Mr. Kealan Symes:

I thank the Chairman and other members of the committee for inviting a representative of the National Target Shooting Association to address them. I have been director of the association since 2006 and I am currently its treasurer. I have served as international team manager and I am one of the association’s delegates to the Olympic Council of Ireland. I am also a qualified International Shooting Sports Federation, ISSF, judge and an active participant in our sports up to and including national level.

The National Target Shooting Association, NTSA, is the sole national governing body for the rifle and pistol disciplines of the ISSF. Seven of these ISSF disciplines are Olympic events. The NTSA is a member of the Olympic Council of Ireland as the recognised national governing body for Olympic rifle and pistol events and is affiliated to the Federation of Irish Sports and to the European Shooting Confederation. Our membership is drawn from affiliated clubs on the island of Ireland and our athletes compete nationally and internationally in ISSF world cups and European and World Championships. Members have participated in previous Olympic Games and most recently in the London Paralympics.

It is a somewhat surreal experience for a sporting body to be invited before a committee such as this in the context of legislation and, primarily, criminal legislation.

Be that as it may, we fully understand that the equipment we use is not available as a right but as a privilege bestowed by these Houses and, by extension, the people of this State. In that context, we have engaged fully with the firearms consultative panel which was put in place by the late Minister, Brian Lenihan, and see our submission to this committee as a continuation of that process.

The review was carried out for the following reasons. An Garda Síochána had expressed concerns in respect of the continued licensing of certain firearms in the interests of public safety. Members of the Judiciary had also cited lack of clarity and difficulty in the interpretation of existing legislative provisions and had also raised the question of whether certain firearms should be banned, given the concerns raised by An Garda Síochána in the context of appeals of its decisions to refuse the licensing of such firearms.

This issue of public safety is addressed in the Firearms Act many times. An extension of the meaning of "public safety" beyond the consideration of an individual application seems unwieldy and in the context of an Act that concerns itself with such applications may well prove unworkable in practice. The quote by Mr. Justice Charleton in the working group report seems to indicate that it is unnecessary. He said: "The Act makes it clear that considerations of public safety, the good order of the community and the proliferation of weapons within a particular district, and within the community generally, are all matters ... which can and should be taken into account." The issue of theft is a concern to us all. There are provisions in the current Firearms Act under SI 307 of 2009 that specify the minimum level of security required for every category of licensed firearm. If further security requirements are deemed necessary to safeguard the public, we would be happy to discuss these with the interested parties, as we have done in the lead up to the original statutory instrument being published.

In our written submission to the committee, we described the basis of the Firearms Acts as resting on the individual, so-called good reason and the licensing authority. It is our belief that the diverse nature of the licensing authority coupled with the complexity of the law as written and amended is at the root of most of the issues encountered.

One of the most striking omissions in the report was that of inconsistency in the application of the law with regard to firearms licensing. This has been a problem throughout the more recent history of the Firearms Act and is rooted in the fact that there are in excess of 100 different licensing authorities in the State - Garda districts and divisions. With even the best systems and training, it is almost impossible to find consistency with such a large and varied administrative base. This is further exacerbated by the normally occurring personnel changes through promotion, relocation or retirement. Add to this a legislative framework that runs to more than 60 pages, including statutory instruments, and systems failure is inevitable.

We are proposing that licensing should be centralised. The benefits of a centralised system are: consistency in application of the law in respect of firearms; the capacity to create a team of knowledgeable professionals capable of dealing with all matters relating to civilian firearms ownership - as in the UK, these need not be serving gardaí; the freeing up of district and divisional resources for core activities; the creation of a permanent knowledge base within the team; a corresponding reduction in costs for every district in the State; a far more efficient system of administration; the ending of the persona designataanomaly; the almost certain reduction in court appeals that seem to have inconsistency at their kernel; and the capability of a centralised licensing authority to take a more holistic view of the entire licensing landscape and influence policy directly.

The argument made against this kind of system was alluded to in the report. This was that district officers would have a far greater knowledge of local matters and therefore be in a better position to adjudicate on applications than a central authority. This cannot be gainsaid. Clearly, district officers are indeed in a better place to adjudicate on applications, but this seems to rule out any possibility of communication between a centralised licensing authority and a local district superintendent or other officer. It is difficult to understand how this can be such a strong case against centralisation as to outweigh the many positives outlined above.

It is our belief that the current licensing system has many failings but ease of access to firearms is not one of them. The current situation, which appears to be driven by a small number of court cases, could be paraphrased as hard cases make bad law. If a review of the Firearms Act seems necessary, our view is that it is necessary to modernise and simplify its operation first. If there is a recognised need to improve security, consultation with the relevant stakeholders would surely provide mutually agreeable solutions. We would respectfully suggest recalling the firearms consultative panel to discuss these proposals.