Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 Dec 1963

Vol. 57 No. 5

Firearms Bill, 1963: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

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.

As the Minister pointed out, this Bill is to control the sale and use of guns and airguns, and it also proposes to bring up to date the law in relation to firearms generally. We welcome the Bill, which, we feel, is long overdue. Parents throughout the country will also welcome it. We all know that over the years there has been a public outcry about gun accidents, and especially those caused by the indiscriminate use by children of airguns. We all know of cases where serious injuries have been inflicted by these guns, where people have lost eyes or suffered some other serious injury.

Apart from injury to persons, we are also aware of the suffering caused to animals and birds by these guns. Unfortunately, some children seem to take a delight in firing at cattle in fields or along the road, at dogs, at cats and at birds, especially during the snowy and frosty weather. It is regrettable to have to say that, but unfortunately it is too true. Many of our young people have not got the love for animals and wild life they should have. Indeed, I often wonder if we, as legislators, examined our own consciences, would we find we were not in some way to blame? For instance, do we not allow Telefís Éireann to show too many Wild West films where the gun is too often used and where men seem to be shot down as if they were wild rabbits? After looking at those films, is it not natural that children should take out their airguns and fire at the first thing they see, whether a bird or an animal? It would be much better if the gun were taken out of Telefís Éireann, just as it has been taken out of politics here. It would make it much easier for the Minister, for parents, for the Garda and for all concerned in making this Bill the success we would like it to be.

Apart from injuries caused to persons and to wild life, we are all aware of the lack of civic spirit demonstrated by many of the users of airguns and of the damage and destruction they cause to private and public property. Driving through the country, we all see from time to time the destruction caused by young vandals using these weapons. They seem to take a particular delight in firing through windows, plate glass windows, and even the windscreens of unoccupied cars. If they come across an unoccupied house in the country, they take a delight in firing at least one pellet through every window in the house. I have seen that happen in different parts of the country.

The Minister is entitled to the help and co-operation of everybody in putting this measure into operation. A call should go forth to parents, pastors, teachers, to radio and television, to all interested in the welfare of society to lend a hand to putting an end to the cruelty and destruction caused in the past by the misuse of these guns and to bring home to everybody the necessity of complying with the Bill. It would be no harm if Telefís Éireann made a New Year's resolution to show fewer of the type of film I referred to. I hear many parents condemn them. Instead, they should show more films of the type shown at 6.55 p.m. on Tuesday, 17th December. This film, entitled "Our World", happened to be a study of Soviet educational methods and dealt with their primary, secondary and boarding school systems.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Were there airguns in it?

No, but I believe this is the kind of thing we should teach our young boys and girls so that we will have more civic spirit and less indiscriminate use of airguns. They should be taught to have a love of their country. They should not be shown destruction and killing. They should be taught to be proud of the property of other people and not to destroy. They should be taught to love and take care of animals, as they were in this film. We should have courses like that in our schools. If we had, it would make it much easier for the Minister and all concerned to implement this Bill.

There is another matter. It concerns the use of fireworks. One of them was thrown at a member of the Trinity Rugby team during the match last Saturday. It was not a very sporting gesture on the part of those concerned. I have seen fireworks thrown into crowded dancehalls from balconies. They are most dangerous. I doubt if the police can do anything about them at present. Unfortunately, at some of our Christmas parties, we have some young thugs who seem to be a law unto themselves. Has the Minister any power to deal with this situation. These fireworks can do very serious harm, especially in a crowded hall.

I should like to know what steps the Minister envisages will be necessary to ensure that the guns do not remain in the hands of children. What action does he intend to take in the future? Various suggestions were made to him in the Dáil and he did not agree with some of them. At column 996, Volume 205 of the Dáil Official Report of 6th November, 1963, he stated in answer to a suggestion by Deputy A. Barry:

...I am not sure that we should as good international citizens, unload our arms on some other country.

