Firearms Consultative Panel

Sparks

Answer up:

121. Deputy Tom Sheahan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will provide data in respect of the number of recorded robberies of legally held firearms in the State during the period 2002 to 2007; the number of recorded robberies of legally held firearms to date in 2007; if sufficient measures are in place to minimise such robberies; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22566/07]

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Deputy Brian Lenihan): Following the submission in 2004 of a report and recommendations by an expert group on crime statistics, it was decided that the compilation and publication of crime statistics should be taken over by the Central Statistics Office, as the national statistical agency, from the Garda Síochána. The Garda Síochána Act, 2005 consequently makes provision for this and the CSO has established a dedicated unit for this purpose. Following the setting up of the necessary technical systems and auditing of the data from which the statistics are compiled, the CSO is now compiling and publishing criminal statistics and has published provisional headline crime statistics since the third quarter of 2006. In addition, it has compiled and published a series of quarterly and annual statistics for the period starting with the first quarter of 2003. I understand that the CSO are examining how the crime statistics published might be expanded and made more comprehensive.

I have requested the CSO to provide the statistics sought by the Deputy directly to him.

Every effort is made in the licensing process and otherwise to ensure that all licensed firearm holders are conscious of their obligations in relation to the safe storage of their firearm. To this end all firearm certificates are accompanied by recommendations and advice in relation to the safe storage and security of firearms.

The Criminal Justice Act, 2006 provides for increased fines and penalties for firearm offences. A person found in possession of a firearm in suspicious circumstances or with criminal intent is liable to imprisonment for up to 14 years with a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years.

I recently established a Firearms Consultative Panel to assist with the introduction of a new firearms licensing system which is provided for in the Criminal Justice Act, 2006. The Panel will comprise representatives of the various shooting interest groups, relevant Government Departments and An Garda Síochána. I will make details of the panel and its terms of reference known in the near future.

rrpc

I recently established a Firearms Consultative Panel to assist with the introduction of a new firearms licensing system which is provided for in the Criminal Justice Act, 2006. The Panel will comprise representatives of the various shooting interest groups, relevant Government Departments and An Garda Síochána. I will make details of the panel and its terms of reference known in the near future.

He did????

sidneyreilly

rrpc wrote:

He did????

Ditto

Sparks

Well, they did tell us they were thinking of doing it, we just weren't told it had been done...

Bananaman

The Panel will comprise representatives of the various shooting interest groups

[Apologies if this information is not in the public domain/interest and I'm asking questions out of turn]

Are we aware who these groups are?

Do we know what bodies are representing the various forms of licensed firearm?

B'Man

Sparks

a) The Gardai, DoJ, Department of Sport and "relevant national shooting bodies". Last I heard.

b) Nope. That the panel was even set up was news to quite a few of us.

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

a) The Gardai, DoJ, Department of Sport and "relevant national shooting bodies". Last I heard.

b) Nope. That the panel was even set up was news to quite a few of us.

There is as yet no evidence that such a body has been set up. Nothing on the DoJ website, no press releases and no statutory instruments.

One would think that such a step would have at least merited a press release.

Sparks

No evidence... except a direct written statement by the Minister to the Dail...

Sparks

Maybe a quick email to the DoJ is in order?

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

Maybe a quick email to the DoJ is in order?

Are you voulunteering? I've already posted a note to the committee on this. We certainly need to know what's going on.

Sparks

Are you voulunteering?

Are you proposing giving a non-committee member the power to speak on behalf of the committee?!?!?!

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

Are you proposing giving a non-committee member the power to speak on behalf of the committee?!?!?!

Sorry, should have put a smiley in there. I'm sure the secretary will get back to me about it and we'll draft something quickly.

I think I have a record of who we last wrote to in the DoJ.

It's useful that he's made this statement. We now can put our hand up and say "Me Sir"

Sparks

Ah right. Long day at work rrpc, my sense of humour is worn out right now.

The record of who we wrote to last should be in the internal email list archive, and we've already expressed a strong desire for representation on the panel, but it wouldn't hurt to remind them.

