Firearms proficiency for air rifle????

session savage

So I put money down on an air rifle, got permission from three farmers to shoot on their lands and went to the local Garda to apply for a licence for an AIR RIFLE.....

Apparently he wants me to do a ''firearms proficiency course''.... for an air rifle.


Where can I do this?? and how much more will this cost..

Seems like this is just another way for ''the man'' to squeeze my nuts.

foxhunter

session savage wrote: »

So I put money down on an air rifle, got permission from three farmers to shoot on their lands and went to the local Garda to apply for a licence for an AIR RIFLE.....

Apparently he wants me to do a ''firearms proficiency course''.... for an air rifle.


Where can I do this?? and how much more will this cost..

Seems like this is just another way for ''the man'' to squeeze my nuts.

This seems to be getting quite common recently i know of a few young lads down here having to do this.
Get in touch with the Nargc they should be able to put you in touch with someone local to you that can do the course.

Vegeta

session savage wrote: »

So I put money down on an air rifle, got permission from three farmers to shoot on their lands and went to the local Garda to apply for a licence for an AIR RIFLE.....

Apparently he wants me to do a ''firearms proficiency course''.... for an air rifle.


Where can I do this?? and how much more will this cost..

Seems like this is just another way for ''the man'' to squeeze my nuts.

The NARGC run one. I had to do this to get my first shotgun

Is this your first firearm or are you in your teens by any chance?

Air rifles at close range are lethal so they do deserve respect. To be honest I treat my air rifle the exact same as any other rifle

Grizzly 45

While adviseable and commendable.You are not required as of yet to do this under the Firearms acts.It is not a pre requsite to granting a firearms liscense.This is another case of a Garda exceeding their authorithy and should be brought to NARGC attention as well.

session savage

Vegeta wrote: »

The NARGC run one. I had to do this to get my first shotgun

Is this your first firearm or are you in your teens by any chance?

Air rifles at close range are lethal so they do deserve respect. To be honest I treat my air rifle the exact same as any other rifle

I fully realise how dangerous an air rifle can be, especially the one I am getting as it is a fairly high powered one. so common sense is ESSENTIAL. I mean I would NEVER point it at anyone - loaded or not, or do anything else stupid, but with an air rifle I dont have the same amount of things to watch for, for example shooting at a crow in a tree for example. I can do that with an air rifle if I know there is nothing in the field behind the tree. An air rifle wont shoot as far as a Rifle.


However this IS my first gun but I'm 27 years old for cryin out loud. I'm not going to be wreckless or dangerous.

I dont really mind doing the course, its just that I think 'having' to do it to get an air rifle at 27 years old is a bit much.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

While adviseable and commendable.You are not required as of yet to do this under the Firearms acts.

Yes, you are. Re-read the supreme court judgement in Dunne v Donoghue. The Commissioner (or anyone else) cannot put in place blanket preconditions - but the judges specifically say that that doesn't mean a Super can't put in place individual preconditions for an applicant. Which means that if you meet your Super and he asks you to do a course before granting you the licence, do the course. Standing up in a courtroom and telling people you don't need to do a course 'cos you're smarter than the average bear won't cut it.

I think 'having' to do it to get an air rifle at 27 years old is a bit much.

Look at it like this. You 'had' to do a test to get your driving licence. You'd 'have' to do a test to get a pilot's licence. Why would there be a problem with 'having' to do a test to get your firearms licence?

bunny shooter

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

While adviseable and commendable.You are not required as of yet to do this under the Firearms acts.It is not a pre requsite to granting a firearms liscense.This is another case of a Garda exceeding their authorithy and should be brought to NARGC attention as well.

Will they fight this when it probably means money to them in membership ?

meathstevie

When I went for my first shotgun the local man asked if I had any experience shooting. I told him what I'd been doing in the past and he asked a few questions down the line of : " What would you do if.....?", " Do you reckon you could shoot this sort of an animal ?". In short he was just probing a wee bit for firearms safety knowledge and general knowledge of wildlife legislation. Another shotgun and a rifle down the road he's never asked anything of that nature anymore.

