petition for range in south east

ianoo

any one in the south east interested in signing this petition lads..

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/rangesoutheast/

saw it on another web site and tought i would spread it around


ian,,,,

Witcher

Who exactly is being 'petitioned' with this? Is the government expected to fund a range for the SE?

ianoo

tought that myself when i saw it first BLAY ,,,but i think its just a way to show /see if there if is enough interest in the reigon for anyone to go ahead and start the process of starting a club /range ....


ian ...

Cass

It's a joke that in the process of trying to get support, and signatures for a new range that a "dig" had to be got at the only range to actually build one.

juan.kerr

Could anyone set up a shooting range (assuming they had the land/facilities/money)? Or is there a licence or special planning permission required?

Cass

Planning permission to build is needed, and a range authorisation is required.

All the rules for operating a range, and the building codes for it are contained within SI622/2011.

Range Shooter

Ezridax wrote: »

It's a joke that in the process of trying to get support, and signatures for a new range that a "dig" had to be got at the only range to actually build one.

There are a lot of "jokes" when it come to shooting in this country :eek:

EireIceMan

Ezridax wrote: »

It's a joke that in the process of trying to get support, and signatures for a new range that a "dig"

Ah... typical irish shooting community. And what of genuine shooters who cant afford to drive 1/2/3 hrs a week before ammo to get there???

the only range to actually build one

Exactly the point. If someone had the funds and interest to do so, this petition might give them the push they need to know the venture be worthwhile. Surely more facilities wouldnt be a bad thing for us Ez????

Sparks

Range Shooter wrote: »

There are a lot of "jokes" when it come to shooting in this country :eek:

There's certainly a few comedians allright. They give the PTB more than a few laughs, if half of what I've heard over the last few decades has even a grain of truth to it.

What I'd like to know is who's going to build this range? There's not a single shooter anywhere in the country that thinks we don't need more ranges, but damn few people building ranges, especially the kind of facility this petition is talking about; long-range ranges (legal long range ranges that is) are pretty expensive to build and hard work to maintain...

Witcher

This thread is on course to be an absolute clusterfcuk already:pac:

Cass

EireIceMan wrote: »

Ah... typical irish shooting community.

Do you not see the hypocrisy of your statement. You belittle my comment about such a dig, yet the dig itself is perfectly acceptable. So instead of making a case for a new range based on it's merits, the need for one, etc the person that wrote the reason in the title of the petition uses jibes, insults, and digs towards the only range to offer these facilities as their basis.

So when you say typical "Irish shooting community" and direct it at me, i would ask you to look at the petition and direct the same distain towards it.

And what of genuine shooters who cant afford to drive 1/2/3 hrs a week before ammo to get there???

It's a great pity that more people cannot make use of the midlands ranges, however i fail to see how anyone with a ounce of sense can hold a range that already exists as the cause for other ranges not existing. It's completely nonsensical. They built that range from what it was 20 years ago, to what it is today. Location may not suit everyone, but what range does?

Surely more facilities wouldnt be a bad thing for us Ez????

Absolutely it would be a good thing. More ranges are the only thing going to keep shooting sports alive in the country. If you check back through my posts over the years you'll see i've always expressed that sentiment.

However i'm completely at a loss at to why the author decided to mock, insult, get dig at the midlands range as though they are the cause. Did anyone bother to contact the midlands and ask what's involved? How they grew to what they are? For help, guidance, etc?

Having worked on the midlands range i can say that there are a group of people involved that would happily donate time, effort, manpower, etc to any range or group that wished to build such a range. However such remarks would seem only to dissuade any help rather than encourage it.

EireIceMan

Ez, Can you show me the 'dig, insult and jibes' at the other range???

Range Shooter

Sparks wrote: »

There's certainly a few comedians allright. They give the PTB more than a few laughs, if half of what I've heard over the last few decades has even a grain of truth to it....

Some of the jokes would include......................

the divide & conquer regime the DOJ use with the help of some of the shooting organisations to make sure shooting is kept under the cosh

the way some can reload & others can't but have been told it'll be sorted soon

the Commissioners Guidelines and they wat they have already been changed to suit the Gardas' agenda against pistols, wonder what'll be next?

the way we can't even zero a rifle anywhere except on a range

that under 14's can't shoot, even on a range

that there are now so many variables with setting up a range that it's gonna be very hard to see anymore being built as if something as simple as the local Super disapproves it's dead in the water

the postcode lottery with regard to licencing

I could go on

.243

pardon the pun but if this is a genuine petition surely a little competition never hurt

Cass

As usual this is the Irish way of monopolising and exploiting registered firearms owners.

