NASRPC proposals on licencing centerfire pistols, as submitted to the DoJ

Sparks

Also reported on here in Irish Shooting Politics with slightly more verbosity.

A little while ago, I was sent a document with various redactions by a source who wishes at this time to remain anonymous. The document was quite disturbing in nature, and I sought to verify its authenticity through other avenues. At present, I'm waiting on a number of FoI requests from the PTB, but I have unofficial confirmation from them that the document is real and was submitted to the Department by the NASRPC in June 2009, during the final run-up to the passing of the Misc.Provisions Act. I have confirmed that the document did not go to the DoJ via the SSAI or via the FCP but was sent in directly to the DoJ. The proposals in the document were described by officials in the DoJ (again unofficially) as "untenable and illegal" - and I think that says a lot about the impact that the document had on our appearance at the negotiation table during a fairly sensitive and critical time. While the FoI requests are still pending, and I'll post the outcome of them here, I was able to source an unredacted copy of the document from other channels and a copy is attached to this post (it's only 12 pages of text, it's a short read).

There are a number of things contained in the document that are deeply unpalatable. I went into them in some detail in the blog post, but here's the summary:

• It is effectively an NGB (which legally is basicly a club and thus not bound by any part of the companies act and who don't even have to follow their own rules, let alone anyone else's) seeking to obtain control over a state licencing function, namely the licencing of centerfire pistols.
• It proposes new rules and restrictions on ownership of centerfire pistols that go far beyond those that even the Minister was proposing in the Act, including:
  • Mandatory safety training courses to be taken (run by the NASRPC)
  • Mandatory safety testing to be passed (again run by the NASRPC)
  • A smallbore or fullbore rifle licence held for a year to be a mandatory prerequisite for an application for a pistol licence
  • A mandatory 24-month apprenticeship programme to be subsequently undertaken by all applicants with a smallbore pistol under the NASRPC's supervision and evaluation (for a total of three years the applicants spend certified for firearms they ultimately neither want nor need)
  • Two safes to be installed, to a standard beyond that specified by [url=https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/17587/87248.pdf[/url], the pistol to be broken into two parts and those parts stored in seperate safes
  • A steel strongbox to be bolted, welded or chained to the chassis of the applicant's car for storage of the pistol during transport, along with other related regulations
  • Mandatory entry into NASRPC-run competitions to be a condition of the licence
  • The kind of pistol sought must be "deemed to be a suitable target pistol" by the NASRPC (which would require that the NASRPC prepare and maintain a "list" of the only centerfire pistols anyone could licence) - and it specifically states it will prohibit the licencing of Glock pistols.
  • The official recommendation of the NASRPC required in the form of a letter of support for an application
• It segregates the target shooting community into a hierarchy of worthiness to own a pistol as follows:
  Where 'D. Others' are described in the text as 'dinner party Glock owners' and would be prohibited from owning a pistol.
• It sets up a framework which would make the repeal of the current de facto ban on centerfire pistols much more difficult than if it was solely set forth in the Firearms Act
• It explicitly gives a veto (and pledges the NASRPC to police that veto) over whether or not disciplines will be shot, to the Irish Sports Council as well as the DoJ and the Gardai
• It calls for a cap to be placed (at 800 licences) on the number of centerfire pistol licences which can exist in the State at any one time, relying on the "dead mans boots" procedure to issue existing licences to new applicants, who remain on a waiting list indefinitely until that happens, despite having invested three years and a lot of cash by this point
• It creates the role of Club Armourer, who would be given possession of a component part of every pistol owned by a member of that club upon their leaving the range, and who would be responsible for the secure storage of that component part until that shooter returned to the range, where shooting could only take place on designated days as a result; or to bring that component part to whatever range the shooter was going to for away competitions. There would also be a Deputy Club Armourer, and it would be a mandatory requirement of your licence that you be a member of a club which had both of these roles filled by appointed people. Apart from the obvious logistical problems that creates, it introduces the scenario where such a Club Armorer could be in possession of sufficient component parts to assemble a pistol from them which would be both unlicenced and almost untraceable. It also glosses over the legal requirement for a licence to be held by each Club Armourer and Deputy Club Armourer for each pistol -- as a component part is, under the law, a firearm in its own right and requires a licence to possess -- which means that despite there being an NASRPC Cap of 800 licences, there could only be 266 actual pistols in the country at any one time.
• It sets forth conditions on the ownership of handguns, but was submitted solely by the NASRPC, even though the NASRPC is only one of seven NGBs that administer pistol shooting sports in Ireland (the NTSA, the NASRPC, the Pony Club, the IBS, the ITS, the MPAI and the NSAI all use pistols in their events) and only one of five that administer centerfire pistol disciplines, and not one of the two which absolutely require centerfire pistols for all of the sports they oversee. And it was prepared in secret, never revealed to the community as a whole, either before or after its submission to the Department.

The procedure the NASRPC proposed in this document was as follows:



I think that given the questions and demands that were put to the SSAI Chairman in public meeting by NASRPC committee members recently (including those who drafted this document) -- as well as for other reasons which I can't divulge until the FoI requests are responded to -- this document should see the light of day, even if only to give context to the criticisms which I understand are to be raised at the upcoming SSAI AGM in order to support a bid by the NASRPC committee to take over that body. If the NASRPC committee members wish to run the SSAI and represent a large proportion of the shooting community on the FCP and to the Department of Justice, then an example of the kind of regulations they draft when given a completely blank canvas should be more widely appreciated.

It seems only fair.

everypenny

I actually read this with a dropped jaw. I can't believe that such draconian laws were being considered or even put forward by an element of the shooting community.
It looks to me like an attempt to obtain as much power in granting of licenses and firearms and would result in a monopoly being held by a select few.
The comment on a specific pistol make is an example of their lack of knowledge in this sphere. It would be like saying i want to control the sale of cigarettes and giving out about Bensons specifically.

shedd7

Old news and a lot of hooha about a PROPOSAL, not even a firm commitment to implement any or all of the content. Interesting timing,though:rolleyes: Just before the meeting in Portlaoise.Hmmmm. What's that I smell.....hardly a fishy smell, or is it?????

bunny shooter

Makes "the list" I alluded to look insignificant :eek:

Speechless !

50cal

shedd7 wrote: »

Old news and a lot of hooha about a PROPOSAL, not even a firm commitment to implement any or all of the content. Interesting timing,though:rolleyes: Just before the meeting in Portlaoise.Hmmmm. What's that I smell.....hardly a fishy smell, or is it?????

The document stinks allright but not of fish .It smells more like a power crazed neanderthal that was hell bent on taking control of pistol shooting in Ireland.:mad:
Now who could that be ?

rowa

load of rubbish , and i wouldn't support it at all , 800 licences only in the country at anyone time ? so to get a licence you'd have to be a friend or crony of someone in the know , with friends like this who'd need enemies .

Sparks

800 licences rowa, but only 266 pistols at any one time.

freddieot

Hard battles were fought over the years to have handguns (and also 308 etc. ) brought back into the licensing arena, most of them in Court. A lot of time and energy spent in discussions and submissions to show ourselves as reasonable responsible sportsmen that have the interests of (all) Irish Shooting at heart.

Now we see a document that potentially damages all of that. and highlights a self-serving attitude that exists in certain quarters where some seek to copper-fasten their sport or discipline while at the same time sacrificing others.

I'm one of the hundreds of people waiting to go to Court to get back my handgun cert. Others have already fought for theirs. This document is an absolute disgrace and an insult to anyone fighting for their firearms.

To think that this nonsense could have been put forward by an organisation supposedly representing the interests of Irish Shooting.

I thought the Government were bad but at least they had enough sense not to go along with this even if they now appear to have the same self-destuctive tendancies..

Vegeta

Wonder what kind of spin will be rolled out to defend this. This thread will get interesting fast

4gun

I know this thread is to do with target shooting and my interest is mainly from a hunting point of view, but I think more emphasis should be given for the licencing of pistols for humane dispatch...killing two fallow with one bullet from 150 yds brought home how deadly a .308 round is even after passing through the body of a deer..the second had to be dispatched at distance which wasn't easy as it was trashing about
not only is it essential for the safety of the hunter but also for the unnecessary suffering of the animals..

V Bull

I gave up posting on this forum a long time ago because I taught that some of the posts & photos might be somewhat damaging to my sport of shooting etc, but this document takes the biscuit........

As Freddieot has stated, a lot of us here, had & have huge problems trying to justify a reasonable requirement for the issue / re-issue of our handgun certificates to our Ch Supers and some of us through the courts at huge expense. Now we know why we have these problems.......because of this submission by the NASRPC ...my God, what have they done!!!!!!!!!!.

I taught that this was an association to further and better the sport of shooting, but instead, I think they have put us back years with their draconian, ludicrous, dictatorial, invasive proposals.

I have read over this document several times as I just cannot believe what they have done to us, are these guys on the SSAI committee, are they on the FCP or any other shooting body. ....If so, my opinion would be to get rid of them, vote them off and out of every shooting committee, body, panel and club I say.

You wouldn’t believe how I feel at the moment by this revelation.....pure sickened and disgusted..

meathshooter1

I cant believe that this was submitted. least of all without the consultation of the other NGBs and FCP who also have an interest in pistols and also the NARGC who after all has brought most of the high court cases to date.its very one sided not to everybody's interest and could have other far reaching implications, in my opinion

johngalway

The solution to everything in Ireland is more God damn paperwork :rolleyes: The above is ridiculous though, as an outsider not into pistols.

2112

Who TF are these people. They dont represent me I hope. My case is due in court soon, 5 years I had a licence and then it was refused. I am raging. The cheek of them

rowa

johngalway wrote: »

The solution to everything in Ireland is more God damn paperwork :rolleyes: The above is ridiculous though, as an outsider not into pistols.

possibly , and remember that every "mandatory training course" etc would have a fee attached , this submission is an own goal for the nasrpc.

johngalway

rowa wrote: »

possibly , and remember that every "mandatory training course" etc would have a fee attached , this submission is an own goal for the nasrpc.

Agree entirely Rowa.

Course for this, course for that, fee for this, fee for that.

2011

Course for this, course for that, fee for this, fee for that.

Yes, lots of fees.

Fees to be in an affiliated club, fees for competitions, fees for training, fees for storage of component parts.

The question is who will benefit from these fees??

Would it be the same people that are proposing to introduce these proposals?

Grizzly 45

Somone ,somwhere had better have a very good explanation for this!
Wether it was a policy document,proposal,or kite flying exercise,it is an unbeliveable stab in the back for Irish gunowners.Not only that it was stupid,looks like a power grab,and contrary to any ethos of the policies of Irish shooting.Whoever put this together had better be "considering their position" as it is so nicely put,as I would have absolutly NO confidence in the whole policy makers.
But then again,should we be surprised that this Irish malaise of" Feck the lot of ye,its me fein,first last and always..Give us your money!!"Followed by a large knife in the back should be absent from our ranks as well???

With friends and repersentatives like this who the hell needs enemies???:mad::mad::mad:

Tackleberrywho

http://www.nasrpc.ie/who-we-are/national-committee



Name Position Club Contact


Declan Byrne Hon. Chairman ECSSC declan.byrne@nasrpc.ie


Michael Tope Hon. Secretary Eagles michael.tope@nasrpc.ie


Mark Maguire Hon. Treasurer
Harbour
House
mark.maguire@nasrpc.ie


Declan Keogh Spokesperson ECSC declan.keogh@nasrpc.ie


Martin Hayes Vice Chairman Hilltop martin.hayes@nasrpc.ie


Nigel Barrett Public Relations Officer Hilltop nigel.barrett@nasrpc.ie


Ask these Guys what the Craic is?

50cal

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

http://www.nasrpc.ie/who-we-are/national-committee



Name Position Club Contact


Declan Byrne Hon. Chairman ECSSC declan.byrne@nasrpc.ie


Michael Tope Hon. Secretary Eagles michael.tope@nasrpc.ie


Mark Maguire Hon. Treasurer
Harbour
House
mark.maguire@nasrpc.ie


Declan Keogh Spokesperson ECSC declan.keogh@nasrpc.ie


Martin Hayes Vice Chairman Hilltop martin.hayes@nasrpc.ie


Nigel Barrett Public Relations Officer Hilltop nigel.barrett@nasrpc.ie


Ask these Guys what the Craic is?

Come on lads you made submissions on our behalf surely you can defend yourselves ?
The hilltop crew have gone very quiet ! Has the cat got your tongues ?

rowa

after seeing several of the names on this list , i am not surprised this has happened :rolleyes:

bunny shooter

Here is their reply from NASRPC site

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxuYm5hc3JwY3xneDo3NWQzODU5MDA2YjE1NGEy

Sparks

Saw that. Didn't want to comment (the NASRPC have a VRep account here, figured that they should post it).
But since you posted it up, here's one comment - if they're an all-new NASRPC since that document was written, how come two of the four names on page one of that document are the current chairman and current secretary of the NASRPC?

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

.............. (the NASRPC have a VRep account here, figured that they should post it)......

He must be on his way to post it here

http://www.nasrpc.ie/hot-news-1/nasrpcstatement

Sparks

Well, we haven't banned the account bunny - so it's their choice if so!

Hondata92

Im not a pistol shooter but this p!sses me off big time.

The fact that one group who isnt a governing body can put these suggestions forward to the doj is bs imo if thats what the NASRPC are doing god only knows what the rest are at!

The were out for power and money simple as and the statement that the released was pathetic to say the least, they didnt even have the b@lls to post it on here themselves and it was such bs i still cant believe they actually posted it.

They said that the FOIA wasnt needed yet they never said anything about these suggestions but they think that people would contact them making wild guesses without any info of what might be going on between them an the DOJ:rolleyes:

Saying that this document was old and that they thought it was never going to be taking into consideration is bs and what is worse is they said it was negotiation with the DOJ, just like a hostage situation where the kidnappers ask for 10k yet are offered 50k and a house by the sea and get off scot free :rolleyes:

If thats what the NASRPC are doing then all we can hope is that none of the rest are such inclined:o

Personally i would like to see what NASRPC Nigel has to say on here :cool:

Mr Mole

50 Cal, your "Hilltop" comment is unwarranted. :mad: That document was submitted long long before any member of Hilltop Committee was on the NASRPC Committee. It was submitted when the Chairman of NASRPC was also a member of the FCP. Individuals who were members of Hilltop did not represent the club.

Dont ask Hilltop members for any explanation on this document to which they had ZERO input or knowledge..

Kramer

NASRPC - where do I sign up?

freddieot

Sure, each NGB, Club, Range or Group want to fight their own corner with the PTB. nothing wrong with that. This is allegedly a democracy of sorts. However, the kind of 'borderline cleansing' that was proposed for 'non-aligned' shooters and shooting sports as contained in the document cannot be excused

Regarding the reply, the most disturbing part is :-

"We are continuously in discussions with the Dept. of Justice, Dept. of Sport and the Gardai in order to work together for the future of all of our sports".

I only speak for myself, but I could never trust anyone who could allow themselves to be a party to the blatant mé féinism that is contained in that proposal. The fact that further 'discussion's are happening is in my opinion very worrying.

Can we be sure that these 'discussion' are not again seeking to marginalise or sacrifice certain calibres, sports or shooters for a 'higher purpose' ?

Grizzly 45

Lads,did ye get an unemployed Dail spin doctor to write that press release??That is dreadful!
To sum it up it seems to be.

1] Ah well we didnt really have anything to do with it,it was this fellow who was chairman of our organisation,and he is with the FCP,so blame him.

2]Sure times have moved on,we are where we are, nothing can be done about it now,it didnt happen,the minister didnt take it on board.What are ye all worried about this now??

I'm worried about the fact that people in charge actually decided to put somthing like this out and hand it to the most anti gun minister for justice we have had since Dessie O Malley!!

3]There were loads of ideas and yokes flying around at the time,we put this out in an ideal of cooperation and willingness to work with the DOJ.

4] Its old news now and somone is out to stir the ****e! We were always open and transparent with our dealings on this ,etc,etc,yada yada.

If that is the best ye can do..God help us all!!

meathstevie

If the NARGC would have submitted such drivel "on my behalf" I would personally drive down to the office in Ranelagh and demand an explanation for where they believe they got the mandate to try and usurp the functions of State bodies while making my enjoyment of my chosen sport subject to their whim.

After that I'd start ringing and e-mailing all fellow members I know to start pressing for an egm with one point on the agenda : kick out the top table and revoke their organisation membership.

Cass

I have read and re-read this article a few times today to help let it sink in, and quite honestly i have never had such shock, disbelief, surprise, disgust, anger hit me as hard as it did when i read this document. I did not want to respond and speak from an annoyed or angry point of view so i refrained. Until now. I will not bore you all with rehashing the details of the proposal itself as you are all quite capable of understanding the ramifications had it been accepted. What i do want to discuss futher is the NASRPC response to this document.

To that extent i would ask the NASRPC to answer the following.
I read the statment bunnyshooter linked to from the NASRPC. It was not an apology. It was a denial of responsibility. "We do not believe this is a matter for the NASRPC". Why? Your name is all over it and signed off on by your committee members. Who would you suggest take responsibility for it. The VCRAI, NRAI, NARGC, ETC.

Where do you start to try and understand the "logic" those responsible employed to write this signing away of our sport, and make no mistake it is OUR sport irrespective of who stamps their brand on it. Without us the sport would not exist. 5 - 6 weeks before the full Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 was initiated they decided to submit a document that would limit, restrict the sport to such an extent that they and they alone would have sole control over it. Then insult us by saying that they had and still do have our sports best interest in mind. They say it was to prevent the outright banning of pistols which in their words "Was a possibility". 5 weeks before the Act was initiated is not the time to try and fight an Act. So even taking that as the reason in such a short time frame nothing would have been considered/achieved.

They claim they did not bypass the SSAI. So please explain something to the uninitiated. Was Joe Costello the Chairman of the SSAI in June 2009? If so was he the Chairman of the NASRPC in June 2009? If he was not the chairman of the NASRPC in June 2009 who was, ad was this person chairman of the SSAI at this time. I ask about June 2009 as the proposal is dated June 10th, 2009. How about the rest of the SSAI. By their own words it is an umbrella group of many NGBs and at the very least an informatitive e-mail/letter would have informed everyone so nobody could have been caught off guard. Also judging by the responses here no-one in the NASRPC (except those directly involved in the document/proposal) knew anything about the proposal itself. To say they did, would be something i find hard to believe. Their own members knew and agreed to limiting the amount of licenses, hence firearms, meaning that the loss of firearms would have been as severe if not worse than what is currently being felt, but with no chance of repeal? Also how could the members that own Glock pistols have voted for a document that sought to ban them outright?

shedd7 wrote: »

Old news and a lot of hooha about a PROPOSAL,.....

This brings me to my next point. The proposal was there for all to see. Yet no-one seems to know anything about it, again not counting those directly invoved in the proposal. So to the poster above and the NASRPC i ask, its old news to whom? Did the NASRPC put a copy on their website for members to view? Did they circulate the proposal to all affiliated clubs and at least look for member feedback/input? Did they issue copies to the other NGBs/members of the SSAi for input/help or even to notify them of their decision to propose such changes? If the poster above considers this "hooha" then i would not like to see what he would class a serious issue.

The document was "meant to be contentious". Why? Could a meeting not have been called for without provoking those sought, into it? Was it the other NGBs that refused to meet with you? You say the minister thought "some aspects of the document warranted further review". MY God you gave them ideas on how to restrict us. As the NGB for pistol shooting they would have seen your immediate willingness to surrender most aspects of the sport without a fight as the catalyst to invoke harsher restrictions. In case that is not clear enough allow me to paraphrase:

Minister - This is great. We haven't asked but look what they are willing to give up or lose. Lets initiate some more laws/rules that we thought we wouldn't get away with.

I know if i were minister and was handed that proposal i would be thinking just that. Then you further compound the issue by saying, they never were going to take it seriously so the whole issue is irrelevant. So in other words what you're basically saying is, it didn't work, get over it lads. I presume that is what is being refered to here:

.......... not even a firm commitment to implement any or all of the content.

You continue with how times have changed. A new minister, a new Garda Commissioner, a new NASRPC. Lets just check that list again:

Minister for Justice in 2009 - Dermot Ahern, till Jan 2011 - Dermot Ahern.
Garda Commissioner in 2009 - Fachtna Murphy, till Dec 2010 - Fachtna Murphy.
Committee members of NASRPC in 2009 (as per letter) - Michael Tope, Declan Cahill, Declan Byrne, Kieran Barry.
Committee members of NASRPC in Jan 2011 - Declan Byrne, Michael Tope, Declan Keogh, Martin Hayes, Nigel Barrett, Mark Maguire.

With the exception/addition of these names (Declan Keogh, Martin Hayes, Nigel Barrett, Mark Maguire.) i see nothing different.

So your statment that "This document was produced a VERY long time ago, under a VERY different NASRPC" would again seem to hold no weight. It was 18 months ago, and the core elemant responsible for the proposal still holds committee level positions within the NASRPC.

Interesting timing,though:rolleyes: Just before the meeting in Portlaoise.Hmmmm. What's that I smell.....hardly a fishy smell, or is it?????

Ah, finally we are there. The last point. In keeping with the posters stament above and with the statement of the NASRPC yesterday i would like to ask the following. If this proposal is so "wide spread", and "easily accessible" then how is it so unknown and unheard of that it would pose any issues or problems to the NASRPC or any meetings. Surely when this was disclosed to the other SSAI member NGBs the debate was hammered out then and resolved. Or is it the case that people knew as little about it then as we do now?

Also this statment:

NASRPC Website wrote:

We are disappointed that this cynical attempt to use this old document to attempt to create division in the shooting community as opposed to the NASRPC policy of creating unity within the shooting sports

How can you seriously expect anyone in their right mind to even consider this statement as anything other than a deflection, and of the highest level of hypocracy considering the document itself and secretive nature of its existance. The attempt of the NASRPC in the very next line of your statement:

NASRPC Website wrote:

The SSAI is not run by any one NGB - It is meant to be run democratically on behalf of all the shooting sports by a committee of its member NGBs as per its contitution, rules and regulations.

We are all aware of its failings and hope that in the fulness of time these will be rectified

Ah, someone elses fault, AGAIN. This time the SSAI.


I will finish up by agreeing with the lads here and to reiterate my complete disgust at the proposal and the manner in which the entire fiasco was handled. You done wrong ,but instead of owning up and admitting your error, mistake, misjudgement, etc you sought to blame those that "came before you" even though they are stil among you, then resort to blaming other organisations. This only serves to reinforce the perspective that you care for only your own needs, and highlights your inability to listen to the ordinary shooter. An NGB with no connection or debate platform with its members is doomed.

Ez.

tonysopprano

Excerpts from NASRPC website

"The Document is on the public record and we have never requested any of it be redacted.
NASRPC are, and always have been, happy to give people a copy should they wish for it

- simply email

information@nasrpc.ie or indeed contact any representative or club of the

NASRPC."

"There was no need to request this document via the Freedom of Information Act - even though

many people may like to believe it - nothing about the shooting sports is classified."

"There are many mechanisms in place for you to either obtain information on the NASRPC or

indeed to contribute to the NASRPC.
NASRPC represents many clubs throughout Ireland, as well as many sports and disciplines, so
your own club, or one nearby, will most likely be a member.
The

NASRPC website contains a lot of information on the Association - we are continuously

updating it so be sure to check in occasionally to see what NASRPC has been doing.
We publish a newsletter on a regular basis, with emails in between, updating all those
subscribed, with what is happening and what the NASRPC is doing on your behalf. If you wish
to subscribe send an email to

newsletter@nasrpc.ie.

Of course, if you have any questions on this or any matters related to the NASRPC, there is a
form on our website where you can submit questions, you can email

information@nasrpc.ie or

indeed you can contact any of the representatives of the NASRPC."

What other proposals did NASRPC submit to DOJ between 2009 and now, or do we need FOI requests to get them"

Mr Mole

Only Fianna Fail could match the shooting sports political **** stirring that has been done here through the unnecessary publication of this OLD document. One person using a willing colleague to fight his battles, rather than doing his own fighting.

Sparks

Mr Mole wrote: »

Only Fianna Fail could match the shooting sports political **** stirring that has been done here through the unnecessary publication of this OLD document. One person using a willing colleague to fight his battles, rather than doing his own fighting.

If **** stirring was the point, why wouldn't this thread have gone up just before the NASRPC AGM a fortnight or so ago? The document was sent to me before christmas. It's taken time to do the legwork that's been done (and there's more legwork still underway).

Mole, the document is real. It was written and submitted by the people currently running the NASRPC, and who recently spent six hours of a public meeting saying that the SSAI was representing them incorrectly to the PTB and that they wanted changes. This document shows the kind of changes they would want when given a blank canvas. If they took over the SSAI seat in the FCP, this is what we'd get.

Bluntly, that would be bad for absolutely everyone, not only in NASRPC sports, but in every other shooting sport in Ireland too. If they want to run their own sport, that's their shout. But them talking to the PTB would be bad for everyone else and it shouldn't be permitted.

rowa

Mr Mole wrote: »

Only Fianna Fail could match the shooting sports political **** stirring that has been done here through the unnecessary publication of this OLD document. One person using a willing colleague to fight his battles, rather than doing his own fighting.

the submission also shows the true c/f pistol shooting enthusiasts versus a clique looking to basically make money from us with bs tests , safety courses , and attending their shoots at THEIR CLUBS. i spent 4k in security etc to get passed by the garda home security officer before i got my (horror) glock pistol licenced and that was enough. to think this shower were in with ahern cutting our throats is a stomacher ,

Hondata92

Mr Mole wrote: »

Only Fianna Fail could match the shooting sports political **** stirring that has been done here through the unnecessary publication of this OLD document. One person using a willing colleague to fight his battles, rather than doing his own fighting.

By your post im under the impression that you are a high ranking or long standing member within the NASRPC trying to make this document out to be nothing, if i wrong well then i dont really care.


S!!t stirring?? Are you for real or just to far up the NASRPC @rse to realise that this is a document that wasnt made public yet persecutes alot of irish shooters (pistols shooters).

You say this document is "OLD" 18months isnt that long ago yet alone "OLD" especially when it was the time where the CJB and new firearms lisencing system was being introduced.

One person using a willing colleague to fight his battles, rather than doing his own fighting.

If that statement alone doesnt make it clear that you are out to defend the NASRPC and discredit those who have made it public knowledge then i dont know what would:rolleyes:

As i have said im NOT a pistol shooter but would like to personally thank Sparks and all those who have made this document public knowledge and have put the time and effort into making sure it was genuine.

Im sure that the NASRPC are watching this thread closely as proved by their sorry excuse of a statement released less than two days ago, i personnaly would like to call on Nigel Barrett who released the statement to come on here (as he has an account) and answer the questions regarding this document that were put forward by the members on here

daveob007

going to have a read of this document and the statment from the narspc in the coming week,,but those proposals seem to be very harsh indeed.

daveob007

just looking at one piece of that proposal and the bit about banning glock pistols????why??? how can you ban a brand of firearm.
i was an owner of a glock 17 and if i had the money to appeal and kept my gun i then found this out where would i be now??
i was never advised to get rid of the glock or informed as to the position held by the narspc regarding use of glocks.

Grizzly 45

What pees me off now even further is if they were so hot against Glocks,they were quick enough to jump on the bandwagon of one owner winning in the Limerick DC and two other lads with black combat style police /military EVIL pistols:rolleyes:.[Dunno, maybe Sigs and Walthers are more acceptable to them than Glocks?]
NASRPC newsletter June /July?2010

dog tag

Just wondering Does anyone here compete in national competitions with pistols an or revolvers?

Sparks

Yes, several posters here do.

knockon

dog tag wrote: »

Just wondering Does anyone here compete in national competitions with pistols an or revolvers?

Yes - sig pro 9mm.

Grizzly 45

Yes, "Evil black" modded Glock17.

daveob007

after reading the statment issued by the narspc today it looks like that document is now dead and was issued in the leadup to the cjb in 2009.
only worry is that these things tend to hang in the air for a long time and might be looked at by the new minister in the future and as i said before there are others like John Deasy who want a total ban on centrefire handguns.

Tackleberrywho

Where does it say that if you shoot Targets that you have to compete?
Surely the greatest competition is against oneself?

I go to the range with one or two mates, we shoot a few targets and we go home.

Why should I have to bow down to some Self-appointed group?

What is stopping ,myself forming the National Glock owners of Ireland Club in the Morning??
Or perhaps the Irish National Association of Self loading Pistols

Nobody could say

1. I'm not Irish
2. I'm not representing Self Loading Pistol owners
3. If I have more than the specified group size (3 or so) That we are an association.

I would not, but it just shows how easy a splinter group can form

Sparks

The document was pretty much dead on arrival dave - its proposals were, as one official desribed them, "illegal and untenable". The problem is that the document was created from whole cloth by the NASRPC committee (and not some old committee - the current chairman and the current secretary compiled and approved the document). It wasn't created in consulatation with anyone - which means that this is their natural point of aim when drafting rules, regulations or legislation.

dog tag

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Yes, "Evil black" modded Glock17.

Nice kit,

fired a few in my time. Browning, Colt, Sig, Glock, and S&W's.

cant apply for one in Ireland at the moment. Hope this changes.

Tackleberrywho

dog tag wrote: »

Nice kit,

fired a few in my time. Browning, Colt, Sig, Glock, and S&W's.

cant apply for one in Ireland at the moment. Hope this changes.

I've a Glock 22, and by Fcuk am I letting some bunch of **** try and get it taken off me as I don't pay them any money or genuflect when I see them.:mad:

Sparks

For clarification:

The NASRPC:Nigel account is a verified representative account (which have certain rules attached) - and the rules mean that whatever is posted there comes from the NASRPC committee as a whole.

In other words, Nigel's doing the typing, but he's just taking dictation - the content comes direct from the NASRPC.

So asking him to respond personally from that account is asking him to break the rules of the forum. He can respond personally from his personal account, by all means; and the NASRPC can respond through the NASRPC account as well; but what we don't want to see is him posting something under the NASRPC account and then boards.ie getting sued for defamation because it wasn't officially sanctioned by the NASRPC.

And to be fair, there may have been a delay in seeing the NASRPC post here because we've been discussing that clarification by PM. With that all cleared up, they should feel no obstacle remains to their posting here now.

dCorbus

Right, I've been reading this thread for the last couple of days since sparks posted up the initial post.

I've also read and re-read, and then re-read, both the contentious (understatement of the decade) "proposals" from the NASRPC.

Furthermore, I've read and re-read the statement posted by the NASRPC on their website regarding the publication of this document.

To say that I'm annoyed would be the understatement of the century.

To have submitted such an ill-considered and ill-advised document, albeit one masquerading as "just a proposal", to the DoJ and then, to compound matters, to proudly say that this was also provided to the Deparment of Sport etc., beggars belief. Whilst this document was done under the auspices of a previous chairman, the current committee should take stronger measures toward dissassociating themselves from these wholly crazy proposals. Those who actually authored the document should be ashamed of themselves.

I was planning to write a well-reasoned and well-considered response to your unadulterated nonsense that is the "proposal", but frankly (and for once) I struck dumb and am speechless!

I can only hope that the members of the NASRPC request and recieve an explanation from their current committee as to why this nonsense was ever submitted in the first place.