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

Ah right. Long day at work rrpc, my sense of humour is worn out right now.

The record of who we wrote to last should be in the internal email list archive, and we've already expressed a strong desire for representation on the panel, but it wouldn't hurt to remind them.

Just received this from Countryside Alliance:

Countryside Alliance Ireland has been invited by The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Brian Lenihan T.D. to be an active member of the Firearms Consultative Panel that is being established to assist with the introduction of the new Firearms Licensing system and related matters.

We are keen to ensure that the programme of change which is being undertaken proceeds smoothly and has legitimate regard to all to have an interest. We will keep you all informed over the coming weeks.

So by now it seems that anyone who was to be invited onto the panel has been.

We should hear soon if any other bodies have been invited to join.

Sparks

Well, the final details aren't announced yet. I'd get pushing now rrpc, get the NTSA a seat on that panel...

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

Well, the final details aren't announced yet. I'd get pushing now rrpc, get the NTSA a seat on that panel...

I suspect that the larger bodies are the only ones that will be invited. I'd hazard a guess that the NARGC have also been invited (their website appears to be down at the moment), but it appears that the SSAI have not (or if they have they didn't say so at their last meeting).

We'll put in a request and see what happens.

Sparks

We'll have to push harder than that rrpc, the last time we left them go without NTSA input, every aluminum-stocked ISSF rifle (air, smallbore and fullbore) wound up on the restricted list along with every ISSF smallbore and fullbore pistol...

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

We'll have to push harder than that rrpc, the last time we left them go without NTSA input, every aluminum-stocked ISSF rifle (air, smallbore and fullbore) wound up on the restricted list along with every ISSF smallbore and fullbore pistol...

OK Sparks, calm down. I've got more information on this. As far as I know there are representatives from the NARGC, CAI, ICPSA and SSAI on the panel.

There may be more, but at the moment the Chairman is out of the country (as you know) so I can't get any more detailed info than that. It's plain that if we are not attending that we must have the agenda and a prepared input for whoever represents us at the table, followed by a detailed debrief after the meeting.

BryanL

one man one license has to be pushed!
Bryan

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

there are representatives from the NARGC, CAI, ICPSA and SSAI on the panel.

That's not particularly reassuring me that the NTSA will be represented at the table. An SSAI rep is not an NTSA rep, and there's a direct conflict of interest, as has been discussed on a regular basis for the past seven years or so.

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

That's not particularly reassuring me that the NTSA will be represented at the table. An SSAI rep is not an NTSA rep, and there's a direct conflict of interest, as has been discussed on a regular basis for the past seven years or so.

No it's not perfect, but it appears that it's what we have to deal with. Dealing with it in a way that will be open and transparent and represent our views will undoubtedly occupy a great deal of our time and energy.

Sparks

It's not perfect and it's also not really acceptable RRPC - a director of the NTSA cannot represent NTSA interests and SSAI interests without an inherent conflict of interest. I've gone blue in the face repeating this regarding the relationship between the NTSA and the NRPAI and the SSAI for the past seven years. It's not stopped being true in the last ten minutes.

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

It's not perfect and it's also not really acceptable RRPC - a director of the NTSA cannot represent NTSA interests and SSAI interests without an inherent conflict of interest. I've gone blue in the face repeating this regarding the relationship between the NTSA and the NRPAI and the SSAI for the past seven years. It's not stopped being true in the last ten minutes.

You're assuming that a director of the NTSA will be attending. Not an assumption I can make at this time.

Sparks

I am at that. You know me, the eternal optimist.
I mean, if a director of the NTSA wasn't attending, that'd be even worse.

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

I am at that. You know me, the eternal optimist.
I mean, if a director of the NTSA wasn't attending, that'd be even worse.

Yup, now where's that conflict word that was flying around here earlier?

Sparks

Still in force.
If there's an NTSA director there, then the NTSA knows what's going on first-hand, without any intentional or unintentional filtering; if there isn't there's nothing but second-hand information at best. That's why it'd be better to be there than not be there. But it's the difference between being on the left or the right of the car when the train hits it, really.

