Bananaman's issues with the FCP petition

Sikamick

Why is this question being sidestepped?

Sparks who in the DOJ decided to keep an individual on the FCP when they weren’t backed by their NGB and I don’t have any problems or axe to grind with DC, all I want to see is fairness.

Leupold

Whilst we are on the topic of who has direct access to the Dept of Justice, Sparks, why don.t you tell us all about the Olympic Coaches Association and the origin of the 5 shot magazine restriction?

See this thread for a bit of history very related to the topic of this thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=302954

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Then why has the FCP not

See, there you go again. The FCP is not a seperate group. It's where the NGBs go to. It's a forum for interested parties, not a lobby group in and of itself.

Sparks

Sikamick wrote: »

Why is this question being sidestepped?

It's not; I'm at work and missed your post. Even touchtypists have limits Mick...

Sparks who in the DOJ decided to keep an individual on the FCP when they weren’t backed by their NGB and I don’t have any problems or axe to grind with DC, all I want to see is fairness.

I don't know the details about DC's case; I presume Garrett Byrne but I don't know why.
B'man is the NASRPC committee member (or was at the time) - I've asked him but he's ignored the question.

Sparks

Leupold wrote: »

the origin of the 5 shot magazine restriction?

Garda Ballistics section. Nothing to do with the NTSA or anyone on the ISSF side of things so far as I know.

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

Sikamick wrote: »

Why is this question being sidestepped?

It's not; I'm at work and missed your post. Even touchtypists have limits Mick...

Sparks who in the DOJ decided to keep an individual on the FCP when they weren’t backed by their NGB and I don’t have any problems or axe to grind with DC, all I want to see is fairness.

I don't know the details about DC's case; I presume Garrett Byrne but I don't know why.
B'man is the NASRPC committee member (or was at the time) - I've asked him but he's ignored the question.

Declan Cahill was not a member of the NASRPC committee while I was. if memory serves he did not stand for re-election at the AGM, which he last attended, a year or two before I stood for election, which itself was a little over a year ago.

B'Man

hrta

I know it's off topic, but has an Explosive Expert been consulted, that knows the 1875 Act,
About the reloading, And for storage design and building facilities for explosives.

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

Bananaman wrote: »

Then why has the FCP not

See, there you go again. The FCP is not a seperate group. It's where the NGBs go to. It's a forum for interested parties, not a lobby group in and of itself.

you've said.that a few times now.and.it doesn't make a lot of sense - you make its sound like its the back room in biddy mcginties pub - interested parties will be meeting for pints and waffle at 8pm

but its not - its a group of individuals, invited by the department of justice, to rubber stamp what they are told and allow the Minister to claim that,.in whatever decisions or actions are taken, that the shooting community and interested groups, have been consulted. Political hoodwinking 101.

I see no two way street or examples of the very grassroots you are appealling to having had an opportunity to utilise the FCP for their benefit.

But I'd love to see examples.

B'Man

Bananaman

I'm also not convinced on the lobbying argument - from one perspective it is a quite ingenious way to prevent lobbying.

To instigate change in legislation there is only one group you lobby - the Government.

I was a (very small) part of a group that lobbied the Government to try to prevent the handgun ban in general and the ban on IPSC Handgun in particular.
That involved lots of meetings in Leinster house, Constituency offices, and Shooting Clubs and Ranges.
It involved sending a lot of emails and letters and corresponding with Ministers, TDs, Councillors all over the country.
It led to heated debate in both houses of the Oireachtais on the topic.
It led to enough backbench trouble to warrant a special meeting of the Fianna Fail parliamentary Party.
It led to some of our current Ministers arguing on behalf of our argument.
It also led to a lot of attacks on those doing the lobbying. It led to a strong campaign to divide the group and dilute its resolve.
It led to the then Minister, under Dail Privilege, openly telling TDs on the floor of the Dail to be careful who they were associating with,
as if we were a subversive group
and ultimately utilising the party whip to force the bill though anyway.

