Gardai proposals to ban firearms

Tea drinker

Guys and gals, lets email in a polite and strong manner, lets not have someone tune out of it half way through the email.
We have to get the point across that we aren't going to have this bill and this kind of treatment but insults and rants is not sticking to the point.
I'll be emailing tonight but I want to spend 20 minutes putting something legible together before sending it on.
Good luck in your literary endeavours!

gavindublin

@boatmad

Ive read your posts and you seem a well educated, literate and competent person.

would you be willing to put together a more rational template for some of us who dont know what to be writing??

BoatMad

gavindublin wrote: »

@boatmad

Ive read your posts and you seem a well educated, literate and competent person.

would you be willing to put together a more rational template for some of us who dont know what to be writing??

I always respond to flattery

heres what I sent to my TDs ( one is a minister) , its far from perfect

"Dear Minister/TD

I draw your attention to the document "Department of Justice and Equality / An Garda Síochána, Working Group on Review of Firearms
Licensing November 2014" available here http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/2014.W....WG.Report.pdf

I am a responsible firearms owner, who only engages in target shooting on licensed ranges. The proposals contained in this review, if implemented, would destroy the harmless sport of target shooting, It would hand completely arbitrarily powers of refusal to the Gardai, who would no longer have to justify why a particular person should have a particular firearm and furthermore, it seeks to link illegal gun crime, with ordinary law abiding members of the public that hold completely legal firearm licenses. Unsubstantiated or over exaggerated claims are also made in an attempt to portray such firearms and by extension , their holders, as somehow bordering on the criminal.


Ireland, has, by far, Europe's most restrictive firearm licensing system. Our licensing system suffers from excessive bureaucracy and large inconsistencies across Garda administrative districts . Were these suggestions to be enshrined in legislation, it would cause immediate financial loss to people that acquired and licensed firearms with the clear understanding they were doing so completely legally.

As my TD, I wish to prevail upon you, to not only acquaint yourself with this attempt to further restrict the rights of ordinary firearms holders, sportsmen and women, but also to lobby , on my and other sporting enthusiasts behalf, to ensure that these suggestions are not proceeded with. Further it is admitted in the briefing document, that no consultation has been entered into with the relevant sporting bodies on the matters of this review, This clearly should be undertaken before any further action is taken.


I trust in your attention to this matter

yubabill1

Sparks wrote: »

I agree - I just don't think that means we need to row in behind someone and put them in charge in order to do it -- in fact I think if we do that, we lose pretty much instantly.
And the noises are already well underway to push that line, which only serves to splinter us all further. A wise person would just focus on the problem instead of on using the problem to increase their personal fiefdom at our expense. Not that I'm thinking of anyone specifically, of course, merely making a general hypothetical observation...

I think we need a temporary coalition of representative groups who may act independently, but with a co-ordinated agenda.

No-one can represent all shooters.

This is a consultation, the minister hasn't even decided the form the consultation is going to take ( read: doesn't know what form..), so let's take part and see what happens.

IMHO this consultation will lead us exactly nowhere - AGS (not DoJ - they're really not interested, just along for the ride) will still seek to ban handguns and compromise on semi auto shotguns/ push to ban S/A C/F rifles, legislate for Idon'tlikethelookofthat and allow reloading in the Midlands before coming back in 5 years for more.

We probably all know this; the email blizzard will show them we're going in to the consultation with our eyes open, but we need an overarching strategy and a fallback strategy.

in summary - we can disagree on tactics in the early stages without many consequences, but to guarantee success it's highly desirable to co-operate on strategy as time goes on.

gavindublin

Thanks for that boatmad.

seems a lot more along the lines of what im after.

thanks

BoatMad

yubabill1 wrote: »

I think we need a temporary coalition of representative groups who may act independently, but with a co-ordinated agenda.

No-one can represent all shooters.

This is a consultation, the minister hasn't even decided the form the consultation is going to take ( read: doesn't know what form..), so let's take part and see what happens.

IMHO this consultation will lead us exactly nowhere - AGS (not DoJ - they're really not interested, just along for the ride) will still seek to ban handguns and compromise on semi auto shotguns/ push to ban S/A C/F rifles, legislate for Idon'tlikethelookofthat and allow reloading in the Midlands before coming back in 5 years for more.

We probably all know this; the email blizzard will show them we're going in to the consultation with our eyes open, but we need an overarching strategy and a fallback strategy.

in summary - we can disagree on tactics in the early stages without many consequences, but to guarantee success it's highly desirable to co-operate on strategy as time goes on.

Indeed, I agree with all you say ,however

Or relationship with the AGS, will have to be improved, if there are personality issues on our end , we will have to resolve them. Our own history is not good in this regard

We will have to agree internally, what series of compromises we are willing to except. I believe that the document is probably an attempt in one direction and we will have to present an alternative. The compromise will be in the "middle"

We cannot simply go in with " no no no", the door will slam in our faces, and thats that.

I have already stated what I believe is not sustainable.

We had a situation not so long ago, where in practice, one could just about license a shotgun and a 0.22 rifle, Target shooting was almost impossible,

We , as a result of a court case, opened a loophole ( as far as the legislators are concerned) , which is being successively closed by the justice acts and their amendments.

We now have to prioritise our requirements, we cannot seek to retain everything , thats simply not how negotiations work


Ultimately , this sport will only survive if we build excellent, not good, not adequate relationships with Senior Gardai. Ultimately this is where the pressure comes from. Dragging them through the courts is not the way to do this.



Our key goal , must be to get into consolations and present an erudite, reasoned argument. We must impress upon officers of the state, that the sport is well managed, reliable and reasonable.

We will have to compromise.


The alternative is clearly staring us in the face.


In the meantime, we must seek to inform our TDs and seek access to the Minister. IN the medium term we MUST rebuild a relationship with Senior Gardai.

yubabill1

BoatMad wrote: »

Indeed, I agree with all you say ,however

Or relationship with the AGS, will have to be improved, if there are personality issues on our end , we will have to resolve them. Our own history is not good in this regard

We will have to agree internally, what series of compromises we are willing to except. I believe that the document is probably an attempt in one direction and we will have to present an alternative. The compromise will be in the "middle"

Our key goal , must be to get into consolations and present an erudite, reasoned argument. We must impress upon officers of the state, that the sport is well managed, reliable and reasonable.

We will have to compromise.


The alternative is clearly staring us in the face.


In the meantime, we must seek to inform our TDs and seek access to the Minister. IN the medium term we MUST rebuild a relationship with Senior Gardai.

We all know about our own problems.

It is possible to work with people you don't agree with. I have been in a couple of teams like that, but it requires a leader without ego.

As to compromise - we don't have to compromise. We can argue our case and when it's ignored - as it will be IMHO - we can all apply to license our mate's .22 or single barrel or whatever you need to licence, just that we'll all do it in the same month.

loftypheasant

Pandering to the guards with compromises is a bad idea. Lobbying the politicians is about the only way to go. If the DOJ and the guards get them on side it's over bar the shouting. If these proposals go through they will be back for more. You have to hand it the the guards and the DOJ and their optimism (and neck) about revamping the (non-functioning) licensing system when you consider their incompetence in handling everyday justice and policing matters as seen in recent official reports and media commentary. The latest report published by the DOJ/guards is the greatest work of fiction I've ever had the pleasure to read. I thought the Commissioner's Guideline's were good but these are much better. I'm off now to research US visas.

yubabill1

loftypheasant wrote: »

Pandering to the guards with compromises is a bad idea. Lobbying the politicians is about the only way to go. If the DOJ and the guards get them on side it's over bar the shouting

The Minister is on their side 100% and don't make any mistake.

TD's really have very little say, unless a decent number of them get quite concerned.

Taking into account the grinding AGS gave shooters in the courts since the new legislation, they really want these recommendations in force.

At this early stage, it's down to how many TD's contact the Minister and how worried they are.

BoatMad

yubabill1 wrote: »

We all know about our own problems.

It is possible to work with people you don't agree with. I have been in a couple of teams like that, but it requires a leader without ego.

As to compromise - we don't have to compromise. We can argue our case and when it's ignored - as it will be IMHO - we can all apply to license our mate's .22 or single barrel or whatever you need to licence, just that we'll all do it in the same month.

Sorry, your idea of retaliation is like being head butted by a dead sheep.

We have to compromise, the very fact that such legislation is being demanded by the Gardai ( in essence) is in my view a direct result of the court challenge.

