GARDAI SEIZED RIFLES (September 06) new licence from Dec

Tricky1127

My own experience I've only got a small amount of knowledge about firearms. I would never pretend otherwise and have found myself explaining amount of rounds and why
Take a 12G shotgun for instance most Garda F.O don't know about the size is it a 2- 1/2, 2- 3/4, or 3" never mind the size of shot (from 00, or 36 grams and the term high velocity) or if the ammo is for over water or for clay pigeons shooting.
My point is if my job is to tell golfers how many bats they are allowed to own and balls they can use should I have some knowledge of the game of Golf

FanadMan

Tricky1127 wrote: »

My point is if my job is to tell golfers how many bats they are allowed to own and balls they can use should I have some knowledge of the game of Golf

Good job you don't say that to golfers.......they'd have security escort you off the course lol.

Been following this thread since it came up. Think you were treated terrible by unknowing idiots (FO and super that wanted the gun seized).

Have fingers crossed you'll get your gun back.....hopefully showing up the Gardai involved to be totally clueless.

Grizzly 45

I really hope that whenever this firearms appeals and appraisals board or whatever the Hell its name is if finally set up .that at least ONE person on there has a working knowledge of firearms and not experiance gleaned from watching Hollywood action movies, TV shows and knowledge gleaned from Jane's infantry weapons.But someone who has actually shot guns ,does so on a regular basis and has some sort of reavelant qualification higher than a weekend diploma course in an open university. If we could have someone like that advising the unknowing..That would be great.:rolleyes:

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

I really hope that whenever this firearms appeals and appraisals board or whatever the Hell its name is if finally set up .that at least ONE person on there has a working knowledge of firearms and not experiance gleaned from watching Hollywood action movies, ...........

I hate that we do this, and i'm as guilty as the next for it, but i don't think so.

It'll be a civilian board and i reckon the people on it will be placed there from the DoJ regardless of level of knowledge. Also look at the few "experts" that already exist within AGS and DoJ. They have an agenda and their so called expertise is skewed in favour of the "party line".

I'm hopeful, however, that it'll act as a substitute for the courts and the courts have shown us that the majority of justices apply the law and not their opinion.

tac foley

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

I really hope that whenever this firearms appeals and appraisals board or whatever the Hell its name is if finally set up .that at least ONE person on there has a working knowledge of firearms and not experiance gleaned from watching Hollywood action movies, TV shows and knowledge gleaned from Jane's infantry weapons.But someone who has actually shot guns ,does so on a regular basis and has some sort of reavelant qualification higher than a weekend diploma course in an open university. If we could have someone like that advising the unknowing..That would be great.:rolleyes:

If I lived in the Republic I'd do it. So long as I wouldn't have to wear a jacket and tie, two items of clothing that I don't have.

So far I've made sixty-eight visits to our club ranges this year. Is that regular enough?

Mind you, I'd bet I'm not alone in offering help where it's needed, and, like a few others here, if you ask me a question about a gun, I'm more than likely to be able to give you a factual answer that isn't based on hearsay, legend, myth, rumour or any kind of a biased opinion. Reason? I don't have a biased opinion - to me all aspects of legal shooting sports have equal value to those who spend time and money doing them.

tac

Grizzly 45

Well thats you and me screwed with the dress code then!:D
But on all the other aspects,I think you,I ,and a whole other bunch of people here could admirably fullfill this job role. So maybe if we all register on publicjobs.ie...They DO have to advertise these jobs by law and it is a pretty open process these days what with FOIA as to be able to see what and why you flunked out and whatnot.So it would look odd that if over 200 qualified gunowners applied and it went to Jane Jobsworthy grade 2 from the typing pool who se knowledge is guns are bad and you put bullets in one end and they come out the other.

tac foley

Well, I could apply, since I'm half Irish...

