The Bill falls naturally into two parts. First of all, it is proposed that all airguns and similar weapons should be brought within the definition of "firearm" thereby making it unlawful for them to be kept or used by children, and providing also that they may be kept and used by adults only on foot of firearm certificates. The present position is that smooth-bore air guns of a calibre of .22 inches or more and all rifled airguns are deemed to be firearms, but smooth-bore airguns below .22 in calibre are not. It is these latter guns that are now being covered by this Bill.
I think that Senators generally will agree that it is desirable to introduce this control on the use of airguns. The number of injuries caused by the use of airguns is high enough to warrant this step, and while we can agree that it is unfortunate that a few accidents, mainly due to carelessness, should force the community to deprive all children of what under proper supervision should be a harmless recreation, I think most people would take the view, first of all, that to remove airguns from the hands of children is not an excessive hardship on them nowadays when there is a large variety of other amusements available to them, and, secondly, that the proposal is justified inasmuch as it can confidently be depended on to reduce the incidence of injuries some of which—especially the loss of an eye —are of a particularly distressing nature and, unlike most injuries, last for life.
The Bill, apart from prohibiting the use of airguns by persons below a certain age, proposes that no adult may have or use an airgun without a firearm certificate. I think that this provision is essential to ensure that the substantial numbers of airguns at present in the hands of children are not retained, as a matter of course, by adult members of the household, many of whom in practice would find that, if an airgun formerly owned by a child were left lying about, it would be used by the child. It is reasonable to assume that when the Bill becomes law, the majority of airguns at present held by young persons will be destroyed. Those adults who opt to retain them on foot of a certificate will have a clear-cut legal responsibility for ensuring that they are not used by young persons.
Closely allied with the foregoing provisions is the one in Section 17 that proposes to raise from 15 to 16 years the minimum age at which a person may obtain a firearm certificate.
The remaining provisions of the Bill are generally tidying up provisions designed to round off the main Act of 1925.
Section 15 adds to the categories of persons who may possess, and in some cases use, firearms and ammunition without the necessity for a firearm certificate. In connection with the prohibition on airguns it will be of interest to note that one of the exempted categories embraces persons, of any age, using rifle ranges at carnivals and another embraces members, of any age, of rifle and gun clubs using their weapons at a range or other place that is approved by the police. Other persons proposed to be exempted are auctioneers and their employees and persons taking part in theatrical performances etc., and there are some others. Provision is being made for adequate police control in relation to these exemptions.
Section 3 empowers the Minister for Justice, at the request of the Minister for Lands and in the interest of game preservation, to make orders, with a validity of not more than a month, prohibiting the use or carriage of firearms, but not their possession, either generally or in a particular locality. The Minister for Lands considers that in certain circumstances this may be the only effective method of preventing the slaughter of game in particularly severe weather. Section 4 has a rather similar provision. It proposes to empower the Minister for Justice to make an order for the handing up to the police of all firearms or particular types of firearms in a particular area for a period not exceeding a month. This of course is a provision that would not be used save on the rarest occasions.
Sections 7 and 8 contain detailed provisions for the disposal of firearms that are at present in police hands or that will come into the possession of police, and which under the law as it stands the police are obliged to retain indefinitely. The proposal is that, where the owners of such weapons do not, within a reasonable time, make arrangements for the sale or disposal of the weapons in accordance with law, the police may themselves put them up for sale. If they sell them, the proceeds must be handed over to the owner if he is known. If they fail to sell them and think that further efforts to sell are unlikely to be successful, the weapons may be destroyed. There are detailed safeguards for the rights of owners.
There was some adverse comment in the Dáil in relation to Section 24 which proposes to relieve the prosecution of the onus of having to prove that a firearm certificate, importation licence or other written authorisation in relation to firearms does not exist. As I explained in the Dáil, I have unambiguous legal advice that the section will not mean that if a defendant loses a certificate, he will be automatically convicted. Its primary object is to relieve the prosecution of the expenses of having to bring witnesses long distances to prove that no certificate is in force in those cases where the defence makes no serious claim that a certificate, etc. exists. The effect of the section is that the defence must not only plead that a certificate was granted but give reasonable evidence as to where and when it was granted, but all that is needed in this regard is sufficient evidence to create in the mind of the court a substantial doubt. Once that doubt exists, the Court obviously must acquit unless the prosecution adduces evidence to offset the doubt.
I do not think it necessary to delay the House with comments in relation to the remaining sections of the Bill at this stage as the explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill has indicated the purpose of each section.
Finally, I should like to repeat what I said in the Dáil on the question of consolidation. I had considered the possibility of making this a consolidating measure because of the relatively large number of amendments but I decided in order to bring in this ban on airguns as quickly as possible not to consolidate on this occasion. In any event most of the proposals in the Bill are additions to rather than amendments of the main Act.
I commend the Bill to the Seanad.