If we don't put a cogent argument together then we will loose, There will be no protest, the rifle and shotgun people will go their own merry way and it will a few hundred pistol shooters crying into their beer.

What people fail to realise, is that we have lost the case for centre fire pistols, its was lost at the introduction of the 2009 act. End of story. No-one is going to reverse that decision. no-one.

Attempting to keep it alive, by dragging the Gardai through the courts in stupid process to keep several hundred firearms grandfathered will now most likely cause the loss of all sporting handguns. That is the "victory" we snatched from the courts.

This is not about the rights and wrongs , this is about a sport that simply has failed to build bridges and relationships and in fact in the past has actively destroyed those relationships. We are out in the cold and this is the result.

Whether we can slow or stop some of this legislation is up for debate. I personably have no faith in the screechings of the NARGC.

Other then political lobbying, there is little an ordinary member can do.

SVI40

Unfortunately, time and time again, compromise has not got us anywhere. We are on a very slippery slope to being left with almost no type of firearms. AGS want CF and SB pistols gone, CF Semi Rifles and Semi Shotguns capable of holding more that 3 cartridges. What happens next time? CF Lever rifles, then SB lever rifles?

This is the initial draft of what I will be sending to my TDs and Senators. It still needs some work, but get across how we feel, and how it will affect them

Deputy,

I am communicating this letter to you in the hope that you may be able to help and advise the Government to avoid what would be a serious error of judgement which could potentially alienate many thousands of law abiding sportspeople across the country, hurt your party and further weaken support for the Government.

It would be wise for all Oireachtas members to elicit exactly what the rationale is for the further restriction and possible revocation of firearms certificates currently held by law abiding citizens. Can I suggest that it would be wise to elicit from the Department/Minister for Justice or Gardaí – what precisely is the problem that they are seeking to solve with the new restrictions that are being planned. What credible evidence is there to justify the proposed restriction?. I am confident that when you do it will become clear that this is a knee jerk reaction to a problem that does not exist. Are you satisfied that it is based on sound credible evidence rather than simply the opinion of a small number of individuals?

Wise politicians would ask themselves is there a real problem and what is to be gained by what is now proposed, as the decision, if it goes ahead will unquestionably alienate many thousands of respectable law abiding sportspeople and their families. I can assure you that there is VERY strong feeling on this matter not just among those to be directly affected but amongst the wider community of firearms certificate holders, one household in eight holds a licenced firearm. Such is the strength of feeling on this that if this is proceeded with the negative feeling it will generate could have long lasting effect with political implications, in some cases for up to a generation or more.

Coming on top of opposition to the water charges, the Donna Hartnett letter in recent days, disquiet among the second level teachers unions etc. is it now wise to unreasonably discommode yet another and very sizeable sector of the community.

You, or any political representative can find out more about what is proposed and the likely impact at an open information session to be held in Buswells Hotel on 20th November.

We are confident that a balanced political weighing up of the situation would conclude that that the negative impacts on Government would hugely outweigh the merits, if any, of the restrictions being planned. It will certainly alienate a further very sizeable well educated, well informed and professional sector of the community/electorate?

Please accept this advice for what it is - a heads up on an issue on which Government may be about to make a major but very avoidable mistake.

Yours sincerely,

yubabill1

BoatMad wrote: »

Sorry, your idea of retaliation is like being head butted by a dead sheep.


Other then political lobbying, there is little an ordinary member can do.

So jamming Pulse for 2 or 3 months is not going to work?

I beg to differ.

Several thousand licence applications all at once would put a potentially intolerable strain on senior Gardaí involved in admin IMHO.

They really do have better things to do.

Prime yourself for fight or flight on this consultation, because we all really need to be on the one hymn sheet (for once and maybe only this once).

OK, let's lobby all our politicians and by all means create an email blizzard - but that can't be every tool at our disposal, or we are not in a position of strength.

BoatMad

not bad,

You might mention the EU survey source of the one in 8 statistic, otherwise you might not be believed.

Government may be about to make a major but very avoidable mistake

or course this is the key issue, will it be seen as a mistake.

BoatMad

yubabill1 wrote: »

So jamming Pulse for 2 or 3 months is not going to work?

I beg to differ.

Several thousand licence applications all at once would put a potentially intolerable strain on senior Gardaí involved in admin IMHO.

They really do have better things to do.

Prime yourself for fight or flight on this consultation, because we all really need to be on the one hymn sheet (for once and maybe only this once).

Oh for pets sake. All that will happen is the Guards will put all those applications on a TBA file and process one a month . Seriously , its puerile , not to mention you will not get all theses applications, and anyway , unless you expect to get land use signatures or club applications, they'l reject the lot.

Honestly, its like your kids refusing to eat dinner cause they are mad at their parents.


We CANNOT win this argument by these methods. All we can so if frame a coherent and logical argument, we WILL have to accept some compromise and proceed on.

What happens in the future, will be in the future. people seem to forget that we have no constitutional rights here, the whole ball game could be banned in future, who knows.

BoatMad

Unfortunately, time and time again, compromise has not got us anywhere. We are on a very slippery slope to being left with almost no type of firearms. AGS want CF and SB pistols gone, CF Semi Rifles and Semi Shotguns capable of holding more that 3 cartridges. What happens next time? CF Lever rifles, then SB lever rifles

Actually our inability to build any sort of relationship, the failure of the consultative committee etc , the attempt at publicly humiliating the police force of the state etc, thats why er are where we are, not from compromises. ( what actual compromises did we make to date ??)

Grizzly 45

We have compromised enough,and if you think more compromises will save your side of things you are sadly mistaken.

I remember sitting in the IPSA EGM[practical pistol] a few years ago and being told. "Close up the practical pistol side of things lads or ALL pistol shooting is gone..And if you do, your CF will be grand for WA1500 and T&P and .22s." Duly done and within 3 MONTHS the refusals for CF came down the line.
Now its "Give up the.CF lads s and we will be grand with the .22s."
Not noticing that there are already problems with "military and combat" .22s or any that "could " take a ten shot mag..Nothing to stop anyone taping two five rounders on the Olympic style pistol together is there???Dont think for ONE moment that Olympic style pistols are safe either...Wait until someone gets offed with one of them and you can join the UK Olympic team shouting BANG in their living rooms with their Xbox trainer toys.
Sorry,I have NO intention of being fooled again by compromises and deals and other such. Start realising you are dealing with an extremely anti gun police force who have indoctrinated and indoctrinate in Templemore in their Garda guide that "handguns are especially dangerous and should not be liscensed under any circumstances" attiudes. We give any ground in this and it will be death by a thousand cuts... All they have to do is declare your area a high crime area and revoke ALL liscenses irrespective.

I'd suggest the following as a compromise.We decide that we want legislation and procedure along the German side of things.It is about the toughest there is in Europe,everything from mental backround checks to having to have a virtual safe to store over ten guns ,to written oral,practical exams and a six month probation of club membership before you can apply after been signed off by the club sec to apply for your firearm.
Wht anti gun politco and Garda wouldnt jump on this offer.HOWEVER the catch is; AGS ,bar the bac kround check is removed from the liscensing procedure.
They have shown that they are anti gun,biased,and a busted flush,and if they stay involved in this it will be just us crucifying ourselves to a whim of an anti gun Superintendant.They have to GO out of this system for this to work.. It becomes a centralised civillian operation.The legislation is drawn with proper definitions as to what is allowed and not allowed in firearms once and for all.The liscenses becomes liscensing the man not the gun.Valid for 5 years,and there is no more "idontlikethe lookodat" nonsense.If you prove good need and there is a vaible sport niche for whatever you are shooting on items as they are now there,it becomes a SHALL ISSUE item.

Compromise yes,but NOT with someone elses segment of the sport. Give them another reason to keep us good citizens..Link a driving under the influence suspension or over seven penalty points to loss of your gun liscense! Germany and France do it...Makes sense..You are drunk in charge of a car,can you be trusted with a firearm?They even have it if you are a tax dodger you lose your liscense...

Obviously not all of it will transfer to over here,but is it better to toughen up on getting the gun with the assurance in law that if you do what is required,BY LAW you will get the gun at the end of the process ?Or have a more or less where anyone can get a gun ,but it is on the whim of an unqualified to judge,due to personal bias and no training person with too much power on their whims??
By actually "losing a freedom" here we could actually gain much more under a more draconian system belive it or not.

Sparks

yubabill1 wrote: »

I think we need a temporary coalition of representative groups

Honestly, that's not going to do any of us any good at all. The AGS don't care if we're one group or twenty. What we need is to get us back into the tent peeing out, so to speak. Reinstate the FCP, which would force reviews like this to go across the table in front of us instead of being done behind closed doors. That's the best possible end goal for us in the long run.

I have little doubt however, that that approach is going to be trashed over the coming weeks with the FCP being portrayed at best as being this ineffectual talking-shop. I'm going to try not to laugh outright at the daftness of that (seriously, which do you prefer, the AGS always talking about restrictions in a talking shop or the AGS getting the Minister to pass Acts that bring in restrictions?) but I'm pessimistic about this whole state of affairs.

Sparks

SVI40 wrote: »

Unfortunately, time and time again, compromise has not got us anywhere.

People keep saying this, but nobody has ever managed to explain what other option there is. The law does not allow us a veto on a sitting Minister. The courts aren't worth the money - if 2006 didn't teach you that and 2009 didn't teach you that, I'd lay money on you not learning it in 2015 or 2016 either, but I would lay money on us losing. We can't outvote them - there are 100,000 of us and about three million in the electorate. Democracy means our votes are equal to everyone elses, so the numbers don't work in our favour.

So what, exactly, is the plan if it's not to find a reasonable compromise on firearms legislation? (And for fecks's sakes, stop thinking "compromise" means "selling out". In this case, "compromise" means "We'll go along with most of your review, but the bans are too far and we won't support them").

yubabill1

Sparks wrote: »

Honestly, that's not going to do any of us any good at all. The AGS don't care if we're one group or twenty. What we need is to get us back into the tent peeing out, so to speak. Reinstate the FCP, which would force reviews like this to go across the table in front of us instead of being done behind closed doors. That's the best possible end goal for us in the long run.

Ok I'll try to put it better if I can

We need to function together temporarily for the purposes of this consultation.

I know next-to-nothing about the FCP other than the essentials, but from where I'm sitting, it doesn't look like it's coming back any time soon. Too bad.

But we still have this problem in front of us, which is well-constructed, well-resourced, but far from insurmountable.

To paraphrase what you already said - we can't be playing draughts if they are playing chess.

Sparks

yubabill1 wrote: »

So jamming Pulse for 2 or 3 months is not going to work?

It might, but you can't actually do that. We only use Pulse if the licences are granted. As to sending in tens of thousands of applications, all the AGS have to do is smile, nod, say "thank you" and put them in a box. Three months later, the law says they have been correctly processed, correctly rejected and the applicants have legally been notified of that. They don't have to lift a finger.

yubabill1

Sparks wrote: »

People keep saying this, but nobody has ever managed to explain what other option there is. The law does not allow us a veto on a sitting Minister. The courts aren't worth the money - if 2006 didn't teach you that and 2009 didn't teach you that, I'd lay money on you not learning it in 2015 or 2016 either, but I would lay money on us losing. We can't outvote them - there are 100,000 of us and about three million in the electorate. Democracy means our votes are equal to everyone elses, so the numbers don't work in our favour.

Well, the electorate have shown a huge appetite for not getting involved in this - ref. EU firearms consultation last year/ politics.ie thread id dead as doornails/journal.ie articles mostly viewed by shooters/ broadsheet.ie thread dead.

This issue has no legs, as they say in the media, so it's just us vs AGS.

They have tried the spook SOP of discrediting us as a group in the media over the summer and it looks like Joe Public still has the same opinion of us (none).

Sparks

yubabill1 wrote: »

We need to function together temporarily for the purposes of this consultation.

That doesn't require taking one group and putting them in charge. It requires us to not go behind others backs or stamp on toes or generally act like gombeens. I think most of us are more than able to do that.

I know next-to-nothing about the FCP other than the essentials, but from where I'm sitting, it doesn't look like it's coming back any time soon. Too bad.

Yes, but that's not because of the AGS or the DoJ. That's because of us. If we wanted it back, that's a real possibility.

To paraphrase what you already said - we can't be playing draughts if they are playing chess.

Yup. And pounding the table during a chess game doesn't let you win either, it just gets you disqualified

BoatMad

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

We have compromised enough,and if you think more compromises will save your side of things you are sadly mistaken.

I remember sitting in the IPSA EGM[practical pistol] a few years ago and being told. "Close up the practical pistol side of things lads or ALL pistol shooting is gone..And if you do, your CF will be grand for WA1500 and T&P and .22s." Duly done and within 3 MONTHS the refusals for CF came down the line.

Sorry, a court case opened up a loophole, we lost the case with the 2009 act, There was no compromise, we lost - comprende.

Now its "Give up the.CF lads s and we will be grand with the .22s."

we are at their mercy , unless we bridge bridges. They will continue to strip away access to firearms.

Not noticing that there are already problems with "military and combat" .22s or any that "could " take a ten shot mag..Nothing to stop anyone taping two five rounders on the Olympic style pistol together is there???Dont think for ONE moment that Olympic style pistols are safe either...Wait until someone gets offed with one of them and you can join the UK Olympic team shouting BANG in their living rooms with their Xbox trainer toys.

Irelevent, seriously go on Pat Kenny and publicly justify handguns , see what happens,Understand you have NO RIGHTS to any firearm.

Sorry,I have NO intention of being fooled again by compromises and deals and other such. Start realising you are dealing with an extremely anti gun police force who have indoctrinated and indoctrinate in Templemore in their Garda guide that "handguns are especially dangerous and should not be liscensed under any circumstances" attiudes.

Then That is a failure of our sport to cultivate relationships with the Gardai, dragging them repeatedly through the courts is helping that sure.

We give any ground in this and it will be death by a thousand cuts... All they have to do is declare your area a high crime area and revoke ALL liscenses irrespective.

Yes, that could easily happen in this country. Very hard to argue against it, the authorities hold all the aces.

I'd suggest the following as a compromise.We decide that we want legislation and procedure along the German side of things.It is about the toughest there is in Europe,everything from mental backround checks to having to have a virtual safe to store over ten guns ,to written oral,practical exams and a six month probation of club membership before you can apply after been signed off by the club sec to apply for your firearm.

Not bad, the devil is in the detail , it will not bring back Cf pistols though

HOWEVER the catch is; AGS ,bar the backround check is removed from the liscensing procedure.
They have shown that they are anti gun,biased,and a busted flush,and if they stay involved in this it will be just us crucifying ourselves to a whim of an anti gun Superintendant.

Not a hope, and rightly so , the character of the holder is a legimate reason to withhold a firearms license. That will not work

They have to GO out of this system for this to work.. It becomes a centralised civillian operation.The legislation is drawn with proper definitions as to what is allowed and not allowed in firearms once and for all.The liscenses becomes liscensing the man not the gun.Valid for 5 years,and there is no more "idontlikethe lookodat" nonsense.If you prove good need and there is a vaible sport niche for whatever you are shooting on items as they are now there,it becomes a SHALL ISSUE item.

Dreams, Dreams, That requires fundamental changes to the legislation , not to happen ( gov a little pre-occupied) ,

Compromise yes,but NOT with someone elses segment of the sport. Give them another reason to keep us good citizens..Link a driving under the influence suspension or over seven penalty points to loss of your gun liscense! Germany and France do it...Makes sense..You are drunk in charge of a car,can you be trusted with a firearm?They even have it if you are a tax dodger you lose your liscense..

.

Again not a bad idea, but the devils in the detail. It will be very hard to convince a Minister that firearms licensing should be transferred to a civilian body, can't see the Gardai lying down on that one. Again , and I know this isn't popular, but the CF case is lost , its never coming back. We have to seek some stability and not have amendments every 2-3 years .

Obviously not all of it will transfer to over here,but is it better to toughen up on getting the gun with the assurance in law that if you do what is required,BY LAW you will get the gun at the end of the process ?

First good point

Or have a more or less where anyone can get a gun ,but it is on the whim of an unqualified to judge,due to personal bias and no training person with too much power on their whims??

Note Judges cannot award licenses.

By actually "losing a freedom" here we could actually gain much more under a more draconian system belive it or not.

perhaps, but to gain traction, you need a relationship with the other side, thats missing

Sparks

yubabill1 wrote: »

Well, the electorate have shown a huge appetite for not getting involved in this - ref. EU firearms consultation last year/ politics.ie thread id dead as doornails/journal.ie articles mostly viewed by shooters/ broadsheet.ie thread dead.

That's more down to the water charges protest in Jobstown going nuclear, Irish Water getting some fangs pulled in public and a few other things. But that's okay, that's not a bad thing. Being on the front pages doesn't actually help us much - most people are not shooters, don't know anything about firearms other than what they see in hollywood and are far more worried about mortgages, bills, water bills in particular, trying not to lose their jobs or finding new ones, childcare costs or a hundred other things that affect their lives directly. They see us on the front pages, know nothing about us and just want us out of the way so they can see the stuff they are worried about. That doesn't lead to them being on our side.

This issue has no legs, as they say in the media, so it's just us vs AGS.

With the Minister having to judge which is going to win. It won't be us in that case.
However, if the option was on the table to - pardon the jargon now - bring all the stakeholders together to further discuss the proposed legislative plans and form a consensus on the best practice of law while maintaining community relations and enlisting the technical expertise of that community to facilitate smooth and efficient policing and risk management....

Can you name me a politician who wouldn't see that as an attractive solution to a noisy problem at a time when there's more than enough stress from other problems to sink a government?

yubabill1

Sparks wrote: »

It might, but you can't actually do that. We only use Pulse if the licences are granted. As to sending in tens of thousands of applications, all the AGS have to do is smile, nod, say "thank you" and put them in a box. Three months later, the law says they have been correctly processed, correctly rejected and the applicants have legally been notified of that. They don't have to lift a finger.

Then we'll have to lift the phone to them.

I'm talking about proper applications, inevitably there will be glitches but the aim will be to actually get licensed - it will cost us E80, plus phone calls but we'll be able to shoot our mate's gun.

Of course, some will have less use for whatever they might license, but for me, I could really do with access to a 22LR from time-to-time.

BoatMad

Sparks wrote: »

That doesn't require taking one group and putting them in charge. It requires us to not go behind others backs or stamp on toes or generally act like gombeens. I think most of us are more than able to do that.


Yes, but that's not because of the AGS or the DoJ. That's because of us. If we wanted it back, that's a real possibility.

Yup. And pounding the table during a chess game doesn't let you win either, it just gets you disqualified

Sparks is the man, you've said this many times, why the shooting community doesn't get , is utterly beyond me.,

BoatMad

yubabill1 wrote: »

Then we'll have to lift the phone to them.

I'm talking about proper applications, inevitably there will be glitches but the aim will be to actually get licensed - it will cost us E80, plus phone calls but we'll be able to shoot our mate's gun.

Of course, some will have less use for whatever they might license, but for me, I could really do with access to a 22LR from time-to-time.

Please stop this "massive license " nonsense. Its really just a drag them into court process by another name. All that will happen is another amendment.

You just can't win this process by trying to "push it"

yubabill1

Sparks wrote: »

With the Minister having to judge which is going to win. It won't be us in that case.
However, if the option was on the table to - pardon the jargon now - bring all the stakeholders together to further discuss the proposed legislative plans and form a consensus on the best practice of law while maintaining community relations and enlisting the technical expertise of that community to facilitate smooth and efficient policing and risk management....

Can you name me a politician who wouldn't see that as an attractive solution to a noisy problem at a time when there's more than enough stress from other problems to sink a government?

Sounds interesting. We have to make a fair bit of noise first, though - but definitely a plan.

BoatMad

bring all the stakeholders together to further discuss the proposed legislative plans and form a consensus on the best practice of law while maintaining community relations and enlisting the technical expertise of that community to facilitate smooth and efficient policing and risk management....

sounds like an excellent strategy no minister could refuse , maybe even a win win

Sparks

BoatMad wrote: »

Note Judges cannot award licenses.

Um.
Actually, they can. Ever since the 2006 Act, the Super's persona designata status has been gone, even though a lot of us didn't notice at the time and that report doesn't seem to recognise it either. But nevertheless, under Section 15(4) of the Act:

(4) Where the appeal is allowed, the issuing person shall give effect to the Court’s decision.

That means, if the Judge says grant the licence, the Super must grant the licence. It's one of the very, very few "must"s that the law points at the AGS.