I am 100 per cent with the Minister in his view and I am glad the Government, even after 40 years, have learned so much. There was a time when some of those in the same Party would have exhorted the people to bury the arms, that they might be useful for Ireland afterwards. As far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we stand for law and order and we support the Minister in that because unfortunately we know that at other times when a Government were trying to collect much more dangerous arms than airguns, they were advised by a man who said: "Comrades——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator is straying a little from the present measure. The Chair would like him to come back.

I am pointing out we are prepared to support the Government in the action they are taking.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator has said that adequately already.

But there was a time when they had stated: "Comrades——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

That is not relevant.

"The arms with which we have fought are to be dumped." Those arms were much more dangerous——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I am telling Senator L'Estrange that references to arms other than those covered by this measure are not relevant and I should like him to come to the measure now.

I am glad the Minister has stated we should not, as good international citizens, unload our arms on some other country or dump them as they were in the past to be used at some other time if necessary.

To a great extent, I am in favour of what Senator L'Estrange said at the beginning of his speech.

The Senator should be more in favour of what I said at the end because it affected him more at the time.

I was not alive to those things then. I agree with what the Senator said at the beginning of his speech, that there is a certain amount of vandalism and cruelty in the use of these airguns. Going around nowadays and seeing people with airguns, I am not quite sure whether it is the children who are causing the damage. Time and time again I have seen adults going out along the roads with airguns, perhaps belonging to some junior member of the family, and aiming at telephone installations and things like that.

I should like to see boys being allowed to have airguns, where parents will vouch for them, at a younger age than is envisaged in the Bill, 16 years. I had an airgun at a younger age than that and was taught to be very careful with it. I have heard of more accidents to eyes with penknives than with airguns and perhaps we are going a little too far in not allowing a boy of, say, 15 to have an airgun, provided the permit is taken out by a parent or some such person. I put in that plea, that perhaps we are going too far. If we go further, we shall prohibit penknives and bows and arrows because these things do cause accidents to eyes and are responsible for a certain amount of cruelty to animals.

There are one or two other Committee points on which I should like to have the Minister's views at this stage, if possible. With regard to the disposal of guns in the possession of the garda, would it be possible for a person to obtain a permit to keep a gun in the house without using it? Sometimes these guns might be in a house and a person might not want to expend any money on them but would like to keep them in their possession. In Northern Ireland, they have a permit to keep the gun which is more or less a permanent thing and if they wish to use it, they have to take out a licence to enable them to buy ammunition and use it for game and so on.

The same thing applies where a minor is left a shotgun. The only way that gun can be kept is by allowing some neighbour or some other person who already has a gun to take out a second licence for that gun in his name and keep it for the minor until he comes of age. I know of several instances where that has happened and it means that a person, year after year, perhaps for several years has to take out a permit in that way, which is the only way an ordinary person who does not want to use it can keep a gun.

Section 3(1) of the Bill reads:

The Minister may...in the interest of the preservation of game, make an order prohibiting the use or carriage of firearms...on any lands...

Those are the operative words. Subsection (3) of the same section reads:

(3) An order under this section shall not apply in relation...to the use or carriage of a firearm by a person to a person to whom the Superintendent of any district has granted a permit which is in force to use and carry a firearm for a purpose (other than the shooting of game)...

At present there are two sorts of licences. There is the 10/- licence which enables people to shoot vermin and the £2 5s. licence which allows them to shoot game. If the Minister makes an order under Subsection (1) of Section 3 and if I have a £2.5s. licence which allows me to shoot game and vermin or protect my sheep, if necessary, I must not use that gun unless I go again under Subsection (4) and ask the superintendent for a permit, whereas the man with a 10/- permit who is supposed not to shoot game with it is allowed to keep the gun and use it. It does seem the man with the game licence, that is, the man who might also wish to use it for destruction of vermin or to protect his sheep, may not do so. He must go again to the superintendent and get a permit.

The rest of the points I should like to make are small Committee points and I shall not trouble the House with them now.

