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! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Gardai proposals to ban firearms

12467…57

Comments

  • #152
    Tea drinker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,817 ✭✭✭Tea drinker


    Guys and gals, lets email in a polite and strong manner, lets not have someone tune out of it half way through the email.
    We have to get the point across that we aren't going to have this bill and this kind of treatment but insults and rants is not sticking to the point.
    I'll be emailing tonight but I want to spend 20 minutes putting something legible together before sending it on.
    Good luck in your literary endeavours!


  • #153
    gavindublin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 307 ✭✭gavindublin


    @boatmad

    Ive read your posts and you seem a well educated, literate and competent person.

    would you be willing to put together a more rational template for some of us who dont know what to be writing??


  • #154
    BoatMad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    gavindublin wrote: »
    @boatmad

    Ive read your posts and you seem a well educated, literate and competent person.

    would you be willing to put together a more rational template for some of us who dont know what to be writing??
    I always respond to flattery

    heres what I sent to my TDs ( one is a minister) , its far from perfect

    "Dear Minister/TD

    I draw your attention to the document "Department of Justice and Equality / An Garda Síochána, Working Group on Review of Firearms
    Licensing November 2014" available here http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/2014.W....WG.Report.pdf

    I am a responsible firearms owner, who only engages in target shooting on licensed ranges. The proposals contained in this review, if implemented, would destroy the harmless sport of target shooting, It would hand completely arbitrarily powers of refusal to the Gardai, who would no longer have to justify why a particular person should have a particular firearm and furthermore, it seeks to link illegal gun crime, with ordinary law abiding members of the public that hold completely legal firearm licenses. Unsubstantiated or over exaggerated claims are also made in an attempt to portray such firearms and by extension , their holders, as somehow bordering on the criminal.


    Ireland, has, by far, Europe's most restrictive firearm licensing system. Our licensing system suffers from excessive bureaucracy and large inconsistencies across Garda administrative districts . Were these suggestions to be enshrined in legislation, it would cause immediate financial loss to people that acquired and licensed firearms with the clear understanding they were doing so completely legally.

    As my TD, I wish to prevail upon you, to not only acquaint yourself with this attempt to further restrict the rights of ordinary firearms holders, sportsmen and women, but also to lobby , on my and other sporting enthusiasts behalf, to ensure that these suggestions are not proceeded with. Further it is admitted in the briefing document, that no consultation has been entered into with the relevant sporting bodies on the matters of this review, This clearly should be undertaken before any further action is taken.


    I trust in your attention to this matter


  • #155
    yubabill1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭yubabill1


    Sparks wrote: »
    I agree - I just don't think that means we need to row in behind someone and put them in charge in order to do it -- in fact I think if we do that, we lose pretty much instantly.
    And the noises are already well underway to push that line, which only serves to splinter us all further. A wise person would just focus on the problem instead of on using the problem to increase their personal fiefdom at our expense. Not that I'm thinking of anyone specifically, of course, merely making a general hypothetical observation...

    I think we need a temporary coalition of representative groups who may act independently, but with a co-ordinated agenda.

    No-one can represent all shooters.

    This is a consultation, the minister hasn't even decided the form the consultation is going to take ( read: doesn't know what form..), so let's take part and see what happens.

    IMHO this consultation will lead us exactly nowhere - AGS (not DoJ - they're really not interested, just along for the ride) will still seek to ban handguns and compromise on semi auto shotguns/ push to ban S/A C/F rifles, legislate for Idon'tlikethelookofthat and allow reloading in the Midlands before coming back in 5 years for more.

    We probably all know this; the email blizzard will show them we're going in to the consultation with our eyes open, but we need an overarching strategy and a fallback strategy.

    in summary - we can disagree on tactics in the early stages without many consequences, but to guarantee success it's highly desirable to co-operate on strategy as time goes on.


  • #156
    gavindublin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 307 ✭✭gavindublin


    Thanks for that boatmad.

    seems a lot more along the lines of what im after.

    thanks


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    BoatMad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    yubabill1 wrote: »
    I think we need a temporary coalition of representative groups who may act independently, but with a co-ordinated agenda.

    No-one can represent all shooters.

    This is a consultation, the minister hasn't even decided the form the consultation is going to take ( read: doesn't know what form..), so let's take part and see what happens.

    IMHO this consultation will lead us exactly nowhere - AGS (not DoJ - they're really not interested, just along for the ride) will still seek to ban handguns and compromise on semi auto shotguns/ push to ban S/A C/F rifles, legislate for Idon'tlikethelookofthat and allow reloading in the Midlands before coming back in 5 years for more.

    We probably all know this; the email blizzard will show them we're going in to the consultation with our eyes open, but we need an overarching strategy and a fallback strategy.

    in summary - we can disagree on tactics in the early stages without many consequences, but to guarantee success it's highly desirable to co-operate on strategy as time goes on.


    Indeed, I agree with all you say ,however

    Or relationship with the AGS, will have to be improved, if there are personality issues on our end , we will have to resolve them. Our own history is not good in this regard

    We will have to agree internally, what series of compromises we are willing to except. I believe that the document is probably an attempt in one direction and we will have to present an alternative. The compromise will be in the "middle"

    We cannot simply go in with " no no no", the door will slam in our faces, and thats that.

    I have already stated what I believe is not sustainable.

    We had a situation not so long ago, where in practice, one could just about license a shotgun and a 0.22 rifle, Target shooting was almost impossible,

    We , as a result of a court case, opened a loophole ( as far as the legislators are concerned) , which is being successively closed by the justice acts and their amendments.

    We now have to prioritise our requirements, we cannot seek to retain everything , thats simply not how negotiations work


    Ultimately , this sport will only survive if we build excellent, not good, not adequate relationships with Senior Gardai. Ultimately this is where the pressure comes from. Dragging them through the courts is not the way to do this.



    Our key goal , must be to get into consolations and present an erudite, reasoned argument. We must impress upon officers of the state, that the sport is well managed, reliable and reasonable.

    We will have to compromise.


    The alternative is clearly staring us in the face.


    In the meantime, we must seek to inform our TDs and seek access to the Minister. IN the medium term we MUST rebuild a relationship with Senior Gardai.


  • #158
    yubabill1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭yubabill1


    BoatMad wrote: »
    Indeed, I agree with all you say ,however

    Or relationship with the AGS, will have to be improved, if there are personality issues on our end , we will have to resolve them. Our own history is not good in this regard

    We will have to agree internally, what series of compromises we are willing to except. I believe that the document is probably an attempt in one direction and we will have to present an alternative. The compromise will be in the "middle"

    Our key goal , must be to get into consolations and present an erudite, reasoned argument. We must impress upon officers of the state, that the sport is well managed, reliable and reasonable.

    We will have to compromise.


    The alternative is clearly staring us in the face.


    In the meantime, we must seek to inform our TDs and seek access to the Minister. IN the medium term we MUST rebuild a relationship with Senior Gardai.

    We all know about our own problems.

    It is possible to work with people you don't agree with. I have been in a couple of teams like that, but it requires a leader without ego.

    As to compromise - we don't have to compromise. We can argue our case and when it's ignored - as it will be IMHO - we can all apply to license our mate's .22 or single barrel or whatever you need to licence, just that we'll all do it in the same month.


  • #159
    loftypheasant
    Registered Users Posts: 12 ✭loftypheasant


    Pandering to the guards with compromises is a bad idea. Lobbying the politicians is about the only way to go. If the DOJ and the guards get them on side it's over bar the shouting. If these proposals go through they will be back for more. You have to hand it the the guards and the DOJ and their optimism (and neck) about revamping the (non-functioning) licensing system when you consider their incompetence in handling everyday justice and policing matters as seen in recent official reports and media commentary. The latest report published by the DOJ/guards is the greatest work of fiction I've ever had the pleasure to read. I thought the Commissioner's Guideline's were good but these are much better. I'm off now to research US visas.


  • #160
    yubabill1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭yubabill1


    loftypheasant wrote: »
    Pandering to the guards with compromises is a bad idea. Lobbying the politicians is about the only way to go. If the DOJ and the guards get them on side it's over bar the shouting

    The Minister is on their side 100% and don't make any mistake.

    TD's really have very little say, unless a decent number of them get quite concerned.

    Taking into account the grinding AGS gave shooters in the courts since the new legislation, they really want these recommendations in force.

    At this early stage, it's down to how many TD's contact the Minister and how worried they are.


  • #161
    BoatMad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    yubabill1 wrote: »
    We all know about our own problems.

    It is possible to work with people you don't agree with. I have been in a couple of teams like that, but it requires a leader without ego.

    As to compromise - we don't have to compromise. We can argue our case and when it's ignored - as it will be IMHO - we can all apply to license our mate's .22 or single barrel or whatever you need to licence, just that we'll all do it in the same month.

    Sorry, your idea of retaliation is like being head butted by a dead sheep.

    We have to compromise, the very fact that such legislation is being demanded by the Gardai ( in essence) is in my view a direct result of the court challenge.

    If we don't put a cogent argument together then we will loose, There will be no protest, the rifle and shotgun people will go their own merry way and it will a few hundred pistol shooters crying into their beer.

    What people fail to realise, is that we have lost the case for centre fire pistols, its was lost at the introduction of the 2009 act. End of story. No-one is going to reverse that decision. no-one.

    Attempting to keep it alive, by dragging the Gardai through the courts in stupid process to keep several hundred firearms grandfathered will now most likely cause the loss of all sporting handguns. That is the "victory" we snatched from the courts.

    This is not about the rights and wrongs , this is about a sport that simply has failed to build bridges and relationships and in fact in the past has actively destroyed those relationships. We are out in the cold and this is the result.

    Whether we can slow or stop some of this legislation is up for debate. I personably have no faith in the screechings of the NARGC.

    Other then political lobbying, there is little an ordinary member can do.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    SVI40
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 668 ✭✭✭SVI40


    Unfortunately, time and time again, compromise has not got us anywhere. We are on a very slippery slope to being left with almost no type of firearms. AGS want CF and SB pistols gone, CF Semi Rifles and Semi Shotguns capable of holding more that 3 cartridges. What happens next time? CF Lever rifles, then SB lever rifles?

    This is the initial draft of what I will be sending to my TDs and Senators. It still needs some work, but get across how we feel, and how it will affect them

    Deputy,

    I am communicating this letter to you in the hope that you may be able to help and advise the Government to avoid what would be a serious error of judgement which could potentially alienate many thousands of law abiding sportspeople across the country, hurt your party and further weaken support for the Government.

    It would be wise for all Oireachtas members to elicit exactly what the rationale is for the further restriction and possible revocation of firearms certificates currently held by law abiding citizens. Can I suggest that it would be wise to elicit from the Department/Minister for Justice or Gardaí – what precisely is the problem that they are seeking to solve with the new restrictions that are being planned. What credible evidence is there to justify the proposed restriction?. I am confident that when you do it will become clear that this is a knee jerk reaction to a problem that does not exist. Are you satisfied that it is based on sound credible evidence rather than simply the opinion of a small number of individuals?

    Wise politicians would ask themselves is there a real problem and what is to be gained by what is now proposed, as the decision, if it goes ahead will unquestionably alienate many thousands of respectable law abiding sportspeople and their families. I can assure you that there is VERY strong feeling on this matter not just among those to be directly affected but amongst the wider community of firearms certificate holders, one household in eight holds a licenced firearm. Such is the strength of feeling on this that if this is proceeded with the negative feeling it will generate could have long lasting effect with political implications, in some cases for up to a generation or more.

    Coming on top of opposition to the water charges, the Donna Hartnett letter in recent days, disquiet among the second level teachers unions etc. is it now wise to unreasonably discommode yet another and very sizeable sector of the community.

    You, or any political representative can find out more about what is proposed and the likely impact at an open information session to be held in Buswells Hotel on 20th November.

    We are confident that a balanced political weighing up of the situation would conclude that that the negative impacts on Government would hugely outweigh the merits, if any, of the restrictions being planned. It will certainly alienate a further very sizeable well educated, well informed and professional sector of the community/electorate?

    Please accept this advice for what it is - a heads up on an issue on which Government may be about to make a major but very avoidable mistake.

    Yours sincerely,


  • #163
    yubabill1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭yubabill1


    BoatMad wrote: »
    Sorry, your idea of retaliation is like being head butted by a dead sheep.


    Other then political lobbying, there is little an ordinary member can do.

    So jamming Pulse for 2 or 3 months is not going to work?

    I beg to differ.

    Several thousand licence applications all at once would put a potentially intolerable strain on senior Gardaí involved in admin IMHO.

    They really do have better things to do.

    Prime yourself for fight or flight on this consultation, because we all really need to be on the one hymn sheet (for once and maybe only this once).

    OK, let's lobby all our politicians and by all means create an email blizzard - but that can't be every tool at our disposal, or we are not in a position of strength.


  • #164
    BoatMad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    not bad,

    You might mention the EU survey source of the one in 8 statistic, otherwise you might not be believed.
    Government may be about to make a major but very avoidable mistake

    or course this is the key issue, will it be seen as a mistake.


  • #165
    BoatMad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    yubabill1 wrote: »
    So jamming Pulse for 2 or 3 months is not going to work?

    I beg to differ.

    Several thousand licence applications all at once would put a potentially intolerable strain on senior Gardaí involved in admin IMHO.

    They really do have better things to do.

    Prime yourself for fight or flight on this consultation, because we all really need to be on the one hymn sheet (for once and maybe only this once).

    Oh for pets sake. All that will happen is the Guards will put all those applications on a TBA file and process one a month . Seriously , its puerile , not to mention you will not get all theses applications, and anyway , unless you expect to get land use signatures or club applications, they'l reject the lot.

    Honestly, its like your kids refusing to eat dinner cause they are mad at their parents.


    We CANNOT win this argument by these methods. All we can so if frame a coherent and logical argument, we WILL have to accept some compromise and proceed on.

    What happens in the future, will be in the future. people seem to forget that we have no constitutional rights here, the whole ball game could be banned in future, who knows.


  • #166
    BoatMad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    Unfortunately, time and time again, compromise has not got us anywhere. We are on a very slippery slope to being left with almost no type of firearms. AGS want CF and SB pistols gone, CF Semi Rifles and Semi Shotguns capable of holding more that 3 cartridges. What happens next time? CF Lever rifles, then SB lever rifles


    Actually our inability to build any sort of relationship, the failure of the consultative committee etc , the attempt at publicly humiliating the police force of the state etc, thats why er are where we are, not from compromises. ( what actual compromises did we make to date ??)


  • #167
    Grizzly 45
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,075 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    We have compromised enough,and if you think more compromises will save your side of things you are sadly mistaken.

    I remember sitting in the IPSA EGM[practical pistol] a few years ago and being told. "Close up the practical pistol side of things lads or ALL pistol shooting is gone..And if you do, your CF will be grand for WA1500 and T&P and .22s." Duly done and within 3 MONTHS the refusals for CF came down the line.
    Now its "Give up the.CF lads s and we will be grand with the .22s."
    Not noticing that there are already problems with "military and combat" .22s or any that "could " take a ten shot mag..Nothing to stop anyone taping two five rounders on the Olympic style pistol together is there???Dont think for ONE moment that Olympic style pistols are safe either...Wait until someone gets offed with one of them and you can join the UK Olympic team shouting BANG in their living rooms with their Xbox trainer toys.
    Sorry,I have NO intention of being fooled again by compromises and deals and other such. Start realising you are dealing with an extremely anti gun police force who have indoctrinated and indoctrinate in Templemore in their Garda guide that "handguns are especially dangerous and should not be liscensed under any circumstances" attiudes. We give any ground in this and it will be death by a thousand cuts... All they have to do is declare your area a high crime area and revoke ALL liscenses irrespective.