In the end the FO or local sergeant sticks his neck out a bit to give a positive comment on your application to his/her super and if he/she wants you to show or gain proficiency I think it's only reasonable never mind what exactly the law says. Of course in this case we're talking about an airrifle but look at the other angle. Once you've done it there's no need to do the course again and you're in the good books with the local FO.

Grizzly 45

True enough about "having " to do tests on flying liscenses [although not a great exampleIMO as considering you can buy a plane here and take to the air,without so much as personal liability insurance,not to mind a liscense...As you can practise for your offical test.Unless that has changed recently]and driving,and possibly firearms.

However,in all fairness unless you are a complete muppet and are going to go ape with of all things an air rifle.Which is in the rest of the EU is an off ticket weapon[unless over 12ft/lbs in the old money:)] is it not abit overkill?Anywhere else you are encouraged to buy an air rifle/pistol first to see if you like shooting before going thru the stringent rigramarole of getting a powder burning firearm.Is this not making life somwhat more difficult for the novice shooter,and giving all other gardai/Supers a precedent to start hanging other precedents onto other applications??
IE go off and learn to be a expert shot, with a 10/10 score before we consider you for a bigger calibre pistol than a .22??
As Sparks said [and no doubt will say] the Supers can attach individual prerequsites to an indv application.but is there much point in encouraging them to do so..And when does it become to a shooter vexatious,and do you have any redress in court?

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

you can buy a plane here and take to the air,without so much as personal liability insurance,not to mind a liscense

You probably could since Gardai don't patrol airfields regularly. Of course, you'll wind up being arrested if you survive the experience (unlikely if you've never trained), because it's illegal to fly any aircraft without a licence... well, any aircraft you can ride in anyway

As you can practise for your offical test.Unless that has changed recently]and driving

There are student licences for aircraft and provisional licences for cars and soon the training licence for firearms. And no, not perfect systems, any of them (though the driving licence system is undergoing extensive revision at the moment to address that).

is it not abit overkill?

Seriously, either you do a thing or you don't - and given that an air rifle can seriously injure you if you abuse it (regardless of the jurisdiction and relevant licencing laws), I'd rather see someone be trained to use one first. I mean, you go to any of the air rifle clubs as a newbie and you will be shown how to shoot safely. The "it's only an airgun" line doesn't even get thought of - you're just trained to shoot safely and that's the end of it.

Is this not ... giving all other gardai/Supers a precedent to start hanging other precedents onto other applications??

They don't need a precedent to do so, they have explicit legal authority to do so...

is there much point in encouraging them to do so

I've not seen anyone encouraging them to do so. The point of pointing out in public that they have that authority is simple, but perhaps not yet explicitly stated, so here goes:
The point of pointing out that the Super can issue preconditions is to try to prevent a situation where an applicant, not knowing that the Super can do this, runs off at the mouth in fustration at being given a precondition they didn't see in the Act, and manages to talk themselves into not being granted what would otherwise be a fairly straightforward licence and wind up either never getting their licence or it taking years for it to happen.

And when does it become to a shooter vexatious,and do you have any redress in court?

You might, but remember we're talking District Courts here. All the petty crime, the thefts and burglaries, the 4am hand-to-hand pub brawlings, the domestic abuse cases, the drunk-n-disorderlies, all the cheap and nasty examples of what the human race will do to itself, they're all handled there all the time and as a result, they're not really friendly places. I've heard them described fairly accurately as the place where the mercedes-driving judiciary meets the mercedes-stealing petty thieves. Patience for long-winded explanations and esoteric arguments are at a minimum and the Gardai are given a lot more weight than we might give them.

In short, if the Super says "do a safety course", go do a safety course.
It's not onerous, it's a good idea in and of itself, and it's a reasonable request given that firearms in the hands of the untrained are threats to public safety, which the Super is duty-bound by law to protect.