I am in general agreement with the provisions of this Bill. There is just one aspect arising out of it to which the Minister might give his attention. Section 4 and Section 8 deal with circumstances in which firearms must be handed in to the local superintendent or local police but it is nowhere mentioned in the Bill that the local superintendent must, if he is offered firearms, take them in. I am not raising this on any obscure legal point. I am raising it because of a personal experience I had a few years ago.

During the Emergency, I was serving as an officer in the Army and on occasions an order used to come that all officers were to carry their revolvers at all times, whether off duty or on duty, whether in civilian clothes or not. That entailed carrying around what I can only describe as a six-shooter, which is very difficult to carry in civilian clothes. A friend of mine heard of my problem and gave me a very neat and beautiful little Browning automatic. He had it abroad, and when he came back, he handed it in to the Garda authorities, and it was held in the Depot. He said I was quite welcome to take it and use it during my service in the Army. I took it and I got a licence without any difficulty at that time. I had it at home for many years. The Garda reminded me about it and I used to take out a licence every year.

About 1955, I felt there was no point in continuing to take out a licence. At that time, also, there was a certain amount of activity on the Border, and so on. I felt the police must be worried about any revolvers which members of the public had and wondering what might be happening to them. The next time the licence was due for renewal instead of renewing it, I decided to hand the revolver to the Garda authorities. I was living in the Dun Laoghaire area at the time, and I went to the police station and told them I had been reminded about the licence but that I did not propose to renew it. I told them I intended to hand in the revolver and that I had it with me. I placed it on the counter, and that caused a bit of a sensation. They went off and consulted various officials, and finally they told me they did not have any machinery for taking in revolvers at Dun Laoghaire police station. They assured me that they felt certain the police in Blackrock had machinery for taking in revolvers.

A week or two later, I went down to Blackrock police station with the automatic. I said I wished to hand it in. There were a number of detectives and other people there. They all examined it, passed it around, and said it was a beautiful weapon, and so on. They admired it, and then they consulted one another and told me they were very sorry but there was not any machinery in Blackrock for taking in firearms. They could not suggest any machinery. So at that stage, I let the matter drop for the time being. I was moving to Greystones to live shortly afterwards, and I forgot the matter for a while.

A month after I moved to Greystones, a very intelligent and sophisticated young Garda called to say he understood I had a revolver and asked me to take out a licence for it. I said I would not, that I wanted to hand it in. I asked him to arrange it, and he came back a week later and said there was no machinery in Greystones for taking in revolvers. He knew I was at home most Saturday mornings, and he used to call practically every Saturday morning to discuss the matter with me. He used to bring a licence form with him, which I think he had filled out, and he used to beg me to fill in my signature, and hand in the 10/-, or whatever it was, at any time. He said he was in some difficulty because he had been assigned to get me to take out the licence. I was just as obstinate, and I said I wanted to hand in the revolver. He said he could not trace any authority for handing in revolvers.

This went on for some time. The Garda and I became great friends. He was a very intelligent, nice fellow. After some time, I said I was getting very tired of it, and that I proposed to go for a walk along the seashore and throw the revolver into the sea. I said that should solve the problem. For the first time his sophistication cracked. He practically got down on his knees and begged me not to do that, because he would be writing reports for the rest of his life if the revolver just disappeared.

At that time it suddenly occurred to me that it was not my revolver at all, but that it was owned by the man who had been good enough to lend it to me some years previously. The obvious thing was to give it back to him and wipe my hands of the whole affair. The man lived in Greystones. He was retired at that time, and seemed to have a lot of time on his hands. I gave it back to him and forgot the matter. About three or four weeks later, the same young Garda came back with the revolver, handed it back to me and said that the man had been delighted to get it back. He regarded it as a most wonderful toy, and he was bringing it around all the pubs in Greystones, and the buses, and handing it around to everybody to admire and try. The Garda could not have that sort of thing so it was brought back and given to me. Again we started what would nowadays be called a dialogue as to whether I would take out a licence, or he would take in the revolver.

