Setting up a club

phantom_lord

So I am gonna start on the long and arduous task of trying to set up a rifle club in college.

Anyone got any advice or drafts handy that I could use to put together my constitution and the aims and objectives for the club?

iain_nash

You have my email, but I lost yours (again!)

I'll send you the basics that we have if you want

phantom_lord

That'd be great, it's my name backwards at gmail.com

Vegeta

what college???

phantom_lord

Dcu

Vegeta

phantom_lord wrote:

Dcu

Damn it if you were in UL i could have helped

Umiq88

Anyone in ucc or cit thinking of this?

WallysWorld

Good luck keep us posted on how you get on, its going to be difficult I think someone here in NUIGalway tried to start an air rifle club a few years ago but the insurance was horrendously expensive and that unfortunately scuppered that!:(

Vegeta

WallysWorld wrote:

Good luck keep us posted on how you get on, its going to be difficult I think someone here in NUIGalway tried to start an air rifle club a few years ago but the insurance was horrendously expensive and that unfortunately scuppered that!:(

I know the archery club in UL practice indoors. Surely it cannot be much more expensive to insure than that.

I know firearms of any kind have a negative stigma attached to them but surely a fully drawn bow is as dangerous as a loaded air rifle when handled by an idiot.

sidneyreilly

Countryside alliance or NARGC provide individual insurance cover for resonable amounts.

Are you planning an indoor or outdoor range?

WallysWorld

Vegeta wrote:

I know the archery club in UL practice indoors. Surely it cannot be much more expensive to insure than that.

I know firearms of any kind have a negative stigma attached to them but surely a fully drawn bow is as dangerous as a loaded air rifle when handled by an idiot.

Im a little hazy on the details but im pretty sure it wasnt set up because of insurance costs. Theres an archery club in NUIG aswell who also practise indooors and they dont seem to have any problems. A rock in the hand of an idiot is dangerous TBH!

Vegeta

WallysWorld wrote:

A rock in the hand of an idiot is dangerous TBH!

exactly, you can bet as soon as the insurance company heard the word rifle or pistol the quote went through the roof

spideog7

Just saw the UL archery club setup last night at the clubs & socs and I realised that they are all compound bows that they use... therefore they all have to be licensed as firearms ..right ??
So that means either the club somehow licences them and owns them and stores them, or the individuals own them and look after that, in which case it would be illegal for anyone else to use there bow in any circumstances ?
probably should have asked them...but i was busy
can anyone clarify this..
I would be interested in seeing a rifle club in UL too but i'd imagine the security aspect of it would be the most difficult...ideally you would need to vet incoming members ??

civdef

Bows ain't treated as firearms, you're thinking of crossbows.

Vegeta

civdef wrote:

Bows ain't treated as firearms, you're thinking of crossbows.

firearm” means—
(a) a lethal firearm or other lethal weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged,

They may not be treated as firearms but surely they are a lethal weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged

A compound bow which fires an arrow with 45ft/lbs is both lethal and fires missiles in the form of arrows.

sidneyreilly

Vegeta wrote:

firearm” means—
(a) a lethal firearm or other lethal weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged,

They may not be treated as firearms but surely they are a lethal weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged

A compound bow which fires an arrow with 45ft/lbs is both lethal and fires missiles in the form of arrows.

Fair point that!

civdef

Fair point, but incorrect. Bows are not treated as firearms. Charles Flanagan TD tried to get them included in the definiton of a firearm along with crossbows during the Dail debates on the Firearms & Offensive Weapons Act 1990, and became the butt of a lot of Robin Hood jokes since he alleged people would go around robbing banks with bows and arrows.

SECTION 4.

Mr. McCartan Mr. McCartan

Mr. McCartan: I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, subsection (1) (c), line 11, before “a crossbow” to insert “a longbow or”.

This is a very simple and straightforward proposal asking the Minister to consider extending the definition of firearms beyond that of a crossbow and to include the concept of the longbow as an addition. This matter was raised on Second Stage and, if my memory serves me correctly, it was also referred to — though not by specific amendment — in the Seanad. We should be as comprehensive and careful as possible in drafting the legislation. In this amendment we are trying to address the problem of a person who would be disposed to using a crossbow in irregular or illegal circumstances being thwarted by this Bill and simply turning to another form of weapon. Obviously someone with the expertise to use a crossbow for irregular or illegal purposes would be well capable of using the longbow.

1737

I understand that the Minister agrees with the point raised on Second Stage and covered under amendment No. 2, that we should have no poundage draw weight restriction on the definition of a crossbow, a point that might have troubled the Minister on Second Stage and in the Seanad, and that it was the intention to allow a crossbow below a certain poundage because of the view among those who knew a lot about these weapons that a projectile fired from a crossbow below that poundage would not represent a serious threat and would facilitate the sporting usage of these weapons. If I understand the Minister's amendment correctly we are taking that out today so the argument does not stand. What is left as a matter of difference between a crossbow and a longbow? I recall the Minister's representative in the Seanad making the point that a crossbow [1737] can be cocked and ready to discharge at any time but I do not think that makes a substantial difference between the basic nature of either weapon. For those reasons, I urge the Minister to accept this amendment.

Mr. Flanagan Mr. Flanagan

Mr. Flanagan: This is a commonsense amendment. All parties welcome this legislation to deal particularly with the crossbow but I do not see how we can outlaw a crossbow except under licence and yet have the longbow readily available. There is no need to enter into any great discussions about this amendment but people in society who are in the habit of using the crossbow for whatever purposes other than sporting will, to comply with this legislation, opt for the use of the longbow.

There is no reason for not including the longbow in the legislation because it is an equally vicious and dangerous implement as the crossbow. Perhaps we are allowing people who would resort to these bows a loophole under the legislation if we do not include the longbow. Apart from the sport of archery I cannot see why a crossbow can be issued under licence. The Minister may be in agreement with that statement and I should like him to refer specifically to the lawful uses that he sees for the longbow.

Mr. Burke Mr. Burke

1738

Mr. Burke: I want to respond as positively as I can to the debate as it progresses and I have tabled a number of amendments. I also want to take a commonsense approach, the phrase used by Deputy Flanagan. From the point of view of public order and safety, the longbow does not present the same problems or concerns as the crossbow. What makes the crossbow a potential danger is that, in the wrong hands, it can be used to devastating effect without the need for a great deal of practice. It can be carried, for example, in a cocked position, ready to fire by a simple squeeze of the trigger like a gun. It is smaller and less cumbersome than the longbow and can even be fitted with a type of telescopic sight normally found on rifles. On the other hand, considerable skills are required to [1738] use the longbow. It is cumbersome and would be very ineffective for use in committing crime. In the absence of any evidence that the longbow has been misused or is likely to be misused for criminal purposes, it would be wrong to bring it within the ambit of the firearms Bill, as the Deputies suggest in their amendments.

I will, of course, keep the situation under review. If at some future time evidence should emerge of criminal misuse of the longbow — there is no such evidence at this stage — I would certainly consider what the Deputies have suggested. We want to keep as much common sense as possible in the approach to this matter. With the cumbersome nature of the longbow and the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever of its use, I do not intend to accept this amendment.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe Mr. J. O'Keeffe

Mr. J. O'Keeffe: I have listened very carefully to the Minister's argument. He has been open enough to say he will take on board the points raised by my colleagues and will consider them for the future. I suggest that that is a typical waiting until the horse has bolted approach. That should not be the manner in which the Minister approaches this problem. Serious concerns have been expressed by my colleagues in relation to the longbow. We are all agreed that the crossbow should come within the terms of the Bill. If we are to address the problem in a common sense fashion I do not think it would be sufficient to say one would need skill to use the longbow effectively. I am sure when crossbows are outlawed it would not take too long for those who may be interested in this type of weaponry to acquire the necessary skills to use the longbow in its place. The fact that the longbow may be somewhat more cumbersome is no justification for refusing to bring it within the ambit of the Bill. Anybody who has followed its history will know the lethal effectiveness of the longbow. The skill of the British archers and——

Mr. Kavanagh Mr. Kavanagh

1739

[1739] Mr. Kavanagh: That applies to the strongbow as well.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe Mr. J. O'Keeffe

Mr. J. O'Keeffe: ——and the many battles in the fields of France certainly exemplify this fact. As far as I know, even in our children's story books the weaponery used by Robin Hood and his Merry Men fell into the same category. From all we have read in history and mythology, the effectiveness of the longbow is beyond dispute. It seems the Minister may be closing one door while opening another by leaving this loophole. I do not want to prolong this matter unduly, and neither do I want to engage in any bow and arrow warfare with the Minister, but it seems to be ill-advised to leave this loophole in the Bill, a loophole that will become more glaringly obvious with the bringing of the crossbow within the ambit of the Bill. Those people who are interested in this kind of weaponry will almost automatically turn to the longbow. I urge the Minister to close the loophole at this stage by accepting this simple amendment.

Mr. O'Dea Mr. O'Dea

1740

Mr. O'Dea: It is rather unfair of Deputy O'Keeffe to question the Minister's open approach to this legislation. I have had a brief glance through the list of amendments. The Minister is attempting, in the amendments he is introducing, to respond to a number of good points that were made on Second Stage, and I thank him for that. It reflects his honesty and his genuine desire to meet reasonable points that have been raised. I can see some validity in Deputy O'Keeffe's and Deputy Flanagan's arguments concerning the longbow but we must bear in mind what we are dealing with here. We are dealing with a situation where certain categories of weapons, in addition to firearms as they are commonly understood, will require a licence before a person can purchase them. We cannot extend the question of licensing indefinitely. I am sure the people who are in control of licensing, namely, the Garda, will not thank us for bringing every conceivable type of weapon within the ambit of the licensing requirements. There [1740] must be some limit to this if only from the point of view of administrative efficiency and what people are capable of doing administratively.

My experience has been that the crossbow has certainly been used as a weapon with which to perpetrate crime. The Minister recognised that when he specifically included crossbows within the licensing requirements. There is no great evidence as yet — certainly not from my experience — that longbows have been used in criminal activities. I do not know if there are any specific examples to which Deputies can point, but I am certainly not aware of any usage of longbows for the perpetration of crime.

I do not think it is fair or reasonable to suggest that the Minister is in some way leaving a deliberate loophole in the law. The Minister wants to deal with problems that have arisen since the firearms legislation was first introduced and that is why the Bill is before the House today. There is no deliberate intention to leave a loophole in the law on the Minister's part and I do not think any reasonable Minister would suggest that. It would not be worth his while bringing in legislation to outlaw certain types of weapons and at the same time deliberately leave a loophole where other weapons could be substituted in the commission of crime.

1741

If a problem arises I would be prepared to accept the Minister's bona fides that legislation would be immediately introduced to deal with it. It is not a complicated matter. If there is evidence that the longbow is replacing the crossbow as an instrument of crime, I am sure the Minister will being in a single section Bill — it would entail only a simple amendment — to include longbows under section 4 of the firearms Bill of 1989. It is not a big deal and it would not be difficult to do. It could be done in a matter of minutes any day if a problem arises. In the meantime we cannot include an endless list of weapons because that would make the implementation of the legislation administratively impossible. As I said, if there is no evidence of any problem in relation to longbows at present. However, there is a possibility that this [1741] might become a commonly used weapon in the commission of crime and if that happens I would accept the Minister's bona fides. As I have said, it would not be very difficult to bring in a single section Bill to deal with the problem.

Mr. Flanagan Mr. Flanagan

Mr. Flanagan: I agree with most of what Deputy O'Dea said. Nobody is saying the Minister is trying to deliberately leave a loophole in legislation but surely the Minister sees himself as having a role in the prevention as well as in the curbing of crime. Clearly there is an argument in favour of saying that people who up to now resorted to the crossbow for their unlawful uses will now move into the area of the longbow. I fail to see why, simply because there is no great evidence of longbows being used at present, these fairly vicious weapons cannot be included under the legislation. Is there a problem about the definition of longbows? The Minister has not referred to that but if there is such a problem, we might think seriously about the difficulties that would arise so far as enforcing the legislation is concerned. I do not see a definition difficulty. I think everybody, including the Garda Síochána, knows what a longbow is and there is no identification difficulty. I ask the Minister the question I asked him ten minutes ago. What use does he see for the longbow other than for sporting purposes? In the section we are talking about the issuing of a firearms certificate to cover crossbows in certain circumstances. If we do not wish to outlaw the longbow, if we see a use for it be it sporting or otherwise, then surely a firearms certificate can be granted, as in the case of the crossbow. However, nobody has come forward with any reason a person should be using a longbow other than for sporting purposes and until I get that answer I will not be satisfied. I do not see any reason the longbow cannot be included.

Mr. McCartan Mr. McCartan

1742

Mr. McCartan: I should like to thank the Minister for his reply. I accept that he is endeavouring to find a balance. I do not wish to go overboard entirely on the [1742] issue but the amendment deserves some further consideration. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the most recent directive from the EC on the control or acquisition and possession of weapons. The document, dated 8 November 1989, is No. 446 Final — SYN98. It contains a proposal to update the regulations of the Commission. It endeavours to deal with the problem of those who want to move from country to country with weapons. Under Annex 1 the Commission bring in for the first time any bow or crossbow. Has the Minister given consideration to that directive in the light of the Bill that is before us? Does he consider it prudent that we should keep our domestic legislation in line with what is happening in the EC? The EC up to this, if I am interpreting the explanatory note covering the directive correctly, have specifically not included bow or crossbows. It would appear that there is a view in Europe that those weapons should be subject to control.

The directive lays down different regimes to cover people who are buying for the purpose of the possession of firearms and those who have firearms for sporting use. The Commission are unashamed about this and say that weapons for the purpose of the directive should include the longbow. Has the Minister had regard to those trends emerging in Europe? Does he consider it necessary to keep our legislation in line with what is happening in Europe? If the Minister says he would wish to consider the matter between now and Report Stage I have no difficulty agreeing to the amendment being withdrawn until then. However, I am concerned that we are a little out of step with what is happening elsewhere.

Mr. Burke Mr. Burke

1743

Mr. Burke: I should like to thank the Deputies for their contributions. I should like to assure Deputy O'Dea that I will keep this matter under review and if at some future time evidence emerges of criminal misuse of the longbow I will consider introducing a simple Bill to extend the scope of the section to cover them. I am anxious to take a common [1743] sense approach to the Bill. I should like to assure Deputy Flanagan that crime prevention is top of my agenda and that is why the Bill is before the House. It is a preventive measure and will assist the gardaí in their fight against crime. However, there are hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of responsible people who are members of archery clubs here and who use longbows. I do not want to put them to considerable cost and trouble when there is no evidence of trouble with longbows. I should like to tell Deputy McCartan that the EC directive leaves the question of legislation to the discretion of the national governments.

I am not prepared to accept the amendment for practical reasons. If I was convinced that there was a difficulty I would be pleased to accept it but there is no evidence of the longbow being used in crime. In the absence of that evidence I do not wish to include in the Bill a provision that may become cumbersome.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe Mr. J. O'Keeffe

Mr. J. O'Keeffe: Perhaps the best approach for us all is to consider the discussion this morning and review the matter between now and Report Stage.

Mr. Burke Mr. Burke

Mr. Burke: I will have another look at the matter between now and Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Vegeta

civdef wrote:

Fair point, but incorrect. Bows are not treated as firearms. Charles Flanagan TD tried to get them included in the definiton of a firearm along with crossbows during the Dail debates on the Firearms & Offensive Weapons Act 1990, and became the butt of a lot of Robin Hood jokes since he alleged people would go around robbing banks with bows and arrows.

I have not said anywhere that bows were treated as firearms.

I was more pointing to how stupidly the law is written.

I know, and you know, a bow is a lethal weapon and that it fires missles but yet they are not firearms

spideog7

Sigh...
Sometimes I wonder about this country.....scrap that I wonder about these law all the time it wrecks my head :mad:
So up until last month airsoft guns were regarded as firearms and it was an offence to be in the posession of one... even now with the law changed it only covers anything < 1 Joule. So .177 caliber air pistols are still classed as firearms..but any tom, dick or harry can own a compound bow.
Call me stupid...but shoot me with an air pistol before a bow anyday :rolleyes:

So my last arguement is null and void...but it still stands for Rifle clubs such as in Trinity, how do they get around this issue ??

Sparks

The Trinity Rifle club, DURC, has an authorisation that covers their firearms (necessary since Irish law doesn't have the concept of a group licence). To go to competitions is made a bit more awkward for them because of this - it means a removal order has to be applied for for each match.

Clare gunner

Well, they missed underwater spearguns as well.And no one has held up a bank with one yet either.:D Trying to hold up a bank with a compound bow.....That would be intresting.How do you conceal it first?And then how do you pick up the swag??The moment you try to pick up the loot you have to let go of either the arrow or the bow.

Vegeta

Clare gunner wrote:

Well, they missed underwater spearguns as well.And no one has held up a bank with one yet either.:D Trying to hold up a bank with a compound bow.....That would be intresting.How do you conceal it first?And then how do you pick up the swag??The moment you try to pick up the loot you have to let go of either the arrow or the bow.

well it could be a four man team 3 guys with bows and one guy to pick up the swag!!!

civdef

It'd make detecting armed robberies very easy, just look for the fellas with the over developed right arm muscles.

Rovi

civdef wrote:

...just look for the fellas with the over developed right arm muscles.

The country is full of those, but very few got that way by being dedicated archers. :rolleyes:

.

jaycee

I suppose lifting the odd pint might build up your arm muscles.
I hadn't thought of that ....:rolleyes: