HELP...!Pistol Licence Revoke!

Sparks

Heckler wrote: »

So to condense....

Mostly right except...

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.

That's what Ballistics seems to think, yes, but it's not been settled either way in a court yet.

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

That'll need a court to decide upon ultimately. Personally (and my opinion has about as much legal weight as a gnat's fart) is that the SI's not got anything to do with it. The SI says 5 rounds in a magazine; that's black and white.

The question is whether a magazine that was manufactured for 10 rounds and later physically altered to only hold 5 meets the standard set out in the SI. Now we've been plugging magazines in shotguns for nearly fifty years to meet the 3-round standard set out in the Wildlife Act, and that's always been deemed acceptable, so a decision saying that modification of a magazine is not acceptable would have to overturn so much that it's hard to see how it couldn't be successfully argued against in court.

Besides which, the wider principle is that the judge making such a ruling would be ruling that an innocent citizen who has committed no crime could be refused a licence on the grounds that they would be physically capable of committing a crime in the future after the licence was granted. Not that they intend to do so -- there's no mens rea here, the Superintendent couldn't legally have granted the licence in the first place if he suspected there was (because the Act prohibits that) -- but that they would be able to do so if they chose to.

Problem with that is that I get into my car and drive to work every day using my driving licence, and during that drive I would be physically capable of exceeding the speed limit. The judge's decision could be seen to be precedent for denying me a driving licence because I could, at some time in the future, purchase a vehicle capable of exceeding 120kph and that at that point, I might physically do so despite it being illegal.

Irish law is generally not written like that. It's proscriptive, not prophylactic in nature.


(All this is in general, by the way, we can't discuss the details of any specific sub judice case because that'd be contempt of court)

Cass

Sparks wrote: »

....... the wider principle is that the judge making such a ruling would be ruling that an innocent citizen who has committed no crime could be refused a licence on the grounds that they would be physically capable of committing a crime in the future after the licence was granted.

Minority Report anyone?

Grizzly 45

We also have the bizarre situation down here of having one poster here who has a restricted .22 as won in the DC with a by mandated in the DC "restricted magazine" to five shots.:eek:
But I'll let him tell that story if he wishes.

loonymoony

Update, I have enlisted the services of a solicitor as recommended by you guys, special thanks to tackleberry for his help and advice,il keep ye updated as I know more

And thanks to everyone for there advice!

Dian Cecht

Best of luck lad !

loonymoony

Update: On Monday my solicitor will be making an application to the Court to be granted leave to take the challenge (Judicial Review).  The case will then be assigned a “for mention” date , and God only knows when that will be! Let the waiting game begin!