Cops Came to Check My Security Setup

woody

Last night got a visit by the local Donghnut Brigade a kinda snap hello to see my security.

Well there we impressed to say the least apparently they are doing it to a few Pistol Holders, why we are singled out I dunno.

My set up is as follows:

1.) Solid Brick room centre of the house was an old boiler room.

2.) 3 Solid Steel Cabinets with Dual Deal locks on each.

3.) Seperate Shotgun/Pistol/Ammo Cabinet

4.) Room is also Central Heated and at a decent ambient tempature.

5.) House has a monitored Alarm.

6.) The Brick Room has a Solid Steel Door with two Mortice deadlocks


Now do you think I should ring Group 4 to get a Static Security Man Outside

Rovi

It sounds like you have a spectacular set-up, very close to what a gun dealer would have to have. I hope this standard of security doesn't become the 'minimum acceptable,' as very few gun owners could live up to it. I know I couldn't

I'm a little concerned about this bit, though-

woody wrote:

Last night got a visit by the local Donghnut Brigade a kinda snap hello to see my security.

Did he just appear at the door (at night???) looking to see your security, or am I reading this wrong?

When mine was inspected, the Crime Prevention Officer rang looking to make a mutually convenient appointment, and everything was done during office hours.

.

woody

Nope just turned up out of the blue.


We have that setup as my father is in the army and I am ex-army, so kind of a habit.

I doubt this will become a prerequesite although as a lot of people neither have the room or money to do it.

Rovi

woody wrote:

Nope just turned up out of the blue.

Hmmmmm......
Isn't this exactly the scenario the NARGC took to the courts over the gun safe issue?

.

Clare gunner

Not trying to be bitchy here.But wouldnt it be more productive if FLAG and Sparks were to put their joint efforts into commenting on this matter of cops just showing up in the dead of night without any reasonable grounds to inspect somthing that at the moment they really have no busisness inspecting?? :rolleyes:

Boston

Clare gunner wrote:

without any reasonable grounds to inspect somthing that at the moment they really have no busisness inspecting?? :rolleyes:

how about public safety? How about making sure that some toe rag isn't going to break into your house and make off with a **** load of guns, or that you're not sleeping with a pistol under you pillow. Meh, you don't like it, then don't keep guns. It's not like you have a right to them.

Clare gunner

LiouVille wrote:

how about public safety? How about making sure that some toe rag isn't going to break into your house and make off with a **** load of guns, or that you're not sleeping with a pistol under you pillow. Meh, you don't like it, then don't keep guns. It's not like you have a right to them.

Obvisouly another troll by...
but I feel in the humour to educate the ignorant.
Public saftey has nothing to do with anything.If you were to persue the firearms acts and the many posts here you would find to your obvious shock !horror !that there are NO secure storage requirements in the FA,yet!I am all in favour of having a secure storage policy,not because I am too worried of someone breaking in to steal them but because of their value and the hassle of replacing them.Toe rags can go and buy pretty much anything illegal in firearms nowadays,thats if they could be botherd by putting in a hards nights work of mugging and robbing old age pensioners.
Not only that it is a requirement for the gaurds that they can only enter a premises with a warrent or good reason to prevent a crime occuring or to prevent the loss of life.Not just for a random security check which they have no right in law.Also public saftey is more served by going out and using police time,to apprehend real criminals,stamp hard on little boy racers,illegal firework dealers etc and the thousands of other petty crime rather than going and bothering the most law abideing sector of the community.

I fail to see what a unannounced garda inspection in the dead of night is going to prevent or stop.Maybe if they were stationed outside my door 24/7/365.Nor wether my security system,now inspected is going to stop me from opening it and putting a double barrelled elephant rifle under my pillow for me to sleep on.Not thats it is any of the Gaurds busisness if I do have a pistol under my pillow,as they are here to check the security system[for whatever dubious reason],not search my house,which they can only do if they have a warrent.Which must specify WHAT they are looking for.

And finally on your other intellectually stimulating point on the right to keep arms.As a matter of fact I DO have a right to keep them as I am a fit and qualified person as are all the other posters who own arms on this board in the eyes of the Irish law.What we are objecting to is an unlawful act that has no legal basis in irish law or preconditions on our liscenses.They can inspect at "reasonable time"with notification of the owner.Not show up when they feel like it.

Sparks

Clare gunner wrote:

Not trying to be bitchy here.

Well, frankly I think woody was very accomodating. He certainly has an excellent setup for secure storage and extended far more than is legally required or requestable from him for the purposes of inspection. Remember, the current wording of the amendment says that you have to either prove you have secure storage or have your secure storage arrangements inspected. However, your constitutional right to privacy means that if the gardai do come calling unannounced for an inspection, you do have the right to refuse entry and reschedule for a convienent time. It might not be the most friendly of gestures, but if my local lad knocked on my door at 0400, it's the response he'd get. And to be fair, I think most gardai wouldn't be so, well, rude.

And *nothing* in the current amendments gives any garda the authority to overrule you on this point. In fact, show up at the station with a photo of the safe, receipts for the purchase and work done, and you've proven you have secure storage according to the amendments; they never need go near the house at all.

But again, as with all these things, it may be far more practicable in the long term for the purposes of a quiet life to just go to the station and be proactive in setting a date for an inspection so that this never arises.

LiouVille wrote:

how about public safety?

Public Safety is equally served with an announced inspection; and there are more important issues from a legal perspective in that you cannot overrule constitutional rights (as per Article 40 of the Constitution).

Clare wrote:

And finally on your other intellectually stimulating point on the right to keep arms.As a matter of fact I DO have a right to keep them as I am a fit and qualified person as are all the other posters who own arms on this board in the eyes of the Irish law.

Argh. Er, no CG, we don't. We have a right to apply for a licence; if that licence is granted we may possess and use firearms; but at no point do we have a legal right to do so. A legal right's a pretty well-defined concept and the argument that we do have a right to them is more or less doomed to failure from the start. If it's not in Article 40, it's not an enumerated legal right; and while we do have the right to do anything that's not illegal, that doesn't mean we have a right to hold firearms, it just means we have a right to apply for permission to hold them. There is the question of property rights, of course; and there we do have a right to own a firearm, but that's not the same as having a right to hold one, as anyone who's had their firearm in Garda storage since '72 can tell you!

Clare gunner

Ok,i'll rephrase that.you have a QUALIFIED legal right to own firearms.As if you are a liscensed person by the state,that does give you a "right"per se to own and posses a firearm.Although the legal heads would say it is a "privilidge".But that is legaljargon speak for the same thing.

Sparks

No, it's not the same thing Clare, there are serious legal differences between the two. And it's not just academic; if we were to go to an barrister like McDowell with that kind of argument, we'd be dismissed out of hand.

woody

Okay another mate got a check last night, apparently there have been a few robberies of Guns in my area so the local Plod are checking peoples facilties, maybe it does make sense.


I did ask about a rack for weapons within the room as it is secure but the Sgt. did'nt think it a good idea, as I was thinking of putting 1 or 2 long firearms on the wall, otherwise I will need another cabinet.

mcguiver

Sounds like an excellent set -up.
Personally I've invited the firearms officer around to give me advice... he always appreciates the offer, but never comes.

I've no problem with them calling at any reasonable time.... my gears all legal + well stowed away. Safe + trigger locks etc.

Maybe I'm biased... (due to my involvement with the authorities etc..) but I can never see an issue once everything is polite and business like.

woody

Well I am looking for a Custom Made Cabinet now for more guns to be stored as it is my fathers and my collection hence more room.

Rovi

woody wrote:

Well I am looking for a Custom Made Cabinet now for more guns to be stored as it is my fathers and my collection hence more room.

Have the Guards raised any issues with having two owners' guns in the same safe/cabinet?
I've always been under the impression that they frowned on this practice, as it means that someone other that the licence holder has access to any particular gun.

It's probably a safety issue. If someone were to open the safe for access to their own guns and found another gun in there, they'd be be overcome by murderous primal urges, would grab the gun for which the are not licenced (:eek:), and would go on a rampage of blood lust and carnage the likes of which has never been seen since that dawn of time!
Or something.



.

woody

Rovi wrote:

Have the Guards raised any issues with having two owners' guns in the same safe/cabinet?
I've always been under the impression that they frowned on this practice, as it means that someone other that the licence holder has access to any particular gun.

It's probably a safety issue. If someone were to open the safe for access to their own guns and found another gun in there, they'd be be overcome by murderous primal urges, would grab the gun for which the are not licenced (:eek:), and would go on a rampage of blood lust and carnage the likes of which has never been seen since that dawn of time!
Or something.



.

We are both dual licensed on everything just in case we are invaded by wombles

Sparks

I think it's more the UK police who've gone nuts on the whole "multiple access" thing Rovi, though I wouldn't be surprised to hear of it happening here

Clare gunner

,

there are serious legal differences between the two. And it's not just academic; if we were to go to an barrister like McDowell with that kind of argument, we'd be dismissed out of hand.

[/QUOTE]

Well,please enlighten me/us then Sparks what is the difference between a qualified legal right and a privilidige??
I must also say your faith in Barristers as the know alls of the law is touching :rolleyes: The majority of the breed that I have met in my work on various different aspects of Irish law were so thick on the subject that they profess to work in that it beggerd belif!! :eek: It was the solicitorthat had done the donkey work for the silk to pontificate about[and usually fcuk up the case as well].Maybe mr Mc Dowell knows the firearms laws back to front ,maybe not.BUT one thing I do know he is a politican first ,barrister now a looong second and will turn anywhich way for an oul vote! Anyway who said anything about going anywhere to him with this?

Sparks

Clare gunner wrote:

Well,please enlighten me/us then Sparks what is the difference between a qualified legal right and a privilidige??

Well, for example, if we had a legal right to hold firearms (as is the case in the US, for example), then we could take the Government to the High Court and/or Supreme Court should they ever introduce any limitations on the ownership of firearms purely on the fact that we had a right to hold firearms and they were imposing limits on it. For example, as I said yesterday, Riggser could bring a case to the court arguing that it was economic discrimination to require him to have a gunsafe before he could exercise his right to hold a firearm. When you only have what amounts to a privilege to hold a firearm, you have to step much more circumspectly

I must also say your faith in Barristers as the know alls of the law is touching :rolleyes:

Ha! I have no such faith Clare! What I mean is that if you think that I can get into hair-splitting arguments too easily, these guys will crack you up as hair-splitting is what they do professionally!

BUT one thing I do know he is a politican first ,barrister now a looong second and will turn anywhich way for an oul vote!

Indeed; but look at the answers we've gotten over the years on questions regarding ownership of firearms in the Dail - especially from McDowell, they're all based on technical interpretation of the law. Hairsplitting. Which means that to get any "real" answers, you have to be careful in choosing your language.

Anyway who said anything about going anywhere to him with this?

No-one; it's merely a habit of mine to look for the weaknesses in an argument (which is the healthier alternative to not looking for them and then finding the opposition poking fingers through the holes in public!).