Sparks wrote: »

Gardai don't get enough training in firearms legislation when being given the job of administering it.

I'm not criticising the Gardaí, I'm just asking a simple question.

Why don't Gardaí get enough training in firearms procedures, legislation and how to administer it?

Surely, seeing as it's part of their job, why isn't there training courses that all Gardaí who deal with firearms applications must do?

I'm always amazed at how many Gardaí say to me that they know nothing about firearms. I would have thought it would be a pre-requisite.

It wasn't me!

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm not criticising the Gardaí, I'm just asking a simple question.

Why don't Gardaí get enough training in firearms procedures, legislation and how to administer it?

Surely, seeing as it's part of their job, why isn't there training courses that all Gardaí who deal with firearms applications must do?

I'm always amazed at how many Gardaí say to me that they know nothing about firearms. I would have thought it would be a pre-requisite.

Because they're underfunded as is, with an enormously diverse job, and dealing with firearms, and legal firearms in particular, is a tiny part of that job. Training them to deal better with it, particularly when dissatisfaction with the system is so low (It's magnified hugely here. The vast, vast majority of firearms applications and various dealings with AGS don't end with any complaints or issues.), that funding for that particular area of deficiency is so far down the list of priorities for spending what is ultimately imaginary wouldn'titbeniceif money it's not even funny.

richiedel123

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm not criticising the Gardaí, I'm just asking a simple question.

Why don't Gardaí get enough training in firearms procedures, legislation and how to administer it?

Surely, seeing as it's part of their job, why isn't there training courses that all Gardaí who deal with firearms applications must do?

I'm always amazed at how many Gardaí say to me that they know nothing about firearms. I would have thought it would be a pre-requisite.

This is my problem. This is what I taught was unjust that a person who has no training in firearms and doesn't know a .22 from a. 45 or a Sig from a glock should decide who can and cant licence

Grizzly 45

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Because they're underfunded as is, with an enormously diverse job, and dealing with firearms, and legal firearms in particular, is a tiny part of that job. Training them to deal better with it, particularly when dissatisfaction with the system is so low (It's magnified hugely here. The vast, vast majority of firearms applications and various dealings with AGS don't end with any complaints or issues.), that funding for that particular area of deficiency is so far down the list of priorities for spending what is ultimately imaginary wouldn'tit beniceif money it's not even funny.

ALL the more reason it should be removed from them completely and this should be like any modern EU country a job for local Govts, or a centralised govt registry with people who know something about firearms.
Its only in Irl and the UK that the police involved in this Anywhere else the police are only involved in a criminal back round check or issuing a permit for concealed carry.
These countries haven sunk into anarchostic crime lands with daily shootings or collapased govts either.
In fact they are proably the most stable of the EU countries.
Be nice if we tried to copy something of benefit from the EU for a change and stop being so anally retentive about firearms here in Ireland.

It wasn't me!

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

ALL the more reason it should be removed from them completely and this should be like any modern EU country a job for local Govts, or a centralised govt registry with people who know something about firearms.
Its only in Irl and the UK that the police involved in this Anywhere else the police are only involved in a criminal back round check or issuing a permit for concealed carry.
These countries haven sunk into anarchostic crime lands with daily shootings or collapased govts either.
In fact they are proably the most stable of the EU countries.
Be nice if we tried to copy something of benefit from the EU for a change and stop being so anally retentive about firearms here in Ireland.

No disagreement whatsoever! I'd love to see it all managed entirely at the local civilian government level myself, but for the time being, it's not, and it would be far less complex or difficult to increase AGS funding than to change that paradigm.