Meeting for all firearms owners

chem

A meeting of the Shooting Sports federation of Ireland will be held in Abbeyleix at 1pm on Saturday March 21st. Its on at the Manor Hotel. Its on the Cork road. It has a sculpture of two deer outside.

This will address the legal and other difficulties facing the shooting community. Shooters from all disciplines and organisations are encouraged to attend. The Shooting Sports Federation of Ireland is a new umbrella body for shooting organisations. Legal representation will be present to advise on relevant matters.

There is considerable disquiet among the shooting community, it is proposed to form a new association to represent the grass roots shooters of the country and in particular stand ready to challenge any unjust legislation brought forward without consultation by way of legal challenge.

Your support would be much appreciated, please come along to the meeting at least to voice your opinion on current matters. It is intended to have the new association open to all organisation, clubs associations and individuals.

Sparks

We might have noticed.

chem

Mark give over. You have issues with Cal Ward so what? We are all in this together like it or not. Now as you have said alot of times before.........alot of people are happy to run things down but what have they done to make a difference? Just because your air gun is not on the hit list alls OK?

And for a man that is all for openness why didnt you post this info when you got it before me?

Sparks

This might explain chem:

Irish Shooting Politics…
…is messy and unpleasant at the best of times. Oddly enough, the actual sport-related stuff is fairly free of acrimony; the negotiations between Governing Bodies and the Department of Justice are actually really quite professional and stress-free in nature (I’m not saying there aren’t different agendas there, but they readily put their motivations on the table and we do the same and we work out solutions from there); the relations between Governing Bodies and the Olympic Council and the Sports Council are likewise at least cordial (well, normally anyway); in fact just about all of the relations between anyone else and the sport itself are usually fine.

Within the sport, it’s a whole other ballgame. When you have a group of minority sports, all of which are seen as exceptionally similar by the general population and which have a long history of being ignored and under-funded and outright oppressed by legislation and policy, you’re going to get internecine stress. When you add in the fact that shooting is a sport that you can do for your entire lifetime, you add in the time that stress needs to produce grudges and personal unpleasantness. And when you add in a mixture of the 2% problem (where 2% of the people do 98% of the work); a degree of isolation between the sports themselves; normal human ego; and the particular brand of obsessive honesty that our sport selects for (the hole is in the paper, that’s your score, nowhere to hide from it, no human judge to blame, it’s all on your head)…. well, you get strife and there’s really no other word for it.

It can be childish. It can be petty. And it sucks down time and effort and enthusiasm without ever being sated. And it even winds up in the High Court in some cases. And so I don’t want it in here and we don’t want it in the Hunting or Target Shooting or For Sale/Wanted forums on boards.ie or on the official websites of the Governing Bodies, but some of the things that happen are so… damaging, that they need to be recorded somewhere for posterity.

Hence a new blog:

Irish Shooting Politics


I don’t know if it’ll do much good. I don’t know who or how it’ll benefit for sure, apart from acting as catharsis for my own peace of mind. I don’t know how long I’ll leave it up there. I don’t know how it’ll go at all, but call it an experiment and let’s see how it runs. We may even get in co-authors or guest authors. Who knows?

At any rate, that’s the last political entry I want to make in this blog. This one’s for sport dammit…

Simple fact is, the mods haven't yet reached consensus on whether or not to even let this thread hang around in here yet, given the past history of those involved in the event (and it's not Cal's presence alone that causes the problem). So I kept my comments off the board till now (and they may yet still be removed). Our internecine squabbling is not what boards.ie is here to support, and there are signifigant warnings against it from the admins.

TrapperJohn

Does this thread not violate the warning from DeVore?

chem

So am I the problem? I dont belong to any group or club. Im a shooter notting more. I have great fear for my sport along with alot of other shooters so whats the problem?

chem

So giving info of a meeting is a crime on boards? Im not a member of any club or group so how is it in violation?

TrapperJohn

By using our platform, against our express wishes, the said associations would be not only breaching our terms of service and our express wishes but also undermining our advertising model and thus damaging our business.

As such, with prior notice (such as this thread which I'm going to mail all of them), any officer or representative of any national or regional association who posts on this forum or the sub forums herein, either explicitly or under pretense or subterfuge to promote their association either explicitly or to promote their associations standpoint by subterfuge, will be deemed to have implicitly ACCEPTED A CHARGE OF €950 euro PER POST MADE. Posts made in this manner may (and most likely WILL) be removed without refund.

This is from DeVore's post. I think this is sailing close enough to it by proxy.

Grizzly 45

The Irish shooting politics.
Kudos Sparks:pac:
Thats an idea that should have been up a long time ago.
Let the slaughter begin!Maybe it might clear the air with alot of people.

Re the above.Is this even an established group,with a board,agenda,etc??Or just a meeting to set up a group??

You would have to differentiate there.If it is,well then yes.But this just looks like a notification of a meeting?

Sparks

TrapperJohn wrote: »

Does this thread not violate the warning from DeVore?

That's what we're trying to figure out TJ (and why I said this thread may end up deleted).

chem

TrapperJohn wrote: »

This is from DeVore's post. I think this is sailing close enough to it by proxy.

Eh? Sorry for not been amember of a club or group:rolleyes: But I only posted a meeting date if anyone was interested to attend. So whats the crime?

Sparks

The problem chem is that this SSFI idea is a direct attack on the SSAI and the FCP by a disgruntled group of people who are capitalising on the poor communications between the various governing bodies and the shooters who aren't in clubs or groups. Which makes it internecine stuff, and so verboten.

You're not being blamed personally. Odds are you don't know the backstory here because of the lack of that communication. There's a lesson in that for the governing bodies if you ask me, but that's another ball of fish.

rrpc

chem wrote: »

Mark give over. You have issues with Cal Ward so what? We are all in this together like it or not. Now as you have said alot of times before.........alot of people are happy to run things down but what have they done to make a difference? Just because your air gun is not on the hit list alls OK?

And for a man that is all for openness why didnt you post this info when you got it before me?

Politics stuff is always held back for fear of it turning into another bunfight over nothing.

It's particularly uninspiring to see people throwing mud at each oher for no good reason.

IRLConor

It's like this. If ye all discuss this civilly there will be no problem. Not from me anyhow, DeVore and the other Admins make up their own minds. Depending on the content of the rest of the posts in this thread it might or might not be in breach of DeVore's warning and the SSFI will get a bill in the post from boards.ie.

As for the meeting, I don't see the point in yet another bloody shooting political body. Is this the Judean People's Front, the People's Front of Judea, the Judean Popular People's Front or what?

rrpc

IRLConor wrote: »

As for the meeting, I don't see the point in yet another bloody shooting political body. Is this the Judean People's Front, the People's Front of Judea, the Judean Popular People's Front or what?

It's the ISSF for dyslexics

chem

Folks its as simple as this. Dont show up at the meeting if you dont want to. I dont do the whole thing of " if ABC covers XYZ i wont listen to BZX" its a losing game.

I just like to shoot. I have a passion for it. I make friends id never meet trough my hobby etc.....................

What I do fear is losing my sport/hobby due to infighting and governments silly knee jerk laws.

I am willing to listen to anyone who might help or lend advise. Put the past behind and lets stand together for the future. Lest we end up like the UK;)

Sparks

What I do fear is losing my sport/hobby due to infighting

Good thing then that there is less infighting at the moment in the sport than there has ever been in living memory. With the exception of the group who are organising this meeting.

Look, here's some perspective. Civdef posted a thread four years ago saying

It would seem inevitable new restrictions as to what sorts of firearms are licencable (sp?) will be introduced.
What form would you like these to take?

I came across this again recently while looking for something else. Here's a list of some of the things we were looking for. Tell me if you recognise any of them, and bonus points if you can spot the ones we've since gotten:

1. we should be switching from our current, one licence per firearm setup, to an Irish FAC system - where the person is licenced, not the firearm. (ie. you have a licence, it lasts for five years, and all of your firearms are listed on it. This is the system in the UK and Northern Ireland.)
2. There should also be a regular consultation process between the DoJ, the Gardai, and the various bodies who govern shooting in Ireland - the NARGC, the ICPSA, the NTSA, the NSAI, and so on. And I mean a scheduled, regular, sit-down-at-a-table-with-the-minister meeting, not lip service.
3. there should be a means of appealing a decision by a Garda superintendent that didn't involve the High Court.
4. there should be a required mandatory training course in firearms law and firearms for Gardai who have to enforce firearms law - and an oversight body who ensure that firearms law is enforced, because as the Barr Tribunal is showing, that doesn't happen right now.
5. Rimfire (rifles), up to .22 calibre, ought to be easy to licence so long as you're in a firearms club, whether it be target shooting or hunting.
6. Rifles with a calibre greater than .22, or centerfire rifles of any calibre, would need a shooting club to sign off on the applicant as having shot for a year and being of good standing; and the applicant must have a safe place to shoot on; but after that, then any rifle ought to be allowed so long as it wasn't fully automatic. So semi-auto service rifles could be allowed, but you'd only be able to shoot them on certified ranges like the Midlands or Ballykindler or whereever.
7. And your licence for rifles like that should be tied to being in a club and taking part in competitions, to ensure that a standard of competency is upheld. (Private pilots in Ireland, for example, can only keep their licence if they fly for a minimum amount of time per year - it used to be 5 hours/year, I think it's now changed to a smaller number of hours every 60 days - so there is precedent for this).
8. (Any airgun) with a muzzle energy of 7 Joules or less shouldn't need a licence.
9. reloading should also be allowed, but again, should be something you have to earn to have on your FAC, by doing a course or whatever.
10. Secure storage of all guns,within limits set down by the law.If you have over a certain no of guns you must have a certain type of storage facility,or gun safe.
11. Shotguns and rifles up to 308 of all types (licenced) as before.Be a gunclub member,own land where you can use it safely or have deer hunting availability

Some of those were very tall orders and are now fully up and operating and have been for over two years...

rrpc

chem wrote: »

Folks its as simple as this. Dont show up at the meeting if you dont want to. I dont do the whole thing of " if ABC covers XYZ i wont listen to BZX" its a losing game.

I just like to shoot. I have a passion for it. I make friends id never meet trough my hobby etc.....................

What I do fear is losing my sport/hobby due to infighting and governments silly knee jerk laws.

I am willing to listen to anyone who might help or lend advise. Put the past behind and lets stand together for the future. Lest we end up like the UK;)

Chem, you just stated that you weren't a member of any group or club. You also state above that you weren't interested in infighting and yet you jump on the next splitter bus that pulls up?

chem

rrpc wrote: »

Chem, you just stated that you weren't a member of any group or club. You also state above that you weren't interested in infighting and yet you jump on the next splitter bus that pulls up?

I just feel that if I show up and hear whats going on I might be better informed. I cant say anyone thats a member of any shooting group in Ireland is any way better informed by there club/group by been a member. Am I wrong??

rrpc

chem wrote: »

I just feel that if I show up and hear whats going on I might be better informed. I cant say anyone thats a member of any shooting group in Ireland is any way better informed by there club/group by been a member. Am I wrong??

Yes.

Because if anyone tells you they know what the Minsiter is planning, then they are lying*. All we have until the bill is published is the Minister's statement in November. And every single group in the country published that.

Nothing else has been stated as fact yet and all the rumours and hearsay add up to a bucket of tripe.

Fact.

You heard it here. :rolleyes:

*unless of course it's the Minister himself.

jwshooter

rrpc wrote: »

Yes.

Because if anyone tells you they know what the Minsiter is planning, then they are lying*. All we have until the bill is published is the Minister's statement in November. And every single group in the country published that.

Nothing else has been stated as fact yet and all the rumours and hearsay add up to a bucket of tripe.

Fact.

You heard it here. :rolleyes:

*unless of course it's the Minister himself.

what sikamick posted today is not far from the mark

rrpc

jwshooter wrote: »

what sikamick posted today is not far from the mark

And that was published by all the shooting associations exactly a year ago.

What's particularly galling about that particular thread is that it was published *everywhere* and yet people obviously didn't read it. Including Sickamick and obviously Chem, who's not even aware of what's been happening.

Some people definitely need to timewarp back to 2000 to really appreciate what's been achieved.

chem

rrpc wrote: »

Yes.

Because if anyone tells you they know what the Minsiter is planning, then they are lying*. All we have until the bill is published is the Minister's statement in November. And every single group in the country published that.

Nothing else has been stated as fact yet and all the rumours and hearsay add up to a bucket of tripe.

Fact.

You heard it here. :rolleyes:

*unless of course it's the Minister himself.

What I was shown today would make you change your mind;)

chem

rrpc wrote: »

And that was published by all the shooting associations exactly a year ago.

What's particularly galling about that particular thread is that it was published *everywhere* and yet people obviously didn't read it. Including Sickamick and obviously Chem, who's not even aware of what's been happening.

Some people definitely need to timewarp back to 2000 to really appreciate what's been achieved.

Read above post rrpc;) I was shown a memo today from DoJ (cant say anything more) but your the one outside the loop:pac:

dresden8

Sparks wrote: »

[*]And your licence for rifles like that should be tied to being in a club and taking part in competitions, to ensure that a standard of competency is upheld.

Sparks I'd agree with everything you said except the above about competitions.

This is one of the reasons I walked away from archery.

My weekends are taken up with family arrangements.

All I heard on club night was

"Are you going the competition?"

"You have to go to the competition!"

"You won't get better unless you go to the comptition!"

"You have to go to the competition."

"Are you going to the competition?"

To which I would reply

"Can't busy at the weekend"

To which they would reply

"Are you going the competition?"

"You have to go to the competition!"

"You won't get better unless you go to the comptition!"

"You have to go to the competition."

"Are you going to the competition?"

Rinse and repeat for three freaking years.

Now I like to shoot but I'm not going to devote my life to it. Nor should it be expected.

Sparks

chem, post it or it never happened.

I've heard so many rumours now from folks who "have the inside scoop", who frankly wouldn't have an inside scoop on an ice cream tub. :mad:

Sikamick

rrpc wrote: »

And that was published by all the shooting associations exactly a year ago.

What's particularly galling about that particular thread is that it was published *everywhere* and yet people obviously didn't read it. Including Sickamick and obviously Chem, who's not even aware of what's been happening.

Some people definitely need to timewarp back to 2000 to really appreciate what's been achieved.

________________________________________________________________

In Respect rrpc its Sikamick not Sickamick.

Re the post I put up to day, I am affiliated to more groups in this country than I care to mention, I found those details by accident that I posted. I have never seen or received them in the format which I posted.

In answer to Chem re the meeting/new group, I think there are enough leaders and not enough answers without putting more into the captains quarters and confusing it more.

My opinion.

Sikamick

rrpc

chem wrote: »

Read above post rrpc;) I was shown a memo today from DoJ (cant say anything more) but your the one outside the loop:pac:

Chem. If someone is passing around departmental memos without permission, they're going to have their wings clipped pretty damn quick.

Any putative body that thinks it's going to be the bees whiskers by leaking confidential information is going to find a drought of such information and be outside the loop you assume me to be.

The fact that you're being so coy about it proves that it wasn't for publication.

Which means it's not likely to be any kind of finished article and therefore as much use as a chocolate fireguard in terms of keeping people informed.

But as you were: nod, nod, wink, wink is obviously the order of the day for this backward ISSF.

chem

rrpc wrote: »

Chem. If someone is passing around departmental memos without permission, they're going to have their wings clipped pretty damn quick.

Any putative body that thinks it's going to be the bees whiskers by leaking confidential information is going to find a drought of such information and be outside the loop you assume me to be.

The fact that you're being so coy about it proves that it wasn't for publication.

Which means it's not likely to be any kind of finished article and therefore as much use as a chocolate fireguard in terms of keeping people informed.

But as you were: nod, nod, wink, wink is obviously the order of the day for this backward ISSF.

No it was a direct email shown to me from DoJ to all supers in the country. Whats the ISSF?

Sparks

dresden8 wrote: »

Sparks I'd agree with everything you said except the above about competitions.

It was four years ago dresden
And while competitions aren't needed, you will have to go shoot at some point on the range (doesn't need to be a weekend, doesn't need to be formal, but if you've a target shooting licence, you'll be expected to do some target shooting at some point).
That's in the Ranges and Clubs SIs we mentioned on here in the thread on the FCP seminar on those SIs in February this year.

BTW, of that list, we now have items 2,3,5,a variant on 6, a variant on 7, 10 and 11; and items 8 and 9 are being actively worked on (and frankly, it was a shooter who's most publicly held up item 8 from happening, not the DoJ).

Now me, I call that progress. Some of those items (like number 2) were at the time considered utterly laughable. I know, because I got laughed at when I suggested they were possible. Today, the FCP's been operating for over a year. And none of those things (or the other positive stuff that's happened) have come about because of those who prompted this thread.

rrpc

Sikamick wrote: »

________________________________________________________________

In Respect rrpc its Sikamick not Sickamick.

My apologies Mick, I can't seem to type Sik and Mick together without adding another C. I'll try harder.

Re the post I put up to day, I am affiliated to more groups in this country than I care to mention, I found those details by accident that I posted. I have never seen or received them in the format which I posted.

To the best of my knowledge (and it's going back a bit), it was posted on every website of every organisation that signed it. In addition it was posted here and AFAIK it was also sent to CAI members in their newletter (or an extract with a link). It's still on most websites and certainly still on the NTSA one because the NTSA email addresses have been spammed unmercifully since that was published.

rrpc

chem wrote: »

No it was a direct email shown to me from DoJ to all supers in the country.

The content of which went something like this?

Whats the ISSF?

The International Shooting Sports Federation.

Just my little joke that the SSFI is the bass ackwards ISSF

dresden8

Sparks wrote: »

It was four years ago dresden
And while competitions aren't needed, you will have to go shoot at some point on the range (doesn't need to be a weekend, doesn't need to be formal, but if you've a target shooting licence, you'll be expected to do some target shooting at some point).

I do shoot, but I don't want to be expected to shoot at pre-defined times that don't suit me, and have it linked to my licence.

But that's diverting the thread.

Sparks

Sikamick wrote:

Re the post I put up to day, I am affiliated to more groups in this country than I care to mention, I found those details by accident that I posted. I have never seen or received them in the format which I posted.

Er, Sika, it was up on boards.ie in the main forum as a sticky back in October. It was a fairly active thread, with 56 posts on it. You posted in the thread in fact, post 46.

In answer to Chem re the meeting/new group, I think there are enough leaders and not enough answers without putting more into the captains quarters and confusing it more.

Amen to that.

chem wrote: »

No it was a direct email shown to me from DoJ to all supers in the country. Whats the ISSF?

The DoJ doesn't and didn't send anything to superintendents. I know because I asked them. I'll bet a dollar to a doughnut that you're thinking of the recent letter sent to all Superintendents to remind them of an earlier letter which said that they were not to give out a pistol licence to any applicant without reminding them of the Minister's comments in November. We've already seen that reported by two people here as being a directive from the Minister to the Supers to not issue any pistol licences, which it isn't (and which wouldn't be legal).

So either post it or it didn't happen.


(BTW, if you seriously don't know what the ISSF is, I think perhaps you're at risk to being lied to by less scrupulous types who tend to wander about claiming more status and importance than they actually have and who depend on folks who don't know better for their continued toleration).

Sparks

dresden8 wrote: »

I do shoot, but I don't want to be expected to shoot at pre-defined times that don't suit me, and have it linked to my licence.

It won't be pre-defined times; the idea is you go to the range as you normally do and sign the book to say you were there (and maybe leave your shot target or something) and that's it. That's all they're looking for.

But that's diverting the thread.

In this case the diversion is welcome...

chem

rrpc wrote: »

The content of which went something like this?


The International Shooting Sports Federation.

Just my little joke that the SSFI is the bass ackwards ISSF

Thats the one rrpc in not so many words. No laws to back it up but the minister has told supers not to process pistol licences from the time of his statement. I seen it in black and white today. So am i back in the inner circle:p:D

I just dont do politics:D

chem

Sparks wrote: »

Er, Sika, it was up on boards.ie in the main forum as a sticky back in October. It was a fairly active thread, with 56 posts on it. You posted in the thread in fact, post 46.
Amen to that.The DoJ doesn't and didn't send anything to superintendents. I know because I asked them. I'll bet a dollar to a doughnut that you're thinking of the recent letter sent to all Superintendents to remind them of an earlier letter which said that they were not to give out a pistol licence to any applicant without reminding them of the Minister's comments in November. We've already seen that reported by two people here as being a directive from the Minister to the Supers to not issue any pistol licences, which it isn't (and which wouldn't be legal).

So either post it or it didn't happen.


(BTW, if you seriously don't know what the ISSF is, I think perhaps you're at risk to being lied to by less scrupulous types who tend to wander about claiming more status and importance than they actually have and who depend on folks who don't know better for their continued toleration).

Sorry sparks I seen the memo with my two eyes. Sorry for not asking the super for a printout:rolleyes: NO PISTOLS TO BE LICENCED ORDERS FROM DoJ MINISTER AHERN OFFICE

Sparks

See chem, I don't believe you have that right.
The Minister cannot issue orders to the Superintendents for a start.
And noone can issue orders to the Superintendents when it comes to licencing firearms. Persona Designata is the term you're looking for.
So I call shenanigans. Post it or it never happened.

rrpc

chem wrote: »

Sorry sparks I seen the memo with my two eyes. Sorry for not asking the super for a printout:rolleyes: NO PISTOLS TO BE LICENCED ORDERS FROM DoJ MINISTER AHERN OFFICE

Chem

Did you read the Minister's statement in November?

The only reason I ask and why nobody's getting excited about your revelation is that's exactly what he said back then.

Exactly.

All this has been covered here and elsewhere at great length, depth and width.

Sikamick

Quote Sparks:Er, Sika, it was up on boards.ie in the main forum as a sticky back in October. It was a fairly active thread, with 56 posts on it. You posted in the thread in fact, post 46.

_________________________________________________________________

Sparks no disrespect, I have looked back and there is nothing that matches the format and wording of what I posted today. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Sikamick

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

See chem, I don't believe you have that right.
The Minister cannot issue orders to the Superintendents for a start.
And noone can issue orders to the Superintendents when it comes to licencing firearms. Persona Designata is the term you're looking for.
So I call shenanigans. Post it or it never happened.

Sparks, no offence to Chem, but reading something on the fly does not give you a handle on the nuances of language used. For that you need to study it and re-read it a couple of times to get the full gist.

On top of which you need to have full grasp of the legislation to help inform your reading.

People reading stuff on here have walked away with completely different views of what they've just read. You don't have to be a moderator to know that

chem

Sparks wrote: »

See chem, I don't believe you have that right.
The Minister cannot issue orders to the Superintendents for a start.
And noone can issue orders to the Superintendents when it comes to licencing firearms. Persona Designata is the term you're looking for.
So I call shenanigans. Post it or it never happened.

Ya well its a funny little country we live in:p Just look at the temp order issued in the 70s for rifles over .22 and all pistols. How long was that ment to last? was it a month or 35 years

God bless your faith in the government;)

chem

rrpc wrote: »

Chem

Did you read the Minister's statement in November?

The only reason I ask and why nobody's getting excited about your revelation is that's exactly what he said back then.

Exactly.

All this has been covered here and elsewhere at great length, depth and width.

Eh no rrpc he didnt. he said that any pistols licenced might not be renewed after the next september. Not that no pistols will be licenced from then on.;)

rrpc

Sikamick wrote: »

Sparks no disrespect, I have looked back and there is nothing that matches the format and wording of what I posted today. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Sikamick

Here it is Sikamick: Firearms Consultative Panel Thread

Here it is on the NTSA website.

And that's enough running around I'm doing tonight, night night.

rrpc

chem wrote: »

Eh no rrpc he didnt. he said that any pistols licenced might not be renewed after the next september. Not that no pistols will be licenced from then on.;)

Chem, did you actually read the statement?

His proposals for radical reform in this area include
• no new licences will be issued for handguns.
• existing licenses will not be renewed unless applications fully meet the requirements of a radically tightened licensing procedure where the safety of the community will be paramount
• the Minister will keep under annual review, in consultation with the Garda Commissioner, the outcome of the licensing procedure and, if the outcome of that procedure leaves a situation which still poses an unacceptable risk to the community, will use new powers, which the Bill will contain, to ban outright any type of firearm.

So next time you read stuff, will you actually read it? or will you think it and leave the reading for some other time when you're not as busy.

:rolleyes:

chem

Sparks wrote:

The DoJ doesn't and didn't send anything to superintendents. I know because I asked them. I'll bet a dollar to a doughnut that you're thinking of the recent letter sent to all Superintendents to remind them of an earlier letter which said that they were not to give out a pistol licence to any applicant without reminding them of the Minister's comments in November. We've already seen that reported by two people here as being a directive from the Minister to the Supers to not issue any pistol licences, which it isn't (and which wouldn't be legal).

So me and him have read the statment incorrectly? I will scan in the letter I got from the minister tomorrow. Bed time now work in the morning:(

chem

rrpc wrote: »

Chem, did you actually read the statement?



So next time you read stuff, will you actually read it? or will you think it and leave the reading for some other time when you're not as busy.

:rolleyes:

Oh wise up rrpc! I seen a memo from DoJ to supers to say not to issue or process pistols here. End off. Tell you what. You apply for a pistol now and see if you get it:D

Sikamick

rrpc wrote: »

Here it is Sikamick: Firearms Consultative Panel Thread

_________________________________________________________________

Thanks for that rrpc: I have searched to see did I post in it and I cant find Sikamick anywhere.

rrpc Your are correct, that it was posted before and as I stated when I started the thread, I apologised if it was up before. But it does no harm to remind people of what is there and ahead of us.

Sikamick

Sparks

Sikamick wrote: »

Sparks wrote:

Er, Sika, it was up on boards.ie in the main forum as a sticky back in October. It was a fairly active thread, with 56 posts on it. You posted in the thread in fact, post 46.

Sparks no disrespect, I have looked back and there is nothing that matches the format and wording of what I posted today. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Sorry Sikamick, that was the wrong thread I linked to.
The thread where the post was actually put up was the one on the Firearms Consultative Panel, it was put up in there by me as post 108 and you replied congratulating the FCP on their communication in post 133.

rrpc

chem wrote: »

So me and him have read the statment incorrectly? I will scan in the letter I got from the minister tomorrow. Bed time now work in the morning:(

I'm not quoting Sparks, I'm quoting the Minister. Sparks can make his own mind up on things, I like to go on what I've read from the horse's mouth.

In any case Sparks' comments are about letters that were never posted here and therefore can't be given much credence. As he likes to say himself: 'if it's not posted here it didn't happen'.

Your letter sounds like the statement from the DoJ website that I quoted, but the devil is in the detail, so if you're willing to post it here, by all means do.

rrpc

chem wrote: »

Oh wise up rrpc! I seen a memo from DoJ to supers to say not to issue or process pistols here. End off. Tell you what. You apply for a pistol now and see if you get it:D

Not sure what way to phrase this without incurring the wrath of the mods. I'll just try plain speech.

Did you read this bit in particular:

no new licences will be issued for handguns.