Gardai proposals to ban firearms

meathstevie

OzCam wrote: »

Anyone else noticing that whenever you get a PQ asked that might turn up anything that might help your case the data is mysteriously "unavailable" or "will cost too much to find out" or is still awaiting some response that noone seems to be in a hurry with?

Must be a coincidence.

If one finds that AGS is too slow producing date or appears to not be very forthcoming with them and you believe it to be in the public interest that these data are delivered there's only one place to call: GSOC

Grizzly 45

meathstevie wrote: »

If one finds that AGS is too slow producing date or appears to not be very forthcoming with them and you believe it to be in the public interest that these data are delivered there's only one place to call: GSOC

GSOC washes Garda Cheif Supers whiter than white on firearms issues.:rolleyes:
Eight complaints in the Limerick/Clare/Cork region and not one of them was worth investigsting,investigation was too time consuming or was dismissed on technicalities..:rolleyes:
GSOC answers to the Dail,and if somone wants to dp something worthwhile,investigating GSOC handling of such complaints would be time better spent.
There is evidence there and all Min Fitzgerald has been either misled by her dept in that answer,or has deliberately misled the house in trying to evade answering the question.

Chiparus

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/firearm-ownersto-fight-gun-law-changes-304872.html


Looks like they were not expecting this level of opposition.

bpb101

Chiparus wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/firearm-ownersto-fight-gun-law-changes-304872.html


Looks like they were not expecting this level of opposition.

Shockley badly written with almost no research. One thing they say is 80 written proposals . I would have thought it would be in its thousands ?


Cheers for the update though

yubabill1

Chiparus wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/firearm-ownersto-fight-gun-law-changes-304872.html


Looks like they were not expecting this level of opposition.

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

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/ourview/firearms-legislation-review--a-small-price-to-pay-to-avert-murder-304823.html

yubabill1

Been working on a submission over the hols

One question - AGS cannot have a blanket policy of firearms refusals under current legislation

Does that extend to the previous legislation?

Trying to establish whether the policy of "you can put a deposit on one of those, but you won't get a licence" from 1972 -2004 was legal (not that it matters much)

Sponge25

I'm tired of this poxy country, I can't wait to leave for Pennsylvania once and for all. I'll never be coming back. Nanny state.

Grizzly 45

Anyone read the moronic snide editorial comment on this article??"In the USA blah,blah,blah"!"This is a small price to pay for saftey in ireland"" yet we have the third highest rating for gun murders in Europe!! "
"This wont affect single shot deer rifles or double barrel shotguns" and other such wise pronouncements!!Looks like "de paper "has gone like most of them in ireland in my rating to suitable bird cage lining!!

Sparks

yubabill1 wrote: »

One question - AGS cannot have a blanket policy of firearms refusals under current legislation
Does that extend to the previous legislation?

No, it extends to the constitution. The supreme court ruled that a blanket ban constituted a rewriting of the Firearms Act and that was only within the purview of the Oireachtas, not the Gardai or the Minister (except where allowed for by the Act, which very shortly after the supreme court verdict was changed to grant that authority to the Minister, but not the Gardai).

Trying to establish whether the policy of "you can put a deposit on one of those, but you won't get a licence" from 1972 -2004 was legal (not that it matters much)

It was ruled not to be and overturned, that was the point of the Brophy case.

yubabill1

Sparks wrote: »

No, it extends to the constitution. The supreme court ruled that a blanket ban constituted a rewriting of the Firearms Act and that was only within the purview of the Oireachtas, not the Gardai or the Minister (except where allowed for by the Act, which very shortly after the supreme court verdict was changed to grant that authority to the Minister, but not the Gardai).


It was ruled not to be and overturned, that was the point of the Brophy case.

So, a bit of history there, then. Looking to repeat itself, too.

Now, I remember the Garda representative telling the Justice Firearms Committee (I'll get it right for the submission, Sparks) that public safety is their number one concern and primary motivation for the series of DC cases they lost since 2009 - but I can find no mention of this concern (#1 concern, remember) in the Garda Policing Strategies on their website

http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=92&Lang=1

This is going to sting, when I send it to the committee (and I'm keeping all the juicy bits to myself, for now).

Sparks

I went and rewatched the video of the Dec17 meeting, taking notes. Skipping trivial things, I wound up with 60 problematic statements (ie. ones where any competent observer would be saying "er, no, that's horse****"). Much editing required to get a concise submission together

yubabill1

Sparks wrote: »

I went and rewatched the video of the Dec17 meeting, taking notes. Skipping trivial things, I wound up with 60 problematic statements (ie. ones where any competent observer would be saying "er, no, that's horse****"). Much editing required to get a concise submission together

Pointless going into detail - my problem is the same as yours, got to distil it down to punchy facts and observations.

These guys will appreciate brevity and clarity, I think - even the ones who have already indicated their support for the proposals.

bpb101

Sparks wrote: »

I went and rewatched the video of the Dec17 meeting, taking notes. Skipping trivial things, I wound up with 60 problematic statements (ie. ones where any competent observer would be saying "er, no, that's horse****"). Much editing required to get a concise submission together

have you got the full video somewhere sparks. i only saw the bit where that gob****e was saying lets get rid of 40 rounds automatics ak47 glocks

Sparks

bpb101 wrote: »

have you got the full video somewhere sparks. i only saw the bit where that gob****e was saying lets get rid of 40 rounds automatics ak47 glocks

Yeah, the links I posted in the other thread are working now bpb, but you have to fastforward to 58:30 in the video to see the proceedings.

Sparks

yubabill1 wrote: »

Pointless going into detail - my problem is the same as yours, got to distil it down to punchy facts and observations.

Yup, that's what appendices are for...

These guys will appreciate brevity and clarity, I think - even the ones who have already indicated their support for the proposals.

Exactly. Simple, clear writing, definite structure, adhere to the format they lay out, keep it civil even when pointing out someone's misleading the committee (whether intentionally or not) and keep it concise.

SVI40

Here is the video of the meeting, just over 1' 30" long. It's depressing to watch :mad:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3op44tMzwA

Grizzly 45

35 pages sofar and Im trying to keep it simple and short.You wouldnt know where to start on this godawful mess that has been festering since 1972 and even just dealing with generalities not to mind specifics takes reames.
Could do a masters degree on this topic and probably still have plenty for a doctorate.
One thing for sure win lose or draw AGS is going to come out of this with their reputation and last remaining creditability in utter tatters in the public eye.They really have opened the gates of Hell on themselves this time round.

yubabill1

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

35 pages sofar and Im trying to keep it simple and short.............They really have opened the gates of Hell on themselves this time round.

+1 on that.

My strategy is to present a snappy summary right up front, with numbered arguments offered "in your face - but nicely"

I am linking to information through hyperlinks in the summary and presenting essential (only essential - they will have a lot to read, from both sides) supporting information at the end.

In academia, it is common practice to place superscript numbers with the point being made and list the references together by number, in support of the arguments made.

I am making one and only one, exception, where I really want the reader to see the supporting information, which I am going to quote and hyperlink at the same time.

Will put it up here when I email the magnum opus.

I am also seriously thinking of doing a PowerPoint summary on this - I have found them really effective, if compiled properly. Might be a submission that stands out in their minds.

Gormley85

Lads will yous post up what yous have for the rest of us to see and not be keeping it a secret. Grizzly you have 35 pages long... Sparks you have found 60 "problematic statements" and yubabill sounds like yours is going to be good too. You know the rest of us are sitting here not knowing where to even start with this or what to say.

bpb101

Guidelines for people Please note a summary is required for submissions of more then 10 pages. After reading them , i really should have done a better job, i rushed mine unnecessarily

Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality invites submissions on the review of firearms licensing.
[FONT=Verdana, serif][FONT=Calibri, serif]The Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality has decided to invite written submissions from interested groups or individuals in relation to the Review of Firearms Licensing.[/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, serif][FONT=Calibri, serif]Written submissions should be sent electronically by email (MS Word or equivalent) and should be received not later than 3pm on Friday 9[/FONT][FONT=Calibri, serif]th[/FONT][FONT=Calibri, serif] January 2015 at the following email address only: firearmsreview@oireachtas.ie[/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, serif][FONT=Calibri, serif]It is essential that submissions are concise and to the point. Submissions should address only issues related to the Review and should not contain any unnecessary or superfluous material that does not relate directly to the subject. If reference is made to other publications, a link to this publication is sufficient and it is not necessary to send these as separate attachments. [/FONT][FONT=Calibri, serif]Pages in submissions should be numbered.[/FONT][/FONT]
Submissions and communications should only be sent to the email address above and not to individual members of the Committee. Please note that the Clerk will ensure that all members of the Committee receive, in due course, copies of all submissions and communications received. To avoid confusion and duplication, please do not forward hard copies of submissions made electronically.
In a separate document from your electronic submission, please include a covering letter outlining in brief why you are making a submission. The covering letter should include your name, your postal address, email address and contact telephone number. You should also indicate in your letter if you would be prepared to appear in public session at any Committee meeting.
The Committee will consider any suitable written submissions received and may decide to invite a number of contributors to public hearings should it be considered necessary.
IMPORTANT

1. Submissions sent to any other e-mail address may not be accepted.
2. Anonymous submissions cannot be accepted and will be rejected.
3. Petitions and Form letters may not be accepted or published.
4. Submissions made to a Committee may be published as received either as part of a Committee report, or separately, if the Committee decides to do so.

Format of Submissions
As a general guideline, submissions should always consist of a separate document accompanied by a covering letter. The covering letter should contain your name and contact details (phone number and postal address and, if available, an email address). If the submission is on behalf of an organisation, you should indicate your position in the organisation.
The main document should contain the following information:

1. A brief introduction, for example, explaining your area of expertise;
2. Any factual information that you have to offer from which the Committee might be able to draw conclusions, or which could be put to other parties for their reactions;
3. Any recommendations to the Committee which should be as specific as possible and should be summarised at the end of the document; and
4. An executive summary of the main points made in the submission, if your document is more than 10 pages long.

As already indicated, submissions should, where possible, be made by electronic means and it is not necessary to also forward a hard copy of your submission.
Making a submission is a public process
The Committee is not obliged to accept your document once it has been submitted, nor is it obliged to publish any or all of the submissions if it has been accepted. However, the operations of a parliament are a public process, and you should be aware that any submissions made to a Committee may be published either as part of a Committee report, or separately, if the Committee decides to do so.
A more detailed document outlining the guidelines for making a written submission is available from the Clerk to the Committee by clicking here and accessing document number 5.
Members of the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality
Deputies:
David Stanton (Chairman)
Anne Ferris (Vice-Chairman)
Niall Collins
Marcella Corcoran-Kennedy
Alan Farrell
Seán Kenny
Pádraig MacLochlainn
Finian McGrath
John Paul Phelan
Senators:
Ivana Bacik
Martin Conway
Tony Mulcahy
Rónán Mullen
Denis O’Donovan
Katherine Zappone.
Closing Date
The closing date for receipt of submissions is Friday 9th January 2015 at 3pm.
Should you have any queries in relation to this matter, please contact:

Alan Guidon
Clerk to the Committee
01 618 3899

yubabill1

Gormley85 wrote: »

Lads will yous post up what yous have for the rest of us to see and not be keeping it a secret. Grizzly you have 35 pages long... Sparks you have found 60 "problematic statements" and yubabill sounds like yours is going to be good too. You know the rest of us are sitting here not knowing where to even start with this or what to say.

Can't speak for anyone else, but whatever I post here is fair game for people to cut out and send to the committee.

Will put stuff up well before Friday and if you think any of it's worthwhile, feel free to use it.

Yuba.

Gormley85

yubabill1 wrote: »

Can't speak for anyone else, but whatever I post here is fair game for people to cut out and send to the committee.

Will put stuff up well before Friday and if you think any of it's worthwhile, feel free to use it.

Yuba.

Yeh that would be great thanks. Will they say anything about me making 2 submissions by the way? The first one wasnt the best by the looks of things.

Grizzly 45

Ill give you one header I m using "100 questions to be asked of AGS in relation to the firearns issue "
Seeing that they want further powers and there is on the irish statue books some of the most draconian gun laws in the EU.I think they should show "exceptional good need"as to why they want the law tightned up further.
Think each and every one of us should be able to come up with minimum 50 questions on the garda policy of the last decade.

bpb101

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

"exceptional good need"as to why they want the law tightned up further.
.

PUBLIC SAFETY Thats all their going to say day and night

yubabill1

bpb101 wrote: »

PUBLIC SAFETY Thats all their going to say day and night

That's what they call an emotive argument.

Emotive arguments defy logic; it is difficult to counter emotive arguments with logic.

Fight fire with fire.

Grizzly 45

bpb101 wrote: »

PUBLIC SAFETY Thats all their going to say day and night

PROVE the need for incresed public saftey that the previous laws have not satisfied!!
Have they any creditable evidence to say there is a threat?Have they any plausible description of what a combat pistol is and how is the logical process of defining such is arrived at in garda ballistics hq?They can bull on about public saftey but unless there is a clear and present danger you are on an uphill struggle to prove it.

bpb101

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

PROVE the need for incresed public saftey that the previous laws have not satisfied!!
Have they any creditable evidence to say there is a threat?Have they any plausible description of what a combat pistol is and how is the logical process of defining such is arrived at in garda ballistics hq?They can bull on about public saftey but unless there is a clear and present danger you are on an uphill struggle to prove it.

Thats the problem unfortunately , they dont need to and the reason they don't is that review committee are all reading from the same hymn sheet
"guns are bad ,all agreed" Has there been one politican that has stood up and said that this proposal is a load of bollocks. It will only happen if they allow shooters to go in front of the committee and that wont happen because garda ****y or wherever was leading the prayer wont have a leg to stand on. That garda stood up and said of them 200,000 firearms 145,000 are shotguns and 70,000 are rifles. nobody said anything . because they dont care.
They just sit there and have a chat about the yanks and their ak's and the garda bought picture books for them all to see the GLOCKS. also they were saying in that review committee about the gun that the garda were issued and i dont know what it is, but he never mentioned the name, but they he kept saying 9mm . Does anybody know if its the dreaded glocks the detectives have

The only reason that the garda have given is public safety as their reason is thats all they can give . And who dosent like public safety

if shooter saying anything we get "gun nuts wont give up glocks to save the children " on the front page of every spin paper

bpb101

Gormley85 wrote: »

Lads will yous post up what yous have for the rest of us to see and not be keeping it a secret. Grizzly you have 35 pages long... Sparks you have found 60 "problematic statements" and yubabill sounds like yours is going to be good too. You know the rest of us are sitting here not knowing where to even start with this or what to say.

mine was quite short i said there is no need for a straight out ban , if there is concern ask people for more reason why the need them.
i mentioned that air rifles and air pistols should no longer be classed the same as normal firearms (worth a shot), this is not the case in the uk , if we are going off their deal it should work both ways. I mentioned that there needs to be acknowledged that most models of semi auto shotguns dont make 3 rounds versions but are plugged to 3 rounds when they arrive. This has to be reflected and also , more than 3 rounds shouldn't be straight out banned .
pistols , the department dosent acknowledge that lengths and cost people have put in to get pistols ranges ect.
cf sa same as shotguns -require more reason stright out ban was not the solution

i also said that i better licensing system would be like the uk where you say i want to buy these 5 guns over the next 3 years and they grant you this and then you can buy them at your leisure. When you want to buy them , you just seek final approval. And i ended saying the report was bias and badly written .
Dress up a bit nicers but basically all in all

Grizzly 45

bpb101 wrote: »

Thats the problem unfortunately , they dont need to and the reason they don't is that review committee are all reading from the same hymn sheet
"guns are bad ,all agreed" Has there been one politican that has stood up and said that this proposal is a load of bollocks.

Well hate to tell ya we will be there and we will be making submissions. So we have a chance to put out side over.Trouble is those people on the comittee know as much about guns as I know about building interstellar space craft.You cant blame them for that either..No one can know everything about everything .And if you just see and hear Bullsht on a subject what else will ya know???
So our job is to make sure our submissions and chat at this comittee is informing them as much as possible as well on the subject.
They have heard AGS they are required to hear our side too.So dont start waving the white flag just yet.We are still capable of turning this well around .If public saftey was such a porority why didnt they ban them in toto in 2008???
What has changed in public saftey in 6 years???Esp when AGS own figures say there is a drop in gun crime in that period???

bpb101

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Well hate to tell ya we will be there and we will be making submissions. So we have a chance to put out side over.Trouble is those people on the comittee know as much about guns as I know about building interstellar space craft.You cant blame them for that either..No one can know everything about everything .And if you just see and hear Bullsht on a subject what else will ya know???
So our job is to make sure our submissions and chat at this comittee is informing them as much as possible as well on the subject.
They have heard AGS they are required to hear our side too.So dont start waving the white flag just yet.We are still capable of turning this well around .If public saftey was such a porority why didnt they ban them in toto in 2008???
What has changed in public saftey in 6 years???Esp when AGS own figures say there is a drop in gun crime in that period???

i dont know , im not waving the flag yet and i do hope we get our chance. I understand that people dont know everything about everything and i understand that , im mainly annoyed at the gardas who are leading the spin. i dont know why the garda are trying this. surely the know that it wont stop one person getting murdered by drug gangs. They must just be tired of the paperwork.The garda are mad on this idea of assult rifles , when they say themselves that they arent legal here. I was very annoyed at the fact they said that shooters are going to the courts because they know if they go to court they will get them. There should be no need for people to go to court. The reason they go is because the gardas cant follow their own laws http://youtu.be/T3op44tMzwA?t=35m20s