(I'm not saying, by the way, that all the Super's preconditions should necessarily be followed to the letter without thought, it's just that this particular one seems a no-brainer really)

It wasn't me!

That's a great picture, Sparks. How long have you been waiting to use it here?

Sparks

About 13 hours IWM

IRLConor

Sparks wrote: »

In short, if the Super says "do a safety course", go do a safety course.

And even if you think it's not necessary for an air rifle, you can use it as a learning experience to pick up skills and knowledge that you will use if/when you move on to a more powerful firearm.

Sparks

Yup. "Don't point this at anyone" is a rule that applies from .177 right up to 20mm

Grizzly 45

Seriously, either you do a thing or you don't - and given that an air rifle can seriously injure you if you abuse it (regardless of the jurisdiction and relevant licencing laws), I'd rather see someone be trained to use one first.

Well, training...now lets take that into consideration.Does everyone necessarily have to go to an air rifle club to learn how to shoot?Suppose your Dad or whomever "trains" you in firearms saftey in your backyard[if safe of course].Or does it have to be a formal "training" to make you into a compleate potential national qualifier??IMO either is good so long as you come out safe and not likely to do anything daft.Does everything with shooting have to be formal on a range qualified,etc etc nowadays??How many of us started off informally shooting tin cans on waste ground with an air rifle?? IF air rifles are so dangerous.How come countries with much more stringent laws than us regarding firearms,let them be sold freely?Even the UK still,[although because of theirhigh pouplation of idiots and chavs will soon restrict them as well.]

You might, but remember we're talking District Courts here. All the petty crime, the thefts and burglaries, the 4am hand-to-hand pub brawlings, the domestic abuse cases, the drunk-n-disorderlies, all the cheap and nasty examples of what the human race will do to itself, they're all handled there all the time and as a result, they're not really friendly places. I've heard them described fairly accurately as the place where the mercedes-driving judiciary meets the mercedes-stealing petty thieves. Patience for long-winded explanations and esoteric arguments are at a minimum and the Gardai are given a lot more weight than we might give them.

TIP
Been there ,seen it done it,bought the Tee shirt.On various cases of the above mentioned.Thing is you ,or better still your solicitor can request that your case is put back towards the afternoon when more "sensitive" cases are held.IE more complex type cases liscense for pubs etc.It depends of course how busy the DC is.But most DJs will try and get the mass of the above sorted out by lunch time.So it is best to get this slotted in after lunch.Most judges will be sympathetic to this as well if it is involving private and not generally for public consumption info.Also generally the court reporters have gone home by then unless it is somthing juicy in the afternoon. You have then a more level playing field.



In short, if the Super says "do a safety course", go do a safety course.
It's not onerous, it's a good idea in and of itself, and it's a reasonable request given that firearms in the hands of the untrained are threats to public safety, which the Super is duty-bound by law to protect.

(I'm not saying, by the way, that all the Super's preconditions should necessarily be followed to the letter without thought, it's just that this particular one seems a no-brainer really)
[/QUOTE][/I]

And agree with you 100with above case%.However what I am saying is;IF we agree that for doing a saftey course for an air rifle is a reasonable request.Can we then moan if our Super turns round and says Sorry,before you get a big cal rifle /pistol/etc You must shoot for X number of years a .22 ??? Or somthing of the like??I mean THATS a reasonable request[in sombodys eyes].Despite the fact that You may have experiance in shooting said type of gun for years.
All I am saying is;IF people see that we take everything as reasonable due to saftey,or whatever.Before long we wont be able to do anything because everything to do with shooting will be burdend with "reasonable "stipulations.Or stipulations from Supers.Thats what I mean by not encouraging them.

Dvs

session savage wrote: »

So I put money down on an air rifle, got permission from three farmers to shoot on their lands and went to the local Garda to apply for a licence for an AIR RIFLE.....

Apparently he wants me to do a ''firearms proficiency course''.... for an air rifle.


Where can I do this?? and how much more will this cost..

Seems like this is just another way for ''the man'' to squeeze my nuts.

Hello Session savage,
anyone that is taking up shooting sports regardless of which discipline,
Should IMNSHO, take a firearms safety and proficiency course,
and should have the opportunity to fail or pass that course on their own merits.

Starting shooting sports is the ideal time for a basic firearms safety and proficiency training course, as there is no need to try and unlearn bad habits.

Once safe firearms handling is learned, it will serve you well,
whatever disciplines you take up in the future.

Dvs.

triggerpull

Although not for air rifles a safety course is being held on sat 10 may @11 am the cost is just 15 yoyos. for more details ring andrew dillon 0868128474.
this is for meath but i am sure he could help put you in the right direction.;)

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Well, training...now lets take that into consideration.Does everyone necessarily have to go to an air rifle club to learn how to shoot?Suppose your Dad or whomever "trains" you in firearms saftey in your backyard[if safe of course].Or does it have to be a formal "training" to make you into a compleate potential national qualifier?

Thing is, we don't have an established system yet, so now's the time to consider this sort of thing. Look at the driving test - anyone, private or commercial, can train you, but the test is done by a single central body. Look at the flying licence - clubs run courses and the IAA does the tests. Hell, look at amateur radio licences - clubs run courses or you can train yourself and then Comreg runs the tests. I think there's a lot to say in favour of that kind of model, where we don't care how you meet the standard, but everyone has to meet the same standard. And it's just as easy to go with that model as it is to go with some of the standards we're seeing where the NGBs run the courses and do the tests (which I can't help but feel is just a bit off really - I mean, I have no problem with someone learning to drive from their dad, that's how I learnt, but if your Dad was also the tester, well, alarm bells ought to go off).

Does everything with shooting have to be formal on a range qualified,etc etc nowadays?

No, but the safety record for shooting is best on ranges in formal target shooting, so it's where I'd recommend any beginner to start. It's the optimal environment to start off in really - to push the driving analogy further, you wouldn't take a beginner into the middle of rathmines at five o'clock on a friday evening and give them their very first lesson in those conditions, would you?

How many of us started off informally shooting tin cans on waste ground with an air rifle?

Dunno, but I didn't. I started off with formal training on a range with a .22 and I'm glad of it because if it had been shooting tin cans on waste ground, I don't think I'd have stuck with it at the time.

IF air rifles are so dangerous

They are...

How come countries with much more stringent laws than us regarding firearms

There are no countries with more stringent firearms laws than us in the EU

let them be sold freely?

Historical reasons going back to before the founding of the modern Irish state.

IF we agree that for doing a saftey course for an air rifle is a reasonable request.Can we then moan if our Super turns round and says Sorry,before you get a big cal rifle /pistol/etc You must shoot for X number of years a .22 ?

Yes, because that's not reasonable. Shooting a .22 rifle won't train you for the gun handling skills you'll need for a .45ACP pistol, or a .308 rifle. And merely holding a licence for X number of years does not train you in any way that the superintendent can measure.

IF people see that we take everything as reasonable due to saftey

We don't - but here's the rub, if we kneejerk refuse to do anything without a fight, we don't merely appear to be unreasonable, we are being unreasonable. That's the problem with this us-v-them mentality - both sides wind up adopting it and then we lose.

Grizzly 45

Sparks,
There are countries in the EU ,that make our firearms laws look positively LIBERAL.

Germany;Two years in a recognised sport shooting club before you can even consider applying for a sport shooter liscense.Written,oral and practical test.90 score to pass.
Huting liscense FIVE years of practical work,theory,written,oral,practical exam on just about everything hunting related before you even get near the firearms bit.