The conflict is still alive and well - if an NTSA director is there, he is required by company law to act in the best interests of the NTSA, not the SSAI. His obligation to the SSAI has no such legal weight, and even if he ignores this and acts in the best interests of the SSAI, and against NTSA interests, he is acting ultra vires, and his actions cannot be binding in any way, shape or form - that means no vote he makes is valid unless it benefits the NTSA.

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

Still in force.
If there's an NTSA director there, then the NTSA knows what's going on first-hand, without any intentional or unintentional filtering; if there isn't there's nothing but second-hand information at best. That's why it'd be better to be there than not be there. But it's the difference between being on the left or the right of the car when the train hits it, really.

Depends which side the train hits

The conflict is still alive and well - if an NTSA director is there, he is required by company law to act in the best interests of the NTSA, not the SSAI. His obligation to the SSAI has no such legal weight, and even if he ignores this and acts in the best interests of the SSAI, and against NTSA interests, he is acting ultra vires, and his actions cannot be binding in any way, shape or form - that means no vote he makes is valid unless it benefits the NTSA.

The smart answer is to send a non-Director and thus no legal conflict arises. However, I doubt any NTSA committee member would act in the interests of the SSAI above those of the NTSA, and I can't really envisage a situation on the FCP in which such a conflict would arise.

I also doubt whether any of the attendees to these meetings would have a vote as such, rather that they would be there in an advisory capacity to point out any problems with proposed legislation or protocols and to put forward suggestions.

A simple case in point would be the one man one licence; no conflict there. The proposed restricted list should also present no conflicts, but certainly would benefit from our input as regards some of the descriptions as pointed out before. The point about the non-restricted list could be proposed again with us providing the list and being accredited as USAS is in California.

jaycee

The proposed restricted list should also present no conflicts, but certainly would benefit from our input as regards some of the descriptions as pointed out before.

I for one, have a huge problem with the proposed restricted list.
I have a huge problem with even the concept of a restricted list where a 10 year old child can tell that the descriptions and definitions are so muddy as to be nothing short of almost, a deny them all charter.

To quote a common bit of gallows humour on here , the expression IDONTLIKETHELOOKOFTHAT.. is all thats needed to make the acquiring of any firearm intensely difficult if not impossible. Why do i say that...?
Because much of the descriptions , and decisions based on them are left to subjective interpretation on the part of the person granting a licence.

So... for example , if someone decides that a black coloured rifle = a military looking firearm .. on the basis of that list it can be restricted. Using that logic you could be denied a licence for a CZ Silhouette .22lr rifle . I have one , all weather synthetic stock...black , put a scope on it and the media will be prepared to describe it as a sniper rifle . Result ? .. another restricted firearm.

Stupid ?... you betcha ..
Possible ?.... you betcha.

Now , lets think about the word restricted .
Hmmm ... Ok, what will that mean ..?
Will i need increased security to hold such an awesome item..? ...Perhaps.
How much security .. Ahhh well , thats the next catch . Because thats all subjective too.. It will require the degree of security that the person granting the license sees fit . Without any definition that could be construed as requiring a helicopter gunship and a constant armed patrol of the property.
Maybe it wont be that bad , maybe it will only take 5000 euros worth of security equipment and converting a part of your home into a bunker.

Stupid .. ?... You betcha !
Possible ..? Ditto.

Now the last time i mentioned the deny them all charter , Oops restricted list and its possible implications to someone who is supposed to know .. The first response I got was .. "Restricted ..dosn't mean banned " Oh yeah ..?
Well the powers that be managed to restrict the hell out of Pistols in Ireland for over 30 years without ever banning them, and with these new bits of legislation , they would have an easier time doing it than ever before .

If something can be made to carry such and any conditions before it is accessible or available to you isn't it a de-facto ban...?

The whole thing is full of teeth to bite us , with no way to rein it in.

The example I picked is only one of the many in that so called negotiated agreement , and far from the most serious.

In that sense , conflict between someones role with an organization or fighting about who get to go to the party pales into insignificance .
we have plenty of conflicts ahead , it would be better if we concentrated our energies on trying to clean up the mess that is on the table in front of us.

