HELP...!Pistol Licence Revoke!

loftypheasant

Sorry for getting a bit off-thread. I wish Loonymoony the best. Don't take it lying down old chap!

BattleCorp

rowa wrote: »

It doesn't matter if they are available or not, what the supers are saying is if it comes from the factory with 10 shot mags then its restricted, regardless of limiting the mag capacity or getting new 5 round mags.

95% + of pistols that were used on the range this weekend weren't factory designed to hold 5 rounds. They have their mags plugged.

That's a lot of revoked licences if what happened to the OP is extended nationwide.

Sparks

Very hard to see how any sensible court could uphold such a condition though. It would convert the law from being proscriptive (ie. telling you what you can't do) to being prophylactic (ie. actively preventing you from doing what you're not meant to do). Forget fairness ("This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice"), that's a major shift on a legal level, and major shifts tend to hit the law of unintended consequences head-on at quite a speed...

rowa

BattleCorp wrote: »

95% + of pistols that were used on the range this weekend weren't factory designed to hold 5 rounds. They have their mags plugged.

That's a lot of revoked licences if what happened to the OP is extended nationwide.

This only seems to have started happening since around christmas time.

NipNip

Can you see why the law is targetting these weapons?

rowa

NipNip wrote: »

Can you see why the law is targetting these weapons?

Weapons ?

Heckler

NipNip wrote: »

Can you see why the law is targetting these weapons?

Sporting Firearms. And no. Can you ?

NipNip

I would imagine it's an effort to make it an offence to carry such a weapon. No, you guys are not the intended. I believe they are trying to keep up with criminal elements.

Witcher

NipNip wrote: »

I would imagine it's an effort to make it an offence to carry such a weapon. No, you guys are not the intended. I believe they are trying to keep up with criminal elements.

That makes absolutely no sense.

Sparks

NipNip wrote: »

I would imagine it's an effort to make it an offence to carry such a weapon. No, you guys are not the intended. I believe they are trying to keep up with criminal elements.

Okay, stop.

1) The word is "firearm". "Weapon" means something which has already been used to harm someone, in this country at least. We have Firearms certificates, not Weapons certificates. Calling them weapons is implicitly stating that we have them to cause harm to other people, which is not just unethical but illegal under about six seperate laws.

2) This is nothing to do with crime. Criminals do not apply for licences for smallbore pistols to their local Garda Superintendent, provide proof of secure storage for the firearm, give a good reason for them to have the firearm in the first place, show they have a safe place to use it, give up their medical confidentiality, provide two character references and have a home inspection by their local crime prevention officer if the firearm is to be stored there. Instead, they smuggle firearms into the country which cannot be legally licenced here - or anywhere else in the EU - anyway, like Mac10s and the like, and bring them in with shipments of narcotics.

Seriously, you're so far off base here that you can't even see the baseball stadium anymore.

BattleCorp

NipNip wrote: »

I would imagine it's an effort to make it an offence to carry such a weapon. No, you guys are not the intended. I believe they are trying to keep up with criminal elements.

Just to clarify one point. What we use for target shooting aren't weapons. They are sporting firearms.

I applaud the Gardai for trying to clamp down on criminals. However, these laws don't clamp down on criminals, they only create problems for law abiding target shooters.

Criminals don't give a fcuk about laws, and never will.

Taking away my target pistol won't stop one single crime because I don't commit crimes with my pistol.

If we aren't the intended target, I can't see who is judging by how this only affects target shooters.

Tackleberry.

BattleCorp wrote: »

95% + of pistols that were used on the range this weekend weren't factory designed to hold 5 rounds. They have their mags plugged.

That's a lot of revoked licences if what happened to the OP is extended nationwide.

After attending my own case recently Inpector Brooks pointed out that the former and current ministers of justice are working on sorting out the current difficultlies with these short firearms.. At this point the Judge pointed out to Brooks that current law applies here in his court and stopped his rant.. But made me think what is on the pipeline?????

Dian Cecht

Tackleberry. wrote: »

But made me think what is on the pipeline?????

Don't worry. They've promised to consult with stakeholders before they SHAFT us :mad:

Sparks

I love how an Inspector knows the mind of not one, but two Ministers, before they make up their own mind...


(And it's heartening to see how, despite everything, we still trust the word of even our most vociferous opponent in the Gardai at its face value, despite the less accommodating learned opinion of the judiciary)

Dian Cecht

Sparks wrote: »

I love how an Inspector knows the mind of not one, but two Ministers, before they make up their own mind...

Maybe they ask his advice and ignore the FPU too?

Sparks

Dian Cecht wrote: »

Maybe they ask his advice and ignore the FPU too?

A Minister.
Asking a Garda Inspector something directly.
In order to formulate policy and even legislation on the basis of the Inspector's response.
And ignoring the Commissioner, Assistant Commissioners, Chief Superintendents, Superintendents and all the other Inspectors and specialist units to do so.

That would be... newsworthy.

Dian Cecht

So why do Gardaí have him in court as their "expert" witness in firearms cases and not all the others you've mentioned I know my Super asks him his opinion on firearms.

