Sparks wrote: »

That's not in dispute.
Never has been.

The form that training takes, however, is now becoming problematic, because as we've mentioned, the total lack of any and all regulation of firearms training (for civilians at least) means that we're starting to see more and more of these half-assed one-hour "courses" being cited as proof of competence and sooner or later that will lead to someone being badly hurt.

Look shooting is a sport where things can go wrong very quickly, its about limiting these problems, "half assed one our courses", are better than nothing at all. So unless you have given one of these courses what would make you qualified to determine their quality.

But bringing in a nationally recognised course isn't something that should be done without some thought. Firstly because to make it mandatory would require an amendment to the Act and that's always a risky idea given what happens when election-watching backbenchers get wind of it.

No I fundamentally disagree with the above statement, make that group responsible for safety and make them liable, no insurance company in Ireland will want to underwrite that task unless its at great expense to the shooter.

But more from our point of view is that if you make this mandatory and it is written in such a way that clubs can't run the courses themselves (and there is no conceivable reason they shouldn't do so given that it's kept us safe for the last 170 years), then we're all hooped.


Can you spell "legal liability"?

You just required everyone who gives that course to get public indemnity insurance in the million-euro range.

No I did not
The club provided the training delivered by a nominated and qualified team
On club grounds the club is responsible and has public liability for any and all accidents which may occur.

Now maybe that'll just be a thing we have to do. And if so, maybe it's not the end of the world. But you do not bring in a requirement like that by accident because you didn't think the plan through in more detail first!

That's not the suggestion, clubs train and clubs authorize after the club has determined if the person is competent.

That is *not* what a referee on your application does. They testify to your character not your competence and most of the time they wouldn't be qualified to testify as to the latter.

Yes that is not what a referee does I am well aware of this, but that is what happens. New entrants invariably approach someone they know to get them to sign that they will vouch for their good character, competence is what the prosecuting counsel question when it goes to court if there is an issue.

No, it should not be.
This idea that we have to do a course is a bad one. The "proof of competence" approach is better and more flexible. There are too many different circumstances for people coming into the sport to do otherwise.

Are you going to set this course up and get it through the FCP, I think someone has been trying that for a long time, I would question that persons competence having seen first hand on the line whats occurred.

Legislation isn't going to solve this problem, nor will Garda enforcement. Proper face to face and competent and comprehensive examination of the applicant by the Gardaí is the only way. After all its the local super or chief who signs your FCA1

If you cant answer and satisfy their questions then you shouldn't have a firearm, you can appeal and if satisfactory its approved.

I know people haven't the best things to say about this process and it isn't always the best solution, most including myself have had major issues with this in the past, but until someone suggests something better and gets it approved its the only way.

Eh... not quite. Unless you are *very* lax about your definition of the word "reasonable". And that's part of this whole problem as well. You make a course mandatory but someone in Donegal can't do it without taking a day off work and travelling half the length of the country and probably having to stay overnight before returning home? That's a failure, right there.
(Not to mention, this one-day-course idea is nowhere near as good as the traditional club approach of watching someone for weeks or months as the good habits bed in).

There are gun clubs all over Donegal, and if you want something bad enough travel isn't going to be an issue. We are Irish and we travel half way round the world for a pint, whats a couple of miles in a car to a range.

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

A nationally recognised qualification might not be a bad idea.

If it was done right it *might* not be.
But that's a HUGE if.
It's far more likely to be obstructed, co-opted or otherwise mangled by people with more mercantile interests, or more political ones, and we could be stuck with an absolutely unworkable system as a result.
Something like this *could* be good, but it would take a lot of effort to ensure that was the case, and I see absolutely no evidence of any of the cross-NGB work that would be required to set this up in a way that didn't crucify everyone.

It's like an amendment to the Firearms Act. Yes, you can do a lot of good with one of those, but what's far more likely to happen is that you'll draft something good, the AG's office will mangle it, the DoJ will mangle it further, the Minister won't be completely briefed, and in committee stage and the second stage arguments in the Dail, it'll be savaged by backbenchers looking to get their names in the press for getting a dig into the minister or into drug gangs by standing up against the proliferation of guns in our society (if this sounds familiar, it's because that's exactly what Finian McGrath did the last time, and Jim Deasy before him).

Things like this need to be handled like an old stick of dynamite.

Sparks wrote: »

jb, could you stop talking as if nobody here has ever seen the inside of a range or trained a new shooter, please?

I shudder to think sometimes, on how most people view firearms training but that's my two cents. When the training is delivered by a chief range officer from the NRA, its more than enough for our club. But maybe yours has a higher authority

No, they are far far worse than nothing at all because they give the illusion of safety and just enough knowledge to be dangerous. Those kind of "courses" need to be stamped out, not encouraged, because they are a danger to those taking them and frankly don't have any redeeming features outside of the paperwork box-ticking exercises.