How would you take it?

rowa

Where in the southeast and what type of shooting ?

Cass

.243 wrote: »

pardon the pun but if this is a genuine a little competition never hurt

This is not about competition. You could build another 10 ranges, and it still would not be enough in my opinion. There are also (i believe) member caps on ranges. So you cannot have a range with 1,000/10,000/100,000 members. So even if there were thousands lining up a range can only have so many members. I stand to be corrected on that.

I am not against a new range. If it were to go ahead i, and many others i know, would volunteer their time to help build it. More ranges, more shooters, the sport grows, etc.

Range Shooter

Ezridax wrote: »

How would you take it?

If the petition is referring to Midlands they do currently have the monopoly on shooting over 300 metres or is is yards? and they have the monopoly on reloading ................................ so hardly a dig

Cass

Not by design. Plus if a second range were to open that "monopoly" would vanish. The midlands are run under the same rules as any other range. They control nothing, and must conform as others must.

Also what about the second part of that quote. Exploiting registered firearms owners.

Sparks

EireIceMan wrote: »

Ez, Can you show me the 'dig, insult and jibes' at the other range???

Read the opening paragraph of that petition:

It is a joke that everyone has to join the one and only 1000 yard range. This is up to and over a three hour journey to get there for many. We deserve a choice and not have to be limited to the one range. As usual this is the Irish way of monopolising and exploiting registered firearms owners.

That's a ridiculous dig to be taking at the midlands. The reason there's only one thousand yard range in the country is because only one group got up and built one. There's not one single rule or law banning anyone else from doing it, and the lads who built the Midlands have offered to help others do the same more than once, but the offer's never been taken up.

Range Shooter wrote: »

Some of the jokes would include......................

Okay, let's take a look will we?

the divide & conquer regime the DOJ use with the help of some of the shooting organisations to make sure shooting is kept under the cosh

Divide and conquer might well work; which is why it's so odd that the FCP, which had everyone at the same table, got destroyed -- not by the DoJ, but by shooters.

the way some can reload & others can't but have been told it'll be sorted soon

Yeah, it's almost like only one group asked for it and fought for it, isn't it? And isn't the delay in the legislation almost like we had a change of government in the meantime?

the Commissioners Guidelines and they wat they have already been changed to suit the Gardas' agenda against pistols, wonder what'll be next?

Agreed, those guidelines are naff. But they're not written by shooters...

the way we can't even zero a rifle anywhere except on a range

Yup, and we've been saying that's naff since McDowell brought it in back in 2004.

that under 14's can't shoot, even on a range

That's just not true. U-14s can't shoot outside of a range, and they can't have a licence; but there's no age limit in Section 2(4)(d).

that there are now so many variables with setting up a range that it's gonna be very hard to see anymore being built as if something as simple as the local Super disapproves it's dead in the water

Yup. It's a difficult thing to build a range.
Best response to that is definitely to get in a dig against the existing ranges :rolleyes:

the postcode lottery with regard to licencing

Yup. That's also been complained about since long before I started shooting.

I could go on

Could you either find something that's not been known about and complained about for decades, or something that's actually correct?

'Cos the jokes I'm thinking of are things like private clubs asking for a monopoly on giving out pistol licences; groups trying to obtain other groups' grants under false pretences and making a show of themselves in the process; people youtubing themselves breaking the firearms act in just about every dumbass way you could think of and then posting up those videos all over the place with faces and licence plates of cars clearly visible; people detailing in public forums how they've broken, are breaking, and plan to continue breaking the firearms acts despite knowing that's what they're doing; and so on.

You want to know what really kicks efforts to fix the problems you mentioned above in the head? It's idiots who so blatently make idiots of themselves. Their names and acts get thrown back in the faces of those trying to actually fix problems. And that is why we can't have nice things.

Cass

Range Shooter wrote: »

and they have the monopoly on reloading ................................ so hardly a dig

Without derailing the thread with yet another pointless debate on reloading they control nothing. The were issued a "license" to run a reloading scheme. The DoJ also control this. Only one other association other than the MNSCI/NRAI applied for it. So do you expect a knock on the door with the DoJ offering you reloading especially after the NARGC and other bodies on numerous occasions refused it?

Range Shooter

Ezridax wrote: »

Not by design.

By default so

Ezridax wrote: »

Plus if a second range were to open that "monopoly" would vanish. The midlands are run under the same rules as any other range. They control nothing, and must conform as others must.

Agreed.

BUT

The precedent has been set. DOJ will now probably refuse reloading in the home and may now advise someone who asks to reload to join Midlands and shoot long range :eek:

Ezridax wrote: »

Also what about the second part of that quote. Exploiting registered firearms owners.

The exploitation part..................I have nothing to add to that unless you do?

Cass

Range Shooter wrote: »

By default so

Monopoly - The exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service.

The midlands control nothing. The open, work, run under the control of the DoJ, and local Super. All this can be taken away if either of those deem it necessary. So whatever way you feel you need to describe the midlands i doubt i'm going to change your mind, and am not really inclined to try.

The precedent has been set. DOJ will now probably refuse reloading in the home and may now advise someone who asks to reload to join Midlands and shoot long range :eek:

And how would it work if the midlands refused reloading the same as EVERY OTHER organisation. Reloading at a range would not be possible, let alone at home. Again though really not inform for a relaoding debate. A search of Boards will show you all the exhausted previous debates on the matter.

The exploitation part..................I have nothing to add to that unless you do?

Why focus on the monopoly part and ignore this simply because you cannot explain it away or rationalise it.

The person that wrote that petition introduction obviously chose their words carefully, and have said that the MNSCI are exploiting Irish shooters. A fairly serious accusation.

EireIceMan

Read the opening paragraph of that petition:

I have Sparks.
And it is a joke. I hope to join midlands next year, after years of hoping.
What about lads in Kerry, Cork, (insert county not near midlands here)?.
Thats a question.

Sparks

EireIceMan wrote: »

What about lads in Kerry, Cork, (insert county not near midlands here)?.
Thats a question.

They've got two choices.
1) Join the midlands.
2) Build their own range nearer to home.

That's one choice more than the people in Tullamore had before they built their range...

.243

who ever it is seems to be more pissed off with the lack of facilites in this country rather than the only available one,

clivej

Just reading this for the first time and what a load of crap. Would the dickhead that started this not do it him/her self.

From recent experience of the costs involved in completing a 12 bay open 25m range I would say that €500,000 would just about get the 50, 100, 200, and 300 firing points that the Midlands now have. Not including the cost of land or a club house.

I say put up or shut up.

cj

Range Shooter

Sparks wrote: »

Divide and conquer might well work; which is why it's so odd that the FCP, which had everyone at the same table, got destroyed -- not by the DoJ, but by shooters.

The often lorded FCP........................it was a PR exercise by the DOJ and when some of the "shooters" refused to cow down DOJ pulled the plug

Sparks wrote: »

Yeah, it's almost like only one group asked for it and fought for it, isn't it? And isn't the delay in the legislation almost like we had a change of government in the meantime?

And set a precedent that'll probably mean that relaoding at home will never materialise

Sparks wrote: »

Agreed, those guidelines are naff. But they're not written by shooters....

So there was no FCP input?

Sparks wrote: »

Yup, and we've been saying that's naff since McDowell brought it in back in 2004.

So why didn't your FCP sort it so?

Sparks wrote: »

That's just not true. U-14s can't shoot outside of a range, and they can't have a licence; but there's no age limit in Section 2(4)(d).

Not if the range has it in it's authorisation that onlt licence holders can shoot there

Sparks wrote: »

Yup. It's a difficult thing to build a range.
Best response to that is definitely to get in a dig against the existing ranges :rolleyes:.

Where did I have a dig

Sparks wrote: »

Yup. That's also been complained about since long before I started shooting..

Once again I have to wonder wht the FCP didn't sort it so

Sparks wrote: »

Could you either find something that's not been known about and complained about for decades, or something that's actually correct?.

The fact it is known about & complained about and that there was an FCP to sort all these problems and they are still there makes me wonder alright :rolleyes:

Sparks wrote: »

'Cos the jokes I'm thinking of are things like private clubs asking for a monopoly on giving out pistol licences; groups trying to obtain other groups' grants under false pretences and making a show of themselves in the process; people youtubing themselves breaking the firearms act in just about every dumbass way you could think of and then posting up those videos all over the place with faces and licence plates of cars clearly visible; people detailing in public forums how they've broken, are breaking, and plan to continue breaking the firearms acts despite knowing that's what they're doing; and so on..

So the NTSA never made submissions to DOJ?

There is a lot of ****e on Utube & here that makes shooters look bad. Maybe shutting this forum down would be a good start so ?

Sparks wrote: »

You want to know what really kicks efforts to fix the problems you mentioned above in the head? It's idiots who so blatently make idiots of themselves. Their names and acts get thrown back in the faces of those trying to actually fix problems. And that is why we can't have nice things.

So selfless these "people" trying to help the rest of us out :cool:

"Nice things" I have nice things :cool:

.243

Sparks wrote: »

They've got two choices.
1) Join the midlands.
2) Build their own range nearer to home.

mmmmmmmmm i think choice no.2 is their aim is ...hence a petition to find out interest in numbers

.243

clivej wrote: »

Just reading this for the first time and what a load of crap. Would the dickhead that started this not do it him/her self.

From recent experience of the costs involved in completing a 12 bay open 25m range I would say that €500,000 would just about get the 50, 100, 200, and 300 firing points that the Midlands now have. Not including the cost of land or a club house.

I say put up or shut up.

cj

clive rome wasnt built in a day and neither was midlands :rolleyes:

Cass

.243 wrote:

who ever it is seems to be more pissed off with the lack of facilites in this country rather than the only available one.

If that was all it was i would share in that frustration. However the remarks directed towards the midlands are unfounded, unnecessary, and counter productive.

.243

Ezridax wrote: »

If that was all it was i would share in that frustration. However the remarks directed towards the midlands are unfounded, unnecessary, and counter productive.

it really looks no more different than someone saying "hey we only have one shop in the village and it has feck all in it,the village is growing,i know ill open one myself"

clivej

.243 wrote: »

clive rome wasnt built in a day and neither was midlands :rolleyes:

So what I'm saying is stop pissing about and make a start at a new range in the south/south east. Like many other ranges start small and work up to a premier range and the shooter will come.

How can people slag off the Midlands that have build up to what they now have over many years of hard work and membership funds.

I am a member of the best range in the country, for what they do, that is NOT long range shooting. It was not completed overnight but from small beginnings the range developed over the years.

Sparks

Range Shooter wrote: »

The often lorded FCP........................it was a PR exercise by the DOJ and when some of the "shooters" refused to cow down DOJ pulled the plug

What a load of bollocks.
Refused to cow down? You mean took hugely expensive court cases that never could have achieved anything and whose sole gains were signed away in back rooms. And those same people are now calling for an FCP 2.0.
Not to mention that the NARGC and CAI are now off trying to set up a mini-FCP. And that'll just open the floodgates and we'll be right back to where we were, circa 2003. The most important part of which is what happened in 2004...

And set a precedent that'll probably mean that relaoding at home will never materialise

Again, bollocks. The midlands effort means that reloading has been done, publicly, safely, visibly, by shooters. That's a positive step that would never had happened under the aegis of groups like the NARGC who told the DoJ that no hunters wanted to reload; nor under any other group who just never fought for it as hard as the midlands lot did.
Begrudgery of the worst type, this.

So there was no FCP input?

Would have been hard, since the FCP wasn't founded until a few years afterwards.

So why didn't your FCP sort it so?

Again, it wasn't founded until years later. And it probably could have fixed it; it was far more effective than certain folks with their own agendas have said it was; but it never had the time to do so because shooters smothered it in the crib.

Not if the range has it in it's authorisation that onlt licence holders can shoot there

Yup. But that's not a mandatory part of the authorisation, it's the whim of the Super.

Once again I have to wonder wht the FCP didn't sort it so

Again, FCP wasn't founded yet - for decades in this case - and it never got the chance to get to it because shooters sabotaged it for no clear gains.

So the NTSA never made submissions to DOJ?

Not after the founding of the FCP, no.
Before then, yes; there was no other choice. The level of effort involved though, meant that that was not welcome and did not benefit the sport.

There is a lot of ****e on Utube & here that makes shooters look bad. Maybe shutting this forum down would be a good start so ?

There's no illegal stuff on here; read the forum charter.

So selfless these "people" trying to help the rest of us out :cool:

And there you go with the subtle digs and insinuations again. Why can't Irish shooters try to organise even things that everyone agrees are good without that sort of ****e?

"Nice things" I have nice things :cool:

Got one licence for all your firearms, do you? Unregulated low-power airguns? Can zero your rifle before hunting without breaking the law?
:rolleyes:

EireIceMan

Ezridax wrote: »

If that was all it was i would share in that frustration. However the remarks directed towards the midlands are unfounded, unnecessary, and counter productive.

Ez, no one is giving out about midlands???
My question is still there.

Range Shooter

Ezridax wrote: »

Why focus on the monopoly part and ignore this simply because you cannot explain it away or rationalise it.

Why would I comment on that?

Are people being exploited there or something?

Surely if someone pays their membership and uses the facilities they aren't being exploited

Ezridax wrote: »

The person that wrote that petition introduction obviously chose their words carefully, and have said that the MNSCI are exploiting Irish shooters. A fairly serious accusation.

So maybe you should ask them what they mean so

.243

clivej wrote: »

So what I'm saying is stop pissing about and make a start at a new range in the south/south east. Like many other ranges start small and work up to a premier range and the shooter will come.

it looks to me like whoever it is is "putting up" rather than shutting up by doing some research into seeing is it viable venture for the south east

Sparks

.243 wrote: »

it looks to me like whoever it is is "putting up" rather than shutting up by doing some research into seeing is it viable venture for the south east

If someone has a million euro to invest in a range that never will make much of a profit, then good luck to them; but I think we both know that that's not the case here and that that petition is just someone asking idly. Nothing wrong with that either; except that they couldn't ask idly without getting in a dig at people.

I mean FFS lads, you're supposed to wait until you've founded the range before you start telling porkies about the "competition"

Range Shooter

Sparks,

I though bad language wasn't allowed on the forum? Oh ya. you're a Mod so you can do & post what you like

My point, which you so eloquently ignore, is that all the problems that did & still do exist were NOT sorted by your beloved FCP when it did exist.

So the court cases didn't work BUT neither did the FCP

Until shooters convince the serving or any potential Government that we are a big enough voting group to make a difference in a election all the court cases & FCP's are a complete waste of time

On that note I'll retire from this discussion

Cass

.243 wrote: »

it really looks no more different than someone saying "hey we only have one shop in the village and it has feck all in it,the village is growing,i know ill open one myself"

No. It looks like "them feckers have all the shooters, money, etc, etc so after i slate them i'll see if people agree by having them sign my petition".

EireIceMan wrote: »

Ez, no one is giving out about midlands???

The person that wrote the petition introduction is.

My question is still there.

This one;

EireIceMan wrote: »

Ez, Can you show me the 'dig, insult and jibes' at the other range???

I answered that already;

Ezridax wrote: »

As usual this is the Irish way of monopolising and exploiting registered firearms owners.

How would you take it?

Range Shooter wrote: »

Why would I comment on that?

Because you have commented on everything else bar that. IOW selective quoting.

Are people being exploited there or something?

Please don't start that "is it happening" crap. It is a poor deflection, and does not hide the fact that you have an opinion on every other aspect, but will not answer this one directly.

Surely if someone pays their membership and uses the facilities they aren't being exploited:confused

So maybe you should ask them what they mean so

I'm asking you your opinion. The person signed of with a pseudonym so i don't know who they are.

So you agree then that the comment of exploiting members is crap. I would like to ask the OP, but who is it? How would i make contact with them.

Sparks

Range Shooter wrote: »

Sparks,
I though bad language wasn't allowed on the forum? Oh ya. you're a Mod so you can do & post what you like

If bad language was against the charter, half the posters here (if not three quarters of them) would be banned. The worse exccesses get toned down every so often when the forum as a whole is taking a wobbler, but nobody's ever been banned for bad language. Being a dick, yeah, we've banned seven people in eight years for that offence. Hardliners, that's us...

My point, which you so eloquently ignore, is that all the problems that did & still do exist were NOT sorted by your beloved FCP when it did exist.

And my point, which you're ignoring with all the grace of a bull in an industrial plastic shredder, is that the problems were not stopped from arising by the FCP because they arose before the FCP was founded; and they weren't solved by the FCP because shooters smothered the FCP in the crib before that could happen. If it had had more time, the FCP could have solved most of the problems. It wouldn't have been terribly sexy and dramatic, people wouldn't have gotten their names in the paper as leading the charge, it was a quieter process, whose outcome was more binding and longer-lasting than adversarial court cases and whose approach was more realisitic than sending in illegal proposals on the sly; but it would have gotten the job done and to anyone who was results-oriented, it was a better solution than anything we've had before or since.

So the court cases didn't work BUT neither did the FCP

Do you like your pre-populated licence form? Do you like being able to licence pistols, and having a quick and easy legal method to reintroduce fullbore pistols and amend the conditions on the smallbore pistols being licenced now?
We didn't get those through court cases (and we've had lots of other threads listing the other things the FCP was able to solve before our own side sank it).

On that note I'll retire from this discussion

Until you re-reg again you mean bunny shooter?
Try to learn what actually happened next time, would you?

Witcher

Range Shooter wrote: »

Until shooters convince the serving or any potential Government that we are a big enough voting group to make a difference in a election

We're not...people forget that the majority of firearms owners in Ireland are farmers...who vote on the back of farming issues..not shooting ones. The people who shoot for sport are a minority amongst the 200k+ firearms licenced here..we're an irrelevancy really..I don't think the question of how we will vote keeps politicans up at night.

Vizzy

Blay wrote: »

This thread is on course to be an absolute clusterfcuk already:pac:

I agree with this.

Sparks

Vizzy wrote: »

I agree with this.

You're not the only one. The thread's closed; if folk want to sign that petition, the link's up there.