Gardai proposals to ban firearms

berettaman

Cass wrote: »

These people are at the heads of their respective groups. They were put there via a vote from the members that is usually held each year at the AGM. In cases such as this you, and everyone in an organisation, has access to the EGM feature whereby if a situation arises that is causing problems or of an emergency nature you can call a meeting.

Agreed.. We made a fair attempt to change things at our last AGM.. Some small success but the ego causing most problems in the coalition is unelected...Major headache to get rid of...

Grizzly 45

When did they repeal the Firearm Owners' Protection Act?

The firearms protection act doesnt cover just 1950 models it covers every type of SA rifle and shotgun.Ancient and modern.Whats proposed here is seemingly fine if it is a mid 1950 or before design .But any thing else is precluded.Tough for the lads who own HK SL8 or a SIG 550...

If you're playing the "ask more than you need" game, you don't start by giving away stuff that you don't want to give up, and you sure as hell don't start by giving away stuff that isn't yours to give away in the first place.

As I said its my theory whats being played here..As I said I cant see 80% of these proposals been taken seriously by either side.
So maybe tomrrow should be a very busy day for NARGCs switchboard facebook and email inbox with us all ringing to express our surprise and displeasure and just exactly WTF does this mean in plain simple English???And hear it from the spokesman himself??

Cass

As if we did not know so already, and in keeping with their policy over the last 18 months to two years, it seems the CSO still has no faith in An Gardaí statistics and as such will continue to refuse to publish crime stats.

So if the main body that covers/governs statistics does not trust An Gardaí how can the review committee take their bastardised figures on guns at face value?

yubabill1

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Whats proposed here is seemingly fine if it is a mid 1950 or before design .But any thing else is precluded.Tough for the lads who own HK SL8 or a SIG 550...

AFAIK Sig550 based on AK47, which, incidentally may qualify for licensing in 5.45x39/ .223 guises under Sports Coalition proposals (I believe D Aherne banned 7.62x39 calibre), although the AK74 is more correctly the 5.45 cal version which is post-50's.

You could argue the Sig550 is an AK clone, however- if they accept the R25 is a clone of AR10.

Just for titillation, the FN CAL is a 5.56x45 calibre based on the FN FAL, maybe a semi auto version could become available - sure why bother - the AR15 is the son of the AR10..........

Grizzly 45

yubabill1 wrote: »

AFAIK Sig550 based on AK47, which, incidentally would qualify for licensing in 5.45x39/ .223 guises under Sports Coalition proposals (I believe D Aherne banned 7.62x39 calibre).

Never heard of a specific caliber ban here.
7.62×39 is about onpar with a 30.30 Hard to say the 550 is an aK clone it trumps it in every way and design features.
Either way it would have been smarter to say semi auto rifles in a hunting or sporting version.
Would have a lot more scope to play.
I couldgo into the pendantics of the original AR10 of the 1950s as compared to the SR25 of the 00s and the difference in what two letters and numbers mean in the big picture of things and bore the frup out of everyone,but it these kind of generalisations that count then in the courts.


http://www.nasrpc.ie/hot-news-1/nasrpcstatementoninterimreport
Their statementr on this...
BTW April 10th folks is the NASRPC comittee meeting ...It might be somthing worth raising this point with them to discuss it?

yubabill1

Griz

Just kicking dirt around in frustration.

Sig550 has AK gas system/ maybe Sparks can shed light on 7.62x39 situation?

Totally pi**ed off at Sports Collaborators

They bottled it. Pure and simple.

Still have my petition signatures I collected - won't be sending them in now.

Sparks

yubabill1 wrote: »

maybe Sparks can shed light on 7.62x39 situation?

Haven't heard of a particular ammo type (bar the obvious esoterics like sabot rounds and incendiaries and so on) being banned, let alone the 7.62x39; the AK47 itself is certainly verboten, in its fully-auto configuration anyway, but that's an EU thing since '91, not so much an Irish thing.