Italy,
Liscense the gun not the man.But again so complex in the aqusition of the firearm that it is an almost impossible feat. Mil calibre restrictions,type and actions aplenty.Yes you can get pretty much any type of gun there but it almost requires you to be a police officer or paramilitary,or military,from what I see of their laws.

France,
Written test for hunting.Ownership depends on category of arms you want.Loads of free stuff aswell. It is theoritically possible to own under French law a artillery piece or active firing tank:eek:.Provided you surrender the firing components to your local Gendamerie after use on an approved range.

Spain,
Difficult enough as well,written and practical for hunting,and handguns related only to security or police type professions.

Holland.Norway,Sweeden
Dont even go there!

Austria,
somwhat more liberal than Germany,but on the same lines.

Former East bloc countries
Pretty liberal,[they just want the cash]but will die out eventually

All in all, in relation to our EU neighbours we have it pretty easy.

Kareir

i guess it boils down to this:

Who would you rather have around you?

A) A 27 year old with no shooting experience and an air rifle

A 17 year old that's spent some time punching paper and has done a safety course?

_Kar.

thehair

Kareir wrote: »

i guess it boils down to this:

Who would you rather have around you?

A) A 27 year old with no shooting experience and an air rifle

A 17 year old that's spent some time punching paper and has done a safety course?

_Kar.

ans B. why he has done a safety course.

if ans is A .he has done f all. steve:)

LCPL SWOFFORD

cutting through the politics here,

the super has pulled out the proficiency course card in the hope that it will deter you from proceeding with the app and he will have one less gun to worry about in his jurisdiction, ud be suprised how many people give up when the cops make it even slightly difficult to obtain a licence

Sparks

LCPL SWOFFORD wrote: »

cutting through the politics here,
the super has pulled out the proficiency course card in the hope that it will deter you from proceeding with the app and he will have one less gun to worry about in his jurisdiction, ud be suprised how many people give up when the cops make it even slightly difficult to obtain a licence

That's more cutting to the politics than through it.

To cut through the politics:

• A safety course is a good idea in and of itself and we've always advised new shooters to learn in a club so that they'd go through the equivalent of a safety course.
• The super is well within his rights to ask you to do one, and he's only telling you to do what any good shooter would tell you to do.
• These courses are not hard or expensive to do.
• Compared to some other cases we've heard of, you're having a nice easy run of it.

Do the course, in less than a year's time you'll wonder what all the fuss was over.

LCPL SWOFFORD

Sparks wrote: »

That's more cutting to the politics than through it.


To cut through the politics:

• A safety course is a good idea in and of itself and we've always advised new shooters to learn in a club so that they'd go through the equivalent of a safety course.
• The super is well within his rights to ask you to do one, and he's only telling you to do what any good shooter would tell you to do.
• These courses are not hard or expensive to do.
• Compared to some other cases we've heard of, you're having a nice easy run of it.

Do the course, in less than a year's time you'll wonder what all the fuss was over.

politics was a polite word for "rubbish" (again for want of a better word) being posted in this thread

no law states you must have undergone a firearms proficiency course in order to successfully aqcuire a firearms licence so if you dont want to do one go and see your solicitor (your perfectly within your rights to do this)

if you dont have a criminal record or have been diagnosed with clinical depression or mental illness or indeed have serious court cases pending and all your permissions and paperwork are legit then they dont have a case against granting you a licence if it goes to court

It wasn't me!

LCPL SWOFFORD wrote: »

politics was a polite word for "rubbish" (again for want of a better word) being posted in this thread

no law states you must have undergone a firearms proficiency course in order to successfully aqcuire a firearms licence so if you dont want to do one go and see your solicitor (your perfectly within your rights to do this)

if you dont have a criminal record or have been diagnosed with clinical depression or mental illness or indeed have serious court cases pending and all your permissions and paperwork are legit then they dont have a case against granting you a licence if it goes to court

A superintendent is entirely within his rights to require that your do a safety and competency test as a prerequisite to granting a firearms cert. Going to court because you don't want to perform such a simple task (and you really think it's going to look good in court when you say you don't want to do a safety course for a gun licence?) will almost inevitably mean you lose. The Superintendent's right to impose such conditions will be upheld.

bunny shooter

For the record, I agree with having to do a "safety and competency test".