After a further period I asked him could he not suggest any way out of the impasse. He said the only known method by which I could dispose of it legally was if I could persuade a firearms dealer to buy it. I went to Garnetts, or one of those people, and showed them the revolver. By this time I was a little sensitive about people telling me what a beautiful revolver it was. Mr. Garnett, or whoever he was, and many other people admired it and said it was a beautiful revolver but that actually they could not take in any more revolvers, and they would not buy it. I begged them to buy it. I practically said that I would give them money to take the revolver. At last, seeing that I was really distressed, they relented and said they would take it. I said I did not want any money but they said: "We must pay something; we will give 5/- for it." He thereupon gave me 5/- and my problem was solved. I passed on the 5/- to my friend who owned it. That was the end of that.

I suggest to the Minister that he might see to it that it is a little easier for anyone who feels like handing in a revolver to hand it in.

I think the Minister should put a Ryan clause in the Bill.

I believe that in a Bill of this kind we must be cruel to be kind. While it deals primarily with airguns, we should also strengthen the powers of the Minister regarding the use of firearms in general. For a nation that has had practice with firearms over a long period on a number of occasions when we asserted our right to freedom, there is an extraordinary amount of carelessness to be seen in the use of guns and this has resulted in tragedies in a number of homes.

I feel the Minister should have power to carry out inspections in the homes of owners of guns to see that these guns are being properly maintained and kept out of the way of children. Only a fortnight ago, I read where a person was fined the paltry sum of 5/- for having a loaded gun in the back of his car. He was also charged with being under the influence of drink. Last evening I read of another fellow who had a gun in the car and fired out of it without investigating to see if there was anybody in the vicinity. He was fined 5/-. In the same issue of the paper it was reported that children were fined 10/- in Dublin for playing football on the street.

I believe guns are looked upon as toys by adults and it is not so much the children as the adults we should worry about. Guns are often kept in dangerous places in the homes. They are either put beside the fire or in some corner that is quite accessible to youngsters, and tragedies result. If we are to have a driving test for car-owners, we should have some system whereby it will be necessary for people to have a knowledge of guns before getting a licence. I do not agree with the age limit in the Bill, which I think should be 18. Under the Dancehalls Act, you must be 18 to be allowed in but under this, we allow persons aged 16 to use guns.

I am glad to see that the Minister has made provision for visitors who are anxious to come here to shoot at particular times and that the period has been extended to 12 months as against the limited period previously specified. I do not entirely agree with Senator L'Estrange that "Have Gun, Will Travel" or any other such programme on Telefís Éireann has very great influence. Our principal worry is, as I have said, as regards adults using guns. I believe the children look at a cowboy picture as we did and always try to emulate or imitate the hero and not the bad man. While his gun may be smoking most of the time, I think every child realises that the victims do not all die as a result. Comics could be put in the same category as these Telefís Éireann films and these comics are available and read by children.

There is a section here, about which the explanatory memorandum says:

Section 23 (1) (a) of the Larceny Act, 1916, makes it a felony to rob a person while armed with an offensive weapon and Section 28 of that Act makes it a misdemeanour for a person to be found by night with any dangerous or offensive weapon with intent to break or enter into any building and to commit a felony. The new section proposes to provide that unloaded firearms and imitation firearms are, for the purposes of those sections of the Larceny Act that have been mentioned, to be deemed to be offensive weapons. (It is already clear that a loaded firearm is an offensive weapon for this purpose.)

I take it that section would cover an ordinary toy gun which resembles a revolver. Then, there would be a danger in this that where a child might be accosted by a Garda while having a gun, the child might, without having any ill intent, be made liable to prosecution. I think that section may require tightening up in that regard.

I urge the Minister to tighten the regulations in regard to firearms generally and endeavour to ensure that more care is exercised in their use. If necessary, there should be power of inspection of homes as there is in the case where protection from fire is concerned and even though tragedies have occurred, people have been prosecuted. Where negligence in regard to a gun is found in a home, the people responsible should be brought to justice, just as people are in respect of fire-guards. Every effort should be made to ensure that guns are kept properly and out of the way of children.

I should like to follow up something mentioned by Senator L'Estrange. I should like to have an assurance from the Minister that there is power to prevent the use of these appalling thunderflash fireworks. Some people were sceptical about these being thrown at dances but that is perfectly true. I have attended at least two dances where these fireworks were used and created positively dangerous explosions. There was one case at Trinity College after a graduation ceremony where a girl was very seriously injured by one of these things. I hope there is power in some other Act to deal with this matter and, if not, I would ask the Minister very earnestly to work in a section here to deal with them. I should just like to add that the thunderflash thrown last Saturday was not thrown by a member of either university.

I shall be very brief. I merely want to say that the .22 rifle is a most lethal weapon. People shooting rabbits take out the cartridge case immediately after use and throw it down on the land. I know of at least three or four cattle that have been lost through that practice and the owner had no redress. That is terrible black-guardism.

I read of a man being fined 10/- for discharging a .22 rifle out of a car. He could have killed somebody. I know of a case where three cattle were lost and in the post-mortem by the veterinary surgeon, six cartridge cases were found in the animal's stomach. The owner had no redress. I want to impress on the Minister that the .22 rifle is something that should be used with great caution. There should be some provision to ensure that when people discharge these rifles, they will put the empty cases into their pockets to be disposed of safely when they get home.

I welcome the Bill as a definite step in the right direction. In the case of Section 12, I should like to see these regulations applied to game licences also. We farmers must contend with a good deal from people who do not wish to understand the trouble they cause—perhaps they are unaware of it—to farmers by indiscriminately walking over land, making gaps and so on. Before a man has a game licence issued to him, even though it is £2 5s., he should have some place, some range or other land over which to shoot.

In subsection (4) of Section 12, if we take the case of two brothers with two small holdings who live together, will this subsection prevent any one of them having a gun to shoot vermin on the combined holdings? In intensive tillage areas in Laois where two brothers live together, both may have some land in their own names. Very seldom will the two men go out shooting together. One may be a sportsman and the second may have other interests. Would it not be extraordinary if one brother could not kill vermin on both holdings? Perhaps the Minister would look into that.

What I wanted to say has already been said by Senator Stanford and so I shall confine myself to putting a question to the Minister. Is there any provision in this or any other Firearms Act whereby a short-term licence can be issued to tourists coming here to shoot for a few weeks? I received a complaint that when a tourist applies for a licence, he must pay the full fee of £2 5s. which, if he were staying in the country, would cover him for a whole year, whereas he wants the licence for only two weeks. According to him, there was no provision for a refund. I should like some information on that point.

Is fada an taithí atá agam ar ghunnaí. hOileadh mé ina measc agus is eol dom go maith an chontabhairt atá ag baint leo agus a riaohtanaí atá sé bheith cúramach ina dtaobh. Do mhol Seanadóir éigin go n-ísleofaí an aois atá luaite san mBille chun ceadúnas gunna a fháil. Táimse ina choinne sin. Ní dóigh liomsa gur ceart go mbeadh ceadúnas ag éinne atá faoi 16 bliana d'aois chun gunna a úsáid, pé saghas gunna é. Tá sé i ndúchas an duine óig, má tá gunna aige, scaoileadh faoi is thairis agus go minic is cuma leis cad faoi a scaoileann sé. Níl sé ró-scrupallach faoina amas. Táimse i gcoinne ísliú na haoise.

Is arm marfach é an gunna agus ba cheart dúinn a bheith cúramach maidir leis an gcomhacht atá ann gunnaí a údarú agus gan gunnaí a cheadú do dhaoine gan ciall.

Tá daoine seachas iad siúd atá faoi 16 bliana gur mhaith liomsa ná beadh gunnaí acu. Is iad na daoine atá i gceist agam ná an dream úd nach dtig leo gunna a úsáid mar is cóir nó nach féidir leo gunna a láimhseáil. Sna cásanna sin do mholfainn gan ceadúnas a eisiúint nó má tá ceadúnas ag a leithéidí iad a bhaint díobh.