Totally pi**ed off at Sports Collaborators
They bottled it. Pure and simple.

This wasn't even bottling it, this was chucking us under a bus for a seat at a roundtable.
I can't think of a more apt phrase than "selling out".

yubabill1

Plenty of civvie AK clones on Triebel.de, if you need to hit things larger than a football over 75yds.

Grizzly 45

The original AR 10 IE the great grandfather in 308 designed by Eugene Stoner byFairchild Armalite corporation was built in 1956 for the replacement for the Garand type arms of .30 .06.It was well revolutionary for its time and lost out to the Springfield M14,more due to design faults in the material than actual reliability issues as it was a somewhat a late comer to the trials.However it went on to be used by Portugal and Sudan and the Netherlands.
Next was the famous Ar15[in semi auto version and issued to the US Airforce it had no forward assist bolt button] It then became the select fire M16 with all its teething troubles in Vietnam[50 years ago this month the first US troops landed in Vietnam].Caused by a non chromed chamber,a pronged flash hider that caught nicely in jungle leaves ,a change in the bullet powder formula that casused extreme fouling of the direct gas impingement system [crudely put ,the rifle craps where it eats!] And a arms manual that stated it needed little or no cleaning.Giving it the reputation of a" jamamatic mattel toy."

Stoner then brought out the Armalite AR 18 or its civillian version the 180.
Known in N Ireland as the "widow maker" by the IRA ,it corrected numerous faults of the M16 design.This is also why any Stoner design is lumped together here as an "Armalite" in Ireland. It is a gas piston design[like the AK],stamped metal and alot more robust.Made by Armalite in Costa Mesa,Howa in Japan and Sterling UK it is the much better design and many AR designs are going "back to the past" copying it as more reliable [albeit heavier] gun. It didnt make it into the US armed forces as they already had invested heavily in the M16 design,and even today with everyone and their dog making AR parts and guns it is unlikely the by now well debugged AR design[now over 50 years of age ] will be gone anytime soon.In fact it is the next evoloution step in sprorting and hunting guns.The sooner the better because it can be anything you want it to be due to its modular design.Anything from a 17 to a single shot 50 cal, via a 12 GA.

So going by this idea.of Pre 1950 designs you coud liscense a semi auto;
Thompson 45,a Browning BAR 30.06 M1 30 cal carbine Mi .3006 Garand ,Sten 9mm,Mp40 Schmeisser,MP 44[the grandfather of the assault rifle] MP43,KG43, FG 42, Russian Tokrarev ,Russian PPSH" burp gun" SKS,AK,CTME,FN ,Springfield armoury M1A ,Bretta BM59, FAL,AR,SIG 550 or the HK G3??
Or their derivitives???

I'll belive THAT on all of the above when I actually see it...If ever...Considering that AGS fought and will fight tooth and nail on the utter sporting rifle versions in Limerick that had nno military features whatsoever.,i cant see anybody rushing out to start buying these rifles enmasse ,anytime.Temp cap on liscenses or not.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

sparks wrote:

When did they repeal the Firearm Owners' Protection Act?

The firearms protection act doesnt cover just 1950 models it covers every type of SA rifle and shotgun

I was more thinking of its "no fully automatic firearm made after this date" bit as an example of a law that says "you can't licence a particular class of firearm if it was made after a set date", but that wasn't terribly clear, my bad.

Grizzly 45

AH! You mean the Mc Clure Volkmer act 1986.Yes ,that prohibited making new full auto stuff unless you are a liscensed Class 3 ?? manufacturer or converting semis to FA.And drove the price of FA out thru the roof into the stratosphere.

garrettod

toolazyforgolf wrote: »

....My post below which if you'd posted the whole thing here I reckon it would adequately explain why I thought your comment was out of order as it is an ingenious attack on Garda vetted & DOJ licenced people. To me it also showed an obvious lack of knowledge of the subject as if you knew they were vetted & licenced you's hardly reckon they would be giving information to people who should not have it.