But, alas, I also possess an engaging accent that immediately says 'furriner, wossee know, eh?

tac

Nekarsulm

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Well thats you and me screwed with the dress code then!:D
But on all the other aspects,I think you,I ,and a whole other bunch of people here could admirably fullfill this job role. So maybe if we all register on publicjobs.ie...They DO have to advertise these jobs by law and it is a pretty open process these days what with FOIA as to be able to see what and why you flunked out and whatnot.So it would look odd that if over 200 qualified gunowners applied and it went to Jane Jobsworthy grade 2 from the typing pool who se knowledge is guns are bad and you put bullets in one end and they come out the other.

Going through the PublicJobs process ATM. If its anything like Ag or Revenue etc etc, the ability to answer 48 multiple choice questions in 12minutes will be what gets you to the interview stage. That will weed out enough folk to let the Panel then choose who they want for the job......

Sparks

The firearms appeals board (I don't think they'll use that name btw) won't have any role in revocations of firearms licences; there are no plans anywhere that I've seen to take that role out of the hands of the Gardai.

The FAB (see why I think they won't use it?) are for applications at the other end of the process. And I don't think they will have to advertise on publicjobs.ie for the actual core people (as opposed to the support staff), they could well be by Ministerial appointment (in a way similar to the FCP, though based on what the Minister has already said it's meant to be a completely different sort of body with an actual statutory role).

I'd expect to see the bodies on the FCP having some presence on the FAB (seriously, did nobody watch Thunderbirds as a child?) because I doubt it'd be a regular 40-hours -a-week thing, it's more likely to meet every 2-4 weeks, there should not be enough work to fill more time than that. They're only supposed to deal with cases where the refusal was for the kind of reasons we complain about (as opposed to, say, the local drug dealer applying for a licence to take the mickey).

Also, there are some major data protection issues involved here. Remember that time a ream or two of application forms were found dumped with people's names, firearms details, addresses and so on? Or the many, many, many instances of application forms getting lost in garda stations? Or the concerns people have over Gardai accessing data on PULSE inappropriately? Well, this is going to be a group of civilians with access to data on people - including garda records if cases like that get referred to them - and what they're looking for and for what, what they've been refused for in the past and why, and probably more such things; and they'll have the authority to say yes or no to an appeals process, with a "no" meaning the cost and time of a court case.

Picking the people to do that is not a lightweight task, especially as they'd need expertise in not just firearms, but firearms legislation which is a bloody small pool of candidates. It'd be larger but you can't pick the judges or solicitors or barristers who hear or take these cases, because that's a blatant conflict of interest - what are they going to say in court, "Yes, your honour, my client wants this firearm and yes, your honour, I did think this applicant shouldn't have the firearm in the FAB but now he's paying me to argue otherwise. Please stop laughing your honour, it was a stupid name but we were stuck with it."

It's not exactly a light decision to work in a role like that either (or rather, it shouldn't be) - what happens if you say no and the applicant decides to sue for defamation? Or what if the applicant is some nutter and both the Super and you rightly say no, and he shows up at your front door because your name is in the public domain as working in the FAB (this is a FABulous running joke dahling) and phone books are still a thing? And no, that's not far-fetched, that's happened in other civil service bodies staffed by "civilians" (that term still strikes me as odd when you're talking about the civil service). Or, for a nastier example, local drug dealer applies, gets rightly refused, shows up at your door to say "when you guys meet next week, you're approving my appeal or I'll see your kids at school the next day".

Honestly, "I know the difference between a pistol and a rifle" shouldn't be the first thing someone looking to work for the absolutely FABulous (you see why names are important?) board should be thinking.

Grizzly 45

Intrestingly enough on multiple points you raise Sparks there is legislation to cover alot of the points.As I applied for the ranger position,one I noticed is intresting.If anyone gets the job,you have to sign the offical secrets act and various non disclosure acts!So I would assume alot of those acts along with the DPA would cover those situations as well as your privacy?Although we all know what a joke the DPA is when "national intrest" or getting names for Irish water signed up is at stake. So I'm sure PULSE info is handed out when it is of need too..Whether the "authorised persons" actually use it and store it properly,is another bucket of haddock altogether.

After all, on the voters roll or phone book your local Super doesnt appers as Superintendant Joe Blogs,its just Joe Blogs.And I assume its the same for the more sensitive govt jobs out there?At least I hope so.

For legal knowledge,I'd also assume that it would ,like most govt depts,go and haul in the attorney generals office for an expert opinion?So no real need to have legal heads on the board at all.. [In an ideal world no doubt.]


As for "lost " garda firearms applications...Well I always said it was odd that a police force seemingly only ever "lost" those kind of applications...You ever hear of them losing arrest warrants,speeding ticket fines,and all the other thousands of documents that are handled by the thousand fold by AGS on a daily basis?Whgere a loss would be more likely to happen?Or not being concerned by this "loss" in seemingly every FO office in the stations in the land...Strange that..

ezra_

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

You ever hear of them losing arrest warrants,speeding ticket fines,and all the other thousands of documents that are handled by the thousand fold by AGS on a daily basis?..

Yes, this happens quite a lot, and even more times they aren't correctly executed or weren't applied for correctly. A lot of 1st-year case law comes from situations like this.

Not everything is a conspiracy Grizz - not saying there isn't malicious intent behind some of these occurrences (we all know that this does happen) but I doubt its the norm.

tac foley

Loss of similar items/documents et al, according to a loss-adjuster of our acquaintance, is dealt with in the following manner -

1st instance - sheer carelessness, accident or second/third party negligence - ie., your secretary clears up your desk and 'file 13's' the paperwork, your car, containing your briefcase, is involved in a serious RTA, or a domestic or place of work fire or flood. [No alarm bells - yet. A careful eye is being kept, however, to ensure that there is no repeat.]

2nd instance - negligence at professional level involving possible deliberate act of mis-laying/mis-filing/mis-shredding or otherwise disposing of said item/document. [Alarm bells ringing in the distance, but getting nearer by the minute - questions being asked.]

3rd instance - malicious intent. [Alarm bells in the corridor, NOW. Investigations being carried out.]

tac

gunny123

Don't forget the old wheeze of saying an application has been lost and can you submit another, then when you have done that, the original is suddenly found and any differences between the two are pointed out to you, often as grounds for refusal. I seem to remember a judge pointing out this carry on, and not being happy with it at all.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Intrestingly enough on multiple points you raise Sparks there is legislation to cover alot of the points.

Not so much; there's a lot to cover paid jobs and civil service jobs, but unpaid consultancy roles on a par with board directorships, not so much.

I would assume alot of those acts along with the DPA would cover those situations as well as your privacy?

You'd hope they'd cover the information, but your privacy wouldn't be covered. Membership of bodies like this is FOI-able, and if it wasn't, you'd have a secret group vetting appeals to rejected applications. I can't imagine that being seen as a massive improvement...

For legal knowledge,I'd also assume that it would ,like most govt depts,go and haul in the attorney generals office for an expert opinion?So no real need to have legal heads on the board at all.. [In an ideal world no doubt.]

If you think the Attorney General's office is on the list of "people with an adequate working knowledge of the Firearms Act", you'd be wrong. Half the work with the editing of the SIs was un-mangling the mangling the AG's office would do to the drafts. Anyone going on that board would have to know the Act themselves, they're being asked to make decisions based on the Act. What else other than knowing the Act do you think they'd base their decisions on? You can't stand up in a District Court and say "I rejected the application your honour because I thought he looked a bit shifty and my gut said no".

Well. People do, but we want to get away from that

Cass

Was looking for something from a while back and came across this thread. After a quick read i was wondering what ever became of it? Did you get sorted?

Tricky1127

No rifles back yet..!! Had to renew licenses as restricted Firearms had a meeting with the chief superintendent in Feb 13 he wasn't available before that time he was busy (Maurice McCabe Garda scandal) still waiting for the home alarm to be looked at by AGS

Cass

Did you seek legal advise or pursue the legal route at any point?

