Restricted List Confusion.

Repeating Henry

Because of this confusion .223 / .308 calibers are starting to get sold
overlooked or left on the shelf to rust. Several friends have traded up or
down in caliber, some changed because of what has been appearing on
boards recently and decided to play it safe in case they get stuck with
a rifle that won't sell in the future. Now I have just heard that no decision
has been made by the DOJ, it is still up in the air.

Question, who will pay for this mess if it turns out firearms are been
sold off completely unnecessarly. Dealers and individual losses will
start to mount up unless this is sorted out soon.

What does the SSAI have to say about this situation.
IS Flag still part of your organization.
How many members are in Flag.
This internal battle you are having is starting to cost.

If this is the way the sport is been run and represented god help us.
Rudderless no communication complete lack of discipline.

Sort out who is in charge of the SSAI move on, otherwise what is
the point of your existence why should you control spending and decision
making for this sport.

Post on boards, you can do it, no it won't bite.

José Alaninho

Excuse my ignorance lads, just back on boards after a while. What's all this restricted list stuff? Can anyone post a link to it on the DOJ website? (can't find it there myself)

IRLConor

José Alaninho wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance lads, just back on boards after a while. What's all this restricted list stuff? Can anyone post a link to it on the DOJ website? (can't find it there myself)

One of the changes brought in by the Criminal Justice Act was to allow the DoJ to define some firearms as "restricted". Here's roughly how it breaks down:

Unrestricted Firearm:
Apply to your local Superintendent
You must have a reason for wanting the gun.

Restricted Firearm:
Apply to the Commissioner
You must demonstrate "that the firearm is the only type of weapon that is appropriate for the purpose for which it is required."

The list of what is and is not considered restricted has not been published yet.

rrpc

There was a draft list over a year ago, and some people seem to have seen that and are jumping to conclusions.

Anybody who makes a financial decision based on rumour and gossip needs to lie down in a darkened room and take deep breaths

I have a .22 pistol and I'm not doing anything until I have to.

Sparks

Repeating Henry wrote: »

This internal battle you are having is starting to cost.

Henry, it's a pretty well-known fact that this "internal battle" is actually one person being loud and shouty without any right to be so.

If this is the way the sport is been run and represented god help us.

Actually, from what I hear, the FCP has been the best example of inter-body cooperation in many, many years. However, the people currently decrying it are, ironically, those who were the worst examples of administration practise we could produce...

Rudderless no communication complete lack of discipline.

In the ten years I've been in shooting admin, I've never seen anything even similar to a properly organised _or_ disciplined _or_ communicated effort from the people making the most noise about complaining at this point. In fact, it's been precisely the opposite case, so I'm frankly finding it hard to take those complaints seriously, and we've had that particular debate to death in here already, so let's just leave that there as my opinion.

Sort out who is in charge of the SSAI

That's never been at issue.

move on

And that was done last year.

otherwise what is the point of your existence why should you control spending and decision making for this sport.

They don't. The SSAI does not control spending or make decisions for the sport, the individual NGBs do that. The SSAI is a federation of NGBs put together for the convenience of the Sports Council.

Post on boards, you can do it, no it won't bite.

I've asked the head of the SSAI to do this already. He's been a bit busy touring clubs and gunshops talking in the flesh to everyone about this, but I do hope he takes up the offer, since boards.ie is probably the best way to reach a lot of people with very little effort.

rrpc

Just want to add one thing to Sparks' concise reststement of the facts. The restricted list is not on the terms of reference of the FCP. For those who haven't seen them these are the terms of reference.

1. to serve as a forum where all parties can work together to progress issues relating to the new firearms licensing regime;
2. to discuss minimum standards to be complied with by a rifle/pistol club or shooting range;
3. to discuss guidelines on the practical application and operation of the Firearms Acts;
4. to advise on public safety and the conditions which may be attached to firearms certificates and authorisations;
5. to advise on fee levels for firearms related activities and
6. to report to the Minister from time to time on the operation of the new licensing system.
7. to agree and promote guidelines on responsible firearms ownership

Obviously then, the FCP has no role in relation to restricted firearms until after the S.I. is enacted. Various bodies had their input taken on board over the last year and we won't know what weight was given to that until then.

Instead of attacking your representative bodies, perhaps people should pick up the phone and volunteer their time to assist their representatives in any way they can. There is an enormous amount of work to be done and the load is spread very thin indeed.

As Sparks has pointed out, the establishment of the FCP has for the first time given the opportunity for all the representative bodies to work together towards a common goal. If it achieves nothing else, this alone makes it worth while.

Not suggesting that that's an end in itself, but certainly something to be hopeful about.

Gerri

Sparks wrote: »

I've asked the head of the SSAI to do this already. He's been a bit busy touring clubs and gunshops talking in the flesh to everyone about this, but I do hope he takes up the offer, since boards.ie is probably the best way to reach a lot of people with very little effort.

Who exactly is the head of the SSAI and how can they be contacted? If you can't post their name , can you pm me with it? Thanks

Sparks

Gerri wrote: »

Who exactly is the head of the SSAI and how can they be contacted? If you can't post their name , can you pm me with it? Thanks

Declan Cahill is currently the chairman of the SSAI.
shootingsportsireland@gmail.com

Also read the following: http://shootingsportsireland.com/_wsn/page5.html

Repeating Henry

Flag up until recently was seen as the SSAI's sub body tasked to
negotiate with the DOJ. The SSAI now have by a voted majority
a new team to do this task. Correct so far?

Flag especially using this form appears to think it still should be the
leading team on behalf of the SSAI despite the vote for change.

A lot of regular people in shooting would still think because Flag, even
if "not" now playing the leading role as before are still connected to
the SSAI and if that connection is by the umbilical chord, its still a link
to the Mammy. So if Flag are putting out wrong and incorrect information
can mammy not step in like all good mammys and pull flag up by the ear
or is that not the PC thing to do.

Like it or not until the SSAI make some kind of final and definite
statement on this matter on what exactly is Flags position and that of
its member / members, Flag because of its ability to communicate
using this form has the ability to convince the uninformed and if some
lad goes off and does change his .223 or overlooks one on the rack then
confusion does prevail.

The panel: while it is good that they are getting on well, I understood
from previous discussions here, that it was going to be largely ineffective.
I hope by asking questions and not slagging off for the sake of that
the SSAI or some other Organization can show some leadership and
clarify this situation and then possibly the regular Joe will want to step
up and do his bit, first things first.

Sikamick

Qoute by Sparks

I've asked the head of the SSAI to do this already. He's been a bit busy touring clubs and gunshops talking in the flesh to everyone about this, but I do hope he takes up the offer, since boards.ie is probably the best way to reach a lot of people with very little effort.[/QUOTE]

Sikamick reply

I also have asked th SSAI only in the last few days about using the medium of boards.ie to please give leadership through advice and the correct information on boards, and by doing this it will help to dimiss all the misinformation and scare mongering.




To the ordinary shooter out there that is not interested in the politics but wants the facts inrelation to the firearms acts simply contact the Deparment of Justice Firearms Legal Section and they will answer your questions


Quote from previous tread posted by Sikamick in answer to repeating henry.

If you want to get the facts on firearms law contact the firearms legal section in the Department of Justice and if you want to get information on the wildlife acts and calibres that can be used for deer stalking contact Duchas wildlife Section, deer licensing.

Example as quoted by Duchas following a conversation I had yesterday with the regional Manager, question? is .270 calibre is going to be the maximum calibre for deer.

I have checked this with Duchas regional Manager, and he told me that there is no restriction on any calibres above 22.250. If a Superintendent will give a firearms license for any calibre above 22.250 which will allow humane despatch then Duchas will issue a deer-hunting license. .

Also if you going to join a rifle/pistol club, make sure before you pay any fees that they have a full range "authorization" and ask to see the document to prove it.

I hope that this is of some help to you.

Michael O’Connor
Secretary to Dublin Target Sports Club.

Sorry about this being so long winded.

