Statement from NASRPC

chem

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

Whats all this about??

BillyBoy13

Can I just ask, what prompted this legislation review by government?

Cass

There are a lot of changes floating around about changes to the current legislation including .22lr pistols being further restricted, and even more rumors about them being done away with. Same with semi auto rimfires. One of the key rumors i've heard is they are afraid that an unrestricted pistol can be made restricted by simply putting in a larger capacity mag.


Again these are only rumors, and more to the point the ones that have been relayed to me. There is no source to verify them and as such they remain rumors. Also there could be a lot more to it that just these topics, but i'm not privy to the ins and outs of it.

BillyBoy13

Not including a ban, there is no real way to further restrict pistols. Its locked down pretty tight as it stands. All I can really think of is maybe take the list from the commissioners guidelines and make it the be all and end all- or even get rid of semis and keep revolvers. But after that there is nothing else left to restrict really that I can think of?


Also I wonder how feasible is it that they could pull off an all out ban on pistols? Or would we see a similar deal like with the centerfires.... ie whoever has one can keep it but no new applications.

Sparks

BillyBoy13 wrote: »

Not including a ban, there is no real way to further restrict pistols.

There are several. Amend the restricted list to add yet more stuff to it, for example.

Also I wonder how feasible is it that they could pull off an all out ban on pistols?

Approximately 100% feasible. We do no have any authority to stop them nor legal means to prevent them doing this if they so chose. That's why it was so important to keep people talking, and why burning the FCP was such a disaster. If these rumours turn out to have truth in them - and frankly, nobody outside of the Minister's office actually knows anything, they're just bull****ting people - then this will have been a disaster of our own making.

rowa

"one small shooting organisation may have already agreed with the garda siochanas proposed changes"

Here we go.........

Sparks

I loved that. The same "experienced people" who gave us, amongst other things, an attempt to do an end run around all the other shooting NGBs to get in the most restrictive and draconian bit of pistol legislation ever dreamed up anywhere (outside of a total ban); and the utter kick in the fork that was the criminal justice act 2006; and they can't even get through a press release about rumours they can't have any information about without trying to get the knife into someone else while simultaneously proudly claiming to have gone in and done exactly what they're saying someone else is bad and wrong for doing. But without giving any names, evidence or reasoning.

You know what lads, I'm just wondering - if the Usual Suspects are returning from where they were told to **** off to for the duration, in order to talk to the powers that be about firearms legislation, should I just sell everything now before they get them fecking confiscated?

Cass

BillyBoy13 wrote: »

Not including a ban, there is no real way to further restrict pistols.

The thing is though you've just mentioned three possible further restrictions and that is off the top of your head.

1. maybe take the list from the commissioners guidelines and make it the be all and end all
2. or even get rid of semis and keep revolvers.
3. a similar deal like with the centerfires.... ie whoever has one can keep it but no new applications

Imagine what could be done with more time and from a source that has no invested interest in retaining the sport. Sparks has even mentioned that an all out ban is possible. So that's four.

My point is it can be restricted further. To the extent it in essence kills off the sport.

Rowa wrote:

"one small shooting organisation may have already agreed with the garda siochanas proposed changes"

Here we go.........

M'eh.

The proposals are rumors, and as has been said only the DoJ know where certain organisations stand, and what communications have been so until it is made public i'll dismiss these rumors with the contempt they deserve.

Secondly, how can any group have done a deal when no changes have been brought forward, and why would the DoJ need the co-operation of any shooting body to do as they please?

rowa

Cass wrote: »

M'eh.

The proposals are rumors, and as has been said only the DoJ know where certain organisations stand, and what communications have been so until it is made public i'll dismiss these rumors with the contempt they deserve.

Secondly, how can any group have done a deal when no changes have been brought forward, and why would the DoJ need the co-operation of any shooting body to do as they please?

Going by past examples , who knows what cloak and dagger bs goes on behind the scenes ?

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

Going by past examples , who knows what cloak and dagger bs goes on behind the scenes ?

Everyone, usually within six months to a year.
The idea that you can keep a secret in Ireland is funny enough, but the idea that you could do so in our little community is just downright hilarious.
The problem is that we have either really, really short memories, or just never learn from our mistakes.

BillyBoy13

Sparks wrote: »

There are several. Amend the restricted list to add yet more stuff to it, for example.

You're talking about legal avenues for restriction. Im talking about practical avenues. Like I said, at this stage, further restrictions (not including an all out ban) can only really be based on making a list of acceptable pistols and everything else is banned, or full ban on either semis or revolvers, after that your down to restrictions based on what.... Black pistols = bad, silver ones = good. GSGs = bad, Baikal = good.

Sparks wrote: »

Approximately 100% feasible. We do no have any authority to stop them nor legal means to prevent them doing this if they so chose.

Well, yes, I know legally there is nothing stopping them. But I was thinking more like... well actually, you thats familiar with the laws of the land can you answer me this. Surely there is a provision of some kind if for example we stupidy elect a rogue minister, there must be a judge that he can be made answer to if he does something the Irish people don't approve of or want reversed?

rowa

Sparks wrote: »

Everyone, usually within six months to a year.

Yeah , but by then its all done and dusted, what will/can the rest of the shooting community do about it ? Nothing, maybe not talk to you for a while.

Sparks

BillyBoy13 wrote: »

You're talking about legal avenues for restriction. Im talking about practical avenues.

In this case, those are the same thing. Ask anyone who had firearms in 1972.
The minister needs one sheet of blank paper and a pen and he can change the definition of "restricted short firearm" to include anything and everything he wants gone; and doesn't have to go via the Dail to do it. You'd just find yourself in possession of an unlicenced restricted firearm once he signed the dotted line and now it'd be your responsibility to turn it in and they would have a list of people in that position and if you didn't, that's a nice long jail sentence and a five-figure fine they could point in your direction.

Like I said, at this stage, further restrictions (not including an all out ban) can only really be based on making a list of acceptable pistols

No, you could do it on the basis of physical features of the firearm. Do you really want me to give a few examples here?

But read section 2B of the firearms act:

2B.— The Minister may, in the interests of public safety and security, by order—

(a) declare specified firearms to be restricted firearms for the purposes of this Act by reference to one or more than one of the following criteria:

(i) category;
(ii) calibre;
(iii) working mechanism;
(iv) muzzle energy;
(v) description;

and

(b) declare specified ammunition to be restricted ammunition for the purposes of this Act by reference to one or more than one of the following criteria:

(i) category;
(ii) calibre;
(iii) weight;
(iv) kinetic energy;
(v) ballistic co-efficient;
(vi) design;
(vii) composition;
(viii) description.”.

Well, yes, I know legally there is nothing stopping them. But I was thinking more like... well actually, you thats familiar with the laws of the land can you answer me this. Surely there is a provision of some kind if for example we stupidy elect a rogue minister, there must be a judge that he can be made answer to if he does something the Irish people don't approve of or want reversed?

Academically, there are possible verdicts in possible cases that might look like that if you squint real hard and are dead drunk while doing so. But the short, real-world answer is "no, not really".

We had a fairly telling example a few years ago - a case (McVeigh-v-Minister) taken all the way to the supreme court by a firearms dealer who said the Minister of the day had acted illegally by denying him an import licence. The courts agreed... and said effectively, "meh, what can you do, this stuff happens." Or, to quote them directly:

According to the case-law, especially Dunne v. Donohoe, it was not a lawful decision. In my view, it was such as should have been quashed on judicial review. However, it is difficult to discern, at this stage, any advantage to be gained by quashing the decision of the Minister made more than seven years ago. I would simply make a declaration that the Minister had made an unlawful decision by basing it on an inflexible policy.

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

Yeah , but by then its all done and dusted, what will/can the rest of the shooting community do about it ? Nothing, maybe not talk to you for a while.

You forget the end of that sentence, which is : "and then forget all about it and let it happen all over again."

Like I said, we either have very short memories or we never learn our lessons...

cookimonster

Cass wrote: »

....Secondly, how can any group have done a deal when no changes have been brought forward, and why would the DoJ need the co-operation of any shooting body to do as they please?

Don't be so sure, look at recent government actions based on the Croke Park and Haddington Road Agreements. Each in themselves where ment to be all encompassing but in the detail and the devil is in the detail, pandered to individual groups across the public sector.

If the authorities get some one from the concerned groups, ie shooters, on side then they can be seen to have support and there fore justify thier actions.

By the way the rumor mill kicked out 'possible restriction again on certain centre fire rifle calibers'....but that's only the rumor mill.....

Sparks

cookimonster wrote: »

If the authorities get some one from the concerned groups, ie shooters, on side then they can be seen to have support and there fore justify thier actions.

They need that support about as much as manhole covers need chocolate coatings.

We're gunowners. The media loves to kick us about and damn near nobody in the general public knows enough to differentiate between international target shooters and the 'RA and they have equal amounts of love for both. And the politicians know this and are perfectly willing to chuck us under the bus the minute they see a possible vote in it - just look at Jim Deasy and Olivia Mitchell, who triggered the handgun crackdown for no reason and got a range shut down so that illegally trespassing bikers on private land didn't have to worry about highly improbably escaping ricochet shots, respectively. And they're both Fine Gael, the party that was all happily signing up with the NARGC at the last election to protect our interests???

Truth is, if there's an axe swinging, we've as much hope of stopping it as the firewood does. The FCP used to be able to nudge it a bit left or right, which was about as much as was physically possible, but even then you couldn't stop it. The trick was preventing the axe from starting the downward trip in the first place, long before we get to where we are now with the rumours flying about and the usual suspects trying the usual little hitler end runs.

By this stage, the last twenty years tells us that if the axe is moving, it's already about a year or two too late to be trying to do something about it.

Cass

cookimonster wrote: »

If the authorities get some one from the concerned groups, ie shooters, on side then they can be seen to have support and there fore justify thier actions.

You are right, but the DoJ do not need the support of any group to push through any changes they want. Granted it might go "smoother" with support from some groups, but it's not a necessity. I mean it's not like shooters are going to go on strike.

By the way the rumor mill kicked out 'possible restriction again on certain centre fire rifle calibers'....but that's only the rumor mill.....

There are a dozen of these every year. The majority never see sunlight as they are simply ridiculous. Others have been around for years and get thrown around every few months.

Again i'll wait to get some sort of official statement from a Gov. body before believing.

Cass

Poxy internet connection. By the time i get a reply written and posted there are a few new posts.

cookimonster

Sparks & Cass,

Completely agree with you views.
My point is yes as gun owners we have no lobby or leverage and that any law, regulation may be changed without public discussion or approval once it is not constitutional. But regardless of the perceiption of the government attitudes or lack of it is in my opinion that they will try and smooth the waters by having certain groups on board. Divide and conquer seems to be the way. The shooting community is divided all ready over the different applications of the sport.
It would take an unfortunate incidence as seen in Great Britain to give them 'just cause' to publicly brandish the sledge hammer on the shooting community here.

Sparks

To be honest cooki, I don't think they'd need that. They didn't when bringing in a crackdown on handguns, they just had Deasy ranting at the Minister in the Dail and getting a bit of press, and that was it.

As to divide and conquer, we were all standing together as one united group in the FCP - and it wasn't the DoJ or the AGS or even the Minister who put the kibosh on that and splintered things again.

cookimonster

It does indeed look like we are splintered and in a perfect position for any and all hits. Lets hope our concerns amount to nothing.........

yubabill1

AGS having failed to stem the flood of illegal drugs into every town in the country, taking firearms out of the hands of citizens is a logical step to legalising said drugs.

bravestar

yubabill1 wrote: »

AGS having failed to stem the flood of illegal drugs into every town in the country

... like every other Police force in the entire world. I blame AGS for me not getting a Mr frosty when I was five. You do know AGS don't write the law don't you?

chem

bravestar wrote: »

... like every other Police force in the entire world. I blame AGS for me not getting a Mr frosty when I was five. You do know AGS don't write the law don't you?

Haha!

yubabill1

bravestar wrote: »

... like every other Police force in the entire world. I blame AGS for me not getting a Mr frosty when I was five. You do know AGS don't write the law don't you?

AGS are charged with maintaining law and order. From what I read in the papers, drug abuse is associated with crimes other than abusing illegal drugs.
As long as demand for illegal drugs stays at present levels, AGS will struggle without significant extra resources and will pass the heat on to people like us.
AGS also seem to have a big input into firearms legislation, from what I can see.

Witcher

What does the illegal importation and sale of drugs have to do with legally held firearms?

Tackleberry.

From what I have heard on these rumours is that its really the .22 pistol mag capacity issue that is the biggy then semi auto shotguns are included in the capacity issue and that .308 rifles may become restricted...
Hope it's all not true as I'm included in every issue, I may as well pack a bag...

Dian Cecht

bravestar wrote: »

... You do know AGS don't write the law don't you?

Pity some of them don't know it wouldn't be any need for a lot of shooters having to go to Court

Cass

Tackleberry. wrote: »

From what I have heard on these rumours is that its really the .22 capacity issue that the biggy.

Same here

then semi auto shotguns are included in the capacity issue

Could be. Some, like my Beretta, come plugged by the manufacturer, and cannot be altered by simply removing a rod, or some other simple task. Others have this option. Very much like putting a ten round mag in an unrestricted pistol.

and that .308 rifles may become restricted...

Did not hear about this. Would be a silly move. A very popular caliber for hunters, and a key caliber for target shooters. Making them restricted would achieve nothing. No increase in fee for restricted firearms, and changin a caliber from unrestricted to restricted would require numerous interviews by Chief Supers, and then any refusals have a golden appeal. I was safe before so why am i not now.

Although those reasons amount to sweet feck all in terms of a reason to keep them as is.

Hope it's all not true as I'm included in every issue, I may as well pack a bag...

.308 and semi auto shotgun would have an effect on me too. No pistol anymore.

yubabill1

Blay wrote: »

What does the illegal importation and sale of drugs have to do with legally held firearms?

The way I see it, one of the more coherent arguments - from a pool of highly spurious ones - is that AGS are saying legally-held firearms could be stolen and fall into criminal hands:

We all know how weak an argument that is and that the undercurrent is AGS/DoJ need a cheap and convenient grandstand to show they are tough on gun crime, by tightening firearms legislation.
Joe Public doesn't care enough to discriminate between illegal and legal firearms, so the cheap shot gives AGS/DoJ payback every time.

Needless to say, I'm pretty pi**ed.

Tackleberry.

Hi Cass, how's the knees?
Well what I was actually told was that .243 is what there new limit would be and that all above would be restricted.