If your details are on a list somewhere, there is a risk associated with your details getting into the wrong hands. It's not an attack on anyone as such, it's pointing out a genuine and legitimate risk.

You mention Garda vetting and licencing, but that doesn't remove the risk, it just helps to minimise it somewhat.

We all know the old saying about there only being two things certain in life, death and taxes !


As for your original comment...

Once again people posting about things here they know nothing about.

It's a potentially provocative statement made without any supporting knowledge on me as an individual and far from helpful. Mind me asking if you have any connection with the security industry ?

yubabill1

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Stoner then brought out the Armalite AR 18 or its civillian version the 180.
Known in N Ireland as the "widow maker" by the IRA ,it corrected numerous faults of the M16 design.This is also why any Stoner design is lumped together here as an "Armalite" in Ireland. It is a gas piston design[like the AK],stamped metal and alot more robust.Made by Armalite in Costa Mesa,Howa in Japan and Sterling UK it is the much better design and many AR designs are going "back to the past" copying it as more reliable [albeit heavier] gun. It didnt make it into the US armed forces as they already had invested heavily in the M16 design,and even today with everyone and their dog making AR parts and guns it is unlikely the by now well debugged AR design[now over 50 years of age ] will be gone anytime soon.In fact it is the next evoloution step in sprorting and hunting guns.The sooner the better because it can be anything you want it to be due to its modular design.Anything from a 17 to a single shot 50 cal, via a 12 GA.

So going by this idea.of Pre 1950 designs you coud liscense a semi auto;
Thompson 45,a Browning BAR 30.06 M1 30 cal carbine Mi .3006 Garand ,Sten 9mm,Mp40 Schmeisser,MP 44[the grandfather of the assault rifle] MP43,KG43, FG 42, Russian Tokrarev ,Russian PPSH" burp gun" SKS,AK,CTME,FN ,Springfield armoury M1A ,Bretta BM59, FAL,AR,SIG 550 or the HK G3??
Or their derivitives???

I'll belive THAT on all of the above when I actually see it...If ever...Considering that AGS fought and will fight tooth and nail on the utter sporting rifle versions in Limerick that had nno military features whatsoever.,i cant see anybody rushing out to start buying these rifles enmasse ,anytime.Temp cap on liscenses or not.

+1

You got most of the designs I had in mind, can think of a few obscurities, but nothing worth mentioning.

And good luck in court trying to prove the lineage, in a country that regards body armour as an offensive weapon.

juice1304

makes perfect sense you cant have a semi .223 but sure here have a 30.06 instead.:rolleyes:

jaysblades

juice1304 wrote: »

makes perfect sense you cant have a semi .223 but sure here have a 30.06 instead.:rolleyes:

But you can have a semi .223 , I know of one in carlow. An ar 15 looking job, but in real tree camo.

Grizzly 45

jaysblades wrote: »

But you can have a semi .223 , I know of one in carlow. An ar 15 looking job, but in real tree camo.

I have one.... But it takes a lot of court cases to keep it!And thats my point this is too good to be true.Which means it isnt!!!

juice1304

toolazyforgolf wrote: »

Thanks for info Grizzly. I've a passing interest in this type of firearm only so not as au fait as yourself obviously

Some on your list have full auto capability IIRC Sten 9mm, MP40, MP44, FAL (apart from British version)? Maybe I'm wrong though??????

There is a company that makes semi auto conversions.
http://www.arms24.com/Waffen/Langwaffen/Selbstladeb-uuml;chsen/LuxDefTec-1928-A1-LDT::37933.html
http://www.arms24.com/Waffen/Langwaffen/Selbstladeb-uuml;chsen/LuxDefTec-PPSh-41-LDT::37938.html
http://www.arms24.com/Waffen/Langwaffen/Selbstladeb-uuml;chsen/LuxDefTec-M14-LDT::37941.html

juice1304

toolazyforgolf wrote: »

Thanks As I said not up to date on this stuff.

