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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Gardai proposals to ban firearms

1…8283858788…95

Comments

  • #2522
    yubabill1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭yubabill1


    "7.Structured and graduated licensing has merit but would require careful consideration as to its implementation. The NTSA pointed out that our recommendation to aspiring pistol shooters is to start with air pistol for reasons of training and cost and graduate to cartridge pistol as proficiency is reached should that be the goal. Air pistol is a growing sport in its own right and many of our members take part in both air and cartridge pistol disciplines.
    We deferred to other sports bodies on how this recommendation would affect their sports."

    Following that logic -and the NARGC/SC's logic - all game shooters should have to start with .410's and work their way up to 12 bore.

    How d'ya like them apples?


  • #2523
    MacsuibhneR
    Registered Users Posts: 83 ✭✭MacsuibhneR


    Cass wrote: »
    As was said above it's the time lock issue that was proposed by the SC. Further back in this thread we already discussed the vast cost of time lock safes, the almost impossible task of having them wired to a current house alarm system, and the ability to even get them (safes) in the first place with only one company (out of three) definitely doing a gun sized safe but to the cost of €15,000 and up.

    We're not so bad that we cannot figure out what the rest of the UK, Europe and the free world has How to bolt a safe to a wall, that is.

    Don't think it was the sports coalition who proposed the time lock safes. Was it not the committee who came up with it off their own bat.

    On the training aspect, in theory not a bad thing, but the devil is in the detail.


  • #2524
    MacsuibhneR
    Registered Users Posts: 83 ✭✭MacsuibhneR


    yubabill1 wrote: »
    "7.Structured and graduated licensing has merit but would require careful consideration as to its implementation. The NTSA pointed out that our recommendation to aspiring pistol shooters is to start with air pistol for reasons of training and cost and graduate to cartridge pistol as proficiency is reached should that be the goal. Air pistol is a growing sport in its own right and many of our members take part in both air and cartridge pistol disciplines.
    We deferred to other sports bodies on how this recommendation would affect their sports."

    Following that logic -and the NARGC/SC's logic - all game shooters should have to start with .410's and work their way up to 12 bore.

    How d'ya like them apples?

    Maybe not the case. But perhaps start with a rimfire rifle before a .308, again not bad in theory


  • #2525
    yubabill1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭yubabill1


    MacsuibhneR wrote: »
    Maybe not the case. But perhaps start with a rimfire rifle before a .308, again not bad in theory

    Why?

    A short range headshot from a 22 will kill you just as quick as a 308 - ask Mossad.

    I would rather a body shot from a 308 FMJ at short range - say, 50yds - than from a 22LR HP at the same range.

    A 410 is a good starter game gun, if you accept that progressive licensing is a good thing - get over your prejudice.

    Or is it a case of "I'm alright, Jack.."?


  • #2526
    tac foley
    Registered Users Posts: 5,504 ✭✭✭tac foley


    What if you want to take up skeet or trap or any of the clay disciplines?

    International clay shooting is carried out with 12g shotguns, not .410s.

    Mr Yupabil, trust me here, you really would NOT like to be shot with any .308cal ANYTHING at ANY range, let alone 'short range'. The bullet does not accelerate away from the muzzle, y'know. ;)

    tac


  • Advertisement
  • #2527
    Grizzly 45
    Registered Users Posts: 14,949 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    yubabill1 wrote: »
    Why?

    A short range headshot from a 22 will kill you just as quick as a 308 - ask Mossad.

    I would rather a body shot from a 308 FMJ at short range - say, 50yds - than from a 22LR HP at the same range.

    A 410 is a good starter game gun, if you accept that progressive licensing is a good thing - get over your prejudice.

    Or is it a case of "I'm alright, Jack.."?

    A 410 is a terrible starter gun as it is a specialist caliber that allows for more misses than hits in the hands of a beginner.
    Logically any liscensing system should be for a category not a type of firearm.Do your safe handling for a shotgun you are then capable of using any caliber or type of shotgun from a 410 to a whatever gauge.Likewise handguns or rifles.The devil will be in how long your particular disipline will need you to apprenticeship before signing you off as competant to go and purchase your personal gun...IF it comes to this..

    "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 "



  • #2528
    yubabill1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭yubabill1


    tac foley wrote: »
    What if you want to take up skeet or trap or any of the clay disciplines?

    International clay shooting is carried out with 12g shotguns, not .410s.

    Mr Yupabil, trust me here, you really would NOT like to be shot with any .308cal ANYTHING at ANY range, let alone 'short range'. The bullet does not accelerate away from the muzzle, y'know. ;)

    tac

    I don't intend getting shot with anything, any more than anyone here.

    And yes, the 308 will do its job. Maybe 50 yds is too far, but at very short range the high velocity round will pass through like a knitting needle if it doesn't hit anything substantial like bone.

    In the same circumstances, the 22HP will most likely stop and cause a nasty wound.


    Crazy scenario, I'll admit.


  • #2529
    Tippjohn
    Registered Users Posts: 127 ✭✭Tippjohn


    As a target shooting lurker I have today joined because I feel this whole thread needs some clarity. There will be no problem with target shooting here. If anyone who wants to do it then all they have to do is satisfy the legal requirements. Any changes are unlikely to be draconian. All the changes suggested by the governments commitee are in no way supported by the Sports Coalition or likely to be adopted by the Minister. A bit of support and unity would help everyone concerned.


  • #2530
    Witcher
    Registered Users Posts: 14,421 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    Tippjohn wrote: »
    All the changes suggested by the governments commitee are in no way supported by the Sports Coalition or likely to be adopted by the Minister. .

    The Sports Coalition's blessing isn't needed. In fact, in some areas the SC's proposals are worse than those of the Justice Committee.

    You know exactly what the Minister will do eh?


  • #2531
    Tippjohn
    Registered Users Posts: 127 ✭✭Tippjohn


    Straight away a negative post. Why does anyone think the coalition want to make things harder. What is the alternative to them. I have had questions asked in the Dail many times by lobbying Tds, a pity more don't do something rather than knock those who do. That is my point I won't inflame the thread, I have had my say.


  • Advertisement
  • #2532
    Zxthinger
    Registered Users Posts: 1,113 ✭✭✭Zxthinger


    yubabill1 wrote: »
    "7.Structured and graduated licensing has merit but would require careful consideration as to its implementation. The NTSA pointed out that our recommendation to aspiring pistol shooters is to start with air pistol for reasons of training and cost and graduate to cartridge pistol as proficiency is reached should that be the goal. Air pistol is a growing sport in its own right and many of our members take part in both air and cartridge pistol disciplines.
    We deferred to other sports bodies on how this recommendation would affect their sports."

    Following that logic -and the NARGC/SC's logic - all game shooters should have to start with .410's and work their way up to 12 bore.

    How d'ya like them apples?
    Maybe it does have some merit but it's vague roll out and tacit incorporation of rifle and shotgun sports is an abuse imo.
    The control of standard rifle and standard shotgun sports was not item which the working group proposed thus it should be left alone.
    However.. If one was to consider the application of such a system on rifles and shotguns then it would need to be age sensitive. Perhaps those under 18 might be restricted to either a double barrel or a rim fire rifle unless they accepted mentoring. That's about the only way such a system might work imo.


  • #2533
    garrettod
    Registered Users Posts: 2,420 ✭✭✭garrettod


    Tippjohn wrote: »
    As a target shooting lurker I have today joined because I feel this whole thread needs some clarity. There will be no problem with target shooting here. If anyone who wants to do it then all they have to do is satisfy the legal requirements. Any changes are unlikely to be draconian. All the changes suggested by the governments commitee are in no way supported by the Sports Coalition or likely to be adopted by the Minister. A bit of support and unity would help everyone concerned.

    Hi,

    Not picking a side here, but what do you base your view that there will be no impact on target shooting on please ?

    Likewise, what do you base your view that there will be no draconian changes on please ?

    I agree with you one hundred percent, about your comments regarding unity and support, also about people doing more for themselves... and the later in particular frustrates the hell out of me (one example is how quiet things appear to be regarding complaints on the Prime Time issue).

    However, all of that said, I have some concerns about what the Sports Coalition are discussing with Government, given their failure to make minutes of the recent meeting (29th April) avaialble for example. Thats coming from someone who traditionally has been a fan of the NARGC etc. btw.

    Thanks,

    G.



  • #2534
    Nekarsulm
    Registered Users Posts: 11,191 ✭✭✭✭Nekarsulm


    If RTE did not respond to an initial complaint, are they any more likely to respond when the BAI forwards the same complaint back to them?
    In the greater scheme of things, to what extent can BAI censor or control RTE, beyond a reprimand or small fine?


  • #2535
    Tippjohn
    Registered Users Posts: 127 ✭✭Tippjohn


    Please do not think that I do not have my concerns either about anyone representing me. It is just that they are doing it as no one else wanted to. I "trust" that they will reporting back to those concerned this week.
    Prime time, as we all know was and is a joke, thankfully the general public are not interested in target shooting.
    Things are quiet, I guess, because in the great scheme of things not many care.
    It just concerns me that this thread does not show a united front and plays into the hands of those that would wish to harm us.
    As well as fighting for my own firearms ( without much difficulty) I have assisted with two people retaining their restricted firearms.
    A lot of people did not help themselves when dealing with the Garda!
    It have supported many people doing things that I do not agree with, those people have not suported me. This however is life.


  • #2536
    Grizzly 45
    Registered Users Posts: 14,949 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    Nekarsulm wrote: »
    If RTE did not respond to an initial complaint, are they any more likely to respond when the BAI forwards the same complaint back to them?
    In the greater scheme of things, to what extent can BAI censor or control RTE, beyond a reprimand or small fine?

    If they are very valid points BCAI will have to act on it and "Swine Time" is no stranger or unheard of in the BCAI either.They came sown on them pretty heavily when it was shown they were lumping an innocent priest in with the padeos a couple of years ago due to their shoddy[and not unusual for PT] research.
    More likely is will the BCAI consider firearms too much of a "hot potato" that has the ability to offend the Liberal PC classes of the staff canteen in Donnybrook[where alot of real decisions are made],and many of the BCAI originate and cut their teeth on politics of Irish broadcasting..One thing to go pick on the catholic church and shooters ,after all they are old Ireland...Different to go and pick on some liberal PC issue.Now if we had had a few gay and lesbian gun owners at the shoot.I bet the whole programme and tone of it would have been "intresting" to say the least.Anyone notice how little time the girls got or "women on target" gort mentioned?

    However,I'm not optimistic on BCAI as much as I think nowadays GSOC is just a big bucket of white wash when it comes to dealing with firearm complaints.So I'd expect the same result...Nothing wrong here,no offence comitted,perfectly balanced,move along now...:rolleyes:
    And another page or two in our already bulging C4 division of the DOJ files.

    "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 "



  • #2537
    Cass
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,456 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    MacsuibhneR wrote: »
    Don't think it was the sports coalition who proposed the time lock safes. Was it not the committee who came up with it off their own bat.
    It was first mentioned, then questioned in detail by the committee, at the morning meeting between the sporting bodies and the review committee by a representative of the sports coalition.
    On the training aspect, in theory not a bad thing, but the devil is in the detail.
    MacsuibhneR wrote: »
    Maybe not the case. But perhaps start with a rimfire rifle before a .308, again not bad in theory
    Been over this already
    Tippjohn wrote: »
    As a target shooting lurker I have today joined
    Welcome.
    There will be no problem with target shooting here. If anyone who wants to do it then all they have to do is satisfy the legal requirements. Any changes are unlikely to be draconian.
    If you consider:
    • Banning of any pistol, currently licensed, under 5 inches
    • Applying for a gun you don't need or want (removal of good reason) because of graduated licensing
    • Illegal cap on certain guns
    • Time lock safes
    • Ballistic testing
    • No mention of the possible restricting or banning of 8,000 semi auto and pump action shotguns
    Then no, not too bad or draconian at all.
    All the changes suggested by the governments commitee are in no way supported by the Sports Coalition or likely to be adopted by the Minister. A bit of support and unity would help everyone concerned.
    If you only read one piece of this response read this.

    You're wrong. Directly from the sports coalition's website:
    Sports Coalition website wrote:
    ................ you will immediately note the similarity between what I suggested and what is now recommended by the Committee. All I can say is that the Committee’s interim report vindicates our stance, as it has accepted virtually every point we have made to date
    So the sports coalition are delighted that the interim report from the review committee are "carbon copies" of what they suggested back in February 20th.
    Tippjohn wrote: »
    Why does anyone think the coalition want to make things harder.
    See the above.
    Tippjohn wrote: »
    It is just that they are doing it as no one else wanted to.
    Wrong.

    They appointed themselves, and created new groups to bolster their numbers.
    I "trust" that they will reporting back to those concerned this week.
    They have already said they would be.
    Prime time, as we all know was and is a joke, thankfully the general public are not interested in target shooting.
    So that debacle can be excused away because the general public probably didn't take any notice?
    Things are quiet, I guess, because in the great scheme of things not many care.
    Things are quiet because people are trying to digest the sh*t sandwich they've been asked to eat in the last few months.
    It just concerns me that this thread does not show a united front and plays into the hands of those that would wish to harm us
    What united front?

    The SC have made it clear they will act independently on issues they have no business making capitulations on, they walked away from the FCP to form the SC without consulting with the other shooting bodies, they have submitted secret proposals (Feb. 20th), etc.
    As well as fighting for my own firearms ( without much difficulty) I have assisted with two people retaining their restricted firearms.


    You said this thread needs clarity so perhaps you can explain the above?
    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



  • #2538
    Tippjohn
    Registered Users Posts: 127 ✭✭Tippjohn


    My explanation is that everything you quoted concerning restrictions is from the government commitee not the coalition.
    I am not excusing Primetime, it was the worse bit of tv journalism, just like the rest of the things they discuss there. Nothing they said will influence anyone.
    It is prudent to wait until there is real news before runours are spread.
    As an aside discussing bullet wounds on a target thread is walking into the hands of any antis. We do not shoot people whatsoever.


  • #2539
    Cass
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,456 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    Tippjohn wrote: »
    My explanation is that everything you quoted concerning restrictions is from the government commitee not the coalition.
    You have not answered or explained a thing. I'll shorten it for you to the most salient point:
    Cass wrote:
    Tippjon wrote:
    All the changes suggested by the governments commitee are in no way supported by the Sports Coalition or likely to be adopted by the Minister. A bit of support and unity would help everyone concerned.
    If you only read one piece of this response read this.

    You're wrong. Directly from the sports coalition's website:
    Sports Coalition website wrote:
    ................ you will immediately note the similarity between what I suggested and what is now recommended by the Committee. All I can say is that the Committee’s interim report vindicates our stance, as it has accepted virtually every point we have made to date
    So the sports coalition are delighted that the interim report from the review committee are "carbon copies" of what they suggested back in February 20th.

    In case that is still not 100% clear for you i'll elaborate.

    The interim report from the justice committee came out on April 2nd of this year. On April 4th the SC released a secret set of proposals they submitted to the review committee on February 20th of this year. Some 6 weeks before the release of the interim report.

    In their press release, as i quoted above, of April 4th they said they are delighted that the review committee took on board all of their recommendations.


    So explain to me how the interim report is not representative of the SC's stance seeing as how the SC have themselves said it is and they are delighted to see it.
    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



  • #2540
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,055 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Tippjohn wrote: »
    All the changes suggested by the governments commitee are in no way supported by the Sports Coalition
    Did you miss the bit where the Sport Coalition proudly stated that they came up with them?


  • #2541
    Deaf git
    Registered Users Posts: 228 ✭✭Deaf git


    The NTSA comments about recommending air pistol as a starting point for pistol shooting is one way to do a graduated licensing scheme. It makes sense if you have access to an indoor range in particular. In most other countries the .22 pistol is recommended as a trainer for bigger calibres.
    If someone wants to shoot F Class why not use a .22 clubgun for a few months before applying for a cf rifle? What better way to learn windage, trajectory etc. That way you wouldn't need to buy 3 unwanted guns on the way to buy a F class gun.
    I have met a few shooters through the years that bought a .223 rifle or a 9mm pistol as their first gun. Their learning curve was much steeper and more expensive than if they had started on something like a .22 . My 2c.


  • Advertisement
  • #2542
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,055 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    The three main problems are:
    1. While some things transfer between specific events (like ISSF air pistol and ISSF 25m smallbore pistol), it isn't a general principle, it's very limited in nature and scope. You can't learn F-Class with an air rifle, and it's dubious as to how much transfers from ISSF 10m air pistol to ISSF 50m pistol. And it's cross-training more than ab initio training as well.
    2. The very heart of the Firearms Act is based on the idea that you don't get a firearms licence if you don't need one. Having to get a licence for a completely different firearm than the one you want in order to get to the one you want is a complete reversal of that idea.
    3. This isn't necessary. It's change just for change's sake. No event has prompted this. There is no pressing public safety issue, there is no reason to introduce this. Why change an already overpatched body of law without any reason for doing so?


  • #2543
    IRLConor
    Subscribers Posts: 4,075 ✭✭✭IRLConor


    Deaf git wrote: »
    The NTSA comments about recommending air pistol as a starting point for pistol shooting is one way to do a graduated licensing scheme. It makes sense if you have access to an indoor range in particular.

    It entirely depends on what you're doing. The NTSA comments with regard to air pistol and .22 pistols makes some sense in the context of ISSF disciplines. A moderately competitive 25m ISSF pistol shooter would plough through ammunition at a rate that is simply unaffordable for new and junior shooters. A sleeve of 5,000 high quality, batch tested pellets costs about €100 and you can get training quality pellets for much less.

    For other sports, their mileage may vary. It depends on the skills being tested by the particular event and how well they transfer from firearm to firearm. In some cases, graduating the training from one firearm to another makes a lot of sense. In others, it's a terrible idea.


  • #2544
    yubabill1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭yubabill1


    Deaf git wrote: »
    If someone wants to shoot F Class why not use a .22 clubgun for a few months before applying for a cf rifle? What better way to learn windage, trajectory etc. That way you wouldn't need to buy 3 unwanted guns on the way to buy a F class gun.
    .

    That would only be fair if clay shots were made to start off with a club 410.

    22LR for F Class? I couldn't hit anything significant beyond 500yds with my old Marlin 39A 22 and I failed miserably trying to hit a full-grown ash at 800yds.


  • #2545
    Cass
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,456 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    Deaf git wrote: »
    If someone wants to shoot F Class why not use a .22 clubgun for a few months before applying for a cf rifle? What better way to learn windage, trajectory etc. That way you wouldn't need to buy 3 unwanted guns on the way to buy a F class gun.
    Other than what the lads have said above about applying for a license for a firearm you don't want and have no good reason for getting, there is the issue of suitability.

    F-Class is one of those sports that has a very specific set of rules. Not only regarding the usual stuff but about the calibers needed to take part in it.

    In FTR is must be .223 or .308. To train on any other caliber (rimfire/air rifle) would not only be useless but completely irrelevant and somewhat detrimental to the shooters ability to transit from using such a firearm to the one necessary for the sport. That means they could not take part in training, competitions, and to be more specific they would not learn about wind, recoil management, etc because no rimfire, air rifle and most other smaller centrefire calibers are simply not up to the task of shooting out to 1,200 yards.

    Even new lads with FTR rifles in the proper calibers are made aware of how important it is to train with a rifle and setup that meets the maximum weight limits. Too heavy and they become accustom to the heavy setup reducing recoil. When they lighten their setup and get the "extra" recoil they almost have to relearn how to shoot.

    This, of course, is only F-Class. As i've outlined previously and above in my link it also applies to other pursuits. Deer stalking for example. How could anyone start deer stalking or learn the craft with a non legal caliber? Clay pigeon shooting, game hunting, etc. It all requires a certain caliber that only the applicant can decide on. To go for one that is sub standard contravenes the law and will have a negative impact on shooting sports.

    The only ones to benefit would be firearm dealers by selling more stock of lower caliber firearms as beginner rifles. However that will only last so long when all these ""beginners" start to trade in their small bore rifles for bigger ones or more accurately the ones they originally wanted.
    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



  • #2546
    Tippjohn
    Registered Users Posts: 127 ✭✭Tippjohn


    Cass ref your post of 14-21. Your interpretation of the Coalitions reply is obviously not the same as mine. It is called negotiating.
    There has allways been a problem with short barrelled pistols/revolvers. A few have them, I can only imagine the problem from the Garda point of view is concealment?
    Let us see what is revealed on Friday, if anything!
    The coalition is the only organisation capable of negotiating. There is no alternative. I don't like that but it is fact.
    As with everything here, shooting,fishing,water charge, property tax etc the Irish seem to be incapable of unity.
    I suggest that the best way forward is to ensure that we comply with the law. It is only irresponsible pistol holders getting permits with nowhere to shoot that caused the whole sad saga in the first place. They were the first to give in and leave the rest of us to fight for our sport.
    I have attended many meetings over the last 5 years, the support has been lacking to say the least.


  • #2547
    It wasn't me!
    Registered Users Posts: 13,034 ✭✭✭✭It wasn't me!


    Negotiate? How do you figure they're the only ones that can negotiate? What do they have to offer?


  • #2548
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,055 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Tippjohn wrote: »
    Cass ref your post of 14-21. Your interpretation of the Coalitions reply is obviously not the same as mine. It is called negotiating.

