Shooting season suspended due to lockdown?

JCJCJC

tonysopprano wrote: »

How about we all gang together for a hearing on 8th Dec, united as shooting bodies of Ireland, and attach ourselves, as interested bodies to the High Court case listed.

Am lacking in exact juris speak, but someone must have better understanding and I know there is an exact phrase (somewhere)

You wouldn’t have time to get that done by the 8th, but you could have a barrister in court with a watching brief ie just listening to the case and reporting back to you, but you’d buy a lot of pheasants and cartridges for what it could cost.

JCJCJC

Well,has anyone heard from NARGC how the court hearing due on the 8th went?

gearoidol

JCJCJC wrote: »

Well,has anyone heard from NARGC how the court hearing due on the 8th went?

Nargc and the gardai asked for an adjournment

https://www.facebook.com/National-Association-of-Regional-Game-Councils-NARGC-190104431023958

JCJCJC

gearoidol wrote: »

Nargc and the gardai asked for an adjournment

https://www.facebook.com/National-Association-of-Regional-Game-Councils-NARGC-190104431023958

Thanks for that. Wouldn't you think they'd put the news on their own website rather than arsebook.

Grizzly 45

Sounds like more behind closed door negotiations and deals being hammered out. Wonder what relif will be required by NARGC for this?

JCJCJC

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Sounds like more behind closed door negotiations and deals being hammered out. Wonder what relif will be required by NARGC for this?

Could be discussions ok - maybe they'll say we can shoot pheasants, but if we don't hit with the first barrel let him off ;-)


They are seeking a declaratory order - ie a formal statement - asking the High Court to say the nonsense on the garda website is an incorrect interpretation of the law and rough shooting in small groups with no competitive element doesn't contravene the regulations, the best they can hope for is essentially a 'yes' to that.


As things stood during the lockdown, according to the guards, you could take the dog for a walk and that's ok. You could go shooting pigeons and crows and that's ok too, even if there isn't a cornfield for 100 miles. But if you take the dog and gun, you are deemed to be hunting and that is not ok.

berettaman

It appears that the NARGC were successful in their case and a statement will issue shortly.


The State agreed to provide the following confirmation to the Court, which was read out to the Judge today: “It is confirmed that an individual, who engaged in lawful rough shooting for the purpose of exercise, on his/her own, during the currency of Level 5 restrictions, did not contravene the Health Act 1947 (Section 31A – Temporary Restrictions) (Covid-19) (No 8) Regulations 2020, S.I. 448 of 2020, provided the individual complied with those Regulations including the requirement that any exercise take place within 5 kms of his/her place of residence.”

The effect of the State’s confirmation is that it has accepted that, if during Level 5 restrictions an individual engaged on his or her own in lawful rough shooting, for the purpose of exercise, within 5 kms of home, he or she was not in breach of the Covid-19 Regulations.

Good Result Lads!! Pity the Gardai in HQ couldn't hold up the hands earlier and admit an error.

garrettod

berettaman wrote: »

It appears that the NARGC were successful in their case and a statement will issue shortly.

That's great,

Thanks for the update.

Although, are they now saying that it's only for an individual, not for two people?

JCJCJC

berettaman wrote: »

It appears that the NARGC were successful in their case and a statement will issue shortly.


The State agreed to provide the following confirmation to the Court, which was read out to the Judge today: “It is confirmed that an individual, who engaged in lawful rough shooting for the purpose of exercise, on his/her own, during the currency of Level 5 restrictions, did not contravene the Health Act 1947 (Section 31A – Temporary Restrictions) (Covid-19) (No 8) Regulations 2020, S.I. 448 of 2020, provided the individual complied with those Regulations including the requirement that any exercise take place within 5 kms of his/her place of residence.”

The effect of the State’s confirmation is that it has accepted that, if during Level 5 restrictions an individual engaged on his or her own in lawful rough shooting, for the purpose of exercise, within 5 kms of home, he or she was not in breach of the Covid-19 Regulations.

Good Result Lads!! Pity the Gardai in HQ couldn't hold up the hands earlier and admit an error.

Pity the NARGC told us not to shoot, and the clubs who obeyed them.

berettaman

JCJCJC wrote: »

Pity the NARGC told us not to shoot, and the clubs who obeyed them.

Did you seriously expect a National Sporting Association to tell its members to flout a law (albeit an absurd one)?
It would not have been responsible.
Legal route was needed, legal route was taken.
That's what representation is all about.

JCJCJC

garrettod wrote: »

That's great,

Thanks for the update.

Although, are they now saying that it's only for an individual, not for two people?

That's a very good point - two or three should be allowed, same as the three household rule for house parties. I suppose you could say it's a shooting party ;-)
I hope the over-eager guards will draw in their horns now and not hassle fellas with talk of confiscating guns etc., they have been shown up to be WRONG.

JCJCJC

berettaman wrote: »

Did you seriously expect a National Sporting Association to tell its members to flout a law (albeit an absurd one)?
It would not have been responsible.
Legal route was needed, legal route was taken.
That's what representation is all about.

Nobody flouted a law, as has been proven. All anyone flouted, if they did, was a webpage. What authority does the NARGC have to tell anyone to shoot or not to shoot? Landowners give permission to clubs and/or individuals to exercise sporting rights over their land. If it's given to a club, the club holds it in trust for its members. The NARGC have no say in the relationship between the grantor of the sporting right and the grantee.
Their position was - don't shoot, simply because the guards have said so. But, we think they are wrong and we're going to court in that belief. That makes no sense to me.

BattleCorp

JCJCJC wrote: »

Nobody flouted a law, as has been proven. All anyone flouted, if they did, was a webpage. What authority does the NARGC have to tell anyone to shoot or not to shoot? Landowners give permission to clubs and/or individuals to exercise sporting rights over their land. If it's given to a club, the club holds it in trust for its members. The NARGC have no say in the relationship between the grantor of the sporting right and the grantee.
Their position was - don't shoot, simply because the guards have said so. But, we think they are wrong and we're going to court in that belief. That makes no sense to me.

NARGC didn't tell anybody not to shoot. They advised their members that until the matter was decided, it was best to follow the instructions of the Gardai.

You have the benefit of hindsight. The NARGC didn't have that benefit when they were issuing their guidance. You can't blame a National Organisation for telling their members to play it safe. Imagine if they got things wrong and advocated for their members to break the law. They'd be in some pile of sh1te if that was the case.

berettaman

JCJCJC wrote: »

Nobody flouted a law, as has been proven. All anyone flouted, if they did, was a webpage. What authority does the NARGC have to tell anyone to shoot or not to shoot? Landowners give permission to clubs and/or individuals to exercise sporting rights over their land. If it's given to a club, the club holds it in trust for its members. The NARGC have no say in the relationship between the grantor of the sporting right and the grantee.
Their position was - don't shoot, simply because the guards have said so. But, we think they are wrong and we're going to court in that belief. That makes no sense to me.

I think they took a responsible approach but I defer to your superior grasp of legal technicalities.
It could take a long time to get your guns back if you were the wrong poor unfortunate in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Cass

berettaman wrote: »

It appears that the NARGC were successful in their case and a statement will issue shortly.

Excellent work and better result. Well done NARGC.

garrettod wrote: »

Although, are they now saying that it's only for an individual, not for two people?

I'll take any small victory.

Cass

JCJCJC wrote: »

That's a very good point - two or three should be allowed, same as the three household rule for house parties. I suppose you could say it's a shooting party ;-)

Aw Jaysus. Come on. Only just won a small victory and already complaining about it not being good enough?

I hope the over-eager guards will draw in their horns now and not hassle fellas with talk of confiscating guns etc., they have been shown up to be WRONG.

Nobody flouted a law, as has been proven.

After an expensive court case and just now. I mean for Christ sake what is wrong with you or people of a similar mindset. I have my own opinions on this lockdown and the so called pandemic, but i still follow the rules because i cannot afford (either financially or health wise) the court cases or fines that would follow.

The NARGC took the right steps in advising their members to follow the rules and law as it appeared until there was a clear decision by the judiciary that it was "wrong". Now instead of having to worry about being caught, risk a court case or even the loss of your guns you can go out with peace of mind.

What authority does the NARGC have to tell anyone to shoot or not to shoot?