Tá daoine den tsaghas sin ann. Chualamar go léir faoin duine a scaoil as gluaisteán agus, fós, tá daoine ann a úsáideann gunnaí in áiteanna nach ceart dóibh iad a úsáid. Má bhíonn ceadúnas ag a leithéid ba cheart é a bhaint de. Ba chóir an rud céanna a dhéanamh nuair ná tugtar áird ar cheartanna an fhir thall.

Maidir le scéal na ngunnaí ba chóir do na Gardaí, le tacaíocht an Rialtais, féachaint chuige an dlí a chur i bhfeidhm agus gan gunnaí a oheadú i gcás daoine gan ciall nach feasach dóibh a ndualgaisí ina leith féin gan trácht ar a gcomharsain.

Tá cead ag an bhfeirmeoir mionainmhithe a scaoileadh ar a fhearann féin ach is trua liom nach bhfuil cead níos fairsinge aige. Ní i gcónaí a éiríonn leis an madra rua nó an chorog liath a scaoileadh ar a fhearann féin. Is dóigh liom go mba cheart cead a thabhairt don fheirmeoir mionainmhithe a mharú ar thalamh seachas a thalamh féin ná beadh ró-fhada ó bhaile. Go deimhin, ba chóir go mbeadh údarás aige an madra rua nó an chorog liath a thiocfadh ag triall ar a ghabháltas a mharú in áiteacha ar nós failltreacha cois farraige nó fiú ar oileáin.

I very much welcome this Bill. It is long overdue and I think every parent and guardian of a child will be relieved when they find they will not be under pressure to buy airguns or, if they are, they can say: "You must have a licence". When a youngster is aged eight or so, he starts badgering his parents to get him an airgun and once it comes into the house, nobody knows who will first be shot or injured. The Bill was overdue in that respect. At least they must now wait until the age of 16 and I imagine that any warning they have to get will have been given.

I do not think this Bill goes far enough in regard to the .22 rifle which is a deadly weapon. It seems to me that licences have been issued indiscriminately for those guns. We all know of young persons wanting such rifles to shoot rabbits but it is doubtful if the people who get them understand —is any effort made to find out if they understand? —how dangerous they are. A bullet from such a rifle has killing power a mile away. With a shotgun, at least the damage is within normal vision: with rifles it may be beyond that. The garda should be empowered to refuse to issue a licence for a .22 rifle until satisfied that the person getting the licence knows exactly how to use these weapons and understands the danger attached to them. Those of us who live in rural areas, where these guns are used pretty extensively for the destruction of rabbits, have had very narrow escapes from accidents where these weapons were in inexperienced hands.

I agree with the suggestion that firearms of all descriptions should be inspected periodically as to their condition. My suggestion would be that at least once a year when the licence is being applied for, the weapon for which it is requested should be produced to the garda for inspection. I can see nothing difficult or wrong about that. Everybody knows that in many cases guns are kept in a very faulty condition.

I have in mind a terrible tragedy that occurred very near to where I live, a very short time ago, which would have been avoided if inspection had been a prerequisite for renewal of licence. There was kept in a house an old shotgun in the breech of which a cartridge had been jammed for two or three years. A member of the family decided to remove it and lost his life in the process. It was considered that the cartridge had been in the gun for so long that it had become ineffective. However, an unfortunate boy lost his life. If it had been the case that that shotgun had to be produced when the licence was sought, that accident would not have happened because before issuing the licence, there would have been insistence on the cartridge being removed from the breech by a person who knew how to do it.

There are kept in houses guns in which the springs of the safety catches are faulty and dangerous in use. I am sure that many accidents that happen are the result of that sort of defect in weapons. I should very much like to see a system of inspection. The only system I can visualise at the moment which would be reasonable is that the weapon should be produced to the Garda when application for renewal of licence is made.

There is only one section on which I wish to comment, that is, Section 13. The comment is favourable. I consider it a good thing that auctioneers should know exactly the position because up to the present our position was not clearly defined. I, therefore, welcome that section.

