Certificate granted x 3

johngalway

I came home today to see three nondescript white envelopes sitting on the rocking chair for me.

Now, I know it wasn't bank statements because I had one of those buggers give me a false alarm Monday :rolleyes:

So, it could only be one (x 3) thing.

I did say a quick prayer, really.

Shotgun was first, applied for an ordinary license and had put a DIY bung in the magazine to reduce capacity from 4+1 to 2+1.

Relief, but not the one I was looking for.

Opened the second envelope...

The Joy

.223 successful and granted

Happy camper = me

I had almost forgotten about my HMR application, I opened the third and (thankfully) final envelope, and yes, that too had been successful!

My extensions had run out 31/10/09. The grant letters were dated 1/11/09, better late than never

It wasn't all I had expected but I'll start another topic on that in a minute.

To everyone here who is still waiting to hear anything at all, keep the faith

To everyone here and elsewhere who has read through my threads and given me advice publicly or via PM, my thanks go out to ye

And on that I'll bugger off and start that other thread.

ATB,

JG

LB6

Congrats!

Cass

Nice one John.

clivej

Good to hear John.

Christmas came early for you.

johngalway

clivej wrote: »

Good to hear John.

Christmas came early for you.

And now my flexible friend will be taking several kicks to the guts to pay for it Clive

clivej

clivej wrote: »

Good to hear John.

Christmas came early for you.

johngalway wrote: »

And now my flexible friend will be taking several kicks to the guts to pay for it Clive

"Ouch"!

johngalway

Yeah...

And then there's the moderators...

And then there's Christmas

At least I can blame being a cheapskate on the recession this year

johnner1

great stuff john, enjoy every second of your new toys;) 2 new rifles:D

boc121

Congrats john, lucky b*****d

westwicklow

Good man John, well done you!!!!

(Don't forget the rest of us ha! ha! ha!)

johngalway

No, am not forgetting anyone WW. Still way too many caught up in this whole FUBAR situation, which IMO was not and is not of the shooters making. Too little information, way way way too late from the powers that be, bladly planned and implemented creating massive stress and a lot of expense on people when it could all have been done so much better and smoothly.

zulu_dawn

congrats

Cass

johngalway wrote: »

And now my flexible friend will be taking several kicks to the guts to pay for it Clive

Hey John buy your gun and if you need to save money show the kids this;

johngalway

ezridax wrote: »

Hey John buy your gun and if you need to save money show the kids this;

Harsh...

But fair Ezri, harsh but fair

ayapatrick

johngalway wrote: »

Yeah...

And then there's the moderators...

And then there's Christmas

At least I can blame being a cheapskate on the recession this year

No word of the moderator on your granting letters John?

marlin vs

Good for you, happy day's.

johngalway

ayapatrick wrote: »

No word of the moderator on your granting letters John?

Not a thing ever Patrick. I'm going to wait now until my paper (plastic my arse) licenses come back and go from there. Grant letters plus payment went off this morning.

I paid by Visa and had reason to call the enquiry line. As my Visa consists of 16 numbers, yet there was 19 space boxes on the form. I was wondering if they were looking for the three digit code on the back of the card but I was told no, just the 16 raised numbers on the front of the card, amount, expiry date and sign it.

Photocopied everything, sealed the envelopes with sellotape, and registered the three of them separately.

Cass

johngalway wrote: »

........Grant letters plus payment went off this morning.......

You'll have them back by Thursday or Friday at latest John. Give them credit where credit is due. 5 working day return.

johngalway

ezridax wrote: »

You'll have them back by Thursday or Friday at latest John. Give them credit where credit is due. 5 working day return.

I do Ezri, when it's due

I've been saying for a while it's not the doing of the local Gardai most of us have to be dealing with, but the system is of the making of their higher ups and the Dept of (in)Justice, (un)Equality and (misplaced)Law Reform.

I'll be more than happy to have my licenses back that quick

rrpc

You know I find it ironic that people who complain so bitterly at being demonised as a group, find it so easy in turn to demonise another group.

I try and base my prejudices on what I know :rolleyes:

johngalway

rrpc wrote: »

You know I find it ironic that people who complain so bitterly at being demonised as a group, find it so easy in turn to demonise another group.

I try and base my prejudices on what I know :rolleyes:

Dermot Ahern is a nice guy who has balanced and fair views on shooting then? And his department and some top level Gardai rolled out the necessary information and made it available to the public in good time?

Cos if the above is correct, I must be wrong.

rrpc

johngalway wrote: »

Dermot Ahern is a nice guy who has balanced and fair views on shooting then? And his department and some top level Gardai rolled out the necessary information and made it available to the public in good time?

Cos if the above is correct, I must be wrong.

Dermot Ahern is not a group.

But as for the rest, it seems that you don't demonise the Gardai you deal with because you know them, but the guys above them and the civil servants in the DoJ are fair game because you don't?

That's what I mean. I'm not saying that the situation is great, I'm not saying that there weren't mistakes, I'm not even saying that the law is right. I'm just saying that demonising a group of people because of where they work is unfair, the same way that demonising the shooting community was wrong.

johngalway

Hang on now a second.

First off, I don't know who pissed on your cornflakes today, but it wasn't me, so I don't really understand the mood of some of the comments directed at me today.

Secondly, I'm not demonising anyone. I'm saying that the roll out of the new licensing system was bloody laughable, which it was.

Had all their ducks been lined up properly then the Dept or Gardai could have run an information campaign since say May. In that campaign there could have been a questions/answers style forum made available to the shooting community. Samples of the forms could have been released for prior viewing. The very relevent SI's and the Commissioners guidelines could have been published at the start of the campaign.

ALL of that would have greatly helped avoid the colossal mess that had instead been created. Lads waiting to hear from manufacturers if their safes were up to spec. People getting alarms installed. Getting letters signed about permissions (I sent none and got licenses approved, I know of others who are saying their local stations are demanding same letters). Lads being refused target rifles because no range is designated.

I am critical of the situation, because "they" made a hames of it.

On the law itself, not everyone find it easy to read or comprehend, not all of us went to college and I'm sure no all of us who did were made the brightest crayons in the box.

Yes, a lot of people came on here for info, I thought that was the point of the place? I asked for a lot of it, and I think I thanked all who gave it (at the time of giving and also yesterday).

I didn't sit on my arse with that information, I also helped people in my area with their forms and had people from all over the country text and email me asking me questions, if I could help I did, if I didn't know I said so.

I'm critical because I'm also worried for a lot of other people and but for the grace of God it could be me in their **** situation.

Are some things going right? Yes, they are. But a heap of needless red tape seems to have descended in some districts on situations and people who got licensed easily and properly under the old system.

As far as demonising goes. "They" would only be too happy to take my guns, your guns, and everyone else guns who post here. The type of nonsese put out that the shape of a gun makes it more dangerous type bull****.

ALL I AM LOOKING FOR THEM TO DO IS BE SENSIBLE AND HAVE A DECENT APPROACH TOWARDS LAW ABIDING SHOOTERS.

And that is so not happening in some cases where the grant of licenses should be relatively straightforward once the individual met the criteria put forth.

End of bleeding rant.

rrpc

I'm not pissed off with you John nor is there any urine in my cornflakes.

I just don't like blanket comdemnations of a group of people because of where they work. That's all, I think it's wrong. simple.

I have friends who work in banks who are ordinary joes the same as you or me who get lambasted every day because of where they work, that's wrong too.

As a group we got sh1t shovelled at us in the media and from the Minister and that's wrong too.

Could I be clearer? If not, try this:

The Minister came out and said he wanted to do stuff because he didn't like the way things were going: with me so far?

He then did that stuff and his 'minions' in the Department and the Gardai carried out his bidding as is their role.

And we call them names because they did their jobs as they saw fit. Do you follow?

Cass

Sorry if i started a s**t storm there lads. My comment of credit where credit is due was not directed at you personally John but more a general statement of thanks for a section of this whole debacle that seems to be flowing quick and effectively from the get go. I know the pay at your local PO is not up and running but considering the average is 5 days for a license to be sent of for and returne is pretty good (i think).

In relation to the debate between the two of you (rrpc and john) i would agree with everything you both said, however rrpc its easy to be calm, level headed and logical when you have time to think and analyse a situation but in the heat of the moment and that includes typing here you run away with yourself. To go back to your reference to the banking situation, i and most others will never meet the "higher ups" or whatever you call them. Most of the time we meet or deal with ground level or supervisory capacity people and as these are the ones we meet we take our frustrations out on them. You are right that its not their fault but when you can't get to the top you vent at any level you can.

Same theory applies to the Gardai. Ahern kick started this but never forget the Commissioner had/has as much input if not more. Ahern could in a year or few years be in a different post and the commissioner uses him to get what he wants while he can. Gardai of every level have their own opinions on firearm ownership and while we dislike some or all the measures put into practice we will most likely never meet the Minister, Commissioner or even some Chief Super for that matter so as is human nature we take out our frustrations on the people we meet daily or easily ie. the man on the hatch. I try to remain calm and focused but even you cannot say you haven't lost your cool and cursed an entire genus based on the actions of a few.

rrpc

You're quite right Ezri, I have. And I'm probably still guilty of doing it from time to time, but when you meet somebody who's been on the receiving end of such unfair treatment, it gives you pause for thought.

There's nobody here from a different planet, we're all related

Vegeta

rrpc wrote: »

I'm not pissed off with you John nor is there any urine in my cornflakes.

I just don't like blanket comdemnations of a group of people because of where they work. That's all, I think it's wrong. simple.

I have friends who work in banks who are ordinary joes the same as you or me who get lambasted every day because of where they work, that's wrong too.

As a group we got sh1t shovelled at us in the media and from the Minister and that's wrong too.

Could I be clearer? If not, try this:

The Minister came out and said he wanted to do stuff because he didn't like the way things were going: with me so far?

He then did that stuff and his 'minions' in the Department and the Gardai carried out his bidding as is their role.

And we call them names because they did their jobs as they saw fit. Do you follow?

Are you saying these people did a good job of rolling out the changes requested by the Minister?

rrpc

Vegeta wrote: »

Are you saying these people did a good job of rolling out the changes requested by the Minister?

Missing. the. point. completely.

Because one shooter had his firearm stolen, all shooters are careless.

Not everyone is in a position to do something about stuff that goes FUBAR. But that's a good enough reason to call them all incompetent?

Vegeta

rrpc wrote: »

Missing. the. point. completely.

Evading. the. question. poorly.

Not everyone is in a position to do something about stuff that goes FUBAR. But that's a good enough reason to call them all incompetent?

Again I ask do you think this has been project managed well? Are you saying that Minister Aherne managed this all personally and the blame is his alone?

See I would have thought his employees implemented and managed the changes so the blame for the mess we find ourselves in now should land on them. Not all of them mind, just the decision making ones, kinda like what John said.

rrpc

Vegeta wrote: »

Evading. the. question. poorly.

No, I'm not.

And you shouldn't read a thread backwards. My comment was made to John's post where he made a disparaging reference to the entire DoJELR. To which I objected on the grounds that it is wrong to demonise an entire group.

Again I ask do you think this has been project managed well? Are you saying that Minister Aherne managed this all personally and the blame is his alone?

And that still isn't the point. This discussion is about taking a swing at an entire group because you're unhappy with the decisions or actions of a small number of them. In my opinion that's wrong.

See I would have thought his employees implemented and managed the changes so the blame for the mess we find ourselves in now should land on them. Not all of them mind, just the decision making ones, kinda like what John said.

Not kinda like John said, he said this:

the Dept of (in)Justice, (un)Equality and (misplaced)Law Reform.

Which is what I objected to. And not very strenuously mind, I just said it was ironic that we can complain about being demonised as a group but are as quick to do it ourselves.

But you want to take that to mean that I applaud everything they do without qualification. That's a very binary view of the world.

I don't, but I don't stoop to abuse either because it's not productive, and life's too short.

johngalway

My final input to this is I've said what I have said and still stand by it. I'm not going to contribute further as minds won't be changed by it and it will only serve to raise blood pressures and tempers.

A few things said today had no need to be said and I'd appreciate if they weren't continued to be said.

That's all I got to say.

Vegeta

rrpc wrote: »

No, I'm not.

Really cos you only answered my straightforward question in the rest of your post below.

And you shouldn't read a thread backwards. My comment was made to John's post where he made a disparaging reference to the entire DoJELR. To which I objected on the grounds that it is wrong to demonise an entire group.

And that still isn't the point. This discussion is about taking a swing at an entire group because you're unhappy with the decisions or actions of a small number of them. In my opinion that's wrong.

Not kinda like John said, he said this:

Which is what I objected to. And not very strenuously mind, I just said it was ironic that we can complain about being demonised as a group but are as quick to do it ourselves.

But you want to take that to mean that I applaud everything they do without qualification. That's a very binary view of the world.

I don't, but I don't stoop to abuse either because it's not productive, and life's too short.

rrpc I asked a simple question and it has been painful getting an answer but thank you for answering.

Sparks

Though, to be fair, it was Ahern setting the timetable on all this and even the best of us can't do the best job when the boss gives us a quarter the time we need to do it right (and it's even more fustrating when you know you didn't get the time purely for the good of the boss's image...).

I've met most of the people who had the job of implementing all of this, and frankly, **** flows downhill and they're not at the top of the hill, y'know? They're just a step or two further up the slope from us is all. Now the Minister and the Commissioner, that's a whole other contour line altogether.

Sparks

Though, to be fair, it was Ahern setting the timetable on all this and even the best of us can't do the best job when the boss gives us a quarter the time we need to do it right (and it's even more fustrating when you know you didn't get the time purely for the good of the boss's image...).

I've met most of the people who had the job of implementing all of this, and frankly, **** flows downhill and they're not at the top of the hill, y'know? They're just a step or two further up the slope from us is all. Now the Minister and the Commissioner, that's a whole other contour line altogether.

rrpc

Vegeta wrote: »

Really cos you only answered my straightforward question in the rest of your post below.

Eh??? I said I wasn't evading the question and you disagree with me by telling me the same thing??

Which I'd already answered in an earlier post if you'd taken the trouble to read them properly

rrpc I asked a simple question and it has been painful getting an answer but thank you for answering.

The pain is in your inability to either get my point or read my posts. It appears that that is still the case, so I won't bother any further.

Others such as ezridax and Sparks don't seem to have the same difficulty.

Vegeta

Add all the snide comments you want rrpc, I asked a question and you have answered it. I don't know why you went around the world to do so but you were making some bullshi1t point I don't really care about

I asked

Are you saying these people did a good job of rolling out the changes requested by the Minister?

A simple yes or no would have done.

You seemed determined however to impress upon me that it was not the average employee's fault.

A) I don't care
It's not what I was asking about.

rrpc

Vegeta wrote: »

Add all the snide comments you want rrpc, I asked a question and you have answered it. I don't know why you went around the world to do so but you were making some bullshi1t point I don't really care about

My original point was the bullsh1t point you didn't care about. You decided to persuade me to make the same prejudicial statement I was condemning. You'll forgive me if I refuse to go there.

You seemed determined however to impress upon me that it was not the average employee's fault.

No I didn't. If you can't understand that condemning an entire group of people because of the perceived actions of a small number, you really need to question your ethics. Apart from the fact that you obviously couldn't be bothered to do anything other than take an Orwellian 'four legs good, two legs bad' stance.

And you then try and and bully me into supporting you by insisting I respond in a similarly binary fashion.

Others have no problem with the point I was making and are mature enough to understand it. And I stick by my original statement whether you understand it or not.

And maybe I shouldn't be so judgmental either

Vegeta

rrpc wrote: »

My original point was the bullsh1t point you didn't care about. You decided to persuade me to make the same prejudicial statement I was condemning. You'll forgive me if I refuse to go there.

Don't know what you're going on about here.

No I didn't.

Ok so you're not trying to point out the old "majority suffer because of the few" rule. Except in the very next sentence you say.

If you can't understand that condemning an entire group of people because of the perceived actions of a small number,

So you're not trying to make this point, except you keep making it and making it and making it.

Despite being told I don't care, I don't disagree nor am I interested in debating the ethics of it.

Apart from the fact that you obviously couldn't be bothered to do anything other than take an Orwellian 'four legs good, two legs bad' stance.

Point out one place where I condemned the entire group. Go on, quote me. Oh wait I didn't.

And you then try and and bully me into supporting you by insisting I respond in a similarly binary fashion.

This is pathetic, as someone who is closer to the FCP and who has had personal meetings with some of the people involved I was hoping for answers such as the following:

Yes, I think the guys on the ground handled it well given the time line they were forced to endure by their bosses. The form may not be perfect and involves too much duplication but what can we expect given the pressures put on them

OR

No, I think they could have done better. The form is very awkward, the Gardai processing them hate them because of all the duplication. They are inefficient. Also with their knowledge of the licensing system they could have tried harder to avoid the limbo we are in now. After all the 3 year license was meant to benefit shooters not make unwilling criminals out of many.

You answered the question and I didn't want to draw it further

Instead we have a pissing competition where you will not accept that asking

Are you saying these people did a good job of rolling out the changes requested by the Minister?

Does not equal having a go at the majority

You are the one with the binary view rrpc, in your eyes the question I asked == having a go at every employee.

It isn't.

rrpc

Vegeta wrote: »

Don't know what you're going on about here.

You have to read my first post in response to johngalway's one. It was an observation on something said about the DoJ in general which I said was ironic because... well I've said it enough times now.

Ok so you're not trying to point out the old "majority suffer because of the few" rule. Except in the very next sentence you say.

I wasn't talking about average employees, that's more specific than the general comment made.

Despite being told I don't care, I don't disagree nor am I interested in debating the ethics of it.

If so, why did you jump on my comment and try and twist it around to something other than what I'd originally said?

Point out one place where I condemned the entire group. Go on, quote me. Oh wait I didn't.

You said this:

Are you saying these people did a good job of rolling out the changes requested by the Minister?

As I was speaking generally and you didn't specify, yes you did indeed. Read the posts in order and show me where you made a specific reference so that I could understand that you weren't making a general accusation.

Yes, I think the guys on the ground handled it well given the time line they were forced to endure by their bosses. The form may not be perfect and involves too much duplication but what can we expect given the pressures put on them

Because you're referring to the Gardai who were the people who had to roll out and apply the legislation, the form, the applications etc., not the DoJ.

Instead we have a pissing competition where you will not accept that asking "Are you saying these people did a good job of rolling out the changes requested by the Minister?" Does not equal having a go at the majority

It did in the context, especially as you were directing your question and implied criticism at the wrong group of people.

And if you want a proper target for your ire, you could start with the Minister who insisted on rolling out unnecessary legislation, faffed around with it for six months and put everyone under pressure in wanting it implemented less than one month after it was signed by the President. And you don't need to be anywhere near the FCP to understand that.

So pointing fingers at either the DoJ or the Gardai is definitely missing the point.

Vegeta

rrpc wrote: »

You have to read my first post in response to johngalway's one. It was an observation on something said about the DoJ in general which I said was ironic because... well I've said it enough times now.

I wasn't talking about average employees, that's more specific than the general comment made.

If so, why did you jump on my comment and try and twist it around to something other than what I'd originally said?

You said this:
As I was speaking generally and you didn't specify, yes you did indeed. Read the posts in order and show me where you made a specific reference so that I could understand that you weren't making a general accusation.

Because you're referring to the Gardai who were the people who had to roll out and apply the legislation, the form, the applications etc., not the DoJ.

It did in the context, especially as you were directing your question and implied criticism at the wrong group of people.

And if you want a proper target for your ire, you could start with the Minister who insisted on rolling out unnecessary legislation, faffed around with it for six months and put everyone under pressure in wanting it implemented less than one month after it was signed by the President. And you don't need to be anywhere near the FCP to understand that.

So pointing fingers at either the DoJ or the Gardai is definitely missing the point.

So I was correct when I said

You are the one with the binary view rrpc, in your eyes the question I asked == having a go at every employee.

And with that I'm out, there is no point in continuing a conversation with you because no matter what I say or tell you I'm wrong because you hold the opinion above.

John I apologise for turning your thread into a train wreck.

Bananaman

Ladies,

It's a ****e situation we find ourselves in.

Now is not the time for a witch hunt.
We don't have the time, spare effort nor inclination to do that now.
There will be plenty of time for that IF we get past this thing.

In answer to Vegetas Question I think it is fair to say that no matter who implemented this 'solution' it was flawed from the outset and is badly implemented.

The problem is that a 'solution' was defined first and then a hammer was used to apply it to a 'problem', any 'problem', which is the very definition of cart before horse.

What we need to do now is remove any of the inconsistencies or 'rolling of the dice' that is inherent in the process.

Today, Right now, before they are gone forever:

We need to know 100% that if we meet conditions A through Z and fulfill requirements 1 through 99 that we WILL be allowed to license our firearms, specifically centrefire handguns for use in sport.

Today that is not true, it depends who you know, the phase of the moon and how the chicken bones fell. That is not a system.

Now, that is what we have always had - it has just moved up a pay grade.

SO in essence, after all the gnashing of teeth, rending of cloth and of course, consultation, nothing has changed except that there are new forms.
Filling them in and meeting the conditions has no real impact on whether or not you will be licensed. You are still at the whim of an individual.

Those of us that have been refused having, in good faith, met all the conditions and requirements set down in law, need to be supported and have these incorrect decisions overturned.

If that happens and we get over this hump, then we can look at why it came about and do whatever is necessary to ensure it is not allowed to happen again.

There is no question that the system we have in place for the management of the shooting sports does not work, when a situation like this has come to pass. It needs to be reviewed.

Lets first ensure we have shooting sports to take part in - before we look at that review.

B'Man

bunny shooter

Well said B'man I agree with this 100%

Kimber

Bananaman wrote: »

Ladies,

It's a ****e situation we find ourselves in.

Now is not the time for a witch hunt.
We don't have the time, spare effort nor inclination to do that now.
There will be plenty of time for that IF we get past this thing.

In answer to Vegetas Question I think it is fair to say that no matter who implemented this 'solution' it was flawed from the outset and is badly implemented.

The problem is that a 'solution' was defined first and then a hammer was used to apply it to a 'problem', any 'problem', which is the very definition of cart before horse.

What we need to do now is remove any of the inconsistencies or 'rolling of the dice' that is inherent in the process.

Today, Right now, before they are gone forever:

We need to know 100% that if we meet conditions A through Z and fulfill requirements 1 through 99 that we WILL be allowed to license our firearms, specifically centrefire handguns for use in sport.

Today that is not true, it depends who you know, the phase of the moon and how the chicken bones fell. That is not a system.

Now, that is what we have always had - it has just moved up a pay grade.

SO in essence, after all the gnashing of teeth, rending of cloth and of course, consultation, nothing has changed except that there are new forms.
Filling them in and meeting the conditions has no real impact on whether or not you will be licensed. You are still at the whim of an individual.

Those of us that have been refused having, in good faith, met all the conditions and requirements set down in law, need to be supported and have these incorrect decisions overturned.

If that happens and we get over this hump, then we can look at why it came about and do whatever is necessary to ensure it is not allowed to happen again.

There is no question that the system we have in place for the management of the shooting sports does not work, when a situation like this has come to pass. It needs to be reviewed.

Lets first ensure we have shooting sports to take part in - before we look at that review.

B'Man

Now that is the voice of a logoical mind. Well said Bman. Some good words.
Thanks

Slug chucker

+1 Bananaman,
We need to focus on the task ahead, overcome and learn from it for the future. This is not going to be the end when the dust settles, just a lull for another three years.