    I'd suggest the following as a compromise.We decide that we want legislation and procedure along the German side of things.It is about the toughest there is in Europe,everything from mental backround checks to having to have a virtual safe to store over ten guns ,to written oral,practical exams and a six month probation of club membership before you can apply after been signed off by the club sec to apply for your firearm.
    Wht anti gun politco and Garda wouldnt jump on this offer.HOWEVER the catch is; AGS ,bar the bac kround check is removed from the liscensing procedure.
    They have shown that they are anti gun,biased,and a busted flush,and if they stay involved in this it will be just us crucifying ourselves to a whim of an anti gun Superintendant.They have to GO out of this system for this to work.. It becomes a centralised civillian operation.The legislation is drawn with proper definitions as to what is allowed and not allowed in firearms once and for all.The liscenses becomes liscensing the man not the gun.Valid for 5 years,and there is no more "idontlikethe lookodat" nonsense.If you prove good need and there is a vaible sport niche for whatever you are shooting on items as they are now there,it becomes a SHALL ISSUE item.

    Compromise yes,but NOT with someone elses segment of the sport. Give them another reason to keep us good citizens..Link a driving under the influence suspension or over seven penalty points to loss of your gun liscense! Germany and France do it...Makes sense..You are drunk in charge of a car,can you be trusted with a firearm?They even have it if you are a tax dodger you lose your liscense...

    Obviously not all of it will transfer to over here,but is it better to toughen up on getting the gun with the assurance in law that if you do what is required,BY LAW you will get the gun at the end of the process ?Or have a more or less where anyone can get a gun ,but it is on the whim of an unqualified to judge,due to personal bias and no training person with too much power on their whims??
    By actually "losing a freedom" here we could actually gain much more under a more draconian system belive it or not.

    "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 "



  • #168
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    yubabill1 wrote: »
    I think we need a temporary coalition of representative groups
    Honestly, that's not going to do any of us any good at all. The AGS don't care if we're one group or twenty. What we need is to get us back into the tent peeing out, so to speak. Reinstate the FCP, which would force reviews like this to go across the table in front of us instead of being done behind closed doors. That's the best possible end goal for us in the long run.

    I have little doubt however, that that approach is going to be trashed over the coming weeks with the FCP being portrayed at best as being this ineffectual talking-shop. I'm going to try not to laugh outright at the daftness of that (seriously, which do you prefer, the AGS always talking about restrictions in a talking shop or the AGS getting the Minister to pass Acts that bring in restrictions?) but I'm pessimistic about this whole state of affairs.


  • #169
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    SVI40 wrote: »
    Unfortunately, time and time again, compromise has not got us anywhere.
    People keep saying this, but nobody has ever managed to explain what other option there is. The law does not allow us a veto on a sitting Minister. The courts aren't worth the money - if 2006 didn't teach you that and 2009 didn't teach you that, I'd lay money on you not learning it in 2015 or 2016 either, but I would lay money on us losing. We can't outvote them - there are 100,000 of us and about three million in the electorate. Democracy means our votes are equal to everyone elses, so the numbers don't work in our favour.

    So what, exactly, is the plan if it's not to find a reasonable compromise on firearms legislation? (And for fecks's sakes, stop thinking "compromise" means "selling out". In this case, "compromise" means "We'll go along with most of your review, but the bans are too far and we won't support them").


  • #170
    yubabill1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭yubabill1


    Sparks wrote: »
    Honestly, that's not going to do any of us any good at all. The AGS don't care if we're one group or twenty. What we need is to get us back into the tent peeing out, so to speak. Reinstate the FCP, which would force reviews like this to go across the table in front of us instead of being done behind closed doors. That's the best possible end goal for us in the long run.

    Ok I'll try to put it better if I can

    We need to function together temporarily for the purposes of this consultation.

    I know next-to-nothing about the FCP other than the essentials, but from where I'm sitting, it doesn't look like it's coming back any time soon. Too bad.

    But we still have this problem in front of us, which is well-constructed, well-resourced, but far from insurmountable.

    To paraphrase what you already said - we can't be playing draughts if they are playing chess.


  • #171
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    yubabill1 wrote: »
    So jamming Pulse for 2 or 3 months is not going to work?
    It might, but you can't actually do that. We only use Pulse if the licences are granted. As to sending in tens of thousands of applications, all the AGS have to do is smile, nod, say "thank you" and put them in a box. Three months later, the law says they have been correctly processed, correctly rejected and the applicants have legally been notified of that. They don't have to lift a finger.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    yubabill1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭yubabill1


    Sparks wrote: »
    People keep saying this, but nobody has ever managed to explain what other option there is. The law does not allow us a veto on a sitting Minister. The courts aren't worth the money - if 2006 didn't teach you that and 2009 didn't teach you that, I'd lay money on you not learning it in 2015 or 2016 either, but I would lay money on us losing. We can't outvote them - there are 100,000 of us and about three million in the electorate. Democracy means our votes are equal to everyone elses, so the numbers don't work in our favour.

