Gun safe inspections?

Kat1170

Rimfire Shooter wrote: »

So you've gone from we need no security as the legislation doesn't say we do to and now you've decided to argue that we shouldn't bother as we may be the victim of a tiger kidnapping. The security is to prevent the more possible burglary while you're out scenario than a tiger kidnapping scenario.

I'd really love you to point out where I said that ??????

And I'm still waiting on the relevant Act that says you WILL be fined if you don't use a trigger lock on a single shotgun.

Bad_alibi

Kat1170 wrote: »

And I'm still waiting on the relevant Act that says you WILL be fined if you don't use a trigger lock on a single shotgun.

Do you know that little box you tick on the FCA1 that says you've complied with the secure accommemdation regulations. Well if your super tells you to comply with the minimum safety standards for a shotgun that means you've to have a trigger lock, the gun is to be broken into three pieces and each piece is to be hidden in a separate part of the home. I'd say many a farmer would fall foul here.

Rimfire Shooter

Kat1170 wrote: »

And I'm still waiting on the relevant Act that says you WILL be fined if you don't use a trigger lock on a single shotgun.

As the amendment by the Criminal Justice Act 2006 doesn't list a "punishment" you refer to Section 25 of the original Firearms Act 1925, which states

"25.—Any person who commits an offence under this Act in respect of which no other punishment is provided by this Act shall be liable in respect of each such offence—

"(a) on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding six months, or to both such fine and such imprisonment; or

"(b) on conviction thereof on indictment, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding two years or to both such fine and such imprisonment."

As for justifying my other comment I'll return to that shortly as I've something else to do now.

Kat1170

JEBUS, what I said was instead of making up bull about fine's the Guard/Guards would be better off giving proper helpful advise to people rather than threats.

Rimfire Shooter

Kat1170 wrote: »

JEBUS, what I said was instead of making up bull about fine's the Guard/Guards would be better off giving proper helpful advise to people rather than threats.

You've read my post? They are not making it up about the fine

Bad_alibi

Kat1170 wrote: »

JEBUS, what I said was instead of making up bull about fine's the Guard/Guards would be better off giving proper helpful advise to people rather than threats.

Plus your basing your argument on one side of a conversation with a guard posted on the internet, taking it a gospel and stating with absolute fact that the guard/guards is full of **** and threading the public without known the law.
This is the problem with 99% on the rubbish online & FB, people not known the correct facts but ploughing away with their "opinions"

Sam Kade

Rimfire Shooter wrote: »

I'm well aware what's required. You don't need a safe for a single shotgun unless Super says you do. However, it seems he doesn't even have a trigger lock or does he realise the gun is meant to be broken down and the parts stored in separate places as well as a trigger lock in the absence of a safe either.

In this day & age a safe should be mandatory for all firearms even if it's not legally required.

I've had 2 x inspections and passed both no bother and have way more security than I supposed to have but I take my responsibilities as a firearm owner very seriously unlike some obviously. People who throw their eyes up at sound advice from Gardai make you wonder should they have firearms.

Stop jumping to conclusions, for your information I bought the trigger guard when the Garda told me and I always break the shotgun.

Sam Kade

Boaty wrote: »

"Some Guard" is ensuring that the public is kept safe from incompetent gun owners who's houses could become a target due to their failure to secure their home. If your underable to understand this then you should sell your gun.

Did you even see the trigger guard? The one the garda recommended could easily be opened without a key

PSXDupe

Sam Kade wrote: »

Did you even see the trigger guard? The one the garda recommended could easily be opened without a key

So are you saying that because the guard recommend a trigger guard that was useless that you should not have anything.

A trigger guard does not in anyway prevent a firearm from being stolen, it just means the guy taken it has a bit of work to do when he gets home with your stolen firearm.

I suppose if you are happy with that level of security and the guards are happy then that is fine.

I think the point a lot of people are making it that the law states the minimum but is a guide line. And lot of people prefer to secure their firearm a bit better for whatever reason, could be robbery, could be children in the house, lots of reason.

If you don't have a safe, do you leave ammunition unsecured.

Rimfire Shooter

You originally said

Sam Kade wrote: »

When I was renewing my shotgun licence last year the Garda asked if I had a gun safe which I don't have. He said I needed to get a trigger lock because if I were inspected I could be fined :rolleyes: I'd say he was bored or having an off day or just trying to show his authority.

Then you quoted this post with your answer below

Rimfire Shooter wrote: »

I'm well aware what's required. You don't need a safe for a single shotgun unless Super says you do. However, it seems he doesn't even have a trigger lock or does he realise the gun is meant to be broken down and the parts stored in separate places as well as a trigger lock in the absence of a safe either.

