Boards.ie and consequences

So far today, we have had to pass on our thoughts three seperate times on the topic of why we were preventing the use of shooting.boards.ie as a free place to advertise and drum up support for YAFG, the group we mentioned in our last post. Perhaps some efficiency could be achieved by simply stating our reasoning in public. The decision was made on three grounds:

1. There are two extant legal campaigns being run by the NARGC and NASRPC, with a degree of cooperation between them. A third party here serves no purpose but ego and can only dilute efforts and scarce resources, thus harming the end goal.
2. The founder of this new group has threatened boards.ie more than once with spurious legal action; he has thus forfeited any right to post there, as well as any support the site might have offered him had he not taken that action. As a side point arising from this, any criticism of him or his efforts in any thread would be something he couldn’t respond to, and that would be unfair, so we simply don’t permit the topic.
3. The track record involved here strongly suggests that any effort made will simply do harm to the overall shooting community in the short, medium and long terms, both through incompetence and through the founder’s reputation preceding the group into meetings of any kind with the Powers That Be. This runs completely counter to the personal preferences of the moderators and to the motive behind the forum in the first place – namely to promote Irish shooting.

The efficacy of this group in light of the track record we mentioned in our last post is also something to be called into question.

You would be far better served, in our honest – if somewhat blunt – opinion, by putting your support behind the NASRPC or NARGC, who are already taking court cases in this area with a defined strategy, than some random talking shop set up by someone who has demonstrated repeatedly both an inability and an unwillingness to get the job done.

YAFG

In the traditional spirit of our community, which loves nothing more than to fragment under stress, we learn that Yet Another Group has been formed by one of our regular… contributors to the overall poor image our community is somewhat handicapped by.

One has to wonder – thus far, by our count, this comes to five the number of groups that this founding individual has been involved in, all of which have since suffered an ignominious end result to one extent or another, and while one has been rescued from oblivion by a small cadre of dedicated individuals who put ego second to effort, one wonders why any prospective member would fail to contemplate the track record of failure involved here.

Looking back objectively, we note the politics that the creation of the NRPAI triggered, and while in all fairness the genesis of this strife lies squarely at the feet of the Irish Sports Council, the degree to which that strife was amplified in the final year or three of the NRPAI’s existence (and the means of its transformation to the SSAI — or indeed its suspension, depending on how you interpret the relevant legislation) is mainly a function of the… direction of one individual.

Looking back objectively, we can also evaluate the contributions of FLAG, which took on more risk than its funding could cover, exposing the NRPAI (and subsequently the SSAI) and all of the constituent members of those bodies to the tender mercies of the Sherrif and the Bailiffs had a case ever been lost; and since no case was ever actually won by FLAG (at best, an out-of-court settlement was obtained, which was necessarily a failure from the point of view of those expending time, effort and money to obtain a legal precedent), the knowledge of this fact was a source of considerable stress for many.

Looking back objectively on the end days of the IPSA is a difficult task, as the topic is still sensitive for many, and for good reason. The IPSA represents an unprecedented moment in Irish history, when the State banned an internationally-recognised sport (all international internecine conflict set to one side, at the end of the day IPSC shooting is still a sport enjoyed by a large number of people in safety. It may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but neither is any other sport). Speaking purely subjectively for a moment, this author personally felt the writing was on the wall for the IPSA the day he learnt of the involvement of one particular individual, and subsequent conversations both witnessed and learnt of, seem to bear out the thesis that this individual’s reputation preceded the IPSA in many a meeting to their detriment.

Looking back objectively on the initial posts on this blog, one notes that subsequent to this individual’s track record being brought to the attention of those involved, the group rethought their approach dramatically. One cannot determine the thought processes involved, but subjectively one could imagine that a track record which consists of expended effort for no return, politics for no gain, division and strife as standard operating practice, and a knowledge that such a track record was widely known of in the circles where the group was considering operating, led to such a reconsideration of the probability of success that the effort was deemed to be detrimental to the efforts of the relevant NGBs at the time.

One can only hope that this judgement, which seems perfectly sound and reasonable to this author, will be repeated in this case. Our community has sufficient difficulties with which to occupy its available manpower ten times over; creating more to salve the ego of one individual seems, to this author at least, to be more anti-shooting than the worst excesses of the worst holders of the Minister’s office in the past four decades.

The Commissioner’s Guidelines — Some comments

Some small comments on a rather large document…

As of necessity therefore, these guidelines will be subject to amending and updating as appropriate so as to keep abreast of the legislative provisions as and when commenced as well as emerging case law.

It’s a good thing that the document can be amended; while by and large it’s well-written, there are some rather glaring problems in it as it stands.

Superintendents and chief superintendents of the Garda Síochána are ultimately responsible for the administration of the firearms legislation in their areas and they will continue to act as personae designate under the Firearms Acts 1925 to 2009.

This could be an interesting error, because that personae designate status is questioned by District Court having the authority to overturn their decisions;  a point highlighted later on in the guidelines themselves:

On appeal, the court may – 1. confirm the decision, 2. adjourn the proceedings and direct the issuing person to reconsider the decision in the light of the appeal proceedings, or 3. allow the appeal.

If the Superintendents have personae designata status, then the District Court Judge cannot direct them to grant a licence; yet that is precisely what Section 15A of the Firearms Acts permits.

Now that particular section remains untested in this regard in a courtroom, but the matter is so directly self-contradictory that it shouldn’t have to wait for a test case to be addressed.

(b) Proof of competence in the use of the firearm or ammunition which is subject of the application – depending on the circumstances of each case, an individual who has already possessed a certificate (without any convictions under the Firearms Act, 1925-2009) for a period of a minimum of 1 year may be considered to have fulfilled the proof of competency. First time applicants for firearms certificates may demonstrate that they have acquired a degree of competency in the use of firearms by satisfying the issuing person of having attended a firearms training course, or of having joined an authorised rifle or pistol club or range for the purpose of gaining competency in firearms use, or having previously been granted a firearms training certificate.

A point here is that there is no defined HETAC standard for courses to meet to be acceptable for this this. Current popular advice remains that if your Superintendent asks you to take a course, ask him which one before taking one. Matters such as accreditation are going to be a major issue, with many courses being run for profit without suitable accreditation. Enormous amounts of ill-feeling already exist at present from students in such courses discovering that after significant expenditure, that their certificates carry no meaning with the Powers That Be; or worse, that their instructors are insufficiently accredited to even grant those certificates in the first place.

Caveat Emptor is often heard in these cases; though it remains to be seen if the courts agree with this or if they believe that such accreditation is a major component of the advertising of such courses; in which case ugly charges such as fraud can be brought to bear.

Section 2.2 of application form FCA1 must be completed in full by every applicant for a firearms certificate. (See Annex ‘B’ for further guidance).

Personally, I find this a very vexing stipulation. Like many modern-day people, I have no GP so I can’t fill out Section 2.2; I can’t leave it blank; and I can’t fake it or give “misleading information” on pain of imprisonment.

It’s quite vexing.

(d) The names and addresses of 2 referees who may be contacted to attest to the character of the applicant – referees should be responsible adults and, as the issuing person may need to contact them and verify the information they provide, it is best they reside in the State. As two referees are required, it may be appropriate to differentiate in the nature of their knowledge of the applicant e.g. have one referee who has an intimate knowledge of the applicant such as a close relative and the other a person who, while knowing the applicant well e.g. in a social or work context for over 5 years, is not a relative. In the case of an applicant who has not resided long in the State, a referee who is able to demonstrate knowledge of the applicant and who is acceptable to the Garda Síochána will suffice. A referee must be of good character and shall be independent of the certifying process. (See Annex ‘B’ for further guidance).

And yes, according to the Garda FPU, all applicants need to fill this section. This is in direct contradiction to previous official statements and reassurements from the DoJ. There is a moral concern here and a potential legal one – an applicant who has previously held firearms licences has, by law, been personally approved by a Garda Superintendent. It seems unusual to demand character references in such a case. One would wonder about the motivation for such a requirement.

Where an application is refused, the applicant shall be informed in writing of the refusal and the reason for it. If a decision on an application is not made within this 3 month period then this is deemed to be a refusal under section 15A of the Firearms Act 1925 as inserted by section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006.