Its called common sense and best practice. As advice you have as much right to ignore it as follow it, however you can now benefit from the NARGCs actions without having to have taken the cost hit (again financially and time wise)

Landowners give permission to clubs and/or individuals to exercise sporting rights over their land. If it's given to a club, the club holds it in trust for its members. The NARGC have no say in the relationship between the grantor of the sporting right and the grantee.

Utterly irrelevant and not germane to the topic.

Their position was - don't shoot, simply because the guards have said so. But, we think they are wrong and we're going to court in that belief. That makes no sense to me.

Because only the judiciary can decide if it is a legal law/rule/regulation or not. IOW the NARGC done it the right way and followed the law and procedure.

I've given the NARGC a hard time when its due, but this time i'll tip my hat to them for the good work.

JCJCJC

BattleCorp wrote: »

NARGC didn't tell anybody not to shoot. They advised their members that until the matter was decided, it was best to follow the instructions of the Gardai.

You have the benefit of hindsight. The NARGC didn't have that benefit when they were issuing their guidance. You can't blame a National Organisation for telling their members to play it safe. Imagine if they got things wrong and advocated for their members to break the law. They'd be in some pile of sh1te if that was the case.

I'm not relying on hindsight. I wrote to the NARGC myself at the time and gave them a reasoned legal analysis of why the guards were wrong, which tallied with the Senior Counsel's opinion they got, which they should hve followed. A dog with a mallet in his hole could read the Act and see that the guards were way off. As for advice - my local club ordered a strict no-shoot policy based on the NARGC instruction, members were threatened with expulsion if they went out shooting, club officers followed-up complaints from farmers reporting shots, and club officers drove around looking for cars and vans stopped in gaps in case anyone was shooting. The NARGC could have told us to take our own advice on the matter locally. We are not members of NARGC, it says so in the name - Regional Game Councils are the members.
While we sat on our hands looking at the dog getting fat, the farmers' sons with the vermin licenses in my locality shot each other's land with impunity, and didn't worry too much if the birds were released by the clubs.

JCJCJC

Cass wrote: »

The NARGC took the right steps in advising their members to follow the rules and law as it appeared .

I haven't time or inclination to debate all of your post with you, but the NARGC only advised us to follow a webpage, which is neither a rule nor a law. We don't live in a Police State, the rule of law prevails. That's exactly what Irish freedom means. Even if you're not a lawyer, any shooter reading the webpage could see that it was written by a thick eejit who knows nothing about rough shooting, so the rest of it deserved as much respect as that part.


If the guards were right every time, nobody would ever get off in court for anything.

Max H

Honestly, I agree with Cass. As a gun owner, I take the fact that I am allowed to posses 3 guns, all potentially fatal in the wrong hands as a privaleag, which I am very aware of the fact that if I break the law in anyway shape or form, could result in me losing my licences. Therefore, whilst not happy with the situation as it then was, I followed NARGC guidelines. I even had a new gun, sitting in a gun dealers shop, all licenced and approved, that I couldn't collect due to the 5k travel rule. Yes a pain, but I did not intend to give an over zealous Garda Supt. any excuse to revoke a licence for a sport I love and enjoy. In the real world, I have lost a few months of shooting, big deal, life goes on and there are people more effected by all this Covid ****e than those of us who couldn't shoot for a few month. Put it into perspective. I say well done to NARGC, and take a chill pill

Vegeta

JCJCJC wrote: »

If the guards were right every time, nobody would ever get off in court for anything.

The problem is, and always has been, proving you are right and they are wrong. The time and effort are not inconsequential. The Gardaí are being paid to prove you are wrong, with limited consequences if they are incorrect. That is not the case when defending yourself.

BattleCorp

JCJCJC wrote: »

I'm not relying on hindsight. I wrote to the NARGC myself at the time and gave them a reasoned legal analysis of why the guards were wrong, which tallied with the Senior Counsel's opinion they got, which they should hve followed.

Ah shur then. What were the NARGC thinking? :rolleyes:

J.R.

Clarification from the Gardaí - Rough shooting in Level 5
.


NARGC STATEMENT – 15 DECEMBER 2020
BAN ON RECREATIONAL HUNTING

As Members will be aware from previous Statements issued by the Association, following the announcement by the Gardaí of a ban on pheasant shooting on Thursday, 29th October 2020, the Association immediately took up the matter with the Garda Commissioner and other authorities.

Not having received any satisfactory response, the Association instructed its Lawyers to commence Judicial Review proceedings in the High Court in the name of John Flannery, a landowner and member of the Association’s National Executive. The case was first before the Court on Monday, 9th November 2020. The Judge directed that the Association put the State authorities on notice and adjourned the case to 8th December 2020. Just before the case was due to be heard on that day, our lawyers were informed that the State intended to make a proposal to resolve the issue and the case was adjourned to today, December 15th, 2020.

Following lengthy negotiations, the State agreed to provide the following confirmation to the Court, which was read out to the Judge today: “It is confirmed that an individual, who engaged in lawful rough shooting for the purpose of exercise, on his/her own, during the currency of Level 5 restrictions, did not contravene the Health Act 1947 (Section 31A – Temporary Restrictions) (Covid-19) (No 8) Regulations 2020, S.I. 448 of 2020, provided the individual complied with those Regulations including the requirement that any exercise take place within 5 kms of his/her place of residence.”

The effect of the State’s confirmation is that it has accepted that, if during Level 5 restrictions an individual engaged on his or her own in lawful rough shooting, for the purpose of exercise, within 5 kms of home, he or she was not in breach of the Covid-19 Regulations.

Apart from providing the confirmation, we can also inform Members that the State has agreed to make a substantial contribution towards the Association’s legal costs.

Level 5 is of course now over, but it may be reinstated at some time in the future. If it is reinstated, the Association believes that the confirmation provided today can be taken as guidance for the future.

We would like to thank all our Members for the restraint shown during the unfortunate and unacceptable shooting ban.


Dan Curley
NARGC National Chairman

Copyright © 2020 National Association of Regional Game Councils, All rights reserved.

This email was sent by:
National Association of Regional Game Councils
O'Connell House - Unit 1, O'Connell House Studios
Mountmellick, County Laois, R32 DA36

solarwinds

For the love of god some people are never satisfied. A victory was won, which when left to the decision making of a judge could have gone either way with his interpretation. Fair play to the people involved.
Just because I know something to be right and the guidance given daft does not mean I will risk everything to stick it to the man and prove him wrong through my ignorance. The correct course of action was taken given the circumstances and we are all the better for it.
You can now hunt knowing you are right due to the legal action taken instead of well I am going to do it because I want to and the state is wrong.

JCJCJC

solarwinds wrote: »

You can now hunt knowing you are right due to the legal action taken instead of well I am going to do it because I want to and the state is wrong.

I'm going hunting because I've known since 1st November last that I have been entitled to do it. The legal action such as it is has confirmed that I was right all along, but it is very weak. A statement read out is a long way short of an actual High Court decision - why didn't NARGC finish what they started? Why accept a limit of one individual? I go shooting with mates, my sons and on my own about 50:50 of the time.
If anyone has actual knowledge of guns being confiscated I would like to get an update - did the guards voluntarily hand them back after this? The stupid web page is still on garda.ie


Don't be scared of losing your license for just any breach of any law. The penalties for breach of the Health Act don't include confiscation of your gun or revocation of your license. You have to commit a Firearms Act offence or perhaps some violent crime to lose your guns. If you get caught speeding you don't lose your gun license. This country runs on the rule of law, not on fear of the Gardai.

JCJCJC

Vegeta wrote: »

The problem is, and always has been, proving you are right and they are wrong. The time and effort are not inconsequential. The Gardaí are being paid to prove you are wrong, with limited consequences if they are incorrect. That is not the case when defending yourself.

Ever heard of free legal aid?

tudderone

There will be another lockdown shortly i would think, with this new strain of covid going around. The vaccine isn't a miracle drug either, it won't kill the virus off over night. So this is a victory of sorts.

JCJCJC

tudderone wrote: »

There will be another lockdown shortly i would think, with this new strain of covid going around. The vaccine isn't a miracle drug either, it won't kill the virus off over night. So this is a victory of sorts.

I agree - the Christmas meet-and-greet is bound to drive the figures way up. Shopping centres and cafes are thronged with people. People are coming into the country willy-nilly. The annual migration of trailer-towers into a certain town in County Limerick is well under way. But at least lads are not going out on lonely remote mountain bogs in twos and threes 100 yards from each other in the wind and rain shooting snipe. That's bound to spread the disease.

Cass

JCJCJC wrote: »

I'm not relying on hindsight. I wrote to the NARGC myself at the time and gave them a reasoned legal analysis of why the guards were wrong, which tallied with the Senior Counsel's opinion they got, which they should hve followed.

And they didn't take the unsolicited legal advice of some random stranger? Shocker.

The NARGC could have told us to take our own advice on the matter locally. We are not members of NARGC, it says so in the name - Regional Game Councils are the members.

The NARGC consists of approx 28,000 people. Out of 150,000. So while they are a large organisation it was STILL only advice and over 80% of the shooting population were under no such advice or "order" as you seem to think.

While we sat on our hands looking at the dog getting fat, the farmers' sons with the vermin licenses in my locality shot each other's land with impunity, and didn't worry too much if the birds were released by the clubs.

So what has you more upset, that the NARGC took steps, outside of your "legal advice" or that others "broke the rules" and continued shooting?

JCJCJC wrote: »

I'm going hunting because I've known since 1st November last that I have been entitled to do it.

Wrong. You have zero entitlement when it comes to firearms. None. Absolutely nothing is an entitlement, its a privilege (and i'm not being overly courteous, the law specifies shooting with firearms as a privilege that can be revoked if by nothing else but the simple lack of a 2nd amendment type law in our constitution).

The legal action such as it is has confirmed that I was right all along, but it is very weak.

So here is the big question. Why DID YOU NOT TAKE LEGAL ACTION instead of relying and then bemoaning the NARGC for doing it?

You have to commit a Firearms Act offence or perhaps some violent crime to lose your guns.

Nope.

Intemperate character. Look it up. It says that any person showing intemperate character may have their license revoked. This means anyone who constantly pushes the boundaries or actual law to breaking point even in small increments they may be judged to be unfit to hold a license and have it revoked.

This ties into the point above about no entitlement to firearms. Hell i know a guy that had his guns revoked and only got back his shotgun because he wasn't buying ammo and the Gardaí deemed if he is not buying it he is not shooting so therefore his good reason for having the firearms was gone.

JCJCJC

Cass wrote: »

And they didn't take the unsolicited legal advice of some random stranger? Shocker.


Do you know it was unsolicited?


The NARGC consists of approx 28,000 people. Out of 150,000. So while they are a large organisation it was STILL only advice and over 80% of the shooting population were under no such advice or "order" as you seem to think.

So what has you more upset, that the NARGC took steps, outside of your "legal advice" or that others "broke the rules" and continued shooting?

Not upset at all, I admire the guys who went shooting.

Wrong. You have zero entitlement when it comes to firearms. None. Absolutely nothing is an entitlement, its a privilege (and i'm not being overly courteous, the law specifies shooting with firearms as a privilege that can be revoked if by nothing else but the simple lack of a 2nd amendment type law in our constitution).

I’m entitled to exercise any shooting rights I hold.

So here is the big question. Why DID YOU NOT TAKE LEGAL ACTION instead of relying and then bemoaning the NARGC for doing it?

Because I saw no need. If I had been challenged by the Gardaí I would have defended myself, and as we have seen, I would have succeeded.


Nope.

Intemperate character. Look it up. It says that any person showing intemperate character may have their license revoked. This means anyone who constantly pushes the boundaries or actual law to breaking point even in small increments they may be judged to be unfit to hold a license and have it revoked.

This ties into the point above about no entitlement to firearms. Hell i know a guy that had his guns revoked and only got back his shotgun because he wasn't buying ammo and the Gardaí deemed if he is not buying it he is not shooting so therefore his good reason for having the firearms was gone.

Shooting lawfully is not a sign of intemperate character.

. Answers interspersed.

JCJCJC

Just discussed the compromise the NARGC agreed with one of my shooting buddies, and he had a good point. His son recently completed a gun safety course in a shooting school run by an Irish international clay shooter. He was told that solo shooting is an unsafe practise and that he should rough-shoot with a companion. What is NARGC policy on that?