50 handgun owners to mount legal challenges

Lemon3

From yesterdays Sunday Business Post

http://www.sbpost.ie/news/ireland/up-to-50-handgun-owners-to-mount-legal-challenges-over-licences-47402.html

Mods can move this to press clippings

cavan shooter

I see something about going back to court on the NARGC website

bunny shooter

From the NARGC site:

"NARGC Returns to the Courts to Defend Shooting Sports

In another District Court case in Killorglin on 11th February 2010, the appeals of a father and son against a decision by a Chief Superintendent not to renew their centre fire handguns was upheld and the judge granted all licenses. National Director Des Crofton gave evidence in the case on behalf of the appellants concerning the de facto administration and the intended administration of the new firearms licensing code. Once again he was struck by the evidence given by the Chief Superintendent which was completely at variance with what all shooting associations were lead to believe at Firearms Consultative Panel (FCP) meetings.

There can be no doubt after now listening to the sworn evidence of two Chief Superintendents (the other being a similar case last month in Mallow) and the unsworn suggestion of a cross examining Superintendent in two separate courts that we have been misled. The issue for NARGC is not just about these handguns. The issue is about the totally unacceptable behaviour of the Garda Siochana as an institution across many parts of the country in how they are administering the new legislation. There is a significant rump at senior officer level which are causing mayhem and they couldn’t give a hoot for the completely unnecessary trouble, inconvenience and expense they are visiting on law abiding taxpayers.

As the leading shooting Association in Ireland we are done talking and as we warned, NARGC is now returning to the courts to defend the interests of our club members and all shooting with no apology to anyone. Several strategic challenges to the new licensing code are at an advanced stage of preparation by our legal team which has been reunited for the task.

NARGC National Director Des Crofton said, “Having given my time and that of the NARGC for the past two and a half years at no cost to the state to achieve something which was positive and which would serve all parties well into the future, we are no longer able to support the administration of the new firearms legislation. I and others in the NARGC defended it at no small cost to ourselves personally but the Gardai didn’t deliver on their side.”"

cavan shooter

bunny shooter wrote: »

From the NARGC site:

" Once again he was struck by the evidence given by the Chief Superintendent which was completely at variance with what all shooting associations were lead to believe at Firearms Consultative Panel (FCP) meetings.

.”"

How has this been let happen, its as if the work done, good will and relationships forged at the FCP has been thrown out. Looks like the only winners here are the barristers:mad::mad:

bunny shooter

To be fair there are a few senior Gardai who are most of the problem and they need to be dealt with and I reckon the easy way is one central office authorising applications that way we would get the desired consistincy

Dvs

cavan shooter wrote: »

How has this been let happen, its as if the work done, good will and relationships forged at the FCP has been thrown out. Looks like the only winners here are the barristers:mad::mad:

When the legistlation passed and was signed off on by the President,
I posted on the shooting forum about how the deals and IOU's, weren't worth the paper they weren't written on, the post was removed and got an infraction for mud slinging for my trouble, It gives me no satisfaction to now be proved right.

Dvs.

Dvs

bunny shooter wrote: »

To be fair there are a few senior Gardai who are most of the problem and they need to be dealt with and I reckon the easy way is one central office authorising applications that way we would get the desired consistincy

It is not a central office that is required, it is even application of the legistlation across the country, without the Garda mindset of how can we twist the legistlation to not issue a firearms licence to this law abiding person that has a legitmate reason for it.

And it should also be the case in the event that an applicant has not complied with a requirement, assist them in how they go about doing so and when they do comply issue the licence.

Senior Garda dictate policy, the commisioner is the most senior Garda ultimately he is responsible for this farce.

Dvs.

bunny shooter

DOJ could promise anything they wanted on FCP but Super/Chief Super cannot be told what to do by anyone as a result of their status as persona designata (or something along those lines) therefore, DOJ on FCP were making promises they realistically couldn't deliver on with consulting all the Supers/Chief Supers

rrpc

Dvs wrote: »

It is not a central office that is required, it is even application of the legistlation across the country, without the Garda mindset of how can we twist the legistlation to not issue a firearms licence to this law abiding person that has a legitmate reason for it.

And it should also be the case in the event that an applicant has not complied with a requirement, assist them in how they go about doing so and when they do comply issue the licence.

Senior Garda dictate policy, the commisioner is the most senior Garda ultimately he is responsible for this farce.

Dvs.

A central licensing authority is the only way to get consistency. Other jurisdictions including our nearest one in Northern Ireland do this and it works very well. In the UK it's more divisional in nature but it's staffed by and large by civillians who build up an experise and operate as a service to the taxpayers.

Which is what it should be, not an inconvenient part of a senior officer's job.

4gun

Not to be dragging up old questions again, but if they are going to mount a challenge to the new licencing system why not go all out and get the ban on new licences ccenter fire pistols lifted, how can you have a system that allows one shooter to own a cfp while others are not simply bases on the date they first bought their gun
and have it put down as a legal privelage(as opposed to right) that any person in the state is entitled to hold CFP for target shooting so long as he/she meets all the correct requirements of security and character

Dvs

bunny shooter wrote: »

DOJ could promise anything they wanted on FCP but Super/Chief Super cannot be told what to do by anyone as a result of their status as persona designata (or something along those lines) therefore, DOJ on FCP were making promises they realistically couldn't deliver on with consulting all the Supers/Chief Supers

It is not the case that Supers/Chief Supers are being told,
or not told what to do.

But it is a fact that those that are refusing to renew licences, are quoting the commisioners guidelines and makey up, we have to make sure these guns dont fall into criminals hands justification, even though you have already complied with the safe storage requirements prior to your application being dealt with.

They say how it is a very high calibre with absolute authority, while having no idea what calibre means, the differences between them, or their uses.

They do not use the law as justification for considering refusal in meetings with applicants, unless you call quoting Justice charlton and saying it was a judgement in a supreme court case that they are quoting from legal justification.

In fact the only time they quote the section of the fireams act that they are using as a club to beat you namely section 4 of the fireams act is in the refusal letter.

The statements made by Chief Superintendents in a number of District court appeals to date, shows that dealing with individual applications on their merits as persona designata is not being followed in practice.

The commisioners guidelines were supposed to deal with inconsitent application of the firearms legistlation they have clearly not done so,
the DOJ drafted legistlation that was pushed through the Dail to give Supers/Chief Supers the means to refuse licences to law abiding shooters that had met all requirements.

Because in a Supers/Chief Supers opinion you had not satisfied them, that it was the only type of firearm appropriate for a purpose, that they know absolutley nothing about, and are in no way qualified to determine.

rrpc wrote: »

A central licensing authority is the only way to get consistency.

Not if the Senior Garda in charge is one of the Chief Supers that is point blank refusing licences for restricted firearms.


Dvs.

rrpc

Dvs wrote: »

Not if the Senior Garda in charge is one of the Chief Supers that is point blank refusing licences for restricted firearms.


Dvs.

True

But easier to deal with one than to be trying to herd chickens with dozens :rolleyes:

Dvs

rrpc wrote: »

True

But easier to deal with one than to be trying to herd chickens with dozens :rolleyes:

I think we would all agree that the ideal situation would be,

1.fair treatment for law abiding shooters under fair firearms laws,
this would not include bans on internationally recognised shooting sports or restricted lists, a firearm is a firearm, if you want to licence a firearm for a sporting purpose, either you are suitable to have a firearm or not.


2. a central firearms licencing office.
with staff that are properly trained for one purpose, to assist law abiding shooters in complying with the requirements for licencing their firearms for their chosen sport.

3. For the DOJ and the Garda to stop harassing law abiding shooters and apply the same time and effort and resources they have expended in in the last year "dealing with us" to deal with armed criminals on an ongoing basis.

4.That everyone with a firearm must have a firearms safe period, plus the appropriate level of security for the number of firearms they have and where they live, everyone must be a club member, target club or game club those shooters that are not in clubs do not have a voice or access to information on what is effecting their sport, until it is too late, every shooter must have insurance for their shooting sport.

Dvs.

bunny shooter

Dvs wrote: »

2. a central firearms licencing office.
with staff that are properly trained for one purpose, to assist law abiding shooters in complying with the requirements for licencing their firearms for their chosen sport.

+1

Dvs wrote: »

3. For the DOJ and the Garda to stop harassing law abiding shooters and apply the same time and effort and resources they have expended in in the last year "dealing with us" to deal with armed criminals on an ongoing basis.

+1

Dvs wrote: »

4.That everyone with a firearm must have a firearms safe period, plus the appropriate level of security for the number of firearms they have and where they live, everyone must be a club member, target club or game club those shooters that are not in clubs do not have a voice or access to information on what is effecting their sport, until it is too late, every shooter must have insurance for their shooting sport.

Dvs.

+1

Grizzly 45

1.fair treatment for law abiding shooters under fair firearms laws,
this would not include bans on internationally recognised shooting sports or restricted lists, a firearm is a firearm, if you want to licence a firearm for a sporting purpose, either you are suitable to have a firearm or not.

+1

2. a central firearms licencing office.
with staff that are properly trained for one purpose, to assist law abiding shooters in complying with the requirements for licencing their firearms for their chosen sport.

Change that slightly..With CIVILLIAN staff ,prefably with a academic and/or practical knowledge of firearms that apply the law in a non discriminitory and irrespective of personal prejudices of firearms ownership.

3. For the DOJ and the Garda to stop harassing law abiding shooters and apply the same time and effort and resources they have expended in in the last year "dealing with us" to deal with armed criminals on an ongoing basis.

More that the Minister for Justice and Comissioner are taken to account by the Dail to account for[1]the cost to the taxpayer,of instigating this liscense system [2] The amount of police time spent on triplicate paperwork,overtime and other time spent chasing upapplicants,inspections etc.[3]how much Garda time was used per division in sorting out and issuance of FACS[4] The benefits to FAC holders,the general public in saftey and state security,by instigating this procedure.[5]Accountability of each CS per division in front of a Dail comittee on public expenses for expenditure oftheir divisional budgets which is tax payers money on DC cases and why they considerd each case was justifiable in being refused and the subsequent costs being spent.

4.That everyone with a firearm must have a firearms safe period, plus the appropriate level of security for the number of firearms they have and where they live, everyone must be a club member, target club or game club those shooters that are not in clubs do not have a voice or access to information on what is effecting their sport, until it is too late, every shooter must have insurance for their shooting sport.

Agree in principle with you DVs,but it would be easier if target clubs were more common and easier to reach for some people.Plus make it mandatory then that club owners /comitties have then a duty to assist members with problems arising of liscensing,not just a make me money proposition.Also that other vexatious conditions are not added[EG how many competitions enterd per annum or other make it up as you go along "laws"].So long as the person shows up a minimum of 6 times per annum that is considerd a attendance record.

jwshooter

some short sighted ,narrow minded ,know alls hear wanted to slate des ,thats des crofton .
but then again thats the nature of the beast .

rrpc

jwshooter wrote: »

some short sighted ,narrow minded ,know alls hear wanted to slate des ,thats des crofton .
but then again thats the nature of the beast .

Indeed!

