“Irish homeowners can now legally shoot anyone who enters their property,” irishcentral.com reports with incendiary inaccuracy. “A move that has been slammed by civil liberties campaigners in a row with Justice Minister Alan Shatter.” Anyone? Let’s try that again, shall we? “Legislation [a link to which we can’t be assed to include] has now come into effect that allows homeowners to use ‘reasonable force’ to defend themselves, their families and their property.” To quote the gatekeeper to The Land of Oz, that’s a horse of a different color. One that seems to have riled-up a lot of people. Well, the usual suspects . . .

The Irish Council for Civil Liberties, however, is highly critical of the change in the law but Justice Minister Alax Shatter has denied it is a “license to kill.”

Council director Mark Kelly has labeled the new law “lax” on home defense and is highly critical of the legislation.

Kelly said: “These are lax proposals, which contain insufficiently robust legal safeguards to protect the right to life of householders or intruders.

Yes! Intruders are people too! We must protect the sanctity of all human life!

“The law encourages people to use lethal force to defend their property and is at odds with Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights which obliges the state to ensure that lethal force can only be used if absolutely necessary and strictly proportionate in all the circumstances.”

OFFS. Really? Who gets to decide what that means? Let me guess: unelected officials in Brussels and the judges they appoint. Only not anymore. Not in Ireland.

Could this mark a turning point in European gun regs? Saints preserve us! [h/t togunsavelives.net for the link]

 

Recommended For You

23 Responses to “Irish homeowners can now legally shoot anyone who enters their property”

    • “Almost all registered civilian firearms in Ireland are sporting shotguns (177,000) and hunting rifles (54,000).17 In 2004 a successful private challenge to Irish gun law allowed handguns to be registered during what became a four year ‘window.’ The number of lawfully held private pistols and revolvers in Ireland shot up from a single legal handgun in July 2004, to 1,842 in July 2008 ― at which point prohibition on further centrefire handgun licensing was reinstated, and the licensing of other short firearms limited (see Handgun Licensing)…It has been estimated that as many as 150,000 unregistered firearms might also be in private possession in Ireland,22 suggesting a total civilian stockpile of 393,000. If true, this would yield a rate of 9.1 private firearms per 100 population, both legal and illegal.”
      http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/cp/ireland

      LOL, just 1 legal handgun was in civilian hands in 2004.

      • Remember the IRA had fully automatic weapons and anti-armor rockets like rpgs and at4s and Im sure that the goverment hasnt recovered all those weapons.(not to mention that they shot down a few brittish helos with stinger shoulder fired anti-aircraft missles)

        • They shot down a few British helos with stingers? Really? When did that happen? I just did my best google work and all I could find were a bunch of attempts over the years to buy stingers, but in every case half the people involved were FBI agents.

    • Private? Private security is paid for with private funds. Theirs are Personal Security paid for by the tax paying public, nothing “private” about that.

      Let’s face it you are only good enough to toil for your betters.

  1. As far as I’m concerned, once someone forcefully enters the place where me and my family are sleeping, their “right to life” is suspended until they’re gone.

    Euros are always so simultaneously funny and tragic to watch when it comes to law and their awkward attempts to be morally superior.

    • “only be used if absolutely necessary and strictly proportionate in all the circumstances”

      My wife and I were having a discussion today and it centered on my belief in complete disproportionate response. You break into (or attempt to) my house while I or my family is there, I shoot you until you are dead. I do not stop to evaluate what you may or may not be up to.

      That is the value proposition that criminals need to have to weigh.

  2. “These are lax proposals, which contain insufficiently robust legal safeguards to protect the right to life of . . . intruders.”

    Interesting, isn’t it, that these vermin believe that the lives of the homeowners are as worthless as the lives of the intruders?

  3. I think I would say lethal force is “necessary” if I’m dealing with people who break into my house, ESPECIALLY if they break in when I’m home, which pretty much points to them likely having an intent to assault me.

    It’s a bit of a laugh that the “human rights” people here are assuming that by making it safer for the intruder you can make it safer for the householder as well. Unfortunately, in these situations you have to choose who gets protected. I know who’s side I’m on every time.

    Perhaps they should focus more on real human rights issues? I guess now that the Catholic orphanages and “reform” schools are closed they can’t find anything to do.

  4. Let’s see if I can make this a little more clear;

    “The law encourages people to use lethal force to defend their property and is at odds with Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights which obliges THE STATE to ensure that lethal force can only be used if absolutely necessary and strictly proportionate in all the circumstances.”

    Looks to me like any law permitting HOMEOWNERS to shoot INTRUDERS would still be on sound legal footing. Intruders are not, by definition, “state actors”.

    • > Looks to me like any law permitting HOMEOWNERS to shoot INTRUDERS would still be on sound legal footing. Intruders are not, by definition, “state actors”.

      You’re not reading it correctly. The state is obligated to ensure that lethal force is not used unless Brussels is happy. That includes lethal force by the “not state”.

      In practice, “the state” isn’t obligated to restrict criminals. It is, however, obligated to restrict the otherwise law-abiding to protect said criminals.

      Why? The sheeple will keep asking “the state” for protection from said criminals if said criminals are protected and the sheeple are kept vulnerable.

  5. When seconds count…. The Police are only minutes away…
    Best to be able and ready to fend for yourself until they show up.
    That will generally require a phone call 1st.

  6. RE: “The law encourages people to use lethal force to defend their property and is at odds with Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights which obliges the state to ensure that lethal force can only be used if absolutely necessary and strictly proportionate in all the circumstances.”

    No, actually Article 2 does no such thing. Among other things, Article 2 line 2(a) states that lethal force is allowed: “(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence”. So if someone enters your home unlawfully and is a threat to you, countervailing force is allowed under Article 2. Even better is clause 2(b): “in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained”. So Article 2 allows lethal force to effect an arrest, and it doesn’t say that the arrest has to be for a violent crime.

  7. “These are lax proposals, which contain insufficiently robust legal safeguards to protect the right to life of householders or intruders.“

    I have lost me Lucky Charms and my common sense with them!

  8. The Irish have never liked being told what to do, and plenty of them have died fighting for what they believe is right. I’d also rather be shot by most pistols than by a shotgun or rifle.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *