Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 28 Apr 1925

Vol. 11 No. 4

PUBLIC BUSINESS. - FIREARMS BILL, 1925.—SECOND STAGE.

These are our permanent proposals with regard to firearms, and I take it there is no particular necessity for me to argue from the point of view of the preservation of peace and order in the country that it is necessary to have the possession of firearms restricted and controlled. I feel certain that Deputies will agree with me in saying that such restriction in the country is of paramount importance. Deputies are aware that under the Public Safety (Emergency Powers) Act, and then by the Firearms (Temporary Provisions) Act of last year, as continued by the Firearms (Temporary Provisions) (Continuance) Act, 1925, we controlled and restricted the use of firearms.

Power was reserved under the enactments referred to to make regulations for the issue of permits or certificates to be in the possession of firearms. These certificates were issued by the police forces throughout the country, and to meet the expenses in connection with the issue, a fee of 5/- for each certificate was charged. These certificates did not relieve the holder from the provisions of the existing law as to the possession of firearms, in that when a person obtained his certificate from the police he had still to comply with the provisions of the Gun Licence Act, 1870, or, if he wished to shoot game, of the Game Certificates (Ireland) Act, 1842, as amended by the Game Licence Act, 1860. These statutes are still in force, and the position under them is shortly as follows:—Under the Gun Licence Act, 1870, every person who uses or carries a gun as defined by the Act, that is, a firearm of any description, has to take out a yearly excise licence at a cost of 10/-, unless he uses or carries such gun only in a dwelling-house or the curtilage thereof. Certain persons are excepted from the necessity of taking out such a licence, the principal being persons in possession of a game licence; persons carrying a gun for the possessor of a game licence; an occupier of lands using or carrying a gun for the purpose only of scaring birds, or of killing vermin on such lands, a gun-smith, or a common carrier.

Under the Game Licence Acts a person wishing to use a gun for the purpose of taking or killing game must take out a yearly licence at a cost of £3, or he can obtain a half-yearly licence for £2, or a fortnightly licence for £1. These Acts are in force at the moment, and from the point of view of the public, who are desirous of possessing or using firearms, two distinct steps must be taken by them—namely, (1) the obtaining of a certificate from the police authorities, and (2) the obtaining of the appropriate licence from the Excise authorities. I have thought it better that, if possible, the public should be relieved of having to go to two distinct authorities in this manner, and accordingly the Bill before you for consideration proceeds on the basis of enabling the Gárda Síochána to issue full certificates for the possession and use of firearms. The Bill at the moment is silent as to the amount of fees to be charged in the various cases. These fees, however, have been agreed upon between my Department and the Department of Finance, but for convenience' sake it has been thought more desirable that they should be included in the Finance Bill. However, I think it proper that in considering this Bill you should be aware of these agreed fees which are as follow, namely:—

1.—For a firearm certificate for a rifle or revolver, with or without ammunition therefor, 5s. 2.—For a firearm certificate for a shot gun, with or without ammunition therefor, limited to use for the destruction of vermin on lands belonging to the person to whom the certificate is granted, 5s. 3.—For any other firearms certificate in respect of a shot gun—(a) for one such certificate, £2; (b) where two or more certificates are granted to the same person not necessarily at the same time and expiring on the same date, for the first such certificate, £2; for the second and every such subsequent certificate, 5s.