So no training at all is better than some training. Don't agree with that.

Having trained somewhere around a thousand people to shoot over the course of a decade. Having been involved in preparing a course on basic instruction in target shooting for FETAC (which was nixed by fun inside the ISC rather than any problem within FETAC). And having half an ounce of common sense about how long it takes someone to learn how to be safe with a firearm properly.

For some like me I will be learning for the rest of my life so I will never be qualified to shoot

That makes no sense. I don't mean "I disagree with you", I mean that your statement is utterly unrelated to what I was saying, in the way that "Blue" is not an answer to "Would you like the fish or the chicken?".

Look, I don't care if you don't know how legal liability and indemnity insurance works, and neither do the courts. If you sign off on someone being proficient in the use of a firearm, and they subsequently have an accident because they were not, then you are legally liable and the damages could be in the millions. That's all there is to it.

Im extremely familiar with most insurance types and its not wise to display why your wrong but in this case I will make the exception. Having had a number of successful claims and counter claims. These issues relate to public liability insurance if you must know.

Other than to point out that competency and proficiency are not the same thing and the law not only notes the distinction, it very deliberately looks for the former and not the latter. The minister who drafted the law was asked about this specific point at the time and specifically answered that he did not want a proficiency test in the law because it was not appropriate - you shouldn't have to be Tiger Woods to be allowed to play pitch-n-putt.

I mentioned nothing of a proficiency test, the club trains the club members to the NRA standard, even though its probably not recognized in Ireland, but when the club member is asked if he has had training at least he can say he/she was trained by an NRA instructor. The Super or chief sign your licence they ultimately must decide if its good enough along with many other factors not connected to this conversation

And your signature is right there saying "I certify this person is proficient". At which point the club says "not our deal" and your arse is twisting in the wind.

Twisting in what wind where, maybe in your club

Like I said, not only do I not care if you don't know how legal liability works, neither do the courts.

This discussion relates to how someone can be trained, not insured. Again this is public liability if someone is injured, anything else is outside the relm of this discussion

I love how you just invented a second, completely seperate course to train the trainers and got that nationally recognised as well by the way.

Nationally recognized where??? Our club recognize that. That's all that matters. Nothing invented only training provided.

They currently do not have that duty, and no club run by sane people would take that mantle on even if the Gardai would be willing to delegate licencing firearms to the clubs like that.

Yes, having a veto over who can and can't get a licence does mean that the Gardai have delegated their licencing role to you; because legally your decision fetters theirs. BTW, that would require a change in the Firearms Act to bring about as well.


No, it's not. I've stood as a referee for people several times and I have never, ever been asked to testify as to their competence, ever. Their character, yes. Their competence, no, and the Garda calling always avoided asking rather pointedly. That call is not down to the referees, it's down to the Gardai and not only do they not want the referees to do it, it's not legally permitted and no sane person should take it on even if offered because again, legal liability in the event of an accident caused by incompetence.


The FCP should not be involved in setting up a course or trying to get it approved by QQI. The two have simply no overlap at all.


I'll pass on the free ticket to a defamation lawsuit thank you and ask that you don't give out names on that line. Regardless of my personal feelings on the topic, defamation is defamation and the last shooter that went after another shooter for that won seventy-five thousand euro over a single comment on facebook over it.


...I can't even.
I mean, seriously, I've probably seen things written on firearms legislation that were less grounded in reality or a basic knowledge of how the law works, but there haven't been many.
This is a problem that *requires* legislation to solve *and* that legislation will have to be enforced by the Gardai, because there has been a decade during which we could have sorted this ourselves and we just patently have not, and now we have opportunistic chancers trying to make a quick few euro out of the situation and it will lead to a public safety risk. That is *explicitly* the area the Gardai and the law are responsible for.

Everything in Irelands needs the cover your arse approach because the risk of being sued is always in the background.

Don't expect anything quickly its hard to enforce their own existing legislation, not to mention making more legislation for the most law abiding group of private individuals in Ireland (Firearms holders)

But my points related primarily to a course in which a person could do and use as a basis along with other supporting documentation gain a licence,

Is your local Super competent to judge competency in firearms when there are no recognised courses he can take to prove that he or she is competent?

Yes he is extremely competent in this regard with relation to firearms. My super did ask for lots of supporting documentation and it was provided and he was satisfied.

And if you think this is splitting hairs, tell me what happens when the first case goes to court under your system when someone disputes a Garda's finding of incompetence?

What system, I think you are making up these problems as you go along, here. The fact that you are trained does not mean that mistakes cant be made, if you infer this then there would be no traffic accidents by anyone in Ireland who passed their driving test. (Makes no sense at all)

That's the most head-in-sand, unable-to-grasp-the-idea-of-fairness, privileged pile of nonsense I've seen said about a proposed firearms act this year that wasn't said by a Garda, a TD, or some chancer looking to make a few quid off the backs of other shooters through underhanded means.