It is clear that the Bill, certainly in principle, is welcome to the Seanad. I shall deal briefly with some of the points which have been made by Senators.

One could not but have sympathy with Senator Eoin Ryan in his harrowing experience but I want to suggest to the Seanad that the situation is not quite as the Senator painted it. At the time the Senator was speaking of, the Gardai were often put in the position of being asked by people to store weapons for them and, indeed, as the Senator will notice, the Bill sets out to deal with this kind of problem by helping the Garda to get rid of a considerable quantity of unwanted weapons which they have in their possession and cannot get rid of. As the position of the Garda is made easier, they will be more inclined to help out Senators who are distressed in this way.

The Garda have always been prepared to store weapons for law-abiding citizens who have asked them to do so. They are always prepared to do that, but they were often very reluctant to put that principle into operation in specific instances because they found from experience that when they took in weapons for some people and stored them, they were afterwards accused of having allowed them to deteriorate, and so on. They were, thus, naturally, to some extent reluctant to have this facility availed of too widely.

Of course, a person who wants to dispose of a weapon should ask a firearms dealer to store it and try to sell it. That is the proper, orthodox thing to do when you have a weapon which you want to dispose of.

If a person wishes to keep the weapon for sentimental reasons, perhaps as a souvenir of his gallant military career, he can have a hole drilled in the barrel in such a way as to make the weapon ineffective and it ceases to be a firearm and he no longer needs a certificate for it. He can keep it for evermore in that ineffective condition.

That answers the point which Senator Cole raised, to some extent. I gather that Senator Cole also was interested in persons who wanted to keep weapons, for sentimental or other reasons, although they never used them. They can keep them in the way I have outlined.

Senator Miss Davidson asked about tourists. The suggestion that she makes has been put to us very strongly by a number of people from time to time. We have decided, on balance, not to provide for a short-term certificate for tourists, because one could be criticised of being prepared to make available for tourists facilities which are not envisaged for our own people. As everybody knows, there are sportsmen in this country who would be delighted to avail themselves of a short-term certificate and we would be put in a very invidious position if we set out to give short-term certificates to visitors and were not prepared to give them to our own people.

The Senator will notice that we have made some concession in this regard in the Bill because the Bill now provides that a person who is not resident in the country can take out a certificate for any 12 months period. One of the main difficulties which a tourist might encounter up to now was that if coming here for a period which overlapped the 31st July, he had to take out two certificates even though his total stay might be of short duration. Now we are facilitating tourists by providing that a certificate will remain in force for a full 12 months, no matter when granted.

Senator Ó Siochfhradha spoke fairly strongly about persons who have guns and who are careless in their use or who are not to be trusted with them. I am in full agreement with the Senator in this matter. As he mentioned, it is proposed in the Bill to raise the age limit from 15 to 16 years. That is a considerable advance.

On the broad question of suitability of persons to hold firearms' certificates, I should like to explain that this obligation is placed firmly on the local superintendents of the Garda. The superintendent must satisfy himself that the applicant for a certificate is a suitable person to have a firearm and that he can be trusted to look after it and use it in a responsible manner. I consider that the superintendent is the right person to have that responsibility, because he is fully aware of local circumstances and can familiarise himself with the temperament, character and record of the person concerned. I do not think we can go much further.

I am not aware that there was any criticism that the Garda were lax in this way: in fact, any criticism is in the other direction. I am often asked to appeal to superintendents to give back firearms or to grant certificates when they have been refused. My understanding is that the Garda are, if anything, quite strict in their administration of the Act.

I do not think Senator Donegan could expect us to insist on the type of inspection system he suggests. I am not sure we are equipped to do it. However, apart from that, I do not think it would be of any great value unless we were to have some followup powers. That would be going very far indeed. There is a limit to which the State, in its paternal rôle, can go. People must look after themselves, to some extent. I think the system of control laid down in the original Act works well and should be sufficient for all practical purposes when amended as we propose in the Bill.