The cynic in me wonders how many people are going to be “notified” using section 15A instead of by being explicitly informed that they have been refused…

Section 4(2)(g) of the Firearms Act 1925 as substituted by section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act, 2006 provides that when a firearms certificate is granted it may be subject to a condition or conditions. Furthermore in the case of Joseph Magee v Patrick Murray and Dennis Roche, a judgment delivered by Birmingham J. in the High Court on 24th November 2008, confirmed that the statutory scheme allows a superintendent to impose conditions when granting a firearms certificate under the Firearms Acts.

It should be noted as well that Dunne v Donoghue in the Supreme Court upheld that such conditions could not be blanket preconditions, but had to be individual in nature. Leaving this reference out may cause further issues in the future.

The important issue is the applicant’s character, the reason why he requires the particular firearm and whether that particular applicant can be permitted to possess, use and carry a firearm or ammunition without danger to the public safety or the peace. In light of this judgment superintendents should be mindful of addressing not just the issue of the calibre of the firearm, but must also give adequate weight to the character of the applicant, the reason why the applicant requires the particular firearm and the ability of the applicant to possess, use and carry the particular firearm without danger to the public safety or the peace.

That section is outrageous and shocking.

A High Court Judge staties explicitly that the issue is the applicant, not the firearm. And a Garda Commissioner recommends (thankfully in a roundabout manner) to all Garda Superintendents and Chief Superintendents that they effectively disregard the Judges ruling and consider the applicant as just another factor instead of the sole factor.

It seems perilously close to the definition of sedition.

McCarron Judgement – Contrary Ruling of the High Cou

Drafting guidelines on a minority contrary and contraversial ruling seems… very unwise.

It is clear, therefore, that the judgement in McCarron is authority for the proposition that a superintendent may consider a broad range of factors and issues when deciding whether an applicant for a firearms certificate has satisfied him that he has a good reason for requiring the particular gun.

Except that it’s not clear. What’s clear is that McCarron is a minority contrary judgement and Clarkson acknowledged it as such at the time. What’s clear is it has to go to the Supreme Court to be ruled on. Drafting guidelines based on that kind of ruling is…. well, unwise seems the polite term.

At least this is acknowledged, if only in token form:

Quote:

It is clear that there are now inconsistent judgements of the High Court. The legal position can only be resolved by the Supreme Court. It must be emphasised that the position as stated in McCarron cannot be seen as the settled position.

But including the section at all seems as though the drafters were seeking conflict in a courtroom.

Garda Liaison With Local Gun Clubs It is recommended that the superintendent of each district, or a representative nominated by the superintendent, should meet not less than twice a year, with representatives of all gun clubs in their areas to discuss any problems or issues with regard to firearms licensing.

It’s laudable (though tautological) that this is mentioned; it’s not quite so laudable, that it’s listed as a recommendation when it’s a mandatory legal requirement under the Clubs and Ranges SIs for clubs and ranges to do this. Cyncial thoughts arise as to the prioritisation of a recommended action against that of a legally mandatory one in the to-do list of an overworked Superintendent.

Rifles designed for military/police tactical use or with large magazine capacity are more dangerous and the difference between them and ordinary rifles does not make them any more suited to target and clay shooting.

The same applies to rifles which are variants of military assault rifles, bullpups with folding or telescopic stocks or semi-automatic centrefire calibres. Rifles to be safe should have a barrel length of more than 50cm.

shotguns which have prominent pistol grips or folding or telescopic stocks or a magazine capacity which allows more than three (3) cartridges to be loaded in the shotgun are more dangerous and are no more effective.

Much of this is precisely, completely, utterly  wrong. It is worrysome that the Gardai would display such a poor grasp of technical knowlege in this area.

Quote:

Shotguns, to be safe, should have a barrel not less than 61cm in length and should not resemble a tactical or combat firearm.

For example, one wonders – if shotguns are safer if they don’t look like something else, are they safer if they don’t look like a chocolate eclair? Or does the nature of the ’something else’ have constraints unmentioned in the Guidelines?

The shooting of foxes at night time with the aid of a lamp is not unlawful provided it can be done with the permission of the landowner and it does not occur within 60 feet of the public road.

It is interesting to see the 60 feet limit being cited as having anything to do with the law, since it doesn’t seem to have any basis in law in Ireland. It certainly does in the UK, but since we do not have the Queen’s highways in the Republic, the wording of the law seems non-transferable without alteration; and it hasn’t happened as yet. One may not fire from a public road or a vehicle; but there is no rule in law that I have found at least, which specifies a minimum distance from a road.

Modern reproductions of antique firearms are not exempt from firearms legislation.

This does not make an enormous amount of common sense. Two physically identical muskets should be treated identically under the law.

The protection of life and property is a function of the Garda Síochána and civilians are only entitled to use reasonable force to protect themselves and their property.

I am incredulous that a Garda Commissioner would pen a statement like that. One cannot sue the Gardai for failing to protect you or your property in the event of a homicide or robbery; and Irish citizens are legally permitted to do anything and everything they feel at the time is necessary to protect their life and escape a threat when in extremis. Suggesting otherwise is highly irresponsible.
Especially when it’s not germane to the rule that you can’t have a firearm for personal protection, which is unaffected by the in extremis rules.

Rifles which have folding stocks or are variants of an assault rifle are more dangerous and no more effective.

Oddly, the only way I can think of for a rifle with a folding stock to be more dangerous, is if you caught your fingers in the stock when folding it. And surely a deerhunting rifle which is more dangerous is by definition more effective since it will be more likely to effect a humane kill?

When making a decision whether to grant or renew a firearm certificate, a superintendent or chief superintendent of the Garda Síochána may take into account information available about the individual’s consumption of alcohol or other such substances such as drugs

One must ask – if the Garda knows you’re taking drugs (of the illegal kind), is he not bound by law to arrest you, let alone give you a licence for a firearm?

Other factors which may aid a decision on persons of intemperate habits may include evidence of aggressive or anti-social behavior which may include domestic disputes or any evidence of hostility likely to lead to violence. Again, an assessment will need to be made of each case, particularly as regards the seriousness of individual incidents.

One wonders if publicly criticising the Garda Commissioner for seditious behaviour will be seen as an intemperate habit?
Or maybe whether asking in the pages of the Irish Shooters Digest if the Gardai and DoJ have ‘lost it’ would be such?
Or, indeed, half the stuff that happens in the shooting community along those lines?

issuing persons should be alert to cases in which a general practitioner’s report reveals that an applicant has exhibited, or is exhibiting, signs of depression, suicidal tendencies, longstanding or intermittent periods of either emotional instability or unpredictable behavior.

It would be interesting to hear the opinion of Irish Medical bodies on the suitability of General Practitioners to make judgements regarding the mental health of an applicant based on the average time spent in consultation with them. It’s hard to wonder if it might also be a rather expletive-filled conversation…

Silencers are designed to reduce the report of the firearm so as to conceal the position of the shooter, and also to reduce the felt recoil.

Most shooters would probably have said they were designed to reduce to report of the firearm so as to make it quieter.

Quote:

The use of silencers on deer hunting rifles has become increasingly popular in recent times. Previously this was regarded as unsporting and unnecessary.

Previously, it was felt unnecessary to provide the Irish Army with hearing protection during firearms training as well. This also proved a costly mistake.

These advantages must be weighed against the safety to others (other shooters, walkers, foresters, farmers) having available to them the clear audible report – rather than a significantly lower report when a silencer is fitted – of a rifle, thereby giving them a general direction in which possible danger lies.

Sir, if your plan to avoid danger requires you to wait for the rifle to be fired so you can hear the bullet coming and dodge it somehow, you need a new plan.

The Commissioner’s Guidelines

Finally released (and it would be difficult to describe their release as timely) today are the Commissioner’s Guidelines for the Practical Application of the Firearms Acts.

Cynical comments as to the motive for releasing such an important and delayed document at four p.m. on a Friday may be taken as read…

The Garda Commissioner’s Guidelines as to the Practical Application and Operation of the Firearms Acts, 1925-2009.

Issued in accordance with section 3A of The Firearms Act, 1925 as inserted by section 31 of the Criminal Justice Act, 2006.

Foreword

Section 31 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 (which inserts a new section 3A into the Firearms Act, 1925) as amended by section 29 of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 provides that the Garda Commissioner with the consent of the Minister, may from time to time, issue Guidelines in relation to the practical application and operation of any provision of the Firearms Acts 1925 to 2009, or of any regulation made under any provision of those Acts, and may also issue Guidelines in relation to applications for firearm certificates and authorisations under this Act and to the conditions which may be attached to those certificates and authorisations.

Part 5 of the Criminal Justice Act, 2006 provides a wide range of amendments to the Firearms Acts to strengthen the law governing the control of firearms. It addresses such matters as the new firearm certification process, the authorisation of rifle and pistol clubs and shooting ranges and the registration of firearms dealers.

These Guidelines are intended to set out in practical terms, for the benefit of members of the Garda Síochána and the public alike, how the complex area of firearms legislation may be applied and this document should be read in conjunction with firearms legislation, in particular the new sections as outlined below.

The remaining sections of the Criminal Justice Act, 2006 relating to the amending of the Firearms Act, 1925 have been commenced as well as the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 which provides for stricter controls on the licensing of firearms.

As of necessity therefore, these guidelines will be subject to amending and updating as appropriate so as to keep abreast of the legislative provisions as and when commenced as well as emerging case law.

This document is a ‘Best Practice’ document which Chief Superintendents and Superintendents may have recourse to when considering applications for Firearms Certificates within their respective Divisions or Districts, and as an aid to the implementation of the Firearms Acts 1925-2009. Chief Superintendents and Superintendents should ensure however, that the members under their control are fully aware of the contents of this document.

I am particularly grateful to the staff of the Firearms Policy Unit, advised by the Legal Section, Crime Policy & Administration, Garda Headquarters for their expertise, knowledge and skill in compiling this document.

M.F. MURPHY,
COMMISSIONER OF AN GARDA SÍOCHÁNA
4TH SEPTEMBER 2009

Firearms Licence Renewal Information

Just a single post in order to centralise all the information so far.

• The main Garda page on the new regulations
• The new Firearms Application/Renewal Form
• The new Firearms Amendment/Cancellation Form
• The new Firearms Rifle and Pistol Club licencing Form
• The new Non-Resident Firearms Certificate Application Form
• Frequently Asked Questions on Licencing:
  Quote:

  POPULAR QUESTIONS IN RELATION TO NEW FIREARMS LICENSING PROCESSES Q. What do I do when my current Firearm Certificate expires on 31st July 2009? A. Do nothing until you receive a letter from the Garda Commissioner which will extend your current firearms certificate for at least three months and a maximum of twelve months. This extension will be free of charge. You will be informed in the letter when you can apply for a new 3 year firearm certificate under the new legislation Q. Will there be a limit on the number of firearms an individual may have licensed? A. There is no limit. However, new minimum security standards will now be required of holders of firearm certificates in relation to the provision of secure accommodation for their firearms. The level of security is dependent on the number of firearms certified to an individual. Q. Who can apply for Training Certificate? What is the age limit? Can a trainee use any firearm? A. Any person over 14 years of age can apply for a firearms training certificate. The training certificate does not entitle the holder to actually own a firearm and the certificate can only apply to a non-restricted firearm. The person must always be under the supervision of a specified person over 18 years of age who holds a firearm certificate in respect of it. The training certificate shall continue in force for 3 years unless revoked. Q. Where can I get a new application form for a Firearms Certificate and who do I apply to? A. All application forms that apply to the new firearms legislation can be obtained at any Garda Station or on www.garda.ie An application for a non restricted firearm certificate shall be made on form FCA1 to the superintendent of the district where the applicant resides. If the application refers to a restricted firearm, the superintendent shall forward the application to the chief superintendent of that division. Q. How much is a new Firearms Certificate and what is its duration? A. All new firearms certificates will cost €80 and will remain in force for 3 years from the date it was granted unless revoked. The collection of fees will be outsourced to An Post and no money will now be accepted at Garda Stations for firearms certificates. Q. Where can I get more information in relation to Firearm Licensing? A. The Garda Commissioner has issued Guidelines as to the practical application and operation on the firearm acts 1925-2009. These Guidelines should be read as an aid to recently enacted firearms legislation, in particular the Criminal Justice Act 2006 and the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions Act) 2009. The Guidelines are available on www.garda.ie

• From the Department of Justice today:
  Quote:

  As you know the new system starts tomorrow on 1 August 2009. The Garda Commissioner started issuing extension letters earlier this week to all existing licence holders and I understand that the new application form is up on the Garda website. A range of documents will be signed by the Minister tomorrow to give effect to the following Two fees order (one for the outsourced fees and one on for the non outsourced ones); Commencement Order for the remaining elements of CJA 2006 (28, 30, 32 and 33); Commencement Order for substantial parts of Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 (sections 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 37, 39, 40 (part), 41, 42, 43 and 44); New target shooting Clubs S.I.; New secure accommodation regulations for storage of firearms. Please note that the personal import ban does not come into effect for some time yet because we will have to address in the context of the EU Weapons Directive so sections 34, 36 and 38 aren’t being commenced just yet. Copies of the S.I.s will be available early next week. We will address the ranges S.I. and an amended restricted firearms S.I. in due course.

Legislation status

From the DoJ, please note that the dates are when the Minister is expected to sign documents, not a guarantee.:

As you know the new system starts tomorrow on 1 August 2009.

The Garda Commissioner started issuing extension letters earlier this week
to all existing licence holders and I understand that the new application
form is up on the Garda website.

A range of documents will be signed by the Minister tomorrow to give effect to the following

·     Two fees order (one for the outsourced fees and one on for the non
outsourced ones);
·     Commencement Order for the remaining elements of CJA 2006 (28, 30, 32 and 33);
·     Commencement Order for substantial parts of Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 (sections 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35,  37, 39, 40 (part), 41, 42, 43 and 44);
·     New target shooting Clubs S.I.;
·     New secure accommodation regulations for storage of firearms.

Please note that the personal import ban does not come into effect for some time yet becase we will have to address in the context of the EU Weapons Directive so sections 34, 36 and 38 aren’t being commenced just yet.

Copies of the S.I.s will be available early next week.

We will address the ranges S.I. and an amended restricted firearms S.I. in due course.

The curious case of Section 38

With the new Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2009 now past the Dail and Seanad and merely awaiting the near-formality of the Presidential signature, the only real decision as to when it comes into effect is the Minister’s.

However, one would hope that the Minister would utilise the granularity of the commencement process that was so heavily used in the Firearms section of the Criminal Justice Act 2006, as several aspects of the language in this new Act-to-be seem to be unfit for purpose at first reading. Consider, for our first example, Section 36 and Section 38.

In Irish Firearms legislation, imports and exports are considered separately, by Section 16 and Section 17 of the Firearms Act respectively, together with the additional regulations imposed on the system by EU directive 91/477/EEC and its corresponding SI in the Irish statute books (SI 362 of 1993). Section 16 deals with exports, and has not been modified by the recent Act-to-be. Section 17, however, has.

The history of Section 17 is a relatively straightforward one by comparison to the more byzantine amendment histories of more contentious sections of the Firearms Acts, and is germane to the point here, so let us relate it. The original Section written in 1925 has survived to this year with only one relevant amendment, made in 1964 (a later amendment which modified the role of the Minister for Defence is not relevant to the matter at hand). This 1964 amendment (Section 21 of the 1964 Firearms Act) is important as it introduced the following exemption from the importation controls that Section 17 defines, specifically stating that:

The restriction imposed by section 17 of the Principal Act on the importation into the State of firearms shall not apply in relation to the importation of a firearm by the holder of a firearm certificate in respect of the firearm which is in force.

It is this exemption that underlines not merely the standard importation procedure for personal importation of licenced firearms in Ireland, but which also permits a firearms certificate holder to travel abroad and return home with their firearm, whether to hunt or to attend a target shooting competition, without needing to become a firearms dealer and obtain an importation licence from the Department of Justice each and every time. When the Firearms Acts were drafted in 1925, the phenomenon of international travel was not a typical affair, except in the all-too-common case of the permanent emigrant, who was sadly not going to come under the aegis of Section 17 (or indeed any of the Firearms Act) anyway. The hey-day of large international target shooting competitions, such as the famous Creedmore matches, was by that stage past; the average income of a shooter was relatively low, and the modern phenomenon of the cheap package holiday to Majorca simply did not exist, even in the minds of the best science fiction writers of the day. And for the rich or dedicated few who could go abroad, there was provision in 17(4) for the Minister to grant an occasional licence on the strength of the firearms certificate held by the shooter in question.  By 1964, the cost of travel had sufficiently changed, and the proximity of major shooting centres like that at Bisley in the UK created a requirement for this exemption to take an amount of useless administrative work from the Department of Justice, and it has seen extensive duty since 1964, as Irish target shooters have brought home medals from almost every major shooting event in the World with the exception of the Olympics (where we have yet to repeat the 1904 gold medal won in the London Games that year).

However, Section 38 of the Miscellaneous Provisions Act-to-be will repeal this much-used exemption by repealing all of Section 21 of the 1964 Act; and Section 36 of the Act-to-be will replace completely Section 17 of the Firearms Act with a new Section 17, one which does not permit occasional or continuing licences to be granted to anyone bar a registered firearms dealer. And in doing this, it is conceivable that the language chosen by the drafters will have some unintended – or worse, undefined – consequences.

Consider the proposed new Section 17(1) :

17.-(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Firearms (Firearms Certificates for Non-Residents) Act 2000, no person, other than a registered firearm dealer, shall import into the State any firearm, ammunition, or prohibited weapon.

And contrast this to the original 17(1):

17.—(1) No person shall import into Saorstát Eireann any firearm, ammunition, or prohibited weapon unless such import is authorised by a continuing licence granted under this section and in force at the time, or by an occasional licence granted under this section and relating to the specific firearm, ammunition or prohibited weapon so imported.

The rest of the new version of this Section is concerned with continuing and occasional import licences which can only be granted to Registered Firearms Dealers in Ireland. Contrasting the two articles however, one wonders if the rest of the Section is wasted in this regard. It seems an open question as to whether the complete lack of any mention in the new Section 17 of the requirement for an RFD to have authorisation for an import, or a licence to do so, would be grounds to argue in court that in fact no such licence is required for an RFD to import any firearm they so desire, regardless of its status as Restricted or otherwise. Obviously possession of such a Restricted firearm once the import was complete would be problematical for anyone not licenced to possess it, but this would suggest that a personal importation of a Restricted firearm could be carried out by means of an RFD importing the firearm and the licenced owner taking possession of it at the collection point from Customs; this would mean that the RFD would not require a Restricted firearms dealer’s licence to import a Restricted firearm, albeit under a closely defined set of circumstances.

If this assessment is correct, then a single successful test case would mean that the stated intent of this new Section 17, namely the elimination of personal imports where the individual does not leave the state to collect his or her firearm, will not have been realised. It must be emphasised for clarity that such a test case is both necessary, and would have to defend against Section 17(8), which states that it is an offence to import a firearm without a licence:

(8) If any person imports into the State a firearm or prohibited weapon or any ammunition without or otherwise than in accordance with a licence under this section authorising such importation or, in the case of ammunition, in quantities in excess of those so authorised, or fails to comply with any condition named in a licence granted to him or her under this section, he or she shall be guilty of an offence under this Act and shall be punishable accordingly.

However, even without the digression of this test case, the officially-stated intent of the Minister would appear to be thwarted here by poor wording. The officially stated intent of the Minister in this area, as related by official sources in the Department of Justice, is to permit the personal importation of a firearm by an individual if that individual leaves the state to collect the firearm; as well as to not interfere with return journeys by target shooters to other countries for competitions or similar events. The form of import that was intended to be banned is where the shooter obtains a firearms certificate and has the firearm sent to him or her from abroad without leaving the state to collect it in person.

The proposed new Section 17(1), however, will not permit the importation of any firearm by any private individual – and with Section 21 of 1964 repealed, this no longer excludes returning to the State with a firearm for which that individual holds a valid firearms certificate. This would not only impact upon the in-person collection of firearms from abroad by an individual who has been granted the relevant firearms certificate by the Gardai; it would also mean that any target shooter leaving the state with his or her firearm to attend, say, the London Olympics in 2012, could do so with relative ease under the same procedures used today, but on their return journey would find themselves in breach of 17(1) should they attempt to enter the country with their firearm. Circumventing this would be impossible unless a friendly Registered Firearms Dealer should arrange an importation licence to facilitate their return. The cost of such service would of course have to include any importation licence processing fee.

Even the possession of a European Firearms Pass is of no benefit to the Irish shooter in this regard, as it makes provision only for Irish shooters travelling to other States, and no provision for the return journey; no such provision was necessary when Section 21 of the 1964 Act existed, as any Irish shooter with a European Firearms Pass had it by way of possessing an Irish Firearms Certificate and thus had automatic permission to return to the country with their firearm. Ironically, under the proposed new Section 17, a non-resident coming to Ireland to shoot would have no difficulties – both the new Section 17 and the European Firearms Pass SI make explicit provision permitting their entry to the State with their firearms. To most native Irish shooters, such a state of affairs would seem… unusually unbalanced.

Preventing this chaotic and embarrassingly disjointed situation was the entire point of Section 21 of the 1964 Act; repealing it would seem to serve little purpose but to undermine the Minister’s stated goals in this area, which is a curious state of affairs. Perhaps holding off on commencing Section 36 and 38 until such time as the result of such commencement could be further considered would be the most prudent course.

Hurlers on the ditch

One of the worst aspects of new legislation which further restricts an activity which arguably needed no such restrictions in the first place, is not something suffered from without, but from within. In sports administration, there are various forms known of the 2% rule, which states that 2% of the people do 98% of the work. Depending on the proclivities of the sport’s participants with regard to doing their bit for their fellow sportsmen, that rule varies from being shooting’s 2% rule to being anything as high as a 10% rule.

However, when something goes wrong, where there’s an opportunity for rocks to be thrown, it would appear that the sudden appearance of that quintessential and utterly detestable Irish figure of the Hurler on the Ditch is inevitable.

Already, we’ve seen some examples of this on shooting.boards.ie and no doubt we’ll see more; certainly other websites, even official NGB ones, have given these figures “airtime” in the pas, and no doubt such figures make excellent aides for those whose interests in the sport lean far more to the side of politics and infighting than to the side of actual sport; a situation which ensures that a useful Hurler can often find a “friend” in high places, happily passing on the “inside scoop” on events… even if that scoop is unverifiable (a point that most Hurlers care little for as they have little interest in verified fact, their interests lie elsewhere).

The reason it is one of the worst aspects, however, is not so twee as “being betrayed by one of our own”, because frankly, target shooters in Ireland and elsewhere are not a single cohesive group or even a loosely knit one, but are instead more akin in many ways to seven-year-old siblings sharing a room. Which is why the Firearms Consultation Panel was such a surprising success, despite all of its inherent limitations and obvious politicing. No, the reason that it is one of the worst aspects is that the Hurler almost never sees the play up close, and so almost always points the finger at the wrong player when a foul is called, or indeed, calls a foul where only rulebook play has happened.

It’s not so much the accusations themselves, so much as their obvious erroneousness, and the time it then costs to point out that error; if indeed, the practicalities of confidential agreements allows it to be done.

This is why full disclosure and transparent administration is a good thing – a Hurler who’s forced to see the action up close typically finds it harder to call a play wrong unless it actually is wrong…

Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2009

This rather inauspicious Bill has finally made its way through initial publication and its presentation in the Dail for the Second Stage Debate, and is currently awaiting its appearance in the Committee Stage (currently scheduled for June 18). Debate on the Bill has been heated, both in the Dail and outside it; and many errors and omissions have been noted. Perhaps now is the time for an interim summary post.

First of all, the actual references:

The Criminal Justice (Misc.Provisions) Bill 2009 and its Explanatory Memorandum.

The Second Stage Debate in the Dail, parts One, Two, Three and Four.

Now, a more detailed look.

Election time

Given the proximity of the elections, the following was sent to each of the current MEP candidates:

What are your thoughts on how the latest proposed amendments to the Irish Firearms Acts – as contained in the Criminal Justice (Misc.Provisions) Bill 2009 – contravene the EU directive on Firearms (91/477/EEC) by requiring all Irish firearms owners to only purchase ammunition or firearms from _Irish_ registered firearms dealers instead of the current (and in force since 1964) laws that allow them to purchase from any registered firearms dealer in the EU so long as the appropriate paperwork is in place?

And each of the major parties was asked (by email and by twitter) for their official policy (as opposed to statements by individual party members) on the private ownership of firearms (including handguns) for the purposes of target shooting and/or hunting.

Responses (if any) to be added later…