I reckon we all know where that would lead ......................... "it can be converted back so therefore it's not allowed"

The good thing about these actually is that they cant be, They are allowed here in Germany and the rule is that is must not be able to be easily converted back etc... it would he easier to convert alot of other non restricted firearms then these things. However they wouldn't like the look of them so it doesn't make a difference anyway.

garrettod

Click here for my original post, to save you looking for it.

toolazyforgolf wrote: »

Agreed. Same can be said about anything. BUT I don't go around saying that Gardai will give out my details or that people working in my bank will tell all & sundry my business.

You are either purposely changing, or misinterpreting my original words (refer to the original post, linked above please).

How you got from my original post (what assurances do we have that information will be kept safe and confidential, with no risk of some staff member leaking information to criminals or the criminals just stealing the data from the alarm monitoring company ?) to you thinking I made the comment against the entire industry is beyond me. I simply pointed out the two risks I see and my related concern, either they are risks or they are not (regardless of the odds). I see them as risks and I'd wager, if there was poll set up on this very website, the majority would agree, regardless of the level of risk.

Taxes are not certain for all though. Look at Apple

Yes, do look at Apple...a bit like my post, your not reading the words you see in front of you clearly when your reading about Apple either. Apple have been paying tax (it's the effective tax rate, people have concerns about when it comes to Apple or specific subsidiary companies :P)

It was as provocative as your original one. You don't know everyone working in the Security Industry yet you made assertions about their characters. Pot & Kettle?

I'm not in the security industry but I know a bit about it from my job

Thats correct, I don't know everyone working in the security industry and I never claimed to. Whats that got to do with my original post and the risks I have concerns with ? How could the original post possibly have been provocative ? Who exactly did I make assertions against ?

For you to even think that the security industry (or any other industry) is 100% risk free amazes me ! Sure if there were no risks, why would there be a security industry in the first place ? Same can be said for any other industry or profession either, be it the Bankers, Gardai, Priests etc.

Seriously, go have a fresh read of my original post, if only for your own peace of mind.

I've no interest in having an ongoing arguement with you here on this thread, as it would be disrespectful to everyone else here and probably achieve little more than get us both banned from Boards, but honestly, you need to reflect on this one pal.

bpb101

sorry lads, missed what happened over the last few days. What did the sports collision do?
read that committee report , but missed a few days after that

Grizzly 45

toolazyforgolf wrote: »

Thanks As I said not up to date on this stuff.

I reckon we all know where that would lead ......................... "it can be converted back so therefore it's not allowed"

Errr no.This is German engineering under their strict gun laws.Each gun type has to go to the German Bundes kriminal amt technical division where it is taken apart and checked for ex military parts in the design ,does it fall foul of the war weapons act and can it be converted to fire FA with normal hand tools by somone who is of normal ability.IOW not a mechanical engineer with a lathe and milling machine in their cellar.
This takes about six months to complete and only then is it given a all clear for sale to the shooting public.Each gun will have also a public cert to show the BKA decision.They are available online for all of the above mentioned guns for sale.
We used this to good effect in five court cases in Limerick over the last few cases and the state didnt want to go there at all.Seeing that the people in the BKA have degrees in mechanical engineering and Phds in firearms laws compared to diplomas (do able over a week insome cases) in AGS ballistics...Who would you think is more creditable in knowing their stuff???