Now please list where they can be done ?

Bananaman

I'm in agreement wth many of the comments here but it all sounds like a storm in a teacup to me.

IMHO People "should" actively seek out training in the safety, handling and care of ANY firearm prior to their getting one. Regardless of what they have been asked to do by their super. By being licensed for a firearm you accept a duty of care - how can you do that if you do not know how?

You local club will always be able to sort that out for you.

The letter from the club saying you have been a member for x period of time, in the case of some clubs, was a de facto profiency course completion in the eyes of the Super.

The stipulation of a requirement of having attended a "recognised" safety course was always on the cards and was an easy "win" to give during negotiations as we all know it makes sense.

Savage, I cannot see you having any case to argue against the super on this one. He has aked you to do a proficiency course so get out and do one. It will take you a day or an afternoon and is time and money well spent.

Refusal to do so will make sure you don't get the license as you are indicating you either have "something to hide" or no respect for the local constabulary. Either of which will bring out the red pen.

If you find some rip-off a-foot be sure and let us know but I doubt that will be the case.

Let us know how you got on.

B'Man

Bananaman

Now please list where they can be done ?

Correct me if I am wrong here but if you ask in your local club they can organise a course.

There are no training centres. We have plenty of clubs which have the facilities, equipment and experience to run these courses.

The SSAI have produced course materiél and have provided training for instructors in a number of clubs.

There are also excellent NRA courses which can be run by clubs.

Individual courses would be set up based upon demand.

If your super has requested you to complete a course, as opposed to you doing it on your own initiative, as there is no prescribed list, it would be best to ask in the club, find out where and when the next course is. Then inform the super about it and get agreement that this will fulfill his requirement.

B'Man

bunny shooter

Courses and clubs seem to be mentioned in the same sentence. What about the lad who gets permission from landowners ? He may not be in a club. Is there a recognised course the Super/s will recognise ? Will clubs instruct non members ?

Personally I am serving NCO in the RDF, a member of NARGC, CAI and Midlands Range. I instruct in the RDF on a variety of weapons. Will the Super recognise my military creditentials ? I have done safety courses at Midlands for rifle, shotgun and pistol and found them very good. But will the Super recognise them ?

I was (and I emphasise was) safety officer in my local NARGC gun club and a new member joined. I offered to go through safety with him as he had no experience with firearms and he never came back to me ! He subsequently got a 12G shotgun licence, a 22lr and i believe a 22 hornet also.

He has recieved no safety training. Supers are right to seek proof of some sort of training IMO. But what will they accept ?

Sparks

LCPL SWOFFORD wrote: »

politics was a polite word for "rubbish"

Then I believe we were using the same polite word for the same concept :rolleyes:

no law states you must have undergone a firearms proficiency course in order to successfully aqcuire a firearms licence so if you dont want to do one go and see your solicitor (your perfectly within your rights to do this)

Wrong. You are within your rights to see your solicitor, obviously, but he'll tell you the same thing that's been said here, by which I mean, there isn't a specific law that specificly says you have to have undergone a proficiency course. Instead, there is Section 4(3)(b) in the new Firearms Act:

3) An applicant for a firearm certificate shall supply to the issuing person the information requested in the application form and such further information as the issuing person may require in the performance of the person’s functions under this Act, including, in particular—
...
(b) proof of competence in the use of the firearm concerned,

And prior to this, there is the ruling of the High Court in Dunne v Donohue (as upheld by the Supreme Court) which says that the Super can impose preconditions not in the Act on an individual basis:

I am of the opinion that the provisions of [s.4(b)] of the 1925 Act are such as not to restrict the ambit to consideration as to the personal attributes of an applicant for a firearm certificate but may relate to the circumstances in which he/she may have a firearm in his/her possession without danger to the public safety or to the peace... I wish to state that this court expresses no concluded view as to how far a superintendent may go in the context of the exercise of his powers under s.4(b) of the Act of 1925 other than indicating that he may not impose preconditions of the nature sought to be imposed by the commissioner in this case and the commissioner is not entitled to interfere with the superintendent in the exercise of his functions under the Act.

if ... then they dont have a case against granting you a licence if it goes to court

Yes, they will. And if you're going to court because you're refusing to do a safety course, you will in all probability lose.

It wasn't me!

bunny shooter wrote: »

Courses and clubs seem to be mentioned in the same sentence. What about the lad who gets permission from landowners ? He may not be in a club. Is there a recognised course the Super/s will recognise ? Will clubs instruct non members ?

Personally I am serving NCO in the RDF, a member of NARGC, CAI and Midlands Range. I instruct in the RDF on a variety of weapons. Will the Super recognise my military creditentials ? I have done safety courses at Midlands for rifle, shotgun and pistol and found them very good. But will the Super recognise them ?

The NARGC do safety courses as well, don't they? More than likely, the Super will accept your courses and qualifications, frankly. A Super would be overstepping his bounds would be if, after asking you to do safety and proficiency courses, and you having completed them, he said it wasn't enough and he wanted a different kind, without specifying. However, you're unlikely to hear (accurately) of that, so it really comes down to common sense and the law.

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

He has recieved no safety training. Supers are right to seek proof of some sort of training IMO. But what will they accept ?

At the moment, there is no defined standard (but watch this space), so unless the Super specifies a course, he or she will pretty much have to accept those courses currently out there. Courses are being developed or run by the NARGC, SSAI, NTSA, IPSA and others, not to mention the instruction that's been run for decades in the local clubs.

bunny shooter

It wasn't me! wrote: »

The NARGC do safety courses as well, don't they?

They do and I am going on they next one in my area. Missed the last two due to work commitments.

But are non NARGC memebrs allowed to attend ? And is the super/s obliged to accept it as proof of competancy ?

It wasn't me!

bunny shooter wrote: »

They do and I am going on they next one in my area. Missed the last two due to work commitments.

But are non NARGC memebrs allowed to attend ? And is the super/s obliged to accept it as proof of competancy ?

No idea about non-members. If it's equivalent to anything else that's out there, then it would pretty much force the Super's hand, so yeah, to some extent.

foxshooter243

It wasn't me! wrote: »

No idea about non-members. If it's equivalent to anything else that's out there, then it would pretty much force the Super's hand, so yeah, to some extent.

non members are welcome to attend these courses in my area..the more the merrier.

bunny shooter

foxshooter243 wrote: »

non members are welcome to attend these courses in my area..the more the merrier.

Is that NARGC approved ? They don't allow you to hunt with a non NARGC Comp Fund person and all NARGC club members have to be NARGC comp fund covered AFAIK

Grizzly 45

Folks ,the last thing I will throw into this pot is a futherance of where???
you are all saying your local club or NARGC.
Trouble is ,in reality STILL in some parts of our fair land ,such things do not exist!!! Icouldnt tell you who is running our local shoot anymore,neither can the NARGC.
A club..Nearest recognised one is a 120miles away rnd trip.Now,I doubt that I am an exception to the rule on this,and there are others,younger who would find themselves in this predicament as well.So reality on the ground is,for some people this is just not an option of doing this course in a formal session.Would it not be an option if say the local regional NARGC /whatever other organisation wants to take this on repof a certain rank could instruct to a limit on basic firearms saftey,and this be used as a sign off for a Garda saftey course for newbies??
As it stands the new legislation will be anyway,that you read the saftey rule book and sign off when you collect the first liscense.

foxshooter243

bunny shooter wrote: »

Is that NARGC approved ? They don't allow you to hunt with a non NARGC Comp Fund person and all NARGC club members have to be NARGC comp fund covered AFAIK

im not actually sure bunny, weve always encouraged everyone to attend the safety seminars even those talking about taking up clay shooting/hunting, we do take out a one day open insurance cover for the shooting part of it same as an open shoot so insurance cover is not an issue.

bunny shooter

I only ask as the NARGC are very, for a better term, closed shop, about membership and insurance cover and what their members can and can't do as stated in previous post.

meathstevie

bunny shooter wrote: »

I only ask as the NARGC are very, for a better term, closed shop, about membership and insurance cover and what their members can and can't do as stated in previous post.

I don't think the NARGC is too different from any other organisation when it comes to participation in club or county activities. When push come to shove I don't think too many non-GAA members have represented their county in Croker either... .

As for not being allowed to go shooting with non-members, that's the first one I heard about that. Granted their might be liability and compensation issues when a non-insured hunter you're out with has some sort of a mishap with livestock or dogs or whatever but I don't think there's a rule that prohibits NARGC members to go out shooting with non-members.

Anyway, back on track now. It'd be nice to see if the DOJ or the Gardai could come up with some sort of a gun licence theory test. Say a seperate set of multiple choice question for hunters ( bit of relevant wildlife acts knowledge sprinkled in ) and target shooters. Before you get to apply for your first licence the background check should be done, when that comes back ok you get to do the theory test ( marking there and then with a checklist ) and after that you can get your licence and gun.

astraboy

meathstevie wrote: »

I don't think the NARGC is too different from any other organisation when it comes to participation in club or county activities. When push come to shove I don't think too many non-GAA members have represented their county in Croker either... .

As for not being allowed to go shooting with non-members, that's the first one I heard about that. Granted their might be liability and compensation issues when a non-insured hunter you're out with has some sort of a mishap with livestock or dogs or whatever but I don't think there's a rule that prohibits NARGC members to go out shooting with non-members.

Anyway, back on track now. It'd be nice to see if the DOJ or the Gardai could come up with some sort of a gun licence theory test. Say a seperate set of multiple choice question for hunters ( bit of relevant wildlife acts knowledge sprinkled in ) and target shooters. Before you get to apply for your first licence the background check should be done, when that comes back ok you get to do the theory test ( marking there and then with a checklist ) and after that you can get your licence and gun.

I often hunted with NARGC members before I joined my local club last year and became a member myself. I was unaware it was against the rules, though I'm sure the lads were too. I'm a fully fledged member now though. Must get my own license next.

On the part in bold, I fully agree. If it meant you were not waiting 6 weeks for a license, and ensured the cops knew you were trained to a certain level, reducing hassle if you decide to upgrade, then I'd be all for it. Plus, currently there is no set standard of training.

Personally the training I have received was from the RDF, I know some posters will look down their noses at that but it ensures I'm up to a certain standard and have been training with them since I was 16. The training ensures one knows how to safety deal with firearms. I would consider myself experienced, but more training is always better.

IRLConor

astraboy wrote: »

Personally the training I have received was from the RDF, I know some posters will look down their noses at that but it ensures I'm up to a certain standard and have been training with them since I was 16.

I wouldn't look down my nose at an RDF-trained shooter. That said, of all of the ex and current RDF members I've seen in DURC there's a very wide range of safety attitudes. Many have been excellent and have met/exceeded our safety requirements. Unfortunately others have come in with the attitude of "the army taught me everything I need to know about safety". It's more a bad reflection on those shooters rather than the RDF though.

astraboy

IRLConor wrote: »

Unfortunately others have come in with the attitude of "the army taught me everything I need to know about safety". It's more a bad reflection on those shooters rather than the RDF though.

I can see how that would be an issue. Thats more down to the person themselves then the RDF as you said. Thinking you know everything you need to know and not willing to learn more is a bad attitude in life, especially with shooting!

bunny shooter

Those who think they know everything really annoy those of us that do :eek: