GARDAI SEIZED RIFLES (September 06) new licence from Dec

tac foley

Cass wrote: »

Erm, should he not have done this BEFORE issuing the licenses?

I mean really, come on. As for testing i suppose they would want to see if you can flick a switch to turn it into a semi auto, etc, but again these steps should have been addressed/taken BEFORE the licenses were issued.

As you know, these firearms are made especially to comply the the UK's rather odd laws regarding semi-automatic centre-fire rifles [not shotguns]. They have been built specifically with a whole raft on NON-interchangeable components designed specifically from the word go not to be able to be converted to shoot in semi-auto mode. They really ARE a rather distinctive-looking straight-pull bolt-action, that uses the camming action of hauling back on the bolt handle to rotate the breechblock and unlock it from the breech.

The safety catch has only two positions - fire and safe.

What expert knowledge would allow these two Gardaí to make a snap judgement on the legality or otherwise of the guns? Does being a member of AGS automatically bestow legality on those members of AGS who handle other people's firearms in their own homes/premises?

This event is turning into a whole new ball-game AND can of worms combined.

Finally - my question to the OP - were there any witnesses to this 'seizure' of your lawfully-held and licensed firearms?

By now I would have been leaving smoking footprints in the direction of my lawyer's office.

tac

gunny123

tac foley wrote: »

What expert knowledge would allow these two Gardaí to make a snap judgement on the legality or otherwise of the guns? Does being a member of AGS automatically bestow legality on those members of AGS who handle other people's firearms in their own homes/premises?


tac

Well i remember when the centrefire pistol cases were all going on a few years back. The gardai expert was Brooks, and i seem to recall he was not giving expert evidence, but merely reciting the rubbish the supers and chief supers had told him to spout in court. I also heard when asked by a judge where he obtained his expert knowledge on a certain firearm, he responded............"youtube"

Tricky1127

Yes. My own Brother was in the room with the gun safe when the conversation went from "what part of the security would you like me to show you" to "sorry for this but the Super Intendant wants me to take them in". His face was a picture (he knows that am fussy about them and doesn't ask to touch them). I keep them like new, it's my hobby. I have an interest in the sport so much so that it's not a. 308 win but a .260 Rem. Works better for me. Look at the price of ammo difference . 260 Rem vs .308 win.

Just one more thing am a Left-hand shooter the amount of rifles I tried out before finally finding the right option for me. Now look at the makes, it was nearly impossible to get my hands on them in Ireland the dealers who import rifles stick to a small list of makes and models and calibre.

Don't let this turn into them and us. We only have permission from the state in Ireland to hold and use firearms. This is very important to remember as education is the key. I believe and we are still looked at as "Nutters" with a bit "Why Would You Need That". I don't shoot Tiger's and post pics to FB. Just shoot paper and clay pigeons or vermin. No trophies hanging out of the walls in the house, in fact you wouldn't take me for a shooter/hunter unless you have known me for years

Tricky1127

Am sure that the name of ballistic expert given to me was Detective Garda David O’Leary of the ballistics department at Garda headquarters in Dublin if anyone knows what he is like or is he anti firearms
Was just going through my notes I wrote after leaving the station

Grizzly 45

Tricky1127 wrote: »

Am sure that the name of ballistic expert given to me was Detective Garda David O’Leary of the ballistics department at Garda headquarters in Dublin if anyone knows what he is like or is he anti firearms
Was just going through my notes I wrote after leaving the station

Sounds like a newbie,and funny that he is a ballistics expert as a DG when by procedure it has to be a Det Ins or above..So another fill in...Be intresting to see his experiance of firearms in court..As you need to be a DS or higher I belive to do a certain bit of AGS firearms training reserved to ranks above t qualify in ballistics....... A salient point my JC pointed out to the AGS ballistic expert DS Cummins in Oct 2014 in Limerick. Sometimes you need anEX insider to rattle their cages.
Indeed this shouldnt be a them and us situation either.But there is also exceeding your authorithy and throwing your weight about just to be thick about things too.We mightnt have a constitutional right to arms here,but there are still RULES of law which must be obeyed by AGS no matter what.Surrender that and we might as well live in North Korea.

Not telling your busisness friend,but I wouldnt put up with this carry on for a minute longer.In this day and age of the internet they should know within minutes WTF a SA or a straight pull bolt action is.What exactly do they want to ballistically test them for?You should have asked and should ask now"Am I or my firearms suspected of criminal wrong doing?Äs AGS has no way of recording any ballistic catolouge of firearm shells or bullets unless recoverd from a crime scene....In short,you have been LIED to from the word GO.The initial reason of a complaint..BS The non production of any offical paperwork from the visiting gaurds,.BS.Should have told them then to go away and get it on paper and come back then.The non production of a recipt from the Super for your property.BS Even the Garda in charge of reciving your guns and ammo should and must BY law issue a recipt for your property.How otherwise will they establish a evidence chain????Even feckin drug dealers get a recipt for siezed goods..
This is just utter BS by your Super who is throwing his weight about and is clealy very ignorant of what has been going on with Semis and straight pull bolt actions in the courts in this land recently.Not to mind evidence and procedure as well.Form does not follow function as my ballistics expert said.[He actually trained Brooks into his job a few years ago].And a bolt action rifle no matter how it looks is still a bolt action.As a fellow left hooker I sympathise immensely with your plight and understand fully the benefits of the AR design in semi ,bolt,pump,MARS or whatever.

At this stage I think your choices are, a demand to see the super,if refused, ignored ,a nasty letter from Willie Egan or my fellah..[PM me if you want his contact details.]Saying basically WTF.com? Are you playing at and here are three options.past,present,future,and the fact if this does go to court,you Superintendant could be liable for costs too. It,s an unfortunate situation and I can understand the lets not make a fuss approach..fine if they were playting nice with you,but then you wouldnt have had to post this problem in the first place...

gunny123

In addition Grizz, surely the guards cannot just go on a fishing expedition ? They have to have just cause and a good reason to seek a search warrant and enter a house or premises, or to seize private property. What triggered this sudden seizure of this lads rifles ? Was it a slow day in the supers office and they decided to go and basically turn over someones house and see what they could turn up ? This lark of turning up to "inspect the security" has been abused here. Surely the house security was inspected before the licences were issued. The whole thing smells.

Tricky1127

No warrant needed if you have let them into the property Hence the Security Chq + which was done in January (License renewal) + the AR10-T was inspected by the F.O because it's a AR10 to make sure that it was only a single shot

gunny123

Tricky1127 wrote: »

No warrant needed if you have let them into the property Hence the Security Chq + which was done in January (License renewal) + the AR10-T was inspected by the F.O because it's a AR10 to make sure that it was only a single shot

Did you ask why they were checking again when it was obviously passed ok so recently ? What qualified the F.O. to check if it was a straight pull or semi-auto ?

Tricky1127

I did and was told that because I have an other property it was to confirm that this is the property they and me are at B/S reason but wanted to comply with the Garda request as for the F.O who looked it over was a different one at a main station licenses expired in December sent them all off together in November each one came back at different times as January came around no renewal for the AR all others done so I had to ask what's the story on the .260 rem and he said I need to see your set up storage and the AR .260 Rem

Sparks

Tricky1127 wrote: »

No warrant needed if you have let them into the property

No warrant needed full stop. If you have firearms, they don't require a warrant to inspect the firearms (searching the property willy nilly is a whole other matter, and seizure requires paperwork too, but if they want to check your safe, you are legally required to allow them to do so).

Cass

Sparks wrote: »

..........you are legally required to allow them to do so).

Can you link to the legislation that says that? Was always under the impression that a warrantless entry can only occur if you consent. It's why i disliked the FCA1 in which you had to sign away your right to privacy/warrantless search.

tac foley

Cass wrote: »

Can you link to the legislation that says that? Was always under the impression that a warrantless entry can only occur if you consent. It's why i disliked the FCA1 in which you had to sign away your right to privacy/warrantless search.

Didn't you just say that? If wording in the FCA1 states it, then THAT is the legal position, surely?

tac

gunny123

Sparks wrote: »

No warrant needed full stop. If you have firearms, they don't require a warrant to inspect the firearms (searching the property willy nilly is a whole other matter, and seizure requires paperwork too, but if they want to check your safe, you are legally required to allow them to do so).

Fair enough , but surely thats not carte blanche to do what they did in this instance ? It appears they used the trojan horse of a security inspection to gain access to the rifles and seize them.

Cass

No. It's a form. An application. I want the piece of law that says i must allow warrantless entry to my home.

Plus the FCA1 does not say "You must allow members of An Gardaí to enter your home to search it as they feel like it" or something along those lines.

We've discussed this before. The FCA1 has a section that asks if you comply with the security standards based on the level of firearm ownership (level 1, level 2, etc). If the CPO arrives at your home and says s/he is there to check on those security measures i do not HAVE TO let him/her in. However if i don't s/he will simply mark me down as uncooperative, and could say how they could not gain access to check.

I would most likely then receive a letter or visit to revoke my guns for failure to be able to confirm i conform to the security standards.

The same thing applies to medical information. You disclose personal info like GP, other doctors, and give your consent for them to make contact should they need to/desire. This consent essentially signs away your right to privacy and although i've not heard of a case yet, it'd be interesting to see what would happen if someone refused to give out such private medical details. Also would a Doctor give details to someone that rang up or called in? Does the FCA1 constitute allow them to divulge your medical information?

Again its a case of attaining private and privileged information via an underlying hint of refusal if you fail to do so.

Tricky1127

Had a phone call from the Super Intendant who said Okay take the lot from him....!! He has gotten back a report from a Garda F.O (No Name given but i did ask) saying that both of these rifles are restricted but my licenses are for Non restricted firearms and he said that it was to be forwarded to the Super Intendant who granted said licenses and I will have to talk about it with him and he may or may not feel about returning said rifles to me. Questions how does a firearm in 7 months turn into a restricted firearm from a non restricted one...? I don't want to agree with them been restricted to get them back thats just wrong and would both of us wrong if I just agree.... Help needed for this point if anyone has an ideas the AR10-T only holds 1 round at a time the other rifle does have a ten round mag and a thumb hole grip not pistol type grip

BattleCorp

Tricky1127 wrote: »

Had a phone call from the Super Intendant who said Okay take the lot from him....!! He has gotten back a report from a Garda F.O (No Name given but i did ask) saying that both of these rifles are restricted but my licenses are for Non restricted firearms and he said that it was to be forwarded to the Super Intendant who granted said licenses and I will have to talk about it with him and he may or may not feel about returning said rifles to me. Questions how does a firearm in 7 months turn into a restricted firearm from a non restricted one...? I don't want to agree with them been restricted to get them back thats just wrong and would both of us wrong if I just agree.... Help needed for this point if anyone has an ideas the AR10-T only holds 1 round at a time the other rifle does have a ten round mag and a thumb hole grip not pistol type grip

A pistol grip doesn't make a rifle restricted. That only applies to pistol grips on shotguns. 10 round mags don't make a rifle restricted either.

The whole restricted/not restricted thing is a mess. One Super might think that a firearm is not restricted while another might consider it restricted. Unfortunately there's a lot of leeway when it comes to personal opinion.

Your best option is to meet the Super and see what he has to say.

If you don't like what he has to say, then unfortunately it's probably time to lawyer up.

Tricky1127

Just something else I would say that if the license was changed to restricted from Non restricted I'd have problems with the EU firearms pass because I just know that the UK forces would look at the paperwork and it would go from a section 1 firearm to a section 5 firearm ie semi auto + I'd never be able to sell them not that was in my head

BattleCorp

Tricky1127 wrote: »

He has gotten back a report from a Garda F.O (No Name given but i did ask) saying that both of these rifles are restricted

First time I have ever heard that a Garda F.O. got to decide if something was restricted or not.

That's the Super's/Chief Super's job.

If you agree that both rifles are restricted, there is no guarantee that you will be granted restricted licences for them either.

Tricky1127

Sorry BattleCorp it was from a ballistics firearms officer and no name given this was a phone call

Cass

• Restricted - Over 30 cal, semi auto centrefire, shotgun that can hold more than 3, shotgun with pistol grip, rimfire semi auto with more than 10 rounds.
• Unrestricted - Bolt action rifle (any calibre), pistol grip rifle, shotgun with 3 or fewer rounds, air rifles.

You need to disagree first of all. Outline the fact the rifle is a straight pull, bolt action rifle, designed to fire one shot per pull of the trigger and with a bolt action that needs to be manually worked to cycle the next round. Highlight the fact the rifle is not self loading.

If you can get details, screenshots, and print outs of the specs from the manufacturers website or via letter from the manufacturers, do so. Also include, regarding the A10, that a semi auto firearm in the UK is illegal and this rifle is made to conform to the laws of the UK.

Request a copy or summary of the report where the reasons for them labeling it as a semi auto are set out. If they cite that it can be changed or altered so as to make it a semi auto you simply point out that ability and doing so are two separate things. IOW if you were to convert it to semi auto you would be in breech of your license and the firearms act. Then point out that while you do not agree, the rifle is a straight pull bolt action, and you have it licensed as such.

Next step is to make contact with a solicitor and your shooting reps. Inform them of what is happening, and copy them in any documentation.

I had a similar experience with my rifle. Long story short there was confusion as to whether it was restricted or non restricted. I knew, and it is, a restricted firearm and the onus is on me to license it as such. However it kept being sent down to the Super to authorise it as an unrestricted. This could not happen as the license would have been invalid. I eventually got it, but had i just let the Super sign off on it i'd have an unlicensed firearm.

gunny123

If i was you i would now contact a solicitor with experience of dealing with firearms cases. They are obviously making it up as they go along.

Sparks

@Cass - I'm thinking of the "will continue to comply with these conditions" part of section 4; inspecting the storage to ensure that's being complied with is something that's been done for quite a while now, and you sign up in the FCA1 for that inspection (but again, there's a long walk between such an inspection and a general search, and a longer one again to seizure - if the Garda doing the inspection looks to seize the firearms there's a lot more paperwork required than an "erra, I gotta take this", which is frankly as dodgy as **** and we've seen this kind of thing before, infamously, in Abbylara. Apparently lessons have not been learnt).

Things like RFDs' premises, clubs and you personally are all subjected to warrantless search under several sections of the Firearms Act as well (sections 21 and 22 off the top of my head, and I think 4A has the stuff on clubs); but that's slightly different. And of course, the range inspector can go whenever and wherever he wants in the entire country. But the inspection of your storage is off section 4. I don't think we've ever challanged it either, it seemed legitimate enough to do that kind of thing; but the OP's situation sounds like someone who didn't read the Act is acting the maggot.


Speaking of, Tricky, I'd be on to my NGB and my solicitor at this point and I'd want everything from the local Superintendent to be in writing because the line between informal and easy solutions and formal unpleasantness is probably going to be in the room with you at the meeting with him. Your description so far has been of Gardai not acting the way the Firearms Act specifies. And you do appear to have landed in the middle of a gray area we've been worried about for years now - namely, one Super thinks you have an unrestricted firearm, and another disagrees and now the question of which licence you require has come up. The actual firearm you describe is not restricted on the grounds of its function, but if it appears to be an 'assault rifle' (the Act's definition, not our definition), that's enough to have it restricted. But I can't think of any case law clarifying who gets to make the call of what appears to be what. Which would mean you'd be setting precedent in a gray area, and as bad as court usually is, that would make it worse.

As I said, I'd be on to my NGB. Now. Looking for a phone call to be made by the FPU to the Super to clarify matters and try to defuse the situation before things get to the pay-a-deposit-to-the-solicitor stage.

Melodeon

Sparks wrote: »

And you do appear to have landed in the middle of a gray area we've been worried about for years now - namely, one Super thinks you have an unrestricted firearm, and another disagrees and now the question of which licence you require has come up. The actual firearm you describe is not restricted on the grounds of its function, but if it appears to be an 'assault rifle' (the Act's definition, not our definition), that's enough to have it restricted.

Isn't this Idontlikedalookodat stuff written into the legislation somewhere something along the lines of 'EBRs or firearms resembling them' being restricted or prohibited?

Cass

Sparks wrote: »

@Cass - I'm thinking of the "will continue to comply with these conditions" part of section 4; inspecting the storage to ensure that's being complied with is something that's been done for quite a while now, ............

We all know what is done, and it's easier to comply than be a dick and end up losing your guns because you stood up for your principles.

However i'm curious as to whether the law actually says we must comply with a search for security. IOW while we say we have the security needs met, do we actually have to let the CPO/Gardaí into our home without a warrant. Does the law say they have this power? Specifically, and not by inference or "its been done so long it's thought of as a law".

I'm not referring to clubs or ranges as that is pretty clear, but to a home/dwelling.

gunny123

Apart from all the why's and wherefore's Tricky, sorry for the hastle that you have suffered and probably will continue to suffer for a while to come. I know first hand what its like to have your own pride and joy removed from you, like a child having their toys confiscated for being naughty.

Tricky1127

Gunny I can remember playing with the other children in school and been made by the teacher to stand in the corner until I knew what I did wrong....!!!
At least both of these are legal I was wondering if the report might say that it easily turned into a Russian T74 Tank but the worry now is that I might not be allowed them back if it a ploy is its restricted mate and this Chief Super Intendant doesn't license them....

Cass

Tricky1127 wrote: »

......... and this Chief Super Intendant doesn't license them....

That is illegal. There is no ban on them, and all applications must be judged on their own merits.

If a CS was silly enough to write to you telling you that s/he has a policy of not entering restricted license applications or not granting them in a blanket ban type policy you'd be laughing all the way to court.

Sparks

Melodeon wrote: »

Isn't this Idontlikedalookodat stuff written into the legislation somewhere something along the lines of 'EBRs or firearms resembling them' being restricted or prohibited?

Yes, it's tangled up in the definitions of what an assault rifle is in the restricted firearms SI. "Assault rifles" (again, the meaning from the Act, not real life) are restricted, and their definition includes the term "that resemble such" :

“assault rifles” means—
(a) rifles capable of functioning as semi-automatic firearms and as automatic
firearms,
(b) firearms that resemble such rifles;

So if someone thinks looks enough like a rifle that's capable of functioning as a semi-auto or fully-auto firearm, it can be treated as if it was one.

So far as I know, this ridiculous piece of crap calling itself a law has never been tested in court. There's no indication of who gets to make the call, what the judgement must be made on, how much knowledge the person making the call has to have, what happens if two people disagree about the judgement call, or any of the thousand other problems that come up when you try to implement this.

Sparks

Cass wrote: »

However i'm curious as to whether the law actually says we must comply with a search for security.

For searching there definitely isn't, but for inspection I think there is (but again, IANAL, and we've never pushed this one in court).
The difference between the two btw, being that a search has no specific target while an inspection is highly specific ("this safe, in this house, to verify it meets these standards, and has these contents, in accordance with your licence").

do we actually have to let the CPO/Gardaí into our home without a warrant. Does the law say they have this power? Specifically, and not by inference or "its been done so long it's thought of as a law".

I was under the impression that we do; but that doesn't mean it's a law, and I'm not infallible! It'd be academically interesting to try it at court... but I'll let you go first

gunny123

I remember when clinton brought in the assault weapons ban in the usa, there were endless court cases arguing what exactly was and wasn't an assault weapon, and what features constitute an assault rifle.

Semi auto action ? Doesn't in of itself mean a firearm is an assault weapon, lots of shotguns, rifles are semi-auto. (doesn't matter in this instance anyway)

A flash hider/muzzle brake ? Nope lots of hunting bolt actions have these.

Black plastic stock ? Nope, lots of shotguns, rifles and pistols have plastic furniture.

Pistol grip ? Nope, most olympic target rifles have pistol grips.

Detachable magazine ? Nope, most rifles have a detachable magazine.

If the might of the american government couldn't define what an assault rifle was, how on earth do a local super/chief super do so ?