Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Firearms Course Query
-
22-09-2010 10:35am#1
Comments
-
There are many courses you can attend. Regardless of what requirements may be introduced these courses have been on offer through clubs for a number of years and provide a very good grounding in safety and firearms handling and are to be highly recommended, not just for the beginner, but for everyone who owns a firearm.
Personally I know of many Target Shooting Clubs that run safety and handling courses in Shotgun, Rifle & Pistol.
My own Club - Hilltop - Is in Wicklow and regularly run these types of course. (I'm an instructor so biased
)
Most of the clubs in the NASRPC run the same or similar courses. There will probably be one near you.
The NARGC also run courses - more game shooting oriented I assume - but I have no experience of those. Lots of NARGC lads on here to provide more info on that.
I'm sure there are plenty more.
Where in the country are you?
B'Man0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Speaking of heated topicscavan shooter wrote: »Fact of the matter, is that we dont have an (NRA) in this country ... We seem to have a broken/fragmented approach based on what sport you partake in
Why do folk here think that the NRA is a single cohesive monolithic body in the US that runs everything?
They're no more that than the NARGC are that here.
The US NRA is big, yes, but there are a dozen different bodies over there running sports shooting, and about a dozen more doing political lobbying (the other side of the NRA).
Just saying that they don't have it sorted out either...
Though that's now being changed, at last... and maybe once it's changed, it'll help change minds in other areas too.Think about it, you could driver a car without ever taking a lesson??
Oi, I object to that! I have the least fancy looking air rifle in Ireland (It's not quite as bad as a 10/22, but there are precious few original parts left on it anymore). I mean, look at it!one of those fancy lazery looking yokes that sparks shoots.
Bolts and tape everywhere. And my air pistol is the subject of a lot of jokes as well, since it dis-assembles itself at least twice during a normal match. And there's not a laser in sight there either.
So take yer fancy shiny polished wood sculpture of a yoke and feck orf
Well, yeah - but it's a topic that's been discussed for a few hundred years or so in other countries, and a solution was hammered out and is now an ISO standard and an international treaty (or two, I can't remember) that allow courses to be run to set standards of quality and internationally recognised and so forth.I am sure some people will disagree, its also a topic that can run forever and ever and ever
In other words, we're reinventing the wheel here, the hard way, and for no decent reason.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Wow! This thread expanded fast
First off, thank you for all the pointers folks. I do some rifle shooting in college but its a step up to live ammo as opposed to air.
These training courses, are they put together by clubs themselves or is there a training college / association / accreditation? I've done powerboat courses but the syllabus is set by the ISA not by individual clubs (Which years ago was the case)
I see nothing wrong in club based courses, I just don't want a scenario where a course wouldn't really be worth anything i.e. Club A's course isn't worth anything against Club B's accredited course etc.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Er, are you sure about that?
The idea that rank and rank alone deemed you to be qualified on an army weapon, let alone a qualified instructor, just seems... wrong.
Do you know what it takes to be an NCO and/or officer in our Defence Forces? Or are your just assuming that soldiers & sailors are allowed all these weapons with inferior training. Maybe they should all be sent to your club for 'proper' training :rolleyes:
I have recieved "Army" training and I am deemed an instructor on a number of current weapons (in this instance they are
) used by the Irish Army. I have also done "safety" courses in civilian ranges here too. The instruction I have recieved in both has been more or less the same. The priority is SAFETY. Doesn't really matter if your in DPM or jeans the desired result is the same thing................we all want to go home safe 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Actually, I'm just assuming that the process of qualifying on a particular weapon and the process of gaining a new rank are not one and the same thing in any armed force. The peter principle doesn't apply when your primary work tool is designed to be lethal...bunny shooter wrote: »are your just assuming that soldiers & sailors are allowed all these weapons with inferior training.
One or two of them are already training thereMaybe they should all be sent to your club for 'proper' training :rolleyes:
And there's a long history of RDF members showing up at local ranges to learn the basics on the unofficial orders of their NCOs.
But hey, fling monkey-poo if that's your thing Bunny.0 -
-
-
Actually, I'm just assuming that the process of qualifying on a particular weapon and the process of gaining a new rank are not one and the same thing in any armed force. The peter principle doesn't apply when your primary work tool is designed to be lethal...One or two of them are already training there
And there's a long history of RDF members showing up at local ranges to learn the basics on the unofficial orders of their NCOs.
But hey, fling monkey-poo if that's your thing Bunny.
I think those three words sums it up really. I am not. I know
Any military trained people should just need to be familiarised with civvy range rules as their basic safety should be beyond reproach and should IMO count as competence for a firearms certificate here.
If I or any other "experienced" shooter takes someone who's starting off and gives them instruction as we have all been doing for years the chances are the Super won't accept it and will require a piece of paper.0 -
-
Well, not really. 4(3)(b) says we have to provide proof of competence with the firearm we're applying for a licence for (yes, I know, if asked), and doesn't specify the nature of that proof. So (a) we're at the mercy of the local Super as to whether we have to provide proof at all (and the Commissioner's Guidelines aren't much help here; though they do point out that you can cite having joined a range to gain competence to satisfy that requirement, they really don't push the idea much). And FCA1 specifically asks for proof from new applicants, section 2.5 is marked C meaning that it's a mandatory box for anyone who's not held a licence for that firearm for a period of one year beforehand.I don't believe it's down to the local Super, it's down to us.
The way I read that is that 4(3)(b) demands proof if the Super asks for it; but that's effectively done by the FCA1 form making 2.5 a compulsory box to fill for all new applications.
I'm happily behind that sentiment, but if the local super requires that an applicant do something, the odds of successfully appealing it in court are rather low. So if he says "you have to do the XYZ course", I don't see a means of avoiding that that isn't going to require rolling the dice in the District Court, who I honestly can't see ruling that it's not necessary to do a course whose stated purpose is to teach safe practice with a firearm. We've already seen one supreme court appeal uphold the right of supers to issue conditions on licences like that in the last few months.If we keep telling lads to run off and do such and such a course, pretty soon the Gardai will start expecting it. We need to set the agenda here and in my opinion it's not our job to line the pockets of whatever group decides that this is a 'nice business' to be getting into.
Yup. It's already resulted in one court case that I know of (albiet indirectly) and seen quite a few people ripped off, though in that particular case it was more down to how the course was run than the necessity of the course itself. Truth is, we moan about the oppression of the powers that be all the time, and granted, there are real problems to solve and real unfair practices there; but bluntly, some of our worst problems are completely homegrown and happily sit on our side of the fence, usually in very prominent positions.It's well apparent to me that that little turf war has already started and it quite frankly, turns my stomach.
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
See my post above. And I'd certainly be very happy to meet any Super that required any of our members to do a totally unnecessary and probably inadequate course purely on the basis that he'd 'heard about it'. Because quite frankly I doubt very much if his knowledge would go any farther.Well, not really. 4(3)(b) says we have to provide proof of competence with the firearm we're applying for a licence for, and doesn't specify the nature of that proof. So (a) we're at the mercy of the local Super as to whether we have to provide proof at all (and the Commissioner's Guidelines aren't much help here; though they do point out that you can cite having joined a range to gain competence to satisfy that requirement, they really don't push the idea much). And FCA1 specifically asks for proof from new applicants, section 2.5 is marked C meaning that it's a mandatory box for anyone who's not held a licence for that firearm for a period of one year beforehand.
That's my point. We don't need to be making a de jure case by creating a de facto situation,.We've already seen one supreme court appeal uphold the right of supers to issue conditions on licences like that in the last few months.
Which is what I'm trying to avoid by giving the advice I gave. And I'll continue to give it in such cases because this is not a road we want to travel down.some of our worst problems are completely homegrown and happily sit on our side of the fence, usually in very prominent positions.0 -
Well, if a super's asking for that from someone who's already held a licence before, that's a different kettle of fish; he'll be going counter to the Commissioner's Guidelines right there, and that's a DC case that you'd be likely to win, if it came to that.See my post above. And I'd certainly be very happy to meet any Super that required any of our members to do a totally unnecessary and probably inadequate course purely on the basis that he'd 'heard about it'. Because quite frankly I doubt very much if his knowledge would go any further.
But what do you do when a new rathdrum member, who's starting shooting ab initio, puts down "I'm joining rathdrum to become competent" and the local super says they need to do some sort of formal training above that statement of intent?
You, me and I think everyone else (bar some unscrupulous folk who aren't posting here as far as I know) are in complete agreement that we don't want to go down that road; we're just disagreeing on how we avoid it. You're saying avoid getting beaten with a stick on this point; I personally think that the beating isn't avoidable and so the idea of giving someone a stick to beat you with is a good one; because that way, you get to choose the stick, which is preferable to them choosing it!Which is what I'm trying to avoid by giving the advice I gave. And I'll continue to give it in such cases because this is not a road we want to travel down. 0 -
Generally people who join, do so to start target shooting or have been shooting in college. In both cases, they start with club rifles until they've got an idea of what they want and then apply for the licence on the basis of having been a member for a period of time, usually about a year. Now we've the training licence and I'll be filling in the form for one of those for No. 2 son who's mad keen to take up target rifle. Another member's eldest is also joining, so I'll be in a better position to explain the hoops when we've been through them.Well, if a super's asking for that from someone who's already held a licence before, that's a different kettle of fish; he'll be going counter to the Commissioner's Guidelines right there, and that's a DC case that you'd be likely to win, if it came to that.
But what do you do when a new rathdrum member, who's starting shooting ab initio, puts down "I'm joining rathdrum to become competent" and the local super says they need to do some sort of formal training above that statement of intent?
But we're attempting to redesign the wheel here. For decades, clubs like Rathdrum, Fassaroe, Fermoy, BRC, DRC etc. have done this without any problem. To my mind the purpose of the proof of competence is to make sure that those people who don't have the safety net of a club also attain some degree of competence before getting a licence. The training licence is a formal method of fixing that for them, so a course should be the last resort, not the first.
That was almost incomprehensibleYou, me and I think everyone else (bar some unscrupulous folk who aren't posting here as far as I know) are in complete agreement that we don't want to go down that road; we're just disagreeing on how we avoid it. You're saying avoid getting beaten with a stick on this point; I personally think that the beating isn't avoidable and so the idea of giving someone a stick to beat you with is a good one; because that way, you get to choose the stick, which is preferable to them choosing it!
Almost, but if you read what I said in the preceding paragraph, you'll get some idea of the avoidance procedure. 0 -
A lot of the time, whenever I try to be clear and direct, someone takes offence and screams solicitorThat was almost incomprehensible
I see what you're saying, and if every club had club kit for newbies, we'd be sorted (didn't we have this same discussion a decade ago?Almost, but if you read what I said in the preceding paragraph, you'll get some idea of the avoidance procedure. ). For now though, and especially with restricted firearms which you can't get a training cert for, we're a bit stuck in that regard. 0 -
Advertisement
-
It's alright, I understood... eventuallyA lot of the time, whenever I try to be clear and direct, someone takes offence and screams solicitor
Well it doesn't have to be club kit. A parent, other member etc. can provide if necessary, don't forget somebody has to sign off the application as instructor. As for restricted, well it's not generally where newbies start (though there are always going to be exceptions) so not a major problem by any stretch. And in that regard, I can't see a course being of sufficient weight to carry a Chief Super into signing off on a restricted firearm for a newbie where they haven't previously held a licence of any sort.I see what you're saying, and if every club had club kit for newbies, we'd be sorted (didn't we have this same discussion a decade ago? ). For now though, and especially with restricted firearms which you can't get a training cert for, we're a bit stuck in that regard.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Well then you're not agreeing with everything I saidkildare.17hmr wrote: »I agree with everything you said but the fact is it is up to the super what he will or wont accept as proof of compatence, at least if you ask him you will know for sure and wont waist money on something he wont accept
1. I don't believe money should be involved
2. There's a perfectly good training licence system in place to establish competence for beginners.
3. There's an excellent clubs record in training people up to and beyond competence.
4. You're asking the Super to take on the role of expert on what determines competence instead of demonstrating what it should be.
This is something like the 'nature abhors a vacuum' principle. By asking the Super what he wants, you're giving him the right to dictate what it should be. However if you go to him with comprehensive proof of your competence; be it a length of time on a training licence, a letter from your club detailing your training and accomplishments or some other record of your experience, you're the one defining the criteria.
Until the law actually specifies a course or other form of training, it's up to us to decide the standard. And that shouldn't be one that panders to some business interest whose goal it is to make money from the situation.
This is what the Commissioner's guidelines say:Proof of competence in the use of the firearm or ammunition which is subject of the application - depending on the circumstances of each case, an individual who has already possessed a certificate (without any convictions under the Firearms Act, 1925-2009) for a period of a minimum of 1 year may be considered to have fulfilled the proof of competency. First time applicants for firearms certificates may demonstrate that they have acquired a degree of competency in the use of firearms by satisfying the issuing person of having attended a firearms training course, or of having joined an authorised rifle or pistol club or range for the purpose of gaining competency in firearms use, or having previously been granted a firearms training certificate.
An issuing person tasked with considering whether or not to grant a firearms certificate to an individual, must be satisfied that public safety is never compromised when making these decisions. Issuing persons should however bear in mind that the Act only requires proof of competency. Proof of proficiency in using a firearm, such as expertise in target shooting etc, is not necessary when considering proof of competence.
A course is only one of a number of options, including a training certificate.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
Advertisement