With respect to the fcp I'm sure everybodys intensions where honorable far from the last governments intensions.the nargc are not anti garda they want a fair system how can you achive that with the same people pulling the strings different minister ok but that's about it .its the same people advising the minister.

cavan shooter wrote: »

Go out with the NARGC until a consultative panel is formed that has clear aims and a meaningful role whose decision and power is recognised and accepted by all.

Except that that is what we had before all the court cases.
And everyone keeps saying they saw no results, but frankly, that's dross.

Did you see the FCP bring the Minister to heel? No. That doesn't mean the FCP is useless - the NARGC, for example, has never managed to bring a Minister to heel either, at best they managed to annoy one or two for as long as it took that Minister to turn around, spend less than a week in total, and deliver the two largest kickings our sports ever received in the entire history of the state. (And no, I'm sorry, Frank Brophy's case doesn't count, not when all that has resulted in the long term from that is what we were already offered in talks back in the 1990s).

What did the FCP manage to do? Amongst other things:

• Got every shooting body in Ireland to work together on the one thing, in an organised, recognised way. Yes, there were those who protested, but frankly, they were protesting having to follow rules they wrote themselves. The simple fact is that nothing we've ever done has gotten that many bodies from the shooting community to sit down regularly and work through things together. I'm mentioning this first, because frankly, this alone would have been worth the cost of admission. But it's not all we got.
• We became a known quantity inside the DoJ and AGS. Some of us, who pushed for talks with the PTB for years, were already known quantites. Others weren't. And in our sports, an unknown quantity is to the PTB somewhat akin to a rat during the Black Death (for the history freaks, substitute "cat" for "rat"). Being a known quantity means that when we put forward what we need for our sports, the DoJ and AGS hear the word "need", instead of the word "want". The difference is about as subtle and small as a concrete block thrown off an overpass into rush hour traffic.
• Pistols weren't banned. I've said it before, and nobody seems to cop to this, so let me be explicit here. Ahern didn't tell anyone before he announced he'd ban pistols. Nobody. The order came down the pipeline, nothing went up to cause it. And so the first people to hear about it were the DoJ. Not the NGBs, and not the NARGC. And the people who convinced the Minister to not just ban everything outright (which was within his powers and arguably in his best interests politically), were the DoJ. Folks can jump up and down and scream all they want that they'd go to court and fight a ban, but it's all bull****. If the Minister decides he's banning pistols in Ireland, there are no legal avenues through which to seek to challange that ban. Let me restate that - you can't go to the courts in Ireland, because they rule on the laws of the country, and the Minister writes those. It'd be like going to the ref in the All-Ireland finals to get him to force the GAA to use a rugby ball for GAA football. And you can't go to the EU, because the EU specifically states that when it comes to firearms, member states are completely free to have stricter rules than the EU standard. That's (one of the reasons) why the UK ban on pistols can't be overturned by the EU. So the only way to prevent a full ban was to know the people involved and have them understand our needs before the ban was put in place. Which is what happened.
• Centerfire pistols weren't banned. This isn't a small point either - restricted short firearms were banned. For right this second, that's the same thing; that's a given. But here's the long view - if centerfire pistols had been banned in statute, we'd need a new firearms act and a Minister willing to defend their reintroduction against an opposition looking to score points, while gun crime happily makes every headline from donegal to cork. What Minister wants to be known for that? Nobody would support it. But because of how the ban was done, all that's needed is for an SI to be altered, and centerfire pistols can come back. It'd take a Minister's signature, yes; but it wouldn't go near a Dail or Seanad session. It could be done in a matter of days.
• So, to summarise the pistols thing; without the FCP, you'd have none and no hope of getting them back. Because of the FCP, you have air and smallbore pistols, a legal mechanism up and running that licences pistols, and a clear and simple avenue to reintroducing fullbore pistols.
• Your dentist can't bar you from having a firearms licence on grounds of mental health. No, I'm not joking you, that was the original plan (along with a dozen other healthcare professionals, only one of which was an actual psychologist). The FCP blocked it.
• You can shoot with penetrating ammunition. Again, I jest not, the original restricted list SI said that penetrating ammunition was to be restricted (incidentally, that particular draft was NARGC-approved, it was the SSAI who pointed out that somebody had meant to say armour-piercing and had gotten too clever for themselves).
• The Firearms Policy Unit don't regard us as a bunch of borderline yahoos because they've spent time working with us on the FCP. People will say that the FPU can't call Chief Supers to heel so they're useless; those people seem ignorant to the fact that they're saying a group who handles 90% of the problems quickly, quietly and without fuss, is somehow a failure. No solution gets 100% of the problems. That's why you usually have multiple ways to fix a problem all running in parallel.
• The ranges and clubs SIs are at least workable and we can continue to tweak them as needed. Those who think that's a small thing don't remember the pre-FCP days when the Gardai showed up at your range with a copy of the JSP firearms standards (which cost €20k for a copy) and demanded that you adhere to it (they might go easy on you and not require that you cater to 20mm anti-tank rounds). Ask Rathdrum about the good old days...
• The FCP gave us access to government and state bodies other than the DoJ and AGS; the Sports Council, for example, were also members, and frankly, the more they learn about us the better, because they don't seem to know very much at all (with the exception of the high performance unit).

You could keep on making that list all night, listing off stupider and stupider things the FCP saved us from; some people wouldn't see those as being victories (but frankly, those people lack the imagination to see how bad those stupid things would have been); some will (without hint of irony) ask what all those things had to do with their specific interests; some will even suggest that stupid things don't make it into law (despite being in a sport governed by legislation that makes target shooting outside of an authorised range an illegal act with massive fines and hefty jail sentences; but fails to define what target shooting actually is).

Personally, though, even with its limitations and failings (and there are many of both; nothing's perfect), I still maintain that the FCP was the best thing we ever had when it comes to us and the PTB.

And it seems to me that we've pissed it away for nothing.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

May 2008 Association of Garda Sargents and Inspectors speech.

...which wasn't a total ban.

Not quite... Maybe not on the firearms rules ,but on the rules of EU citizenship equality.

Sorry, no.
Two things to remember:

1. Article 3 of the EU directive on firearms controls (91/477/EEC for the curious) states: "Member States may adopt in their legislation provisions which are more stringent that those provided for in this Directive, subject to the rights conferred on residents of the Member States by Article 12" (Article 12 was the bit saying you could travel on a europass between states, and it has a clause explicitly saying I can't use a europass to take a firearm into a country where it's banned, like a smallbore pistol into the UK).
   In other words, the EU explicitly stated over 20 years ago that if a member state wanted to crack down on firearms ownership, that was grand by the EU.
2. If I'm wrong about that, why has nobody from the UK (where they have a heck of a lot more shooters, manhours and money) ever successfully overturned their pistol ban that way?

Can I ask here Sparks...Why are you saying that you bemoan the loss of the FCP.Yet when folks say ok lets see if it can be got up and running again you say its pointless because a certain shouty fellow wont sit there with them and go with the democratic majority,albeit that he has 20k worth of hunters behind him??Correct me if I'm wrong,but with 250k worth of liscensed firearms here and most of them being IFA members,doesnt that put his organisation in the minority anyway on the previous FCP??
I just dont understand where you are coming from on this??

We've been saying on here and on ranges and in pubs for 20 years or more Grizz, that we all stand together or we all hang seperately (though personally, I always had a problem with that particular notion).

Partly, I'm asking the question to highlight the downsides of that idea.

But the rest of me (and that's the larger part) is asking the question because I simply don't know the answer. This is one of those impossible situations.

We know we have to talk to the PTB. That's just a fact, nobody disputes it, not even the NARGC (see their latest statements).

And basic fairness says it has to be even-handed. So we can't just cut out 20,000 shooters and say they can't be represented; but we also can't allow one NGB to dictate to every other NGB and shooter in the country (including the much larger group on the FCP list, the IFA - representing every shotgun-owning farmer in Ireland, which is a number far higher than 20,000!), as to what approach they may or may not take.

Frankly, if there's a fast and simple solution to all of this, I'm not seeing it.

QUOTE=Sparks;77258278]...which wasn't a total ban.
[/QUOTE]
But it certainly was a portent of what was going to come in the future of 12 months to his next speech at the same organisation..

2. Article 3 of the EU directive on firearms controls (91/477/EEC for the curious) states: "Member States may adopt in their legislation provisions which are more stringent that those provided for in this Directive, subject to the rights conferred on residents of the Member States by Article 12" (Article 12 was the bit saying you could travel on a europass between states, and it has a clause explicitly saying I can't use a europass to take a firearm into a country where it's banned, like a smallbore pistol into the UK).
   In other words, the EU explicitly stated over 20 years ago that if a member state wanted to crack down on firearms ownership, that was grand by the EU.

And we are not debating that legislation.Ths is coming at the problem from a different angle and of possible precedent law in relation to a different matter.

If I'm wrong about that, why has nobody from the UK (where they have a heck of a lot more shooters, manhours and money) ever successfully overturned their pistol ban that way?

You are not wrong on the firearms legislation bit at all.The human rights bit,which I belive would or will set precedent for us has always been there,but it has always required a person or group ,lots of money and time and the circumstances in legislation to challange it.

Put it like this you certainly can have justice in the EU court of money,if you can afford it,and here we are talking millions!!! There are enough people here in Ireland who knew the VRT was illegal,but there wasnt anyone intrested or botherd enough to throw a million Punts at the time on the table to challange it.

As simply put if you had a million quid and were a shooter would you be too arsed about the law here,when it is basically an academic exercise to hop on a plane anytime you want and fly to an EU country of your choice to go and shoot what ever you fancy and have over in wherever??
And certainly[for you] were youin that lucky situation it would be just a point scoring exercise to tweak big brothers EU nose on ths point of law!
To those who dont have the means to fight somthing like this just because of sheer cost it would mean everything.:(

To those who have the money the point is totally irrevelant!:D

So to answer your question,Even the UK lads wouldnt have the money to do this.AndTBH with the connections from the UK and its hundreds of cheaper ways to mainland Europe,are they really too botherd?If you can reach the best shooting countries within two hours flight timeOr less to NI?? from any major British city??And be home again for tea in the evening?


We've been saying on here and on ranges and in pubs for 20 years or more Grizz, that we all stand together or we all hang seperately (though personally, I always had a problem with that particular notion).

Partly, I'm asking the question to highlight the downsides of that idea.

But the rest of me (and that's the larger part) is asking the question because I simply don't know the answer. This is one of those impossible situations.

It is impossible alright at the minute,but wouldnt it be better if we could get it somhow to extremely difficult,then maybe difficult,possibly later awkward,then maybe relatively awkward,and on down??

We know we have to talk to the PTB. That's just a fact, nobody disputes it, not even the NARGC (see their latest statements).

But not going to happen if one side is going to be a primma donna about it,and the others are not going to participate because it isnt fair on Donna!!

And basic fairness says it has to be even-handed. So we can't just cut out 20,000 shooters and say they can't be represented; but we also can't allow one NGB to dictate to every other NGB and shooter in the country (including the much larger group on the FCP list, the IFA - representing every shotgun-owning farmer in Ireland, which is a number far higher than 20,000!), as to what approach they may or may not take.

Idont think it would be a case of slamming and bolting it in NARGCs face forever more.It should be more "if you want to act like a adult repersenting 20k worth of your members,who might be asking why arent we at this table then..please join us...
But keep the toys in the pram,if it immediately doesnt go 100% your way"
[Grossly oversimplyifing it here I know]

Think you would have to have some sort of proportional repersentation on this body if that is the right description???Another labour of Hercelus right there to get that sorted out!!

Frankly, if there's a fast and simple solution to all of this, I'm not seeing it.

There isnt,but a thousand mile journey starts with a single step.
The NI peace process springs to mind here It would be not better to at least have some people talking to the opposition than none at all??

Next question would be will DOJ/AGS actually talk to us as well?And maybe just as important,take on ,listen and act on what we say in the future??

cavan shooter wrote:

The PTB made a mockery of the FCP (sorry sparks)

I've been meaning to ask CS, if I can do it to point out that the FCP was a success, you can do the same to point out that it wasn't, right?

At a stroke of a pen it was thanks very much however, thats not what we wanted.

What stroke of a pen, specifically?

When Commissioners guidelines etc are produced, a licensing system is prepared and basic recommendations are ignored what use is a consultative panel.

The Commissioner doesn't answer to the FCP.
The Minister doesn't answer to the FCP.
So if you want a body that can bring both to heel and spank them in public, the FCP ain't it.

So what body can? (And don't just name them, give a specific example).
(And boards.ie doesn't count, you might argue we managed it once, but I'd argue we were just a communications conduit, and the grassroots folks managed it themselves)


And I've already pointed out a few specific cases where the FCP did get basic recommendations listened to, so maybe you could tell us which ones were not listened to?

Other thing that should be asked is WHY is the NARGC behaving like it is???

Sparks wrote: »

(and I don't mean a PR statement, I mean a list of specific problems that they felt could not be resolved with the FCP and which were serious enough to give up the FCP (and how they planned to solve those problems would be nice .

I think that should be sorted among the panel before they look to go forward ,and sort out there differences,every body needs to get behind each other.I'M sure the NARGC are very active in looking at ways of solving the situation.its also up to the other stake holders,the NARGC are NOT unreasonable unapproachable people by far.

I dont see any mention of the other NGB in that statement which would be a good place to start from?

It would appear the quote from the press release reprinted above clearly states the NARGC problem and I would guess the problem alot of shooters have, a lack of trust.

However other Organisations don't seem to have that problem what so ever,(Sparks you have highlighted this on numerous occasions) so fire away and start having the meetings. But there is no point having a talking shop when elements of the DOJ etc have no interest in taking on board what was said.

cavan shooter wrote: »

By the way yesterday this wasn't a thread open for discussion this was a thread where an answer was to be given to a question being asked...... Whats changed

What happened was that I had both threads open in seperate tabs and posted in the wrong one My bad, I'll fix it...


...fixed. Thanks for the headsup CS.

cavan shooter wrote: »

It would appear the quote from the press release reprinted above clearly states the NARGC problem and I would guess the problem alot of shooters have, a lack of trust.

what is needed is a centralized process and some of the powers taken from the gardai,they have showed they cant be trusted ,I agree that the gardai will always have some part in the process in vetting,security arrangement,but the rest of the process should be made up from people who know about firearms,under the dept of sport,and a process of appeal which is fair and transparent,which doesn't involve been in a criminal court in front of every criminal to see that you have firearms.I can understand the NARGC having gone through the appeal process myself,also mods been refused,second shotgun or rifle,ETC,due to lack of knowledge. its a case of shut up and take what your giving?

Reminds me of the film Oliver twist Please sir can I have some more.