    Well, the electorate have shown a huge appetite for not getting involved in this - ref. EU firearms consultation last year/ politics.ie thread id dead as doornails/journal.ie articles mostly viewed by shooters/ broadsheet.ie thread dead.

    This issue has no legs, as they say in the media, so it's just us vs AGS.

    They have tried the spook SOP of discrediting us as a group in the media over the summer and it looks like Joe Public still has the same opinion of us (none).


  • #173
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    yubabill1 wrote: »
    We need to function together temporarily for the purposes of this consultation.
    That doesn't require taking one group and putting them in charge. It requires us to not go behind others backs or stamp on toes or generally act like gombeens. I think most of us are more than able to do that.
    I know next-to-nothing about the FCP other than the essentials, but from where I'm sitting, it doesn't look like it's coming back any time soon. Too bad.
    Yes, but that's not because of the AGS or the DoJ. That's because of us. If we wanted it back, that's a real possibility.
    To paraphrase what you already said - we can't be playing draughts if they are playing chess.
    Yup. And pounding the table during a chess game doesn't let you win either, it just gets you disqualified :)


  • #174
    BoatMad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    Grizzly 45 wrote: »
    We have compromised enough,and if you think more compromises will save your side of things you are sadly mistaken.
    I remember sitting in the IPSA EGM[practical pistol] a few years ago and being told. "Close up the practical pistol side of things lads or ALL pistol shooting is gone..And if you do, your CF will be grand for WA1500 and T&P and .22s." Duly done and within 3 MONTHS the refusals for CF came down the line.


    Sorry, a court case opened up a loophole, we lost the case with the 2009 act, There was no compromise, we lost - comprende.
    Now its "Give up the.CF lads s and we will be grand with the .22s."

    we are at their mercy , unless we bridge bridges. They will continue to strip away access to firearms.

    Not noticing that there are already problems with "military and combat" .22s or any that "could " take a ten shot mag..Nothing to stop anyone taping two five rounders on the Olympic style pistol together is there???Dont think for ONE moment that Olympic style pistols are safe either...Wait until someone gets offed with one of them and you can join the UK Olympic team shouting BANG in their living rooms with their Xbox trainer toys.


    Irelevent, seriously go on Pat Kenny and publicly justify handguns , see what happens,Understand you have NO RIGHTS to any firearm.


    Sorry,I have NO intention of being fooled again by compromises and deals and other such. Start realising you are dealing with an extremely anti gun police force who have indoctrinated and indoctrinate in Templemore in their Garda guide that "handguns are especially dangerous and should not be liscensed under any circumstances" attiudes.
    Then That is a failure of our sport to cultivate relationships with the Gardai, dragging them repeatedly through the courts is helping that sure.
    We give any ground in this and it will be death by a thousand cuts... All they have to do is declare your area a high crime area and revoke ALL liscenses irrespective.

    Yes, that could easily happen in this country. Very hard to argue against it, the authorities hold all the aces.
    I'd suggest the following as a compromise.We decide that we want legislation and procedure along the German side of things.It is about the toughest there is in Europe,everything from mental backround checks to having to have a virtual safe to store over ten guns ,to written oral,practical exams and a six month probation of club membership before you can apply after been signed off by the club sec to apply for your firearm.

    Not bad, the devil is in the detail , it will not bring back Cf pistols though
    HOWEVER the catch is; AGS ,bar the backround check is removed from the liscensing procedure.
    They have shown that they are anti gun,biased,and a busted flush,and if they stay involved in this it will be just us crucifying ourselves to a whim of an anti gun Superintendant.

    Not a hope, and rightly so , the character of the holder is a legimate reason to withhold a firearms license. That will not work

    They have to GO out of this system for this to work.. It becomes a centralised civillian operation.The legislation is drawn with proper definitions as to what is allowed and not allowed in firearms once and for all.The liscenses becomes liscensing the man not the gun.Valid for 5 years,and there is no more "idontlikethe lookodat" nonsense.If you prove good need and there is a vaible sport niche for whatever you are shooting on items as they are now there,it becomes a SHALL ISSUE item.

    Dreams, Dreams, That requires fundamental changes to the legislation , not to happen ( gov a little pre-occupied) ,
    Compromise yes,but NOT with someone elses segment of the sport. Give them another reason to keep us good citizens..Link a driving under the influence suspension or over seven penalty points to loss of your gun liscense! Germany and France do it...Makes sense..You are drunk in charge of a car,can you be trusted with a firearm?They even have it if you are a tax dodger you lose your liscense..
    .

    Again not a bad idea, but the devils in the detail. It will be very hard to convince a Minister that firearms licensing should be transferred to a civilian body, can't see the Gardai lying down on that one. Again , and I know this isn't popular, but the CF case is lost , its never coming back. We have to seek some stability and not have amendments every 2-3 years .
    Obviously not all of it will transfer to over here,but is it better to toughen up on getting the gun with the assurance in law that if you do what is required,BY LAW you will get the gun at the end of the process ?

    First good point
    Or have a more or less where anyone can get a gun ,but it is on the whim of an unqualified to judge,due to personal bias and no training person with too much power on their whims??

    Note Judges cannot award licenses.
    By actually "losing a freedom" here we could actually gain much more under a more draconian system belive it or not.

    perhaps, but to gain traction, you need a relationship with the other side, thats missing


  • #175
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    yubabill1 wrote: »
    Well, the electorate have shown a huge appetite for not getting involved in this - ref. EU firearms consultation last year/ politics.ie thread id dead as doornails/journal.ie articles mostly viewed by shooters/ broadsheet.ie thread dead.
    That's more down to the water charges protest in Jobstown going nuclear, Irish Water getting some fangs pulled in public and a few other things. But that's okay, that's not a bad thing. Being on the front pages doesn't actually help us much - most people are not shooters, don't know anything about firearms other than what they see in hollywood and are far more worried about mortgages, bills, water bills in particular, trying not to lose their jobs or finding new ones, childcare costs or a hundred other things that affect their lives directly. They see us on the front pages, know nothing about us and just want us out of the way so they can see the stuff they are worried about. That doesn't lead to them being on our side.
    This issue has no legs, as they say in the media, so it's just us vs AGS.
    With the Minister having to judge which is going to win. It won't be us in that case.
    However, if the option was on the table to - pardon the jargon now - bring all the stakeholders together to further discuss the proposed legislative plans and form a consensus on the best practice of law while maintaining community relations and enlisting the technical expertise of that community to facilitate smooth and efficient policing and risk management....

    Can you name me a politician who wouldn't see that as an attractive solution to a noisy problem at a time when there's more than enough stress from other problems to sink a government?


  • #176
    yubabill1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭yubabill1


    Sparks wrote: »
    It might, but you can't actually do that. We only use Pulse if the licences are granted. As to sending in tens of thousands of applications, all the AGS have to do is smile, nod, say "thank you" and put them in a box. Three months later, the law says they have been correctly processed, correctly rejected and the applicants have legally been notified of that. They don't have to lift a finger.

    Then we'll have to lift the phone to them.

    I'm talking about proper applications, inevitably there will be glitches but the aim will be to actually get licensed - it will cost us E80, plus phone calls but we'll be able to shoot our mate's gun.

    Of course, some will have less use for whatever they might license, but for me, I could really do with access to a 22LR from time-to-time.


  • #177
    BoatMad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    Sparks wrote: »
    That doesn't require taking one group and putting them in charge. It requires us to not go behind others backs or stamp on toes or generally act like gombeens. I think most of us are more than able to do that.


    Yes, but that's not because of the AGS or the DoJ. That's because of us. If we wanted it back, that's a real possibility.

    Yup. And pounding the table during a chess game doesn't let you win either, it just gets you disqualified :)

    Sparks is the man, you've said this many times, why the shooting community doesn't get , is utterly beyond me.,


  • #178
    BoatMad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    yubabill1 wrote: »
    Then we'll have to lift the phone to them.

    I'm talking about proper applications, inevitably there will be glitches but the aim will be to actually get licensed - it will cost us E80, plus phone calls but we'll be able to shoot our mate's gun.

    Of course, some will have less use for whatever they might license, but for me, I could really do with access to a 22LR from time-to-time.

    Please stop this "massive license " nonsense. Its really just a drag them into court process by another name. All that will happen is another amendment.

    You just can't win this process by trying to "push it"


  • #179
    yubabill1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭yubabill1


    Sparks wrote: »

    With the Minister having to judge which is going to win. It won't be us in that case.
    However, if the option was on the table to - pardon the jargon now - bring all the stakeholders together to further discuss the proposed legislative plans and form a consensus on the best practice of law while maintaining community relations and enlisting the technical expertise of that community to facilitate smooth and efficient policing and risk management....

    Can you name me a politician who wouldn't see that as an attractive solution to a noisy problem at a time when there's more than enough stress from other problems to sink a government?

    Sounds interesting. We have to make a fair bit of noise first, though - but definitely a plan.


  • #180
    BoatMad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    bring all the stakeholders together to further discuss the proposed legislative plans and form a consensus on the best practice of law while maintaining community relations and enlisting the technical expertise of that community to facilitate smooth and efficient policing and risk management....


    sounds like an excellent strategy no minister could refuse , maybe even a win win


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    BoatMad wrote: »
    Note Judges cannot award licenses.
    Um.
    Actually, they can. Ever since the 2006 Act, the Super's persona designata status has been gone, even though a lot of us didn't notice at the time and that report doesn't seem to recognise it either. But nevertheless, under Section 15(4) of the Act:
    (4) Where the appeal is allowed, the issuing person shall give effect to the Court’s decision.

    That means, if the Judge says grant the licence, the Super must grant the licence. It's one of the very, very few "must"s that the law points at the AGS.


  • #182
    yubabill1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭yubabill1


    BoatMad wrote: »
    Please stop this "massive license " nonsense. Its really just a drag them into court process by another name. All that will happen is another amendment.

    You just can't win this process by trying to "push it"

    Man up, you're in a fight.


  • #183
    BoatMad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    Sparks wrote: »
    Um.
    Actually, they can. Ever since the 2006 Act, the Super's persona designata status has been gone, even though a lot of us didn't notice at the time and that report doesn't seem to recognise it either. But nevertheless, under Section 15(4) of the Act:


    That means, if the Judge says grant the licence, the Super must grant the licence. It's one of the very, very few "must"s that the law points at the AGS.


