Parlimentary Questions - Pistols & license reviews.

Sparks

Dec 10 2013:

Niall Collins (Limerick, Fianna Fail)
372. To ask the Minister for Justice and Equality if he is reviewing Garda firearm license policy in view of a recent court case that granted licences which had previously been refused on the advice of Garda ballistic experts; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52971/13]

Alan Shatter (Minister, Department of Justice, Equality and Defence; Dublin South, Fine Gael)

I can inform the Deputy that my Department is examining key issues relating to firearms licensing, in conjunction with An Garda Síochána. I expect to receive recommendations as a result of this process in February 2014. That process will have regard to any relevant court cases.

Poopsticks.

rowa

Sparks wrote: »

Dec 10 2013:


Poopsticks.

Is there no end to the damage fianna failure do to this country. I heard a reliable whisper on sunday that there is a storm approaching regarding all pistols , not just centrefires.

Sparks

There are few reliable whisper sources rowa, the reliable sources don't tend to whisper. They don't shout and pound tables either, mind, they just talk.

Dian Cecht

Hasn't it been shown more than once in Court and at considerable expense to shooters, shooting organisations & the DOJ that Garda "policy" on firearms licencing is not necessarily 'legal' and that what the legislation actually says, which is currently a joke in a lot of ways, is all that counts?

Sparks

Dian Cecht wrote: »

Hasn't it been shown more than once in Court and at considerable expense to shooters, shooting organisations & the DOJ that Garda "policy" on firearms licencing is not necessarily 'legal' and that what the legislation actually says, which is currently a joke in a lot of ways, is all that counts?

It was shown more than once before the law changed in 2006, when the commissioner and minister got a lot more power under the law with regard to "policy". The situation at the moment is not like it was before 2006.

I should have this as a keyboard macro, but: "You can't use the courts as a stick to beat the government with".

Seriously, you can't. There's no contest - the government writes the rulebook, the courts just see that its adhered to. If the state wants to do something and the rules say "no", then the state rewrites the rule to say "yah, sure".

Dian Cecht

Sparks wrote: »

It was shown more than once before the law changed in 2006, when the commissioner and minister got a lot more power under the law with regard to "policy". The situation at the moment is not like it was before 2006.

So they can ignore basic legislation & make up a "policy" & it will stand up in a Court? :eek:

Sparks wrote: »

I should have this as a keyboard macro, but: "You can't use the courts as a stick to beat the government with".

Yep, that's true

Sparks wrote: »

Seriously, you can't. There's no contest - the government writes the rulebook, the courts just see that its adhered to. If the state wants to do something and the rules say "no", then the state rewrites the rule to say "yah, sure".

So much for democracy, eh :eek:

It wasn't me!

Dian Cecht wrote: »

So much for democracy, eh :eek:

Democracy doesn't mean you just get the laws you like. Even if democracy were 100% direct, with citizens voting personally on every single issue, you'd be amazed at the motions that would be popular, and you certainly wouldn't like the results, with regard to firearms legislation. There may be serious issues in terms of the information used to write laws and the gulf between intention and interpretation but let's not pretend the format of our democracy is what's at issue.

Sparks

Dian Cecht wrote: »

So they can ignore basic legislation & make up a "policy" & it will stand up in a Court? :eek:

In effect, yes. (In practice, they do it, we yell and go to court, court says "that's not on", government rewrites the law to make it legal, court says "well, nothing we can do so" -- so in practice, it's the same as in effect, but we pay more money and lose more manhours that could have been spent building ranges or training shooters).

This is why it was so depressing to see the FCP pissed away for nothing in favour of going to the four courts. Bang heads with the Minister and you lose. Maybe not on day one, but you live longer than day one and he'll win in the end - that's how the constitution is written. But sit down at the same table with him and argue out a compromise and okay, neither of you will like the end result because neither side ever does, that's what compromise means -- but you'd get what you need and it will stick, unlike a court ruling that's unfavorable to the government.

So much for democracy, eh :eek:

Well, (a) we're not a democracy, we're a republic; and (b) that's not what that word means anyway

Basicly, the constitution and the law that flows from it all says that this is how things work, and the government operates within that framework. Now if they stepped outside that, they would get walloped (if caught at the time), but they rarely if ever do, because they don't need to.

And it's hardly new or the worst example in Irish life. Me, I don't understand why we didn't stop complaining about forty years ago and learn the rules and play the game back then. I mean, complain for 40 years; or work for 5-10 and get to enjoy your sport for 35. Why did we choose door number 1?

Dian Cecht

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Democracy doesn't mean you just get the laws you like. Even if democracy were 100% direct, with citizens voting personally on every single issue, you'd be amazed at the motions that would be popular, and you certainly wouldn't like the results, with regard to firearms legislation. There may be serious issues in terms of the information used to write laws and the gulf between intention and interpretation but let's not pretend the format of our democracy is what's at issue.

I was more so hinting that those charged with enforcing the law should not be the ones who make the law

Sparks

Dian Cecht wrote: »

I was more so hinting that those charged with enforcing the law should not be the ones who make the law

Ah, but that's why they call it a policy

Dian Cecht

Thanks Sparks Looks like shootings' future is ................ bend over & smile

I'm away to do a bit of shooting ....................... while I still can

Sparks

See, everyone always says it's bend over and smile. As if all of shooting was a table and all we could do was either thump it and yell, or bend over it, and no other choice was possible. It's an odd list of things to have as the only things you can do with a table, I'd hate to see what whomever came up with it does for their xmas dinner. The turkey wouldn't be safe either way.

Wouldn't it be better just to sit at the table and talk? Okay, you won't get everything, and yes it's slow (but courts are slower) and it's not very sexy (but if you think a judges robes are sexy, you... actually, there are some shops on capel street that cater to you, but you probably don't want to go to court after going there) - but does everyone need a glock 18? If you could have whatever centerfire pistol you wanted so long as you just shot at the standard bullseye targets, would that compromise have been better or worse than the current state of affairs, where only a few hundred centerfires are out there and you're not allowed have more, even to replace them as wear and tear take their toll?

Dian Cecht

Pissing down ..................... shooting cancelled

I'd like to see a transparent & simple system. You do/have a,b,c and you can have x,y,z. None of this postcode lottery :rolleyes:

Sparks

What, you mean a list of things?

Sorry, old joke.

Yes, it would be nice to have a set law and everyone followed it explicitly, but given the way we draft laws in Ireland and the way they're enforced, that'd be damned hard to implement. The FPU is supposed to help, by advising the local supers, but it would seem that Ballistics are an opposing voice from our vantage point out here, and if there are opposing voices in the AGS... well, we get the resulting mess.

Dian Cecht

Sparks wrote: »

What, you mean a list of things? .

Be easier surely? Instead of dealing with "I don't like the look of that" attitude some lads get over a pimped out 10/22 :rolleyes:

Sparks wrote: »

Sorry, old joke. .

Do share

Sparks wrote: »

Yes, it would be nice to have a set law and everyone followed it explicitly, but given the way we draft laws in Ireland and the way they're enforced, that'd be damned hard to implement. The FPU is supposed to help, by advising the local supers, but it would seem that Ballistics are an opposing voice from our vantage point out here, and if there are opposing voices in the AGS... well, we get the resulting mess.

Dealt with the FPU ................. VERY helpful I found.

rowa

But the ballistics department frequently contradict the fpu and seem to over ride them, which begs the question why bother to continue to keep the fpu open and not just use the ballistics dept for all queries ? Its a case of a super/chief super looking for the answer he wants and that answer is more often than not found in the ballistics dept.

Sparks

Dian Cecht wrote: »

Be easier surely? Instead of dealing with "I don't like the look of that" attitude some lads get over a pimped out 10/22 :rolleyes:
Do share

Not everyone likes the idea of a list, given the example that's in the Commissioner's guidelines. There was uproar and accusations of perfidity at various groups in shooting when it was published.

Dealt with the FPU ................. VERY helpful I found.

Yup, if they had a little more weight in the AGS, it'd make our lives a bit easier.

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

But the ballistics department frequently contradict the fpu and seem to over ride them, which begs the question why bother to continue to keep the fpu open and not just use the ballistics dept for all queries ? Its a case of a super/chief super looking for the answer he wants and that answer is more often than not found in the ballistics dept.

Because the two groups are meant to do different things....