In this day & age a safe should be mandatory for all firearms even if it's not legally required.

I've had 2 x inspections and passed both no bother and have way more security than I supposed to have but I take my responsibilities as a firearm owner very seriously unlike some obviously. People who throw their eyes up at sound advice from Gardai make you wonder should they have firearms.

Sam Kade wrote: »

Stop jumping to conclusions, for your information I bought the trigger guard when the Garda told me and I always break the shotgun.

I din't jump to conclusions I made assumptions that I based on your original statement.

The Guard gave you some advice rather than make it an issue that you had no trigger lock (this came to light upon renewal no application) and you have an attitude over it. You'll learn

You say you split it up & hide the parts and have always done. I'll take your word for it.

And if you notice I showed in an earlier post you could be fined or get jail or both, so the Guard was right

cursai

Some people here should not be given a renewal. They should also be checked for proper butter knife storage. The gall. And the attitude.

Sparks

Kat1170 wrote: »

Of course its my choice, its my choice if I want to take the Supers requirements as being the maximum I want or the minimum I will work from.

How in the name of basic literacy is this still in anyone's mind?
No. It's not your choice. The law is very, very clear in only a few areas and this is one of them. The SI sets out the statutory minimum requirements. If the Super wants you to have more than those, he is legally empowered to set the standard you have to meet. You can't simply ignore the guy. If you did want to say he was wrong, you'd have to go to the district court and argue your case to the judge; and unless the Super was demanding 24hr manned security in your home or something equally ridiculous, you're going to lose. As far as I know, nobody has ever even tried to challange their Super's security requirements like that (no, that's not what the "gun safes" case was about), and I've not heard of any Supers taking liberties with that particular legal power either.

I mean, come on. It's been law for over a decade now.

Kat1170

Kat1170 wrote: »

Of course its my choice, its my choice if I want to take the Supers requirements as being the maximum I want or the minimum I will work from.

Sparks wrote: »

How in the name of basic literacy is this still in anyone's mind?
No. It's not your choice. The law is very, very clear in only a few areas and this is one of them. The SI sets out the statutory minimum requirements. If the Super wants you to have more than those, he is legally empowered to set the standard you have to meet. You can't simply ignore the guy. If you did want to say he was wrong, you'd have to go to the district court and argue your case to the judge; and unless the Super was demanding 24hr manned security in your home or something equally ridiculous, you're going to lose. As far as I know, nobody has ever even tried to challange their Super's security requirements like that (no, that's not what the "gun safes" case was about), and I've not heard of any Supers taking liberties with that particular legal power either.

I mean, come on. It's been law for over a decade now.

Maybe, just maybe, you should read what I said just once more !!!!!!!!!!!!

What I said is it is my choice whether I took the Supers requirements as the MAXIMUM amount of security I would have OR take them as the MINIMUM and work from there. I certainly did NOT say that it was my choice whether or not to ignore them.

Boaty

Kat1170 wrote: »

Maybe, just maybe, you should read what I said just once more !!!!!!!!!!!!

What I said is it is my choice whether I took the Supers requirements as the MAXIMUM amount of security I would have OR take them as the MINIMUM and work from there. I certainly did NOT say that it was my choice whether or not to ignore them.

Why would he give you the MAXIMUM? It seams like your reluctant to have basic security measures, some people even have safes in their vehicles for gun transportation.

Sparks

Kat1170 wrote: »

Maybe, just maybe, you should read what I said just once more !!!!!!!!!!!!

What I said is it is my choice whether I took the Supers requirements as the MAXIMUM amount of security I would have OR take them as the MINIMUM and work from there. I certainly did NOT say that it was my choice whether or not to ignore them.

Ah, I see. Sorry Kat, my bad.

Kat1170

Boaty wrote: »

Why would he give you the MAXIMUM? It seams like your reluctant to have basic security measures, some people even have safes in their vehicles for gun transportation.

Where did I say what he requires 'is' my maximum ????
I said it was my choice 'IF' I took that as my minimum or my maximum .
I may not have joined in with the 'Willy Waving' mine is better than yours re. security, but then I have no intentions of giving anyone on an internet forum any indication of what security set-up I have or have not.

Captainaxiom

Haven't had an inspection in 15yrs

goz83

Haven't had a visit, but I made sure everything was secure and in place before I applied. My security is already way above what is required, but I have plans for more security upgrades, including safe alarms and concealment before applying for a pistol license.