What pees me off is oddly not one of us CF lads were invited or were taken up on our offer to come down to HH when the comittee was there to show and tell about these rifles...We are people who know the ins and outs of them and have been in the dc at least three times each per liscense....Was this a ploy or a ditch the semi lafs already and just show nice polite .22 target semi rifles??Also they got over the looks like nonsense a long time ago and it hasbeen demolished enough times in the DC too here .That was the only refusal my Cheif could come up with and in the end it was dismantled before it even got back into the court room.FORM DOES NOT FOLLOW FUNCTION.A kit car made to look like a Lamborghni is not a Lamborghini unless it has the raging bull logo and a few hundred grands worth of bonkers Italian engineering in the back.

Sparks

bpb101 wrote: »

sorry lads, missed what happened over the last few days. What did the sports collision do?
read that committee report , but missed a few days after that

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94956830&postcount=2199

Basically, wrote in recommendations without telling anyone that offered to sacrifice large swathes of firearms in return for a seat for themselves at a roundtable discussion on how they could be put in charge of licencing firearms.

MacsuibhneR

Sparks wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94956830&postcount=2199

Basically, wrote in recommendations without telling anyone that offered to sacrifice large swathes of firearms in return for a seat for themselves at a roundtable discussion on how they could be put in charge of licencing firearms.

I disagree with your analysis. In fairness to them they put forward a solution, albeit one that you disagree with and indeed one which I myself am not 100% behind.

If we remember the AGS wanted to pretty much ban all .22 pistols then what the Coalition have done is put forward an alternative to the AGS proposals. I have to say I agree with large parts of the alternative approach which they have put out there. In relation to the sacrifice of other other firearms owners, they have pointed out (one of) the issues which AGS have with both centre fire and rimfire pistols and put forward an alternative. What is so wrong with that? For current centre fire pistol holders they can either change the barrel or the firearm, surely this is better than losing the firearm altogether.

In relation to semi auto centre fire rifles I disagree with a cap on all such licences but again this is surely better than the AGS alternative of a complete ban. Likewise the pre 1950 suggestion would at least mean that M1 Garands, M1 carbine etc. could all be available to new entrants.

The rest of the coalition's proposal to me seems to be OK. What is wrong with new entrants starting off with a rimfire before going out on the hill with a .308. This seems quite sensible and will be all about how it is run and by whom.

I can say that I was not consulted on the letter but I do know my club rep attended all the NARSPC meetings and kept the rest of us up to speed. This is typically how something like this works and if they consulted every member no letter would ever have been sent nor any decision made.

As to the committees recommendations itself the two big issues I have a problem with are the cap on the centre fire semi auto rifles (without the pre-1950 exemption) and the time locks on the gun safe. A blanket cap (even a so called temporary one) on the SA rifles is different from what the coalition sought and is still different from the outright ban sought by AGS. No doubt the committee are trying to find a middle ground but we all know how long "temporary" can mean. If someone wants one of these within the next few then they need to start applying ASAP before any law change.

A time lock on a gunsafe is ridiculous and should be opposed even at this interim stage. A structured and graduated licence is (in theory) a good thing in my view. Ballistic testing is a waste of time but if it makes the PTB feel safer then it is something which could be done and be accepted.

A lot of people here have called for a consultative process and I don't believe the coalition have done anyone else any harm by setting out their position to enter such a process. I strongly disagree with the throw under the bus approach, which doesn't work anyway, but lets be honest if we are ever to have any hope in any of our lifetimes of getting new centre fire pistol licences, licences for muzzle loading pistols and a workable reloading system then a consultative process will be required and at least the committee have set this out and the coalition have set out their stall to enter such a process. It is up to everyone else to do the same.

Anyway that is my 2 cents worth.

tac foley

'For current centre fire pistol holders they can either change the barrel or the firearm, surely this is better than losing the firearm altogether.'

How do you propose to do this for those shooters who currently have target handguns with barrels shorter than the proposed dimensions? I've never seen longer barrels for ANY .22 calibre handgun of ANY kind or format for after market installation. Are they supposed to be readily available for the wide-range of such firearms on the market?

If this is your belief, Sir, then you are sadly very much mistaken.

My Heckler & Koch P9 has a longer, so-called competition barrel, but that cost me 550 DM in 1982, and the gun itself is no longer in production.

tac

Sparks

MacsuibhneR wrote: »

I disagree with your analysis. In fairness to them they put forward a solution, albeit one that you disagree with and indeed one which I myself am not 100% behind.

Their solution has a number of issues:

1. It's illegal. There is no means by which it can legally be accomplished.
2. It requires the sacrificing of classes of firearm. Those classes are in use by people who are not represented by the coalition and you can be very certain they were not consulted or they would have publicly objected.
3. The only positive gain for the coalition in this would be a seat at a roundtable discussion to address firearms legislation - in other words, an FCP for slow learners. This is after the main personnel in the coalition ran the old FCP into the ground deliberately and badmouthed it as unworkable and swore in the media to never again work with the people involved.
4. The rest of the solution seeks to introduce several things we all know are horrible ideas, such as apprenticeships for firearms licencing, which would undermine the current structure of the firearms act and be very readily subvertable by the unscrupulous to make money while providing no net benefit.

If we remember the AGS wanted to pretty much ban all .22 pistols then what the Coalition have done is put forward an alternative to the AGS proposals.

"Do not ban them" is also an alternative.

I have to say I agree with large parts of the alternative approach which they have put out there. In relation to the sacrifice of other other firearms owners, they have pointed out (one of) the issues which AGS have with both centre fire and rimfire pistols and put forward an alternative. What is so wrong with that?

Lets see:

• They did not consult with the users of the firearms to be sacrificed.
• They are not responsible for governing the sports that use those firearms.
• They gain no guaranteed benefit from the sacrifice.
• They have no legal means to effect the sacrifice, resulting in the Committee now looking at the Coalition and the shooting community in general as incompetent.
• They have conceded the point that legally held firearms are a danger to public safety without asking anyone else.

There are more, but those are the main ones I've seen so far.

For current centre fire pistol holders they can either change the barrel or the firearm, surely this is better than losing the firearm altogether.

No they can't. Not without a major rewrite of the firearms act which would set aside the centrefire ban completely anyway. And anyone who looks at the act will know that.

In relation to semi auto centre fire rifles I disagree with a cap on all such licences but again this is surely better than the AGS alternative of a complete ban.

Again, there is nothing in the Firearms Act that grants anyone the legal authority or the mechanism to bring in a cap on licences. You would have to rewrite the Firearms Act to invent such a thing, and the entire point was that this was to be an interim measure that happens until they rewrite the firearms act.

Likewise the pre 1950 suggestion would at least mean that M1 Garands, M1 carbine etc. could all be available to new entrants.

As opposed to everything, which is the current law.

The rest of the coalition's proposal to me seems to be OK. What is wrong with new entrants starting off with a rimfire before going out on the hill with a .308. This seems quite sensible and will be all about how it is run and by whom.

Well,

1. It utterly undermines the first test of the licencing system – namely, does the applicant have a good reason for wanting the firearm? If someone wants to shoot F-Class, what good is getting an air rifle and then a smallbore rifle before finally being able to get an F-Class rifle? That's a total bill of close to twenty thousand euro and several years of time wasted in sports other than the one they wished to do in the first place, and each of those firearms has no good reason associated with it.
2. This idea that by owning several different firearms, a person can become safe to own a different kind of firearm is broken. A shooter who has spent a year learning to shoot air pistol will not have magically learned how to be safe with smallbore or centerfire pistols. And a complete novice would be safer anyway because they would have no habits learned on other firearm types to unlearn.
3. The concept of progression of an applicant through a series of firearm types demands that actual tests of competency be administered at each step; and since at present the State does not have any body competent to administer such a program or facilities to run such tests in, someone would have to step in with a commercial offering and now we're all being screwed out of money for something that doesn't help anyone but the guy running the course.

I can say that I was not consulted on the letter but I do know my club rep attended all the NARSPC meetings and kept the rest of us up to speed. This is typically how something like this works and if they consulted every member no letter would ever have been sent nor any decision made.

So, to use that logic, you don't mind me saying bullets are desperately dangerous yokes and ought to be banned outright because we can do everything we need to in sport with airguns? And not telling you about it?
Because I can guarantee you, there isn't a politician in the Dail that wouldn't jump on that like a drowning man on a lifeline.
Hell, even the Gardai would back that one.
Maybe we should go down that road?
We can tell you about it later, there's too many people to keep informed after all.

Ballistic testing is a waste of time but if it makes the PTB feel safer then it is something which could be done and be accepted.

Hope you like paying 200 euro per licence fee...

Oh, did you think someone else was paying for that white elephant?

A lot of people here have called for a consultative process and I don't believe the coalition have done anyone else any harm by setting out their position to enter such a process.

We already had it.
You could see it in the committee's comments on the day, kicking this can down the road into a committee room with all of us was on the cards. But the coalition took it on themselves to call for a ban on whole classes of firearm to buy a seat at that table.

That's the short version. Here's the long version.

Sparks

toolazyforgolf wrote: »

I'm confused
What firearms have the sacrificed?

All S/A centerfire rifles post-1950, all .22 pistols with sub-5" barrels (which is a lot of them), and by not mentioning or opposing the shotgun ban, all pump-action and semi-automatic shotguns not manufactured with a three-round magazine.

I too agree a graduated system would be a good idea. I & a lot of older shooter did it this way, by default.

No, we did it that way because we weren't allowed to have licences for those firearms (illegally).
If I want to train someone to shoot safely with a smallbore rifle, I don't start by training them with air rifle. There's no point to it, they aren't any safer.

At this stage I don't care who's in charge of the licencing once it's not the Gardai & it's a fair & transparent system where we know whatwe can have & we know what we have to do to get it.

And you think you'd get that from having the Coalition in charge?
You have a lot more optimism than I do...

Grizzly 45

.

Im going to throw a very odd curveball here and I want people to think on this one and maybe it offers some explanations as to whats going on here? I'm going to do this in steps and lets see if I am joining dots correctly?

1 ] Who is Mr KJE Balinski-Jvndzil ??He was the chap who was sitting next to Des Crofton in the morning sessionsin the Dail comittee saying that he also uses a semi auto rifle,and to whom Des was beeing very pally with.....All well and good.
BUT has anyone else heard of him in shooting circles here in Ireland?What is his disipline in shooting in Ireland that got him onto this comittee to speak? He has to be a pretty heavy hitter to be invited onto this panel? And what is his opinions and motives for being on one of the most important comittees of Irish shooting for almost 100 years??And what does he do for a living ??We all pretty much know each other in this little community of ours,or can find out,but this guy is a complete mystery in the shooting scene?

When someone has an answer to the first part as to who our mystery man is I'll release the second clue.

Roundpack

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

.

Im going to throw a very odd curveball here and

1 ] Who is Mr KJE Balinski-Jvndzil ??
has anyone else heard of him in shooting circles here in Ireland? We all pretty much know each other in this little community of ours,or can find out,but this guy is a complete mystery in the shooting scene?

When someone has an answer to the first part as to who our mystery man is I'll release the second clue.

Wait, dont tell me he is one of the lizard people secretly running the planet?

Deaf git

Go on you old tease, tell us more....

homerhop

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

What pees me off is oddly not one of us CF lads were invited or were taken up on our offer to come down to HH when the comittee was there to show and tell about these rifles...We are people who know the ins and outs of them and have been in the dc at least three times each per liscense....Was this a ploy or a ditch the semi lafs already and just show nice polite .22 target semi rifles??

Grizz there was a CF rifle shown to the committee being used, along with FClass, restricted lever action and other calibres bigger than .22 on the day they were at HH.