What that boiled down to is that a few people,
with the knowledge that they were right (and I suppose the naivete to assume that should be enough),
with the knowledge that the Minister was wrong, and forcing a personal agenda into law,
with the resolve to do something about it, through lobbying,
created enough of a political stir that we thought we had a chance.

But the deck was stacked against us.

Could the FCP, as a lobbying forum have made any difference?
If it gets a permanent mandate, could it make any difference?

Will it ensure that the shooting community will not annoy the current or future Ministers by lobbying the Government for change?

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

but its not - its a group of individuals, invited by the department of justice, to rubber stamp what they are told and allow the Minister to claim that

Okay, now you're just spouting bull**** in complete denial of the facts that have been related to you over the last three years from various sources including the committee you've been sitting on.
It's like that lovely anecdote about Lyndon Johnson falsely accusing a rival of bestiality, just to see him deny it in the press so that the public would always associate the rival with ****ing a pig.

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

I was a (very small) part of a group that lobbied the Government to try to prevent the handgun ban in general and the ban on IPSC Handgun in particular.

That was the NASRPC's attempt to end run around the FCP, which contained in it a set of rules that would have put the NASRPC in charge of deciding who did and who didn't get a pistol licence; would have required those applicants to go through lots of mandatory (and presumably not free) NASRPC training; and which even then would have managed to limit the numbers of pistols in the country even more than the Minister wound up doing while simultaneously opening up a horrendous security hole in the firearms legislation.

If that's your example B'man, let's get something clear - the DoJ took one look at it and noticed right off the bat that it would have been illegal and in contempt of the Supreme Court ruling in the Dunne case. It would have put unaccountable civilians - because the NASRPC's legal status is that of a private club - in charge of a state licencing function and granted them a monopoly over a training system with no set fees and no appeals mechanism. Every shooter who saw the details of that attempt - which the NASRPC tried to keep secret because even they knew what it looked like - has been outraged by it. And it damaged the standing of the shooting bodies in the FCP at a time when that was the last thing our sports needed.

And despite this, the efforts of the shooting bodies on the FCP resulted in a far better situation than the one you were proposing. Quietly. Calmly. Without huge legal risk or financial outlay in the courts, or by pissing off the people who'd be in government a few months later.

Because of the FCP, instead of a total ban on all handguns, we're now in a situation where centerfire pistols are still licenced, and do have a legal mechanism on the books to get new licences, even if it's currently blocked by an SI - an SI which can be changed, without having to go through the hoo-ha of another Bill in the Dail and Seanad; and where air and smallbore pistols are still openly licencable despite the Minister saying in public he was going to ban them; and where all the things which are currently blocked, are blocked by an SI rather than an Act, which means they can be far more easily reviewed.

So all your behind-peoples-backs sneaking about managed to do was to get the people we needed on our side, to instead invest their time in yelling at each other, and did nothing for our sport but damage. Imagine how much better off we'd be if the shooting bodies on the FCP could have been fully focussed on the task instead of also having to cope with the ammunition your lot handed to those who wanted the handgun ban?

And now you come on here, after months of denying you had anything to do with it, months of saying you weren't involved in running the group that wrote it, and months of saying it was all nothing but water under the bridge anyway; and now you want to use it as a stick to beat the FCP with?

Who the **** do you think you're kidding here?

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

Bananaman wrote: »

I was a (very small) part of a group that lobbied the Government to try to prevent the handgun ban in general and the ban on IPSC Handgun in particular.

That was the NASRPC's attempt to end run around the FCP,

Actually it had nothing to do with, and no involvement from, the NASRPC, or indeed any other shooting organisation.

It also predated the FCP.

But was rather done by, for and with the support of, the very grassroots you are now appealling to.

With some notable exceptions, most of whom now sit on high, in the FCP.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Actually it had nothing to do with, and no involvement from, the NASRPC, or indeed any other shooting organisation.
It also predated the FCP.

Really?
The FCP was set up in early 2008.
The handgun ban was announced by the Minister in the press in late November 2008.

So if you were trying "to prevent the handgun ban" you couldn't have predated the FCP. It wouldn't have been possible.

Cass

Bananaman wrote: »

Actually it had nothing to do with, and no involvement from, the NASRPC, or indeed any other shooting organisation.

It also predated the FCP.

Who is it? If it was not the NASRPC, the FCP or any other shooting organisation what other group is left?

Bananaman

Ezridax wrote: »

Bananaman wrote: »

Actually it had nothing to do with, and no involvement from, the NASRPC, or indeed any other shooting organisation.

It also predated the FCP.

Who is it? If it was not the NASRPC, the FCP or any other shooting organisation what other group is left?

"it" was the act of lobbying the government to try to prevent the ban.

The group was the only one left - the ones that would be most affected - the individuals who actually owned the firearms and competed in the sport - the grassroots

B'Man

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

Really?
The FCP was set up in early 2008.
The handgun ban was announced by the Minister in the press in late November 2008.

So if you were trying "to prevent the handgun ban" you couldn't have predated the FCP. It wouldn't have been possible.

The writing was on the wall in May 2008!!! With Ahernes speech to the Assoc of Garda Sargents and Inspectors.In which he categorically stated he would clamp down on the numbers of handgun liscenses and FACs in general..
If that wasnt a warning of clear intent to all and sundry.What do you need??Wonder why no one of any shooting organisation pulled him on those comments??

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

The writing was on the wall in May 2008!!! With Ahernes speech to the Assoc of Garda Sargents and Inspectors.In which he categorically stated he would clamp down on the numbers of handgun liscenses and FACs in general..
If that wasnt a warning of clear intent to all and sundry.What do you need??Wonder why no one of any shooting organisation pulled him on those comments??

Because at that time, a ban wasn't on the cards, it was just rhetoric (being made easy by court cases, it's true, but still rhetoric at that point). The events that caused the ban (the rowing with Deasy and Mitchell and DeBurca) didn't happen for some weeks after that, and even after those rows, it wasn't a given that any legislation clamping down on handguns was coming in until July (the Misc Bill had been announced, but nothing in it was a clampdown, it was all trying to fix broken things from the 2006 Act at that stage); and even then it could have been dodged. It wasn't until November's press statements that we were boned.

And even if we took May 2008 as the point when this kicked off (which I don't think is the case), the FCP was still around at the time. So the timeline of what happened and B'man's tale don't match up. In fact, back when the worrying statements came out from the Minister in July 2008, B'man was sure we were all paranoid for being worried about them. And if you keep reading that thread, you find that people were writing in to the Minister and their TDs at the time, but they were asking him to work with the FCP.

So B'man going around working with the grass roots to lobby politicians against this handgun ban prior to the FCP being established... well, that tale just doesn't match recorded history. Not in terms of a timeline and not in terms of what people were saying.

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

And even if we took May 2008 as the point when this kicked off (which I don't think is the case), the FCP was still around at the time. So the timeline of what happened and B'man's tale don't match up. In fact, back when the worrying statements came out from the Minister in July 2008, B'man was sure we were all paranoid for being worried about them. And if you keep reading that thread, you find that people were writing in to the Minister and their TDs at the time, but they were asking him to work with the FCP.

So B'man going around working with the grass roots to lobby politicians against this handgun ban prior to the FCP being established... well, that tale just doesn't match recorded history. Not in terms of a timeline and not in terms of what people were saying.

Yet again - trying to turn the topic of the thread onto me - when it is not about me.

You were all invited, some of you attended, and many of you contributed to the workshops done at the time to prepare the material for lobbying the government - so if you were there you know what I am talking about, if you were not then .... well, you were not there.

Perhaps the FCP was already in existence - if it was, it wasn't doing much - but it's a long time ago so I'll not split hairs - a lot of lead has gone downrange since then - so lets agree that it did exist already and move on.

...

I only mentioned it as an example of lobbying - what it is, how it is done, and how it can have little or no effect because of the way the political system is stacked, regardless of whether it is right or not.

The question is - with the NGBs lobbying in "the forum" that is the FCP - how would it be different? It obviously wasn't back then.

It seems, from some of the earlier comments, that it is its purpose - it seems it is not a tangible entity - but rather a shared consciousness between the selected NGBs - where they commune to decide on: our future, what is relevant, what is a small inconvenience, what is in and what is out, etc.

More likely its role is to convince the great unwashed not to fight back. anyone remember these: "Keep your heads down lads and you'll be alright" - "Its only IPSC he wants - you'll be ok" - panned out well ?

I would not have any issue with it - if it was representative, expert and accountable (but it is not)

Like I said before, we have no say in who represents the Civil Service or who represents the Gardai - fair enough - but we should have a say in who represents us (and we do not).

Many of our (by that I mean all of us) Sports, Clubs, Ranges & Firearm Types are not represented so are not a priority and our expertise, opinions and concerns are not sought.

If those that purport to represent us have gone feral and do not either keep us informed or do not represent our expertise, opinions and concerns we should have the option to replace them (and we do not).

Seeing as the call in the petition is to make the FCP a permanent fixture - where is the harm in trying to level the deck so it is representative, expert and accountable ?? Or would that compromise its objectives.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Perhaps the FCP was already in existence - if it was, it wasn't doing much - but it's a long time ago so I'll not split hairs - a lot of lead has gone downrange since then - so lets agree that it did exist already and move on.

Wasn't that what you said here as well?
:rolleyes:

It seems, from some of the earlier comments, that it is its purpose - it seems it is not a tangible entity - but rather a shared consciousness between the selected NGBs

That's not what the earlier comments said, so why are you deliberately misrepresenting them?

[

anyone remember these: "Keep your heads down lads and you'll be alright" - "Its only IPSC he wants - you'll be ok" - panned out well ?

Nobody remembers those because nobody ever said those things, except sarcasticly to point out that something needed to be done.
In fact, it was you, B'man, who was telling us in July 2008 that we were paranoid for being worried about the Minister's comments, and I've only just linked to the post where you did that two or three posts back.

If those that purport to represent us have gone feral and do not either keep us informed

Keeping us informed was at one time your job B'man as Public Relations Officer for the NASRPC... and yet, you never passed on any information that was given to the NASRPC committee members about the FCP in the SSAI meetings they were a part of. And which were taped, don't forget.

or do not represent our expertise, opinions and concerns we should have the option to replace them (and we do not).

I'm sorry, we?
Who are you representing here B'man?

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

I'm sorry, we?
Who are you representing here B'man?

I do not represent anyone - I am giving my own opinion - asking some questions - and pointing out that everyone else should do the same before blindly signing a petition to make the FCP a permanent fixture.

As one of the great unwashed - the grass roots, that your petition appeals to.

That is the purpose of this topic - To ask

What is the FCP?
What has it done for us to date?
Does it represent us?
Does it have the expertise to do so?
Is it accountable for its actions?
Has it any problems that we should fix?
Whether we should agree to make it permanent? and
What the outcome of doing so would be?

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

I do not represent anyone - I am giving my own opinion

Really?
Because you keep going on, telling us what everyone thinks.
If it's just what you think, please don't speak for everyone.

That is the purpose of this topic - To ask...

...A lot of questions that have been answered, and whose answers you dislike - but your dislike of those answers doesn't mean they're wrong. It just means you wish they weren't. But we've seen your alternative, and it stank to high heaven even compared to the worst we've seen from the government over the years.

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

...A lot of questions that have been answered, and whose answers you dislike - but your dislike of those answers doesn't mean they're wrong. It just means you wish they weren't. But we've seen your alternative, and it stank to high heaven even compared to the worst we've seen from the government over the years.

Not strictly correct - I have got mostly your opinion (bar what the dept told you)

Most of the questions are rhetorical as I do not expect the FCP to answer any of them

I dont expect it to be representative, expert or accountable

But it needed to be asked

B'Man

Sparks

But it needed to be asked

And it was.
In 2008. And 2009. And 2010. And 2011. Here and on other boards and off-line in public meetings held both by the DoJ and the shooting bodies, on at least four occasions, one of which you attended sitting about eight feet from me. And yet, despite all those questions being asked, and all those answers being given, you had to ask them all again and then mis-quote, mis-cite, mis-represent and mis-direct for over a hundred posts?

Yeah, I don't believe you are acting in good faith B'man.

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

Yeah, I don't believe you are acting in good faith B'man.

Unfortunately I am. I do not see why I would not be. What could I possibly hope to gain.

I simply said what I saw, gave my opinions and asked some questions.

Why?

Because I do not believe that the FCP, as it stands, has the interests of shooters high on its agenda.
I do not believe it should be given a permanent mandate, without some alterations to make sure that changes.

Contrary to your claims that this is my fault - I have only heard of them meeting once and I have never seen a report from them. (Bar the press release type statements, from its chairman, issued by the CAI on their website)

I am sure if there ever had been such a thing, you would have posted it on here, long before anyone else had even seen it.

It panders to the cult of personality by selecting who is on it and preventing them from being replaced.

It does not represent the concerns and issues of large groups such as the NASRPC - regardless of your incessant need to claim it does, when any of the clubs, ranges or competitors in it (hundreds of them) will tell you it does not.

It is obviously not cognisant of the concerns of shooters when things such as a six shot revolver is prohibited (rimfire or centrefire) and when the majority of pistol shooting disciplines were designed with 6 shots strings. Especially, when that is brushed aside as a "minor inconvenience".
(ask the 106 people who entered Smallbore Pistol Timed & Precision 1 in National Competition last year, or the hundreds who entered it in Club competitions last year, if they found it a "minor inconvenience")

It is not in touch with reality when a .38 or .44 rifle is restricted but a .300 Win Mag is not.

But these are just a few examples of things that affect shooters, on ranges the length and breadth of the country, every day of the year, and for which I have a hard time seeing the FCP, as it stands, doing anything about.

Yet these are the very people you are asking to sign the petition and give the FCP a permanent mandate. (In 2008, 2009, 2010 & 2011 they were not asked to give it a mandate - their opinion was not sought)

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Contrary to your claims that this is my fault - I have only heard of them meeting once and I have never seen a report from them. (Bar the press release type statements, from its chairman, issued by the CAI on their website)

See, here's where I have a problem.
You sat eight feet from me in an open meeting last year, which was advertised on boards, and you heard about several FCP meetings and what went on and what was done, and you asked questions and got answers about all of it
I have that whole meeting on tape, don't forget.

And I hate to belabour the point, but you seem to be trying to confuse it - the SSAI sat on the FCP. The SSAI was composed, amongst others, of the NASRPC, of which you were a committee member.
So people from the NASRPC committee sat in SSAI meetings and listened to regular reports on the FCP. And those meetings were taped as well.

Now, it is technically possible that you still didn't hear those reports, but only if (a) you never asked about them from your fellow committee members, and (b) they never passed on the information.

But even if that's the case, then the reason that your members weren't hearing about the FCP isn't the FCP - it's you because as Public Relations Officer, it was your job to tell them what your committee had been told in SSAI meetings. Unless, of course, the NASRPC had a policy against that... but as their PRO, you'd know if they had such a policy, right?

(ask the 106 people who entered Smallbore Pistol Timed & Precision 1 in National Competition last year, or the hundreds who entered it in Club competitions last year, if they found it a "minor inconvenience")

Sure.
I'll ask them - given that this can be easily solved in the future, was it a minor inconvenience to have a 5-round limit on your magazines, compared with it being written in the Firearms Act that it was illegal to own any kind of pistol at all?
The rational answer is yes.

Note also, that it is a minor inconvenience because it is easily solved. It requires a change to a single character in an SI. If something requires so little to solve it, it cannot be the end of the world. And if you can still manage to get 106 people to shoot a match even with that restrict in place, it can't be the end of the sport.
Annoying? Yes.
Irritating? Yes.
Something that ought to be fixed? Yes.
The end of the world as we know it? Not so much.

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

Because at that time, a ban wasn't on the cards, it was just rhetoric (being made easy by court cases, it's true, but still rhetoric at that point). The events that caused the ban (the rowing with Deasy and Mitchell and DeBurca) didn't happen for some weeks after that, and even after those rows, it wasn't a given that any legislation clamping down on handguns was coming in until July (the Misc Bill had been announced, but nothing in it was a clampdown, it was all trying to fix broken things from the 2006 Act at that stage); and even then it could have been dodged. It wasn't until November's press statements that we were boned.

Sparks ..ONE thing I have learned here is that if an Irish politican or their like say somthing might happen rehoritc or otherwise in the near future you can bet your last Euro that somtime in their term of office it WILL happen.Ireespective of when it did start off May July or with the murder of Shane Greoghan.
There was ample time for people to have called them on thses comments.
Had there been a voice to address it and not spending its time bitching and moaning amongst other voices wishing to be the one heard.Whether it is the FCP,or some other organisation,fact is we do need a body addressing these problems,without the historical baggage.On that I agree with you 100%,but OTOH I have to agree with Bman too.It cant be people with agendas,or knives to grind either!!!

Ergo you are both right,now is there any way of actually moving this project forward ???The past is another country.We should learn from it not relive it.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

ONE thing I have learned here is that if an Irish politican or their like say somthing might happen rehoritc or otherwise in the near future you can bet your last Euro that somtime in their term of office it WILL happen.

Depends on what they say I've found - if politicians did all they promise, we wouldn't have quite so many problems...

There was ample time for people to have called them on thses comments. Had there been a voice to address it and not spending its time bitching and moaning amongst other voices wishing to be the one heard.

But that wasn't what was going on - the FCP was meeting, was talking (though even at that stage the court cases were beginning to compromise efforts somewhat), and as the outcome showed, were effective (I don't care what anyone dreams is possible, in our country if a Minister announces that something will be banned on the front page of every newspaper, it's a major achievement to prevent that ban, even if not completely).

Whether it is the FCP,or some other organisation,fact is we do need a body addressing these problems,without the historical baggage.

But the FCP wasn't being hung up by historical baggage!

Feck it Grizz, that's my point - the FCP was effective as that lobbying body we've been talking about here since the first days of the forum. It's when organisations went outside the FCP that things reverted to the old zero-sum game we've seen for the last forty years

.243

Bananaman wrote: »

That is the purpose of this topic - To ask

Is it accountable for its actions?

B'Man

the same could be said for the nasrpc when they tried to muscle their "guidlines" to the goverment of who should and shouldnt be entitled to own a pistol

extremetaz

.243 wrote: »

the same could be said for the nasrpc when they tried to muscle their "guidlines" to the goverment of who should and shouldnt be entitled to own a pistol

wouldn't expect you to have read the whole thread given the length of it at this stage but that - has been well and truely covered at this stage - believe me!

.243

extremetaz wrote: »

but that - has been well and truely covered at this stage - believe me!

just because it was covered doesnt mean it will magically go away because
thats a big lump of warm and brown that will never leave that white sheet,
this is now go on to 8 pages of bollocktics and from the off its very clear that its about sh1t stirring about................ a petition :rolleyes:
when you start putting more words downrange than rounds you aint shooting a gun,all your doin is shooting your mouth off as to how other should be actually shooting,
and when that goes on everyone else on the line just wishes you would just shut up and go away