Your taking a lot of this out of context,

No money was handed over by the participants for the courses they are free and if clubs want competent shooters they should train their shooters for FREE. Its about sharing knowledge nothing else and keeping people safe, tell me how this is wrong????????

I mean, you do understand that we're not all rich enough to take a day off work, drive half the length of the country and take a course that hasn't been required for the last 170 years? That making such a course mandatory would require some justification in the face of that 170-year safety record that has not been given by anyone so far? That this is all something that's been invented from whole cloth, that was never intended to replace the existing system and the only reason it's taken off like it has is because nobody has pushed back on the bad idea of applying to everyone a solution intended only for the exceptional cases?

No one said anything about mandatory except you?

So there are not clay clubs and hunting clubs and ranges in every county in Ireland, id wager there is one form of the above if not all in every county in Ireland. That's where your training should take place.[/B]

THIS is how we wind up hip-deep in ****e with everyone asking how we got there three years too late to do anything about it, by just blithely accepting that kind of bad idea. Well, No. It's not good enough. It's not thought out, it makes no sense in the real world or in law, and it has no basis in data. Enough already.

Its not that its a good idea to train members of your club is a great one, and if people got behind it and did some training there would be less problems, im sure everyone has done their fair share of helping and supporting new entrants and giving them advice.

Only this training and advice takes place off keyboard.

jb88 wrote: »

I shudder to think sometimes, on how most people view firearms training but that's my two cents. When the training is delivered by a chief range officer from the NRA, its more than enough for our club. But maybe yours has a higher authority

No, ours had a different authority, specifically ISSF. And the training delivered in our ranges was up to the same standard and our coaching and judging accreditations and structures had been at an international level since long before I started shooting. Just because the clubs are in different org charts doesn't mean you're doing it better or worse or longer or shorter.

So no training at all is better than some training. Don't agree with that.

Then try telling someone how to use a chainsaw for three minutes and then turn them loose on a tree and watch the ensuing episode of Casualty. I recommend you wear an apron, people splash.

Bad training is always and forever worse than no training, because at least with no training the average person knows they don't know anything.

For some like me I will be learning for the rest of my life so I will never be qualified to shoot

Which is why we talk about competence and not proficiency (amongst other reasons).

Im extremely familiar with most insurance types and its not wise to display why your wrong but in this case I will make the exception. Having had a number of successful claims and counter claims. These issues relate to public liability insurance if you must know.

Please, demonstrate away.

I mentioned nothing of a proficiency test

You used the term several times. In those exact words. I'm quoting you, not making it up.

, the club trains the club members to the NRA standard, even though its probably not recognized in Ireland, but when the club member is asked if he has had training at least he can say he/she was trained by an NRA instructor. The Super or chief sign your licence they ultimately must decide if its good enough along with many other factors not connected to this conversation

That is how it works today, not in the new system you were proposing.
So are you saying that you didn't mean to propose a new system but were just badly describing the existing one?

Twisting in what wind where, maybe in your club

Before you go judging what your club and my club and that club in the corner would do in such circumstances, remember that you won't ever know until you're in them. And while the club has the option to throw you under the bus, you're firmly attached to someone's proficiency rating under that system you described. And the casebooks in Irish law are filled with clubs-versus-members cases, many of which would leave us in the ha'penny place for pettiness.

Besides all of which, you're talking about a general system. Not one specifically populated by you and your club and nobody else. Can Joe Bloggs in Ballygobackwards have the same faith in his club that you have in yours?

This discussion relates to how someone can be trained, not insured. Again this is public liability if someone is injured, anything else is outside the relm of this discussion

And if someone has an accidental discharge because they weren't properly trained, what are the odds that some member of the public will be the one who gets hurt? Because on at least two occasions I can think of in the last 20 years that's what's happened. And that's public indemnity insurance.

Nationally recognized where??? Our club recognize that. That's all that matters. Nothing invented only training provided.

Your club's recognition (or mine) is only of any importance when considering club matters like membership or who should be an RO. It has no bearing when it comes to your FCA1 proof of competence, which is the matter at hand. If you want your training to be nationally recognised as you're suggesting, your trainers also have to have nationally recognised accreditation. Hence the comment about needing to put that, separate course into place.

Everything in Irelands needs the cover your arse approach because the risk of being sued is always in the background.

Foreground, not background, especially in our sport. Last time there was a lawsuit between shooters was less than six months ago, don't forget, and there are solicitors' letters flying all over the place at the moment over NGB level stuff as mentioned in other threads.

Don't expect anything quickly its hard to enforce their own existing legislation, not to mention making more legislation for the most law abiding group of private individuals in Ireland (Firearms holders)

Yes, I might have said something along those lines before.

But my points related primarily to a course in which a person could do and use as a basis along with other supporting documentation gain a licence,

Yes, and as we've said over and over, we don't have any such animal. And bringing one in is not simple, not risk-free, and prone to being hijacked by short-term views mainly focussed on profiting from the task financially.

Yes he is extremely competent in this regard with relation to firearms. My super did ask for lots of supporting documentation and it was provided and he was satisfied.

(a) Your Super, not Supers in general;
(b) Prove he's competent. List his accreditations. (Past histories are lovely stories; accreditation is what you need in a formal legal setting like this to prove to non-experts that you possess a set level of knowledge about a topic).

Given that there aren't any accreditations in this country for this topic (the sole QQI-recognised course is on forensics for firearms-related crime scenes if I remember right), I'm not sure how you could possibly prove his competence. He certainly could convince you in the space of a few minutes that he knew which way was up or through some external personal relationship, which is always a nice thing to have and is indeed valuable; but that isn't the same thing as competent as far as the law is concerned.

What system,

The new one you were describing.

I think you are making up these problems as you go along, here.

No, I've just had this discussion before, many times, and you're following the same path I did so I can tell what you're going to bang your head off next.

The fact that you are trained does not mean that mistakes cant be made, if you infer this then there would be no traffic accidents by anyone in Ireland who passed their driving test. (Makes no sense at all)

Nope, that analogy doesn't hold water. If you go to a driving instructor in Ireland and spend time learning with them and they sign off on you as being able to drive, you don't get a driving licence. You still have to take a driving test first. If you went and took that test while wholly incompetent and the tester let you pass anyway and you subsequently had an accident, then the tester would be legally liable. They wouldn't pay out of their own pocket, they have insurance for that, but they would be legally liable nonetheless. The instructor is only liable if they spend time instructing you without the appropriate qualifications (because you could be as thick as two short planks and never learn anything about driving despite the instructor's best efforts; so the onus falls to the tester).

And yes, I've had this argument before a few times too, with the guy who brought in the current system of driving tests and instruction for the RSA.

Your taking a lot of this out of context,

I'm reading what you're writing. Not what you were thinking (because nobody can see that). If what you wrote isn't what you were thinking then yes, we're going to be talking about different things but since I wasn't the only one that had that reaction to what you said, I'm at least sure I'm not reading it wrong.

No money was handed over by the participants for the courses they are free and if clubs want competent shooters they should train their shooters for FREE. Its about sharing knowledge nothing else and keeping people safe, tell me how this is wrong????????

Nothing's wrong with that when it's not legally mandatory. It's how we do things at the moment and how we've done them for nearly two centuries.

No one said anything about mandatory except you?

No, you did:

Anyone in Ireland can get reasonable access to a club who should be able to give them the level of training they require to make the new entrant proficient. If not they should not have a firearm,

You're calling there for a legally mandatory proficiency test because there is no other legal way to have what you're writing about. And ultimately, all of this is a legal argument, not one about the actual practice of shooting.

So there are not clay clubs and hunting clubs and ranges in every county in Ireland, id wager there is one form of the above if not all in every county in Ireland. That's where your training should take place.

There sure are, and you can't target shoot at them. The law bans that. And while you can get a training licence so you can hold the firearm while being trained in one of those clubs, you can't shoot it except at animals and that's not an ideal way to learn, on animal cruelty grounds alone. You need to start learning somewhere where you can shoot at paper targets and right now the law says that's a range authorised under section 2(5) or 4B if you're using a rifle. Clay pigeon shooting gets around this somewhat and there's a route there for people who want to learn to go shoot pheasant with a shotgun, but if that's not what you want to learn, you're out of luck. If you've never fired a shot before and your dad wants to take you out hunting rabbits, he can't legally do anything outside of a range; and your legally mandatory proficiency test just ratchets down on that known-to-be-an-accidental-drafting-mistake provision of the law.
And if you want to shoot at targets and your local club doesn't run the course because it's too small or they only run them rarely and you missed the last one, well, you're hooped.

Its not that its a good idea to train members of your club is a great one, and if people got behind it and did some training there would be less problems, im sure everyone has done their fair share of helping and supporting new entrants and giving them advice.

Sure they have and this is all nice stuff, but nothing to do with what you were specifically talking about.

Only this training and advice takes place off keyboard.

Yeah, but the law doesn't care about your training and advice if you meet one Super who has a problem with private firearms ownership. If your super looks at your FCA1 form and your proof of competence and says nope, then all that off-keyboard chatter over bad coffee on the range is worth the square root of a fart in a hurricane.

And for *some* courses - specifically the one-hour-wonders out there - that's a bloody good thing. It's just that for the rest of us, it's a pain in the arse.