The Sandbox

FLAG

I will not get into detail on a public board about this complex area and indeed too much loose talk on such a public forum is more likley to do damage to us, as I indicated if you are a member of the SSAI via clubs or Associations make you queries through them.

Regards

Sparks

And as I indicated Declan, you can't be a member of the NRPAI via a club or as an individual, and I've seen nothing from any of the NRPAI organisations on this matter anywhere - here you have several individuals who have questions on this, and here you have a forum you could use to disseminate information. Not taking advantage of that is a puzzling action indeed.

Dvs

Sparks,
pretty much everyone else here,
wants to have Flag make update posts,
to relay how he feels his meetings with the DOJ or Garda are going,
specifically regarding the CJB and any issues arising out of his contacts with the powers that be.

Everyone here can make their own minds up,
on the information contained in them.

There is no point in your constant point by point dissections,
You are not the final arbiter of the truth.
Nobody finds it amusing except you.



Dvs.

Sparks

Dvs wrote:

Sparks,
pretty much everyone else here,
wants to have Flag make update posts,
to relay how he feels his meetings with the DOJ or Garda are going,
specifically regarding the CJB and any issues arising out of his contacts with the powers that be.

Indeed, myself included. Thing is, that's not what we're seeing. Any and all valid questions are being ignored, he is refusing to divulge any real information, and is belittling this mechanism for airing concerns and he has already stated explicitly that he will ignore any suggestion from here, regardless of the merit of that suggestion.

Frankly, the way it reads to me is that Declan is looking at the CJB and suddenly twigging to the fact that was laid out explicitly to him back in '01 - namely that a confrontation with the DoJ would only ever end one way, namely with us getting it in the neck - and suddenly we're seeing a change in language from "we have a right to our sport" and the general "are the DoJ/Gardai losing it?" to the new "we must make allowances for the legislators and understand that this is a complex process", and at the same time is refusing to pass on information regarding meetings with the DoJ where he was representing our interests. And that's just not good enough. I don't particularly care if it's not entertaining for you, that's not the object of asking these questions.

Dvs

Sparks wrote:

I don't particularly care if it's not entertaining for you, that's not the object of asking these questions.

Sparks,
I know that not the object,
the object is, for you to feel that you are scoring points,
in some ongoing conflict of the mind, that nobody else here gives a toss about,and trying to demonstrate that you are the smart one in the class,
with your finger on the pulse of everything!

I suppose that we should count ourselves lucky,
that Flag is seems to be the only forum member that get this response,
with every post he makes!

Dvs

Sparks

That's not the object of the exercise Dvs, but I doubt I'll be able to convince you of that. Happily, I don't have to. Unhappily, this exchange may well be used as an excuse not to answer questions that everyone posting here has been asking. (Indeed, if my questions are just a personal vendetta, why is it that everyone else is asking them as well?)

FLAG

Sparks you may feel it is the right place to ask questions, and indeed the questions I see asked are legitimate but in most cases based on considerable misinformation that is posted through a combination of isolated and poor interpretation of the proposed legislation and also in some cases total ignorance of the present legislation, not anyone’s fault but unfortunately a fact.

While the questions may be asked publicly I reiterate the point that it is certainly not the place for answers to be posted, clearly and obviously this is a public board, there is no control over who posts or who views and we are in grave danger of shooting our selves in the foot.

I do not have anything to hide, despite what you might say, but I am not prepared to post responses that may cause potential issues with people we deal with in Justice or the Gardai.

Let people who have concerns contact me on flagireland@eircom.net

We are in grave danger of doing more harm than good, skeptics appear to think that the legislation is to be feared, but despite your rhetoric we still have our pistols, rifles >.308 and reloading is in the pipe line, forget about your tiresome comment about who did what to get us where we are, I know what contribution was made by the FLAG sub committee and it was not only myself, but I can assure you having the Minister for Justice defend the need to reload would not have happened were it not for our submissions on the matter.

Give us all a break and don't tear this comment apart, we are all indeed tired of your dross.

Dvs

Sparks wrote:

That's not the object of the exercise Dvs, but I doubt I'll be able to convince you of that. Happily, I don't have to. Unhappily, this exchange may well be used as an excuse not to answer questions that everyone posting here has been asking. (Indeed, if my questions are just a personal vendetta, why is it that everyone else is asking them as well?)

Sparks,
this exchange will have no effect on the answering of any questions,
Thats just your paranoia, take deep breaths and count to ten it will pass.

You just don't seem to grasp the issue,
the problem is not asking questions.

