GARDAI SEIZED RIFLES (September 06) new licence from Dec

Tricky1127

Monday morning last (21/11/16) 11.20am spoke with my own Super Intendant who is OK in my own experience! + he did said that he would request that one be forwarded to me.

gunny123

Tricky1127 wrote: »

Monday morning last (21/11/16) 11.20am spoke with my own Super Intendant who is OK in my own experience! + he did said that he would request that one be forwarded to me.

But is he the one who gave the nod to the FO to call to you under false pretences and take the rifles ?

Tricky1127

In all fairness to him he wasn't involved..!! he is in the neighbor/different district and just issued the licenses. Its been kicked back to him after the seized the tests etc.
I've now send in a letter explaining the reason why I need that type of rifles and he will kick it up to the Chief Super Intendant.

gunny123

Tricky1127 wrote: »

In all fairness to him he wasn't involved..!! he is in the neighbor/different district and just issued the licenses. Its been kicked back to him after the seized the tests etc.
I've now send in a letter explaining the reason why I need that type of rifles and he will kick it up to the Chief Super Intendant.

I think you're mad having anything to do with them. Let a solicitor deal with it. You're digging a hole for yourself.

Tricky1127

That's the next step left

gunny123

Tricky1127 wrote: »

I've now send in a letter explaining the reason why I need that type of rifles and he will kick it up to the Chief Super Intendant.

By doing that you have admitted the rifles are restricted. If a solicitor with a knowledge of firearms had dealt with it, he could have said they are not, they are straight pulls for heavens sake.

Grizzly 45

As well as that..DO NOT ,ABSOLUTELY NOT,EVER!!!,admit in word or writing that these are restricted rifles!! They are repeaters or straight pull bolt actions that look weird.Let them prove otherwise..Also,most important. The reasons you want them,HAVE NOT CHANGED SINCE YOUR INITIAL FIRST APPLICATION.THAT'S ALL you should write in this letter. IOW if you put down you wanted them for target and hunting when you first applied for them X years ago.Your situation hasn't changed,and neither has your want /need for them. Leave it at that and let them go and pull up the paperwork for this.Making up new reasons and comitting it to paper will only tie you up in knots,proably contradict your initial application for them and give them more sticks to beat you with.

Let them prove they are restricted,you are not applying for a restricted liscense,and if the fault is with anyone it is with the AGS for not checking these out properly on the initial liscensing. You have no reason to assist in building the gallows or tying the noose on which they will hang you.

Tricky1127

Gunny and Grizzly thanks for putting me straight I needed that kick in the arse to make it clear. Really Appreciate It
Regards T

Tricky1127

Penny has just dropped.... My Land Rover Defender is next to go..! Because somebody else might think that it looks like a Military type vehicle yes.

tac foley

This affair is getting illegal-er by the day.

Have you taken advisement yet?

tac

Tricky1127

Hi there TAC, you was right from the start don't know what I was thinking with the softly softly does it..!!

tac foley

Not me, Sir, but the folks who live in the same country as you do, Cass, Grizzly45, Sparks and all the others who have to put up with this appalling level of treatment by the PTB.

I'm not in your shoes, nor ever likely to be, but over here, and up there, of course, we have an organisation called the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Ombudsman to deal with instances of over-reaching and uncaring authority like this, where a person gets sha* on from up there by the very same people who are sworn to look after their lawful interests.

If I walked into your house and took away your property without any form of receipt, it would rightly be called theft. The fact that those who took the items were wearing uniforms at the time matters not a jot. How do you know that your property is, in fact, in an authorised and secure facility? Or even WHERE it might be? There's no point taking anybody's word for it, as they haven't [yet] spoken to you.

Anyhow, I'm betting that better and clearer minds than mine are waiting to tell me to shut up and leave it to the locals, so that's what I'm going to do now.

Hope it all works out for you, I really do.

tac

Grizzly 45

I'm not in your shoes, nor ever likely to be, but over here, and up there, of course, we have an organisation called the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Ombudsman to deal with instances of over-reaching and uncaring authority like this, where a person gets sha* on from up there by the very same people who are sworn to look after their lawful interests.

Oh we do have those here as well Tac,The Garda Ombudsman and the Garda Authorithy.
The latter has proven itself to be as useful as a half door on a submarine when it comes to firearms cases and complaints thereof.I have had THREE cases rejected by them on the most spurious grounds,I know of another poster here who has had five rejected and the GO has made a fuk up of his sixth by sheer incompetance .In short there are proably over a dozen cases I know of personally that are documented of the GO rejecting any firearms complaints..I might add that all these people were white hetro males in their middle age and one white German woman in her seniority...[Maybe if they were multi coloured,multi ethnic,multi sexuals it might have been a different matter].

The Garda Authorithy however does seem to have the power to put the fear of God in everyone in that organisation.They are made up of Ex police cheifs from the US,Canada,New Zealand and were ,or are to investigate this whole clusterfk of the liscensing here.But seem to have been staved off by the current minister from starting the investigation. However getting to petition these gods is fraught with all sorts of beuracratic red tape,or so I'm led to belive.
So there you have it.Irish compliance with "the rules" but made impossible to work for the little guy by sheer weight of beauracy.

gunny123

The whole thing is to get professional legal help. Trying to do it yourself is a fools errand, they will dance rings around you and lie to your face, mislead you and confuse you, if you think they won't because they are state employees who's duty is to uphold the law, you are sadly mistaken.

Tricky1127

Gotten professional advice on this matter + the a receipt for the two rifles I was chasing after, Just one more thing the F.O. Garda had used the word weapons I crossed it out putting firearms down and telling him that the pen in my hand is a perfect weapon + it was his own weapon not mine.

Cass

Simply ask the FO to point out which "Weapons" act he illegally seized the guns under or what "Weapons" certificate he revoked.

gunny123

What course of action is your legal man thinking of taking ?

Sparks

gunny123 wrote: »

What course of action is your legal man thinking of taking ?

If the answer is "any at all of any kind", that's not a question you want to answer in here right now. Wait until after the case is completed.

Apart from the restrictions imposed by the courts system being an adversarial competition in nature, there are legal restrictions having to do with contempt of court in a sub judice setting (and we have forum rules specifically banning that sort of thing).

BattleCorp

Tricky1127 wrote: »

He is getting all the Ducks in a row for the moment that's all I can say at the moment.
More importantly my mind is at ease after our discussion and I now believe that this is a normal enough practice by AGS members..! This has come from others that I've been in contact with it stems from not understanding the sport/hobby

Eh, I agree that the Gardaí don't always understand the sport/hobby but it isn't normal practice to take your guns in the manner that they did.

Tricky1127

The receipt is the only difference between my story and other people who have shared my experience with AGS.

Tricky1127

Sparks is correct this isn't a good time for me to be posting on this subject. But am feeling better now for talking about this with some other fellow shooters

gunny123

Sparks wrote: »

If the answer is "any at all of any kind", that's not a question you want to answer in here right now. Wait until after the case is completed.

Apart from the restrictions imposed by the courts system being an adversarial competition in nature, there are legal restrictions having to do with contempt of court in a sub judice setting (and we have forum rules specifically banning that sort of thing).

I thought he might have made an effort to see the super and try to do it the easy (less expensive and stressful) way. Pointing out the guns are legal and despite appearances, bolt actions.

Cass

Even if the OP has, at this point its going legal so needs to be dealt with privately until any court proceedings have been finished.

g00167015

As a person who just in recent days had a Judge, in my favour, comprehensively criticise my Superintendant in the strictest possible terms, lambasting him for acting "with no statutory basis whatsoever" (direct quote from lengthy and strongly worded judgement), I hope that your own situation is satisfactorily resolved.

Mine was in relation to adding a 204 for fox control and mid/long distance small beasties to my existing certificates.

Very best of luck and hope you get a proper explanation of why you were subjected to such behaviour.

G

Tricky1127

Can't help but ask what's wrong with .204 (Ruger bullet)

g00167015

Tricky1127 wrote: »

Can't help but ask what's wrong with .204 (Ruger bullet)

That's a very good question. In the whole process of dragging my application out over 18, yes EIGHTEEN months and four outings to court, the State were unable to explain exactly what was wrong with it for its designed purpose, either to me or more importantly the Judge.

The only reason quoted on the (One sentence) refusal letter was that my application for fox control and longer distance small vermin did not demonstrate a valid reason.

There was no challenge by the State to any aspect of my application WHATSOEVER, as noted by the Judge in his conclusions. What was also noted was the impolite, confrontational and disruptive demeanure of the (very) young and (very) inexperienced Counsel for the State as well as the incoherent and extremely nervous nature of his and (especially) the Sup't contributions in evidence and under examination.

At some stage I might post a more detailed story of all the fun and games but not just now.

However I must mention my sincere gratitude to my barrister Mr Tom McGowan BL

He had a very, VERY easy task this time around however there are several folks on here like Grizzly and Knockon etc who can attest to his particular expertise in cases of this nature.

Tricky1127

It's good to hear that you could show your case and I assume no Wikipedia or Utube reference was made in the court room.

gunny123

I would have thought a .204 was an ideal fox gun, it seems a very odd thing to refuse, and then allow a very thin and expensive court case to go ahead. Surely the super has to account and justify, money spent on no hoper court cases like this ?

Tricky1127

Gunny am new to see this stuff happening one common thing I've been told by the people who have had a problem is that it was because of something that was seen online by the Garda F.O

gunny123

Tricky1127 wrote: »

Gunny am new to see this stuff happening one common thing I've been told by the people who have had a problem is that it was because of something that was seen online by the Garda F.O

They should deal with facts and not base their decisions on youtube videos. God, what next ?