A number of Senators were concerned about fireworks. We have a very strict policy in regard to fireworks. It is a specific criminal offence to use fireworks in any way which is a danger to others. Apart from that, our whole policy is to minimise the use of fireworks. The importation of fireworks is controlled. Nobody can import fireworks save under licence from the Minister for Justice and licences are given only where the Minister is satisfied that they are to be used in a properly-controlled public display. This policy is stringently administered.

No matter what we do, fireworks will be smuggled and used but, in so far as we can manage it, we will do everything we possibly can to make sure that such incidents as Senators have described will not take place. The control of fireworks, in any case, is not a matter for this Bill. This Bill is confined in scope to firearms. I understand that the Department of Industry and Commerce are considering a new Explosives Bill and controls on fireworks are a matter for such a Bill.

Senator McDonald asked about Section 12. That section is intended to facilitate farmers. At the moment, farmers can get limited certificates for the purpose of shooting vermin. I want to emphasise that these certificates have a utilitarian, not a sporting, purpose. They exist to make it possible for farmers to keep down vermin on their lands without having to take out a certificate at the full rate. Only the occupier of the land can get such a certificate. The Bill now proposes to loosen the provision and to enable the occupier to nominate somebody else to have the certificate. One thinks immediately of the widow who has a son on the farm: she might wish to nominate him to have the certificate. Again, a farmer who is getting old might like to nominate his son or a manager to do the work. The purpose of the amendment is to facilitate farmers.

We are now leaving the door open to a certain amount of evasion. Up to now, the very fact that a person was found with a gun held on a limited certificate on lands other than his own was strong evidence that he was committing an offence. We are opening the door to some extent to the evasion of the law. We must restrict it in some way so that such evasions will not be widespread. We are saying: "You can have only one of these limited certificates for each farm." If a man wishes to shoot vermin on two farms occupied by different persons, he will have to have two certificates. I do not think that is any great hardship.

The Minister mentioned the case of a widow and her son. If the son were himself a landowner and had a small patch himself, could he shoot on both plots, then?

No, he must have a separate certificate for each holding.

Even if the holdings were adjacent?

It would depend on whether there were two occupiers or only one.

Senator Cole asked about Section 3: I think he is confused by the drafting. The permit referred to in subsection (3) of Section 3 is, in effect, the permit which will be issued under subsection (4). What is proposed is that, at the request of the Minister for Lands, I, as Minister for Justice, could issue a blanket prohibition on the carrying of firearms for a period of one month. We are, however, providing that a superintendent may issue a permit to a person, if he thinks it necessary—and obviously what would be involved would be the shooting of vermin.

The Senator also had a more general point on that, namely, that we do not have here, as they have in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, a cheap permit which enables a person to be in possession of a gun and another permit, a game licence, which enables him to use it. That argument has been put before. That is mainly a matter for the Minister for Lands, who is responsible for game preservation. As far as I know, he does not think at the moment that we should make that change. That is a matter which the Senator might take up with him directly.

Section 12, subsection (4), was mentioned by Senator McDonald. Supposing two brothers succeed to a father's farm and become joint occupiers. Would either or both be entitled to a limited certificate under subsection (4) of that section?

I am not clear as to what the Senator has in mind.

Suppose the registered owner of a farm dies and is survived by two sons who continue to live on the farm as joint occupiers?

One of them can get a limited certificate for the farm.

The subsection says that:

A limited certificate shall not be granted unless the whole of the land to which it would relate is occupied by the same person.

I know it is a nice point.

Subsection (4) refers to the limited certificate issued to a nominated person.

It strikes me that both of them could nominate each other to apply for the limited certificate.

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Next Stage?

I had hoped to get all Stages today but I gather that is not possible. I am anxious to get the prohibition on airguns into operation.

There seems to be a lot of interest in the Bill and it is quite possible that a number of amendments will be put down.

Next sitting day after Christmas.

Committee Stage ordered for next sitting day.
Business suspended at 6.15 p.m. and resumed at 7.30 p.m.
Top
Share