The way that would be most efficent and productive is:

If a forum member asks a question of Flag,
Flag posts a response, forum member, reads response,
forum member makes their own mind up about Flags response.

The way it is now:
Flag posts anything,
first to respond Sparks!

Sparks dissects it into little pieces, everyone a point of contention, posts what he alleges is supporting evidence,that may date back to the year dot,which for the most part is,
he said, she said, at a meeting of whoever, based on Sparks opinion, then demands answers to every little piece, if he receives an answer, refuses to accept it and starts over.

Sparks, why don't you try and not do this,
and see if the first way, works for the rest of the forum members.

Dvs.

Sparks

Declan,
Are you then giving us your personal assurance that fullbore rifles, pistols, reloading, the ability to zero a rifle in an informal range without joining a club, our medical records, our characters and everything we have now will be safe after this bill is enacted? That we will see no use of this new legislation that will damage our sport? That we will be consulted with by the Minister in regard to guidelines in good faith and that those submissions will be listened to? Are you personally going to assure us of this?

And what if you're wrong?

Sparks

Dvs, I'd say you have some valid points, if it wasn't for the fact that what I've posted about Declan's posts is accurate and pertinent.

And it's too damn important to sit back and maintain a dignified silence. Declan is asking us to take on faith that a Minister, whose comments in the Committee all point to this bill being a rebuke to the shooting community for being impertinent enough to take court cases against him or his agents, is going to draft and enact a bill which gives him wide-ranging powers without checks or balances or appeals mechanisms and which would permit him in a single day to rewind the clock back to before Frank Brophy's case was won in terms of what firearms can and cannot practically be licenced, and to before Dunne v. Donoghue in terms of who can and cannot add rules to the firearms act; and then isn't going to do anything with those mechanisms? That he's suddenly going to be our bestest friend in the whole wide world ever; and the nice Garda isn't going to come round and actually ask for our medical records or character witnesses or for everyone to have to go out and spend thousands of euros on heavy-duty safes and monitored alarms and a dozen other such measures; and that all of the cases which Declan himself, along with the NARGC, have been so outraged at for the past decade that they've gone to the High Court more times than he's posted here, will all suddenly stop happening?

Yeah, I've got a problem with believing that analysis, thanks.

FLAG

Sparks wrote:

Declan,
Are you then giving us your personal assurance that fullbore rifles, pistols, reloading, the ability to zero a rifle in an informal range without joining a club, our medical records, our characters and everything we have now will be safe after this bill is enacted? That we will see no use of this new legislation that will damage our sport? That we will be consulted with by the Minister in regard to guidelines in good faith and that those submissions will be listened to? Are you personally going to assure us of this?

And what if you're wrong?

I have never made any statements to give support to what you say,, I will not personally assure anyone with respect to what may or may not happen in the future. What I do say is that continuing a debate on a public notice board will do us no good.

The pending legislation while not perfect is as good as it gets, if you wish to paint it as gloom and doom then that is your paranoid interpretation. There is still considerable work to be done into the future to shape the effect of the legislation in a manner that will protect our sport.

There are good people out there who can lead this forward in a positive manner but your attitude and bad mouthing reasonable effort to effect positive change will do no good. We know how serious matters are, we do not need to be reminded but there is due process in dealing with issues that have arisien from the proposed legislation and believe me public boards are not the way to do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What if I am wrong? Firstly I never made any statements that provided assurance that all would be rosy and there are no gurantees in life, anything may happen, look what happened in 1996, who could have predicted the total ban in the UK in 1998.

We do have a better working relationship with Justice and the Gardai than we ever had, didn't come easy and has taken more than 10 years, the strength of that relationship will mold the future regulation of the legislation where it will really matter.

Why do you not give it a rest and take a boards holiday, it would give us all a break.

Sparks

<deleted>

Comments made regarding a letter, and subsequently quoted here, are unsubstantiated and should not be taking into consideration. --The Admins.

sidneyreilly

LAds, will ye let Declan get on with his work and stop tying him up in silly nitpickin. He is dead right about publishing to much whilst the bill is still being brokered, it's like showing your hand. Keep up the good work FLAG!:D

FLAG

<deleted>

Sparks

FLAG wrote:

Show the letter

Is that permission to do so?

perhaps the letter you refer to may be naming some other association

No, it named you personally.

FLAG

Sparks wrote:

Is that permission to do so?


No, it named you personally.

Publish it or shut up!

civdef

A new thread where arguments between users that are disrupting the flow of other threads will be placed.

