Bananaman's issues with the FCP petition

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

Following on from this thread...

Petition to call for a review of the Firearms Act and to extend the remit of the FCP:
...

I did sign this petition back when it was published but since then I have questioned that decision a bit and concluded that this approach is a bit of damp squib anyway - 180 people have signed the petition in the month or so it has been in existence - I have been at shoots in Ireland where you could get more signatures than that in the lunch queue - so It obviously has little or no popular support as a statement.

Whereas I do agree that
a) The Legislation needs rework and
b) There needs to be a better interface between the PTB and us lowly license holders

Upon reflection, I disagree, wholeheartedly, with the clause

to extend the remit of the Firearms Consultation Panel to become a permanent advisory panel to the Firearms Unit of the Department of Justice

In retrospect I would unsign the petition because of this as I do not believe the FCP was a success - in fact it was an abject failure.

To Make a failure a permanent structure - with no doubt the architects of that failure tending the tiller in perpetuity, would, in my opinion not be the great move for shooting in general (perhaps for some forms, or some locations, in particular, but that is no good for the rest of us)

Many people feel, correctly, that they were neither consulted not their opinions nor concerns made part of the agenda. Having a room of stuffed shirts rubber stamp whatever it is that the "Firearms Unit of the Department of Justice" want rubber stamped is not consultation - in fact they used to have names for those sorts of things in times past - where I am from that word was slíbhín.

---

It's a pity that, as usual, someones personal agenda has clouded the issue -

Reworking the legislation would be of benefit to us all.

Forming a better interface with the Gardai/DOJ on firearms licensing, which was devised with the support of all the stakeholders (as opposed to being hoisted onto the stakeholders) would be of benefit to us all.

But, as is so often the case, someones lily has to be gilded as part of the process (with our consent and signatures, of course)

B'Man

Sorry for raining on the parade, but I was playing lemmings last night and this came to mind.

Sparks

Interesting position B'man, since your NGB is currently the FCP representative for quite a few shooting sports...

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

Interesting position B'man, since your NGB is currently the FCP representative for quite a few shooting sports...

Can we please have an informed debate on the matter - rather than petty childish slagging and have the thread devolve into something useless.

Seeing as ~180 people have signed the petition then there is obviously a large % of the viewers of the shooting boards interested in this thread.

I do not have an NGB - I have a sport - shooting.

I only want to see a future for the sport. I have no vested interest, indeed I have no interest at all, in who holds what positions on whatever NGBS, Committees, Kangaroo Courts or whatever.

...

I want to see an end to the rot which has seen our sports under continuous sustained attack, both from within and without, since I have taken up the sport.

Personally I do not not see how making the current FCP a permanent structure can do that - having spoken to a number of people on the matter their informed opinion would be that it would not - as it is change that is needed - not the status quo.

I do think there needs to be an interface between the Shooting Sports, The Gardai and the Dept of Justice on Firearms licensing.

However, that should be a two way street where the concerns of the grass roots shooters, the problems of all firearms owners, range operators, club committees, sports administrators etc. and the concerns of the Gardai are all on the agenda.

My observations over the last couple of years has lead me to believe that is not true of the FCP in its current form.

Indeed none of those items are on the agenda - the proof is in the pudding - i could spend all day listing the examples of a lack of consultation - a few choice ones that affect huge numbers of people.

• Crazy drafts of Range SIs doing the rounds - obviously without any ranges having been consulted.
• Patently incorrect definitions in the legislation such as the definition of a Bullpup - obviously without any shooters having been consulted.
• Daft restrictions in the legislation such as 5 shot limits on rimfire pistols - obviously without anyone with knowledge having been consulted.
• Crazy boundaries such as calibre defining a restricted rifle - .308 not restricted .38 restricted - obvioulsy without anyone with knowledge having been consulted.
• The Increased workload applied to the Gardai to deal with a new licensing system, not designed with implementation in mind.
• Not including core aspects of the firearms licensing, such as hunting, in the new process.

The list goes on but as is quite obvious there is no consultation underway, nor has there ever been.

I am sure the petitions authors will claim that there was but I know that if I was "consulted" on some of these matters and my opinion was ignored I would be quite vocal in informing those I represented that I had, and by association, they had, been ignored.

The agenda is set by the DOJ and that agenda has one purpose and one purpose only - to reduce the number of fireams in the country - by any means possible. Obviously Centrefire handguns were the first on the block, followed shortly by rimfire handguns but they have already started on Rifles and Shotguns.

That agenda is not, in any way whatsoever, of benefit to our sport.

Therefore I do not see how continuing with that agenda is in our (all of our) interests.

But I am, of course, open to correction.

Sparks, you created this petition - so you have an interest in seeing the status quo maintained - I just do not see the justification for it, nor do a lot of other people.

Please educate us.

B'Man

Bananaman

Something else that sticks in my craw is the way the FCP was formed which is that the "Representatives" were selected and invited - as individuals - to hold positions on the panel.

Mar ya they represented the various associations/NGBs/Political Parties they were in at the time but as it became apparent that some of them were at best incompetent, indeed damaging to our sports, and were replaced in their various associations/NGBs/Political Parties they were kept on in the FCP because they had been selected for who they were - not for who they "represented".

The end result is that many, many people within the shooting community are not represented but are in fact mis-represented by those that have no mandate to represent anyone, but who, no doubt, tow a good line.

Just one more aspect of the FCP that makes it feel all wrong and not something we want to continue with.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Can we please have an informed debate on the matter - rather than petty childish slagging and have the thread devolve into something useless.

It's not petty childish slagging B'man, it's pointing out that the NASRPC is currently running FISA, the body that replaced the SSAI on the FCP, and that since you hold a position with them, you're not exactly standing up as an individual here.

I have no vested interest

See, that's the kind of thing that, given the above point, makes me question the good faith of the rest of your post.

I want to see an end to the rot which has seen our sports under continuous sustained attack, both from within and without, since I have taken up the sport.

And that's the kind of thing, that, given the above point, makes me wonder how short and falliable you think our memories are.

I do think there needs to be an interface between the Shooting Sports, The Gardai and the Dept of Justice on Firearms licensing.
However, that should be a two way street where the concerns of the grass roots shooters, the problems of all firearms owners, range operators, club committees, sports administrators etc. and the concerns of the Gardai are all on the agenda.

You have just described the FCP.

Here's the problem - most shooters seem to think the FCP is a lobbying group which exists to lobby for the interests of shooters.

Except that it's not.

What it is, is the place our lobbying groups go to in order to argue their case and be involved in the process so as to prevent the more ludicrous suggestions that have come in over the years (for example, allowing your dentist to testify as to your mental state when you apply for a licence).

It does not give us everything we want. But then again, nothing ever will. As you said yourself, it's where all the interested parties in the Firearms Acts go to, not just shooters, but the Gardai and others. And they will have their own arguments, and we won't win every point in there.

However, while it has those limits, it also has several advantages:

• Anything that comes out of the FCP has the Minister's blessing. By default. In comparison, anything that comes out of the courts requires a Minister's signature to overwrite in an instant, and I can give you examples all day if you so wish.
• It's free. In comparison, the courts cost five and six figure sums depending on which court the case goes to and how long the case lasts - and the NARGC is no longer underwriting cases financially for shooters, so that cost comes from the pockets of individuals - and for those who believe that shooters always win, and that having costs awarded to you means you pay nothing, there's a rather rude awakening awaiting the unwary should they pursue a case like this and lose.
• It's faster than the courts. Cases in the courts can drag on for years - we've had cases that took the guts of a decade to get to a final judgement. The FCP isn't going to be the next spectator sport, but doesn't take a decade to resolve one case at least.
• It's official recognition from the Government that the shooting community has a role to play in its own legislation. For those who don't remember, we never, ever had that prior to the FCP. Occasionally, an NGB might get a meeting or two at the Minister's whim; but so did any other group or individual. The FCP affords us, as a community, a status we didn't have and should be loath to lose.
• It makes us a known quantity to everyone involved. In case you're wondering why that would be useful, remember that the AGS have a fairly conservative outlook on life and we see that in nearly every decision and policy they make on firearms. The DoJ were similarly orientated prior to the FCP, as quite a few people will remember.

Indeed none of those items are on the agenda - the proof is in the pudding - i could spend all day listing the examples of a lack of consultation - a few choice ones that affect huge numbers of people.

Shall we examine these examples?

• Crazy drafts of Range SIs doing the rounds - obviously without any ranges having been consulted.
  
  Except that those drafts are (a) drafts, (b) being circulated - or were while the SSAI was in the FCP, and (c) being edited based on shooters input.
  
• Patently incorrect definitions in the legislation such as the definition of a Bullpup - obviously without any shooters having been consulted.
  
  Find me one country, anywhere in the world, that has (a) a working legislature, and (b) nothing but correct definitions in its law.
  
  And the definition is "rifles with a magazine located behind the trigger". Now, I've only been shooting for a decade or two B'man, but that to me isn't incorrect. In fact, it's pretty much the definition most of us would use. Not very detailed, I'll grant you, but what's wrong with it exactly?
  
• Daft restrictions in the legislation such as 5 shot limits on rimfire pistols - obviously without anyone with knowledge having been consulted.
  
  No, people were consulted. And they protested and said it was daft. But it's not just the shooting bodies in the FCP, it's also groups with other agendas and this was a point we lost.
  Mind you, we won it the first time round.
  And the SI needs to be updated again, so it's not lost forever... unless we're not in the FCP and thus unable to effect changes.
  
• Crazy boundaries such as calibre defining a restricted rifle - .308 not restricted .38 restricted - obvioulsy without anyone with knowledge having been consulted.
  
  Actually, an NASRPC person who shoots gallery rifle was there on the FCP at the time - you know him better than me, why not ask him why this happened?
  
• The Increased workload applied to the Gardai to deal with a new licensing system, not designed with implementation in mind.
  
  Yup. Nobody happy about that.
  However, that came in in the 2006 firearms act, which was drafted before the FCP was set up. Maybe if the FCP had existed before then, we could have dodged this one, because we'd have been able to talk with the AGS directly. (We have no mechanism to do this outside of the FCP).
  
• Not including core aspects of the firearms licensing, such as hunting, in the new process.
  
  Yes, I'm not sure how the NARGC missed that one.

I am sure the petitions authors

Author.
There's just me B'man, doing this on my own, deliberately avoiding the NGBs because this is a grassroots petition.

will claim that there was but I know that if I was "consulted" on some of these matters and my opinion was ignored I would be quite vocal in informing those I represented that I had, and by association, they had, been ignored.

B'man, your NGB - the one you hold a position in and aren't just an ordinary member of - sits on the FCP right now representing other sports. How much communication has there been between you and the NRAI, the Pony Club, the ITS and the NSAI about what you're going to discuss with the Department through the FCP channels?

Bananaman

Your reply is a bit nit picky and started a lot of irrelevant and distracting tangents but you asked a few questions and raised a few points so I'll answer it.

I did not ask what affiliations you have, nor did I express that I have any, nor ask that anyone else declare theirs - in fact I expressly stated that I was only looking at this from the perspective of the sport of shooting as a whole, rather than any particular wart on its arse.

...

I do not see the FCP as somewhere that the shooting community goes to Lobby.

If, I for one, want to have a representative group to lobby - I will want to elect it.
Rather than having it be a group hand picked by those it will lobby on our behalf which smacks a bit too much of foxes guarding the hen house.

The Purpose - as outlined when it was formed was

to assist with the introduction of the firearms licensing régime

And as we can all see they have produced a less than stellar performance.

The licensing régime is a complete disaster but I suppose in someones report somewhere, it is a disaster that was very well introduced.

The fact that is is one of the most challenged pieces of legislation in the history of the state is testament alone to that.

To have the FCP made a permanent entity is to have it continue with its designated purpose of "assisting with the introduction of the firearms licensing régime".

If, in a corporate environment, a group had "assisted" in making such a hames of introducing a new policy or procedure, had assisted in bringing the body corporate before so many legal challenges and assisted in incurring millions in costs; They would at best be fired for gross incompetence but quite likely also find themselves facing malfeasance or misfeasance charges of some shape or form.

What they would not get is a renewal of their contract.

If the task still required completion then an alternative group/solution would be utilised.

But then that would be in the real world.

....

When attempting to debunk the few examples I used you consistently referred to groups other than the FCP, such as the NASRPC or the NARGC, but we have already said that whereas people may well have been a part of one or more of those associations when the FCP was formed, they were not asked to be part of it because of who they represented but because of who they were.

That has been proven by the fact that some of those individuals still hold their positions on the FCP, having been removed from their positions in the associations you claim they represent and, in fact, do not represent any one at all.

...

You also seem to be comparing the FCP to the courts or as an alternative to the courts. That is folly. Whereas we cannot discuss specific cases on here - I assume you are speaking, in general, of the hundreds of appeals against refusals that are currently before the courts.

Unfortunately, that appeals process is the only recourse permitted under law, upon refusal.

I fail to see how as part of its purpose of "assisting with the introduction of the firearms licensing régime", the FCP could have altered that.

...

This is not a legal question, nor is it a problem with any of the NGBs, Associations or Organisations that represent shooting groups around the country.

It is a problem with the FCP and how, making it a permanent fixture could be of benefit to anyone in the shooting sports.

I find the arguments "for" to be a bit thin (and perhaps ribbed for your pleasure)

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Your reply is a bit nit picky and started a lot of irrelevant and distracting tangents but you asked a few questions and raised a few points so I'll answer it.

Okay, stop there.
You took a fairly straightforward grassroots petition and asked some questions about it from what, frankly, I think is not a good faith position.
I answered all your questions.
And that's "nit picky"?
If I'm picking nits here B'man, they're your nits, not mine. Creating a mess and then blaming someone who tries to fix it isn't really a very ethical method for discussing something.

I do not see the FCP as somewhere that the shooting community goes to Lobby.

And yet, that is what it is.

If, I for one, want to have a representative group to lobby - I will want to elect it.
Rather than having it be a group hand picked by those it will lobby on our behalf which smacks a bit too much of foxes guarding the hen house.

Except that that's not how it worked.

• Shooters voted on their NGB committees at their NGB's AGMs.
• Those NGBs outside the SSAI then nominated their representatives to the FCP.
• Those NGBs in the SSAI in turn then nominated the SSAI rep to the FCP.

That is the system drafted by the man the NASRPC appointed as a spokesperson. When drafted, it was a fair, open, honest and democratic process, but when it transpired that those bodies elected someone other than himself to sit on that board, suddenly the rules weren't right or fair or open or honest or democratic.

So you'll have to understand that when I hear that complaint coming from the NASRPC's direction, I have to ask myself, "He's got his seat, what more does he want?"

And as we can all see they have produced a less than stellar performance.
The licensing régime is a complete disaster but I suppose in someones report somewhere, it is a disaster that was very well introduced.

Well, that's your opinion.

Mine, however, differs.

It's my opinion that the system now in place works for over 99% of the applicants, and while it's definitely not as shooter-friendly as it should be, and while I have serious problems with large chunks of it, most of those chunks came in with the '06 Act.

And the FCP didn't show up until AFTER the '06 Act.

And it was the NASRPC's current spokesperson who was "negotiating" with the Powers that Be before the '06 Act on behalf of the NRPAI. And he thought the '06 Act was Great. We had huge rows about it here and elsewhere, if you recall, because we all saw how bad it was and what was coming.

And, while the current system still needs fixing, the system we would have today were it not for the FCPs efforts would be far, far worse.

• No pistols, at all.
• Six or seven medical personnel being on the list of people who could testify as to your fitness to hold a firearm, including your dentist, anyone in an A&E ward, and a few others who aren't qualified to testify on mental fitness of any kind.
• The JSP standard in place for range certification (you know, the one that says you have to be able to fire 20mm cannon and anti-tank weapons on the range) for all ranges, even the airgun-only and smallbore-only ones.

And a host of other smaller abominations.

You say it's a disaster, but you ignore what caused the current problems and what's been preventing them from being worse, and how bad they would have been. That doesn't make for a soundly researched opinion to my mind.

The fact that is is one of the most challenged pieces of legislation in the history of the state is testament alone to that.

It's actually never been challanged.

There are decisions of garda superintendents being challanged more than ever before, citing the Firearms Act as proof that they made their decisions incorrectly, but the legislation itself has not been challanged. Except via the FCP, and even there the large-scale structure of the '06 Act is a monster problem to even look at.

When attempting to debunk the few examples I used you consistently referred to groups other than the FCP, such as the NASRPC or the NARGC, but we have already said that whereas people may well have been a part of one or more of those associations when the FCP was formed, they were not asked to be part of it because of who they represented but because of who they were.

Actually, everyone who was put on the FCP in the beginning was elected by their NGB to represent that NGB.

And I mention those groups because sending a rep to the FCP did not mean that you ceased to be - it meant that your NGB could present its position at the FCP. There was no guarantee that you'd get all you wanted, there never was. But a lot more often than not, our sides won their arguments, or at least blunted the worst of those they didn't win.

That has been proven by the fact that some of those individuals still hold their positions on the FCP, having been removed from their positions in the associations you claim they represent and, in fact, do not represent any one at all.

That's between one individual and your organisation B'man.
If he wants to give his side of things, I'd love to hear it because the details never made it out of the NASRPC to the wider world as far as I know.

You also seem to be comparing the FCP to the courts or as an alternative to the courts. That is folly.

You've just cited court cases yourself above.
Others, in other places, have cited the courts as a better alternative to the FCP - including NASRPC officers.

And if we leave the courts aside, there is no other available format for the FCP and no will on the part of the Minister to close down the FCP and make the FCP2 out of whole cloth to suit one sub-set of the FCP's members.

So, either we compare it to the courts, or we compare it to howling in the wilderness, because those are the available options.

I find the arguments "for" to be a bit thin

And I find your position makes no logical sense at all given what you've said so far.

Simply put:

• We had thirty years of not talking to the Department or Minister officially. We got nothing as a result. So that's not a viable option.
  
• Then we tried court cases for a decade. And the one we took all the way to the Supreme Court, winning at every step along the way over several years and lots of man-hours and money, was overruled by the Minister with one paragraph in the back of a Miscellaneous section of a convenient bill. So that's not a viable option (not for changing the system anyway - the courts can make people adhere to the system, but if the system's broken, they're useless). By the way, we've now lost two Supreme Court cases. Care to guess at the cost or where the money to pay for that came from or - and this is the real long-term nightmare - what the damage those precedents set will do to our sport for the next several decades? Court precedents never go away. We've seen law from the 1300s cited in Irish court cases in the last thirty years. So not only is every case we take a risk for today if we lose, it's a risk whose consequences we have to live with essentially forever.
  
• And then there's a common forum chaired by the Department where everyone is represented to discuss this stuff and sort out a cheaper, faster, more permanent solution.

That last one is called the FCP.

It's the best option we've ever had and it's now set to go away and set us back a decade in terms of involvement in our own legislation, right after that legislation has been so horribly mangled.

Letting it go away would be a really bad outcome for all our sports. One we'll be regretting for decades if it happens.

Sparks

By the way B'man, if you're going to quote, do so accurately...

Bananaman wrote: »

I do not see the FCP as somewhere that the shooting community goes to Lobby.
...
The Purpose - as outlined when it was formed was

to assist with the introduction of the firearms licensing régime

In fact, as those who clicked on the link and read the source will be able to see, the full purpose was:

The Panel’s terms of reference include serving as a forum where all parties can work together to progress issues relating to the new firearms licensing regime; discussing minimum standards to be complied with by a rifle/pistol club or shooting range and guidelines on the practical application and operation of the Firearms Acts; advising on public safety and the conditions which may be attached to firearms certificates and authorisations; and reporting to the Minister from time to time on the operation of the new licensing system.

In fact, the only place in the entire page where the phrase "to assist with the introduction of the firearms licensing régime" pops up is in the introduction. To a press release. Which has no legal weight at all.

Bananaman

As usual you have taken what could potentially have been a decent fora for debating a matter which a moderate number of people seem to have an interest in and turned it into some diatribe based on your personal dislike of some individuals.

Its unfortunate but seems to be the outcome no matter what topic I mention.

I am not, to best of my knowledge a member of any shooting association(bar a club and insurance scheme), so please stop attributing my comments to "my association" or "my organisation". The incessant need to try to justify any point by trying to make it a "them" and "us" matter is annoying and unnecessary.

...

You have asked people to sign their support of the following

to extend the remit of the Firearms Consultation Panel to become a permanent advisory panel to the Firearms Unit of the Department of Justice

That is the matter for discussion here. So, in good faith, I asked .....

What is it

We have to look at what the FCP is and what its remit is
I have already commented on that.

to assist with the introduction of the firearms licensing régime

As the firearms licensing régime has been introduced, and given its remit, what function could it serve.

Who is it

As we are asking people to make it "a permanent advisory panel"

We have to look at who is on it and how they change.

I have already commented on that. You claim they were elected but when they were replaced by those associations the FCP seat remained with the person chosen for it and was not allocated to the represenative of the group in question.

Therefore they are chosen - because of who they are, not because of who they represent.

They are not elected so cannot be replaced by the associations they purport to represent, no matter how bad a job they do.

What have they done

I already commented on this.

Given the "firearms licensing régime" that was introduced and the myriad problems with its implementation, not a particularly good job.

What will they do if they are made permanent

More of the same, no doubt.
And no matter how bad, they cannot be replaced.

I still think that those points merit discussion before we blindly accept that the "chosen few" should be chosen, on a permanent basis, to "represent" us all.

But then that's just me, unfortunately for some, I do not have a fleece needs shearing.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

As usual you have ... turned it into some diatribe

No, I haven't - but you're presenting an argument that simply makes no sense whatsoever until you take the context into account, and when you do, it's not a pretty picture. I didn't invent the context, I'm just pointing it out.

You want to debate the topic openly B'man, I have no problem with that.

What I - and many others - have a problem with is you defining open to be "Look over there, not over here".

I am not, to best of my knowledge a member of any shooting association

Do I need to quote you saying that you're in the NASRPC? Do I need to give the link to the NASRPC webpage listing you as a national director?
Really?
Rule 5 doesn't mean you can lie about who you are with impunity B'man, it just means we'll be polite if you'll be polite.

We have to look at what the FCP is and what its remit is
I have already commented on that.

No, you've commented on what you thought it was. But you hadn't read the full reference, so you'd gotten that incorrect. That's not really anything to be embarressed over, but it does mean that your argument isn't correct either, because it's based on that error.

As we are asking people to make it "a permanent advisory panel"
We have to look at who is on it and how they change.

You're mistaking the panel being permanent with the idea that those on it are appointed for life.

They're not and they never have been.

The Department (because it's the chair of the FCP) extends invitations to NGBs; the NGBs choose their representatives. Those representatives are not appointed permanently. They can - and have been in the past - be replaced by the NGBs through the normal means of electing someone else. Even the NGBs themselves can be replaced - as happened when the SSAI was replaced by FISA. And new NGBs can be added and defunct NGBs retire.

None of these changes mean that the Panel wouldn't be permanent - we've always had a Minister for example, even though we've gone through several of them in the last decade.

Bananaman

My point is not based solely on the short description of the FCP.
I obviously used that for brevity as it is a succinct description.
I provided the link to the announcement so people could read the rest of it for themselves as the purpose of seeking the debate was to inform their, and my decisions.

You obviously have an opinion on these matters, which in, in no small way, coloured by a history of trying to prevent certain people from having a voice.
You're entitled to that but I think it has you slightly blinkered to the wider picture.

I've made my point - I'll leave you to dissect it ad nauseum until people get fed up and stop reading the thread now.

B'Man

PS: You're not entirely correct on a few of your points there - but no need to be embarrassed. Sure it could happen to any of us.

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

My point is not based solely on the short description of the FCP.
I obviously used that for brevity as it is a succinct description.

But it's not succinct B'man - it's wrong.

And you then posted that since the licencing regime was now introduced, what possible role could the FCP have; so how can you claim with a straight face that you didn't base your point off that mis-quote?

a history of trying to prevent certain people from having a voice.

Just for the record, lest those who weren't here be puzzled, after four years of the person you refer to having a voice here and using it to threaten legal action against myself, other people, NGBs and finally boards.ie ltd. (who rightfully told him where to get off and what to get off of), yes, he got banned from here.

By which time we'd already broken our own rules dozens of time overlooking his outbursts in order to avoid banning him.

To the point where the forum was nearly shut down over it.

Which is the exact opposite of what you've just claimed happened.

I've made my point - I'll leave you to dissect it ad nauseum until people get fed up and stop reading the thread now.

Translation: Oh crap, I forgot, they have memories and the evidence is up on the internet in black and white, I'd better scarper before I make myself look even worse than I already have...

(You'll forgive me B'man, but the standing joke with some of us that that's your standard answer #73 and seeing you live up to the joke is endlessly amusing)

Sparks

...and split out so as not to clutter up the sticky...

Tackleberrywho

A new FCP

Who are they.
What sub-interest group will they represent?

I for one
DO NOT want an Eletist group of Target shooters representing 200000+ of us.

Some shooters have a 12g, some a .22lr and others shoot deer, foxes Targets be they near or far.

5 round mag in a pistol/revolver is a joke.
Bullpup designs shorten a rifle, but not drastically.
Restricting Calibres like Cowboy Guns, another joke.

The Firearms act asks for a "reason" for having said firearm.
Shooter A wants a cowboy gun to shoot deer in woodland, why not. Well able for the task.

Shooter B wants to buy a .22lr pistol and shoot 6/10 rounds accurately against the clock again why not.

Air rifles should be not considered Rifles unless they break 8ft/lb.

Then that would also mean that these people who shoot them would no longer be on the FCP or similar though...
So will we see Deer Hunters, Game shooters, Clay shooters, Vermin controllers, target shooters all represented on this new FCP or what ever new lettering it is given?


Yours in sport.....

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

...and split out so as not to clutter up the sticky...

Declutter my hole

You just dont want a dissenting opinion or questions found in the sticky thread - god forbid - you could have just moved your own waffling posts if you just wanted to tidy up

Foxes, henhouse ........ Typical

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Declutter my hole

Thanks, but I don't lean that way.

You just dont want a dissenting opinion or questions found in the sticky thread - god forbid - you could have just moved your own waffling posts if you just wanted to tidy up

Yes, which is why I deleted all your posts, banned you from the forum and pretended none of this ever happened...
Oh, wait, I didn't do any of those things, did I?

Sparks

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

I for one
DO NOT want an Eletist group of Target shooters representing 200000+ of us.

Small hint, target shooters don't actually want to represent 200,000 of us; even if the IFA and NARGC wanted them to.

5 round mag in a pistol/revolver is a joke.

Yes, but not one from the pen of a target shooter.
And the fastest way to fix it is via the FCP.

Air rifles should be not considered Rifles unless they break 8ft/lb.

Not that I'm arguing, but do you not mean 12 ft/lb?

Then that would also mean that these people who shoot them would no longer be on the FCP or similar though...

Sure, unless they shot other things...
...or were covered by the FCP's remit in other ways, the way that airsoft is right now (they're not firearms, but there's lots in the Firearms Act about how they can be sold and used and so on).

So will we see Deer Hunters, Game shooters, Clay shooters, Vermin controllers, target shooters all represented on this new FCP or what ever new lettering it is given?

No, because there won't be a new FCP. There's no will to create one. If we let this one go to the wall, the response will be "Oh. You didn't want it? Okay, see you round". And then we'll have another few decades of wading through a mire of problems that could have been resolved more quickly, more effectively and more inexpensively than any other option available if we'd only kept the FCP.

Bananaman

If the FCP, with a wave of its wand, can fix it, then, why is there a 5 shot restriction on unrestricted rimfire handguns?

Why will it be better able to do it once it itself has a future - if its for the good of the shooting sports then surely their future should come before its own

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

If the FCP, with a wave of its wand, can fix it, then, why is there a 5 shot restriction on unrestricted rimfire handguns?

It cannot fix anything as quickly as Sooty can.
Away from children's TV programmes, however, the 5-shot restriction came from the AGS as I understand it, and while that argument wasn't won, please remember the context in which it was happening.

If you try to appraise the FCP by comparing having no limits and having a 5-round limit, yeah, it looks bad.

If, however, you remember that at the time the Minister had just announced in public that ALL handguns were about to be banned, and then note that the FCP were able to get enough wiggle room to keep as much as it did - and would have had enough to keep even more had people not gotten shouty for precisely the wrong thirty seconds - well, that's a slightly more accurate picture of what was going on and frankly, it's one that the FCP doesn't look so bad in, is it?

Why will it be better able to do it once it itself has a future - if its for the good of the shooting sports then surely their future should come before its own

B'man, I think you're operating here under a misconception.
You believe that the FCP is a single entity, a group with its own identity and agenda.
You are mistaken. It is not. It is an avenue by which multiple groups can communicate on specific issues.

Some of those groups don't think much of private ownership of firearms and have an official avenue of communication to the Minister already. They will not lose out if we lose the FCP.

We, however, have no such alternate avenue. If we lose the FCP, we are basicly ****ed for the next decade.

Bananaman

You said the FCP was the best way to fix the error whereby there is a 5 shot restriction on unrestricted rimfire handguns

Then you said they can do it but cannot do it quickly.

The FCP have been around a few years now, as has that error. Yet there has been no change, nor attempts at it, as far as I know.

Despite it being a massive problem for shooters and that having been communicated to the FCP since it was formed.

Which is it? They can do it or not?

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

You said the FCP was the best way to fix the error whereby there is a 5 shot restriction on unrestricted rimfire handguns

Yup, it's an amendment to the restricted list SI, there's several others needed as well, and the FCP is the obvious route for that because they've done several other SIs already.

Then you said they can do it but cannot do it quickly.

No B'man, I said they can't do it as quickly as Sooty can wave his magic wand on a children's tv show.

The FCP have been around a few years now, as has that error. Yet there has been no change, nor attempts at it, as far as I know.
Despite it being a massive problem for shooters and that having been communicated to the FCP since it was formed.
Which is it? They can do it or not?

Seriously, that's your argument?
Yes, they can do it.
No, they haven't done it yet.
Why, because there's a list of things they had to do.
Should it have been a priority, well not so much, because the Clubs and Ranges SIs had far more potential to destroy everyone's sports, in one go.

This is the thing B'man - it's a forum where everyone's sport goes to, not just a subset. So yes, it's a stupid restriction, and we wouldn't have it in an ideal world (but frankly, given the time it came in at it could have been far worse), and yes, it should be changed, but it came after other things in the triage list, because those things would have ended shooting alltogether.

Given that at the moment there are at least three groups that need changes in that SI rather badly however, I'd say it's a tad further up the list right now.



Oh, and before you say that this is typical or that it shows the FCP doesn't really care, please pause for a moment and reflect on the point that when you selected something to change in the restricted list SI, you picked the 5-shot limit on smallbore pistol magazines.

And ignored centerfire pistols entirely. Because altering the restricted list SI is the means by which those can most easily be brought back. And they're completely banned, not just inconvenienced right now.

And you ignored pistol-caliber gallery rifles.

And you ignored paintball.

All of these (and a few others) are interested parties in the firearms act and meant to be equal partners on the FCP, but you ignored their needs in favour of your own. Now that's not me ragging on you - that's me trying to point out that you're criticising others for doing poorly (in your estimation) what you're not even trying to do at all.

Tackleberrywho

Sparks wrote: »

Not that I'm arguing, but do you not mean 12 ft/lb?

hunting Quality Air Rifles considered Firearms (bunny guns with enogh ft/lbs to dispatch a rabbit).
10m Paper punchers not considered firearms was my point.

I'm not into Airsoft as I consider them dangerous toys; if that is a contridiction I'm sorry.


However it seems that I am in the middle of a private arguement here so I'll bow out.

SLK2005

For someone who does'nt know,can you tell me who is on the FCP,who each member represents, how often they meet and where can I read anything they have published.

Bananaman

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Sparks wrote: »

Not that I'm arguing, but do you not mean 12 ft/lb?

hunting Quality Air Rifles considered Firearms (bunny guns with enogh ft/lbs to dispatch a rabbit).
10m Paper punchers not considered firearms was my point.

I'm not into Airsoft as I consider them dangerous toys; if that is a contridiction I'm sorry.


However it seems that I am in the middle of a private arguement here so I'll bow out.

Please dont - there is no private argument , he always reacts that way when somone challenges the gospel according to Sparks

Sparks would like nothing more than to turn this thread into a bitch fight so people lost interest and it fell of the front page - then anyone finding the petition thread would not see any dissennting opinion or questions

the content of his petition should be questioned rather than blindly signed. Sparks refers to the FCP as 'we' in some instances even though he is not a part of it.

The FCP as far as I.am aware has met once - to applaud the Minister for a fine job - individuals on it may have met with its chairman or the Garda Reps but that does not constitute a meeting of the FCP - no panel and no consultation

The vast majority of.pistol and rifle clubs ranges and shooters have no,idea what the FCP is, are not represented on it and are not seeing any progress in,the problems they are having.

Yet there is a call to make.it permanent with no mention of identifying the problems in it and.fixing them first.

Of course it should be.questioned.and if Sparks doesn't like.it that is fine but he is only one opinion - 180 people have signed this - I wonder how many of them broke.it down before they did (I know.I didn't until lately when I thought about.it.properly)

B'Man

Tackleberrywho

I did not sign it for security reasons just to name one.
In saying that several of the people who did that I know put wrong addresses......

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

Oh, and before you say that this is typical or that it shows the FCP doesn't really care, please pause for a moment and reflect on the point that when you selected something to change in the restricted list SI, you picked the 5-shot limit on smallbore pistol magazines.

And ignored centerfire pistols entirely. Because altering the restricted list SI is the means by which those can most easily be brought back. And they're completely banned, not just inconvenienced right now.

And you ignored pistol-caliber gallery rifles.

And you ignored paintball.

All of these (and a few others) are interested parties in the firearms act and meant to be equal partners on the FCP, but you ignored their needs in favour of your own. Now that's not me ragging on you - that's me trying to point out that you're criticising others for doing poorly (in your estimation) what you're not even trying to do at all.

I did not "ignore their needs in favour of my own".

I simply chose a few examples of things that were obviously done without any consultation or where those consulted had no knowledge or experience of the topic to hand.

You chose that specific example as something the FCP would be the best people to fix. I simply asked why they had not done it.

It just goes to prove that they cannot possibly be representative of the shooting community when these sorts of topics are not high on the agenda.

If the Clubs and Ranges SIs are the current focus then why are the clubs and ranges not consulted or their representative groups consulted. There seems to be a dozen or so people on this panel - surely they are not all running after the one ball all the time - surely some of them are focusing on licensing problems,

Its aspects that like this, which matter to the guys who own the guns, that need to be worked out as part of asking them to give the FCP a further mandate.

B'man

rowa

To be honest i think we became spoilt in relation to firearms during the celtic tiger years when it appeared we could licence nearly anything. we can licence many types of firearms such as pistols , centrefire semi-auto rifles , and rifles of every calibre even if some of them are restricted, the shooters of the uk would be very happy to have what we have.
I know its not perfect by any means but we are vastly better off then in the 70's, 80's and 90's , the problem isn't the laws (apart from the cf pistol situation) but getting the gardai to apply the laws fairly and not having to drag the super/chief super into court to get what you are entitled to hold.

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Sparks refers to the FCP as 'we' in some instances even though he is not a part of it.

Actually, I didn't. But to know that, you'd have to have read the link B'man.