    I stand corrected, I was aware that in several decisions, a review was required but the judge stated he couldn't license the firearm.


  • #184
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    yubabill1 wrote: »
    Sounds interesting. We have to make a fair bit of noise first, though - but definitely a plan.

    Hence my rather strong suggestions above that if you want this not to happen, we have to each, individually, personally, contact our TDs. Not leave it to NGBs, not look for form letters, not complain and do nothing, but actually send an email, a text, a tweet, a facebook post, a written letter, a phone call, or best of all go to their clinics and talk to them face to face.

    That's the motive to put this away quietly in a box. And given the length of life this government probably has left, that's about all we really need. Get it on a table in a room we're in with the AGS and DoJ and this doesn't happen. Don't do that and... well, I always wanted to shoot ISSF fullbore .32 pistol. I'd like not to have to go to Switzerland to do it, y'know?


  • #185
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    BoatMad wrote: »
    I stand corrected, I was aware that in several decisions, a review was required but the judge stated he couldn't license the firearm.

    In the High Court that's true. In the District Court, oddly, it's not.
    But to be honest, if a DC judge didn't know that, I would be utterly unshocked. The Firearms Act is a complete and total mess when you get past the bones of the thing, because of all the layering of Acts, EU directives and SIs that make it up.


  • #186
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    yubabill1 wrote: »
    Man up, you're in a fight.
    Yeah, but we won't win it that way. It's not a horrid idea, it's actually out of the Ghandi playbook, it just had the knees slashed by 15A in the '06 act is all.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    BoatMad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    yubabill1 wrote: »
    Man up, you're in a fight.

    to misquote raiders of the lost ark, don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

    A fight suggests we have something to overcome the other side, The fact is were not at a fight , we're not even in the arena, Whatever fight is going on, were not there,

    Step one, locate arena

    Step two, ask to be able to fight

    Step three, don suitable gear

    Step four, if you can't win, what are you doing there in the first place.

    You see we're not in a fight, we' re in a negotiation, and in a negotiation, you need a game plan, a fall back plan and most importantly "friends". ( or at the very least people on the other side who see advantage in supporting you )

    This is the mistake this community has made, thinking this is a "fight". there is no fight. wise up


  • #188
    LB6
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,717 ✭✭✭LB6


    Information evening for affiliated clubs and their members in the Clubhouse, Harbour House Sports Club, Co. Kildare at 7PM the evening of Monday November 17th.
    There, we will explain what the Sports Coalition is, why it is different from previous attempts at unity, why it is so important and what it is doing on behalf of all license holders.
    We will also outline what it is that we want you and your members to do to aid the Coalition in its efforts.

    Please make all effort to attend

    Now there's your arena. Stop being so negative.


  • #189
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    LB6 wrote: »
    Now there's your arena. Stop being so negative.

    That's not the arena. That's a private club. Go, talk, by all means, but if you think that in the government's mind that it's any different from boards.ie, you're fooling yourself. They just see it as another private group of people, nothing more.


  • #190
    BoatMad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    Now there's your arena. Stop being so negative.

    Id love to have positives to look at from the past to guide us here???


  • #191
    LB6
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,717 ✭✭✭LB6


    It's a private club yes, the biggest in the country, centrally located and with the capacity to hold a meeting of like minded people who are interested in making this thing go forwards, not digging their heels in and saying "awww that won't work"!

    Whats with all the negativity - it's really getting on my wick!


    Go and see what you can learn - everyone here seems to think they know it all!


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    BoatMad wrote: »
    Id love to have positives to look at from the past to guide us here???

    2006/7 - the Minister wanted to up licence fees enormously. Largescale grassroots activism just before an election stopped the plan. And that was McDowell for feck's sakes, rowing back on something that was going to increase government revenue. That's a rather large U-turn.

    2009 - the Minister announces on the front page of every newspaper out there that he's going to ban handguns. Not some, not a subset, just everything. The FCP blunts the worst of it even though he went to the press first. We still took it in the neck, but we walked away with our head still attached, mostly.

    These kind of disasters can be averted or ameliorated, even if we don't have legal vetos or more votes than anyone else; but only when we do things a certain way.


  • #193
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    LB6 wrote: »
    It's a private club yes, the biggest in the country
    Really? Has the IFA signed up then? :)
    Whats with all the negativity - it's really getting on my wick!
    Because I find it a bit galling that the AGS were only able to do this because the FCP wasn't there, and the people you're recommending are the ones who burned the FCP in the first place.

    Look, go. Hear them out. Getting information out there is always good and I've no argument with that at all. But if people start talking about courts or spending lots of money or everyone joining under one Great Leader, have a pinch of salt to hand. That route's been tried. We go down there again and in ten years time - and this is shooting, we will all be here in ten years - we'll be back here again, with less and looking at losing more.

    And if you don't believe me, ask yourself what year this is and when did they release the heads of the 2004 Criminal Justice Bill that went on to be the greatest kick in the fork our sports ever got.






    ps. When I say "private club" I don't mean HH, I mean the sports coalition thingy.


  • #194
    LB6
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,717 ✭✭✭LB6


    Your manner of text is very condescending Sparks. "sports coalition "THINGY".

    I can't do anymore. Not every agrees with you. I'm just putting it out there for the other 99% who are open to hearing information.


  • #195
    .243
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,265 ✭✭✭.243


    Sparks wrote: »
    but only when we do things a certain way.
    What other way is there,
    Sitting here whinging and waiting for the sky to fall?????,
    people (it doesn't matter who's affiliated with who,we all have a common dominator we all squeeze a trigger)are for once getting of their rear ends and meeting to try and be better informed in what we can do,others are emailing letting their political representatives know what's happening to their voters and being invited to recieve the correct information and putting it out there that another piece of their sport of shooting is being tore away,
    Even if it all goes to pot at least we all gave it everything to save it


  • #196
    BoatMad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    Sparks wrote: »
    2006/7 - the Minister wanted to up licence fees enormously. Largescale grassroots activism just before an election stopped the plan. And that was McDowell for feck's sakes, rowing back on something that was going to increase government revenue. That's a rather large U-turn.

    2009 - the Minister announces on the front page of every newspaper out there that he's going to ban handguns. Not some, not a subset, just everything. The FCP blunts the worst of it even though he went to the press first. We still took it in the neck, but we walked away with our head still attached, mostly.

    These kind of disasters can be averted or ameliorated, even if we don't have legal vetos or more votes than anyone else; but only when we do things a certain way.

    The first had the benefit of involving farmers and the IFA, and it was an election

    The second showed the advantage of the FCP. The FCP is where now?

    Im all for trying sparks I really am, but the current leadership of our sport ( in what there is), leaves me with that sinking feeling that this is all pre-destined.


  • #197
    sheesh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,081 ✭✭✭sheesh


    Hi all not a gun owner here but I have read 5 pages of the thread and skimmed through the rest. here are some suggestions

    contacting the TD's is great but it would be,better to call into their clinics and explain to the TD's what exactly is wrong with the report. be nice to them.

    these guns can be used for pest control try and get the farmers involved.

    these guns are used by tourists Find people who run shooting holidays in Ireland get them give out to TD's as reducing the number of types of guns that can be brought into the country restricts the number of tourists that will come.

    And obviously gun sellers.

    Remember FG and Labour will need every vote they can get come the next election.


  • #198
    Kryten
    Registered Users Posts: 314 ✭✭Kryten


    Bulk licence applications are a terrible idea. It will only succeed in holding up substitutions and new applications by other shooters.
    From reading the proposed legislation, time is not on our side. They are out to screw us. FCP is not an option any more. No meaningful consultation with the shooters will result anyway. The PTB hold all the cards, so we have no choice but to try to unite and fight what's coming. Sparks, you seem to shoot down everyone's suggestions, but apart from FCP you have no alternative solutions. We are not throwing any discipline under the bus, so to speak, for the greater good. There is no good. I am going to the information session in Harbour house. Get a plan of action together. Basically to do something.


  • #199
    Wadi14
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 882 ✭✭✭Wadi14


    I didn't realise there was so much politics in shooting, since reading this thread I have learned sooo much, from the people who have participated and from those who haven't, and I have to say it doesn't look good


  • #200
    BoatMad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    sheesh wrote: »
    Hi all not a gun owner here but I have read 5 pages of the thread and skimmed through the rest. here are some suggestions

    contacting the TD's is great but it would be,better to call into their clinics and explain to the TD's what exactly is wrong with the report. be nice to them.

    these guns can be used for pest control try and get the farmers involved.

    these guns are used by tourists Find people who run shooting holidays in Ireland get them give out to TD's as reducing the number of types of guns that can be brought into the country restricts the number of tourists that will come.

    And obviously gun sellers.

    Remember FG and Labour will need every vote they can get come the next election.

    Unfortunately, my friend , you illustrate the issues we have

    This current problem is about handguns, thats the kernel, they have a single use in this state, thats is target shooting. The numbers involved are small compared to holders of ordinary shotguns and bolt action rifles.

    Im not aware that Ireland allows any tourist handguns to be brought it.

    SO the arguments have to be carefully presented. The farmers can be easily bought off by be told that no provisions affect them etc. Then the TDs just sigh and move on.

    Its a tricky debate. Unless all the sports groups right from a-z are directly behind this campaign , it will be an uphill battle.

    Its winnable, but it may not be winnable with the current representation


  • #201
    BoatMad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    Kryten wrote: »
    Bulk licence applications are a terrible idea. It will only succeed in holding up substitutions and new applications by other shooters.
    From reading the proposed legislation, time is not on our side. They are out to screw us. FCP is not an option any more. No meaningful consultation with the shooters will result anyway. The PTB hold all the cards, so we have no choice but to try to unite and fight what's coming. Sparks, you seem to shoot down everyone's suggestions, but apart from FCP you have no alternative solutions. We are not throwing any discipline under the bus, so to speak, for the greater good. There is no good. I am going to the information session in Harbour house. Get a plan of action together. Basically to do something.
    \

    Good post, but I do suspect we have more time on our hands then we think. I suspect any legislation will have a low priority and may not even see dail time before the election.

    The key issue here is to stall things. Thats our greatest asset, time to election, it may even be sooner then we think.

    Yes lets act , lets act together, but lets stop antagonising the other side for no real purpose.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement