Think "transparent" is the word you mean, not democratic.

bpb101 wrote: »

they have to be from AGS,no ? maybe retired or something but has be AGS

Dunno. They'd have to have academic research credentials though so my guess would be that they'd ask someone from a law department somewhere. There are academics who study firearms law after all.

turismo2142 wrote: »

Ultimately it's the same thing sparks.

It really isn't. Democracy has nothing to do with accountability between elections beyond not having assassination as a valid means to change government policy (which is the reason it was invented in the first place).
Transparency into government work is an orthogonal concept; you might as well say that all of target shooting is about reading the wind, which most 10m airgunners might point out is a flawed concept...

turismo2142 wrote: »

You account for everything at elections.

Yes, but not in between elections. Democratic describes how the elections are run, transparent describes how the government behaves after you democratically elect them.

If you're suggesting that transparency is not in some way a function of a democratic system then so be it

They're independent. Both good, but you can work on one without touching the other.

but that's not the way I'd see it. Hardly a point to be debated here surely? :-)

True It's just a bugbear of mine to use the right words when talking about the Dail because they can point out you've used the wrong one to dodge questions (as they did for 30 years when people kept asking why the 1972 TCO was still in force years later...)

turismo2142 wrote: »

I wasn't aware of that. Haven't seen it for sale in the Four Courts either. He's not a member of the Law library (as far as a search tells me). Where'd you pick up a copy?

It's published by Clarus Press, but I got mine off the place I get 99% of my books.

Well, I can see you and I are having a productive Thursday at work then....;-)

I handed in my notice a few weeks ago and tomorrow's my last day in here, so my workload is a bit low

yubabill1 wrote: »

gunpolicy.org claims to be impartial and I quoted the research listed therein freely in my submissions

And Fox News claims to be fair and balanced.

I mean, gunpolicy.org are still happily saying there are 150,000 illegal guns in Ireland and we have 8.6 guns per 100 people because of that estimate...

yubabill1 wrote: »

Of course, ballistic fingerprinting is a pink elephant (which we are expected to pay for).

We all know it doesn't work.
But OTOH, everyone I've talked to has the opinion that if it shut up people about this "stolen guns used in crime" malarky...

Temporary restriction on 22 short firearms/ SA centrefires - I'm reading no more licences for that one....

Temporary in this case means "until the final Committee Report is published".
Yeah, that's not a good one.

Now read the good stuff:

The Committee was very impressed with the professionalism and dedication and
responsibility of the owners of legally held firearms who presented at the Committee and who
engaged with the Committee during the visit to Harbour House Sports Club in County
Kildare.
The Committee acknowledges the wish of representatives of the various shooting
organisations and clubs to engage in meaningful discussions and to progress matters further.
The Committee cautions against comparing, in any way, the owners of legally held firearms
with those engaged in criminal activity.

In other words, we're not the problem and the government is officially acknowledging that fact despite what the Gardai are saying.

The Committee strongly recommends that the Minister request that the Garda
Inspectorate carry out an independent review of the current firearms licensing
regime;

In other words, they don't believe the statistics the Gardai are producing or that the Gardai are implementing the law properly.

2. The Minister should establish a national firearms control and advisory licensing
authority with an associated central database also accessible by an Garda
Síochána

That's centralised licencing right there.
Me, I think that's not a silver bullet, but people have been asking for this for years.

The formation of a standing
consultative forum which would include all major stakeholders should be considered.
Such a forum would ensure that concerns and proposals from stakeholders could be
put forward on a regular basis to the authority.

That's the FCP brought back, finally, but put in charge of licencing:

The Committee is also of the opinion that such an authority could be:
a) The National authority that issues firearms licenses; or
b) An independent authority of final appeal in decisions to grant licenses if the initial
decision is to remain with An Garda Síochána.
(In the event that option a) is the role chosen then it would be advisable to separate
independent appeals process).

That's not only the FCP running licencing, but a seperate appeals process from the DC as a first line of appeal which would lower costs a lot.

It is recommended that point 22 calibre short firearms which are currently licensed be further
temporarily restricted to such firearms suitable only for competition under ISSF rules with a
barrel length of not less than 12.7 cms and not longer than 30cms and with a magazine
capacity of 10 rounds. This will require a new SI before the 2015 renewal date.

In other words, the only .22lr pistols you'll be able to licence will be the ones you can licence today. Hell of a restriction there.

Well. Maybe the short-barrel P22s will be hit, that's true.

The Joint Committee is of the view the law in this area needs to be consolidated as soon as
possible. To contribute to this, the Committee intends to consult with independent experts on
this matter and consider any Report by the Garda Inspectorate.

Finally, we'd be able to point to ONE place and say THAT is the law. Not 20+ acts that have to be read along with 50-odd SIs...