Kryten

Why has'nt the SSAI informed us about this Firearms consultative panel. They are supposed to represent the majority of target shooting clubs. There appears to be a serious communication problem with the SSAI. Even their website is old news!

At the very least, Club secretaries should be kept in the loop. I know there are SSAI Committee members working hard (proficency courses, range specs and the like), but we the shooting community need to know our corner is well covered.

bunny shooter

What we need is for every member of the attending group/s to revcieve a complete copy of the proposals, and I repeat the proposals, before anything is agreed to. These group/s reps shouldn't be allowed to agree to anything without their members approval in advance.

This is likely to be the last review of firearms licensing in our lifetime. So it has to be right, for all shooters sakes, irregardless of their discipline/s

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

Depends which side the train hits

Ever see a car hit by a train? The difference is the extra 20 microseconds you have before you're pulped.

The smart answer is to send a non-Director and thus no legal conflict arises.

Except that now the NTSA directors are voting to send a representative who won't be bound to act in the NTSA's interest and so they're acting ultra vires and the appointed representative doesn't actually have the NTSA's official backing because the decision to send them was outside the power of the board.

It's not a conflict you can get around rrpc. That's why I've been pointing it out for the past seven years.

However, I doubt any NTSA committee member would act in the interests of the SSAI above those of the NTSA, and I can't really envisage a situation on the FCP in which such a conflict would arise.

"Air and smallbore pistols lads, but stop asking about the fullbore rifles, would you?" was the situation outlined to me by a member of the NRPAI who was in the room when the offer was made. This would have been back before 2000.
So I don't need to envisage such a conflict, because I know they've already arisen and NTSA interests were not served (by NTSA committee members as it happens). (And for the non-NTSA folks, there was no restriction that those air and smallbore pistols be ISSF-only, and it would have been the wedge in the crack to get everything back, just not all at once - we'd have had everything we got before '04 and without the CJA2006 giving the Minister the power to close down our sport overnight).

I also doubt whether any of the attendees to these meetings would have a vote as such, rather that they would be there in an advisory capacity to point out any problems with proposed legislation or protocols and to put forward suggestions.

And if there's no NTSA person there? Last time, they put all the ISSF alu-stock rifles (air and smallbore and fullbore) along with all the ISSF pistols (smallbore and fullbore) on the restricted list!

A simple case in point would be the one man one licence; no conflict there.

Sure. But it's a better idea for the shooting NGBs to meet as equals beforehand and compare agendas and agree points of mutual support and points that were NGB-specific and resolve conflicts there. We both know that that doesn't happen within the SSAI and that it didn't happen in the NRPAI.

Not to mention, if we go in as the SSAI, the uncomfortable question of the NRPAI/SSAI and the illegal AGM that brought about that change is a stick on the table for any other party to beat us with.

The proposed restricted list should also present no conflicts

Sure, if the DoJ and Gardai don't mind the list being empty.

The point about the non-restricted list could be proposed again with us providing the list and being accredited as USAS is in California.

I still don't like that idea so much. We'd have to give a list, so would the ICPSA, the NARGC, the SSAI groups, the practical pistol lads (who, by the way, have no rep at this table because they can't be in the SSAI at the same time as the NTSA). It's more work than keeping the restricted list empty.

Sparks

jaycee wrote:

I have a huge problem with even the concept of a restricted list where a 10 year old child can tell that the descriptions and definitions are so muddy as to be nothing short of almost, a deny them all charter.

Especially when the definitions on that list are dependant on EU definitions which are about to change!

To quote a common bit of gallows humour on here , the expression IDONTLIKETHELOOKOFTHAT.. is all thats needed to make the acquiring of any firearm intensely difficult if not impossible.

It's not gallows humour any more, it's officially drafted in the last draft I saw.

Now , lets think about the word restricted .
Hmmm ... Ok, what will that mean ..?

Extra conditions on your licence, set by the Commissioner or Minister, with no legal avenue to challange them on any grounds, and with no legal obligation on the part of either Minister or Commissioner to even publish what those conditions are - in the CJB debates, the then Minister argued strongly against such an obligation on the grounds that you might be denied a licence because you lived too near a criminal suspect, but he didn't want to tell you this lest you tip this person off that he was under investigation.

Personally, I think if you see it on the restricted list, you might as well consider it gone for all the hassle involved.

How much security

Some clubs have 24hour security personnel (the two college clubs, because they're both on campus). So that could be asked for of all clubs. Enjoy...

In that sense , conflict between someones role with an organization or fighting about who get to go to the party pales into insignificance .
we have plenty of conflicts ahead , it would be better if we concentrated our energies on trying to clean up the mess that is on the table in front of us.

Can't do that if it means we have to ignore our own rules (or any rules at all) in order to get to the table - that's why we're in the muck to begin with!

Sparks

Kryten wrote:

Why has'nt the SSAI informed us about this Firearms consultative panel. They are supposed to represent the majority of target shooting clubs.

Are they?
I was of the impression that they were a group of NGBs, not an NGB themselves...

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote:

What we need is for every member of the attending group/s to revcieve a complete copy of the proposals, and I repeat the proposals, before anything is agreed to. These group/s reps shouldn't be allowed to agree to anything without their members approval in advance.

Amen to that. So what if it takes longer, I'd rather it took two years and was done right than see it stuffed up inside of a weekend!

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

Except that now the NTSA directors are voting to send a representative who won't be bound to act in the NTSA's interest and so they're acting ultra vires and the appointed representative doesn't actually have the NTSA's official backing because the decision to send them was outside the power of the board.

You're hilarious Sparks . If that were truly the case, no company could delegate any of it's authority under it's Memorandum of Association to any stafff member or officer. In any event, the company is authorised to so delegate to any member and to enter into any joint agreement or arrangement with any other body with similar aims.

It's not a conflict you can get around rrpc. That's why I've been pointing it out for the past seven years.

And it's not a conflict under the companies M&A of A or company law.

"Air and smallbore pistols lads, but stop asking about the fullbore rifles, would you?" was the situation outlined to me by a member of the NRPAI who was in the room when the offer was made. This would have been back before 2000.

Back then there were no other bodies involved in negotiations and certainly it was a bad move. However I'm not in a position to second guess the mood of the meeting or whether or not there was a possibility of getting everything back at that time. As I pointed out earlier, there's nothing ultra-vires about joining with similar bodies (Clause S in the M of A).

And if there's no NTSA person there? Last time, they put all the ISSF alu-stock rifles (air and smallbore and fullbore) along with all the ISSF pistols (smallbore and fullbore) on the restricted list!

And you made the suggestion to list all our stuff seperately, and they said it would be too much work. I believe at that point I suggested that we make the list and do the work for them. All they would have to do is check it out.

Sure. But it's a better idea for the shooting NGBs to meet as equals beforehand and compare agendas and agree points of mutual support and points that were NGB-specific and resolve conflicts there. We both know that that doesn't happen within the SSAI and that it didn't happen in the NRPAI.

Well my suggestion above would sort a lot of problems beforehand, because whoever attended the meeting would have the list with them. But yes, I would certainly see a pre-meeting meeting being a given.

Not to mention, if we go in as the SSAI, the uncomfortable question of the NRPAI/SSAI and the illegal AGM that brought about that change is a stick on the table for any other party to beat us with.

Has that not been properly ratified since?

Sure, if the DoJ and Gardai don't mind the list being empty.

I think you know what I mean. Our stuff is a subset of everything else, and lower down the idontlikethelookofthat pecking order.

I still don't like that idea so much. We'd have to give a list, so would the ICPSA, the NARGC, the SSAI groups, the practical pistol lads (who, by the way, have no rep at this table because they can't be in the SSAI at the same time as the NTSA). It's more work than keeping the restricted list empty.

Now you're getting involved in other people's business. I don't think a list would work with the other bodies anyway, they're far too broad. We need a list because of the unique nature of our equipment which as you pointed out before could be restricted by means of description.

les45

The IPSA have written to the Minister requesting a seat on the Board , in relation to our membership of the SSAI we applied for membership in October 2006 we are awaiting a response from the SSAI in relation to this application.

John FitzGerald RD IPSA

Bananaman

I had hopes when I saw this thread to see a general meeting of the waters among people representing different groups in shooting and some info on what groups will be standing up for and promoting the use of the wide range of calibres in sport today (i.e. ALL of them) with the Firearms Consultative Panel.

Unfortunately it seems to just be about who gets to wear the NTSA hat - be it in the meeting or in the carpark - however that turns out.

Considering that the rumour and innuendo and possibilities that we heard all along with respect to the restricted list were that shotguns, 22 rifle and airguns would be unrestricted and everything else - including all pistols I believe I heard it said before - were potentially on the restricted list.

I for one find it a bit disheartening when I hear people start to discuss certain calibres and types of filearms e.g. pistols with a slight tone of "our type of shooting sport is more important than that type of shooting sport" - (not in this thread but as an undertone on this board in general).

As soon as the lobby that is shooting sports in general all skive off into different corners and start whispering and pointing at each all we are all buggered.

My own shooting sport preferences are Static Fullbore Pistol, Practical Pistol and Clay Pigeon Shooting.

Therefore I would like to know that fullbore revolver and semi automatics - regardless of colour or make - and catered for by one of the representative bodies.

I would like to khow that the full range of full bore calibres such as
9mm, .38, .38 Super, .357, .40, .45 etc. are all recognised as valid recognised calibres for valid recognised shooting sports in Ireland

I would like to know that all Dynamic shooting disciplnies - not just Practical Pistol - there is rifle, shotgun and plenty more - are recognised as a valid shooting sport and does not get relegated to "spooky stuff".

I would hope that I do not get the "What Olympic sport is that for?" drivvle when I next go to see the FO after these changes have come into affect.

I have not been in the loop in shooting for very long and dodge the politics of it like a plague of camel arse mites but I would hate all that it is to be pissed away by people posturing for position for both their own sport and themselves.

Here's hoping not.

B'Man

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

You're hilarious Sparks . If that were truly the case, no company could delegate any of it's authority under it's Memorandum of Association to any stafff member or officer.

No company is permitted to do so under company law if they know that the agent delegated may act in a manner not in the best interests of the company.
It's not a joke RRPC, the Officer of the Director of Corporate Enforcement takes it rather seriously, as do the members of any company who wish to see that company run in their best interests.

In any event, the company is authorised to so delegate to any member and to enter into any joint agreement or arrangement with any other body with similar aims.

And company law means that if they do so knowing it won't be in the company's best interest, then their actions are ultra vires and not binding upon the company. Look it up if you've forgotten.

And you made the suggestion to list all our stuff seperately

Actually, I didn't. And I don't remember you being at the meeting where I heard the idea for the first time.

Has that not been properly ratified since?

No, because it cannot be properly ratified. An invalid AGM brought the SSAI into being; it is not possible for the SSAI to properly ratify the situation. Two wrongs can't make a right and all that, even in the legal world. The NRPAI would have re-hold the AGM with a predeclared AGM and the voting rights would have to be respected; and then you'd have to have the SSAI re-admit the NRAI as a member. Luckily, the NRPAI technically speaking still exists as a seperate body with the same officers they had in '04; they've just never had their own AGM. Which begs the question of what happens if an NRPAI officer were to approach the FCP and ask for representation...

Now you're getting involved in other people's business.

Actually, I'm just pointing out another flaw in the idea that the SSAI is sufficient representation on the panel for us. The IPSA isn't in the SSAI so they need seperate recognition - so why can't we have the same?

Sparks

Bananaman wrote:

I had hopes when I saw this thread to see a general meeting of the waters among people representing different groups in shooting and some info on what groups will be standing up for and promoting the use of the wide range of calibres in sport today (i.e. ALL of them) with the Firearms Consultative Panel.

Except that we've never sorted out our internal problems properly, so we're being slapped around the face with them every time this sort of thing comes up. And until we sit down like grown-ups and sort it out, it will continue to bite us.

I for one find it a bit disheartening when I hear people start to discuss certain calibres and types of filearms e.g. pistols with a slight tone of "our type of shooting sport is more important than that type of shooting sport" - (not in this thread but as an undertone on this board in general).

Well, I'd rather expect every NGB would take that tone by definition. I mean, if you don't think your sport is the best, why the hell would you be putting your effort into it?
That's not to say that conflicts can be avoided - just that they can't be avoided the way we're doing it now (by pretending that there are no conflicts and looking away and whistling while pushing our individual sports while wearing the SSAI hat and hoping no-one notices).

I would hope that I do not get the "What Olympic sport is that for?" drivvle when I next go to see the FO after these changes have come into affect.

Which is why you should be seeing the IPSA on the panel as well as the ICPSA, to represent your interests. There's no conflict then. The various reps meet before the FCP meeting, agree on mutual areas of support and check for conflicts honestly, then show a united front to the FCP in some areas and at least no conflicts in the other areas. That's a damn sight better than the current arrangement where someone goes forward claiming to represent everyone, which is a patently impossible task unless they successfully get the DoJ to ignore the Gardai completely and leave the restricted list empty.

les45

As far as the IPSA is concerned we will if allowed put forward our views on behalf of our members but and this is the but I would also argue with the same vigour and determination for all other shooting sports ,and that ladies and gentlemen is the crux of the matter . If the NTSA are at the table will they simply look after themselves or will they fight for PP1500 , F.Class, and Practical Pistol . That is for the NTSA to answer !we need to work together , the IPSA are more than willing to help and assist in any way it can , will the NTSA in Ireland work with us on this or will they simply paddle their own canoe . If other European Shooting federations can work together !why the hell cant we.

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

No company is permitted to do so under company law if they know that the agent delegated may act in a manner not in the best interests of the company. It's not a joke RRPC, the Officer of the Director of Corporate Enforcement takes it rather seriously, as do the members of any company who wish to see that company run in their best interests.

How do they know that? If a person is delegated to put forward a proposal on behalf of the company, agrees to so do and does it, no-one is acting ultra-vires.

Actually, I didn't. And I don't remember you being at the meeting where I heard the idea for the first time.

Yes you did, do you want me to quote the email you sent to the committee regarding your meeting with the DoJ in May? You used the word 'we' which implies that you were part of the proposal.

No, because it cannot be properly ratified. An invalid AGM brought the SSAI into being; it is not possible for the SSAI to properly ratify the situation.

As the valid voting situation in question is just the members of the NRPAI, any committee meeting with a valid quorum could ratify the change.

Actually, I'm just pointing out another flaw in the idea that the SSAI is sufficient representation on the panel for us. The IPSA isn't in the SSAI so they need seperate recognition - so why can't we have the same?

No offence to the IPSA, but what makes you think they'll get representation seperately?

Bananaman

I mean, if you don't think your sport is the best, why the hell would you be putting your effort into it?

I have a preference for the ones I am any use at - not to say I am any great shakes - but I am getting better.

I like to see the shooting sports (all of them) developing - unfortunately we all only have so much time we can give to it and hence have to focus on a few - not because they are any better than the others but simply because we can only do soo much - note the rise of Practical shooting in it's short history - was at a 60 man shoot at the weekend - three international regions represented - and that was just a club shoot. What a day.

When you are on the organising side of a shoot like that you have to put in a lot of time and effort - a lot of people do - but when a day like that comes off so well it is all worth it. The same applies when you attend a shoot run by other people, regardless of discipline. It's great to see a day go well for the organisers and to see people you know come good on the day and walk away with a medal.

It's bad enough now wth the amount of time I spend on the range etc. if I had the time and wonga (lotto win required) I would probably never leave and would partake in a wider range of sports. Hopefully the Mrs. is not reading this

Bottom line, from my own point of view - like I said I am not tarnished by the politics of shooting so do not have any crosses to bear - I would hate to see some of the "younger disciplines" (in Ireland) such as Practical Pistol suffer in the face of some of the older more established disciplines. Ditto for some calibres beng restircted just to smooth the road for some others.