You won't have to dig deep to find posts of that nature alright.

rrpc

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Agree in principle with you DVs,but it would be easier if target clubs were more common and easier to reach for some people.Plus make it mandatory then that club owners /comitties have then a duty to assist members with problems arising of liscensing,not just a make me money proposition.Also that other vexatious conditions are not added[EG how many competitions enterd per annum or other make it up as you go along "laws"].So long as the person shows up a minimum of 6 times per annum that is considerd a attendance record.

Most clubs do what you're suggesting Grizzly and look after their members. And the law does state a minimum attendance, it's just that the application has been ahem.. shall we say patchy?

Dvs

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

+1



Plus make it mandatory then that club owners /comitties have then a duty to assist members with problems arising of liscensing,not just a make me money proposition.

I don't know about other clubs, but the club of which I am a member,
goes out of it's way to assist members in any way they can.

Dvs.

kowloon

What about antiques colllectors?
Do they have to join a club and turn up six times a year to not shoot their guns?

Grizzly 45

rrpc wrote: »

Most clubs do what you're suggesting Grizzly and look after their members. And the law does state a minimum attendance, it's just that the application has been ahem.. shall we say patchy?

But what is in law the "minimum"attendance specified???
Remember a post that I suggested that clubs should freeze membership for those who have paid up and are having liscense problems until their legal situation/court appeal is sorted??Anyone doing this...yet??
Would be a great help and showing some solidarity with members,rather than a feeling we want your money irrespective of wether you have a gun or not.

Dvs

kowloon wrote: »

What about antiques colllectors?
Do they have to join a club and turn up six times a year to not shoot their guns?

No, sport shooters have guns to shoot,
collecters that collect antiques firearms that they don't shoot,
are collectors not shooters.

but both are not mutually exclusive.
shooters can also be collectors.

Dvs.

bunny shooter

What is the legal attendance requirement ?

rrpc

bunny shooter wrote: »

What is the legal attendance requirement ?

the name of each member who holds a firearm certificate and who has not participated in any of the shooting functions organised by the club in the preceding 6 months.

Once a quarter would be sufficient to cover that. (on the basis that if you went in January and then in June, it would be once a quarter and just under six months apart).

daveob007

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

But what is in law the "minimum"attendance specified???
Remember a post that I suggested that clubs should freeze membership for those who have paid up and are having liscense problems until their legal situation/court appeal is sorted??Anyone doing this...yet??
Would be a great help and showing some solidarity with members,rather than a feeling we want your money irrespective of wether you have a gun or not.

I think that membership should continue but fees should be frozen untill licences get sorted.
many of us who were refused were sent our renewal letters looking for fees even though we had nothing to shoot with.
maybe thats because the range operators still had to pay for the lease on their ranges whether they were beig used or not.
The ones who lease out the property to range operators should have asked to suspend these fees also.
For many shooters who were going down the appeal road there were big problems trying to fund the appeal and pay for range fees so soon after christmas.
For some that was not possible so some probably had to question whether they realy wanted to go ahead or not.
I do know of someone who just couldnot do this so was forced to surrender their pistol for sale and drop out of range membership for the year untill things get better,which by then a cfp will not be given.he/she will have to go for a .22 non restriced pistol at some stage.
there will be casualties from this whole situation and even some ranges are finding it a struggle and may not survive as a result.

rrpc

daveob007 wrote: »

I think that membership should continue but fees should be frozen untill licences get sorted.
many of us who were refused were sent our renewal letters looking for fees even though we had nothing to shoot with.
maybe thats because the range operators still had to pay for the lease on their ranges whether they were beig used or not.

It's not possible for rnage operators (or clubs) to know whether a member has nothing to shoot with unless they're told in advance. I know clubs will take a 'pay as you go' approach with people who can't afford a once off payment. But primarily the clubs are hogtied by the law which stipulates that members must pay a fee. In addition, without a current club membership, you're not going to be able to even apply for a licence.

Grizzly 45

Well, at this stage shouldnt it be a bit of basic cop on to say to your members.
Look lads we know some of you are in the process of legal wrangles and or disputes with getting your liscenses reissued.Therefore if you have paid a annual membership up front,and are not getting the use of it,we will flag your account and freeze the membership to start up again once you come back to us with your legal problems sorted out. EG So if you had used six months,you still have six months credit in the future,whenever that might be .
Be it in 6,12,or 18 months or whenever.If you have no joy whatsoever in aquiring your liscense and dont want to continue shooting the disiplines we have left here we will refund the membership fee or balance due.
Thats simple goodwill,accepting the reality of alot of people in the current climate, and book keeping.

Rather than "Your dues are up.Pay up or we are telling the Gaurds you are not a member."It is pretty rotten if clubs are using that law as an extortion exerciseas well.Thing is;when you had the liscense you were a club member of a ligit club.Why would you logically pay out more money to be a member of a club whose facilities you cant use if you lose your case??

Darr

and how many ranges will be left running after this spurt of generousity.I know for a fact that some are not exactly making a huge haul of cash. come on a bit of common sense wouldn’t go a miss in this climate any business is struggling .

it’s NOT the clubs fault .. it’s the governments , they made it a condition on your license , they made it difficult to get the FA licensed , they made the club inform who is going , who is a member , they also made it pay for the year and not pro rated ..

while I agree with your sentiments I also know that doing as you suggest would be the death of many ranges .

Range membership is a cost you should have factored in if you want to shoot for each and every year !!!!.
having your firearm to do so is up to you not the range, plus if I have a case to be heard in 6 months and its gets put back for another 6 months,oh super a free year no one is out of pocket ..well except the range of course!!.


Edited to add : if you are going to court might be somthing to ask your brief if you can claim that as an expense against the state

guns4fun

Darr wrote: »

and how many ranges will be left running after this spurt of generousity.I know for a fact that some are not exactly making a huge haul of cash. come on a bit of common sense wouldn’t go a miss in this climate any business is struggling .

it’s NOT the clubs fault .. it’s the governments , they made it a condition on your license , they made it difficult to get the FA licensed , they made the club inform who is going , who is a member , they also made it pay for the year and not pro rated ..

while I agree with your sentiments I also know that doing as you suggest would be the death of many ranges .

Range membership is a cost you should have factored in if you want to shoot for each and every year !!!!.
having your firearm to do so is up to you not the range, plus if I have a case to be heard in 6 months and its gets put back for another 6 months,oh super a free year no one is out of pocket ..well except the range of course!!.

While I see both points of view regarding range fees and costs,I do agree that something should be done to assist members who cannot afford to pay fees and appeal at the same time.
Is the legal fund not available to those members or is that for high court cases only???
At he end of the day it's the ministers fault FULL STOP for this.
This piece of legislation was very cleverly thought up because it weeds out the weakest and removes some handguns from the system.
After all thats what he wants and looks like he is winning in somecases.
And when all this is all over the ones who survive will have to constantly watch their backs because one way or another this government will seek to ban all handguns except for the olympic standard .22s.

CJhaughey

guns4fun wrote: »

And when all this is all over the ones who survive will have to constantly watch their backs because one way or another this government will seek to ban all handguns except for the olympic standardcommissioners listed .22s.

Fixed that for you;)

Greenacre

The NASRPC recently published a newsletter including guidelines on the management of their legal fund, see www.nasrpc.ie

Grizzly 45

[

and how many ranges will be left running after this spurt of generousity.

Quite a few,as if you read my post I said for those who had already paid a full membership in advance.So its not generosity,the club already has your money to do with what they see fit.You just cant avail of thier service until a legal position,not of your fault is cleared.

I know for a fact that some are not exactly making a huge haul of cash. come on a bit of common sense wouldn’t go a miss in this climate any business is struggling .

Common sense would say you would do your utmost to accomadate your customers in any busisness and do everything to keep them,not demad more money for somthing they mightnt be able to use.
RULE of biz.The customer is always right![Excluding the ROI!]

it’s NOT the clubs fault .. it’s the governments , they made it a condition on your license , they made it difficult to get the FA licensed , they made the club inform who is going , who is a member , they also made it pay for the year and not pro rated ..

Agreed on that.However it shouldnt be used as an extortion tactic by the club either. You were a member of the club when you had your FAC for your refused firearm,that does not change an iota and common sense will also say thatif you are appealing that this is paramount reason

while I agree with your sentiments I also know that doing as you suggest would be the death of many ranges .

HOW???They already have your money if you are appealing,and those that dont have this problemof court appeals,have or will pay their dues per normal.Unless the club is MISmanaging the money,and there is a panic on to get more in....Well,different bucket of Haddock there.

Range membership is a cost you should have factored in if you want to shoot for each and every year !!!!.
having your firearm to do so is up to you not the range, plus if I have a case to be heard in 6 months and its gets put back for another 6 months,oh super a free year no one is out of pocket ..well except the range of course!!.

NO! you dont get a free year!You have a frozen membership that you paid for,that will be only unlocked once you show up with a full and current FAC. Call it a credit note if you want to simplify things.I mean what are you going to do on the range,if you havent a gun to shoot??Point your finger, or a bit of wood downrange and Shout BANG???:rolleyes::)

Yes indeed,but will you factor in 3years you might be doing this same charade in a DC again?We would almost want to consider that expense again as well.:(
FACT is most people with common sense,will not throw down another 500 quid for somthing they might not get use of ever again,and clubs intimidating people into pay up or else ,you are not a member attitude wont work either.
Keep doing that and you will see clubs closing up,as people will get sickand tired of being ripped off,and not given any support
after all,isnt that a part of being a club??To be supported in difficult times relative to the sport?[ Excepting the ROI where clubs are there apprently soley to make money for the owners]

Edited to add : if you are going to court might be somthing to ask your brief if you can claim that as an expense against the state

More than likely you couldnt as it isnt a legal cost.However there is nothing stopping a legal challange to the Min of justice and Garda cheif comissioner seeking to recover costs incurred,storage fees,stress and upset to your life,livelyhood,etc by these decisions.This is one that should be considerd further with a better legal bent of mind than me.

Grizzly 45

Greenacre wrote: »

The NASRPC recently published a newsletter including guidelines on the management of their legal fund, see www.nasrpc.ie

Uhmmm,would it be too much to ask.IS there any movement here??
They have a fair hunk of change from the old FLAG fund and CA donation if I am right???But there doesnt seem to be much happening PR or assistance wise??Or who is going to be repersented??They invite people to contact them with letters of refusal,which I did,and was emailed back,do I know I have 30 days to lodge an appeal??.
And silence ensues
Is it just me...Maybe I'm missing somthing here?????But what is going on??NARGC,which hasnt anything got to do with target shooting,is going back to fight a handgun refusal,yet this organisation who is supposed to be involved with pistol shooting is curiously silent?????

rrpc

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Quite a few,as if you read my post I said for those who had already paid a full membership in advance.So its not generosity,the club already has your money to do with what they see fit.You just cant avail of thier service until a legal position,not of your fault is cleared.

Common sense would say you would do your utmost to accomadate your customers in any busisness and do everything to keep them,not demad more money for somthing they mightnt be able to use.
RULE of biz.The customer is always right![Excluding the ROI!]

Grizzly, if your club is being unreasonable, then the best place to complain is to them. General comments on here without being specific is tarring every club with the brush you're wielding; Which is not the case as myself and others on here have already said.

You're not being fair. If you want to make a fuss about a particular club, well then get up on your hind legs and name them. That way, the rest won't suffer guilt by innuendo.

Would that be a reasonable suggestion?

sidneyreilly

Hi all, long time no post:)

My tupence.

1. Clubs: The concept of expecting a club to have a moratorium on fees is unsound, without a somewhat accurate projection of what fees will be in over the course of the coming year how can a club progress or indeed otherwise continue to pay any bills? Be that a commercial operation or otherwise, also if one stands refused their CF cert why not shoot an unrestricted firearm meanwhile (e.g. .22 pistol, rifle, clays)? Whilst they are not the same sport as CF pistol at least you keep your eye in and have some fun and club guns are available in these categories in most cases. Before I go any further I should mention that I stand refused on the CF front and have an expensive case pending but it has not stopped me attending, helping out, shooting (albeit my other firearms) and renewing my club membership. Trust me also that my business is just as bollixed by the current climate as every other so I can ill afford it! I also would not think any club would be unreasonable regarding a member in difficulty with payments, I certainly wouldn’t be a member of such if that was the case.

2. N.A.S.R.P.C. fund: Despite the F.L.A.G. and C.A.I. contributions I understand that fund is still relatively low but now bolstered by last weekends event in Hilltop, funds need to be amassed in the first instance to budget as to what to do, be it P.R. or legal so I would suggest a little patience.

Grizzly 45

rrpc wrote: »

Grizzly, if your club is being unreasonable, then the best place to complain is to them. General comments on here without being specific is tarring every club with the brush you're wielding; Which is not the case as myself and others on here have already said.

You're not being fair. If you want to make a fuss about a particular club, well then get up on your hind legs and name them. That way, the rest won't suffer guilt by innuendo.

Would that be a reasonable suggestion?

A very reasonable suggestion RR and gladly would do so .So long as you will give me a written legal undertaking to pay my and Boards legal fees in a Libel case arising from such an accusation..Would that be a reasonable suggestion????

I am getting the feeling from you now RR that I am touching a nerve????
I am not making accusations first off.I am stating an opinion on how clubs could actually possibly keep their membership and show that they are not actually just intrested in membership fees and not the wellbeing of members....But if the shoe fits......

kowloon

Dvs wrote: »

No, sport shooters have guns to shoot,
collecters that collect antiques firearms that they don't shoot,
are collectors not shooters.

but both are not mutually exclusive.
shooters can also be collectors.

Dvs.

Never said they were, I shoot and collect, but I'm required to licence both categories in the same way. If a requirement was introduced that guns must be in use to be kept on the licence I'm sure the position of collectors would be ignored as in the past.

Grizzly 45

1. Clubs: The concept of expecting a club to have a moratorium on fees is unsound, without a somewhat accurate projection of what fees will be in over the course of the coming year how can a club progress or indeed otherwise continue to pay any bills?

Hi Sidney,
.The club already HAS your money!!!Paid for in your once off annual membership.It is in their bank account,biscut tin under the bed..whatever.
YOU however do not have use of any facilities that you have paid for in advance until your liscense issue has been resolved.
What would be more important would be to ensure that you keep membership levels UP by any means to ensure your customers keep coming back to pay their future dues and membership.
Whats the difficulty in this concept????

,

also if one stands refused their CF cert why not shoot an unrestricted firearm meanwhile (e.g. .22 pistol, rifle, clays)?

Er,well there are some folks out there who only shoot or shot CF???And proably by the time you have gone thru the application process for the other firearms,purchased them,etc.It will proably be your court case time as to wether you have your CF back or not??
IOW spend more money on somthing you really dont want to do,while being fleeced here AGAIN to buy an overpriced .22 pistol??Which no doubt can only be off the Garda"approved" list of Olympic standard .22 pistols???
Not to mind,that if all I was shooting were clays,my club would lose me as a member anyway.As I have my own property to shoot clays on and there is a clay ground alot nearer to me than a two hour drive.So were a half dozen members of my club going to do that line my club would be six members less.Not a good biz move on the clubs part methinks.Its alot easier to liscense a shotgun here and to go clay shooting,than CF shooting.Now,if clubs want to lose pistol shooters well,thats a great way of doing this.

Whilst they are not the same sport as CF pistol at least you keep your eye in and have some fun and club guns are available in these categories in most cases.

Some clubs dont actually have club guns,due to whatever reason.

Before I go any further I should mention that I stand refused on the CF front and have an expensive case pending but it has not stopped me attending, helping out, shooting (albeit my other firearms) and renewing my club membership.

I dont know your situation Sidney.Maybe you live within a reasonable distance of your club,and can attend more than most??For some of us in the "Whest" it is a two hour plus drive for some to our nearest club.
That is abit far to go just to attend,possibly do somthing to help out,drink coffee,and chat and go home again without firing a shot and pay a hefty membership for this privilige.It is dead money in that sense.Well and good if you DO have somthing else to shoot or want to do so at the range.Then you have no gripe or excuse not to pay your dues.Not that I have a gripe in paying them in the first place.Thats not the issue at all.

Trust me also that my business is just as bollixed by the current climate as every other so I can ill afford it! I also would not think any club would be unreasonable regarding a member in difficulty with payments, I certainly wouldn’t be a member of such if that was the case.

Look,without being accused of sweeping generalisations or having a go at clubs etc.I dont understand how difficult it is for a club that already has a persons money,to continue operating and are unable to do a perfectly normal busisness transaction which is simply giving a credit note,for using a facility in the future that they already have paid for???FS any Gym or health club worth their salt can do this...Whats the problem with a gun club??

2. N.A.S.R.P.C. fund: Despite the F.L.A.G. and C.A.I. contributions I understand that fund is still relatively low but now bolstered by last weekends event in Hilltop, funds need to be amassed in the first instance to budget as to what to do, be it P.R. or legal so I would suggest a little patience.[

Good to hear this.But maybe it would be nice if the NASRPC considerd putting this in their newsletter or website???Prevents stupid cnuts like me having to ask stupid questions here then.:pac:

Dvs

kowloon wrote: »

Never said they were, I shoot and collect, but I'm required to licence both categories in the same way. If a requirement was introduced that guns must be in use to be kept on the licence I'm sure the position of collectors would be ignored as in the past.

Do you have an ammo amount on the licences for these collecters items that you do not shoot?


Dvs.

rrpc

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

A very reasonable suggestion RR and gladly would do so .So long as you will give me a written legal undertaking to pay my and Boards legal fees in a Libel case arising from such an accusation..Would that be a reasonable suggestion????

It's only libel if it's not true. And you ignore that I suggested that you bring it up with the club first. After all, posting general comments about unspecified clubs on boards is hardly going to make a particular club change its attitude. It's a simple case of: "Who, me?"

I am getting the feeling from you now RR that I am touching a nerve????
I am not making accusations first off.I am stating an opinion on how clubs could actually possibly keep their membership and show that they are not actually just intrested in membership fees and not the wellbeing of members....But if the shoe fits......

Y'see Grizzly, that's what I'm getting at. Firstly you make allegations generally about clubs and now you're specifically pointing the finger at my club by innuendo because I make the perfectly reasonable suggestion that you talk to your club and/or name them here. In response you point a thinly veiled accusation at mine.

What's that about? Have you something against Rathdrum? Or the other clubs who's members came on this thread and said their club was understanding about the situation. By my count members of four other clubs have defended their clubs on this thread, so are you saying to them that the shoe fits as well?

daveob007

Ok guys,these arguements are in response to my first post here regarding club fees.
I am not having a go at any club either,was only making a suggestion,I apologise if some of ye took the wrong end of the stick.
My club was willing to take my membership in stages due to some difficulties that I am having,but even then i still cannot make the grade so have suspended my membership for now and hopefully can catch up later in the year.
My club is in Limerick by the way,not mentioning any names either.
The ro was very willing to help,but I dont know about any of the others.
Just hope that non of of ye thinks I was trying to poke up the fire.

rrpc

daveob007 wrote: »

Ok guys,these arguements are in response to my first post here regarding club fees.
I am not having a go at any club either,was only making a suggestion,I apologise if some of ye took the wrong end of the stick.
My club was willing to take my membership in stages due to some difficulties that I am having,but even then i still cannot make the grade so have suspended my membership for now and hopefully can catch up later in the year.
My club is in Limerick by the way,not mentioning any names either.
The ro was very willing to help,but I dont know about any of the others.
Just hope that non of of ye thinks I was trying to poke up the fire.

Dave, no offence taken, everybody is entitled to gripe about their club or things they don't like about it. Some of these clubs are commercial operations and the owner is usually trying to make some kind of living out of it, so you can't take it that what works for one club will work for them all.

The member run clubs also have bills to pay and new developments to fund, so although there's probably some leeway, it's the members decision as to what way people in your or Grizzly's situation are accommodated. It's all very democratic and consensus driven.

Speaking for my club, it needs a minimum of four grand a year just to pay bills: rates, insurance, water rates, electricity, target upkeep and other competition expenses. After that, any surplus is re-invested into the buildings or equipment. Nobody puts money in their pocket, in fact if anything the hand goes in to help pay for stuff and people give their time freely to improve things generally.

Members who are retired or unemployed get half subs and easy payment terms and in return they usually use their free time to fix stuff or tidy up. All the members agree on what the subs are to be at the AGM, so nobody can say they're unhappy about something they voted for themselves.

Bananaman

There are a few storms in teacups going on here.

I think the main post to read in this thread is SidneyReillys.

Club membership is your option - the clubs have running costs - registration fees, insurances, security, maintenance, etc. whether or not you can attend the range - so in general just because you cannot make it to the range for whatever reason does not mean the club gets to close the gate and shut up shop, therefore it requires the funds to keep operating same as a golf club or any other sports club.

Most clubs membership fees will reflect those costs and little more - I know in my own club you can see where your membership fees are spent almost every time you go there - be it in upgrades to the ranges, clubhouse, security, etc. I have no doubt that there is no profit from membership fees whatsoever.

Bottom line is you must be a member of a club to license a firearm - the club requires funds to operate - hence membership fees - therefore you need to pay the fee for the club to remain open for it to be able to offer you membership for you to be able to license your firearm.
It's a vicious circle but until such time as your license is issued or not you have little choice but to roll with it.

It is your choice which club you are a member of and what agreement you enter into to do so and it is not for me or anyone else to comment on your choices.

NASRPC Legal Fund is in it's infancy - there have been some substantial donations from the SSAI and CAI and following the shoot the weekend in Hilltop the sports people themselves have made a huge contribution.
There have been discussions with Legal and Public Relations professionals in order to evaluate how best to utilise the fund, on a national level, for the benefit of all shooters.

If you have specific ideas as to how you believe the fund could or should be used then please submit them to the NASRPC - either through your club or directly - and their legal subcommittee will review them - they are currently evaluating quite a lot of options. Obviously they will not discuss any of these options in a public forum.

B'Man

Grizzly 45

It's only libel if it's not true. And you ignore that I suggested that you bring it up with the club first.

Yes,but that still costs money and court time to prove or disprove this.
hence my decline to name this and you personally should be aware of the Boards rules here of posting specifics.So even if I did,it would proably get both of us banned in into a legal SHTEstorm we dont need .Not that the post would survive 20 seconds here.No doubt the next arguement will be I'm copping out and hiding behind the rules of the boards.Unfortuneatly thats the reality of posting and discussing here.

After all, posting general comments about unspecified clubs on boards is hardly going to make a particular club change its attitude. It's a simple case of: "Who, me?"

Gosh! I forgot that I am in Ireland where that would be the first thing EVERY club would think.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:.Instead of thinking."Hey,maybe this guy has a point..And this would be a good PR exercise to keep the members happy?"

Y'see Grizzly, that's what I'm getting at. Firstly you make allegations generally about clubs and now you're specifically pointing the finger at my club by innuendo because I make the perfectly reasonable suggestion that you talk to your club and/or name them here. In response you point a thinly veiled accusation at mine

My God! You are a sensitive little soul these days!!.I know perfectly well RR that you can define between a generalisation of statement and a specific" thinly veiled accusation":rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:.I know that you as a repersentative of Rathdrum you must immediately defend it to the death.Now unruffle your feathers,unpuff your manly chest,lay your hackles and calm down..

Try and read this slowly.What I have posted in the last few posts are an opinion of how clubs could improve their standing with their members,and a good gesture in the PR terms for those who are fighting serious legal challanges,that belive it or not affect us all..I dont know how you get that this is a sweeping allegation against all clubs that they are engaged in sharp practises.How do you know that I havent taken it up with my club first off???That is an ASSumption on your part that I havent.

What's that about? Have you something against Rathdrum? Or the other clubs who's members came on this thread and said their club was understanding about the situation. By my count members of four other clubs have defended their clubs on this thread, so are you saying to them that the shoe fits as well??

No,I've nothing against you,[as you well know] or Rathdrum,and I dont know the other four clubs as they werent named.But I think I see now why you are so tetchy about this.
Is it just because this idea might have some merit,and the fact that if this idea was followed up by members,the clubs would be out of pocket.When in fact you actually are not as you have the membership already paid for in advance??You have the money already,so what is the problem with issuing a cedit note???

Y'see RR,as now a senior member of a gun club ,if this is the kind of attitude being displayed by the running bodies of clubs in Ireland,[and I will use this as a sweeping generalisation here].Doesnt it kind of prove my point about of wanting money,first up and shooters needs second?This dismissive out of hand attitude is would do no club comittee no favours in keeping membership up.

Now,dont take this as another attack on your chacter,shooting clubs or whatever.It is a personal observation.

kowloon

Dvs wrote: »

Do you have an ammo amount on the licences for these collecters items that you do not shoot?


Dvs.

Old cert has it down as 0. Doesn't necessarily mean common sense will prevail over a blanket requirement though.

rrpc

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Yes,but that still costs money and court time to prove or disprove this.
hence my decline to name this and you personally should be aware of the Boards rules here of posting specifics.So even if I did,it would proably get both of us banned in into a legal SHTEstorm we dont need .Not that the post would survive 20 seconds here.No doubt the next arguement will be I'm copping out and hiding behind the rules of the boards.Unfortuneatly thats the reality of posting and discussing here.

I'd respectfully suggest you take it up with the mods rather than try to mod the issue yourself. I know there have been quite a few threads on here in the past that were griping about particular clubs and the mods let them run until it started degenerating into personal abuse and naming people and making accusations against them from behind the cover of anonymity.

Gosh! I forgot that I am in Ireland where that would be the first thing EVERY club would think.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:.Instead of thinking."Hey,maybe this guy has a point..And this would be a good PR exercise to keep the members happy?"

You're taking what's obviously a personal experience for you and extrapolating it to 'all clubs'. I'm just mildly pointing out that you can't do that unless you've personal experience of 'all clubs'. I've further pointed out that there are club members here who are defending their clubs against such a generalisation and you then accuse us of being touchy. I'd suggest you shouldn't always ASSume that defending your club is some indication of guilt by proxy. :rolleyes:

My God! You are a sensitive little soul these days!!.I know perfectly well RR that you can define between a generalisation of statement and a specific" thinly veiled accusation":rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:.I know that you as a repersentative of Rathdrum you must immediately defend it to the death.Now unruffle your feathers,unpuff your manly chest,lay your hackles and calm down..

See above . I'm quite calm thank you, but you're the one making the generalisation.

Try and read this slowly.What I have posted in the last few posts are an opinion of how clubs could improve their standing with their members,and a good gesture in the PR terms for those who are fighting serious legal challanges,that belive it or not affect us all..I dont know how you get that this is a sweeping allegation against all clubs that they are engaged in sharp practises.How do you know that I havent taken it up with my club first off???That is an ASSumption on your part that I havent.

It's more than an assumption as you've yet to say that you have done so. In any event, I didn't say that you hadn't done so, merely that it would be the first thing you should do. If you have, well then lets here what they had to say.

Is it just because this idea might have some merit,and the fact that if this idea was followed up by members,the clubs would be out of pocket.When in fact you actually are not as you have the membership already paid for in advance??You have the money already,so what is the problem with issuing a cedit note???

I've said that different clubs have different ways of dealing with this. That since most clubs are run by the members, they decide how it's dealt with and that (it appears) the majority of clubs don't seem to have the problem you're encountering because very few have followed onto this thread to agree with you. I'm not disagreeing with you either mind, the only problam is that you've made a sweeping statement that you can't know is true. Why don't you ask Banaman and sidneyreilly the same questions? They seem to be happy with the way their club is going. Seems the only problems are in the wesht

Y'see RR,as now a senior member of a gun club ,if this is the kind of attitude being displayed by the running bodies of clubs in Ireland,[and I will use this as a sweeping generalisation here].Doesnt it kind of prove my point about of wanting money,first up and shooters needs second?This dismissive out of hand attitude is would do no club comittee no favours in keeping membership up.

Where was I being dismissive? Is the problem that I've disagreed with you in your contention that because you have a problem with the way your club is dealing with you, that all clubs are the same? Most of the clubs are member run and that means that if the members decide they want to get a jacuzzi for the jacks, then usually the jacuzzi gets installed

Now,dont take this as another attack on your chacter,shooting clubs or whatever.It is a personal observation.

I'm not taking it as a personal attack in any way whatsoever. I am trying to get you to accept that you just possibly, perhaps, mightn't have the teeniest weeniest idea as to how other clubs interface with their members.

Finally it has to be emphasised (because you seem to have no experience of this) that most clubs are the members. There's no boss/emplyee/skivvy relationships it's just everyone pulling together to get what they want.

knockon

rrpc wrote: »

I've said that different clubs have different ways of dealing with this. That since most clubs are run by the members, they decide how it's dealt with and that (it appears) the majority of clubs don't seem to have the problem you're encountering because very few have followed onto this thread to agree with you.

Thats because I have been very busy. Grizzly raises a fair point that has a lot of merit. My own club has asked that I pay my subscription now (I have no pistols and my appeal is on March 30th). I was informed if I did not pay my membership I would not be on the list of members supplied to An Garda Siochana in early March. That is completely understandable from the Range Operators perspective but it would be an absolute waste of money on my behalf.

Now here the bit I did not like :My RO said that he thinks that my appeal could be in jeoprady as I was not now a member of an authorised range.

I was a bit miffed at this which I though was not entirely accurate and I felt used as a lever to encourage me to pay. The dogs on the street know that the appeal is an appeal on a decision taken by the CS last November when I was a member not based on my current status.

Just because people did'nt post does'nt mean Grizzly is alone in his point of view.

rrpc

knockon wrote: »

Thats because I have been very busy. Grizzly raises a fair point that has a lot of merit. My own club has asked that I pay my subscription now (I have no pistols and my appeal is on March 30th). I was informed if I did not pay my membership I would not be on the list of members supplied to An Garda Siochana in early March. That is completely understandable from the Range Operators perspective but it would be an absolute waste of money on my behalf.

Which to be fair is not a problem of the club's making. How they're dealing with it is not great either, as they could offer to take your payment in instalments (the law states that to be a member you must pay a fee)

Now here the bit I did not like :My RO said that he thinks that my appeal could be in jeoprady as I was not now a member of an authorised range.

I was a bit miffed at this which I though was not entirely accurate and I felt used as a lever to encourage me to pay. The dogs on the street know that the appeal is an appeal on a decision taken by the CS last November when I was a member not based on my current status.

In fact it's actually based on your position at the time of application. Your non attendance this year would affect any licences you currently hold or possible future applications. But you have six months since your last visit to the range (sounds a bit like confession ) before it would affect your status.

Just because people did'nt post does'nt mean Grizzly is alone in his point of view.

Well it did until you posted

You should formally write to your club with your concerns, they should reply to you in a like form and perhaps at that stage they might reconsider their position.

If you have other licensed firearms that you can use at the club, that would have an effect on your position as well.

Bananaman

If you are taking an appeal of your refusal then you must believe that you can win it - namely that you do meet the criteria to license the firearm.

One of those criteria is that you are a member of an authorised club/range.

When your appeal is won you will need to be a member of an authorised club/range in order to practice or compete.

So I am at a loss to see what this discussions is about.

You must have been a member when you applied,
you must be a member now and
you need to be a member after.
At what point do you not want to be a member and hence not be required to pay for membership?

At the end of the day there are some incontrovertible facts.

You must be a member of a club/.range in order to apply for a firearms license for a short firearm

You must be a member of a club/.range in order to hold a firearms license for a short firearm

You must be a member of a club/.range in order to appeal a refusal for a firearms license for a short firearm (assumption) - otherwise how do you explain to the court what you want it for ?

Clubs.Ranges are no longer allowed to do day or part memberships - they cannot offer you membership until your appeal is heard - you must join the same as someone who either holds a license or someone who is applying for the first time. There is not allowed to be a difference.

Grizzlys view of a credit note makes no sense. It means that the Club/Range are in some way suspending you membership - namely giving you a part-membership - which is not legally allowed.

My 2c

B'Man

Grizzly 45

b'man
If you have paid in full for a membership of 12 months of a club .
Are you a member..................... Yes/No?
Does the law recognise as such..... Yes/No?
Does the law care wether you attend over the bare minimum required ....................................Yes/No?
How then does it make it a part time membership if you are FREEZING,not SUSPENDING a part time membership??You are still a member,just not availing of the usage of the facilities,which is pointless as you do not have a gun to use there if you are only shooting a single disiplne.

Darr

Far as I knew (open to correction) your membership had to be issued with a date of issue and EXPIRE Date also ..

so paid for a year = member

suspended or what ever you want to call it .. = fine sure thing

expire date = remains unchanged

you either renew in full or lapse ..

I honestly cant see where this is going ... look nearly every pistiol shooter I know has some other FA , most ones granted on the condition that they are members of said range so for most its probably not an issue ..

if you are one of the probably very small number who hold 1 single FA (short) that was the only one granted with mention of range membership then talk to your club , if you dont like the answer MOVE club .. you can you know , you have a choice ...

Darr