Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)

Shooting Forum - Firearms licencing information


Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Gardai proposals to ban firearms

Options
1…6970727475…95

Comments

  • Options
    #2132
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    yubabill1 wrote: »
    I'm in the camp that thinks justice cttee don't recommend restrictions on S/A pump shotguns (at least in interim report).
    They also don't recommend against them. So from the Minister's point of view, it's an unopposed recommendation from her Department...
    Then the cttee recommend the apprenticeship suggestion from IFA.
    That's not an IFA idea.
    • A smallbore or fullbore rifle licence held for a year to be a mandatory prerequisite for an application for a pistol licence
    • A mandatory 24-month apprenticeship programme to be subsequently undertaken by all applicants with a smallbore pistol under the NASRPC's supervision and evaluation (for a total of three years the applicants spend certified for firearms they ultimately neither want nor need)

    Again, let's restress - these are INTERIM recommendations. Read them. Take a day and time to breathe, then write to the Committee over the weekend pointing out the problems with the recommendations and the good in them as well. And once the final report comes out and goes to the Minister, there will be more meetings with her.

    I'm not saying this is fine, ignore it; I'm saying you don't need to be writing to them tonight, you can take a day and compose your reply.


  • Options
    #2133
    Grizzly 45
    Registered Users Posts: 14,955 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    Cass wrote: »
    Just to be clear.

    This report, as a summary of what is to come (in the most basic tense), is going to ask for further restrictions and caps on the number and type of pistols/semi autos.

    So until the full report is released, and the Minister makes her decision any application must be treated and processed as the law stands now?

    Any chance this interim report will be used as a basis to start implementing "policy" now?

    Short answer yes on both ..Yes any applications must be considered under the law as it stands,and yes,some wise guy will no doubt try it on as "policy" somewhere.And hopefully get slapped down for doing that too.

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • Options
    #2134
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Cass wrote: »
    So until the full report is released, and the Minister makes her decision any application must be treated and processed as the law stands now?
    Correct.
    The Committee doesn't have the legal authority to introduce a cap and I can't think of a mechanism the Minister could use to bring one in without changing the Act. She can ban them outright, she can issue a TCO, but I don't think there's a legal mechanism to have a cap on licence numbers. Another one for the letter to the committee.


  • Options
    #2135
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    yubabill1 wrote: »
    Sure, then that means all the WG proposals not mentioned bu Justice Cttee interim report - proliferation, crime levels, appearance etc - are all endorsed by default!

    No, it doesn't mean that either - it means they are unopposed.
    Silence might mean consent; it doesn't mean approval.


  • Options
    #2136
    bpb101
    Registered Users Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭bpb101


    lads, it could have been worst.imo
    yeah , the time lock safe on restricted firearms and making pistols restricted is a pain alright.

    Making farmers have normal firearms safe may clean up the stolen shotgun problem a bit. They wont be happy with that though

    Ballistic testing all firearms i cant see happening. If it does, it will start with pistols. Where would this be done, Cant see the local garda stations doing it

    graduate license system may allow for cf pistols to be brought back in


    Centralized databases is a plus
    centralized application unit is a plus as well

    Sparks or cass, it may be worth pinning that report to the op , as the thread goes on it will become harder to find and review


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2137
    yubabill1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭yubabill1


    Sparks wrote: »
    They also don't recommend against them. So from the Minister's point of view, it's an unopposed recommendation from her Department...


    That's not an IFA idea.


    Again, let's restress - these are INTERIM recommendations. Read them. Take a day and time to breathe, then write to the Committee over the weekend pointing out the problems with the recommendations and the good in them as well. And once the final report comes out and goes to the Minister, there will be more meetings with her.

    I'm not saying this is fine, ignore it; I'm saying you don't need to be writing to them tonight, you can take a day and compose your reply.

    1. There was something in the IFA submission about apprenticeship/ competence or suchlike.

    2. Write away (I will be) but this is an election issue for me.

    The interim report is NOT favourable to us - it's a rehash of the WG proposals dressed-up.


  • Options
    #2138
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    bpb101 wrote: »
    lads, it could have been worst.imo
    yeah , the time lock safe on restricted firearms and making pistols restricted is a pain alright.
    It's not the pain that I'd object to, it's the lack of efficacy combined with the expense.
    If your timelock includes an hour when a robbery happens, it is worse than useless - it gives a false sense of security and delays detection of the crime.
    Ballistic testing all firearms i cant see happening. If it does, it will start with pistols. Where would this be done, Cant see the local garda stations doing it
    The facilities are in the Park and the law to cover it is already there.
    The experiences in California and Maryland however, demonstrated that it doesn't work.
    graduate license system may allow for cf pistols to be brought back in
    Nope. That wouldn't allow for that to happen automatically. It's completely seperate to what would be required to rescind that ban.
    Centralized databases is a plus
    centralized application unit is a plus as well
    PULSE is centralised. Centralisation isn't a cure-all.
    It would be a step up in some ways, and a step back in others.
    Not saying it's a bad thing. I'm saying it's got both good and bad, that's all.
    Sparks or cass, it may be worth pinning that report to the op , as the thread goes on it will become harder to find and review

    Agreed, I'll do that now.


  • Options
    #2139
    yubabill1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭yubabill1


    Sparks wrote: »
    No, it doesn't mean that either - it means they are unopposed.
    Silence might mean consent; it doesn't mean approval.

    Semantics, (you pedant;)).


  • Options
    #2140
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    yubabill1 wrote: »
    1. There was something in the IFA submission about apprenticeship/ competence or suchlike.
    Yup, copied from somewhere else. And if you think the Gardai didn't pass on the NASRPC idea to the committee privately, I think you might be wrong. It'd be too much of an ace card to point to a suggestion from a rival like that.
    2. Write away (I will be) but this is an election issue for me.
    Those two are not mutually exclusive and we should be doing BOTH!!!
    The interim report is NOT favourable to us - it's a rehash of the WG proposals dressed-up.
    I disagree mildly with the first part of that and completely with the second - the WG would have disbanded rather than recommend the FCP come back and they'd have burned down the room before recommending that licencing be devolved from the Gardai.


  • Options
    #2141
    Grizzly 45
    Registered Users Posts: 14,955 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    yubabill1 wrote: »
    1. There was something in the IFA submission about apprenticeship/ competence or suchlike.

    2. Write away (I will be) but this is an election issue for me.

    The interim report is NOT favourable to us - it's a rehash of the WG proposals dressed-up.

    The IFA suggestion was that all handguns were to be kept on a range strong room for three years and then you would be allowed to store them at home.Go back app 4 weeks on this thread it's all there.

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2142
    yubabill1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭yubabill1


    Sparks wrote: »
    Yup, copied from somewhere else. And if you think the Gardai didn't pass on the NASRPC idea to the committee privately, I think you might be wrong. It'd be too much of an ace card to point to a suggestion from a rival like that.

    Those two are not mutually exclusive and we should be doing BOTH!!!

    I disagree mildly with the first part of that and completely with the second - the WG would have disbanded rather than recommend the FCP come back and they'd have burned down the room before recommending that licencing be devolved from the Gardai.

    FCP, FCP, FCP........consulting over what of any consequence (if the interim report recommendations/ unopposed WG proposals are implemented) ?


  • Options
    #2143
    bpb101
    Registered Users Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭bpb101


    Sparks wrote: »


    The facilities are in the Park and the law to cover it is already there.
    The experiences in California and Maryland however, demonstrated that it doesn't work.
    in the park? i know the garda can do it , but they cant cope with 200,000 firearms being tested tomorrow.

    Sparks wrote: »
    Nope. That wouldn't allow for that to happen automatically. It's completely seperate to what would be required to rescind that ban.
    yeah , i know it wouldnt , but it may open a path for it in the future


  • Options
    #2144
    Grizzly 45
    Registered Users Posts: 14,955 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    Sparks wrote: »

    The facilities are in the Park and the law to cover it is already there.
    The experiences in California and Maryland however, demonstrated that it doesn't work.

    And Germany and asfik N Ireland. Can't see them going with too either.It's costly and negated in a minute with a replacement spare part or a metal file

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • Options
    #2145
    wexfordman2
    Registered Users Posts: 2,543 ✭✭✭wexfordman2


    Copied this bit from the report:-


    More importantly it brings an escalating and more vigorous qualification and
    expense to achieve a license for firearms of concern to An Garda Síochána. In effect the
    higher levels of requirement and expense form a well-defined restriction to risk of
    proliferation. Also license applicants will have to accumulate a license history in addition to
    meeting all other requirements to allow them progress up the licensing hierarchy.







    Are they basically saying that a method of restricting firearms licensing is to make it more expensive ?


  • Options
    #2146
    yubabill1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭yubabill1


    wexfordman2 wrote: »
    Copied this bit from the report:-


    More importantly it brings an escalating and more vigorous qualification and
    expense to achieve a license for firearms of concern to An Garda Síochána. In effect the
    higher levels of requirement and expense form a well-defined restriction to risk of
    proliferation. Also license applicants will have to accumulate a license history in addition to
    meeting all other requirements to allow them progress up the licensing hierarchy.







    Are they basically saying that a method of restricting firearms licensing is to make it more expensive ?

    You got it in one.


  • Options
    #2147
    bpb101
    Registered Users Posts: 2,827 ✭✭✭bpb101


    yubabill1 wrote: »
    You got it in one.
    i too do sense a price hike


  • Options
    #2148
    Cass
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,465 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    bpb101 wrote: »
    graduate license system may allow for cf pistols to be brought back in
    bpb101 wrote: »
    yeah , i know it wouldnt , but it may open a path for it in the future
    At what cost to every, and i mean EVERY, other type of shooting.

    • FTR - Usually (predominantly) shot with .308. You have to start off with an air rifle, then .22lr, then .223, then 6.5, eventually up to .308 after what 3 or 5 years.
    • Pistol - Start with air pistol, then maybe a .22lr and never a centre fire as outlined above.
    • Deer stalking - you need .22 centrefire or higher. You can only have an air rifle, then .22lr, then .223 and after 3 or more years eventually onto a deer legal caliber.
    • Clays - Start off with a 410, then a 20 bore then a single barrel 12 g, and eventually a clay suitable gun.
    • General hunting (rifle or shotgun) - The same as the above.

    In all the above you'd start off with something smaller and less suitable, although sometimes not suitable at all, if you have the determination to spend thousands of Euro on range/club fees, guns you don't need or want, etc. while you build up your "firearm History".

    It also has an impact on people of all ages. I've had a lot of calibers, and a lot of guns over the years. I can, at 37, show more than enough history to go for pretty much any gun i wanted. My Uncle is 59 and wants to get into deer stalking this year. If these were in effect he would or could be limited to a .22lr (not legal) for say 6 months to a year until he can prove he is good enough for a .223 (still not legal) and then after so many months or years a deer legal gun. I know he would just say feck it.

    Another example. A man in his 50's that has only ever had a shotgun finds he needs and wants a rifle. At 50 -odd he is now told you must go for a .22 air rifle first and build up your experience over the next few years until he gets the experience for the caliber he initially wanted/needed.

    Another aspect (there are loads). Who manages this? The Gardaí have never, and will never vouch for or endorse any safety course. So who is going to run and judge these people and say when they are suitably experienced to have a higher caliber firearm?
    Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

    If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.

    Moderators - Cass otmmyboy2 , CatMod - Shamboc , Admins - Beasty , mickeroo



  • Options
    #2149
    wexfordman2
    Registered Users Posts: 2,543 ✭✭✭wexfordman2


    yubabill1 wrote: »
    You got it in one.

    That's pretty disgusting. They are openly admitting that they want to price people out of the sport and make it elitist!

    I see no mention of the issue around refusals based on crime level either ?

    Does this also mean they are happy with allowing this to proceed ?


  • Options
    #2150
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    yubabill1 wrote: »
    FCP, FCP, FCP........consulting over what of any consequence (if the interim report recommendations/ unopposed WG proposals are implemented) ?

    Over the entire licencing system, only not so much consulting as being the legal authority for it.


  • Options
    #2151
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    bpb101 wrote: »
    in the park? i know the garda can do it , but they cant cope with 200,000 firearms being tested tomorrow.
    Yup. But over the course of a few years they could, so that argument wouldn't be the strongest. The fact that it's been done and was ineffective and expensive strikes me as the stronger argument.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2152
    yubabill1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭yubabill1


    Sparks wrote: »
    Over the entire licencing system, only not so much consulting as being the legal authority for it.

    Might look good to you, but crock of sh*T to me (no offence, but you won't be legal licensing authority for sa centrefires or any other category they don't like)


  • Options
    #2153
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Grizzly 45 wrote: »
    It's costly and negated in a minute with a replacement spare part or a metal file

    And that was actually brought up in the committee meeting in January by one of the TDs...
    Deputy Alan Farrell:   I wish to ask a follow-up question. Does Mr. Costello agree that it is a lot easier to change the configuration of a firing pin than a barrel? I could adjust the striations left by a firing pin in a shotgun with a nailfile in 30 seconds to make it completely unrecognisable from the record previously taken. To do the same with a barrel of a rifle or handgun is a completely different kettle of fish.


  • Options
    #2154
    yubabill1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭yubabill1


    Deputy Alan Farrell:   I wish to ask a follow-up question. Does Mr. Costello agree that it is a lot easier to change the configuration of a firing pin than a barrel? I could adjust the striations left by a firing pin in a shotgun with a nailfile in 30 seconds to make it completely unrecognisable from the record previously taken. To do the same with a barrel of a rifle or handgun is a completely different kettle of fish.


    Oversize steel brush.

    Ruins the barrel, though.


  • Options
    #2155
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    yubabill1 wrote: »
    Might look good to you, but crock of sh*T to me (no offence, but you won't be legal licensing authority for sa centrefires or any other category they don't like)

    You're thinking that there's one "they". There isn't. And if multiple "they"s are having a polite row...


  • Options
    #2156
    yubabill1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭yubabill1


    Sparks wrote: »
    You're thinking that there's one "they". There isn't. And if multiple "they"s are having a polite row...

    I think you might be blinded by the prospect of a little power, with the emphasis on little.

    I was/worked with the securicrats - and even after several years of exposure to medium-level state security info, when I was promoted into a job with highly-sensitive info, they jumbled it up (which drove me nuts, because I like to be neat in my work).

    The permanent government trust no outsider and barely trust their own.


  • Options
    #2157
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    yubabill1 wrote: »
    I think you might be blinded by the prospect of a little power, with the emphasis on little.
    Ha, yeah, right. I have all the full nappies I need at home thanks :D


  • Options
    #2158
    Grizzly 45
    Registered Users Posts: 14,955 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    Sparks wrote: »
    Ha, yeah, right. I have all the full nappies I need at home thanks :D

    As Mark Twain said about changing diapers and Govts frequently and for the same reason.:)

    Some Thoughts..
    After reading this for the fifth time is it just me or do I get the impression this is reading like an end of term last minute essay assingemnet done on the Monday morning before school breaks up?There things being said that dont add up.

    Take the .22 pistol application cap we all know ISSF pistols dont have to look like anything in particular.just so long as they are the correct weight,mechanically within a parameter and fit in a ISSF regulation box.
    Yet reading what the comittee has said is this.So long as it is used for ISSF ,has ten rounds, has a barrel of six ins and is under a foot in lenght .It is good to go and doesnt fall under this dubious legal further restriction?

    The Time lock safe.
    Apart from the fact that no gun safe maker makes such a safe.They tend to go more for biometrics to prevent unauthorised access these days and cost in the grands too. [ I have to second guess those who wrote this]is that it would be on time lock when you are absent from the house?????As stated what happens when you decide to go out shooting when its locked down?

    It would be also the first time in the States history that a govt organisation would trump the judicary if they leave it as the ultima ratio for firearms decisions and not the DC.Means re writing at least two Firearms acts or acts related to them?

    Another fault on the ballistics testing and proving...guns unlike cars are pretty stable and very safe things,[in the right hands][their cheif enemies being here rust ,AGS and politicans.] So if I go and get my Glock and R25 ballisticaly tested....what then??You get two fees off me and its done for ever more.At 150 +/- semi rifles and 500+/- and drop in handguns that is a small one time fee.Hardly going to keep a ballistic libary in busisness and especially if you are making it harder for those types of guns to be imported??

    Increase in fees ..Always.Ever hear of a govt reducing the cost of living?And esp if they have to set up a new organisation?

    If we go thru all these hops and loops of training etc.Will they finally liscense the man and not the gun??? And bring it up to tn years?Also if thy terst and liscense the man it woukld negate long having to do offical apprenticeships.That could then be left up to the club and disipline as to what probationary time and requirements suit and fit their needs.

    As said this is only an intern report,and there is still plenty of input to be done
    Even the minister can reject the findings or go with them or take some and leave others. I'm 50/50 on this sofar.

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • Options
    #2159
    Deaf git
    Registered Users Posts: 228 ✭✭Deaf git


    The recommendation re the Garda Inspectorate is a positive I reckon.
    The independent authority and easier appeal process is a positive too. (Its better than where we are).
    The further restriction on cf s/a rifles and .22 pistols.... I dont think the Committee fully understand the importance of language- do they mean further restricted in the normal English language sense or in the crazy firearms law sense? If its the English normal sense then some p22 types (gsp barrel length?) get the boot and the rest are legitimised incl revolvers. Is it possible to further restrict the sa rifles short of a ban?
    Gunsafes? No argument from me.
    Timelocks? By the time the thief gets to the safe the alarm should already be sounding, no?
    Forensic records? They can't manage the existing records... too much CSI Miami on the box I reckon.


  • Options
    #2160
    Grizzly 45
    Registered Users Posts: 14,955 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    "Bout the only things they could restrict on the semi rifles would be
    mag capacity and quick changeability of mags

    Restrict the mags to X number of rounds or make the mag impossible to remove in a quick change ala California with its " bullet button mag" or having to open the AR like a break action double barrel and stripper clip load ten rounds. Or having to use a bullet tip to drop the mag rather than a button.

    Cosmetics of the" Idontlikedelookodatnow" of bayonet holders,pistol grips flash hiders.
    All been done and all been by passed within weeks.

    Ban the semi auto action..Again already been done and now bypassed for at least a decade too.You still have a straight pull bolt or pump action with whatever"military features" and mag capacity you like on it now.As they are tchnically then bolt action rifles they cant be treated any differently as a more "normal rifle" with "tactical bits" on it.

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2161
    juice1304
    Registered Users Posts: 1,805 ✭✭✭juice1304


    It's a pretty heartbreaking read, I feel for you all.
    I really dont know how they come up with this garbage. I was somewhat hopeful something positive might happen. Is there any kind of idea on when any of this will happen if it is going to happen?


Advertisement