Something bugging me the last few weeka

djflawless

Just seen a thread here and reminded me back to what i was thinking the last few weeks.
Basically my first shotgun was a big heavy cannon of a Boito i got cheap to get me going.
wasn't long before i had a few pound away for a different gun.but seeing as it was my first shotgun, i thought it would have been nice to get it decommissioned and into a case with a pheasant or duck etc

But after getting the gun drilled, the letter from the gun dealer, and handing it into the local FO, he rang me to tell me i had to surrender the gun to him, as in the gaurds eyes, it has no sentimental value.
I have been stewing over it for some time but the FO has since retired.
Was he legally correct in his actions??

Witcher

Sentimental value is not a requirement for you to own a de-act. Talking out his hoop.

tomtucker81

The gun is decommissioned, certified as such by a dealer, and you have notified the Gardai of this and shown them the letter/cert of the decommissioning.

Once you have your licence gone then, by changing to another gun or just having the old one stopped, there is nothing that Garda can do about your old (former) gun being in your house in a display. As it is not a firearm.

As far as i can find, the only possible issue would be if you had it out in public and a Garda deemed it an imitation firearm (lets face it, it will look very very like a real gun!) and that you were causing some sort of issue for some member of the public.

Sparks

djflawless wrote: »

Was he legally correct in his actions??

If you mean "Did he break the law", the short answer is no.

The longer answer is that:

• "Firearms Officer" isn't actually an official garda title, it's just what we call the garda who regularly deals with applications. Whomever that garda is has no legal powers with regard to licencing and if they bar your application themselves (by telling you at the desk "you can't have that" or whatever), the advice from the Garda Firearms Policy Unit is to politely ask them to submit it to the Superintendent/Chief Superintendent anyway (he or she is the person who actually has the decision making authority).
  
• However if the Super decides not to grant permission to hold a deact, they do have the legal authority to do that. You can challenge their decision in court if you want, but they're not breaking the law by making that decision, even if the court finds that they didn't make the decision properly (in other words, the court can instruct them to reconsider - but you can't sue them and they won't face criminal proceedings).
  
• And if the firearms officer, off their own bat, tells you to surrender the deact and you do so even though the Super didn't tell them to, then they're actually not breaking a law - and you wouldn't have been breaking a law by telling them they didn't have the legal authority to compel you to do so (but in practical terms, that would probably have led to a phone call from the Super compelling you to do so and causing you more grief in the long run).

The better solution isn't so much to try to bash heads over it, but to talk to the Super about it and try to change his/her mind. If they've even heard of it, that is.

tomtucker81 wrote: »

there is nothing that Garda can do about your old (former) gun being in your house in a display. As it is not a firearm.

That's incorrect on both counts. Decommissioned or not, it's still legally a firearm, and there's a damn sight more than nothing that they can do about it if they wanted to, right up to charging you with possession of an unlicenced firearm. You'd probably be able to mount a good defence in court, but ask around, even on here - most people who go to court wind up a fair chunk of change down, go through a lot of stress and inconvenience, and in some cases (just ask Grizzly), don't get a permanent resolution to the problem but wind up in long-running court battles.
If you have to do that kind of thing, that's one thing; but if you don't, if there's an alternative, you really do want to explore every nook and cranny of that alternative before you ever start thinking about banging heads with the Gardai in the courts.

JapaneseLove

djflawless wrote: »

Just seen a thread here and reminded me back to what i was thinking the last few weeks.
Basically my first shotgun was a big heavy cannon of a Boito i got cheap to get me going.
wasn't long before i had a few pound away for a different gun.but seeing as it was my first shotgun, i thought it would have been nice to get it decommissioned and into a case with a pheasant or duck etc

But after getting the gun drilled, the letter from the gun dealer, and handing it into the local FO, he rang me to tell me i had to surrender the gun to him, as in the gaurds eyes, it has no sentimental value.
I have been stewing over it for some time but the FO has since retired.
Was he legally correct in his actions??

No he wasnt. Once the gun has been decomitioned and u have the papers to prove it then you can display it in your home. I have a rifle from the 1916 rising in my house in a display case. Its been decomitioned and i have the papers and the gardai said it was fine.

Sparks

JapaneseLove wrote: »

and the gardai said it was fine.

In other words, the Gardai gave you permission.
If they hadn't given you permission however, you don't get get to tell them to go jump in a lake and that you're going to do whatever you want.

Well, you can, but as mentioned above, that's possession of a firearm without a licence and the Firearms Act doesn't treat that as a minor thing:

(2A) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) in case the firearm is a restricted firearm or the ammunition is restricted ammunition—

(i) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding €5,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both, and
(ii) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding €20,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or both, and

(b) in any other case—

(i) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding €2,500 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both, and
(ii) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding €10,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or both.

JapaneseLove

Sparks wrote: »

In other words, the Gardai gave you permission.
If they hadn't given you permission however, you don't get get to tell them to go jump in a lake and that you're going to do whatever you want.

Well, you can, but as mentioned above, that's possession of a firearm without a licence and the Firearms Act doesn't treat that as a minor thing:

I know all that. But where i live "the gun is the law".

Sparks

JapaneseLove wrote: »

I know all that. But where i live "the gun is the law".

That's between you, the Gardai, the DPP, your solicitor, your barrister and the judge (and your bank manager, given how much all that costs). I'd say good luck with that, but we're the people who have to put up with the ****storm that crap like that brings down on all our heads.

When posting here however, please keep in mind Rule 8 of the Charter.

djflawless

So basically he took me for a fool..
just to clarify lads, this was a good while back but a thread i seen jogged my memory
probably nothing to be done now then!!

Sparks

djflawless wrote: »

So basically he took me for a fool.

No.

Basically, if the Gardai weren't going to allow you to keep it, you never had a chance of keeping it. You might have made a phone call to the Super just to sound him or her out about it directly, but that's about all you could have done and it wasn't a sure thing by any means (and if it was the Super that this come from in the first place, you were already sunk). But you weren't taken for a fool.

tomtucker81

Just did a bit more looking into it, would sec 6 of the 1990 act be what governs this? A firearm that is not a firearm?? If this is it then yep, i stand corrected, the super has to give permission for that.

6.—(1) The superintendent of the Garda Síochána of a district may grant an authorisation in writing to a person resident in the district, not being a person disentitled under the Firearms Acts, 1925 to 1990, to hold a firearm certificate, to have in his possession, without a firearm certificate, a firearm where he is satisfied that the firearm would not be a firearm but for section 4 and that the person has a good reason for wishing to keep it and may be permitted to do so without danger to the public safety or the peace.

(2) The superintendent of the district where the holder of an authorisation under this section resides may, at any time, attach to the authorisation any conditions, whether as regards safe custody or otherwise, which he considers necessary and may at any time revoke the authorisation.

Sparks

Yeah, that's the one. It's roughly the same as a 2(5) authorisation, but it's in a different location because the firearms act is a bloody mess.

Technically, though, section 4(f) there doesn't mean the firearm isn't a firearm, it's saying that even if you remove a component part from a firearm rendering it unable to fire, it's still legally a firearm but now you have another exception to the "you must have a licence" rule from section 2, which gives you the legal mechanism to let someone keep a deact with just a letter from the local super.

djflawless

Well the way i posted was the way it happened.got a phone call from the fo a day after i handed in rfd deactivation letter.
all i was told was "you cant keep that as it does not hold sentimental value"
even after debating that it was sentimental to me there was no budge.
never had any contact from the super about it.
i suppose i was just a bit panicky being a bit young.
The gaurd who done it is a shooting man as well so that kinda vexes me motlre now knowing the laws about the whole thing.
I might just jog his memory if i meet him at a regional game council meet
Cheers for yer input lads!