As it stands today in Ireland we are spoiled for choice with respect to shooting sports - we are up to our oxters in disciplines to suit anybody - you hear the old cliché on the RTÉ Sport ads about Ireland being a sporting mad nation. Every weekend almost all year round you can attend a range of competitions, in a huge range of disciplines, either as competitor or as spectator. Alomost every week we see or hear of people coming back from Internationals with medals - some in disciplines I had not heard of before.. Even if they don't get a medal what a buzz. I was at a Practical Pistol International this year where the world champions in three categories were shooting in stages around me.
The more of that there is the more you will see new blood coming into the sports in general and what is good for the goose....

Lets hope we do not end up losing some of that diversity

B'Man

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

How do they know that? If a person is delegated to put forward a proposal on behalf of the company, agrees to so do and does it, no-one is acting ultra-vires.

Depends on the proposal and what else they do while there. If you're delegating someone to walk in, drop an agreed proposal on the table and walk out, sure, you're safe from company law. But it's hardly effective... and then you're nailed by company law again!

Yes you did, do you want me to quote the email you sent to the committee regarding your meeting with the DoJ in May? You used the word 'we' which implies that you were part of the proposal.

I used the word 'we' because I wasn't alone and I was reporting the actions of that group to the board. But if you want to assign individual responsibility, I'm the wrong person to look at in this case. And you weren't at that meeting rrpc, as I recall.

As the valid voting situation in question is just the members of the NRPAI, any committee meeting with a valid quorum could ratify the change.

No, it could not, for two good reasons:
1) It would have to be an AGM with an announced agenda - committee meetings cannot overrule AGM meetings and it was an AGM where the NRPAI name and structure were originally agreed upon, so it has to be an AGM where they are changed;
2) It would have to be the members of the NRPAI as they were in 2004. The current SSAI membership isn't valid because of the origins of the SSAI, so they can't ratify the decision that brought the SSAI into being.

No offence to the IPSA, but what makes you think they'll get representation seperately?

I don't know if they will or not - but from reading les' post above, I know they're at least trying. Which would be a point they've got over the NTSA so far in my eyes.

Sparks

les45 wrote:

As far as the IPSA is concerned we will if allowed put forward our views on behalf of our members but and this is the but I would also argue with the same vigour and determination for all other shooting sports

Thing is les, if you're going to argue for all the shooting sports, that's effort you're not putting into your own sport, so you're not doing as good a job for your own sport as you could be.

The problem here is people thing that it's not possible to build a united front from seperate elements.
Obviously dry stone walls never existed...

If the NTSA are at the table will they simply look after themselves

Any NTSA board member is bound by the confines of company law to serve the interests of the NTSA members. Those interests are not served by calling for some other discipline to be banned; but they're also not served by those representatives spending effort on representing other disciplines. They have their job to do, their part to play in an overall community.

will they fight for PP1500 , F.Class, and Practical Pistol .

PPC1500 is the NASRC's role; F Class is the NRAI's role; Practical Pistol is the IPSA's role (and you know the NTSA can't be involved on an organisational level there because of the ISSF-IPSC dispute).

By the way, observe a canoe:

Note how everyone has their own paddle and noone is paddling for the other guy, but they all go in the same direction anyway...

Sparks

Bananaman wrote:

Lets hope we do not end up losing some of that diversity

We don't have to, but as you said, there's a _lot_ of work in running these disciplines. It's too much for any one group to do all the shooting sports. So one group to a paddle, so to speak. And, like I said above:

les45

That particular canoe Mark has a cox to guide it and I have seen bigger waves in my bath ! and look at all the smiling faces , a very happy lot !:D:D:D, if only the Irish Shooting Sea was so calm.;););)

Sparks

See, always with the picking of the holes in a perfectly good analogy...


Better now?

Rovi

So long as it doesn't end up like this-

les45

Well done Rovi

Sparks

And you think it's not like that now?
Although to be fair, it's more like this...

LB6

Phew - sense of humours still in tact! TG