Kimber

Can I see this document please?

Vegeta

show the doc

Kimber

<deleted>

Sparks

Still going through my records looking for it. Soon as I find it, I'll post here.

FLAG

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. S. Power):

Before briefly outlining the proposals which it is intended to bring forward on Committee Stage, I thank the many sporting organisations involved in shooting, particularly the National Association of Regional Game Councils and the Shooting Sports Association of Ireland. They have engaged constructively with the Department in the development of a number of these new proposals. Over the years, members of all these shooting organisations have demonstrated an extremely responsible approach to their sport. Their excellent safety record in the handling and use of firearms bears testimony to this fact.

“Comments made on the referral of the bill to the Select Committee, certainly does not substantiate the allegations that have been made by Mark, if he cannot put his hands on a copy perhaps he might publish, who it was from, when it was written and to whom!"
Declan

Riggser

Oh the bitchyness.

FLAG

Riggser wrote:

Oh the bitchyness.

Hardly a fair comment when one has been named and had direct allegations made against them on a public board and when the substantive evidence supports the contrary situation, not everyone can appreciate the work that has been done in the past and continues to be done to sustain our sport!

Like I said hardly a fair comment, then again public boards are full of hidden agendas particularly when one does not have to identify ones self. Too many rude comments!

Kimber

I really think that if this document exists. It should be highlighted.
Permission has been given to produce the document.
Where is it? We are entitled to see it if it exists!!!

An allegation has been made by a member of the Forum to a member of the forum.
I am aghast that such an allegation would exist whether or not it is true or untrue and be subsequently broadcasted on a Forum.

In my mind such a statement had better have proof as such.
If there is a wrong doing or falsehood by any of the agruing parties.
Their reputations are shot and I would ask which ever one has commited the wrong doing resigns themselves from this forum.

Very dissapointed that this scenario exists. Very dissapointed.
Is it possible that this Thread is not moved and is retained on the main page till a conclusion has been sought.

1911

Sparks wrote:

Still going through my records looking for it. Soon as I find it, I'll post here.

How’s the searching going, did you check with the bin men yet maybe you threw it out by mistake!!!

FLAG

Still Waiting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FLAG

And still waiting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Riggser

I'm now waiting!

FLAG

Riggser wrote:

I'm now waiting!

And your point is?

maglite

we all want to see the possible scource of yeir ,,,mutual dislike, towords eachother

Rovi

maglite wrote:

we all want to see the possible scource of yeir ,,,mutual dislike, towords eachother

All settled now-
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=FLAG&word2=Sparks

FLAG

FLAG wrote:

And your point is?

Apologies Riggser, my dyslexia kicking in, though it read, “I’m not waiting”, one of the problems with hasty responses and a persecution complex, Sparks tends to do that to you, hope my apology is accepted!

Riggser

Ner a bother, apology accepted.

FLAG

Hey Mark, I am still waiting for you to produce evidence of the allegation you made on the boards. Produce a copy or apologise and let that be an end to it!

Sparks

Sorry for the delay Declan, bear with me...

1911

Sorry for the delay Declan, bear with me...


PUT UP OR SHUT UP

Sparks

1911 wrote:

PUT UP OR SHUT UP

In the two years we've run this forum, I've never failed to put up, have I?
It's taking time to get a copy 1911, nothing more complicated than that. The letter exists, I've personally read it.

FLAG

Well mark if you have personally read it! Who was it from and who was it addressed to, that at least will allow me to research it and if I find it before you I will happily post it!

FLAG

Sparks wrote:

In the two years we've run this forum, I've never failed to put up, have I?
It's taking time to get a copy 1911, nothing more complicated than that. The letter exists, I've personally read it.

So you've personally read it, who showed it to you, who was it written by, to whom, when, any shread of information would be helpful. Doubt if you can put up with respect to this allegation!

Kimber

Sparks,
Any update please?
Thanks,

Clash

Flag (05/05/06) wrote:

Publish it or shut up!

Sparks (12/05/06) wrote:

Still going through my records looking for it. Soon as I find it, I'll post here.

Sparks (27/05/06) wrote:

In the two years we've run this forum, I've never failed to put up, have I?
It's taking time to get a copy 1911, nothing more complicated than that. The letter exists, I've personally read it....

08/06/06 - Almost five weeks later, and no letter. I would suggest at this point that no such letter exists, and that Sparks owes Declan an apology. I doubt Sparks would put up with an allegation hanging over his head for that length of time without demanding an immediate retraction.

Sparks

Clash, I haven't found it here yet. I've one last place left to look here. However, since I've held it in my hands and read it, I know it exists. So I've put in an FOI request to the DoJ to get a copy of it as well in case I can't locate it here. However, as you can imagine, they are somewhat swamped at the moment. I haven't forgotten this, and I don't mean to let it slide.

Clash

Clash, I haven't found it here yet. I've one last place left to look here. However, since I've held it in my hands and read it, I know it exists. So I've put in an FOI request to the DoJ to get a copy of it as well in case I can't locate it here. However, as you can imagine, they are somewhat swamped at the moment. I haven't forgotten this, and I don't mean to let it slide.

In all fairness Sparks, you should make this a top priority. It is five weeks since Declan asked you to publish the letter, and common courtesy if nothing else, should make this more than urgent. I know I'd be pretty upset if an allegation such as this was hanging over me for this long - true or not.

FLAG

Sparks wrote:

Clash, I haven't found it here yet. I've one last place left to look here. However, since I've held it in my hands and read it, I know it exists. So I've put in an FOI request to the DoJ to get a copy of it as well in case I can't locate it here. However, as you can imagine, they are somewhat swamped at the moment. I haven't forgotten this, and I don't mean to let it slide.

Hi Mark

Still having trouble getting a copy! As I have said before if you can give me details of who the letter was sent to, sent from and when it was I may have a copy and it will save you and the DOJ all the trouble of answering an FOI request, then again they are probably well used to FOI requests from your good self..................

Still waiting!

FLAG

Sparks wrote:

Clash, I haven't found it here yet. I've one last place left to look here. However, since I've held it in my hands and read it, I know it exists. So I've put in an FOI request to the DoJ to get a copy of it as well in case I can't locate it here. However, as you can imagine, they are somewhat swamped at the moment. I haven't forgotten this, and I don't mean to let it slide.

Well Mark, is it the “Ostridge” response, bury the head in the sand and hope the problem goes away. Please do not come back to me with I saw it so it exists, need I remind you that you have made some serious allegations on a public board clearly implicating me in a situation that you have yet to substantiate, I have also asked you to outline the detail of the communication so that I might look through my correspondence to see if anything resembling what you reported really exists. For your information, who was it from, who was it to and I suppose what might help who showed it to you? Lets get this sorted! If you can!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sparks

Do FLAG have a legal fund we can start contributing to ?

My closely-guarded views on FLAG (or the notion of waiting until the problem is here before we deal with it, when it's so much cheaper and easier to fix it before it becomes a problem) aside, pretty much all of the court cases taken in the last decade have been supported by the NARGC, not FLAG, including the largest (Dunne v. Donoghue). They would probably be a better place to send your money to.

But if you're willing to put hand in pocket already, can I ask that first you put hand on keyboard or even put pen in hand and write to people, whether it be to [url=mailto:brendan.howlin@oireachtas.ie?subject=Criminal Justice Bill 2004]Brendan Howlin in Labour[/url], or to [url=mailto:info@michaelmcdowell.ie?subject=Criminal Justice Bill 2004]the Minister himself[/url] or whomever your local TD is (or ideally, all three), and say you're not happy with the bill? Just click on either of those two links to open your email client with the address and subject line already set up.

FLAG

Sparks wrote:

I wouldn't bet on it. Firstly, the Minister himself has said that he intends to bring forward further amendments; secondly, Labour are drafting amendments based on the concerns we've raised here - and I'd be surprised if the NARGC aren't having Fine Gael do the same; and thirdly, I don't think that a bill that makes it a criminal offence with a custodial sentence of seven years to engage in target shooting on an unauthorised shooting range while not defining either "target shooting" or "shooting range" is going to do well in any court case, and possibly isn't going to be seen as being constitutional by a court. And odds are that that means the Minister will be trying to correct those problems himself as if the bill was struck out, he'd lose much of what he wants as well.


My closely-guarded views on FLAG (or the notion of waiting until the problem is here before we deal with it, when it's so much cheaper and easier to fix it before it becomes a problem) aside, pretty much all of the court cases taken in the last decade have been supported by the NARGC, not FLAG, including the largest (Dunne v. Donoghue). They would probably be a better place to send your money to.

But if you're willing to put hand in pocket already, can I ask that first you put hand on keyboard or even put pen in hand and write to people, whether it be to [url=mailto:brendan.howlin@oireachtas.ie?subject=Criminal Justice Bill 2004]Brendan Howlin in Labour[/url], or to [url=mailto:info@michaelmcdowell.ie?subject=Criminal Justice Bill 2004]the Minister himself[/url] or whomever your local TD is (or ideally, all three), and say you're not happy with the bill? Just click on either of those two links to open your email client with the address and subject line already set up.

Mark, I dispute your opinion of what we do, have done, have been doing and are doing, we have worked very closely with the DOJ and the Gardai with respect to the current amendments.

What you continue to fail to see is the following:
1) Three year licence
2) Appeals process for all aspects of decision making (presently you have no choice but to go to the courts)
3) Facility to carry out reloading
4) Training licence for 14 years and up, there is no limit to the upper limit that one may apply for a training licence. This ensures that all firearms handled in a club etc are covered and no one is open to risk of prosecution.
5) Restricted firearms: Garda HQ will make decisions on restricted firearms like they used to before the court cases, this means that a skilled concentrated group will be able to determine the merits of an application based on sound guideline, presently most superintendents have no knowledge of sporting firearms.
6) Range regulations: To date anyone can set up a club anywhere with any firearms and no regulation, the amendment regulates clubs and provides for a minimum standard to which ranges will need to comply for the club to reap the benefits of an "Authorised Club" (no hassle for any applicant of an authorised club I expect), where all of this falls down is the scaremongering that takes place on this board generally perpetrated by your good self.
7) The writing into Irish Firearms Legislation Rifle and Pistol Club, sort of sends a reasonable signal to me that there will be pistol clubs into the future!
8) No bans on any calibre, type of firearm, things would have been different save for the representations we made, not on the floor of the house but to the legislators and advisors to the minister.

One cannot get legal opinion until something is actually legislation and open to challenge, figments of peoples imagination about what it could mean particularly yours cannot be challenged in a court of law.

One may claim that organisations like the NARGC did it all, but you will never know the activity, influence and successful negotiation that has taken place that will never be publicised. If I was in it for the glory I would be well gone by now.

A simple question Mark, what amendments were made to the legislation following your representation to Brendan Howlin, since you are so proud of getting so many thing raised in the house. You raised issues that were poor interpretations of the legislation and succeeded in confusing ministers and the public alike.

Cut the bull and lets get on with it, there is still a lot more work to be done during the regulation of this legislation, it is the way it is and it will not be changed, the acts are and were well outdated, we at least have something that we can work with, but the course of action is not to put down disruptive questions that are based on a poor interpretation of the amendments.

We are well capable of going to the high court when appropriate and the case that was taken exclusively by FLAG (not supported by any other organisation) was rulled on in October of the year that Franks case was also ruled on, it was the same outcome, the case was conceded with costs as was Franks, no landmark High Court decision resulted in pistols being returned, Franks Case was for a .22, the FLAG case was a 9mm, but then again Mark you are on the record as being happy with a .22 or less. It could easily have been the other way round but then again as I have said I am not in it for the glory.

Vegeta

FLAG wrote:

Mark, I dispute your opinion of what we do, have done, have been doing and are doing, we have worked very closely with the DOJ and the Gardai with respect to the current amendments.

What you continue to fail to see is the following:
1) Three year licence
2) Appeals process for all aspects of decision making (presently you have no choice but to go to the courts)
3) Facility to carry out reloading
4) Training licence for 14 years and up, there is no limit to the upper limit that one may apply for a training licence. This ensures that all firearms handled in a club etc are covered and no one is open to risk of prosecution.
5) Restricted firearms: Garda HQ will make decisions on restricted firearms like they used to before the court cases, this means that a skilled concentrated group will be able to determine the merits of an application based on sound guideline, presently most superintendents have no knowledge of sporting firearms.
6) Range regulations: To date anyone can set up a club anywhere with any firearms and no regulation, the amendment regulates clubs and provides for a minimum standard to which ranges will need to comply for the club to reap the benefits of an "Authorised Club" (no hassle for any applicant of an authorised club I expect), where all of this falls down is the scaremongering that takes place on this board generally perpetrated by your good self.
7) The writing into Irish Firearms Legislation Rifle and Pistol Club, sort of sends a reasonable signal to me that there will be pistol clubs into the future!
8) No bans on any calibre, type of firearm, things would have been different save for the representations we made, not on the floor of the house but to the legislators and advisors to the minister.

One cannot get legal opinion until something is actually legislation and open to challenge, figments of peoples imagination about what it could mean particularly yours cannot be challenged in a court of law.
.

In my own opinion the Criminal Justice Bill should have made shooting safer without making it harder to participate, instead they have made it harder to participate and not a whole lot safer.

SO is the above list 1 to 8, things you have done or things you are going to do. I mean no disrespect here as I appreciate anyone who fights on our side.

Other wise I might as well say, I continue to work on
1. Flying to the moon with my fart powered car
2. Making love to Kate from Lost.
3. Kicking Chuck Norris' ass.

i.e. is not worth a sh1te unless I have actually done them and they are fact.

I thank you for your ongoing efforts FLAG but the things you list 1 to 8 are no way near the biggest topics of concern for me.

1. Hunters and their rifles, where do we practice. Why should I have to join a range 100 miles away to zero a rifle.
2. Range Inspectors search powers
3. medical check ups, what are we even being tested on, sight, hearing, erectile dysfunction. Is there even a list of symptoms that will bar me from shooting. Who makes the decision the doctor (who may have never seen a gun in his life let alone be qualified to say who is healthy enough to hold a gun) or the gardai after seeing the doctors report.
4.fixed length application times (why do some people get licensed a gun in weeks while it can take over a year for others?

Fair enough you cant get legal advice on something that hasn't been legislation but you can offer legal advice while the legislation is being drafted. As they say prevention is better than cure

Again I mean no disrespect but there are some huge problems with the current Criminal Justice Bill and our sport will definitely suffer as a result if they go through as is and unchallenged

Sparks

As an aside, for those who don't know, Declan and I agreed with Civdef and Rew not to get into an argument outside the sandbox thread several weeks ago for the sake of the forum. Most of you remember that I have a problem with the NRPAI not following it's own rules. The sensation of deja vu is rather outstanding.

Now, regarding your post Declan -

What you continue to fail to see is the following:

Okay, let's ignore the odd fact that you're defending the Minister's Bill even though that's in conflict with what FLAG was set up to do, and just look at your points.

1) Three year licence

Which still licences the gun and not the man - and that was the main point that needed to be changed. As it stands, we gain nothing from a three year licence except a little less hassle. We pay the same amount, we have to have the same number of licences, and we have the same hassle with each new one. In fact, we have more hassle with each new application, so I'd say that it wasn't a fair trade for us.

2) Appeals process for all aspects of decision making (presently you have no choice but to go to the courts)

And under the CJB, the appeals process will be to go to the courts, just the District rather than the High Court. But I will say that it's a good thing to have a more defined legal appeals system. However, I first heard the proposal from Des Crofton, not you.

3) Facility to carry out reloading

Again, this is good, but is (a) just a regularisation of what we have at present, and (b) also from the NARGC.

4) Training licence for 14 years and up, there is no limit to the upper limit that one may apply for a training licence. This ensures that all firearms handled in a club etc are covered and no one is open to risk of prosecution.

First of all, the licence was supposed to have been for 12 and up for airguns, but that got dropped. Representing all shooters, were you?
Secondly, all firearms handled in a club or at a competition are already covered and noone is currently open to risk of prosecution. They only have to have an authorisation. Not only are these easy to get, they've been gotten for decades. College clubs get authorisations every year. Other clubs will get them for every competition.
Thirdly, the training licence was never for covering someone from prosecution - it was to address the needs of those who wish to train before the age of 16 and to give an entry path into the sport that allowed the mandatory prerequisite of competency with a firearm to be put into law.
Fourthly, the first people to talk about the training licence were, you guessed it, the NARGC.

5) Restricted firearms: Garda HQ will make decisions on restricted firearms like they used to before the court cases

Which was, if I recall, to put in place a de facto ban on all fullbore rifles and all pistols through a cynical application of the existing legislation.
This new Bill gives them many more mechanisms to allow them to do exactly the same thing but in a way that means that challanging them in court would be exceptionally difficult compared to the last decade.

, this means that a skilled concentrated group will be able to determine the merits of an application based on sound guideline, presently most superintendents have no knowledge of sporting firearms.

Do you truly believe that for less than 300 people who are doing something that the Gardai and Minister are evidently not happy with - something that you have publicly stated on many occasions - that the Gardai will create a specific group and invest significant resources in their training?

6) Range regulations: To date anyone can set up a club anywhere with any firearms and no regulation, the amendment regulates clubs and provides for a minimum standard to which ranges will need to comply

No, it does not. The Bill allows the Minister to set, without any form of appeals mechanism, nor any need for consultation, any minimum standard that he wishes. It makes no provision as to how conflicts between that standard and planning permission are resolved. It makes no provision for reasonableness in the standard. The Bill doesn't even legally define what a shooting range is, or haven't you read it?

