Shooting season suspended due to lockdown?

Rows Grower

JCJCJC wrote: »

Send him in to his solicitor.

With his luck he'd probably be caught outside the 5km limit again.

JCJCJC

Rows Grower wrote: »

With his luck he'd probably be caught outside the 5km limit again.

He could do a Skype, zoom or FaceTime call, practically every solicitor is now set up for it because courts are doing virtual hearings. Set down his return application for the first date available after 8th December, and in the meantime write to the local super with the SC’s opinion.
You said ‘guns’, how many did he take out fowling?

Rows Grower

JCJCJC wrote: »

He could do a Skype, zoom or FaceTime call, practically every solicitor is now set up for it because courts are doing virtual hearings. Set down his return application for the first date available after 8th December, and in the meantime write to the local super with the SC’s opinion.
You said ‘guns’, how many did he take out fowling?

He took one out pheasant shooting, was reported and Gardaí responded and spoke to him. Later that evening they called to his home and confiscated his two shotguns under instructions from their Super.

JCJCJC

Rows Grower wrote: »

He took one out pheasant shooting, was reported and Gardaí responded and spoke to him. Later that evening they called to his home and confiscated his two shotguns under instructions from their Super.

Utter blackguarding by that Super. Your pal should challenge that, hard.

grassroot1

JCJCJC wrote: »

Utter blackguarding by that Super. Your pal should challenge that, hard.

Yes and after 2 years and considerable expense he might get his guns back.
Who knows what "infractions" the gardai will bring a case agains him on,telling people to go shooting is grand till your guns are taken and you have to take a legal case to get them back.

richiedel123

JCJCJC wrote: »

The statutory instrument is made under a Health Act. Confiscation of your licensed firearm is not a penalty under that Act. The law is the law, not what some dope with two honours in the Garda press office, who wouldn’t know one end of a pheasant from another, thinks it is. My earlier point still stands - you can shoot crows on your own within five kilometres of home, but the NARGC say you can’t shoot a snipe or a duck if you rise one. Explain the wisdom of that to me if you can.

I can't see why you are fighting against the nargc on this one. The guards put this on their press release and ALSO informed all the rank and file garda to enforce this recreational shooting ban . The nargc are just telling their members not to break the law, because as it stands the guards are enforcing it as law. It's common sense!!!! Last thing that's needed is hunters getting caught out breaking the law in a pandemic!!! That looks great for us when it's splashed all over the national tabloids and TV stations

ace86

Rows Grower wrote: »

He took one out pheasant shooting, was reported and Gardaí responded and spoke to him. Later that evening they called to his home and confiscated his two shotguns under instructions from their Super.

Was there another incident up the country in Kilkenny where 2lads returned after a stalk and had their rifles confiscated at a checkpoint? I know it’s frustrating people can’t go out with in 5km from there home for a shot with their dog but like ever one is saying just hold tough till the 2nd December and hopefully we moved to level 3 and be able to return to hunting. I’m hoping the 08 of December that the NARGC will get this thing sorted especially with another possible lockdown in January but with this country and legal system they’ll push it out again.

JCJCJC

grassroot1 wrote: »

Yes and after 2 years and considerable expense he might get his guns back.
Who knows what "infractions" the gardai will bring a case agains him on,telling people to go shooting is grand till your guns are taken and you have to take a legal case to get them back.

How could it take two years? Judge Meenan will make a ruling on 8th December if the lockdown is still in place. That will clarify whether rough shooting is banned by SI 448-2000 or not. I believe he will say it is not banned.
If the lockdown is lifted, and Judge Meenan doesn’t have to deal with the case, then the Super has no basis for holding on to the guns. The local district court is where the guy goes, with the NARGC Senior’s opinion. A five-minute application, guns back same day.

Grizzly 45

Rows Grower wrote: »

He took one out pheasant shooting, was reported and Gardaí responded and spoke to him. Later that evening they called to his home and confiscated his two shotguns under instructions from their Super.

1st rule .Admit nothing,deny everything.

JCJCJC

richiedel123 wrote: »

I can't see why you are fighting against the nargc on this one. The guards put this on their press release and ALSO informed all the rank and file garda to enforce this recreational shooting ban . The nargc are just telling their members not to break the law, because as it stands the guards are enforcing it as law. It's common sense!!!! Last thing that's needed is hunters getting caught out breaking the law in a pandemic!!! That looks great for us when it's splashed all over the national tabloids and TV stations

The law is not what the Garda website says. Read the Statutory Instrument and decide for yourself. The NARGC have a Senior Counsel’s opinion that says the Garda website is WRONG. Hunters within 5km of home in ones and twos are not breaking the law. If you think they are, explain with reference to the law, not to the Garda website. The NARGC should have circulated the SC’s opinion and let it to us all to decide. Instead they went on TV in front of pens of fine pheasants and sold the wrong message entirely.
If you read the Garda website you’ll immediately see that it was written by some clueless dope who assumed that we all hire 52-seater buses to drive 200 miles to competitive driven shoots every weekend.

JCJCJC

J.R. wrote: »

I would imagine that NARGC insurance will not cover them as they have been told by NARGC that it’s banned. The same would then apply to other insurance cover brokers.

Risky going out with no insurance cover as many farmers only give permission to Gun Clubs, knowing they have public liability cover. Farmers may not be happy to find out that lads out pheasant shooting on their land have no insurance cover.

There is no such thing as NARGC insurance. I am sick and tired of explaining this point at club meetings. There is a compensation scheme, which is not insurance. Once you have paid your fee, you are entitled to the benefit of the compensation scheme. The compensation available will only be the funds in the scheme, not unlimited liability.

JCJCJC

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

1st rule .Admit nothing,deny everything.

2nd Rule.

a) ask the Garda - please state precisely the statutory provision under which you are asking me to surrender my licensed firearm.

b) Please confirm the name of your Superintendent and the Garda Station where he/she may be contacted for service of documents.

c) Please note that I believe your actions in this matter to be unwarranted and unlawful, by reference to a Senior Counsel’s formal opinion which is available to me, and on that basis I will immediately lodge a complaint against both you and your Superintendent with GSOC, and seek the assistance of the courts at the earliest opportunity.

Then go see your own lawyer.

BattleCorp

JCJCJC wrote: »

The law is not what the Garda website says.

I'm saying this with respect but the law isn't what a Senior Counsel says it is either.

The only person who can rule if the Gardai are right or wrong on this issue is a judge.

Personally I think the information that the Gardai have put out is totally incorrect once someone stays within 5km of their home. That said, the NARGC couldn't really have said anything else. They couldn't encourage their members to go against Garda advice.

JCJCJC

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm saying this with respect but the law isn't what a Senior Counsel says it is either.

The only person who can rule if the Gardai are right or wrong on this issue is a judge.

Personally I think the information that the Gardai have put out is totally incorrect once someone stays within 5km of their home. That said, the NARGC couldn't really have said anything else. They couldn't encourage their members to go against Garda advice.

I agree with your first point obviously, but until the High Court rules, a SC’s opinion is as good as it gets. Even a circuit court judge will not lightly go against a Senior’s opinion. Applications for return of firearms will come before the District Court. The Senior’s opinion will be a complete push-over there, unless the Judge decides to refer the question to the High Court as a case stated. That would be good from a legal standpoint but bad for shooters because it could take a long time.
I don’t agree with you on the NARGC. How can they say it’s ok to shoot crows and foxes, and ok to walk the dog, but not ok to go out with your gun and dog? Even without a dog, you can walk up ducks on a pond, snipe in a wet field etc and you can’t shoot, in case it spreads Covid? It’s beyond ridiculous.
Their media and political campaign should have been much more aggressive. Parliamentary questions should have been put down asking the Minister to justify the Garda bull**** by reference to the law. Councillors should be asking Superintendents the same question at joint policing committee meetings.
We are not a police state.

BattleCorp

JCJCJC wrote: »

I agree with your first point obviously, but until the High Court rules, a SC’s opinion is as good as it gets. Even a circuit court judge will not lightly go against a Senior’s opinion. Applications for return of firearms will come before the District Court. The Senior’s opinion will be a complete push-over there, unless the Judge decides to refer the question to the High Court as a case stated. That would be good from a legal standpoint but bad for shooters because it could take a long time.
I don’t agree with you on the NARGC. How can they say it’s ok to shoot crows and foxes, and ok to walk the dog, but not ok to go out with your gun and dog? Even without a dog, you can walk up ducks on a pond, snipe in a wet field etc and you can’t shoot, in case it spreads Covid? It’s beyond ridiculous.
Their media and political campaign should have been much more aggressive. Parliamentary questions should have been put down asking the Minister to justify the Garda bull**** by reference to the law. Councillors should be asking Superintendents the same question at joint policing committee meetings.
We are not a police state.