You have, and it's not a criticism, been made to license firearms of one category as firearms from another with the accompanying increase in security as well as having what little rights you have trampled on because "they said so".

Illegal search, illegal seizure, illegal revocation (if at all), etc. You had, actually still have, a solid case. It's not even about principles its about allowing this to be set as a precedent.

Again not giving out to you, just angry for you that this happened and essentially is being allowed to proceed.

Tricky1127

Don't worry it's all on coming to a head just an other Garda scandal in the making as they don't follow the legislation set out.
Will keep you posted hopefully shortly can't say to much as they read Boards I know this because the Garda told me that "I should put that on Boards as you do"

Grizzly 45

Do NOT under ANY circumstances renew these rifles as restricted! as they quite simply are bolt actions with "idontlikede lookof dat now! bits on them. Because if they are licensed as restricted as Cass said,it leaves them open then to claim any sort of "tactical feature" makes a rifle restricted.IE guns like the Ruger Target rifle or the like would then fall into that category.
We do not want to go down the road of Sweden thanks very much on this issue.

Cass

Tricky1127 wrote: »

Will keep you posted hopefully shortly can't say to much.........

Do't compromise anything by posting here. When you get sorted do let us know though.

........ as they read Boards I know this because the Garda told me that "I should put that on Boards as you do"

I assume you are dealing with a desk jockey and not the Super in which case s/he can go and do one because their only purpose in all this is to hand it to someone that actually matters, ie. the Super.

If you are so inclined you could write a note/letter to the Super stating that siad flatfoot is showing bias and could be unfairly influencing the Super's decision based on you seeking advice from people on a social media platform. As each application is judged on it's own merits and the character of the person , not their FB profile or posting on boards, then the FO could be swaying the Super's decision based on a personal opinion.

DO NOT ever be afraid to challenge ANY Garda. Challenge does not mean be a mouthy thug, but between making ups laws, thinking they are more than they are, showing personal bias, the lack of knowledge they show, etc. then it's your right if they try to influence or directly affect your application because you have forced them to do their job correctly and professionally, to make them follow the law.

Grizzly 45

BTW for any Garda types reading this...You do know that AGS is not immune from the Data protection act?

Now, it is odd that in the police force that deals with literally hundreds of various crimes and associated paperwork a day, it is very strange that firearms applications have a terrible propensity to be "lost" all over the 26 counties stations.Never hear of a court summons,a speeding ticket summons or the like getting "lost" for some reason...But firearms certs, lost all the time...Maybe the data protection commissioner should investigate this odd occurrence of confidential data on citizens going astray from Garda care??

After all it might be falling into "criminal hands" for all we know?Were a private organisation to be so careless with the loss of one single file of paperwork of an individuals data the DPC would be taking your company apart brick by brick and going over your data storage procedures with a louse comb and ordering you to introduce proper data handling procedures after fineing the ass off you as well for negligence.

Would think if this is such a problem in the AGS, that seems to happen a lot and over the decades, they themselves would introduce better procedures to look after their paperwork? But maybe the DPA commissioner should be informed by any worried individual next time their application goes "missing" in the station and their Supers desk??;)

Sparks

AGS is not immune from the Data protection act?

For another month or so anyway.

After that, it's not so much the Data Protection Act as we know it today, but the GDPR, an EU law with much nastier teeth including million-euro fines per offence for government bodies including AGS.

I suspect the courts are going to see a number of very interesting cases in the future, especially with things like automatic facial recognition being trialled in Ireland without much due diligence behind them over the last few years, and various other things like testing a combined medical record database with actual patient data, the entire PSC debacle and so on.

gunny123

I often wondered what had become of this case. Madness that the gardai are continuing with this. Have you asked advice from the fcp or anything ?

Tricky1127

AGS and the superintendent & chief superintendent believe that my rifles "resemble" restricted firearms henceforth my rifles are restricted... I wish I could talk about this hole story I am not an expert on firearms just a few courses on safety stalking how to keep the meat clean as possible but when I talk to AGS I know more about shooting then them and this is scary in my opinion for anyone who has a firearm. Promise to keep you all posted and i believe that this post will cost me

gunny123

Tricky1127 wrote: »

AGS and the superintendent & chief superintendent believe that my rifles "resemble" restricted firearms henceforth my rifles are restricted...

God preserve us :rolleyes:

Sparks

That is actually a valid grounds for determining restricted status - I just don't know of any case law on it. I had thought nobody would have wanted to be the Garda who opened that can of worms... *especially* if the superintendent and chief superintendent were communicating about it because that could be seen as fettering a decision process.

Grizzly 45

The"looks like" argument has been thrown out of every DC court challenge with the semi-autos on the grounds of "Form does not dictate function."
Having a kit car that looks like a Ferrari, no matter how precise and detailed, doesn't make it a Ferrari.

It is also so badly worded in the legislation and guidelines, that one simply has to ask what does an "assault rifle"[Again bad and incorrect terminology] look like??
As we don't have access to select-fire rifles here, and we have semi-auto Modern Sporting Rifles available to us in Ireland or vintage semi-auto rifles of various types,saying either of the previous types looks like an assault rifle is a no-hoper.
This again had precedent in a court case in the1980s regarding what does a "tractor" look like, when a Waterford farmer converted his Hi-lux pick up to a low-pressure ground sprayer and was caught using Green diesel in it by the Revenue.[The farmer won too BTW]

Trying to claim that one of these rifles, looks like an assault rifle is on a serious legal hiding to nothing.Especially if they are still UK legal, where there is proper definition prohibiting specifically large cal modern sporting rifles.While a different jurisdiction granted,the definition which is lacking in Irish gun law is accepted and has again been accepted in the cases of the MSRs in the DC cases with the German Bundes Kriminal Amt technical division in Wiesbaden stating that any MSR available in Germany and then pretty much EU wide, is not an assault rifle or war weapon under the German war weapons act ,it is a given that these types of guns are classified as "repeaters".They are available in Germany, Austria, France as bolt action rifles without any addition of semi auto category requirements.

The only place in the EU apart from Ireland that has this problem with this type of rifle is Sweden:rolleyes:.And even there "normal looking " bolt actions with a bit of Picatinny rail on them are classified by the corrupt Swedish police as being "Tactical sniper rifles".So this case here is already on a losing for the AGS precedent.

g00167015

.......and there was me thinking that a Blaser r8 or a Merkyl straight pull would be amongst the finest sporting rifles one could aspire to own for deerstalking and suchlike.

(Rightly so, they are fantastic pieces of equipment)

.....but NOPE, the "jayzusidontlikethelookofthatnowsoidont" clause in the AGS version of our legislature makes them a no no.

By that same token, all the folks who upgrade their varmint rifle with an AICS chassis, or a KRG stock, or a GRS berserk (evil black composite) or anything like that is in contravention of the above imaginary subsection of the imaginary copy of the imaginary statute which the AGS rely on..............UNTIL the dozens of occasions, indeed several hundred occasions, where similar waffle has been thrown out by the DC in the strictest possible terms since the inception of the current licencing regime.

Tricky1127

My understanding is all Black or all Green in colour alone it maybe in the short future becomes restricted on "resembles" part of the legislation because the public might believe that it's a Police/Military weapon note weapon not rifle or shotgun and I was thinking bullet capacity semi auto over 22.lr folding stocks... Oh yeah the manufacturer name might be labelled as restricted Firearm a member of AGO said all of the above at this point I zoned out feeling sick and having cross eyes trying to understand him I couldn't take in the other stuff he said + Please do not try and explain anything Officers Google & Wikipedia are on the case...!!

ED E

Sparks wrote: »

for government bodies including AGS.

They could still flip flop back on that yet I thought.

The Data Protection Bill 2018 had proposed to exempt public bodies from fines by the Data Protection Commissioner when a new EU regulation giving the office stronger enforcement powers comes into effect in May. Such bodies would have been exempt save where they were acting in competition with a body in the private sector providing similar services.