Dian Cecht

Sparks wrote: »

Not everyone likes the idea of a list, given the example that's in the Commissioner's guidelines. There was uproar and accusations of perfidity at various groups in shooting when it was published.Yup, if they had a little more weight in the AGS, it'd make our lives a bit easier.

Really

To me it surely makes things easier You pick something that's on it and all things being equal you get it. Surely, better than going to Court?

Sparks

Dian Cecht wrote: »

To me it surely makes things easier You pick something that's on it and all things being equal you get it. Surely, better than going to Court?

To be honest, I like the system we have now better than that - there's a list of examples of pistols that conform the the actual law, which is a list of characteristics of pistols. So if walther bring out a new pistol tomorrow that meets those characteristics, you don't need to change the law, and you can add to the list of examples easily but you don't need to wait for that addition before getting the licence.

Dian Cecht

A buddy of mine was told if it ain't on that list he couldn't have it

He wasn't too bothered as he got Ruger MK II, which is a lovely pistol.

rowa

Dian Cecht wrote: »

Really

To me it surely makes things easier You pick something that's on it and all things being equal you get it. Surely, better than going to Court?

What happens when you want something thats been out of production for decades or is a bit obscure or rare , but otherwise perfectly acceptable ? Using a technical spec is a better bet imho. Eg. maximum five shots, barrel length minimum 4.5 inches , minimum overall length 8 inches or whatever. This was also in the commissioners guidelines but seems to have been dropped, it was probably inconvenient for them :rolleyes:.

Sparks

People have been told the wrong thing like that for as long as I've been shooting - Gardai don't get enough training in firearms legislation when being given the job of administering it. End result, daft things happen

richiedel123

Sparks wrote: »

People have been told the wrong thing like that for as long as I've been shooting - Gardai don't get enough training in firearms legislation when being given the job of administering it. End result, daft things happen

I agree with that. My cs told me she knows nothing about pistols but her experts told her that my pistol was military etc etc.
In fairness how can a cs make a decision on something he/ she doesn't know the first thing about. In my opinion that system is completely wrong and unjust for all involved

BattleCorp

richiedel123 wrote: »

In my opinion that system is completely wrong and unjust for all involved

How wrong and unjust would it be if they banned all pistols?

What purpose would it serve?

What purpose does the current ban on new centrefire pistols serve?

Bans like that don't serve any purpose other than to penalise law abiding shooting enthusiasts. It does fcukall to reduce crime.

Our pistols aren't the ones being used by scumbags to hold up cash in transit vans or to knock each other off.

richiedel123

BattleCorp wrote: »

How wrong and unjust would it be if they banned all pistols?
The way it is now is like they are banned. The only way we can hold onto them is if we can convince a judge we need it. We have to go to court to try to hold onto something we were licensed on for a few years and held in our possession.
What purpose would it serve?
None the criminals still get their hands on illegal guns and still do harm with them

What purpose does the current ban on new centrefire pistols serve?
None at all it is a complete joke. It's scapegoat tactics by our then minister.

Bans like that don't serve any purpose other than to penalise law abiding shooting enthusiasts. It does fcukall to reduce crime.
Agreed
Our pistols aren't the ones being used by scumbags to hold up cash in transit vans or to knock each other off.

Agreed

BattleCorp

Sparks wrote: »

Gardai don't get enough training in firearms legislation when being given the job of administering it.

I'm not criticising the Gardaí, I'm just asking a simple question.

Why don't Gardaí get enough training in firearms procedures, legislation and how to administer it?

Surely, seeing as it's part of their job, why isn't there training courses that all Gardaí who deal with firearms applications must do?

I'm always amazed at how many Gardaí say to me that they know nothing about firearms. I would have thought it would be a pre-requisite.

It wasn't me!

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm not criticising the Gardaí, I'm just asking a simple question.

Why don't Gardaí get enough training in firearms procedures, legislation and how to administer it?

Surely, seeing as it's part of their job, why isn't there training courses that all Gardaí who deal with firearms applications must do?

I'm always amazed at how many Gardaí say to me that they know nothing about firearms. I would have thought it would be a pre-requisite.

Because they're underfunded as is, with an enormously diverse job, and dealing with firearms, and legal firearms in particular, is a tiny part of that job. Training them to deal better with it, particularly when dissatisfaction with the system is so low (It's magnified hugely here. The vast, vast majority of firearms applications and various dealings with AGS don't end with any complaints or issues.), that funding for that particular area of deficiency is so far down the list of priorities for spending what is ultimately imaginary wouldn'titbeniceif money it's not even funny.

richiedel123

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm not criticising the Gardaí, I'm just asking a simple question.

Why don't Gardaí get enough training in firearms procedures, legislation and how to administer it?

Surely, seeing as it's part of their job, why isn't there training courses that all Gardaí who deal with firearms applications must do?

I'm always amazed at how many Gardaí say to me that they know nothing about firearms. I would have thought it would be a pre-requisite.

This is my problem. This is what I taught was unjust that a person who has no training in firearms and doesn't know a .22 from a. 45 or a Sig from a glock should decide who can and cant licence

Grizzly 45

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Because they're underfunded as is, with an enormously diverse job, and dealing with firearms, and legal firearms in particular, is a tiny part of that job. Training them to deal better with it, particularly when dissatisfaction with the system is so low (It's magnified hugely here. The vast, vast majority of firearms applications and various dealings with AGS don't end with any complaints or issues.), that funding for that particular area of deficiency is so far down the list of priorities for spending what is ultimately imaginary wouldn'tit beniceif money it's not even funny.

ALL the more reason it should be removed from them completely and this should be like any modern EU country a job for local Govts, or a centralised govt registry with people who know something about firearms.
Its only in Irl and the UK that the police involved in this Anywhere else the police are only involved in a criminal back round check or issuing a permit for concealed carry.
These countries haven sunk into anarchostic crime lands with daily shootings or collapased govts either.
In fact they are proably the most stable of the EU countries.
Be nice if we tried to copy something of benefit from the EU for a change and stop being so anally retentive about firearms here in Ireland.

It wasn't me!

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

ALL the more reason it should be removed from them completely and this should be like any modern EU country a job for local Govts, or a centralised govt registry with people who know something about firearms.
Its only in Irl and the UK that the police involved in this Anywhere else the police are only involved in a criminal back round check or issuing a permit for concealed carry.
These countries haven sunk into anarchostic crime lands with daily shootings or collapased govts either.
In fact they are proably the most stable of the EU countries.
Be nice if we tried to copy something of benefit from the EU for a change and stop being so anally retentive about firearms here in Ireland.

No disagreement whatsoever! I'd love to see it all managed entirely at the local civilian government level myself, but for the time being, it's not, and it would be far less complex or difficult to increase AGS funding than to change that paradigm.

Dian Cecht

rowa wrote: »

Using a technical spec is a better bet imho. Eg. maximum five shots, barrel length minimum 4.5 inches , minimum overall length 8 inches or whatever.

Yep.

Excellent suggestion!

Grizzly 45

It wasn't me! wrote: »

No disagreement whatsoever! I'd love to see it all managed entirely at the local civilian government level myself, but for the time being, it's not, and it would be far less complex or difficult to increase AGS funding than to change that paradigm.

However,week before last the Asst cheif commissioner[???]I think hinted that this could be an option with further Garda cutbacks..Whether he was blowing smoke to scare the Irish sheeple into a "support your local Gardai,as they are the only ones competant to handle this." type of tactic or it was genuine is open to debate.If they are worried about this not being handled properly and might be compromised etc.Why then did they hand out the liscensing fee collection to An post??

rowa

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

However,week before last the Asst cheif commissioner[???]I think hinted that this could be an option with further Garda cutbacks..Whether he was blowing smoke to scare the Irish sheeple into a "support your local Gardai,as they are the only ones competant to handle this." type of tactic or it was genuine is open to debate.If they are worried about this not being handled properly and might be compromised etc.Why then did they hand out the liscensing fee collection to An post??

Maybe not grizz, both a super and chief super told me firearms licencing should not be part of their job, it takes up too much of their time and they didn't want the responsibility for it either.

Grizzly 45

rowa wrote: »

Maybe not grizz, both a super and chief super told me firearms licencing should not be part of their job, it takes up too much of their time and they didn't want the responsibility for it either.

And here we come to the core of the matter.Time and responsibility.
And TBVH I dont blame them and sympathise with them.It shouldnt be part of the remit anymore,but that doesnt mean that both of those problems are the green light to kill t off entirely either.:(

Sikamick

http://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2013-12-10a.857


Quote:
Quote[Niall Collins] (Limerick, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context 372. To ask the Minister for Justice and Equality if he is reviewing Garda firearm license policy in view of a recent court case that granted licences which had previously been refused on the advice of Garda ballistic experts; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52971/13]Quote[]


Is this a leading question to allow changes to SI/Firearms acts which wont be of any benefit to the shooting fraternity. One would imagine that Niall Collins would have asked the question as to who or what department issued the importation licenses for these firearms. Are they the one and the same DOJ people that were involved in the court cases mentioned by Collins.

Quote:
Quote[Alan Shatter] (Minister, Department of Justice, Equality and Defence; Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context I can inform the Deputy that my Department is examining key issues relating to firearms licensing, in conjunction with An Garda Síochána. I expect to receive recommendations as a result of this process in February 2014. That process will have regard to any relevant court cases.Quote[]


In looking into these key issues to quote Minister Shatter, ? will leading representatives of the shooting sports here in Ireland be allowed to be involved to have discussions on the examining of the said key issues relating to firearms licensing. Also will the leading representatives of the shooting sports be allowed to bring their qualified National / International ballistic specialist with them.

http://vcrai.com/phpBB/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1753&start=40

Sikamick

Sparks

Sikamick wrote: »

will leading representatives of the shooting sports here in Ireland be allowed to be involved to have discussions on the examining of the said key issues relating to firearms licensing. Also will the leading representatives of the shooting sports be allowed to bring their qualified National / International ballistic specialist with them.

That was the entire point of the FCP.
Shame we pissed it away for nothing, isn't it?

rowa

Sparks wrote: »

That was the entire point of the FCP.
Shame we pissed it away for nothing, isn't it?

Why ? They never listened to shooters in the first place. They might have appeared to be listening attentively to shooters groups over the tae and biccy's in stephens green. But if they were, why did they refuse to re-licence 80% of c/f pistols and spend 20 million fighting court cases, using every dirty trick (including the swept under the mat form tampering thats been convieniently forgotten) in the book.

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

Why ? They never listened to shooters in the first place.

Wrong.
For a start, they were shooters. It wasn't a group we appealed to - it was a group we were an official part of. It was the official line from this community into the AGS and DoJ and Minister.

Was it a button we could push anytime we wanted that got us everything we wanted?
Eh, you are old enough to be paying taxes, right?

But if they were, why did they refuse to re-licence 80% of c/f pistols

You're mixing up the "they"s and you're muddling the timeline.

and spend 20 million fighting court cases, using every dirty trick (including the swept under the mat form tampering thats been convieniently forgotten) in the book.

(a) You're really muddling up the timeline, since by the time that happened, the NARGC were throwing rocks at the Minister in public and scuppering the FCP in the process.
(b) The same source that was whispering to you earlier? Is the specific party that agreed to the deal whereby the sweeping under the mat you mentioned was given the okay.


Basically, there is no legal way in which the shooting community can ever have a veto over a sitting Minister. There just isn't. Our country isn't set up that way. We can't claim half the stuff the shoutier members of our community would like to because those claims are... well, frankly they're juvenile and embarrassing for the rest of us to hear. We do not have a right to bear arms as the US does, so looking to how things are organised there is a nonstarter. And lamenting that we don't have their freedoms is grand over a pint after a long week, but not how you try to further the best interests of our community.

So what are we left with? Well, we can sit where we are now (which is where we were from 1972 until about 2005ish), on the outside, with no access to the Minister, DoJ or AGS bar what is given as a favour; or we could have had:

Sparks wrote: »

a regular consultation process between the DoJ, the Gardai, and the various bodies who govern shooting in Ireland - the NARGC, the ICPSA, the NTSA, the NSAI, and so on. And I mean a scheduled, regular, sit-down-at-a-table-with-the-minister meeting, not lip service.

2004, I said that and I'd been saying it since about 2000, and all that time had been laughed at for being naive and unrealistic for wanting too much. But we had it less than two years later, and it sorted out more than anyone knows or gives it credit for. All the shooting bodies actually came together and worked in unison for a few years and they achieved something by doing so. Sure, some big self-aggrandising, self-important blowhards love to say it was useless and call it a failure, but they aren't the reason that your dentist isn't able to legally be used by the Super to testify as to your mental health when you apply for a licence. They're not why that and a thousand other awful pieces of crap didn't land on your head. And they're not why we still have any pistols at all (though they may well be why we lose what little we have now). And they're not why we still have lines of communication, if unofficial, to the PTB.

Where we were was out in the cold with nothing. The minister wanted us gone the next day? We'd have been gone. Toast. (Courts? You're kidding me, right?) The FCP wasn't the be-all and end-all, but it was more than we ever had and it was a start, not a dead end. That we pissed it all away after a decade of work by dozens if not hundreds of people across the community is why a lot of people threw up their hands in disgust at this community and walked away to go shoot while they still could before the next shouty eejit drowned us in even more bull**** from the PTB.

You want my honest heartfelt advice? If the review mentioned in the first post of this thread is what I fear it is, go to the range and shoot. Because the muppets who're claiming they'll fight it on the beaches? Couldn't stop the Minister from passing gas, let alone laws.

Grizzly 45

Sikamick wrote: »

http://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2013-12-10a.857


Quote:
Quote[Niall Collins] (Limerick, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context 372. To ask the Minister for Justice and Equality if he is reviewing Garda firearm license policy in view of a recent court case that granted licences which had previously been refused on the advice of Garda ballistic experts; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52971/13]Quote[]


Is this a leading question to allow changes to SI/Firearms acts which wont be of any benefit to the shooting fraternity. One would imagine that Niall Collins would have asked the question as to who or what department issued the importation licenses for these firearms. Are they the one and the same DOJ people that were involved in the court cases mentioned by Collins.

Quote:
Quote[Alan Shatter] (Minister, Department of Justice, Equality and Defence; Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context I can inform the Deputy that my Department is examining key issues relating to firearms licensing, in conjunction with An Garda Síochána. I expect to receive recommendations as a result of this process in February 2014. That process will have regard to any relevant court cases.Quote[]


In looking into these key issues to quote Minister Shatter, ? will leading representatives of the shooting sports here in Ireland be allowed to be involved to have discussions on the examining of the said key issues relating to firearms licensing. Also will the leading representatives of the shooting sports be allowed to bring their qualified National / International ballistic specialist with them.

http://vcrai.com/phpBB/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1753&start=40

Sikamick

Think Collins is referring to the recent cases here in Limerick where three lads won back their semi rifles and handguns.Half of which were granted three years ago in the DC,and the others were dicked about by the CS for four years.

I'd be more intrested in knowing is this a solo run, or was he asked to ask this question by someone down here??

Dian Cecht

IMVHO reading between the lines from various sources it's the "fighting on the beaches", namely all the cases to get 1911 lookalike .22 pistols, fullbore pistols, restricted stuff & the dreaded "black" rifles that has resulted in the coming review.


Sparks is right, if "they" loose ............... "they" change the rules :mad:

Sparks

Dian Cecht wrote: »

IMVHO reading between the lines from various sources it's the "fighting on the beaches", namely all the cases to get 1911 lookalike .22 pistols, fullbore pistols, restricted stuff & the dreaded "black" rifles that has resulted in the coming review.

2004 deja vu right there.

Grizzly 45

Dian Cecht wrote: »

IMVHO reading between the lines from various sources it's the "fighting on the beaches", namely all the cases to get 1911 lookalike .22 pistols, fullbore pistols, restricted stuff & the dreaded "black" rifles that has resulted in the coming review.


Sparks is right, if "they" loose ............... "they" change the rules :mad:

As one of those "on the beaches" What is our choice??:(

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

As one of those "on the beaches" What is our choice??:(

1. You're not on the beaches, you're in a court of law getting a ruling on a dispute with a single garda officer who was not adhering to the Firearms Act. That's not even in the same country as what those calling for fights on the beaches are talking about. You are, if anything, on the other side to them because you're using the system they want to see gone and you have a lot invested in it. They change the law and you could be right back where you started. Or, if things go the way we're all worrying about, your problems will soon all be over and everything resolved... just not the way you want.
2. The FCP resolved cases like that through the FPU, and had a lot of success but you never heard about the vast majority of cases because it was resolved quietly and the problem just went away instead of needing months and years in court and acrimony all round. (Did they solve every problem? No. Do the courts? No. Which costs less and is more long lasting? It ain't the courts, as your case has shown...)
3. We're - and this is not the first time it's been said specifically to you Grizz, it's been said more than a dozen times at this stage - not talking about individuals who have to take cases to court. We're talking about people who are looking to lob rocks at the Ministerial level to effect some sort of systemic change. You're looking for a licence - they're looking for a new firearms act.

Dian Cecht

Sparks wrote: »

2004 deja vu right there.

Yep, I think we're going to see history repeat itself, unfortunately

Dian Cecht

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

As one of those "on the beaches" What is our choice??:(

Man, I'm actually on your side.

Sometimes you just have to stop hitting your head off the wall & accept what you're given

Dian Cecht

Sparks wrote: »

they're looking for a new firearms act.

Which of course will make everything better? Next you'll tell me Santa IS real !

Sparks

Dian Cecht wrote: »

Which of course will make everything better?

I've sat through two full cycles of that now. Not only will it make everything worse, it'll take ages and be mangled by every backbench attention-seeker in the dail and seanad...

Besides, we already know the first thing we need to do with the firearms act is push for a restatement of it, with absolutely no changes. Because right now, there are maybe three or four dozen people in the entire country who have a working understanding of the act, and none of those have a working understanding of the entire act (though they've no call to since it covers not only our stuff but the stuff you see used in criminal trials as well). I suppose it could be worse, it used to barely be a dozen at one point. But that's not because it's written in latin, it's because it's spread over 20 or so acts, dozens of SIs and then of course the non-legislative guidelines and so forth. All that has to get read into the one document, so we have one single definitive act and know where we stand; until that point, trying to fix what's broken is a fool's errand (especially since you'll need to do it after you've fixed everything anyway). There's a reason that both the law reform commission and the most reactionary high court justice I know about have both been saying the same thing about this for years - because it's an obvious, yet easily solvable problem...

Grizzly 45

Dian Cecht wrote: »

Man, I'm actually on your side.

Sometimes you just have to stop hitting your head off the wall & accept what you're given

And then they come for another bit and then another bit and another bit,and we come up with statements like yours,until the wolf is at your door and yours are gone too.Sometimes you just have to swim against the stream ...To keep what you have and that others keep theirs too in the long run.

Dian Cecht

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

And then they come for another bit and then another bit and another bit,and we come up with statements like yours,until the wolf is at your door and yours are gone too.............

That scare tactic doesn't hold any water for me anymore. If they take in s/s shotguns & a bolt action .22s there will be a lot more to worry about I reckon.

The stuff the PTB have problems with make a very small % in the big scheme of things and they stand to loose very few votes. Not to mention that a lot of Joe Public think all guns should be banned & the majority of shooters don't even think lads need fullbore pistols, semi auto fullbore rifles or anything over .308 either........................so are we dealing with a few disgruntled shooters who are making a lot of "noise" and possibly trouble for the majority?

Ye will not be heroes when this goes pear shaped again :eek:

I've "lost" stuff too BTW and I made the decision I'd wasted enough money trying to beat the system.

rowa

Dian Cecht wrote: »

That scare tactic doesn't hold any water for me anymore. If they take in s/s shotguns & a bolt action .22s there will be a lot more to worry about I reckon.

The stuff the PTB have problems with make a very small % in the big scheme of things and they stand to loose very few votes. Not to mention that a lot of Joe Public think all guns should be banned & the majority of shooters don't even think lads need fullbore pistols, semi auto fullbore rifles or anything over .308 either........................so are we dealing with a few disgruntled shooters who are making a lot of "noise" and possibly trouble for the majority?

Ye will not be heroes when this goes pear shaped again :eek:

I've "lost" stuff too BTW and I made the decision I'd wasted enough money trying to beat the system.

Ahhhh the "Pull up the ladder jack, i'm alright" attitude. You also assume that lads who licence s/s shotguns and .22 rifles don't have any trouble with the ptb, i can assure you they most certainly do. More than one super will not issue a second shotgun licence for example.