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???

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.

Mr.Flibble wrote: »

From the PTB?
Dream on.

I keep hearing this.
I've yet to hear someone who says it be able to come up with specific examples to support their point that stood up. And I don't mean the "oh, we weren't able to order around a sitting Minister therefore it's useless" kind of example, I mean real cases where policy X was put forward and no real objection was raised, but the idea was dismissed out of hand anyway.

All I keep seeing is people who've never heard the definition of a good compromise or who think it doesn't apply to us.

Only at election times perhaps?Then sun moon and stars are on offer..
Otherwise it Thanks for the information...I know whats best for ye,so put up and shut up..Ala Min Aherne!!:(

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Only at election times perhaps?Then sun moon and stars are on offer..
Otherwise it Thanks for the information...I know whats best for ye,so put up and shut up..Ala Min Aherne!!:(

Nope.
Ahern was a PITA, but even his edicts got softened, tweaked and made as user-friendly as was possible.

Mr.Flibble wrote: »

That pistol is probably quite similar in many ways to the one I had forty years ago.

Indeed, but my point is that 12 years ago I suggested in committee meetings that we'd be able to get back those pistols and it was dismissed as overly naive nonsense.
I shot a competition with it last weekend.
I think that it's reasonable to say that that constitutes progress.

Ah, that'll be like the "other" way they're doing OPOL, and the five-year licence, and pre-approval, and changes of firearms.

OPOL, the 5-year licence and everything else, were still on the table when the FCP was burnt.
They weren't being dealt with as the first priority because the official tasklist was to clear down the problems from the 06 and 09 acts first, then to bring in the next act to fix the fundamental problems that needed new legislation.

Can you be more specific?

No, because the information came through the FCP and that's been burned.
I could have been, if we hadn't pissed it away for nothing.

Got me there - I'm not sure what you're getting at. My impression is we've seen nothing tangible or progressive, originated by the PTB and showing goodwill, since the debacle of the last round of legislation about four years ago.

Ah, right, you want the PTB to do our job for us as a show of goodwill.

I think you'll be disappointed (well, unless saving pistols from an all-out statue-level ban is enough for you). But I've already gone over specific examples in here of what the FCP has accomplished, several times.

I have yet to see a single example given of something that backs up the "erra they're useless" argument. I've seen grumbling, moaning, bitching and - to be fair - a lot of cases of people not having been told what was going on. But a solid example, one that shows the FCP isn't workable?

Not. One.

Maybe you could point out one that stands up for us?

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Hmmm.I Do remember a questionare form being bandied about here on boards when I first started posting here from the DOJ asking our opinion on things,and as far as I can see is this was a kiteflying exercise used to slam us and remove or restrict things WE were clued up about,and obviously didnt gel with DOJ/AGS!! At the time the FCP was in existance too.

No, you're misremembering, and no, it wasn't in existance - that predates the 2006 act. The FCP didn't show up for several more years.

Shotgun slugs "we didnt know they existed until re read about them on boards.ie"

Not banned. And frankly, they're basicly .72 calibre bullets. How would it make sense to restrict rifles above .308 but allow 12ga slugs to be unrestricted?

Semi auto rifles "There are people running around in Ireland with legally liscensed M16s/Ar15s"

And there still are, aren't there Grizz?

The pistol gripped shotgun stock saga!!:rolleyes:.Obviously forgetting that there are distinctive pistol gripped pumps and semis used in trap shooting,that cost a few thousands in custom work.

Yup, though to be fair, any normal clay pigeon shotgun (the ones with the sort-of pistol grip, ie. most shotguns out there today) were originally on the list as well, because the PTB had a dim view of these:

And didn't realise that these have a pistol grip too:


That particular bullet was dodged, and you can still licence the ones the PTB had a dim view of anyway, they're not banned.

The entire IPSC disaster!!! While admittedly IPSC didn t do itself no favours with some of the scenarios.[Especially the swinging manhole cover stunt apprently:rolleyes:] There was more outright lies,chinese whispers and half truths flung around from both sides that in the end no one would know what was smoke or a mirror.End result a international sport banned here on the most spurious grounds and total heresay.:mad:

That one is about the best example I've heard so far, but as you said yourself, that one isn't all down to the PTB - IPSC didn't do itself any favours at the time, and I get the feeling that there are whole volumes missing from that story still that we'll hear one day.
In the meantime, ITS is still up and running and was still represented at the FCP, the statute didn't ban IPSC by name and there was still an opening there to squeeze through, given time and work. No, not perfect; but I'll take a chance over no hope at all any day of the week. And honestly, if we'd handled things better, we'd never have run face-first into this particular problem.

Lets not forget the "assurances " given by DOJ that if IPSA folded up all big calibe handguns would still be liscensed,otherwise ALL handguns would be banned!

The assurance was that if IPSA didn't close, all pistols would be banned.
IPSA closed, we still have air and smallbore and some fullbore pistols licenced, and we have a route to come back from where we are without needing a new firearms act.
It's not great Grizz, no question; but it could be so much worse.

And of course the famous approved olympic handgun list...Now taken as gospel and not a guideline with many Super.:mad:

Yeah, I'm not happy with that myself, but that's the Supers, not the FCP. And to be fair about it, the FPU have been doing a lot of work on this one - it's gotten better. And if we had the FCP going again, we could clean it up even more, like getting rid of that stupid 5-round limit (because it's got no logical reason to exist at all).

In short while I agree that we have to talk to these people..But whats to stop them from ignoring our advice or problems and simply making more rods to beat us with from them?

Nothing. It's just that past experience says that that's not what they do, and that we always come off better in the medium to long term when we engage with them.

It's not sexy. Nobody gets to issue press releases and take credit for sticking it to the man. But the job gets done, and 99% of the time, it's done quickly, quietly, without fuss or bother.
From the point of view of the egotists, that's not relevant, but for the rest of us, well, I don't know about you, but I just want to shoot. So quick, quiet, fuss-free, well that sounds pretty good to me.

I would have a very serious issue of trust with anyone on the opposite of the table..Not a good way to mutally negoiate an agreeable solution.

Now put yourself in their shoes for a moment.
Court cases. Public castigation. Continually being thought of like this:



Does that sound conducive to a good working relationship to you?