And even if you had been correct in your assessment (which you're not), you're saying that the new Bill will make it harder to set up a club and that that's a good thing. Exactly which clubs that currently exist are giving you the idea that we shouldn't let just anyone set up a club Declan?

for the club to reap the benefits of an "Authorised Club"

Which are what exactly? All the Bill says is that you have to be authorised, you have to have a licence and pay for it, you have to give up privacy rights to the range as it can be searched by Gardai at any time, and you face criminal prosecution for failing to comply.
The Bill gives NO assurances of any kind with regard to "benefits" of this, that will be entirely at the Minister's discretion in the future.

(no hassle for any applicant of an authorised club I expect)

You "expect", do you? You're giving assurances on the part of the Department of Justice now, are you?
You don't know anything about this, do you Declan?

7) The writing into Irish Firearms Legislation Rifle and Pistol Club, sort of sends a reasonable signal to me that there will be pistol clubs into the future!

Care to point out to me where the Bill defines Target Shooting? Or a Shooting Range? If being entered in the Bill is what keeps you surviving Declan, then we're all in trouble.
To me, all I see is regulation without any benefit for Clubs.

8) No bans on any calibre, type of firearm, things would have been different save for the representations we made, not on the floor of the house but to the legislators and advisors to the minister.

There are no bans on any calibre or type of firearm, yes. There are only mechanisms by which any firearm, any group of firearms, any class, make, type, calibre, or any other grouping you care to think of, can be declared to be "restricted" and then 1972 can happen all over again, with far more weight of law behind it now.

Can you prove to me that it can't?

One cannot get legal opinion until something is actually legislation

That's plain wrong, or didn't you know that the final step before a Bill becomes law allows the president to send the Bill to the Supreme Court to get their legal opinion on it's constitutionality? And that legal opinion is given at several stages through drafting?

One may claim that organisations like the NARGC did it all, but you will never know the activity, influence and successful negotiation that has taken place that will never be publicised.

Strange to hear the man who claimed that FLAG did it all, and that we all have to pull together, say something like that.
Well. Not to me personally, you understand, as I've got a fair bit of experience in seeing how you treated my side of the sport. But it's nice to see a more open revelation like that.

If I was in it for the glory I would be well gone by now.

As I recall Declan, you did go. After a long whinging letter to the Shooters Digest in which you basicly blamed everyone for being mean.

A simple question Mark, what amendments were made to the legislation following your representation to Brendan Howlin

My representations are up on the web for all to see, here, here and the latest one here. Where are yours?
And a simple question - which amendments made to the legislation are your work (as opposed to things that the Minister did simply to correct minor errors, or things that came about because of lobbying by the NARGC or by representations made by other people) ?

You raised issues that were poor interpretations of the legislation and succeeded in confusing ministers and the public alike.

Says the person who has a vested interest in everyone thinking that the Bill is a wonderful thing. I'll call you on this one Declan. Are you saying the bill is problem-free because you stood up and said you'd be the point man in negotiations with the Department (when you "resigned" from the NRPAI) and now you can see the enormous mess we're all about to have land on our heads?

We are well capable of going to the high court when appropriate

And how many times (apart from your personal case) did FLAG fund a case to be taken to the High Court?
And when did FLAG get the funds to cover any potential loss? Last time I asked you, you didn't have enough pledged to cover anything near the cost of such an event. And that was money pledged, not money in the bank. If you had lost, how would the NRPAI have been able to say that costs could not have been recovered from them (and in turn from the NTSA, NSAI, NASRC and the Pony Club)?

and the case that was taken exclusively by FLAG (not supported by any other organisation) was rulled on in October of the year that Franks case was also ruled on

After Franks case, as he wrote in the Shooter's Digest. And his took longer to get to court, cost more, and he didn't have a prior case to use as precedent, whereas you had his case.

Franks Case was for a .22, the FLAG case was a 9mm

Declan, are you trying to imply that bigger calibres take some sort of priority over smaller calibres? What happened to "all shooters must stand together"? Or are some more equal than others?

FLAG

Vegeta wrote:

In my own opinion the Criminal Justice Bill should have made shooting safer without making it harder to participate, instead they have made it harder to participate and not a whole lot safer.

SO is the above list 1 to 8, things you have done or things you are going to do. I mean no disrespect here as I appreciate anyone who fights on our side.

Other wise I might as well say, I continue to work on
1. Flying to the moon with my fart powered car
2. Making love to Kate from Lost.
3. Kicking Chuck Norris' ass.

i.e. is not worth a sh1te unless I have actually done them and they are fact.

I thank you for your ongoing efforts FLAG but the things you list 1 to 8 are no way near the biggest topics of concern for me.

1. Hunters and their rifles, where do we practice. Why should I have to join a range 100 miles away to zero a rifle.
2. Range Inspectors search powers
3. medical check ups, what are we even being tested on, sight, hearing, erectile dysfunction. Is there even a list of symptoms that will bar me from shooting. Who makes the decision the doctor (who may have never seen a gun in his life let alone be qualified to say who is healthy enough to hold a gun) or the gardai after seeing the doctors report.
4.fixed length application times (why do some people get licensed a gun in weeks while it can take over a year for others?

Fair enough you cant get legal advice on something that hasn't been legislation but you can offer legal advice while the legislation is being drafted. As they say prevention is better than cure

Again I mean no disrespect but there are some huge problems with the current Criminal Justice Bill and our sport will definitely suffer as a result if they go through as is and unchallenged

Vegeta wrote:

In my own opinion the Criminal Justice Bill should have made shooting safer without making it harder to participate, instead they have made it harder to participate and not a whole lot safer.

A: It will make it harder for some to participate,

SO is the above list 1 to 8, things you have done or things you are going to do. I mean no disrespect here as I appreciate anyone who fights on our side.

A: We have been dealing with DOJ since 1995, I have documented all meeting and communications, all of the positive aspects of the current legislation can be traced back to recommendations made by us. We were not going to get everything our own way, there are much stronger forces out there than us who have authority.

We generated a level of credibility and respectability and we made progress.

Other wise I might as well say, I continue to work on
1. Flying to the moon with my fart powered car
2. Making love to Kate from Lost.
3. Kicking Chuck Norris' ass.

i.e. is not worth a sh1te unless I have actually done them and they are fact.

I thank you for your ongoing efforts FLAG but the things you list 1 to 8 are no way near the biggest topics of concern for me.

1. Hunters and their rifles, where do we practice. Why should I have to join a range 100 miles away to zero a rifle.
A: Legislation on Ranges is related to organised Clubs, use of firearms on private property with permission is not effected: FACT
2. Range Inspectors search powers
A: Range inspections, fact of life in all other civilised countries, to be effective they need to be inspected and all good audit systems allow for unannounced visits, (more of these in nursing homes would have seen less abuse)
3. medical check ups, what are we even being tested on, sight, hearing, erectile dysfunction. Is there even a list of symptoms that will bar me from shooting. Who makes the decision the doctor (who may have never seen a gun in his life let alone be qualified to say who is healthy enough to hold a gun) or the gardai after seeing the doctors report.
A: There is no requirement for a medical certification in the coming legislation, what is there is enabling legislation to allow for the recommendations of the Barr tribunal, yet to be published. If the Barr tribunal (and it does not) recommend medicals then there will be medicals.
4.fixed length application times (why do some people get licensed a gun in weeks while it can take over a year for others?
A: There is no fixed length application time, one of the biggest issue we brought to justice was the lack of standardised response to firearms applications, they responded by putting into legislation the maximum time that is permitted for a firearms application to take, not a fixed time, most applications will turn around in a month, but now it will be in the legislation that the decision must be reached in three months max, MAX time. Rubbish about one month prior to renewal an application must be made, it does not mean that someone may be without a licence for two months because it can take three months, look at NI three year licenses have always been reissued in this way, where did you think they got the idea!

Fair enough you cant get legal advice on something that hasn't been legislation but you can offer legal advice while the legislation is being drafted. As they say prevention is better than cure

A: What exactly do we need to prevent, I have yet to see one legitimate issue, a lot of people are making up apparent issues, the legislation has yet to be regulated.

Again I mean no disrespect but there are some huge problems with the current Criminal Justice Bill and our sport will definitely suffer as a result if they go through as is and unchallenged

A: Exactly what will damage our sport?
3 year license
Reloading
Range standards being applied, this only effects club shooters, hunters and vermin shooters are not effected by this, it is a myth if you believe you are.

We need to stop belly aching and work favourably with what we have, I can assure you it could have been a lot worse and I can show you the letters from 2002 that would have removed all pistols permanently, high court actions did not pull that back but relationship building did.

The legislation is now published in its final format, we can like it or lump it, a lot of work will need to be done on the generation of guidelines that will work in our favour. I believe it can be worked with. If there are issues that need resolution in the courts so be it, but that is not the way to resolve issues, there is nothing that can't be sorted through dialogue................