It will be seen that the net result of these fees is that the farmer who wishes to be in possession of a gun for the destruction of vermin on his own lands is placed in exactly the same position as he is at present, namely, that he has to pay 5s. for his certificate. A change, however, has been effected with regard to the possession of shot-guns by persons other than farmers, in that any such person who wishes to possess and use a shot-gun must pay a yearly sum of £2 for the certificate, and such certificate will entitle them to use the gun for all purposes, including the destruction of game. In other words, what was commonly known in former times as the 10s. licence has been abolished, and the cost of the game licence has been reduced from £3 to £2. Many complaints have been made to me with regard to the destruction of game in this country, and it has been pointed out, with a great deal of truth, that with any sort of preservation the game of the country could well become a national asset and a source of considerable wealth. After careful investigation I have come to the conclusion that one of the chief causes of the unauthorised destruction of game in the past has been the abuse of the 10s. licence. That licence did not entitle the holder to destroy game, yet invariably the possessor of such a licence fired and, with luck, killed any game which he came across. Not only that, but many possessors of the 10/- licence were foremost in destroying game in the close season. Accordingly, we propose the total abolition of the 10/- licence, and while doing that, we do not want to put it out of the reach of any man who may not be possessed of great wealth to obtain a certificate entitling him to kill game. To ensure that, the £3 payable in the past for a game licence is now being reduced to £2, and I think that anyone thinking over these proposals and the effect of them will not disapprove. At this stage it is probably unnecessary to go through the various sections. Deputies will be conversant with the purport of them. Sections 2 to 6, inclusive, and Section 8 regulate the possession, use and carriage of firearms. Section 7 enables permits, as distinct from certificates, to be issued in certain specified cases. Sections 9 to 13, inclusive, provide for the registration of firearms dealers and lay down the conditions to be complied with by such dealers. With regard to firearms dealers, it might be well to mention that it is the intention to charge an annual fee of £1 in respect of such registration. This is, I think, a reasonable amount and will help to defray the expenses in connection with such registration. Section 14 deals with the prohibition of the possession and manufacture of weapons discharging noxious liquids, for instance, flame-throwers, gas bombs and so on. Sections 16 to 18, inclusive, deal with the restrictions on the export, import or removal of firearms or ammunition. Section 19 prohibits firearms being taken in pawn. Sections 20, 21 and 23 confer on the Gárda Síochána powers necessary for the due enforcement of the Bill. Sections 22 and 24 provide for forfeiture and punishments. As I indicated at the outset, the necessity for these restrictions can scarcely be disputed, and I think that the measures of restriction prescribed in the Bill should meet with general approval. I move the Second Reading.

The Bill in its main object is accepted. The object is to see that firearms are kept under strict supervision. But one would like to know what the Minister means by a farmer, because a particular constituent of mine has written me several letters. His complaint is that he is a farmer, that he has a farm and is refused permission to possess a gun. He resides near Bray, and he grows vegetables. He says that he has complied with all the regulations and that still the Minister refuses, on the report of the Superintendent of the Civic Guard, to give him a gun. What is a farm? What dimensions of ground constitute a farm? Then again, this particular constituent seems to think that he is badly used, and he has asked me to bring this question forward in the Dáil. I presume that any plot-holder in an urban area would not be considered a farmer for the purpose of this Bill and that he would not get a gun for a five-shilling licence. I also want to ask if the Minister, under Section 24, intends to give a farmer six months' imprisonment for not taking out a licence for a gun. That seems to me rather an extraordinary punishment:—"Any person who commits an offence under this Act in respect of which no other punishment is provided by this Act shall be liable in respect of such offence on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or six months' imprisonment." I do not think the farmers will agree to that.

The Deputy can move an amendment in the form of, "any person except a farmer."

The Minister agrees that that is too severe. On the whole we all agree that provisions as to registration and care as to whom firearms are issued is absolutely necessary. But there is one point I would like to bring before the Minister. I have had a complaint in my district that many dealers who, under the British regime, sold firearms, are now refused certificates to do so. It seems an injustice that a man who hitherto had the privilege of dealing in cartridges and such things should now be deprived of it, and I would like to know what regulations the Minister is making in that respect and how he differentiates between the various dealers, whether they must be members of the Cumann na nGaedheal or otherwise. I am not saying that that is the case, but it looks very much like that. A serious complaint has been made by one dealer that he has been refused a licence, and from my point of view he is eminently suitable to hold a licence.

Has he a farm?

No, he has not.

The Bill provides for the regulation and use of firearms, and in my judgment it is a very drastic measure. After all, under normal conditions, the proper use of firearms, that is to say, shotguns, young people going out for an afternoon's sport with a gun, and that sort of thing, is not reprehensible, nor do I think the conditions ought to be made as drastic as they are in this Bill. We know that down the country there are not too many entertainments for young people and a good many of them have occupied their time and their energy, not badly, in going out with a gun and having a shot at whatever they could come across.

Man or beast?

At one time it was the landlord, but latterly I do not know who it is. Such a youth as I have described, if he wanted to observe the law in all its forms and ceremonies, took out a 10/- licence and went out with his gun, generally on a Saturday afternoon or on Sunday, and, as the Minister has said, if he had a bit of luck got a bird or two, and if not he came home without one. At all events, he had the healthy exercise of walking about the country, and as a rule he did no harm to anybody. Where there was valuable game it was preserved, and it will continue to be preserved against poaching. To ask that young person to take out a licence costing him £2, with the additional cost of his ammunition, and possibly car-fare to go to some place where he might be likely to get some game, is, I think, asking too much. Then, I think the penalties at the end of the Bill seem to be rather drastic. I think the Minister for Justice is rather sanguine about the law-abiding capacity of the people under the new order of things. He expects a race of archangels to come along. Because when he is putting down penalties for a person going out chancing his arm with a gun over his shoulder, he puts down penalties in this Bill whereby a man is sent to jail for six months.

The Deputy will notice that the penalty is on summary conviction "not exceeding £50, or at the discretion of the court to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both such fine and such imprisonment." These are maximum penalties.

Of course, the maximum penalty is not generally enforced. In the old times, I remember, as a young fellow, having occasionally gone out with a gun and possibly without a licence, and possibly I would have thought it a very great hardship to be put into jail for doing that. At all events, even if it is a maximum penalty, it is putting a reading on what might be considered less heinous than the sentence would seem to indicate. I suggest to the Minister, at all events, that if a man is going out to shoot game, it is right and proper that he should pay for a game licence. To enact that everybody who uses a gun should pay £2 for a licence is too much.

Not everyone who uses a gun.

Except the farmers.

For the man using a gun on his own land the proposal is that he pay 5/- for a licence.

Yes. Does the Deputy want it for five years? The licence will be £2 for people shooting on land not their own. That includes a game licence.

I might venture to suggest to the Minister that in the case of the farmer who takes a 5/- licence to shoot over his own land, it is expecting rather much of human nature to say that he is to confine himself to his own land, or anything like that. I think it is a loose definition of what a man may do. It certainly will encourage the taking out of 5/- licences, and I also think it will not at all mean that a man is going to stay on his own land with his gun. Even so, I think that differentiation between a farmer and an ordinary man is rather extreme, because it certainly seems to me that 5/- licences will be very prevalent over the country districts, and that £2 licences will be scarce, and the men who will have the 5/- licences will use them for shooting game.

If they are caught, they will be liable to the penalty that the Deputy is denouncing.

I am inclined to agree with what Deputy Hewat has said. I consider that a sum of £2 for a licence is actually driving the farmer, or the farmer's son, from using a gun, except on his own land, and that this 5/- licence, as the Minister for Justice has told us, gives him no right to shoot anything except to scare crows, or to protect his crops from vermin. Heretofore, that privilege was allowed to farmers without any payment whatsoever. Under the old regime, the farmer could use his gun on his own farm, to protect his crops, scare crows, and destroy vermin, without the payment of anything whatever. Now, there is an additional tax of 5/- put on him for carrying a gun at all, on his own farm. With that licence he cannot shoot. He can only scare crows, or destroy vermin. It prohibits him from shooting a bird of any sort, except vermin. I believe that £2 is entirely too much, and I believe that there should be something intermediate, a sum between £2 and 5/-. I say that because, in some districts, there is no game whatever, or practically none. In my own district there is very little game, and it would certainly not pay anyone to pay £2 for the game that he would be likely to get. This Bill deprives the farmer of taking a shot at anything unless he first pays £2. This thing of paying 5/- for shooting on your own lands does not allow the farmer to shoot. It only allows him to scare crows and kill vermin.

The Deputy is wrong.

I take it, as it stands, it does not allow him to kill birds.

What do you mean by birds?

A pheasant.

Well, you cannot shoot a wood pigeon. You can only shoot a hawk. I am not talking about pheasants, which are game. This licence of £2 is all right where game is plentiful. By this Bill the farmer or his sons, who have not much means, are prevented from carrying a gun. They could not afford to pay £2. You are giving the benefit to the big man who is to shoot game. You are reducing what he had to pay by 20/-, and increasing what the other man had to pay. I hold that you ought to have some intermediate fee whereby a man could carry a gun and shoot birds without having to pay anything as high as £2.

Does the Minister say that a farmer can shoot rabbits for 5/-?

Yes: a farmer taking out the 5/- licence I spoke of can shoot anything he meets on his land, except certain specified birds.

What does it allow him actually to shoot?

He can shoot rabbits, wood pigeons and crows—anything of the sort that is destroying his crops.

I thought the Minister made a statement to the effect that you are only allowed to scare crows.

The Deputy thought he could only hurt their feelings. He can shoot, having that 5/- licence, over his own land, everything except game. With a £2 licence he can go anywhere and shoot anything, except his neighbour.

I quite agree as regards the £2 licence, but who can afford to pay £2?

I am wondering what all this discussion is about. This is called a Firearms Bill. Section 8 is an important section and gives a list of persons who are to be dis-entitled to hold firearms. Included amongst these is "any person subject to the supervision of the police." Does that mean that no firearms will be permitted at all? Everyone is subject to the supervision of the police.

That is a technical term for a "ticket-of-leave" man.

Question—"That the Bill be read a second time," put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 5th May.
Top
Share