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 :)
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
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
Criminal Justice Bill 2004
-
17-08-2004 11:17pmFrom the Department of Justice's website comes the following:Comments are invited on Section 30 of the Criminal Justice Bill, 2004 concerning the amendment of section 4 of the Firearms Act, 1925. Comments can be emailed to the following address:
firearms_CJB2004@justice.ie
Click on the following link to view the Bill on the Oireachtas website:
Criminal Justice Bill 2004
These amendments to the Firearms Acts will decide what firearms we can and cannot hold licences for, at least for the next few years. Polite responses to this email address would be of significant worth (in that if there are none sent, the DoJELR may state that noone objected to any amendments).
The problem is that these amendments have not been announced yet, apart from the one concerning secure storage being a mandatory prerequisite for being granted a licence; but we are as sure as is possible given the situation, that we will see classes and calibres of firearms listed in the amendments as being illegal to licence.0
Comments
-
Is the content of submissions made by the various shooting bodies known at this stage? Some, like the NARGC, carry a lot of weight and it'd be nice for us all to be singing off the same hymn-sheet.
I understand there was considerable objection from the NARGC to these amendments going through in a Criminal Justice Bill at all, with the implications that has for the highly law abiding shooting fraternity.0 -
Do the proposed amendments look like violating any Constitutional right regarding unreasonable search? It looks like the amendments are giving the Gardaí the right to barge into your house at any time without notice just to check up on your rifle0
-
wasn't that what stopped the secure storage thing last time - the fact that it
would have been an infringement on constitutional rights to require people to allow guards into their house to inspect the secure storage?
I just had a glance at the amendment to the bill and I've a question -
are we granted a new license each year or is it a continuation of an existing one. The amendment says (in my words) that where application for a firearms certificate has been made the super must be satisfied that secure storage exists, either by inspection or other proof. So must this proof be provided every year? Is is only for new licenses, in which case everyone with an existing license is not bound by this?0 -
i'd imagine that it would only need to be done once for that firearm license. they may need to recheck it if you change the firearm, or apply for a new license. can't see them being able to visit each license holder every July/August. all the more reason for bringing in a system similar to the UK. once you pass all the security checks, you are issued a firearms / shotgun cert and each firearm you own is added to that single cert.
i fully support the legal requirments for secure storage, but I would have preferred if they specified that a cabinet /safe meeting a minimum standard was required. would make it easier to prove that you have adequate security in place. I assume they'll also look at the security of your house (alarm etc) when assessing the storage.0 -
civdef wrote:Is the content of submissions made by the various shooting bodies known at this stage?Some, like the NARGC, carry a lot of weight and it'd be nice for us all to be singing off the same hymn-sheet.I understand there was considerable objection from the NARGC to these amendments going through in a Criminal Justice Bill at all, with the implications that has for the highly law abiding shooting fraternity.Zakalwe wrote:Do the proposed amendments look like violating any Constitutional right regarding unreasonable search? It looks like the amendments are giving the Gardaí the right to barge into your house at any time without notice just to check up on your rifle
The amendment in question is :30.—Section 4 of the Firearms Act 1925 is amended—
(a) in paragraph (c), by the substitution of ‘‘certificate, and’’ for
‘‘certificate.’’,
(b) by the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (c):
‘‘(d) in the case of an application for a firearms certificate made to a superintendent of the
Garda Siochana, has provided, to the superintendent’s satisfaction, secure accommodation for the firearm concerned at the address where it is to be kept.’’, and
(c) by the numbering of the section as subsection (1) and the
addition of the following subsections:
‘‘(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(d) of this section the superintendent or a member of the Garda Sıochana acting on his or her behalf may inspect the accommodation referred to in that subsection or require the applicant to provide proof of its existence.
(3) If the superintendent or the Minister (as the case may require) is not satisfied as to the matters specified in the said subsection (1)(d), he or she shall refuse to issue 40 a firearms certificate to the applicant under this Act and shall inform the applicant of the refusal and the reason for it.’’.
Now it says that the gardai have to inspect the secure storage. But it doesn't say they can demand to do so at 3am - unless it explicitly gives the gardai permission to break down your door to demand inspection, they can't do so as the constitution under article 40.5 which says that they need a warrant or permission from the citizen involved to do so.
It also gives an alternative - prove the secure storage exists (a photograph of the gun safe, it's invoice, any charges for installation if someone else did it, etc.). So legally, the garda never has to set foot inside your house if you're that worried about it.
In reality though, it's most likely that this will be a case of the local Garda you go to every year to get your licence asking to call round one evening to take a peek at the gun safe. And I don't know about you, but my local Garda is a sound lad and I've never had a problem with him. And thanks to paperwork niggles, I've needed a fair bit of flexibility from him and it was always forthcoming.deRanged wrote:wasn't that what stopped the secure storage thing last time - the fact that it
would have been an infringement on constitutional rights to require people to allow guards into their house to inspect the secure storage?
No, the Dunne v. Donohue judgement said that the Garda Commissionar couldn't tell a Garda Superintendent whether or not to grant a firearms licence or lay down preconditions for doing so, because that violated the Firearms Acts which identify the local Superintendent as the sole authority in issuing licences. Dunne v. Donohue wasn't about gun safes per se, though they were the motivation for the case. Consititutional rights weren't the reason for the judgement.I just had a glance at the amendment to the bill and I've a question -
are we granted a new license each year or is it a continuation of an existing one. The amendment says (in my words) that where application for a firearms certificate has been made the super must be satisfied that secure storage exists, either by inspection or other proof. So must this proof be provided every year? Is is only for new licenses, in which case everyone with an existing license is not bound by this?
Insofar as I'm aware, it's a new licence for each year. Whether or not that means that all 230,000 firearms licence applications will result in an inspection every year, I don't know, but I'm inclined to think that common sense will prevail there...0 -
Advertisement
-
Sparks, let us know when the rest of the ammendments are mde public, and perhaps some ideas on what to say, so that as a previous poster said, "were all singing from the same hymn sheet"0
-
To the best of my knowledge it's a simple renewal every year, not a new application. Certainly the same checks aren't carried out, and it's an automatic process. If the super refuses to renew a licence, it has to be justified the same as for revoking it.
When the guards ask you to produce evidence your shooting rights at renewal, it's actually to satisfy the Wildlife Act provisions integrated with the firearms cert.0 -
Civ, I think we may fill out different forms, don't hunters have to have different paperwork to target shooters?0
-
No, I have guns held for both purposes, and the forms are identical. The bottom half of the renewal form is actually Wildlife Act related. That's the bit that asks to provide land owners or gun club membership details, it's got nowt to do with the Firearms Act.0
-
Ah, my mistake - I assumed there were other forms that hunters submitted along with that one.0
-
Advertisement
-
I thought perhaps posting sample replies to the DoJ here might give people ideas about what to put in their own replies, and perhaps even encourage some to write their own - after all, if you're reading this, you're already online and taking a few minutes to write an email right now wouldn't be so hard, would it?
So, here's the text of my submission:Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing in response to your call for comments on the amendments
proposed for the Firearms Act as set forth in the Criminal Justice
Bill 2004. Firstly I wish to thank you for your courtesy in requesting
comments from the shooting community.
I intend in this letter to comment on the proposed amendment, and to
request that further amendments make provision for three things;
1) That all ISSF target shooting firearms remain licenseable;
2) That our licensing system be changed to a less expensive, less
manpower-consuming system that has a proven record in the UK
and abroad;
3) That a Visitors Permit system be introduced to boost both sport
and tourism.
I have been a target shooter for ten years, shooting Olympic smallbore
rifle and Olympic air rifle with the Dublin University Rifle Club. I
have owned my own firearms and equipment for three years, the total
value of this equipment coming to approximately seven thousand euros
(prior to this, I shot using club equipment). I have been competing
in target shooting events, as run in Ireland by the National Target
Shooting Association, for six years and have won several competitions
including a National Championships in 2001. I have represented Ireland
internationally as the Irish Team Manager at the Munich World Cup in
2001.
I believe personally that the proposed amendment requiring any target
shooter to have secure storage for his or her firearms is a reasonable
one, with sound motivation and a good degree of flexibility in its
wording to allow for the inevitable individual cases where secure
storage is not provided by means of a gun safe, but through some other
equivalent means. I personally have always owned a gun safe and would
not feel comfortable owning a firearm without secure storage for it -
not merely for safety reasons but also for the pragmatic reasons that
my rifles are highly expensive, costing approximately one thousand
and seventeen hundred euros for my air rifle and my smallbore rifle
respectively.
However, the attendant comments with the Criminal Justice Bill 2004
stated that further amendments would be added to the Bill in Committee
in response to recent High Court cases such as those taken by Nicholas
Flood and Frank Brophy. As an ISSF shooter who hopes to represent
Ireland in the future in International competition, I would be very
concerned that these amendments might put in legislation a ban on
licencing those firearms which have legitimate uses in ISSF competition.
The ISSF (International Shooting Sports Federation) is the international
governing body for shooting sports and it regulates all seventeen
shooting events in the Olympic Games. Ireland has an excellent
history of competing in these events, with successes including having
competitors qualify for the Atlanta, Sydney and Athens Games; winning
the World Championships team event in 2002; winning a gold medal at
the World cup in Cairo in April of this year; and winning several team
medals at World Cups over the past year. Our Juniors have won medals in
the British Open championships, and all our shooters have represented
their country internationally with the highest standards.
To accidentally obliterate an Olympic sport through a minor oversight
would be a serious tragedy from the point of view of Irish sport.
This has already been done on one occasion in 1972 when the Firearms
(Dangerous Weapons) Order was signed by the then-Minister
Des O'Malley banning all pistols and revolvers - an act aimed at addressing
security concerns caused by sidearms, but which inadvertently also
obliterated the ISSF target pistols, which are effectively useless as
weapons and have never posed a security threat.
Given these facts, I would implore you to make provision in any further
amendments to safeguard the licensability of ISSF shotguns, rifles and
pistols. These would include, amongst others, .22 calibre rifles; .22
calibre pistols; .177 calibre air rifles; .177 calibre air pistols; 6.5mm
calibre centerfire rifles; and .32 calibre pistols.
You may also wish to evaluate not requiring a licence for airguns whose
muzzle energy is less than seven joules. This is standard procedure in
Northern Ireland and the UK (where the limit is in fact higher than
seven joules, at 12 foot-pounds for air rifles and six foot-pounds for
air pistols), France, Germany, and indeed the vast majority of Europe.
Apart from this concern, I would ask you to consider the following two
measures.
Firstly, the current means of licencing firearms in this country issues
one licence every year for each of the 230,000 firearms in this country.
In the UK and Northern Ireland, by contrast, a Firearms Authorisation
Certificate system exists whereby each shooter has one Certificate which
lists all of his or her firearms. This Certificate is valid for a period
of five years. Were we to change to such a system, it would not only
reduce costs and inconvenience for the shooter, but it would also result
in enormous savings in manpower in both the Gardai who must now inspect
each of our homes for secure storage for each licence and in the Gardai
who must process and file all of the attending paperwork relating to
renewal of licences. This saving would not reduce public safety in
any way, as the end result of either the FAC system or our current
licencing system is the same: a list of all firearms licenced in the
country and whom they are licenced to.
The second measure I would ask you to consider relates to Visitors
Permits. Permit me to give an example to illustrate the problem. In
a month's time I intend to attend the East Antrim Shooting Festival,
the inaugural event of the Air Rifle season in Ireland (Olympic target
shooting in Ireland is run on a 32-county basis). In order to do so,
I will apply for a Visitors Permit to the PSNI for a period of one
weekend. I will specify precisely what firearms I will be bringing,
where they will be stored, what their serial numbers are, how much
ammunition I will be bringing, and my personal details. They will issue
me with a Permit to go to East Antrim for the competition and then I may
proceed. This costs me nothing - but if I attend many competitions in
Northern Ireland I may choose to apply for a permanent licence instead
at a cost of fifty pounds sterling.
However, should an East Antrim shooter wish to attend the Irish National
Championships in Meath, he has no such choice at present and must
instead apply for a full yearly licence from the Department at a cost of
thirty-eight euros. This has the effect of strongly dissuading shooters
from outside the state to travel here for competitive purposes, thus not
only reducing the size of our competitions and dissuading cross-border
relations; but diminishing tourist income at the same time.
This is not the same situation as with tourists coming to Ireland to
hunt. In our case, a competition lasts for less than two hours; no
natural resources such as livestock are reduced by the shooting; and in
fact only positive effects are felt by the state as a result of a shooter
travelling here for a target shooting competition.
I would propose therefore, that the Department of Justice introduce a
Visitors Permit system for target shooting competitions in order to
promote both the sport of target shooting and to promote Irish tourism.
Finally, I wish to thank you once more for seeking the input of the
shooting community in Ireland, and I hope that you can implement some of
the ideas which you will no doubt receive; and to ask that the further
amendments which the Department is considering be made public as soon
as is practicable, as these will in all probability have a dramatic and
direct effect on the target shooting community.
Yours Sincerly,0 -
To: firearms_CJB2004@justice.ie
Subject: Comments
Hello,
My name is Ewan Oughton, Im an Irish citizen living in Germany for
the summer. In June I joined a local target gun club, and witnessed first
hand what a worthwhile pursuit well disciplined target shooting can be -
not only did it serve as a social venue for many people, but it taught
proper gun handling and discipline to teenagers - I was very impressed
with the level of professionalism displayed by children as young as 12.
I myself took up ISSF 10metre air pistol shooting - an olympic discipline.
Thanks to my previous experience on the Irish Archery Team my scores soon
reached a very high level - my coach here in Germany, a retired poice
officer and weapons specialist, was dismayed to learn of the lack of
pistol licenses issued in the Republic, and this is why I am writing you this
email.
It is very much my hope that there will be a mature approach taken to the
ISSF class of weaponry - I have no wish to see licenses granted for semi
automatic assault weaponry, but through ISSF disciplines like 10metre air
pistol/rifle, we have a real chance to develop a medal winning shooting
team; combined with our clay-pidgeon shooting colleagues we could
considerably increase our medal count in Beijing, if we are given the
chance, and the licenses for our weapons.
Thanks for reading
Yours in sport
Ewan0 -
Here's the NTSA's letter to the DoJ regarding the amendments to the Act:Dear Minister,
I am writing to you on behalf of the National Target Shooting
Association, which is recognised by the Olympic Council of Ireland and
Irish Sports Council as the representative body for Olympic rifle and
pistol competitors.
We are increasingly optimistic following recent legal developments
that our competitors may once again be able to compete in all Olympic
disciplines and best represent our Nation.
However I say optimistic, as we are aware that amendments, as of yet
undisclosed are likely to be made to the upcoming Criminal Justice
Bill that may affect this situation.
It is our hope that any future amendment would allow our members to
pursue their Olympic dreams and represent our country on the
International stage. Please find attached a list of rifles and pistols
used in Olympic disciplines. If at any time your department would like
any additional information, please don't hesitate to contact our
organisation.
Yours sincerely,
Secretary NTSA0 -
Please find attached a list of rifles and pistols
used in Olympic disciplines.
More cynical minds than me might jump to the conclusion it's a case of "I'm allright Jack"...0 -
An even more cynical mind than that might hazard a guess at what the NASRC, NSAI, NRPAI or other bodies might say to the idea of the NTSA representing any disciplines other than the ISSF ones... of course, earplugs would be a good idea for such an exercise!
The actual intent was that the various bodies would each submit their requirements and the whole lot taken together would cover all the disciplines shot, each part being a piece in a jigsaw, so to speak.0 -
Incidentally, I spoke to the DoJ today about the amendments - so it's confirmed, there are amendments upcoming other than the secure storage one, and I got the impression that there are quite a few of them, but since they've not yet been published, the DoJ wouldn't give me any details without the Minister's okay.0
-
I presume people may have seen this ...
but here it is anyway ...
http://www.justice.ie/80256E01003A02CF/vWeb/pcJUSQ62QFCP-en
An excerpt :
Further amendments to the Firearms Acts concerning the control of firearms which will address matters arising from recent Court Judgements in relation to the process of certification for possession, use and carriage of firearms and ammunition.
Extract from the bill ... CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL 2004
Section 4 of the Firearms Act 1925 is amended— 20
(a) in paragraph (c), by the substitution of ‘‘certificate, and’’ for
‘‘certificate.’’
(b) by the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph
(c):
‘‘(d) in the case of an application for a firearms certificate made to a superintendent of the Garda Sıochana, has provided, to the superintendent’s
satisfaction, secure accommodation for the firearm concerned at the address
where it is to be kept.’’,
and (c) by the numbering of the section as subsection (1)
and the addition of the following subsections:
‘‘(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(d) of this
section the superintendent or a member of the Garda
Sıochana acting on his or her behalf may inspect the
accommodation referred to in that subsection or require
the applicant to provide proof of its existence.
(3) If the superintendent or the Minister (as the case
may require) is not satisfied as to the matters specified in
the said subsection (1)(d), he or she shall refuse to issue 40
a firearms certificate to the applicant under this Act and
shall inform the applicant of the refusal and the reason
for it.’’
Summary :
Section 30 (Amendment of section 4 of the Firearms Act 1925) —
Section 4 of the Firearms Act 1925 provides for the conditions to
be met before the granting of a firearm certificate. The proposed
amendment provides for a further condition (paragraph d) to the
effect that in the case of an application for a firearms certificate made
to a superintendent of the Garda Sıochana, the person has provided,
to the superintendent’s satisfaction, secure accommodation for the
firearm concerned at the address where it is to be kept. For the
purposes of subsection (1)(d) the superintendent or a member of the
Garda Sıochana acting on his or her behalf may inspect the accommodation
referred to in that subsection or require the applicant to
provide proof of its existence. If the superintendent or the Minister
(as the case may require) is not satisfied as to the matters specified
in subsection (1)(d), he or she shall refuse to issue a firearms certificate
to the applicant and shall inform the applicant of the refusal and
the reason for it.
Its downloadable as a PDF from here...
http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2004/3404/b3404d.pdf
That all seems pretty straight forward ...
Wheres the reference to "recent court judgements" in that ...?
I'm more puzzled than ever now...
JayCee0 -
Wheres the reference to "recent court judgements" in that ...?
http://www.justice.ie/80256E01003A02CF/vWeb/pcJUSQ62QFCP-enThe Minister is considering a number of further additions to this Bill but rather than delay its publication he will examine these proposed additions with a view to bringing them forward as amendments at Committee Stage. These include: -
* A provision to deal with participation in organised criminal gangs,
* Provisions to strengthen sentencing for drug trafficking and firearms offences,
* Provisions to allow for the electronic tagging of offenders,
* Further amendments to the Firearms Acts concerning the control of firearms which will address matters arising from recent Court Judgements in relation to the process of certification for possession, use and carriage of firearms and ammunition.I'm more puzzled than ever now...
(So now would be the time to write a polite letter to the Minister at the address at the start of this thread explaining what we want and why we want it and why it'd be safe for us to get it...0 -
Sparks wrote:(So now would be the time to write a polite letter to the Minister at the address at the start of this thread explaining what we want and why we want it and why it'd be safe for us to get it...
I absolutely agree ..!
So .. have we agreed on what we do want ?
Wouldn't it be an idea to form an agreed "Wish list" with guidelines of the manner in which to argue our case .
Surely a united approach is the way to go , with proposals for allowed calibres
their merits and our suggestions for safe storage and use . If a cordinated
response was voiced in that way it wouldn't look so much like random requests
from isolated voters .
I suggest drawing up a set of proposals here which each can copy and paste into the body of an email to the DOJ .. and possibly leave copies in petition format into sports shops .etc to add weight to the numbers.
You can be sure the "anti - gun" people working on the amendments are pooling their knowledge .
Anyone have any ideas regarding max Calibres , of handguns , rifles .. related
competitive events ..secure storage suggestions...?
Just to get the ball rolling I would suggest either 9mm or .45 Mm as a max handgun calibre on the grounds of costs and choice . ..and .308 as a max Rifle calibre due to it's long range target potential.
An investigation into the proportion of firearm related crimes carried out by the owners of legally licenced firearms is pretty compelling evidence of the safety record of licence holders .
Anyone...?
JayCee0 -
Jaycee
A tip on negotiating.NEVER set your sights[no pun] on what you want.aim for the top.So lets set the calibre on rifles at 50 cal and the handguns at .475.Belive it or not there are disiplines that use those calibres,and I see no reason that if these monstors can be shot safely here they shouldnt be prohibited.Remember too that there are big game rifles in 375,416 and 50 cal as well,and they are possesed by Irish shooters albeit a few,outside Ireland.Not that i think we would get them mind.However it gives much more scope to negotiate to get the "normal day to day"calibres.
INMHO if you can be trusted with any gun you should be allowed to be able to use safely any gun.0 -
Advertisement
-
Glock,INMHO if you can be trusted with any gun you should be allowed to be able to use safely any gun.
Glock, JC,
Okay, a disclaimer beforehand - what follows is my own personal opinion.
Now, first off, the "ask for twice what you want" school is fine for the first thirty seconds of negotiation - but after that, you need to have defined for yourself how much you're willing to give up. That's the whole deal with negotiation - you're not trying to get all of what you want, you're trying to achieve a comprimise (aka "a solution neither side is happy with"). And the big problem with the shooting community getting together and asking for what they want as a single group is that we can easily define what we want (ie, we want everything and we want it yesterday), but noone wants to talk about what we may have to give up and absolutely noone seems willing to accept that we are very unlikely to get everything we want with a single stroke of the pen.
And if we do sit down to list off our "must have" and "would be nice" lists, who decides what goes where? I mean, for an ISSF shooter, "must have"s are air rifles, air pistols, smallbore rifles, and smallbore pistols and reform in licencing to allow under-16s to shoot under supervision; our "would be nice" list would probably include fullbore rifles up to about 6.5mm calibre (for 300m shooting) and fullbore pistols (up to .32 calibre) - that doesn't mean we don't care about them, but there are very few ranges for them so if it came to it, we could say "okay, we'll handle these at some point in the future".
But for other disciplines, our "must haves" are irrelevant "don't cares" and our "would be nice" list is their "must have" list. For example, .45 calibre pistols are totally irrelevant to ISSF shooting because we don't use them for any discipline; but they're vital to bullseye pistol. And who decides what "must have" we are willing to sacrifice for another "must have", if it comes to that? Who decides if olympic shooting is worth more than silhouette, or if silhouette is worth more than class F, or if class F is worth more than down-the-line? I mean, I fully expect a rake of unpleasant comments just for even mentioning this - what would it be like if we actually sat down to do it?
And if you just add together all the lists, you get a "must have" list with one word on it : "everything". And the Minister will simply look at that and treat it as a demand - and we don't have enough people to make that work. Three guesses what he'd say, if he actually elucidated on the "no" that we'd get? "Terribly sorry lads, but all of you shooters together make up less than 7% of the electorate, and the other 93% - as well as many of you in the 7% - are worried about gun crime. So I have to 'do something about it'". That's pretty much what happens every time the "all or nothing" card is been played by just about any group out there (by which I don't just mean shooting groups but every single-issue group).
Unless you have a significant portion of the electorate behind you, demanding doesn't work. And face it, with between 100,000 and 200,000 shooters out there - only 22,000 of which are in the largest organised lobby group - and an electorate of about 3 million (as of Feburary 2004), we have only 3.33 to 6.67% of the electorate at best. Look at the NRA in the states who effectively lobby on the demand basis - they not only have huge numbers in their ranks (who willingly write to their representatives whenever the NRA points out an issue they want grassroots support on), they also donate large sums to political candidates and parties, and have significant amounts of public relations work going on to promote their candidates and denigrate their opponents.
An important thing to note, though, is that we cannot just take the entire NRA book and run with it - they exist in an enormously different climate than we do - we don't have a second amendment, for example, all of our shooting "rights" are actually privileges. So we can't be as aggressive and confrontational as the NRA are, simply because it won't work. We need to elicit support, not demand action, unless we want to sit about for the next five years or more grumbling about how we "fought the good fight" but lost to the "anti-gun government". The best we can do is take some of the elements that the NRA uses and adapt them for here.
But to add to our woes, you have problems in that several groups in the shooting community won't talk to each other, and not for trivial reasons. And between the individual members and even between clubs, there isn't as much communication as there might be. (Which is one of the reasons for having this forum, btw).
And something that's not been mentioned before anywhere I've seen, is that the CJB2004 itself has significant opposition aligned against it for reasons that have nothing to do with us. Our concerns are all over a small subsection of the miscellaneous catch-all part at the back of the bill - the bill itself, the first four parts of it, have some measures which change garda powers and make other changes that have groups like the ICCL protesting, and there will probably be significant debate on the bill in the Dail. The leaders of the opposition will no doubt be calling for it to be scrapped - and that's nothing to do with our protests, which are tiny by comparison from their point of view.
And from the point of view of the electorate, which is the one the TDs watch, the case for making pistols available legally hasn't been made - they've been watching stories of gun crime and statements by gardai and politicians about how legally held firearms are used in gun crime for the past year or more, showing up every second or third day in the TV, radio or papers. And we've not been making our case that we're a Safe and Harmless sport, nor have we been able to counter the statements that registered firearms are the most popular tool used by criminals, both because we've not had the facts and figures prepared in an easily-absorbed manner and because we've not gotten the airtime or column inches. There have been statements made on that point; but they've been badly quoted or otherwise made less credible, or been reported in such a way that it looks like we're actually picking a fight with the Gardai or the Government - not the most reassuring image for Joe Soap who's never seen a real firearm in his life.
So we aren't willing to seriously prepare to negotiate, we don't have enough voices behind us to demand anything, we don't have enough money to make sufficently serious contributions to political parties to "buy" support, we're a small part of a big issue, we don't have a coherent and rational PR presence in the media, and we're not all talking to one another. It's not a simple task, in other words
Which isn't, mind you, to say it couldn't be done - just that there would have to be a serious change in mindsets to do it effectively and get a permanent, positive result; and we can't approach that change without a brutally honest and straightforward statement of the problem.0 -
Hi Glock n' Sparks,
Glock
I understand the process of negotiating from your strongest position.
I would however disagree with you respectfully on one or two points..A tip on negotiating.NEVER set your sights[no pun] on what you want
I would say that normally the posture to adopt is to firmly set your sights on what you want to achieve ..Just don't let the other guy know what your prepared to accept.
Life is compromise.;)
Sparks..
I agree ..Unfortunately ..our constitution does not include a specific "Right to keep and bear arms" as it is in the American constitution.
Because of that single fact .. all our "Demands " are in fact requests .
We have no great numbers to put forward our own electoral canditates , and it would seem find it difficult to agree (Even among ourselves ) what we should ask for.
Much as it pains me to say it , I doubt whether .50 caliber rifles and .50 calibre Pistols are going to be legalised . An institution that flinches at granting pretty restrictive licences for hunting with a .270 is unlikely to
suddenly roll over and allow a virtual free for all .
It is quite possible for legislation to be passed to close what some will percieve as a temporary "loop hole" and in view of our lack of constitutional protection, there would be nothing much we could do about it ..
Except perhaps .. have a moan for the next 32 years ..or longer.!
In saying that I don't think i'm being negative ..I would rather see it as pragmatic.
In view of the above it best serves our own interests if a well reasoned
and coherent case is made for the sporting and competitive values of some selected calibres with a little latitude thrown in to allow for slight improvements to be made or reviewed as may be nessesary.
I realise the difficulty of picking those calibres ..
But I feel ..if a sucessful conclusion to this is to be had ..it must be done.
Perhaps a poll of preferred calibres would be possible with people allowed to vote for 1 handgun calibre and 1 rifle ..that would generate a list pretty quick
With regard to the other aspects of the bill and it's supposed unpopularity among opposition parties ..it may well be so ..but I haven't heard much debate about it ..and I don't think we can rely on it being overturned in its entirety on the strength of that opposition ..!
Like most worthwhile things in life ..if we want it done ,
we'll have to do it ourselves .
.
JayCee0 -
jaycee wrote:With regard to the other aspects of the bill and it's supposed unpopularity among opposition parties ..it may well be so ..but I haven't heard much debate about it ..and I don't think we can rely on it being overturned in its entirety on the strength of that opposition ..!
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=208121
http://www.killthebill.net/Labour Youth will hold a press conference on Tuesday 7th December, at 11am in the Earl of Kildare Hotel, Kildare Street, Dublin 2, to launch their campaign against the Criminal Justice Bill.
Speaking ahead of the press conference, Chair of Labour Youth Donal O'Liathin said that Labour Youth was "opposed to the extra powers granted to the Gardai in the Bill, specifically the issuing of on the spot fines for public order offences.
"We will also be launching our online campaign against the Bill:
www.killthebill.net. "
Labour Party Justice Spokesperson, Deputy Joe Costello, and Reid Proffessor of Law at Trinity College, Ivana Bacik, will speak at the press conference.0 -
Ok... I Wasn't aware of that ..! ...More luck to them..!
(Of course knowing our luck every other part of that bill will get thrown out.. )
JayCee0 -
From today's Dail parlimentary questions, a written question to the Minister for Justice:*277. To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his views on a petition (details supplied) to him regarding amendment to section 30 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill 2004. Fergus O Dowd. [32436/04]
The minutes for today aren't up yet, I'll post the response when it shows up. Anyone know what the details for the petition were or who was organising this?0 -
Sparks wrote:From today's Dail parlimentary questions, a written question to the Minister for Justice:
The minutes for today aren't up yet, I'll post the response when it shows up. Anyone know what the details for the petition were or who was organising this?
I too have looked without result ... no sign of anything .
Perhaps they never got around to it ..?
Not a very detailed question though ..
Surely it would have been better to ask for a list of the proposed amendments ,
I'm equally curious about this "Petition" ...
To have a "Petition" suggests that someone knows enough about proposed plans to organise a petition in the first place..?
Has it in fact anything to do with our interests ?.. I'd guess not .
More smoke and mirrors i'm afraid.0 -
jaycee wrote:I too have looked without result ... no sign of anything .
Perhaps they never got around to it ..?Surely it would have been better to ask for a list of the proposed amendments ,To have a "Petition" suggests that someone knows enough about proposed plans to organise a petition in the first place..?0 -
More likely that it's still being prepared, the Dail sat till after 2030 that night.
Awww..Bless em'We've done that twice and gotten told nothing though, other than to be quoted the press release of how there will be amendments brought forward at the Committee stage to "deal with certain recent court cases".
Perhaps there would be less acceptance of such an evasive answer in a Dáil question..?Not in this case, as article 30 is the one amendment we know details about - it's about the secure storage requirement being added to the mandatory requirements for a firearms licence to be granted.
I..for one ..have no problem with the secure storage issue ..
Has anyone ..?
It's the "Other stuff" that worries me .
Not meaning to get picky about it ..but I object in the stongest terms to all the apparent secrecy about it ..0 -
jaycee wrote:Awww..Bless em'Perhaps there would be less acceptance of such an evasive answer in a Dáil question..?I..for one ..have no problem with the secure storage issue ..
Has anyone ..?It's the "Other stuff" that worries me .
Not meaning to get picky about it ..but I object in the stongest terms to all the apparent secrecy about it ..0 -
Advertisement
-
The minutes went up at 0100 this morning...277. Mr. O’Dowd asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law his views on a petition (details supplied) to him regarding amendment to section 30 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill 2004. [32436/04]
Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. McDowell): I am aware of the views of individuals and organisations on proposed changes in legislation relating to the control of firearms. A number of submissions have been received, particularly through a dedicated part of the website of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform that was set up to facilitate a consultation process. I am conscious of the overriding need to ensure that public safety and security are given priority in any review of policy and legislation on firearms. With this in mind, and taking into account a recent increase in violent crime involving firearms, I decided to introduce certain proposals for inclusion in the Criminal Justice Bill 2004. The Bill, as published, contains a proposal that provides for the secure custody of firearms. Other provisions will be introduced as Committee Stage amendments to the Bill. Any relevant recommendations arising from the tribunal of inquiry into the fatal shooting of Mr. John Carthy at Abbeylara, County Longford on 20 April 2000 - the Barr tribunal - will be considered. They will depend on the timing of the publication of the tribunal’s conclusions.
I emphasise that the inclusion of such provisions in the Criminal Justice Bill should not be construed as equating legitimate sports people with criminals. The provision in the published Bill is in the form of an amendment to the Firearms Act 1925. Further provisions on the control of firearms to be introduced on Committee Stage will also be in the form of amendments to that Act. I am sure the Deputy will agree that this is the quickest way of ensuring that important amendments concerning the control of firearms are implemented.
That Barr Tribunal thing is worrying, given the rumour that they were going to suggest a mental health evaluation be required prior to issueing a firearms licence!0 -
Well done Sparks ,
Burning the midnight oil a bit there ..!
I don't know what to make of all that ...
I agree with your conclusions re the Barr inquiry ,But I fail to see any real relevance to our situation (except as you have pointed out.. the mental health angle)
The incident in Abbeylara while obviously regrettable , shouldn't really have a bearing on the type and calibre of firearms available .
AFAIK ..it involved one 12 gauge shotgun , and a combination of garda and army firearms.
Perhaps ..he's going to suggest that the Gardaí and Army undergo mental evaluation before issuing them with weapons. :rolleyes:
You'd save more lives by introducing a sanity test before allowing people to drive cars..(Judgeing by some of the idiots I've seen)
Equally ..leaving aside criminal elements...the Criminal Justice Bill should not be construed as equating legitimate sports people with criminals.
Legitimate sportsmen don't...:mad:
more people have been killed by blunt instruments and knives than firearms .
Following his logic you'd need a mental health check before you can buy .... cutlery or...... a hammer ..?Further provisions on the control of firearms to be introduced on Committee Stage will also be in the form of amendments to that Act.0 -
jaycee wrote:Well done Sparks ,
Burning the midnight oil a bit there ..!I agree with your conclusions re the Barr inquiry ,But I fail to see any real relevance to our situation (except as you have pointed out.. the mental health angle)The incident in Abbeylara while obviously regrettable , shouldn't really have a bearing on the type and calibre of firearms available .Equally ..leaving aside criminal elements...
Quite right too... Criminals seem to have access to all types of firearms..
Legitimate sportsmen don't...:mad:Sadly theres still no indication of what those famous "Further provisions" might be...0 -
As I've already stated, it'll take an incredible stretch of logic to use the the Barr Tribunal as justification for requiring mental health vetting of applicants for firearm certificates considering it was revealed that a psychiatrist and a GP wrote letters on John Carty's behalf stating in their medical opinion he was fit to have a firearm again.0
-
True civ, but then it took a fair stretch of logic to turn the actions of a madman who shouldn't have been given an FAC in Dunblane into a ban on handguns throughout the UK! It's amazing how far logic can be stretched if your point of view is sufficently ill-informed0
-
It's amazing how far logic can be stretched if your point of view is sufficently ill-informed
Or... it suits your purpose !0 -
Advertisement
-
quick point
it will be interesting to see if any of the new amendments will make it easier for any already registered holders/owners of "weapons"(ie not a firearm), to obtain licences and firearms.
i would also agree with the .45Mm as a maxium for handguns.
a 556 calibre rifle limit would also be good because theres no real need to shooot a higher caliber.0 -
Yuppie wrote:quick point
i would also agree with the .45Mm as a maxium for handguns.
a 556 calibre rifle limit would also be good because theres no real need to shooot a higher caliber.
Limits on calibre size are ridiculous. A .44 magnum or .357 magnum is technically a smaller calibre than a .45ACP. Guess which is the weaker round?
As for setting highest rifle calibre at 5.56 (~.223) there are plenty of valid reasons to shoot a higher calibre.
1) Target shooting goes up to .50BMG in some countries. Shooting competitions with 6mm, 7.62 (.308) are very common. Why ban say, a .50BMG target rifle? They're 7 feet long, weigh a ton and cost a small fortune. I doubt they'd be the weapon of choice for bank robbers.
2)Hunters in this country before the recent change could shoot up to .277 Winchester. You want a weaker round set as the upper limit? Shooting a decent size deer with a 5.56 is probably cruel ( hunters fill me in here? )0 -
Zakalwe wrote:Limits on calibre size are ridiculous.
That said, realistically speaking it's unlikely that the general public (who know nothing of firearms on a technical level) would be comfortable with the idea that there are no limits - so perhaps we would be best served by choosing limits that have some meaning. Muzzle energy perhaps, or muzzle velocity. I know that there are already such limits (10,000 joules of muzzle energy and I think it's 7000 m/s muzzle velocity) for the fullbore ranges at Bisley (as in, exceed those limits and you're not allowed shoot there). So perhaps those are metrics we can work with - thus giving the general public something they want while not overly crippling ourselves to do so. Besides, if the limit was muzzle energy, it makes it a bit easier to bring in a lower limit where an air rifle becomes a firearm (which is set by muzzle energy through most of Europe at present - 7 joules in Germany, 12 foot-pounds in the UK for air rifles and half that for air pistols, and so on).Why ban say, a .50BMG target rifle? They're 7 feet long, weigh a ton and cost a small fortune. I doubt they'd be the weapon of choice for bank robbers.Shooting a decent size deer with a 5.56 is probably cruel ( hunters fill me in here? )
As to whether it's the best round for the job, I leave that to those that know more about it to debate it - me, I can't even bring myself to swat flies, let alone shoot mammals0 -
Sparks wrote:Muzzle energy perhaps, or muzzle velocity. I know that there are already such limits (10,000 joules of muzzle energy and I think it's 7000 m/s muzzle velocity) for the fullbore ranges at Bisley (as in, exceed those limits and you're not allowed shoot there).As to whether it's the best round for the job, I leave that to those that know more about it to debate it - me, I can't even bring myself to swat flies, let alone shoot mammals
Me either. I trap spiders and release them outdoors myself. I'm sure it's possible to take a deer with a .22 if you hit it right, but I'd bet most hunters prefer to err on the side of caution and kill the animal humanely.0 -
Zakalwe wrote:7000m/s is around Mach 20. I think that may be slightly faster than any bullet ever made travels. Unless........... Can you get railguns licensed?
It's not 7000, it's 1000 m/s for MoD ranges in the UK. (Which is nearly every fullbore range going).0 -
Advertisement
-
Phew..!
That's a relief..!
I was racking my remaining braincells to try to figure out what calibre kicks out
@ 7000 M/S :eek:
Although ...?
Maybe if you handloaded using a "Hot" load of dilithium crystals..!
"She'll 'nooo stand it capt'n ..she'll vibrate herself to pieces "
(Childish I know ..Just couldn't resist it..)0 -
Evening gents, this is my first post so please be patient.
I own two .22 rifles but have started to become interested in airguns.
Briefly, this is what I think:
1. Airgun law in the ROI is grossly unfair . It has legistated the ownership of airguns out of existance. No one can buy/sell airguns, collect airguns, import airguns/ and generally pursue an interest in airgun shooting as can be freely done in the U.K.We are treated like children.
2.This policy is both unnecessary and draconian. We are the only E.U. country requiring an import licence for airguns--are we right and everybody else wrong ??
3.Following the 1972 confiscations I believe a mindset developed in the Dept. of Justice allowing them to issue diktats from Dublin without ever being challenged and this persists to this day. I grew up in the 1960's buying airguns freely and still have a sense that a civil liberty was taken from me.
4. When Governments start to confiscate property and allow it's police to enter homes without any checks and balances a small part of democracy is forever eroded.
5.I don't see any effective lobby in this country for genuine reform of airgun law, so lets put our shoulders to the wheel on forums like this.( the link to the DOJ above is not working ! )
6. Realistically I'd be in favour of adapting similar laws to the U.K. Airguns could be imported from the main manufacturing countries--U.K./ Sweden/ Germany/ without impinging on their export regs.
7. The law banning airgun shooting of vermin including rabbits is ridiculous and positively dangerous. What should we use around farmyards--.22 rifles ?
8. The image of airguns being the preserve of immature teenagers should be dispelled. Airgun science has progressed apace with most serious airgunners using PCP's , --3 or 4 times as expensive as standard .22 rifles.
Can anybody restore the link to the DOJ as I'd be happy to convey the above to them. ?0 -
recipio wrote:allow it's police to enter homes without any checks and balancesCan anybody restore the link to the DOJ as I'd be happy to convey the above to them. ?0
-
Thank you Sparks.
Is it still not Garda policy to make the installation of a gunsafe a precondition to getting a firearms licence ? If this succeeds then of course they will want to inspect it in our homes. Once that is granted I see it being very difficult to refuse repeat visits/annual inspections etc. Maybe I'm paranoid but I value my privacy.I did pose this as a hypothetical scenario.
The link is still not working for me , I get a "this page cannot be displayed "notice.0 -
recipio wrote:The link is still not working for me , I get a "this page cannot be displayed "notice.
Is that the one you're having trouble with, or do none of them work for you?
Try this version-
firearms_CJB2004@justice.ie
It's available on the 'Department of Justice's website' link above anyway.
.0 -
recipio wrote:Thank you Sparks.Is it still not Garda policy to make the installation of a gunsafe a precondition to getting a firearms licence ?
There is, however, an amendment coming up that will make it a precondition that you must have secure storage, though no definition of secure storage is given, but that's not here yet.If this succeeds then of course they will want to inspect it in our homes. Once that is granted I see it being very difficult to refuse repeat visits/annual inspections etc. Maybe I'm paranoid but I value my privacy.I did pose this as a hypothetical scenario.The link is still not working for me , I get a "this page cannot be displayed "notice.0 -
Thank for that.
I was clicking on the e-mail link only. The other links are working fine. I'll post a more diplomatic response when I've mulled over things.
Sparks, I'm relieved about the Gunsafe issue . Please don't think I'm a luddite, in an ideal world I think all firearms owners should have a gunsafe installed but it should'nt be forced on us and if it were, we should get some major concessions in return.??
Overall I think we should try and get the DOJ to see the issue of airgun use as a sport and hobby --not some dangerous pastime or the preserve of an elite.
However I'm new to all of this and don't even own an airgun ! I think however we should be treated on a par with our E.U. cousins . What does everybody else think ?0 -
recipio wrote:I'll post a more diplomatic response when I've mulled over things.Sparks, I'm relieved about the Gunsafe issue . Please don't think I'm a luddite, in an ideal world I think all firearms owners should have a gunsafe installed but it should'nt be forced on us and if it were, we should get some major concessions in return.??
But note that the law won't say that you need a gunsafe, but that you'll need "secure storage", and it leaves it up to the local superintendent to define that. So for the majority of cases, yes, it'll be a gunsafe, but there's some wiggle room there for cases where it's an unorthodox but safe solution.Overall I think we should try and get the DOJ to see the issue of airgun use as a sport and hobby --not some dangerous pastime or the preserve of an elite.I think however we should be treated on a par with our E.U. cousins . What does everybody else think ?
Thing is that there have been a lot of cases here of kids abusing airguns, and while that doesn't mean they ought to be banned (I'm still of the opinion that it shouldn't be harder to get an air pistol than it is to get a car), it does mean you're looking at a difficult uphill negotiation, and there's this very widespread mindset unfortunately, which says it should be a battle instead of a negotiation. Which doesn't help matters much (and whose conclusion would be forgone given that there's 100,000 of "us" and 2,900,000 of "them"). I mean, I can fully understand where it came from, and it's not entirely unjustified, but when the people at the table act on it, we don't make much progress0 -
well I've posted my views to the DOJ. Essentially I've politely suggested that sub 12ft/lbs rifles and 6 ft/lb pistols be taken off licence, that power levels above that be allowable on licence,that there is no justification for banning the hunting of small game/vermin with accurate airguns , that licences be processed every 5 years and that all this would pose no threat to anybody .Basically we are being punished for a tiny minority of idiots who would misuse airguns .No response yet !!0
-
recipio wrote:No response yet !!
1) It'd take a while to draft one and they don't have that many staff; and
2) Any response would be preempting any review process by giving the conclusions prior to the deliberation process.0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement