What change to the firearms legislation would we all agree on??

daveob007

With the general election coming pretty soon and the opposition knocking on our doors looking for votes,here is my question.
Which parts of Aherns failed legislation would you like to see changed by a new government.
I think we should all come up with something that we can ask the candidates when they ask for votes.
would it be a good idea if we had a common goal even though we all have different problems,,,which problems are common to all aspects of shooting??

the appeal system=one that would not involve huge costs to us would be good.
a new definition of restriced=not one that restricts a firearm because of what it looks like.
all .22 pistols to be non restriced=and not a list of preffered ones.
airguns below 12ftlbs and 6ftlbs as in the U.K. to be licence free=not the system we have where any little plinking gun is classed as a firearm.
the garda commishioners guidelines to be adhered to by all districts=not guidelines that are implimented differently all over the place.

many more problems,,what are your ones??

Bananaman

Change Firearms licenses to not have your address but instead have your photo - would be a good start - not particularly security conscious when they drew up what we have.


B'Man

Tackleberrywho

Bananaman wrote: »

Change Firearms licenses to not have your address but instead have your photo - would be a good start - not particularly security conscious when they drew up what we have.


B'Man

And have the cards just saying a Pulse number, so the regular Joe would not cop that it was a gun licence :eek:

I'd love to see an exemption on lever action rifles (cowboy Rifles) so we could licence calibres over .30 that were legal on deer.

Reloading to be the Norm, once someone had passed a Safety/Training course they could happily reload.

And a bounty on Magpies, Greycrows and Foxes!!

guns4fun

put licencing back into the guards hands and not an post,,security issue here.

allow target practice on nominated lands that you use for hunting and not just authorised ranges.

bring back practical pistol shooting and lift ban on centre fire pistols.

use a comittee for appeals and not the courts,,too costly and also a security risk.

Sparks

I can think of a few, but starting with the smallest changes:

• Change section one of the Firearms Act so the definition of a firearm, section B goes from "one joule" to "eight joules" (or "sixteen joules" if we want to harmonise with the UK instead of the EU);
• Lower the age limit on the training licence to ten for airguns and twelve for every other kind of firearm (there are two reasons for the different age for airguns, (1) the amount of recoil and the damage it can do to a child's bones and musculature, and (2) the only juniors shooting that young are Pony Club tetrathletes and they only use airguns - the idea being to ask for only what you need);
• Delete part (b) from the Restricted List SI's definition of an assault rifle;
• Add crossbows to the list of unrestricted firearms (they were left out by an oversight, they shouldn't be restricted on general principle);
• Change section 2(e) of the Restricted List SI to read (e) short firearms compliant with International Olympic Committee shooting competition regulations.

There are other things we could change, but those give us the most bang for the least bucks, if you'll pardon the expression. And note that if we get the first, then the airgun clause of the second should just get dropped.

Bananaman

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

I'd love to see an exemption on lever action rifles (cowboy Rifles) so we could licence calibres over .30 that were legal on deer.

There are plenty of CF Lever action carbines licensed - I have one myself - but only for target shooting (Gallery Rifle Centrefire).

I don't think Cowboy Action Shooting ever happened here - nobody has/has any interest in it.

Most CF Lever actions are chambered in .38/.357 which are fairly low velocity rounds.

B'Man

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

• Change section 2(e) of the Restricted List SI to read (e) short firearms compliant with International Olympic Committee shooting competition regulations.

I disagree 100%

The International Olympic Committee should have no says in the laws of Ireland - we would have to comply with whatever changes they made to their regulations.

To discriminate against sports which are not an Olympic sport is absolutely wrong.

B'Man

xp90

Less restrictions on catagories:

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

I disagree 100%
The International Olympic Committee should have no says in the laws of Ireland - we would have to comply with whatever changes they made to their regulations.
To discriminate against sports which are not an Olympic sport is absolutely wrong.
B'Man

If I hear one more person on our side kneejerk against that idea without apologising first to the 9mm and .38 pistol owners they seek to disentitle, I'm going to give up the belief that that person has the best interests of shooters at heart, I really am.

Besides which, the IOC is mentioned because they encompass ISSF, IBU and UIPM rules, which (a) we do have a say in drafting, and (b) you don't seem to have actually read. If you had, you'd see why I think this would be a good step.

firefly08

The ban on centrefire handguns is the single most outrageous thing from the whole business. That should be tackled first - IMO, to deal with any of the smaller issues first when that elephant is in the room is to accept that we'll never get that changed.

It wasn't me!

I'd like to see the notion of a restricted list swatted down clean. Bloody stupid. My own biggest gripe is with the idea of a calibre restriction on rifles. I can have a .30-378 Weatherby mag, but not an 8x57 without going restricted. It's lunacy.

Would also like to see the reintroduction of centrefire pistols.

De-regulation of low-powered airguns. Would settle for the EU 8 joules, but the UK 12 ft/lbs wouldn't be bad either.

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

If I hear one more person on our side kneejerk against that idea without apologising first to the 9mm and .38 pistol owners they seek to disentitle, I'm going to give up the belief that that person has the best interests of shooters at heart, I really am.

Besides which, the IOC is mentioned because they encompass ISSF, IBU and UIPM rules, which (a) we do have a say in drafting, and (b) you don't seem to have actually read. If you had, you'd see why I think this would be a good step.

I don't care.

It is wrong to have the International Olympic Committee have anything to do with Irish Laws.

They are just one sporting body -
Why not let them decide which 'handball' is allowed?
Why not have the FIFA decide what variants of "Football" are allowed?

By all means reference them in support material, but under no circumstances whatsoever, should they ever get to decide what we in Ireland are, or are not, allowed to do.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

I don't care.

Yeah, I gathered that.
Problem is, you're wrong for several reasons, most notably because you haven't read the rules you're decrying.
And because you think we've no say in them (we do, we just don't draft them ourselves and impose them on the world). Hell, we have more say in the ISSF rulebook than we ever used to have in the Firearms Acts up until the FCP was founded.

The point of my post was to point out FAST, SIMPLE, SMALL changes to the current legislation that would effect the most positive change for the least effort. Dropping the restricted list would be good (ask rrpc, I shouted myself hoarse in many meetings arguing against it). Bringing back CF pistols without restriction would be good (ask the DoJ, SSAI or NTSA, I protested against their banning at the time). Hell, there are a lot of things that we could change that would be good, but all of them are longer, more complex changes. My list could be done inside of three months, most of it inside of a week.

Have you an idea that can bring back most CF pistols inside a week?

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

Yeah, I gathered that.
Problem is, you're wrong for several reasons, most notably because you haven't read the rules you're decrying.

Maybe I have

Will they support us having IPSC ?

B'Man

Sparks

The full IPSC sport? No, we'd have to get section 4C repealed and that's going to take longer than a week.

But in the meantime, you could be training on bullseye targets with CF pistols (no IOC rule bans IPSC).

Or do you think those who want to shoot CF pistol shouldn't do so unless they do it the way you specify? Because last I checked, while shooting IPSC was large enough here, so was the group of people who shot CF pistol and weren't shooting IPSC.

What we're talking about here B'man is not the final solution, but the first step. And if the first step doesn't take you all the way to your destination, you just take a second step, and then a few more and you keep on going till you get there. So stop cursing the fact that you can't take a single step to get to where you want to be, for pragmatism's sake.

Bananaman

Thanks for the clarification which had nothing to do with what I asked - but I have come to expect that.

I said that the IOC should have nothing to do with what we are allowed to do or are not allowed to do in Ireland as a country - they control what happens at ISSF events - that's it.

Any reference to them in our laws would be a mistake.

I asked whether or not their regulations would support us having IPSC?

And you then assumed that I thought all people with CF pistols should shoot IPSC - bit of a leap there.

No - I do not think all people who have a CF Pistol should shoot IPSC - in fact I have no interest at all in what sports they take part in - that is up to them. Not me, Not you, Not the IOC.

I think that basing our legal restrictions on the IOC regulations will make the world look very ISSF which is a bit beige for me - not that I don't like beige - but sometimes a bit of colour in the world is a good thing.

No - I do not have an alternative suggestion for how we would go about getting CF pistols back but i think looking for any one person, organisation or sport to come up with it would be a mistake also.

What I would like - on that issue - is for the NASRPC and ITS, the two organisations that actually do represent CF Pistol shooting in Ireland to be at the meeting and have a say in what the approach is.

B'Man

PS: I'm almost afraid to refresh this page for the unholy child of satan, multi quoted, bible referencing, diatribe that will explain why I am wrong.
But I do not care as I am not saying I am correct - I am giving my opinion.

clivej

I would like to see that a person can apply for the license for a certain calibre before getting the firearm. That way you know if you have got a license before you go pick out the gun.
It would only then need the dealer to return the gin serial number on the sale reciept for you to get those details added to your new license.
Like it's done in the UK.

daveob007

Judging by your comments the whole legislation seems to be a complete farce,,looks like we need it done from the start,,every little bit.

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Any reference to [the IOC] in our laws would be a mistake.

Right, so you're opposed to the rapid reintroduction of centerfire pistols. Okay, good to know.

No - I do not think all people who have a CF Pistol should shoot IPSC -in fact I have no interest at all in what sports they take part in - that is up to them. Not me, Not you, Not the IOC.

You're just saying that if you don't control things, then you oppose things.
This idea would bring back a good two thirds of all CF pistols, without the time it takes to go through the Dail and repeal 4C and the restricted list (and that's assuming we can convince everyone that's a good idea), and all the components we need in terms of support for the idea are there.
But you oppose it because you heard the word "Olympic".
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face - in fact, talk about cutting off other people's noses!
<edit: that last comment was over the line, and I retract it and apologise>

No - I do not have an alternative suggestion for how we would go about getting CF pistols back

I thought not.

What I would like - on that issue - is for the NASRPC and ITS, the two organisations that actually do represent CF Pistol shooting in Ireland to be at the meeting and have a say in what the approach is.

Talk to the SSAI so. You guys invented the SSAI, you guys wrote the rules and you guys voted on them, so don't come complaining on here that the rules aren't fair - you have an official SSAI rep on the FCP and you have an unoffical rep there as well; you can't ask for fairer than that, not unless you want to demand that you get preferential treatment over the other shooters.

PS: I'm almost afraid to refresh this page for the unholy child of satan, multi quoted, bible referencing, diatribe that will explain why I am wrong

I'm not just saying you're wrong B'man - I'm saying that you think that if the idea didn't come from your head, and if it isn't something you control, that you're automatically opposed to it, no matter what it costs anyone else in our community.
But I multi-quoted, so I guess you didn't read this far.
:mad:

Sparks

daveob007 wrote: »

Judging by your comments the whole legislation seems to be a complete farce,,looks like we need it done from the start,,every little bit.

It's not a horrible idea... but we just spent ten years because Minister McDowell had that thought, and it turns out it's damn near impossible to write legislation neatly because even if we wrote the perfect manuscript and gave it to the DoJ and neither the DoJ nor the Minister had any issues with it and accepted it completely; it still has to get through the AG's office (where they amend the words looking at the legalese, and not the actual thing the legalese is talking about), and then the Dail (where every TD wants to amend it to be seen to be doing something) and then the Seanad (same story).

To be honest, it's always easier to adjust than to make up from whole cloth. And it's always, always easier to adjust an SI than primary legislation, which is why I suggested modifying the restricted list SI before we go chasing after changes in primary legislation to reintroduce CF pistols.

ssl

i like to see all your firearms put on one licence, therefore you'll just have one form to fill out, on which you list all you guns. plus a hard plastic licence with your photo and not your address.

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

Talk to the SSAI so. You guys invented the SSAI, you guys wrote the rules and you guys voted on them, so don't come complaining on here that the rules aren't fair - you have an official SSAI rep on the FCP and you have an unoffical rep there as well; you can't ask for fairer than that, not unless you want to demand that you get preferential treatment over the other shooters.

I never mentioned the SSAI or the FCP.

I said that if there is to be a meeting to discuss a strategy for how future CFPistol licensing would be allowed - that those that actually represent CF Pistol shooting, namely NASRPC and ITS would be there and have an input.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

I never mentioned the SSAI or the FCP.
I said that if there is to be a meeting to discuss a strategy for how future CFPistol licensing would be allowed - that those that actually represent CF Pistol shooting, namely NASRPC and ITS would be there and have an input.
B'Man

Well, that's fair enough.
B'man, I hereby invite a representative of the NASRPC and a representative of the ITS to the official Boards.ie How-We-Will-Change-The-Firearms-Act meeting.

(By the way, this is it, so you can tell them it's here)

Bananaman

Thanks for that but I would prefer that people that use 'the outside world' cold wet thing the other side of the windows - where the pizza delivery guy does be - actually met up and decided these sorts of things.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Thanks for that but I would prefer that people that use 'the outside world' cold wet thing the other side of the windows - where the pizza delivery guy does be - actually met up and decided these sorts of things.

First off, shame on you for calling out pizza delivery in that weather.
Secondly, you're the only one here who thinks this is a formal policy meeting...

Tackleberrywho

Bananaman wrote: »

There are plenty of CF Lever action carbines licensed - I have one myself - but only for target shooting (Gallery Rifle Centrefire).

I don't think Cowboy Action Shooting ever happened here - nobody has/has any interest in it.

Most CF Lever actions are chambered in .38/.357 which are fairly low velocity rounds.

B'Man

in .30-30 Cal


I'd like to see blackpowder Hunting rifles over .4 calibre being allowed UNRESTRICTED.
I'd love to see 12g being allowed to use Slugs and Rifled barrels on deer as the fact that they are not is silly.

sfakiaman

1. Abolish the restricted list, it serves no useful purpose and the calibre restrictions on CF rifles are a joke e.g. 32-20 against .300 OMG magnum.
2. De-classify airguns at or under 12 joules as firearms.
3. Introduce licences for different categories of firearms. This would be like the (old?) UK system where, for instance, you are granted a licence for a .223 rifle then you go shopping for the best deal. If you want to change rifles you simply go to the dealer, he buys your old one and you buy the new one. The dealer writes it up and notifies the police. My idea would be to simplify that, which would mean that a licence holder with authorisation for a RF rifle who wants to trade his .22LR for a .17 HMR would simply do the trade in the dealers, the Guards would be notified and the details entered on Pulse. I would see the categories as below
a. Shotgun
b. Rimfire rifle
c. .22 CF rifle
d. Rifles firing pistol caliber ammo.
e. CF rifle (possibly two categories based on power)
f. Pistol.
4. License with a photo and pulse number with other details on a chip like a bank card.
5. Reloading allowed. Possession of ammo as per license
6. Stop the discrimination against certain firearms on cosmetic grounds. No body looking down the barrel of a shotgun is worried if it has a pistol grip or not.
7. Centralise license processing.

There is probably a lot more but the above would make life a lot easier for shooters, gun dealers and the guards.

meathshooter1

that supers and chief supers stop bending and making up there own interpretations of the guidelines and a bit of equality.no media naming of people who have to go to courts big security issue.a way for new blood to get into the sport of centrefire pistols.reloading to be brought in,all firearms on one cert with photo(plastic creditcard type). the FCP and NGBs giving more of an input.

chem

Buy, sell and collect antique and deactivated firearms, as in the UK, EU and most of the rest of the world, without having to send everything for testing, inspection and lots of red tape.

4gun

this is almost reading like a letter to santa.....squabbling parents includes:D
here is the Christmas tree

[IMG][/img]


why not wait to see who gets the office after the next general election...who are the justice reps for both FG and Lab..why not give them a vote of enchoragement and canvass them now for these changes ..it might bear fruit when the time comes
because when they get into power they might not be so approachable

Kryten

First and foremost is to lift the ban on CF pistols and allow those who participate in the sport to renew their CF licences. Too many competition shooters have been refused their renewals. This is not on. I have heard of other people, who's primary discipline is not even pistols, have theirs renewed no problem.

Olympic pistol references should be dropped, as lets face it, the only cartridge pistol disciplines in the olympics are Men's Rapid Fire, men's 50meter pistol and Women 25 Meter pistol. I know its a recognisable brand to Joe Public and Joe Minister, but it is wrong to pidgeon hole pistol shooting to one variety.

I know this is more than just subtle changes in the rules, but Pistol shooting, as a sport has been decimated by these unfair laws and by unreasonable Chief Superintendents. It needs to be changed asap.

Grizzly 45

Re do the FAC to a simple embbeded chip&pin card that entails your entire firearms related details.it should only have your pulse number nothing else.
Make it five years,andwith a pre grant system ala the UK.

Abolish the draconian and unfair pistol ban.It serves nothing except to reduce pistol ownership.Or at very least allow those that have to be able to sell or trade "like for like" in calibres. Allow ALL.22LR pistols to be unrestricted irrespective of looks or mag capacity.

Decide finally to accept international terminology,rather than Irish,as to what certain restricted firearms actually are.EG assault rifle,bullpup,etc.

Revise totally the Garda guidelines on firearms,prefably by somone who knows WTF they are talking about!

Allow IPSC in all its forms.It is not,has not and never has been "combat Shooting"It is pointless banning a sport when people can re create or conduct full military training with airsoft.Combat shooting is illegal anyway in most of the EU,so if they can define between IPSC and combatshooting,why cant we??

Abolish the "other" box on the Garda FAC application where Supers have a slip thru hole to refuse your FAC.If they tick the other box,there should be a" IF other box is ticked ,specify reasons in detail" clause.

Allow reloading in either BP or smokeless,after attendence at a basic saftey course or proof of attendence at one in the EU or US[NRA qualification]

Remove in any shape or form the "idoanlikdelookodat" policy on ANY firearms.If the person ticks the pre requsite boxes to own,is of good chacter ,and has proven a need,it is irrespective then as to what the firearm looks like,wether it is a high class walnut stocked BA or a black semi auto.

Remove the upper calibre ban of 338.If the applicant shows they are members of a range that can handle 20mm , with a back stop a mile and a hlf away let them to it.

Redefine "range" as to a place that is open for commercial gain.
Not the back silage clamp where people have been shooting safley for generations with a .22.As worst get a new definition for maybe "family range" IOW the DOJ inspects your silage clamp and if it isnt looking out on the neighbours or main road,and doesnt consist of flat rock etc,signs it off as a non commerical range up to a certain calibre.If you want to shoot stronger calibres,you have to possibly add better saftey features,if reasonably needed.

Remove the entire firearms liscensing process from AGS.It is too costly in Garda time and manpower,and open to the wiles of biased cheif superintendants and Supers..Any competant govt dept should be able to handle this from applications,to points of law to issuance of certs.

Allow deacts to be off ticket items along with crossbows.Crossbows do not in anyway fit a description of a firearm[IE at its most basic,a chemical propellant with a heat/spark ignition system that creates a spark to ignite a propellant in lose or contained form to drive a projectile.]

Automatic statute life sentence for any misuse of a firearm,be it real,airsoft,deact or model.Irrespective of ageof the perpertrator.
Later addition

Remove the restricted ammo clause on shotgun slugs..It is a complete oddity that makes no sense, and is unenforceable. What with knowledge on the internet on how to make slugs or purchase slug molds for those who want or need them.
It would be also in certain circumstances be more benefical and safer for liscensed deer hunters to have the option of using shotgun slugs for deer hunting,rather than a rifle.As well as allowing certain competitions of the BDS category to be held as well here.

Finally,

Any of you going to ask any of these hopefuls that will land on your door,for info from their doc that they are not suffering from anything that might prevent them from carrying out their duties as ministers or TDs to the detriment of this country??I most certainly will,as this govt can acess this info off my GP to see if I am a public danger if I own a gun.I think it is only fair to ask the same off any people who will repersent and make laws to govern us.After all, they can do more damage to us,and ruin lives with the stroke of a pen than any nutter with a gun ever can.;)

Sparks

Kryten wrote: »

First and foremost is to lift the ban on CF pistols ...
Olympic pistol references should be dropped

Those two are pragmatically opposed.
The fastest way to return the bulk of CF pistols is to modify the restricted list because that's an SI and can be changed much faster than you can get a Bill to modify the Firearms Act put together and pushed through the Dail. It's not perfect, it's not the last step in the process, and it won't fix everyone's situation, but it'll fix it for a lot of people very quickly and we can build on it rather than stopping there.

Maybe if folks stopped with this anti-Olympic bigotry long enough to actually look at the idea, they'd see that as a first step, it's not a bad one. It's not sexy, it's not dramatic and noone will pound their fist on the table during it, but at the end of the day, we'd have actual, measurable, positive, results. I kindof think that's important.

Remember, we're not talking here about the last thing that is ever done, ever, in changing firearms legislation. We're talking about a single step, the fastest quick-fix while we go on to try to fix the problem in a more substantial way. Don't forget, while CF pistol is important, there are 300 or so CF pistol owners and some 180,000 or so shooters in the country - I can understand why CF pistol owners would think (as was said in Portlaoise a few short weeks ago) that they were the most important of all shooters and should be put ahead of everyone else, but frankly, that's just plain unfair to everyone else.

There's a list of things that have to be fixed in primary legislation. That list isn't going to be abandoned and it will include CF pistol ownership. But it'd be nice to fix what we could, as fast as we could, with the smallest changes possible, as a first step while the Bill gets assembled.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Re do the FAC to a simple embbeded chip&pin card that entails your entire firearms related details.it should only have your pulse number nothing else.
Make it five years,andwith a pre grant system ala the UK.

Feck. After how long it took to change to a credit card sized system, how long will that change take and how badly will it be messed up?

Abolish the draconian and unfair pistol ban.

Yup, as fast as possible (even if that happens in multiple stages).

Decide finally to accept international terminology,rather than Irish,as to what certain restricted firearms actually are.EG assault rifle,bullpup,etc.

Much as that sounds sensible, I don't think there actually are hard, agreed-upon-by-more-than-one-country definitions for those terms Grizzly. But we could at least tidy up the definitions in the SIs pretty quickly to something more sane, like dropping the "looks like an assault rifle" clause in the definition of what an "assault rifle" is

Revise totally the Garda guidelines on firearms,prefably by somone who knows WTF they are talking about!

I think that's more down to the new Garda Commissioner rather than the new Minister...

Remove in any shape or form the "idoanlikdelookodat" policy on ANY firearms.

I don't think that's an official policy Grizzly, you couldn't abolish it by altering the firearms acts, you'd have to fund proper training for all Garda Supers. Which, with the IMF in town, is a hard sell...

Remove the upper calibre ban of 338.

The what now? Is this like the "idontlikedelookodat" policy? I don't recall ever seeing legislation of any kind setting an upper calibre limit...

IOW the DOJ inspects your silage clamp and if it isnt looking out on the neighbours or main road,and doesnt consist of flat rock etc,signs it off as a non commerical range up to a certain calibre.If you want to shoot stronger calibres,you have to possibly add better saftey features,if reasonably needed.

I'm reasonably sure that that's pretty close to what happens right now Grizzly. I know that WTSC, for example, isn't signed off on for anything larger than .177 airguns in the airgun range; it's not like you have to be safe for everything up to 20mm to get a signoff, just safe for what you'll be shooting.

Remove the entire firearms liscensing process from AGS.It is too costly in Garda time and manpower,and open to the wiles of biased cheif superintendants and Supers.

Nice idea, but not likely to happen soon - few state bodies like to surrender areas of competency to other bodies. The Supers would take decades to try delegating the yay/nay call on a licence to anyone who wasn't a Garda.

Automatic statute life sentence for any misuse of a firearm,be it real,airsoft,deact or model.Irrespective of ageof the perpertrator.

An 8-year-old who plays with daddy's air pistol and hits a passing car with one of the pellets causing an accident by distracting the driver at the worst possible moment?
Automatic life sentences don't always work the way they should...

Any of you going to ask any of these hopefuls that will land on your door,for info from their doc that they are not suffering from anything that might prevent them from carrying out their duties as ministers or TDs to the detriment of this country?

Oh yes I'm asking for character references and access to their medical information if they're FF or GP as well

(What? I can't be small and petty too? )

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

Feck. After how long it took to change to a credit card sized system, how long will that change take and how badly will it be messed up?

Very true,but maybe in these recessionary times an enterprising ,bright IT crowd could make an offer??:D;)

I think that's more down to the new Garda Commissioner rather than the new Minister...I don't think that's an official policy Grizzly, you couldn't abolish it by altering the firearms acts, you'd have to fund proper training for all Garda Supers. Which, with the IMF in town, is a hard sell...
And here is where you have the DOJ/AGS game of ping pong."No thats the Ministers responsibility..No thats the Cheifs responsibility." etc etc.You would wonder WHO is in charge of what in there.:rolleyes:

The what now? Is this like the "idontlikedelookodat" policy? I don't
recall ever seeing legislation of any kind setting an upper calibre limit...

More than likely the" Idonlikedelookodat"situation.
another one of these"policy" type situations..The arguement being sure,you can do with a .338 what a 50 cal does and where will you shoot a 50 cal??No ranges are approved for it here[Possibly Midlands could handle it ,but is it signed off for it?].Or it will be like the big game rifles,with stupid conditions[,like only being able to shoot it outside the ROI],you couldnt take it to a range to shoot it without God knows what conditions attached.
Another thing,it would be impossible to add vexatious preconditions to ownership and use of a firearm of a restricted type that prevents its normal usage in day to day life.

I'm reasonably sure that that's pretty close to what happens right now Grizzly. I know that WTSC, for example, isn't signed off on for anything larger than .177 airguns in the airgun range; it's not like you have to be safe for everything up to 20mm to get a signoff, just safe for what you'll be shooting.

Hmmmmmmmm.I dunno Sparks,say I wanted to use as said my old disused silage clamp,where I had been shooting .22 and12 Ga, up to recently safley and happily for the last two decades,with no accidents or injury.I wonder if I invited the range inspector from the DOJ down,would he sign it off straight away as a private range,or find some fault that needs to be corrected immediately??
Simply put,[and grossly simplyifing abit]I'm saying there have been and are sites around this land that are inherently safe and have been for ages,but are now unusable as to shoot on them would be an unauthorised range.
So,using the most uncommon of sense,common sense,it should be within the ken of the RI to come down take one look and say this site is safe for XYZ calibres.Heres a chit for your personal use,go to it,see you in 5 years[?] Want to make a few quid on it?Ah!Thats a different bucket of cod now!You need ABCD.Logical as it isnow a commercial enterprise with members of the public coming onto it.

Nice idea, but not likely to happen soon - few state bodies like to surrender areas of competency to other bodies. The Supers would take decades to try delegating the yay/nay call on a licence to anyone who wasn't a Garda.

True,but we can live in hope,as Bob Dylan said "The times,they are a changin."

An 8-year-old who plays with daddy's air pistol and hits a passing car with one of the pellets causing an accident by distracting the driver at the worst possible moment?
Automatic life sentences don't always work the way they should...

Indeed,however in your mentioned case Dad would be looking at loss of liscense at the very least,and some heavy trouble letting a unathorised minor loose at his "firearm".All a question of the actual case and circumstances.

Oh yes I'm asking for character references and access to their medical information if they're FF or GP as well

(What? I can't be small and petty too? )

Maybe if we all become small and petty,we wont be ruled by total gob****es in the future.:D

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Very true,but maybe in these recessionary times an enterprising ,bright IT crowd could make an offer??:D;)

I think all the enterprising bright IT crowds are already emigrating!

And here is where you have the DOJ/AGS game of ping pong."No thats the Ministers responsibility..No thats the Cheifs responsibility." etc etc.You would wonder WHO is in charge of what in there.:rolleyes:

Well, not really. It's reasonably well laid out.

Hmmmmmmmm.I dunno Sparks,say I wanted to use as said my old disused silage clamp,where I had been shooting .22 and12 Ga, up to recently safley and happily for the last two decades,with no accidents or injury.I wonder if I invited the range inspector from the DOJ down,would he sign it off straight away as a private range,or find some fault that needs to be corrected immediately?

Not sure, but it's hard to argue against building safer ranges to the general public...

Indeed,however in your mentioned case Dad would be looking at loss of liscense at the very least,and some heavy trouble letting a unathorised minor loose at his "firearm".All a question of the actual case and circumstances.

Well, yeah, but that's not an automatic sentence is my point.

Maybe if we all become small and petty,we wont be ruled by total gob****es in the future.:D

I wish.

recipio

A lot of great ideas folks.
Looks like Alan Shatter may be the next minister for justice ?
Not a shooting enthusiast to my knowledge but perhaps the economic benefits to lifting the present legislation might appeal. ?

FISMA

Lift the ban on reloading.

Kryten

Sparks wrote: »

Those two are pragmatically opposed.
The fastest way to return the bulk of CF pistols is to modify the restricted list because that's an SI and can be changed much faster than you can get a Bill to modify the Firearms Act put together and pushed through the Dail.

Yes but how would you modify it? Centerfire pistols for PPC1500 will stay restricted, and we will still have the Chief Supers whims. Maybe .32 centerfires could be unrestricted, but I only know of one of these in the country, outside of DF.

Sparks wrote: »

Maybe if folks stopped with this anti-Olympic bigotry long enough to actually look at the idea, they'd see that as a first step, it's not a bad one.

No bigotry intended. ISSF pistol is my most favourite discipline, and would like to get involved in ISSF Centerfire. It pains me to see that not that many people shoot the ISSF pistol stuff. Rifle is different, as it is well established and not under any curtailment or restictions due to Firearms policy changes. The Olympic tag in the Restricted list should be changed to " Designed for Precision Target shooting" . This would be much fairer. It would instantly allow .22 target pistols, not on the Restricted list, to be unrestricted. Because lets face it, the list of unrestricted pistols is not exhaustive, officially, but is being used as gospel by some Supers.

Sparks wrote: »

Don't forget, while CF pistol is important, there are 300 or so CF pistol owners and some 180,000 or so shooters in the country - I can understand why CF pistol owners would think (as was said in Portlaoise a few short weeks ago) that they were the most important of all shooters and should be put ahead of everyone else, but frankly, that's just plain unfair to everyone else.

Firstly I have never seen even 100 CF pistol shooters in any competition. So who has the other 200 and what do they want them for? Secondly, out of the 2008 CF Pistol shooting competitors, only a fraction of these have been renewed and the rest of the guys who have been involved and want to be involved in CF pistol shooting (and I not even including IPSC shooters) have taken up Gallery rifle in the meantime.

As for the not fair to anyone else. No other group of shooters out there have had their firearms taken from them so to speak.

Apologies if I sound adversarial, maybe the snow is getting me down

marlin vs

FISMA wrote: »

Lift the ban on reloading.

+1.

Sparks

Kryten wrote: »

Yes but how would you modify it? Centerfire pistols for PPC1500 will stay restricted, and we will still have the Chief Supers whims. Maybe .32 centerfires could be unrestricted, but I only know of one of these in the country, outside of DF.

Does PPC1500 have a "must be larger than .38 calibre" rule or something? Why would an ISSF centerfire pistol not be usable for PPC1500?

The Olympic tag in the Restricted list should be changed to " Designed for Precision Target shooting"

There are two problems with that approach:

1. The word "designed" which means that any pistol designed for plinking is now out;
2. "Precision Target Shooting" isn't defined in a hard-and-fast way by anyone anywhere and carries no weight with the AGS or anyone else outside our community.

Firstly I have never seen even 100 CF pistol shooters in any competition. So who has the other 200 and what do they want them for?

Well, (a) is that pool of 100 constant, or is it that you never see more than 100 at any one competition, but the 100 change from match to match? And (b) not every target shooter feels any great desire to compete against anyone but themselves. Some just go to the range once a week and shoot at paper targets and never take it further. I know when I shoot pistol, I don't really feel any great desire to go to competitions, the way I do with rifle.

As for the not fair to anyone else. No other group of shooters out there have had their firearms taken from them so to speak.

True, though several CF rifle folk haven't gotten their licences (but there aren't so many of them as there are CF pistol people), and there's the problem of the juniors coming in who were banned from coming in until they hit 14 by new legislation (no more Derek Burnetts starting at 11 or 12), and there's 180,000 or so who have had to give up medical confidentiality, had their character questioned by the new licencing conditions despite years of having high-ranking Gardai sign off on them, and so on.
What I'm saying is that yes, it's important, but it's not the only problem in the shooting community in Ireland, and it'd be nice to see us all remember all of the issues instead of just focussing on one and burning others in our pursuit of a solution to that one.

Apologies if I sound adversarial, maybe the snow is getting me down

What, weather-enforced house arrest isn't fun?

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

Does PPC1500 have a "must be larger than .38 calibre" rule or something? Why would an ISSF centerfire pistol not be usable for PPC1500?

:eek:
i would have thought anyone seeking to come up with a solution to the further licensing of CF Pistols would be cognisant of the details of one of the main International CF Pistol Sports in Ireland.

Otherwise you get something like the first draft of the RF Pistol list in the Comm. Guidelines which did not include any of the pistols people use in RF Pistols sports in Ireland. Thankfully NASRPC and others were finally consulted on that and most of the pistols people actually use were added to the list.

What people want is not the ability to get large calibre firearms - what they want is their sport back and that requires specific tools.

Whether those tools would fit in the ISSF Box is questionable. Whether they would be any use in ISSF competition may not be relevant.
Whether a tool that is of use in ISSF competition would be of any use in a WA1500 competition would also be questionable.
Would you play hurling with a hockey stick?

Hence my earlier comment that those that actually take part in the sport MUST be part of any process that alters the landscape for that sport.

To date they have not been.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

:eek:
i would have thought anyone seeking to come up with a solution to the further licensing of CF Pistols would be cognisant of the details of one of the main International CF Pistol Sports in Ireland.

Well, it's just that when I go to look for the PPC1500 rules, I find this:

This side is not a substitute for a rulebook.
A draft of a Rulebook WA 1500 will be coming up soon.

And I'd hate to get it wrong because I didn't have a copy of the rulebook that had a new rule I didn't know about :rolleyes:
BTW, that was impressive B'man - 205 words and not one of them was the yes/no answer we needed...


Anyway, in the draft rules, there's no rule that says a pistol suitable for ISSF centerfire matches wouldn't be usable for PPC1500 (or WA1500), and in the non-draft ISSF rules, there's no rule saying that a PPC1500/WA1500 pistol up to (and including) .38 calibre wouldn't be suitable.

Do you see what I mean yet?

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

Well, it's just that when I go to look for the PPC1500 rules, I find this:

And I'd hate to get it wrong because I didn't have a copy of the rulebook that had a new rule I didn't know about :rolleyes:
BTW, that was impressive B'man - 205 words and not one of them was the yes/no answer we needed...


Anyway, in the draft rules, there's no rule that says a pistol suitable for ISSF centerfire matches wouldn't be usable for PPC1500 (or WA1500), and in the non-draft ISSF rules, there's no rule saying that a PPC1500/WA1500 pistol up to (and including) .38 calibre wouldn't be suitable.

Do you see what I mean yet?

Like I said - if a proposal is being put together by a group to be presented to the DOJ/FPU/AGS/etc. on the future licensing of CF Pistols then that group should include experts on the CF Pistol disciplines that are actually shot in Ireland - that would be the NASRPC - and the CF disciplines that are shot by Irish People abroad - that would be the ITS and NTSA.

Those experts would also need to be making the presentation in order to be able to answer any questions etc. authoritatively.

Trying to have people who are not an expert in the sport collate information form those that are and then field questions on it - simply leads to chinese whispers and overall confusion and a poor outcome - as we have seen numerous times over the last couple of years.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Like I said - if a proposal is being put together by a group to be presented to the DOJ/FPU/AGS/etc. on the future licensing of CF Pistols then that group should include experts on the CF Pistol disciplines that are actually shot in Ireland - that would be the NASRPC - and the CF disciplines that are shot by Irish People abroad - that would be the ITS and NTSA.

And the Bullseye pistol folk as well, and also just about every other group out there since you're talking about firearms legislation - there's no Centerfire Pistol Act.

And Wow. We'd need some sort of, I don't know, panel for that. So we could consult with the Department about firearms legislative matters. A Firearms Legislation Consultation Panel, if you will.
Shame we don't have one of those...

Trying to have people who are not an expert in the sport collate information form those that are and then field questions on it

First off, I'm going to assume you're not telling people on boards what they can and cannot talk about, and that you've just phrased that wongly and your next post will be stressing that you weren't back-seat modding the forum.

- simply leads to chinese whispers and overall confusion and a poor outcome - as we have seen numerous times over the last couple of years.

And second off, I'm biting back the laughter there; the last decade has been spent - and in many people's views, wasted - cleaning up after a bunch of so-called "experts" who were anything but went off and represented us - usually without bothering us with any salient details - to the Minister, usually by yelling and demanding their "rights" and pounding on the table, resulting in (ultimately) the Criminal Justice Bill 2004, the single greatest kick in the crotch our sporting community ever received in the history of its existence.
And after that, you want us to not discuss stuff in public.
This, only a few weeks after the SSAI meeting in Portlaoise, where you and everyone present from the NASRPC committee stood up and demanded openness and transparancy and better communications from the SSAI (despite the communications problem being admitted to having been the fault of the NASRPC people on the SSAI committee and despite having called for the proceedings to be banned from being put up on boards.ie less than an hour earlier).
I really am finding that hard not to laugh at B'man...

Bananaman

There is no such thing as the ''bullseye folk' - unless you mean the cousins of the fairy folk

are these the people that you were talking about earlier thave taken part in no competition or club practice but are pretending to have done so in. Order to get a license- bless them

NASRPC have held 15 competitions nationwide in 2010 , 8 of which included CF Pistol events in which there were over 20 clubs taking part and I have never heard of this club

you mentioned the CF pistol owners who have not taken part in anything earlier - is this who you mentioned?

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

There is no such thing as the ''bullseye folk' - unless you mean the cousins of the fairy folk

No, I mean the new NGB in the SSAI that was admitted at the last SSAI meeting (or the one before that, I've lost track).

are these the people that you were talking about earlier thave taken part in no competition or club practice but are pretending to have done so in. Order to get a license- bless them

No, I'm talking about people who go to their club regularly and shoot regularly, who are perfectly legitimate and responsible shooters, but who just don't compete, whether due to time pressure or lack of inclination to compete. They're perfectly legitimate shooters B'man and in fact make up the majority of the target shooting community - denigrating them is not something someone with the best interests of all shooters at heart should be doing.

Mr Mole

To me, the key words in the original post are "would we all agree on".

It has become very apparent that most shooting "personalities" will never agree on anything, mainly because of status, power and belief in their own self importance.

One of the reasons we have such idiotic law and regulation is because groups have sold out others to achieve what "they" thought was best for everyone. They had little belief in tolerance, or understanding of others requirements, no time for discussion or consensus, and dealt with issues in their own little mini cabinets, believeing perhaps, that they actually represented the whole shooting community. They didn't.

Fianna Fail dont represent me, although they seemingly still think they do. Likewise some members of the FCP (and outside it) have the same belief.

Am I wrong in saying that the responsibility of the SSAI is a central representative panel for funding and nothing else? Am I right in saying that there is no one on the FCP from NASRPC, the group that does represent most Rifle and Pistol Shooters, and am I right in saying that therefore, most pistol shooters have no representation in respect of their sports?

So, "what we all agree on" is not achieveable until there is balanced representation. The makeup of the Government / Ministerial appointed FCP will make sure we will never agree on anything. Hopefully that will change under new government.

Until the in fighting and corner holding in shooting sports ceases, no progress will ever be made. Those who say that progress HAS been made are living in another world. (Like FF).:(

The politics in sport and the politics we have suffered from Government are equally damaging.

Sparks

Mr Mole wrote: »

To me, the key words in the original post are "would we all agree on".

+1
So long as any one group of shooters believes that they are the most important group out of all shooters, we're going to hit the problem that there's not much we all agree on that's positive

They had little belief in tolerance, or understanding of others requirements, no time for discussion or consensus, and dealt with issues in their own little mini cabinets, believeing perhaps, that they actually represented the whole shooting community. They didn't.
Fianna Fail dont represent me, although they seemingly still think they do. Likewise some members of the FCP (and outside it) have the same belief.

And yet, the FCP (at least, the shooting panel) is precisely what you're calling for there Mole - it gets pretty much all of the shooting bodies in the one place at the one table.

Am I wrong in saying that the responsibility of the SSAI is a central representative panel for funding and nothing else?

Yes, someone has misinformed you there. That was the original point of the old NRPAI, but when that was changed (and I recall some shouting about the change at the time ) into the SSAI, those who did the changing claimed far more responsibility and authority for the SSAI (and are now some of the loudest people complaining about the SSAI having that responsibility and authority - the irony that they were the loudest people saying on here that I was being a difficult prat for pointing out the NRPAI-SSAI transition was unfair and wrong is not lost on me, it's giving me a lot of amusement).

Am I right in saying that there is no one on the FCP from NASRPC

You would be wrong, there's the SSAI rep who represents the NASRPC officially, and there's also Declan Cahill, who's NASRPC and who also sits on the FCP, so the NASRPC has effectively two people on the FCP. That's one more than most groups.

the group that does represent most Rifle and Pistol Shooters

Hmmmm. I think you'd have a fun time proving that one.

and am I right in saying that therefore, most pistol shooters have no representation in respect of their sports?

No, that's incorrect. I think someone's misled you there.

Until the in fighting and corner holding in shooting sports ceases, no progress will ever be made. Those who say that progress HAS been made are living in another world. (Like FF).:(

Well, (a) I can name the people saying there is skullduggery afoot in the SSAI right now, and frankly, it's not an impressive list; and (b) we have air and smallbore pistols being licenced and an official way to licence centerfire pistols that we just need an SI tweak to avail of. That is progress from where we were when I started shooting (yes, it's of the two-steps-forward-one-step-back variety, but that still leaves you a step forward from where you were). I was laughed out of it by highly experienced people at several meetings for suggesting we work towards various things because there was no way we'd ever get them - things like licenced air and .22 pistols and a way to build up to CF pistols; things like a panel where all the shooting bodies could meet formally with the AGS and DoJ to discuss firearms legislation; things like centerfire rifles being licenced the same way as any other rifle; and so on. We have all those things now; we didn't have them a decade ago; and while we wanted more, it is still progress.

The politics in sport and the politics we have suffered from Government are equally damaging.

Yup, and if half the underhanded stuff that our lot have done to one another ever gets out the way it has for the Government's shenanigans, there are going to be a good twenty or thirty people banned from ever setting foot on another range out of anger from the other 180,000 shooters. :mad:

Mr Mole

If the FCP were elected by their shooting bodies rather than being Government appointed, it would offer real representation.

I am not interested in the prior histories of the various bodies, thats the root of many problems. At least the old SSAI website outlined their function, which I recall before the website change, was funding, and nothing else. If the SSAI are now performing another function, perhaps they should see it fit to have the now year or more overdue AGM and also clarify to people what its function is.

I feel that this also requires clarification. To the best of my knowledge Mr Cahill was a Government appointment to the FCP and does not now in any way represent NASRPC. He is no longer on the NASRPC Committee and as such, how can he represent them? Its my understanding that all FCP members were notified in writing of this fact, so he is neither an official or "unofficial " member of the FCP.

I didnt mention any scullduggery in the SSAI. Can you elaborate?

Progress is where the wishes of the majority of people are represented and where obstacles are taken out of the way, and not put in the way. EG, five shot restrictions etc. If we went down the road that you suggested earlier regarding Olympic fullbore, we would end up with an Olympic Restricted List! This problem occurrs when one body makes suggestions that affect others without consultation, and is what has us where we are today.

Underhandedness is understated. Thats the core problem.

Bananaman

To be 100% crystal clear.

Declan Cahill does not represent the NASRPC.

B'Man