Blazher

Sikamick wrote: »

Qoute by Sparks

I've asked the head of the SSAI to do this already. He's been a bit busy touring clubs and gunshops talking in the flesh to everyone about this, but I do hope he takes up the offer, since boards.ie is probably the best way to reach a lot of people with very little effort.

Sikamick reply

I also have asked th SSAI only in the last few days about using the medium of boards.ie to please give leadership through advice and the correct information on boards, and by doing this it will help to dimiss all the misinformation and scare mongering.




To the ordinary shooter out there that is not interested in the politics but wants the facts inrelation to the firearms acts simply contact the Deparment of Justice Firearms Legal Section and they will answer your questions


Quote from previous tread posted by Sikamick in answer to repeating henry.

If you want to get the facts on firearms law contact the firearms legal section in the Department of Justice and if you want to get information on the wildlife acts and calibres that can be used for deer stalking contact Duchas wildlife Section, deer licensing.

Example as quoted by Duchas following a conversation I had yesterday with the regional Manager, question? is .270 calibre is going to be the maximum calibre for deer.

I have checked this with Duchas regional Manager, and he told me that there is no restriction on any calibres above 22.250. If a Superintendent will give a firearms license for any calibre above 22.250 then Duchas will issue a deer-hunting license if it will allow humane despatch.

Also if you going to join a rifle/pistol club, make sure before you pay any fees that they have a full range "authorization" and ask to see the document to prove it.

I hope that this is of some help to you.

Michael O’Connor
Secretary to Dublin Target Sports Club.

Sorry about this being so long winded.
[/quote]


Here here!

bunny shooter

FCP is about as much use as the Mahon Tribunal, the Bef Tribunal etc, etc

Not one NGB has contacted me with an update as of today !

Repeating Henry

Can Sparks the likes of Michael O'Connor of the DTSC, others if
they wish, put up on Boards communications ( with Consent ) that they have had with the Sporting Bodies DOJ ect. Seeing the actual commutations, responses to questions etc might be a way of sorting fact from fiction.
IF the SSAI Chairman is to busy to respond directly here on boards or put infromation up on the SSAI website this might be a temporary solution for now.
A better and longterm suggestion is to have the Panel provide a
link direct to boards or someone as spokesperson?

Sikamick

Repeating Henry wrote: »

Can Sparks the likes of Michael O'Connor of the DTSC, others if
they wish put up on Boards commutations ( with Consent ) they have had
with Sporting Bodies DOJ ect. Seeing the actual commutations, responses
to questions etc might be a way of sorting fact from fiction.
IF the SSAI Chairman is to busy to respond directly here on boards
or put infromation up on the SSAI website this might be a temporary
solution for now.
A better and longterm suggestion is to have the Panel provide a
link direct to boards or someone as spokesperson?

I am at the moment communicating with the SSAI unbehalf of our club DTSC and I will ask their permission to post all communication that are relevant. I will let you know what they say.

It might be a good idea for the FCP to post on boards relevant details of their meetings for all to see and to bring the shooting fraternity up to date.

FCP could also use boards to ask for questions from the shooting fraternity that may be causing concern. Then everything would be in the open.

Michael O'Connor
Secretary to Dublin Target Sports Club.

Sparks

Printing with consent is obviously okay here Henry - the thing was that the deleted post was printing something that had consent issues.

The idea of bodies posting officially here is one we're talking with the SSAI about, but it's not sorted yet (mind you, official chats on this have been going on for all of about 48 hours at this point, so it's not like we're way behind...)

Repeating Henry

What ever it takes Sparks. All thats needed is a clear path ahead to take the sport foward. I really dont care how or who does what as long as progress is made. In the end everyone in the sport who really cares about it should take ownership, it does not belong to any elite. Hope 2008 can be the year of change. Keep up the good work.

biggun

rrpc wrote: »

Just want to add one thing to Sparks' concise reststement of the facts. The restricted list is not on the terms of reference of the FCP. For those who haven't seen them these are the terms of reference.

Obviously then, the FCP has no role in relation to restricted firearms until after the S.I. is enacted. Various bodies had their input taken on board over the last year and we won't know what weight was given to that until then.

Instead of attacking your representative bodies, perhaps people should pick up the phone and volunteer their time to assist their representatives in any way they can. There is an enormous amount of work to be done and the load is spread very thin indeed.

As Sparks has pointed out, the establishment of the FCP has for the first time given the opportunity for all the representative bodies to work together towards a common goal. If it achieves nothing else, this alone makes it worth while.

Not suggesting that that's an end in itself, but certainly something to be hopeful about.

RRPC, just looking at the supposed terms of the FCP remit.

I dont think im an un-intelligent man but IMHO points 3 & 4 at least could be interpreted to include the issue of a restricted list.

You can correct me here if you want but wasnt the whole point of the FCP to respresent the interests of shooters. Does the issue of a restricted list not affect shooters ?.

Maybe im missing something here ? Maybe my mother dropped me on my head and never told me ? There is a distincy smell of something fishy here.

Sparks

Big, points 3 and 4 refer to specific items on the agenda of the FCP which stem from specific provisions of the criminal justice act 2006; they can't be reinterpreted to include other areas.

biggun

Sparks wrote: »

Big, points 3 and 4 refer to specific items on the agenda of the FCP which stem from specific provisions of the criminal justice act 2006; they can't be reinterpreted to include other areas.

why not? Had htye been more aggrressive in their approach they may have ben able to bring it forward.

Did not the NRA in the states successfully bring the Washington handgun ban to the Supreme Court of USA and win. Whats wrong with standing and shouting and making your voice heard. Isnt that the whole ethos of all respresentative bodies thast supposedly respresent a group of people. What am I missing ?

Sparks

big, the aggressive approach was what caused the criminal justice bill 2004 to be so draconian and that's what did all the damage you're now seeing. Being more aggressive would not help. It would, in fact, be more like yelling and waving your arms about while trying to hang on to a ledge by your fingertips.

And the NRA in the states is not an appropriate model for Ireland. They have it easy over there because they have a constitutional right to bear arms. We don't. And insisting that we do has done us no favours in the past.

And the FCP is not a representative body. It is an advisory panel to the DoJ, whose invited participants are delegates from representative bodies (and not just shooting bodies, but also dealers, gardai, insurance people, farmers, and so forth).

And again, they had a specific mandate to look at specific things mentioned in the CJB2006. Those items in that list above are not topics or areas they are specific defined things in the Act. If some members of the FCP had gone off on other things they'd have been ignored at best.

biggun

Sparks wrote: »

big, the aggressive approach was what caused the criminal justice bill 2004 to be so draconian and that's what did all the damage you're now seeing. Being more aggressive would not help. It would, in fact, be more like yelling and waving your arms about while trying to hang on to a ledge by your fingertips.

And the NRA in the states is not an appropriate model for Ireland. They have it easy over there because they have a constitutional right to bear arms. We don't. And insisting that we do has done us no favours in the past.

And the FCP is not a representative body. It is an advisory panel to the DoJ, whose invited participants are delegates from representative bodies (and not just shooting bodies, but also dealers, gardai, insurance people, farmers, and so forth).

And again, they had a specific mandate to look at specific things mentioned in the CJB2006. Those items in that list above are not topics or areas they are specific defined things in the Act. If some members of the FCP had gone off on other things they'd have been ignored at best.

Well I guess we will never know what may have happened if the shooting bodies and members iof the FCP had enough balls to actually stand up and shout. Becausde they very much didnt do it.

I heard Ciaran Barry at the AGM of NASGRC recently in Abbeyleix say clearly and very much on the record " Look lads we are going to loose some of our kit, that much is definite ".

Now if Ciaran was able to say that, back then are you seriously telling me that he didnt know something was in the pipeline. You would want to be bloody Mystic Meg to not now drawn some kind of logical conclusion now with the list being published. Why should we have to loose anything if they had been doing what they were to do in the first place. Agenda's and Ego's have clearly clouded the overall picture to the detriment of shooters in Ireland. This is a sad day. I was in Montanna in December with my brother and we brought a .50 up for some target practice. Have you ever used one of those beasts ? Im thinking I might just join him stateside.

Sparks

Big, standing up and shouting was tried four years ago, in just as unsophisticated a manner as you suggest. The fallout of that is what you're seeing now. Because it was done four years ago, the people on the FCP can't get anything real done now. Should they have pushed information out there more? Damn right - but would anyone else (especially people you've mentioned elsewhere) have done better? Not a snowball's.

And the reason that Kieran could stand up and say we were going to lose stuff is because someone tried to do the "stand up to the man" approach four years ago.

IRLConor

biggun wrote: »

Well I guess we will never know what may have happened if the shooting bodies and members of the FCP had enough balls to actually stand up and shout. Becausde they very much didnt do it.

Standing up and shouting would be counterproductive because:

1. We have no rights regarding firearms in Ireland other than those given to us in law.
2. Shouting at people rarely puts you in their good books.

Pissing off the people who write the laws which give you the right to own and use firearms would lead to one thing and one thing only: we'd all simply be ignored and non-shooters would be the only people who would get a say in drafting the laws. That would pretty much guarantee a worst-case set of laws.

biggun wrote: »

I heard Ciaran Barry at the AGM of NASGRC recently in Abbeyleix say clearly and very much on the record " Look lads we are going to loose some of our kit, that much is definite ".

Now if Ciaran was able to say that, back then are you seriously telling me that he didnt know something was in the pipeline. You would want to be bloody Mystic Meg to not now drawn some kind of logical conclusion now with the list being published.

He was able to say that the same way as I'd be able to say that. You don't need to be Mystic Meg to know that some of the firearms being licensed up to now are not liked by non-shooters. The logical conclusion is that some of them would end up on the restricted list.

And it's not like you lose them if they're on the restricted list. They're just harder to license.

biggun wrote: »

Agenda's and Ego's have clearly clouded the overall picture to the detriment of shooters in Ireland.

:rolleyes: That comes really close to stuff we're not to talk about, all it's missing are the names.

Agendas: Do you honestly believe that there is a faction within the shooting community that wants tighter controls on firearms or who want to deliberately screw over other shooters?

Egos: Are like arseholes, everyone has one.

thelurcher

Hunting with hounds is a lot more 'un-PC' than shooting but the Ward Union have managed to get back up and running - and they DIDN'T argue their point quietly by any means :rolleyes: (bit of an understatement!)

Ye're backs are against the wall now too - the quiet approach will get you no where.
If you're reading this and are likely to lose some of your gear - then realise you've been abandoned by the organisations supposed to represent you in a vain attempt at appeasing the anti-gun lobby.

jaycee

thelurcher wrote: »

Ye're backs are against the wall now too - the quiet approach will get you no where.

On that point , ever try to get a dog to come to you wagging his tail by waving a big stick at him ? Dosen't work !

If you're reading this and are likely to lose some of your gear -

Lose what exactly ? ... can you be more specific ?
I'm not being sarcastic .. I really want to know what you have that you think you will lose and why you think you will lose it ?

then realise you've been abandoned by the organisations supposed to represent you in a vain attempt at appeasing the anti-gun lobby.

Ohhh.. thats a bit strong I think !!

I and many others in shooting , will find that remark to be offensive , untrue and mistaken . People involved in this process spends many hours every day working on this , for no pay , at the loss of their own time ,their own money, by their own choice , for the good of all shooters. Fact !

Far more time than they spend shooting , In fairness, can you say the same ?

IRLConor

thelurcher wrote: »

Hunting with hounds is a lot more 'un-PC' than shooting but the Ward Union have managed to get back up and running - and they DIDN'T argue their point quietly by any means :rolleyes: (bit of an understatement!)

As I understand it, they were arguing that their rights under law were being infringed. That's a very different situation to ours. If we had a legal right not to have a restricted list then we'd have a case similar to theirs.

Which rights of ours were infringed that we could have used as leverage against the DoJ?

thelurcher wrote: »

Ye're backs are against the wall now too - the quiet approach will get you no where.
If you're reading this and are likely to lose some of your gear - then realise you've been abandoned by the organisations supposed to represent you in a vain attempt at appeasing the anti-gun lobby.

The only people who are going to lose kit are people who:

• Own a firearm now deemed to be restricted
• Cannot demonstrate ''that the firearm is the only type of weapon that is appropriate for the purpose for which it is required".

So, what large group of people would be covered by that again?

And by "lose" I mean be refused a license for it. They aren't going to be confiscated without compensation.

Mellor

jaycee wrote: »

Lose what exactly ? ... can you be more specific ?
I'm not being sarcastic .. I really want to know what you have that you think you will lose and why you think you will lose it ?

This is a point I made before, restricted doesn't mean banned.
if you have a reason for having one you can keep it. Ideally, there is no reason to piss of the DoJ at this stage when there are still applications to come. Approach this with a bad attitude now and when it comes to renewing/reapplying expect them to return the bad attitude.

packas

Mellor wrote: »

This is a point I made before, restricted doesn't mean banned.
if you have a reason for having one you can keep it. Ideally, there is no reason to piss of the DoJ at this stage when there are still applications to come. Approach this with a bad attitude now and when it comes to renewing/reapplying expect them to return the bad attitude.

Agreed,
The only two firearms I own are on the restricted list. I've no worries about loosing them as I've got good reason to have them i.e. competitive target shooting at home & internationally.

meathshooter

packas wrote: »

Agreed,
The only two firearms I own are on the restricted list. I've no worries about loosing them as I've got good reason to have them i.e. competitive target shooting at home & internationally.

I have been told the same and I have no reason to doubt the person who told me,also fo said once you meet criteria,the word is RESTRICTED not
banned

sidneyreilly

packas wrote: »

Agreed,
The only two firearms I own are on the restricted list. I've no worries about loosing them as I've got good reason to have them i.e. competitive target shooting at home & internationally.

Indeed, if anyone has soon to be restricted stuff for competition and have not been competing it's time to start.

chem

before any one jumps down my neck over this, im just thinking allowed. OK;)

Right so the restricted list tells us you can have whatever as long as you have a good reason and its the only item for the job. Yea?

Well if I wanted a .50 rifle and the powers that be said "for what do you need this WMD?" if I was a member of a .50 target shooters club. As there are in the UK. Is this seen as a good enough reason for having it? as it is a .50 cal club only I would need a .50 to join

Im not playing the Ivan card here but its just someting I was thinking.

cavan shooter

Yes chem, I see where you are coming from
but will a .22 do what a .50 do?:D.....but at a different scale:D

chem

cavan shooter wrote: »

Yes chem, I see where you are coming from
but will a .22 do what a .50 do?:D.....but at a different scale:D

Damn you got me there;) Action man figure at 100yrds vs human size targe at 1000yrds

But all jokes aside is there going to be alot of 9mm pistol clubs, 45 clubs etc to try give reason for licence granting? Its not beyond the letter of the law I think? So what is the anti arugement? "from Da Man"

cavan shooter

chem wrote: »

Damn you got me there;) Action man figure at 100yrds vs human size targe at 1000yrds

But all jokes aside is there going to be alot of 9mm pistol clubs, 45 clubs etc to try give reason for licence granting? Its not beyond the letter of the law I think? So what is the anti arugement? "from Da Man"

I think the anti argument will be :
Target shooting is target shooting, you can get as much fun shooting a little ole 22 at 200 yrds vs a .50 at 1000 yrds, if you want a challenge push the 22 out to 350 yrds. I think the key here is to have your reasons ready, if it is restricted have very good reasons:D

newby.204

yes but .22lr doesnt allow for handloading and playing around with your own loads developing a whole system that gives you the best results on paper whether it be 200yrds or 1000yrds!!

thelurcher

I get what ye're saying but I have a shotgun that will be restricted as do a few of my friends - to be honest I can't think of a decent reason why I need the larger mag in it - It wasn't a deciding factor at all when I bought the gun and I've never fired more than two shots at any one time anyway - so am I now out of pocket?!

I really think ye're all being a bit naive. It's going to be down to how they implement and interpret this change and going on past performance they're not going to make it easy for us.

I and many others in shooting , will find that remark to be offensive , untrue and mistaken . People involved in this process spends many hours every day working on this , for no pay , at the loss of their own time ,their own money, by their own choice , for the good of all shooters. Fact !

Don't want to insult or upset anyone jaycee but I think that's bollocks talk.
Speaking from my experience in the broader hunting world the people that get involved in hunt politics aren't the real deal - they're often fellas that have lost interest in the actual sport but want to stay involved - ego also has a lot to do with it - hobnobbing with politicians etc. :rolleyes: that's human nature I'm afraid.

I know a lot of them personally - doubt the shooting lads are any different. Don't get me wrong - they serve a a usefull purpose and I appreciate that but don't be codding yourself as to why they do it

Well I have a half day today and have a good weekend of hunting and shooting planned so see ye Monday

jaycee

thelurcher wrote: »

I get what ye're saying but I have a shotgun that will be restricted as do a few of my friends - to be honest I can't think of a decent reason why I need the larger mag in it - It wasn't a deciding factor at all when I bought the gun and I've never fired more than two shots at any one time anyway - so am I now out of pocket?!

So you have a firearms dealer put the plug back in and your sorted ..
So ..no you arent out of pocket . Or ...if you can show a good reason for having it ... you keep it as is .. your choice !!

I really think ye're all being a bit naive. It's going to be down to how they implement and interpret this change and going on past performance they're not going to make it easy for us.

I don't think firearms should ever be "Easy" to get , but there will be a structured process in place to make applications , and thats a good thing.

Don't want to insult or upset anyone jaycee but I think that's bollocks talk.
Speaking from my experience in the broader hunting world the people that get involved in hunt politics aren't the real deal - they're often fellas that have lost interest in the actual sport but want to stay involved - ego also has a lot to do with it - hobnobbing with politicians etc. :rolleyes: that's human nature I'm afraid.

I won't take it as an insult , although i could . I will just call your remark a sweeping statement that tars everyone with the same brush . Not a fair or nice thing to do . Some are in it for the reasons you describe to be sure , but quite a few of the real workers aren't in it to gain anything like that.

I know a lot of them personally - doubt the shooting lads are any different. Don't get me wrong - they serve a a usefull purpose and I appreciate that but don't be codding yourself as to why they do it

If you have personal experience of people who represent you who you feel are doing a worse job than you could .... why don't you do it ?

Well I have a half day today and have a good weekend of hunting and shooting planned so see ye Monday

I don't have a half day today , and if im lucky I will get in an hour or so actually shooting over the weekend . I will probably spend 5 times that long on the stuff you describe as bollocks talk partly so i or someone like me can log in and set your mind at rest about what you wont lose

Bananaman

Well if I wanted a .50 rifle and the powers that be said "for what do you need this WMD?" if I was a member of a .50 target shooters club. As there are in the UK. Is this seen as a good enough reason for having it? as it is a .50 cal club only I would need a .50 to join

That could not be construed as a demonstrable use. Being a member of that club is a choice. If a Grade of competition requires a .50 then you have the beginnings of a discussion.

"Competition" requires more than one so you would be between a rock and a hard place as you would have nobody to compete against and therefore could not use the " I need it for competition" chestnut.

At the same time if you could show you had a use for it abroad - as Mr. Brophy did with his H&H .375 - then you could have an argument you could win. So - If you were going to .50 target competitions - actual competitions - abroad and were able to show that you had reached a grade of competition where you needed to practice more regularly - at home - and you had a letter from a range here telling you they would allow you to use it if you got it - you might have the beginnings of an argument.

But ...... you better be minted and have the patience of Jobe.

And ...... i'd agree to cover it in pink velvet so it doesn't "look" like an assault rifle.


B'Man

chem

What if I wore the pink while shooting the BMG:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5atzsujOp8