Gardai proposals to ban firearms

tac foley

Yupabill1 - re post #2429 - we tried that tack here in UK after 57000 handgun shooters were lumped together as having the same predeliction for committing mass murder as the child-slaughtering pedophile whose name I will not mention here.

We got totally nowhere.

tac

yubabill1

tac foley wrote: »

Yupabill1 - re post #2429 - we tried that tack here in UK after 57000 handgun shooters were lumped together as having the same predeliction for committing mass murder as the child-slaughtering pedophile whose name I will not mention here.

We got totally nowhere.

tac

Irish defamation law is notoriously unique, Tac - I am aware that UK shooters got nowhere back then, but two things immediately stand in our favour here

1. There has never been a rampage killing here
2. Irish people have a constitutional right to their good name.

Sparks

yubabill1 wrote: »

Surely our good name, as licensed firearms owners, has been damaged by "public safety concerns" Hungerford, Dunblane, Utoya references given our track record of not massacring children and Left-wing politicians?

The problem is that the Defamation Act requires the defamed person to be identifiable, and if the group defamed is sufficiently large, it's held that no defamation took place (there isn't a concept of group defamation in the Act, it's an individual or nothing - I think because it all stems from the individual rights section of the constitution).

(And yeah, I asked before. And I've never heard of a decent answer to "how large must the group be", it's apparently all case-by-case)

yubabill1

I think the "identifiable" criterion is the key - the group size, less so.

A game shooter is identifiable every Sunday during the season and I remember a conversation last year when an urban walker saw a "sniper" in a field.

turismo2142

Put the defamation thing out of your minds guys...
Firstly you'd have to relate the statement to you. You'd have to prove that the statement stated you were effectively a criminal and you'd have to prove it lowered your personal standing in the minds of right thinking citizens. You wouldn't have a hope of proving that.

And even if you did qualified privilege would protect the maker of any such statement (i.e. the Gardaí, TD's [absolute in the Dáil and qualified in this context outside] and the DOJ)

You simply cannot bring an action in defamation against the Gardaí carrying out their duties/enquiries.

You'd not get a solicitor in the country who'd entertain such a cause of action either. And anything that was said over a year ago is statute barred.

FORGET IT!!!

Grizzly 45

Sparks
You missed a small but very important point in your history.Court costs!!!The fact also that AGS are also now liable for costs in these cases cannot be under stated and is also a determining factor in pushing for a ban of all three types of firearms that have been successfully contended in DC throught I reland as well as the "coincedental" fact that within a month of the first wins in oct 2014 by nov 2014 the joint garda /doj report is released.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Sparks
You missed a small but very important point in your history.Court costs!!!The fact also that AGS are also now liable for costs in these cases cannot be under stated and is also a determining factor in pushing for a ban of all three types of firearms that have been successfully contended in DC throught I reland as well as the "coincedental" fact that within a month of the first wins in oct 2014 by nov 2014 the joint garda /doj report is released.

No, they're in there:

Eight thousand shotgun shooters facing having their shotguns rendered unlicencable and going to the district courts would still cause that major political problem (which has to do with the recent District Court rule change that let them grant costs in licence appeals cases, costs which are now coming from local district budgets instead of Garda HQ budgets).

They're just in the current events section rather than the history section.

tac foley

It's important to note that no part of a government organisation is actually self-funding. The money spent by AGS or any other governmental organisation ultimately belongs to the tax-payer, who eventually foots the bill.

Over here, it can be very satisfying to hear, in a matter of court proceedings when a fruitless and ill-advised police case is brought to court on flimsy evidence, to hear a lawyer - or even the judge - remind a police officer that he is a public servant.

tac

yubabill1

turismo2142 wrote: »

Put the defamation thing out of your minds guys...
Firstly you'd have to relate the statement to you. You'd have to prove that the statement stated you were effectively a criminal and you'd have to prove it lowered your personal standing in the minds of right thinking citizens. You wouldn't have a hope of proving that.

And even if you did qualified privilege would protect the maker of any such statement (i.e. the Gardaí, TD's [absolute in the Dáil and qualified in this context outside] and the DOJ)

You simply cannot bring an action in defamation against the Gardaí carrying out their duties/enquiries.

You'd not get a solicitor in the country who'd entertain such a cause of action either. And anything that was said over a year ago is statute barred.

FORGET IT!!!

it's a bit more subtle than that, turismo.

I can see how it could proceed - and a viable case is all that is needed, not a win appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

Any lawyer viewing a plausible case of defamation brought by a shooter would initially advise against fighting it - especially with public funds.
Then you have the possibility of follow-on cases....

As the WG report is under active consideration, the statements within are live and ongoing.

To me, 2016 looks like a good time for considering such action, what with Rio and all.

Whatever about the logistics and risks of such a case, if you have a stick, you don't have to actually hit someone with it.

garrettod

Hi,

For what it's worth, I think our efforts are better used elsewhere.

I don't see anything to be gained in even considering a case for defamation, based on some of the off the cuff comments which have been made about firearms licence holders. By all means, call for a public retraction of specific comments against the shooting community, but I'd be slow to go any further unless it was a very solid case.

I'd far rather we focused on seeing a good relationship develope with Commissioner O'Sullivan. She's already gone on record as indicating she considers us to be law abiding and trustworthy, or words to that effect and thats a better start to a relationship than we could have hoped for with the head of the Gardai. Anything we can do to help demonstate to both the Commissioner and her Garda colleagues that she was correct in her assesssment of us, would be far more productive in my humble opinion.

BoatMad

whats is being down to counter the nonsense the Sports coalition put out

OzCam

FWIW, the guy from SIPTU (and whether you agree with them or not - in this particular case I do) gave a lesson on the Six-One News today in how to argue your case. I wonder if he's available for hire?

Grizzly 45

BoatMad wrote: »

whats is being down to counter the nonsense the Sports coalition put out

Seems very quiet on the comments section over there....Would think we would be airing our problems now with them than just amongst ourselves...?Or we waiting for someone to lead the charge?

tac foley

I'm thinking that it's either the calm before the storm, or that they are hoping that if they stay quiet, then we'll all just go away and forget about it...

tac

yubabill1

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Seems very quiet on the comments section over there....Would think we would be airing our problems now with them than just amongst ourselves...?Or we waiting for someone to lead the charge?

Pointless talking to them - they believe they represent all shooters, who are too thick to bother consulting with.

Efforts better directed towards Justice Committee, as Sparks has done.

Sports coalition no longer has my support and I would hate to have the likes of them represent me.

I mean, they organised a big meet in Harbour house when the were rallying support, but didn't consult the same supporters before their Feb 20th letter.

That's abuse in my book.

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Seems very quiet on the comments section over there....

tac foley wrote: »

I'm thinking that it's either the calm before the storm, or that they are hoping that if they stay quiet, then we'll all just go away and forget about it...

Same as the other times. When trying to explain it away does no work go quiet, wait for things to settle down, and start back up again.

Only this time i hope people understand how important it is to remember.

Fallow01

I see WDAI have confirmed on their FB page tonight they are meeting the Minister next week about the committee interim report....

Grizzly 45

Fallow01 wrote: »

I see WDAI have confirmed on their FB page tonight they are meeting the Minister next week about the committee interim report....

As are Countryside Aliance...... Odd ??that or is everyone meeting the minister soon?Word has it she wants this wrapped up by the Summer recess ...Which I cant see happening without making an utter mickey of it and in fairness from what we have seen sofar the Dail working group has been trying to do this right for once and strike a balance between what AGS want and what we want.Not the easiest of jobs.Its another reason the comittee is pushing for the inspectorate to come in,as they will have the power to access PULSE and obtain exactly the figures and explanations on how "lost" firearms become "stolen" and other anomalies.As the chairman has said himself to me and others and publically,they want ice cold,clear facts and figures before them before they make any decisions or talk about changes..So I'd predict this still has 12 to 18 months to post 2016 election to run.If a week is a long time in Irish politics,then a year is an eterntity.

BattleCorp

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

.Its another reason the comittee is pushing for the inspectorate to come in,as they will have the power to access PULSE and obtain exactly the figures and explanations on how "lost" firearms become "stolen" and other anomalies.As the chairman has said himself to me and others and publically,they want ice cold,clear facts and figures before them before they make any decisions or talk about changes.

Having access to Pulse certainly won't give you cold clear facts. It only displays the figures that have been inputted into the system.

If the Gardai are putting in incorrect figures, putting toys into the firearm category, listing gunsafes as firearms etc., then the system will display incorrect figures and information.

I think the Committee should be aware of that fact.

Fallow01

Wild Deer Association of Ireland say they are meeting the Minister along with other key stakeholders such as Countryside Alliance Ireland, Sports Council and I assume the Sports Coalition. On making enquiries there will be 5 organisations in total attending along with key Gardai and DOJ people as advisors to the Minister.

It is interesting Sport Coalition say they represent all hunters/shooters other than two small organisations CAI have over 10,000 members alone....

garrettod

Fallow01 wrote: »

Wild Deer Association of Ireland say they are meeting the Minister along with other key stakeholders such as Countryside Alliance Ireland, Sports Council and I assume the Sports Coalition. On making enquiries there will be 5 organisations in total attending along with key Gardai and DOJ people as advisors to the Minister.

It is interesting Sport Coalition say they represent all hunters/shooters other than two small organisations CAI have over 10,000 members alone....

Assuming the CAI's 10,000 are all licence holders, 10,000 as a percentage of over 200,000 (licences) is small.. so the Sports Coalition must be correct

Anyway, whats more important is that as many interests as possible are represented at these meetings. Any idea when it's scheduled to occur and if its open to the public or can be viewed on the net etc ?

Grizzly 45

BattleCorp wrote: »

Having access to Pulse certainly won't give you cold clear facts. It only displays the figures that have been inputted into the system.

If the Gardai are putting in incorrect figures, putting toys into the firearm category, listing gunsafes as firearms etc., then the system will display incorrect figures and information.

I think the Committee should be aware of that fact.

And its exactly they are calling for the GardaIinspectorate to be involved.As the comittee cant get access to PULSE,but the inspectorate can and can quiery it right down to the individual garda who entered the case as to why say a rape was put in as a domestic violence incident.

tac foley

Me, I'm still trying to get my head around a gun safe being classed as a firearm.....does that mean that you have to license your gun safes?

If so, what is the procedure for doing so?

tac

Sparks

Odds are it was a query for "theft" and "gun" (or something along those lines) and nobody properly vetted the results.

bravestar

BattleCorp wrote: »

Having access to Pulse certainly won't give you cold clear facts. It only displays the figures that have been inputted into the system.

If the Gardai are putting in incorrect figures, putting toys into the firearm category, listing gunsafes as firearms etc., then the system will display incorrect figures and information.

I think the Committee should be aware of that fact.

You are incorrect. Having access to pulse clearly shows what exactly makes up those figures.

bravestar

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

And its exactly they are calling for the GardaIinspectorate to be involved.As the comittee cant get access to PULSE,but the inspectorate can and can quiery it right down to the individual garda who entered the case as to why say a rape was put in as a domestic violence incident.

It's not quite that simplistic grizz. I'm not saying there aren't issues, but it's not quite as black and white as people think.

BattleCorp

bravestar wrote: »

You are incorrect. Having access to pulse clearly shows what exactly makes up those figures.

bravestar wrote: »

It's not quite that simplistic grizz. I'm not saying there aren't issues, but it's not quite as black and white as people think.

So which is it, are the figures 100% correct in Pulse or are there issues?

bravestar

BattleCorp wrote: »

So which is it, are the figures 100% correct in Pulse or are there issues?

Both.

Clearly I can't go into the ins and outs of pulse on a public board. Grizz gave the example of a rape being classified as domestic violence. That's what I spoke about with regard to classifications.

As for a a safe being represented as a firearm that was stolen. The very fact that the figures were released showing safes being counted towards stolen firearms shows that pulse can indicate that it was a safe... How do you think those figures came to light in the first place.

clawback07

bravestar wrote: »

Both.

Clearly I can't go into the ins and outs of pulse on a public board. Grizz gave the example of a rape being classified as domestic violence. That's what I spoke about with regard to classifications.

As for a a safe being represented as a firearm that was stolen. The very fact that the figures were released showing safes being counted towards stolen firearms shows that pulse can indicate that it was a safe... How do you think those figures came to light in the first place.

That would appear to be trying to justify some fairly sloppy analysis of pulse records by AGS .

bravestar

clawback07 wrote: »

That would appear to be trying to justify some fairly sloppy analysis of pulse records by AGS .

I'm not trying to justify anything to anyone. My job doesn't define me any more than a person's skin colour does. I'm simply trying to help my fellow Shooters understand things a bit better, but if they can't see past the obvious then that is their problem and I wish them well.

Were all on the same side here, people should remember that.