Sparks

Dian Cecht wrote: »

So why do Gardaí have him in court as their "expert" witness in firearms cases and not all the others you've mentioned I know my Super asks him his opinion on firearms.

How did we jump from Ministers of Justice talking directly to an Inspector in order to formulate new legislation; to your local Super calling him up over a single licencing decision?

Those two aren't chalk and cheese, they're apples and the 1952 Bolivian World Cup Soccer team.

Dian Cecht

If the Supers & Chief Supers bring him to court and ask/take his advice it's reasonable to assume (always a mistake, I know) for some of them he's the de facto "expert" for An Garda Síochana.

So if the Minister for Justice has a query and asks the Commissioner, who then asks an assistant commissioner, who then asks a Chief Superintendent, who then asks a Superintendent, who'll could possibly ask the head of the ballistic dept, who's the Inspector in question, which is generally the way Garda Síochana works, the Minister mightn't ask said Inspector personally, but it'll be his opinion that that the minister receives, especially if the Superintendent asks him & not the FPU. Or maybe the Ministers' secretary knows the Inspector is the "go to guy" and places a call for the minister & the Minister lowers herself and speaks to a lowly Garda Inspector

Who knows what goes on in the corridors of power.

BTW you ignored my original statement/question completely

Sparks

Dian Cecht wrote: »

If the Supers & Chief Supers bring him to court and ask/take his advice it's reasonable to assume (always a mistake, I know) for some of them he's the de facto "expert" for An Garda Síochana.

Not so much.
Super sees an application for something he's never seen before. Super's not been given any proper training in civilian firearms ownership legislation because even during the boom, we thought training Gardai wasn't really as important as... I dunno, new bank headquarters buildings and things (and if you disagree with me, go look up how much water leaks from our water pipes in Dublin despite the largest construction boom in our history).
Super then looks in the directory and finds the FPU and Ballistics as seperate units in the AGS and to cover bottom, calls both. One says it's grand; the other says it's illegal.
Super's bottom in on the line, it's an unknown situation for him, one call seems safer from Super's point of view.

Let's say you're the Super and your mortgage and your kids school fees and your pension depend on not fscking up. (Not doing the right thing -- but not fscking up, which is something entirely different). Which would you choose? To take a risk on which of the two legal opinions is correct given that you aren't an expert; or to choose the safer option and let the higher-ranked brass sort out the mess with the DoJ (which is, in fairness, in their job description)?

I know which one I think is more likely to be chosen.

And I note that nowhere in that decision making process is the phrase "I'm going to deliberately suppress a sport and ruin someone's day for my own amusement or some larger-scale plan". Just a bad structure and a lack of investment in training and a motive to not fsck up.

So if the Minister for Justice has a query and asks the Commissioner, who then asks an assistant commissioner, who then asks a Chief Superintendent, who then asks a Superintendent

Yeah, that chain's got about four links too many there. The Minister won't ask the Commissioner for a policy, nor would any such request ever filter downwards. The Minister might ask the commissioner for a report, but if you learnt nothing else from Sir Humphrey, you should have learnt that reports and white papers and the like are not exactly the source of policy.
The actual chain is: The Minister.
And maybe his political advisors will have his ear, but they are looking at his reelection as a TD and his progression to Minister for Finance and on towards Taoiseach; not what's good for firearms legislation.

the Minister lowers herself and speaks to a lowly Garda Inspector

Yeah, not going to happen. The Minister will listen to any proferred opinion... but the Minister seeking out opinion from a low-ranking member of the AGS bypassing what, four levels of rank to get to them? Forget ticking off the Commissioner, that'd be seen as Ministerial interference in operational Garda matters. The stink it'd kick up would be huge; and while we have an Acting Commissioner and a Minister who's only just in the door, nobody's going to be raising a stink, especially given the events that led us to where we are now.

BTW you ignored my original statement/question completely

Yeah, but you know me, I think we're our own worst enemy. The PTB don't need a concerted attempt to shaft us anymore than you need a concerted attempt to make ice cream melt in the Sahara desert at noon. Sit back, say nothing and our little community has dutifully hung itself (using less and less rope as we get more efficient) for nearly thirty years now.

Grizzly 45

Dian Cecht wrote: »

Maybe they ask his advice and ignore the FPU too?

In EVERY DC case I have attended the head of the FPU has been present as well, on our tax dime too I might add.There might be inter agency rivilary afoot there ,but when it comes to policy and making your lives miserable both are as thick as thievs.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

In EVERY DC case I have attended the head of the FPU has been present as well, on our tax dime too I might add.There might be inter agency rivilary afoot there ,but when it comes to policy and making your lives miserable both are as thick as thievs.

In a courtroom. Which is not where Gardai are wont to draft policy.
Away from a courtroom, however, is a different matter. Personally, I don't think this FPU/Ballistics division can continue long-term, it's just too daft even for large organisations. Sooner or later, one will subsume the other and there'll just be one number in the directory; or else someone will draw a line between the two regarding areas of responsibility and it'll be noted in a memo somewhere. My money's on the latter.

In the meantime, we're stuck in a ****ty situation because of bad law and lack of training funding and so on.

rowa

Surely the remit of the ballistics dept is criminal investigation of the use of firearms in murders , robberies etc. The whole point of the fpu was to assist both the shooters and gardai in the matter of firearms licencing. So how have the ballistics dept gotten out of their box and turned up in courts giving nonsense answers in ordinary licencing cases ?

Sparks

I'd love to know the backstory there alright, but I suspect it's less we're-so-important-the-Minister-and-AGS-are-plotting-against-us and more B-is-before-F-in-the-internal-Garda-phone-directory...

Grizzly 45

rowa wrote: »

Surely the remit of the ballistics dept is criminal investigation of the use of firearms in murders , robberies etc. The whole point of the fpu was to assist both the shooters and gardai in the matter of firearms licencing. So how have the ballistics dept gotten out of their box and turned up in courts giving nonsense answers in ordinary licencing cases ?

Apprently the secret lies in the fact this legislation is called the "Criminal Justice Act"
which entiitles the State to use Garda ballistics as evudence givers.IOW folks we are considerd criminals by the name of the act alone.:mad:

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Apprently the secret lies in the fact this legislation is called the "Criminal Justice Act"
which entiitles the State to use Garda ballistics as evudence givers.IOW folks we are considerd criminals by the name of the act alone.:mad:

No, we're not. We're considered unimportant.

The Criminal Justice Act contained amendments to the Firearms Act. As well as amendments to several other acts (seriously, the 2006 Act referenced or amended 52 acts other than the Firearms Act; the 2009 Act only 21 others, but it was a shorter bit of legislation). Those amendments could have gone into any Act the Minister was passing; and that's usually how it's been done in the last decade or so. It's not some purposeful statement by the Minister specially aimed at us saying that we're criminals; we're just not considered important enough to get our own act -- though that in and of itself could be thought of as a rather large hint being dropped...

Also, the majority of the Firearms Act itself is nothing to do with us either and is all to do with actual gun crime (possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life, that sort of thing). Our stuff is about a third of it, if not less. So if you do draft a new Firearms Bill, it's going to be mostly written about criminals anyway and we're just lumped in there as an (admittedly large) appendix. Or whatever word you use to describe an appendix that's at the top of the document instead of at the end of it...

What you might also want to ruminate on for a bit is that with actual gun crime levels a political hot potato, we don't want to see a Firearms Bill anytime soon; because every single backbench TD and Senator is going to want to be seen to be speaking about "the issue of the day" on Oireachtas Report, what with a General Election coming up sometime in the next two years. Which means that, even if it was the perfect unicorn of a well-written Firearms Bill at the first stage in the Dail (and it won't be, it'll be a mess); by the time the Lowrys, the Healy-Reas, the Mullens, most of the Sinn Fein TDs (don't ask me why, but that party has a really odd track record when it comes to making the Firearms Act an unwieldy mess), the Greens and the Deasys had had their way with it, it'd be a dog's breakfast and we'd be the ones stuck with it.

Bluntly, being stuck in the miscellaneous section at the back of a Criminal Justice (Misc Provisions) Act isn't at the top of the list of things we should be annoyed about, and isn't even on the list of things we'd like to see fixed.

Dian Cecht

Sparks, thanks for the reply

The more I find out the more I realise I shouldn't have asked/mentioned it in the 1st place

Sparks

Dian Cecht wrote: »

The more I find out the more I realise I shouldn't have asked/mentioned it in the 1st place

You just summed up about twelve years of my life in this sport in one sentence, right there...

Grizzly 45

QUOTE=Sparks;91283309]No, we're not. We're considered unimportant.

The Criminal Justice Act contained amendments to the Firearms Act. As well as amendments to several other acts (seriously, the 2006 Act referenced or amended 52 acts .................[/QUOTE]

All very true and correct ,however I was just pointing out as to why"Garda Ballistics" is used here rather than the FPU,and this is from legal counsel who questioned the fact that the ballistics dept is used in these cases.And it boils down to in normal English because of the word "Criminal" in the act title .AGS can use criminal methodology experts to fight their POV.
HOWEVER when it comes to qualifications as expert witness,therein lies the rub.
The states witnesses is a forensics ballistican,and undoubtably well up on blood pattern sprays,bullet entry ,exit wounds etc and what type of gun fired it.But he is not qualified as a firearms identification ,ballistics and toolmark expert.
Two different fields apprently both requiring degree level education to qualify as expert witness i.

Heckler

So to condense. The FPU say a pistol with a plugged (by an RFD) 5 round mag is fine. The ballistics dept. say its restricted.

Any super can use the ballistics example to refuse a licence. But some supers will go with the FPU definition and you might get a licence.

And now using the ballistics dept. viewpoint a licence can be revoked as a plugged 10 round round mag can be 'easily' converted to hold 10 rounds therefore making it restricted.

Have i got it right so far ?

And the SI is vague enough to maybe uphold their argument re. magazine capacity ?