    It's not an interpretation Tipp, it's what they literally said.
    The coalition is the only organisation capable of negotiating. There is no alternative. I don't like that but it is fact.
    It's not fact, it's nonsense. And it also assumes that the coalition has the right to negotiate. And it assumes that there's anything to negotiate in the first place.
    I suggest that the best way forward is to ensure that we comply with the law.
    If you have proof someone isn't complying with the law, you have a duty to tell the AGS, not boards.ie. If you don't, then suggesting you do is just plain defamation. Either way, this is not the place for that kind of nonsense, so stop it now please.
    I have attended many meetings over the last 5 years, the support has been lacking to say the least.
    So have I over the last ten. And nothing I've been hearing backs up even one statement you've made here.


  • #2549
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,055 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    It wasn't me! wrote: »
    Negotiate? How do you figure they're the only ones that can negotiate? What do they have to offer?
    Other people's sports, it would appear.


  • #2550
    Cass
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,456 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    Tippjohn wrote: »
    Cass ref your post of 14-21. Your interpretation of the Coalitions reply is obviously not the same as mine. It is called negotiating.
    You're delusional if you think it's my interpretation. It's what the coalition said. It's in black and white that they are happy that the committee took on all of THEIR proposals. Are you purposely ignoring THEIR message on THEIR website for the sake of arguing?
    Tippjohn wrote:
    There has allways been a problem with short barrelled pistols/revolvers. A few have them, I can only imagine the problem from the Garda point of view is concealment?

    If the Gardaí had a problem with these then under section 4(2) they should not have issued a license to the person seeking it.
    Section 4(2)(b) of the Firearms Act clearly says – and has clearly said since 1925 – that if the issuing person thinks the issuing of a firearms certificate to an applicant would pose a danger to the public safety or the peace, then they may not issue a firearms certificate
    Tippjohn wrote:
    The coalition is the only organisation capable of negotiating. There is no alternative. I don't like that but it is fact.
    Bollix.

    They appointed themselves as leading the charge in this campaign and have done more harm than good since.
    Tippjohn wrote:
    As with everything here, shooting,fishing,water charge, property tax etc the Irish seem to be incapable of unity.
    This pipe dream of a unified shooting community needs to end. The goals of all shooting groups are different. In their own sport they are free to govern and act as they please. In the face of such large sweeping changes they must consult with the relevant groups from different shooting disciplines. They did not.
    Tippjohn wrote:
    I suggest that the best way forward is to ensure that we comply with the law.
    At what point have we not?
    Tippjohn wrote:
    It is only irresponsible pistol holders getting permits with nowhere to shoot that caused the whole sad saga in the first place. They were the first to give in and leave the rest of us to fight for our sport.
    The amount of wrong here is staggering. As i said above under section 4(2) An Gardaí cannot issue a license to someone that is not suitable. Secondly the only reason to have a pistol has always been membership of a target range. So your notion of people getting a license with nowhere to shoot is wrong and illegal.
    Tippjohn wrote:
    I have attended many meetings over the last 5 years, the support has been lacking to say the least.
    Self inflicted. Once the first legal case was brought against the Gardaí in 2010 or so it signaled the end of the FCP. The ones responsible did not care about this and left regardless of the consequences. We are now dealing with not only those actions but their most recent acts too. So every other group and shooting body must amend their approach and also deal with damage limitations caused by those supposedly representing us.


    Your only reason for joining us is to try and say that what has happened is not the fault of the SC. The problem with this tactic is the SC have not only said it, but printed it in black and white for all to read. I'd say you're taking the "ostrich approach" but that would insult the ostrich. You cannot say the SC were not responsible for the current interim report/proposals, when they publicly take credit for them. On their own website.
    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



  • Advertisement
  • #2551
    tac foley
    Registered Users Posts: 5,504 ✭✭✭tac foley


    yubabill1 wrote: »
    I don't intend getting shot with anything, any more than anyone here.

    And yes, the 308 will do its job. Maybe 50 yds is too far, but at very short range the high velocity round will pass through like a knitting needle if it doesn't hit anything substantial like bone.

    In the same circumstances, the 22HP will most likely stop and cause a nasty wound.


    Crazy scenario, I'll admit.

    From personal experience, that is NOT what happens. This forum, however, is not the place to discuss the lethality or otherwise of our sporting firearm calibres.

    tac


Advertisement