Until the High Court rules, a SC's opinion is just that. An opinion. The same as you or me.

No public organisation such as the NARGC are going to put themselves in the firing line by telling people to go against the Gardai's advice, even if they 100% believe the Gardai are wrong.

I'm not saying that this will happen because I don't think it will,.................. but lets say the NARGC told their members to ignore the Garda advice and go shooting.........and then the High Court rules against the hunter? That would then mean that the NARGC had been actively telling their members to break the law.

I don't think the NARGC had much choice other than the actions that they took.

JCJCJC

BattleCorp wrote: »

Until the High Court rules, a SC's opinion is just that. An opinion. The same as you or me.

No public organisation such as the NARGC are going to put themselves in the firing line by telling people to go against the Gardai's advice, even if they 100% believe the Gardai are wrong.

I'm not saying that this will happen because I don't think it will,.................. but lets say the NARGC told their members to ignore the Garda advice and go shooting.........and then the High Court rules against the hunter? That would then mean that the NARGC had been actively telling their members to break the law.

I don't think the NARGC had much choice other than the actions that they took.

Not quite. I generally agree with what Clint Eastwood had to say about opinions in Gran Torino, but in matters of law a Senior’s opinion has considerable standing. All barristers are Officers of the Court, as I suspect you know already. As such, they have a positive duty at law not to mislead the court and to behave ethically. Their opinions carry more weight than mine, I don’t know about yours.
Most of the authoritative textbooks that can be submitted in court on a point of law are written by either academic lawyers or practising lawyers, not judges. - there are hundreds of examples.

BattleCorp

JCJCJC wrote: »

Not quite. I generally agree with what Clint Eastwood had to say about opinions in Gran Torino, but in matters of law a Senior’s opinion has considerable standing. All barristers are Officers of the Court, as I suspect you know already. As such, they have a positive duty at law not to mislead the court and to behave ethically. Their opinions carry more weight than mine, I don’t know about yours.
Most of the authoritative textbooks that can be submitted in court on a point of law are written by either academic lawyers or practising lawyers, not judges. - there are hundreds of examples.

Yes, a Senior Counsel is a law expert and their knowledge on the topic would far outweigh what you or I know about the law, but that doesn't mean that they are infallible. I'm not saying that the SC who advised the NARGC is wrong. I actually think he is right, but until a judge rules one way or the other, we just don't know.

And in the absence of a ruling, you just gotta play it safe.

JCJCJC

BattleCorp wrote: »

Yes, a Senior Counsel is a law expert and their knowledge on the topic would far outweigh what you or I know about the law, but that doesn't mean that they are infallible. I'm not saying that the SC who advised the NARGC is wrong. I actually think he is right, but until a judge rules one way or the other, we just don't know.

And in the absence of a ruling, you just gotta play it safe.

History has not been kind to advocates of appeasement.

Grizzly 45

JCJCJC wrote: »

2nd Rule.

a) ask the Garda - please state precisely the statutory provision under which you are asking me to surrender my licensed firearm.

b) Please confirm the name of your Superintendent and the Garda Station where he/she may be contacted for service of documents.

c) Please note that I believe your actions in this matter to be unwarranted and unlawful, by reference to a Senior Counsel’s formal opinion which is available to me, and on that basis I will immediately lodge a complaint against both you and your Superintendent with GSOC, and seek the assistance of the courts at the earliest opportunity.

Then go see your own lawyer.

Rule 3.
You are on your own private property or on a public road, most of us also have an excellent movie camera on our phones.

FILM &RECORD the entire incident as evidence and for your own "personal
record,which may be used as evidence " Be it AGS/NPWS whomever.

Got him!

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Rule 3.
You are on your own private property or on a public road, most of us also have an excellent movie camera on our phones.

FILM &RECORD the entire incident as evidence and for your own "personal
record,which may be used as evidence " Be it AGS/NPWS whomever.

Rule 3 generally pisses people off !! ( Gemma Doherty comes to mind!)
If we all simply wait until the whole mess is cleared up legally then there is no need for rule 1,2,or 3. Trying to be a 'smart arse' with the Gardai doesn't necessarily achieve the desired result either and many have memories like elephants!
I suggest we all sit tight and let the legal wrangle being supported by the NARGC come to a conclusion.

JCJCJC

Got him! wrote: »

Rule 3 generally pisses people off !! ( Gemma Doherty comes to mind!)
If we all simply wait until the whole mess is cleared up legally then there is no need for rule 1,2,or 3. Trying to be a 'smart arse' with the Gardai doesn't necessarily achieve the desired result either and many have memories like elephants!
I suggest we all sit tight and let the legal wrangle being supported by the NARGC come to a conclusion.

There is a risk, if the lockdown is lifted on the 3rd December, that Judge Meenan will strike out the NARGC case because the point will have become moot. In that case, the only way to have the High Court clarify the issue will be for somebody whose gun is confiscated make a district court application to have the gun given back, and ask the District Court Judge to state a case to the High Court. The NARGC should give that person full backing in the interests of settling the matter, notwithstanding that the person went out shooting.

Got him!

JCJCJC wrote: »

There is a risk, if the lockdown is lifted on the 3rd December, that Judge Meenan will strike out the NARGC case because the point will have become moot. In that case, the only way to have the High Court clarify the issue will be for somebody whose gun is confiscated make a district court application to have the gun given back, and ask the District Court Judge to state a case to the High Court. The NARGC should give that person full backing in the interests of settling the matter, notwithstanding that the person went out shooting.

Would it not make sense to proceed with the argument in the case of another lockdown? I'm no legal whizz but would it not be forward thinking?

JCJCJC

Got him! wrote: »

Would it not make sense to proceed with the argument in the case of another lockdown? I'm no legal whizz but would it not be forward thinking?

No, the judge can only deal with the case before him on the day. He won’t give it the time if the lockdown is lifted.

BattleCorp

Got him! wrote: »

Would it not make sense to proceed with the argument in the case of another lockdown? I'm no legal whizz but would it not be forward thinking?

The legislation could be worded differently for the next lockdown which would mean that any judgement might not be relevant.

My prediction is the next lockdown will be in February.

tudderone

BattleCorp wrote: »

The legislation could be worded differently for the next lockdown which would mean that any judgement might not be relevant.

My prediction is the next lockdown will be in February.

Jesus i hope not, i am pig sick of the whole thing, fingers crossed the vaccine works (even if its a secret zionist pact with Bill gates to inject us with 5G for mind control :cool:).

kunekunesika

I feckin knew it! And if it sayes it here, it must be true.....

JCJCJC

BattleCorp wrote: »

The legislation could be worded differently for the next lockdown which would mean that any judgement might not be relevant.

My prediction is the next lockdown will be in February.

It's not that easy for the Government to change legislation 'on the fly'.

If you're not interested in law, the next bit is incredibly boring....

The regulations the Gardai are mis-applying are a statutory instrument made by the Minister, its reference is SI 448 of 2020. Statutory instruments let a Minister tidy up the small administrative details of what the Oireachtas passes as an Act. The Minister cannot stray beyond what is in the enabling Act - there's a ton of case law settling that question for ever.

The parent Act in this case is the Health Act 1947. A fresh Act was passed by the Oireachtas in 2020, which amended the '47 Act, by putting in this bit:

31A. (1) The Minister may, having regard to the immediate, exceptional and manifest risk posed to human life and public health by the spread of Covid-19 and to the matters specified in subsection (2), make regulations ....such regulations may, in particular, provide for all or any of the following:
...

(d) the prohibition of events, or classes of events, including (but not limited to) events—

...
(i) which, by virtue of the nature, format, location or environment of the event concerned or the arrangements for, or the activities involved in, or the numbers likely to be attending, the event could reasonably be considered to pose a risk of infection with Covid-19 to persons attending the event,

...

(i) any other measures that the Minister considers necessary in order to prevent, limit, minimise or slow the spread of Covid-19;

The nub of this whole debacle is that some berk in the Garda Press Office decided that rough shooting is an event. Now, even if I am wrong about that, the Act goes on to say:

(12) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a class C fine, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or both.

Nothing there about confiscating guns, ok?

The regulations then define what is to be understood by 'an event' -

“sporting event” means an event to be held in a location other than in a dwelling that is -

(a) to be held wholly or partly for competitive sport reasons, regardless of the nature of the sport or the competitive standard in question,

(b) organised under the structure of, licenced by, or otherwise authorised by -

(i) a national governing body of the sport in question, or

(ii) a school, university or higher education institution, and

(c) not a training event;

***


Note that the list is not and/or. Every part of that list, known as tests, must be satisfied. I would argue that a rough shooter, out on his or her own or maybe with two or three others, with entitlement to be on the land either with specific permission or s a member of a club having permission, is NOT taking part in an event. NARGC is not a governing body - it is an association of regional game councils, with no authority to control individual wildfowlers or local gun clubs in any way.

That's my take on it - we'll wait and see what the Judge thinks.


*** You could always say you are training the bloody dog....

BattleCorp

tudderone wrote: »

Jesus i hope not, i am pig sick of the whole thing, fingers crossed the vaccine works (even if its a secret zionist pact with Bill gates to inject us with 5G for mind control :cool:).

A vaccine is a bit away still. And when it is approved, there won't be enough of it to go around, at least in the beginning. Go try get the ordinary flu vaccine.......I tried this morning in my own local doctors and they said they wouldn't even put me on a waiting list as I'm not over 65 nor do I have serious underlying health conditions.

We are stuck with this sh1te for a while yet.

BattleCorp

JCJCJC wrote: »

It's not that easy for the Government to change legislation 'on the fly'.

They don't have to do it 'on the fly' as you say.

Yes, it's hard to change an Act, but the Minister has the powers to introduce Statutory Instruments that don't even have to be debated in the Dail (some are/some aren't). It's as simple as a stroke of a pen (and a few legal people writing up the SI). There must be about 40 passed so far in relation to COVID-19....see below.

https://www.gov.ie/en/collection/1f150-view-statutory-instruments-related-to-the-covid-19-pandemic/

If the Minister decides to change the wording from the current lockdown SI (the one in force now) to specifically include a ban on rough shooting in the next lockdown SI...........then that's it........it's changed and any high court ruling on the current SI in question would no longer be applicable.

meathstevie

JCJCJC wrote: »

It's not that easy for the Government to change legislation 'on the fly'.

If you're not interested in law, the next bit is incredibly boring....

The regulations the Gardai are mis-applying are a statutory instrument made by the Minister, its reference is SI 448 of 2020. Statutory instruments let a Minister tidy up the small administrative details of what the Oireachtas passes as an Act. The Minister cannot stray beyond what is in the enabling Act - there's a ton of case law settling that question for ever.

The parent Act in this case is the Health Act 1947. A fresh Act was passed by the Oireachtas in 2020, which amended the '47 Act, by putting in this bit:

31A. (1) The Minister may, having regard to the immediate, exceptional and manifest risk posed to human life and public health by the spread of Covid-19 and to the matters specified in subsection (2), make regulations ....such regulations may, in particular, provide for all or any of the following:
...

(d) the prohibition of events, or classes of events, including (but not limited to) events—

...
(i) which, by virtue of the nature, format, location or environment of the event concerned or the arrangements for, or the activities involved in, or the numbers likely to be attending, the event could reasonably be considered to pose a risk of infection with Covid-19 to persons attending the event,

...

(i) any other measures that the Minister considers necessary in order to prevent, limit, minimise or slow the spread of Covid-19;

The nub of this whole debacle is that some berk in the Garda Press Office decided that rough shooting is an event. Now, even if I am wrong about that, the Act goes on to say:

(12) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a class C fine, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or both.

Nothing there about confiscating guns, ok?

The regulations then define what is to be understood by 'an event' -

“sporting event” means an event to be held in a location other than in a dwelling that is -

(a) to be held wholly or partly for competitive sport reasons, regardless of the nature of the sport or the competitive standard in question,

(b) organised under the structure of, licenced by, or otherwise authorised by -

(i) a national governing body of the sport in question, or

(ii) a school, university or higher education institution, and

(c) not a training event;

***


Note that the list is not and/or. Every part of that list, known as tests, must be satisfied. I would argue that a rough shooter, out on his or her own or maybe with two or three others, with entitlement to be on the land either with specific permission or s a member of a club having permission, is NOT taking part in an event. NARGC is not a governing body - it is an association of regional game councils, with no authority to control individual wildfowlers or local gun clubs in any way.

That's my take on it - we'll wait and see what the Judge thinks.


*** You could always say you are training the bloody dog....

I think you’re reading it right. Something had been dragged under the remit of regulations that do not cover the activity.