The FCP as far as I.am aware has met once

They've met more than once and you know that.
Stop lying please.

The vast majority of.pistol and rifle clubs ranges and shooters have no,idea what the FCP is, are not represented on it and are not seeing any progress in,the problems they are having.

That doesn't mean that no progress has happened, it means that no progress has been properly reported. That's down to the shooting bodies more than the FCP because there was never any ban on reporting FCP minutes - the CAI certainly reported some at various points. And since the SSAI was passing on FCP reports to the NASRPC committee, of which you were a member B'man, you might ask them why they weren't passing on that information.

Bananaman wrote: »

I did not "ignore their needs in favour of my own".

Yes, you did. You chose an example close to your heart instead of the most pressing example (centerfire pistols) or any of the others.

I simply chose a few examples of things that were obviously done without any consultation or where those consulted had no knowledge or experience of the topic to hand.

See, you can say that nobody was consulted, but again, you're just plain wrong.

It just goes to prove that they cannot possibly be representative of the shooting community when these sorts of topics are not high on the agenda.

So your personal firearm is more important than preventing changes that would shut down all shooting?
You're making my point for me B'man.

And at the same time you're ignoring the point that we don't have an option to make up a new panel here, because if we pull out of this one, the whole thing just goes away and the PTB just write us off as uninterested. And it'll be like your glock - just given up on and you move on to something else, while others in the sport find they've lost the thing they love.

Bananaman

Smallbore pistols are in the same boat as Centrefire Pistols.

Most smallbore pistol sports are 6 shot based - most smallbore pistols are 10 shot - most smallbore revolvers are 6 or 10 shot - yet a 6 shot handgun is restricted, therefore not allowed. Absolutely bananas.

The obvious intention was to destroy the smallbore pistol sports.

B'Man

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

So your personal firearm is more important than preventing changes that would shut down all shooting?

I have, and compete with,
rimfire pistols,
centrefire pistols,
rimfire rifles,
centrefire rifles and
shotguns.

Which one are you referring to.

Don't try to tar me with the "me fein" brush - I'll get annoyed.

...

I don't subscribe to the idea that we allow ourselves to be fecked over rather than be ignored.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Smallbore pistols are in the same boat as Centrefire Pistols.

Really? Virtually banned outright you mean?

Most smallbore pistol sports are 6 shot based - most smallbore pistols are 10 shot - most smallbore revolvers are 6 or 10 shot - yet a 6 shot handgun is restricted, therefore not allowed. Absolutely bananas.

Ah, I see, you mean "mildly inconvenienced compared to what was publicly stated to be on the way by the Minister".

The obvious intention was to destroy the smallbore pistol sports.

This was at the time when the Minister went to the public and said "I WILL BAN ALL HANDGUNS" on the front page of every paper of the day. So, incisive analysis there B'man. However, we still have air and smallbore pistols, grandfathered centerfire pistols, and a route to get centerfire pistols back that doesn't require us to go via the Dail, and existing centerfire pistols to demonstrate to recalcitrant gardai and an ignorant public that they're not weapons of mass destruction.

Is it what we would design for ourselves if we had carte blanche to draft any rules we wanted? Don't be an asshat, of course it's not.

Is it the best we could hope for when the Minister had announced to the press that a ban was coming in, the law had to bounce through the AG's office a dozen times before getting to go to the Dail where every numpty from a back bench who was trying to get airtime wanted to push amendments on it had a turn, and then the same deal in the Seanad, whilst all the time the media was feeding the Deasy-v-Ahern row? Yes. Welcome to the Ireland and Irish politics B'man, where nobody ever gets what they want, unless they're a Taoiseach, and if you can get a compromise that everyone's unhappy with, you've come as close to winning as the system permits.

Or had you some other way to do this that nobody's ever thought of or tried in the last four decades? Because if so, spit it out. Tell us what your alternative is, and how you plan to bell that cat.

Bananaman

You still go back to what got us here - we all know that.
( It is not good enough to "have guns" - it is "have the sport" that we want - you just happen to need guns to do it )

Suffice it to say that seeing as there was room to manouver - how someone picked 5 shots, instead of 6 as being suitable, indicates the sheer lack of knowledge of the people who came up with that compromise.

I only highlighted it as ROWA seemed to be of the opinion that it is not all that bad - ask a guy who has had to plug 5 slots on the drum of his revolver.....hardly a minor inconvenience.
...

But this topic is about the FCP - and why we should give them a mandate.

I am still not hearing any arguments for that - bar the "because its better than being ignored" argument which does not hold water when we see the samage that was done on their watch so being ignored could not possibly have been worse.

...

I do not know when the FCP met - bar the time they met to meet the Minister and tell him he was doing a sterling job.

On what other occasions did the FCP convene?

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

You still go back to what got us here - we all know that. Suffice it to say that seeing as there was room to manouver - how someone picked 5 shots, instead of 6 as being suitable, indicates the sheer lack of knowledge of the people who came up with that compromise.

You've managed to contradict yourself there.
"How we got there" points out that we were about to lose everything.
Tell me B'man, are you suggesting that we fight with all our might over the gap between five and six, when the Minister just wanted to ban the lot and be done with it?

Or do you think that Dermot Ahern had a soft spot in his heart for us really, and was ready to go back to the papers with Jim Deasy ranting away in the background and say "well, you know that handgun ban I told you all I was bringing in? Well, I'm not really, they're grand chaps actually, and they stood right up to me and told me what's what, and it's all sorted now"?

I only highlighted it as ROWA seemed to be of the opinion that it is not all that bad - ask a guy who has had to plug 5 slots on the drum of his revolver.....hardly a minor inconvenience.

It's minor compared to handing it in and never seeing it again, isn't it?

But this topic is about the FCP - and why we should give them a mandate.

No, it isn't.
The FCP isn't given a mandate by us, and for someone who says he knows what's what, you're exhibiting a lot of ignorance by acting like it is.
The FCP is not a group we mandate - it's a forum we can participate in.
I know that's a blow to the ego for those who'd prefer to draft rules out of whole cloth, but that's the way it is. And it's the best we can hope for unless someone rewrites a lot of Bunreacht na hEireann.

I am still not hearing any arguments for that

Good grief. How loudly are you singing "lalalaIcantHearYou" in order to achieve that?

being ignored could not possibly have been worse.

Out of curiosity -- since noone could possibly believe that honestly after having been told all that you have been over the years both here and in the NASRPC and elsewhere -- why do you want to see the FCP shut down when it's your organisation that is nominated to sit on it?

I do not know when the FCP met - bar the time they met to meet the Minister and tell him he was doing a sterling job.
On what other occasions did the FCP convene?

Aside from the public meetings, I couldn't give you dates and locations...
...but you have access to the notes, don't you? You were on the NASRPC committee when the SSAI was reporting on FCP meetings to it, so why don't you tell us?

Bananaman

Contrary to popular belief, the NASRPC is about shooting

so when I was on its committee I was mostly organising
shoots and if not, I was shooting.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Contrary to popular belief, the NASRPC is about shooting
so when I was on its committee I was mostly organising
shoots and if not, I was shooting.
B'Man

Or being their public relations officer.
While claiming to be nothing to do with them.
Which, to be frank, was the real problem. Every NGB needs a PRO, that's a good thing. But coming on here, saying you weren't affliliated, taking pot shots at other groups and all the while sitting on the committee (in the position responsible for the NGB's public voice no less) - that was rotten.

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

Bananaman wrote: »

Contrary to popular belief, the NASRPC is about shooting
so when I was on its committee I was mostly organising
shoots and if not, I was shooting.
B'Man

Or being their public relations officer.
While claiming to be nothing to do with them.
Which, to be frank, was the real problem. Every NGB needs a PRO, that's a good thing. But coming on here, saying you weren't affliliated, taking pot shots at other groups and all the while sitting on the committee (in the position responsible for the NGB's public voice no less) - that was rotten.

Any other ways you would like to try to get off topic and turn this into a childish slagging match?

back to the topic .... people should sign this petition because .........

A) the lads on the FCP like being on the FCP

some of them would have no mechanism of ever getting elected to anything if it required election so best to stay put in an invited position and claim to represent the people that would never elect them.

C) God forbid that actual shooters were represented - they might not tow the line - they might ask questions? They may want things to happen , they may even inform those they represent of what is going on and highlight their concerns - down with that sort of thing

D) its better than being ignored

E) "we" are connected

F) "they" are kept out

G) it has worked so well so far

H) ......?


B'Man

Tackleberrywho

rowa wrote: »

To be honest i think we became spoilt in relation to firearms during the celtic tiger years when it appeared we could licence nearly anything. we can licence many types of firearms such as pistols , centrefire semi-auto rifles , and rifles of every calibre even if some of them are restricted, the shooters of the uk would be very happy to have what we have.
I know its not perfect by any means but we are vastly better off then in the 70's, 80's and 90's , the problem isn't the laws (apart from the cf pistol situation) but getting the gardai to apply the laws fairly and not having to drag the super/chief super into court to get what you are entitled to hold.

There's more to the Pistol sit that that.
I am stook with my Pistol, for the rest of my days, can never sell in the state, can never upgrade.

I do appreciate the sit, has improved vastly.

I remember the early FLAG days, I remember when we were all on the same side.

I have a .308 and a .223 SPECIFICALLY because we could not have had them from 1973 until relatively recently.

And TBH if reloading came in, and Centrefire Pistol licences loosened, I'd be very happy.
I think we are very lucky in so far as we can get Deer Calibres, and target Calibres to Hunt and compete on Long range targets on a world stage.

I'd still fancy a semi Auto .243 like Grizz for my Collection though

Sparks

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

There's more to the Pistol sit that that.
I am stook with my Pistol, for the rest of my days, can never sell in the state, can never upgrade.

Until it gets fixed.
By a one-line change in the restricted firearms SI.
Which is a long, long way from being banned in the Act.

I remember the early FLAG days, I remember when we were all on the same side.

Then you don't remember the early FLAG days

Tackleberrywho

Sparks wrote: »

Until it gets fixed.
By a one-line change in the restricted firearms SI.
Which is a long, long way from being banned in the Act.

Then you don't remember the early FLAG days

Oh I do remember the days

We all bought Swedish Mausers with the Hope of One day rebarrelling them .308

I have no faith in the new MOJ and thus no hopes raised of a one liner being changed for so few.........

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Any other ways you would like to try to get off topic and turn this into a childish slagging match?

That's it?
You go from "I'm not in any NGB" to "I'm not in the NASRPC" to "I just volunteer to help out" to "Okay, I was their PRO and a national competitions director while some of the stuff I'm complaining about was going on"; but you think it's me who's being childish?

Ah ffs B'man, what's the point? At this point, I don't know where you start lying and where you stop.

back to the topic .... people should sign this petition because .........

...because it is the place our lobbying groups go to in order to argue their case and be involved in the process so as to prevent the more ludicrous suggestions that have come in over the years (for example, allowing your dentist to testify as to your mental state when you apply for a licence).

It does not give us everything we want. But then again, nothing ever will. As you said yourself, it's where all the interested parties in the Firearms Acts go to, not just shooters, but the Gardai and others. And they will have their own arguments, and we won't win every point in there.

However, while it has those limits, it also has several advantages:

• Anything that comes out of the FCP has the Minister's blessing. By default. In comparison, anything that comes out of the courts requires a Minister's signature to overwrite in an instant, and I can give you examples all day if you so wish.
• It's free. In comparison, the courts cost five and six figure sums depending on which court the case goes to and how long the case lasts - and the NARGC is no longer underwriting cases financially for shooters, so that cost comes from the pockets of individuals - and for those who believe that shooters always win, and that having costs awarded to you means you pay nothing, there's a rather rude awakening awaiting the unwary should they pursue a case like this and lose.
• It's faster than the courts. Cases in the courts can drag on for years - we've had cases that took the guts of a decade to get to a final judgement. The FCP isn't going to be the next spectator sport, but doesn't take a decade to resolve one case at least.
• It's official recognition from the Government that the shooting community has a role to play in its own legislation. For those who don't remember, we never, ever had that prior to the FCP. Occasionally, an NGB might get a meeting or two at the Minister's whim; but so did any other group or individual. The FCP affords us, as a community, a status we didn't have and should be loath to lose.
• It makes us a known quantity to everyone involved. In case you're wondering why that would be useful, remember that the AGS have a fairly conservative outlook on life and we see that in nearly every decision and policy they make on firearms. The DoJ were similarly orientated prior to the FCP, as quite a few people will remember.

rowa

Bananaman wrote: »

I only highlighted it as ROWA seemed to be of the opinion that it is not all that bad - ask a guy who has had to plug 5 slots on the drum of his revolver.....hardly a minor inconvenience.


B'Man

Well it so happens that i do think its a minor inconvenience , i have had my old webley revolver in storage for the past 18 months awaiting a decision of one of the 3 supers in office in that time, i had to do endless work to get the revolver back , interviews , letters from the ntsa , phone calls to the firearms policy unit etc , i was granted a licence on condition that i plug a chamber and i was very happy to do so if that made it compliant with the law, a five shot revolver is way better then no revolver at all and i remember when a civilian owning a handgun in the republic was a fantasy.

Bananaman

I do not agree the FCP is cheaper than the courts

It may cost us nothing (bar some rent cloth when you see the gubo carry on of some.of.them)

To most people 'the courts' is the appeals.process and.the FCP has not and cannot have any part to play in that - only the courts can decide.

When it comes to changing the details such as removing the concept of restricted smallbore pistols or clarifying that IPSC and Free Pistol are not combat simulation - then, I suppise, they could have a role to play to prevent.the need.to challenge the law through the.courts ......... But they haven't and they wont ..... as they were not issued with that particular rubber stamp


.........

They could be a lot of things - such as elected, representative, expert,
but they haven't been and they wont be.

They could.do a lot of things - such as report monthly on their agenda, progress, difficulties - but they haven't and they wont.

Yet "they" ask "us" to make "them" a "permanent" feature of the process which decides the future of all our sports.

Bananaman

I think we will agree to disagree on some of this as we have differing opinions on what the FCP SHOULD be as opposed to what it IS (and what we are being asked to mandate being made permanent - what else is the petition for the if not to mandate that)

I believe the Firearms Consultative Panel should be .....

a mechanism for those that license firearms to be consulted on alterations to the firearms licensing regime in order to make it palatable and workable.

a mechanism for those that own shooting ranges to be consulted on alterations to the firearms licensing regime in order to make it palatable and workable.

a mechanism for those that run shooting clubs to be consulted on alterations to the firearms licensing regime in order to make it palatable and workable.

a mechanism for those that administer shooting sports to be consulted on alterations to the firearms licensing regime in order to make it palatable and workable.

a mechanism for the Gardai to be consulted on alterations to the firearms licensing regime in order to make it palatable and workable.

You believe

Sparks wrote: »

What it is, is the place our lobbying groups go to in order to argue their case and be involved in the process so as to prevent the more ludicrous suggestions that have come in over the years (for example, allowing your dentist to testify as to your mental state when you apply for a licence).

Those are not the same as your view indicates that there are experts in the FCP (a quango of political appointees) and the people I listed above will lobby those experts to convince them of the merit of their argument, with cap in hand, and be thankful for the opportunity to be allowed to beg in the big house.

My view is that the People I listed above ARE the experts and should be consulted be the members of the panel who are elected as the interface between license holders, Gardai and the law makers.

Your view is what we have had to date - therefore the experts lobby the politicos. The Politicos in turn are supposed to lobby the Government and Minister.

To me that sounds like it is upside down and the licensing system and implementation we have has been contributed to by that.

Hence I would like to see some representation and accountability built into the mandate before being asked to further it.

B'Man

extremetaz

yeesh - hell of a lot of reading there.

I have one question though

Bananaman wrote: »

My view is that the People I listed above ARE the experts and should be consulted be the members of the panel who are elected as the interface between license holders, Gardai and the law makers.

What do you intend to do with these experts without a consultative panel to which they can advise/to which they can be elected?

It seems very much to me that the FCP needs reform, not dismissal - you can't work with what you haven't got.

Bananaman

extremetaz wrote: »

yeesh - hell of a lot of reading there.

I have one question though



What do you intend to do with these experts without a consultative panel to which they can advise/to which they can be elected?

It seems very much to me that the FCP needs reform, not dismissal - you can't work with what you haven't got.

As it stands the FCP has reached the end of the line - its mandate is up - it has fulfilled its purpose - namely to lower the number of firearms licensed in the state. It will come to an end (may already have) - unless it can get a new mandate.

Sparks has started a petition - I assume at the request of those on the FCP - to attempt to get the shooting community (or at least the ones that troll boards) to support a further mandate for the FCP. He has short of 200 supporters so far.

That, in and of itself, is not an issue, what is mandated is what is the issue - so far that amounts to "what we already have, in perpetuity".

Sparks is arguing that we either take what we have had to date or be laughed at by the Dept for wanting something else and ignored.

I don't like what we have had to date. Its political appointees rubber stamping what they are told and giving it a sweaty sheen reminiscent of "support of the shooting community". When the shooting community have neither been consulted nor had any input.

An alternative would be better.

B'Man

landkeeper

maybe it would be a good idea for someone to list who they are and what organisation they supposedly represent

i for one would rather have somebody keen and professional representing my corner as my reading of the description of the group in situ is not that

SLK2005

SLK2005 wrote: »

For someone who does'nt know,can you tell me who is on the FCP,who each member represents, how often they meet and where can I read anything they have published.

maybe it would be a good idea for someone to list who they are and what organisation they supposedly represent
i for one would rather have somebody keen and professional representing my corner as my reading of the description of the group in situ is not that

I agree with you Landkeeper but I hav'nt got a reply to my request for this info yet. I tried searching for the members but could find nothing except the original member list.

extremetaz

Bananaman wrote: »

An alternative would be better.

B'Man

Ok - so as I understand it at this point then, you're saying that the FCP needs a new mandate?

If I've followed the thread correctly the FCP is a tool for the firearms community, in all its petty fragments, for use in allowing it to communicate, as one body, with the Govt.

The reason why this tool is required appears to be because we have such great difficulty in communicating coherently on our own (I think that much is more than clearly apparent).

So - if I follow on from that point, the only logical replacement for the FCP would be a united body representing all shooters.

Without going any of the obvious places I could go with that notion on the back of linked material etc... I don't see that happening.

Far too many different folk with far too many different idea's of what concessions can be afforded and what is imperative.

Would it not be best to at least hold on to what we've got, in spite of its flaws, until we actually have something better - rather than just tossing it aside and hoping something better comes along?

Sikamick

Re- petition, one has to admire any attempt to bring the shooting fraternity together but forums like this don’t seem get the interest that’s desired.

The petition thread had 2,844 views with only 56 replies and 180 signatories.

Over the last few months I made it my business to ask people I know that are game and rough shooters what they think of the firearms act and FCP. At least 90% hadn’t got a clue what I was talking about or didn’t care.

In my opinion if you want to get a powerful voice behind any petition you go to the biggest Shooting organisation in the Country, the (NARGC).

Sikamick

Bananaman

SLK2005 wrote: »

maybe it would be a good idea for someone to list who they are and what organisation they supposedly represent
i for one would rather have somebody keen and professional representing my corner as my reading of the description of the group in situ is not that

I agree with you Landkeeper but I hav'nt got a reply to my request for this info yet. I tried searching for the members but could find nothing except the original member list.

I do not think there is anything more current than the initial list.

Plenty of people on that list do, in fact, represent a group. a legitimate set of concerns and certain areas of expertise within the shooting sports - such as the NARGC.

...

However, there are people on that list that claim to represent groups that no longer exist, such as the SSAI.

Major groups, concerns and areas of expertise within the shooting sports, such as NASRPC, NSAI, IPC, ITS, NRAI are, therefore, not represented on the panel at all.

...

The one I would have most exposure to is NASRPC - outside of clay shooting it is probably the largest group of competitive target shooters in the country, represents a large number of target shooting ranges and target shooting clubs, covers a wide array of shooting disciplines across a wide spectrum of firearm types and yet it has no voice, and has had no voice, in the Firearms Consultative panel.

And that is just one example.

B'Man

PS: Contrary to Spark opinion that they are represented - he is wrong -
I can equally claim I represent the NTSA on the SSAI.

Bananaman

extremetaz wrote: »

Ok - so as I understand it at this point then, you're saying that the FCP needs a new mandate?

If I've followed the thread correctly the FCP is a tool for the firearms community, in all its petty fragments, for use in allowing it to communicate, as one body, with the Govt.

The reason why this tool is required appears to be because we have such great difficulty in communicating coherently on our own (I think that much is more than clearly apparent).

So - if I follow on from that point, the only logical replacement for the FCP would be a united body representing all shooters.

Without going any of the obvious places I could go with that notion on the back of linked material etc... I don't see that happening.

Far too many different folk with far too many different idea's of what concessions can be afforded and what is imperative.

Would it not be best to at least hold on to what we've got, in spite of its flaws, until we actually have something better - rather than just tossing it aside and hoping something better comes along?

I am saying that you should not renew the current mandate, in perpetuity, without altering it to be of benefit to firearms license holders and having accountability (people on it can be fired/replaced/etc if they make a mess of it and are required to report on what they are doing to keep their position)

I said from the outset that the legislation needs change and we need an interface between the Gardai, License Holders and the State.

I just don't think, personally, that is what the FCP, in its current form, is.

B'man