Gardai proposals to ban firearms

MacsuibhneR

Sparks wrote: »

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.

"Do not ban them" is also an alternative.


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.


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.


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.


As opposed to everything, which is the current law.


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.

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.


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

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


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, I am well aware that a change in the law is required to implement the proposals of the coalition but as concepts I agree with them as set out above. The simp!e fact is the current system is not working because of the actions of AGS which are forcing people into court on a regular basis to enforce their rights. The coalition have put forward an alternative to the AGS ones and again what is wrong with that. Let the others have their say and put forward their point of view.

As for the classes of firearms sacrificed there seems to me to be two categories of people involved; potential new entrants to SA CF rifles and restricted licence holders with sub 5 inch barrels. I am in the first category and don't feel sold out by the coalition approach. I and anyone else can apply now, ultimately appeal the refusal and pray to god that I get my costs, if I win, and then do the same thing in two years time. That, for slow learners like myself, is not great. The coalition approach in this context to me seems reasonable, especially when you look at the attractions to our politicians in banning them outright. The are playing the game and putting forward an alternative. We should not forget that despite the 100,000 plus licence holders here only 200 submissions went in.

With regards to the second category the coalition are attempting to nullify one of AGS's biggest public safety arguments and I again agree that their approach is reasonable. The alternative is a ban and they are fighting to save these types of firearms. If the holders disagree then they need to lobby themselves and get their own bodies to make more noise. Primetime showed the ugly way political debates work in this country and sometimes a bit of shouting is required. Again if a barrel change or a change of firearm is needed then so be it.

I am aware that the licence holder will be paying for the ballistic testing, but you need to be aware that our sport is under a dangerous attack from AGS and the likes of Finian McGrath. If ballistic testing helps allay their concerns then we may just have to suck it up.

I was not involved in the last FCP and do not know the politics involved but again the NARGC seem to be the only body with the stomach to take on the fight and you cannot deny their success in the courts. We should not let any personal dislike for any of the individuals cloud our judgement in lobbying for the protection of our sport.

As for the lack of consultation, as set out our rep went up by himself and at his own expense and I have to trust his judgement. He in turn has to trust the judgement of the NARPSC. That is just the way democracy works and if we are unhappy with how they do their job we vote them out at the next AGM, that is if anyone else can be bothered to take on the role.

I again disagree with your assertion that the coalition did this to buy a seat at the table. Maybe I am just too naive but I believe that they just put forward an alternative. Everyone else is still entitled to do the same and should keep the pressure on both their clubs and politicians.

tac foley

Quote - 'I am aware that the licence holder will be paying for the ballistic testing, but you need to be aware that our sport is under a dangerous attack from AGS and the likes of Finian McGrath. If ballistic testing helps allay their concerns then we may just have to suck it up.' End quote.

Ballistic testing does not work in the public domain. The facts and figures taken from those places in which it was tried prove that to be nothing less than fact.

tac

MacsuibhneR

tac foley wrote: »

Quote - 'I am aware that the licence holder will be paying for the ballistic testing, but you need to be aware that our sport is under a dangerous attack from AGS and the likes of Finian McGrath. If ballistic testing helps allay their concerns then we may just have to suck it up.' End quote.

Ballistic testing does not work in the public domain. The facts and figures taken from those places in which it was tried prove that to be nothing less than fact.

tac

I agree and this should be pointed out to the committee, if not already done so, but if it allays concerns then we may have to just do it. On your earlier Point I accept your superior knowledge but do know for example that the Walter p22 has both a short barrel and a long one.

tac foley

Sir, you are right. The Walther P22 DOES have an alternative length barrel to the usual 5" so-called 'P22 Target' version.

It has a length of 87 mm (3.4 in).

tac

Edit - just had a thought - just where are these 'longer barrels' for other handguns going to come from?

Cass

MacsuibhneR wrote: »

The simp!e fact is the current system is not working because of the actions of AGS which are forcing people into court on a regular basis to enforce their rights.

I've highlighted the bit you got wrong. No such rights exist. You have no rights to firearm ownership in Ireland. It's a privilege. That is not me being meek or "cap in hand". That is how the law makes it.

The coalition have put forward an alternative to the AGS ones and again what is wrong with that.

Everything mentioned above.

As for the classes of firearms sacrificed there seems to me to be two categories of people involved; potential new entrants to SA CF rifles and restricted licence holders with sub 5 inch barrels.

• How about F-Class? (graduated learning)
• How about deer stalkers? (graduated learning)
• How about clay pigeon shooters (semi auto & pumps)
• How about game shooter? (semi auto & pumps)

I am in the first category and don't feel sold out by the coalition approach.

Not being smart, but good for you. There will be some that don't realise or understand the problems with is has caused. Or more likely the guns they own won't fall into any category being targeted, and they have enough firearm history to avoid the graduated learning being proposed. That only leaves them with time lock safes, ballistic testing, licensee fee hikes, and being stuck in whatever sport they currently pursue.

I and anyone else can apply now, ultimately appeal the refusal and pray to god that I get my costs, if I win, and then do the same thing in two years time.

Not anyone/everyone. If i get refused i am not in a position, financially, to launch a court challenge. Even if costs were guaranteed i don't have the few grand it'll cost.

The coalition approach in this context to me seems reasonable, especially when you look at the attractions to our politicians in banning them outright.

Here is one for you. Ban semi auto rifles, centrefire pistols and all .22 rimfire pistols. That is approx. 1,000 - 1,200 firearms. Leave everything else alone. Would that sit well with you?

The are playing the game and putting forward an alternative. We should not forget that despite the 100,000 plus licence holders here only 200 submissions went in.

Are you implying that even bad proposals are better than too few?

If the holders disagree then they need to lobby themselves and get their own bodies to make more noise.

More noise!!!!!

Ah, come on now. The signal to noise ratio must be better than that. There must be substance in what is said and not focus on the ferocity in which it is said.

Primetime showed the ugly way political debates work in this country and sometimes a bit of shouting is required.

Primetime showed how truly inept we (the greater shooting community) looked sending in a man that has no business discussing firearm issues against a seasoned politician that is adept at making the aforementioned ferocious statements that rely on emotion not fact.

Again if a barrel change or a change of firearm is needed then so be it.

At the moment that is illegal. If a law was changed to allow this it means more costs for everyone. Why? Why should everyone have to pay to suit a few?

I am aware that the licence holder will be paying for the ballistic testing, but you need to be aware that our sport is under a dangerous attack from AGS and the likes of Finian McGrath. If ballistic testing helps allay their concerns then we may just have to suck it up.

As outlined above, ballistic testing does not work. It has been tried and tested and shown to be a complete failure. Then the cost factor that you know will also be passed down to us. All off this in response to an unsubstantiated claim by a force with a reputation (CSO) for unreliable figures and facts. So on top of the license fee i'll have additional costs for proofing, and now ballistics? Also do you think the government are going to spend millions on a proofing house and ballistics testing facility? Are they feck.

Also you say:

I agree and this should be pointed out to the committee, if not already done so, but if it allays concerns then we may have to just do it

Would the more prudent action not have been to show the fault in this request, back it up with hard facts, and rubbish the idea in it's entirety than to capitulate and accept it as a means to keep something else? IOW a trade off? This could have been done in the "coalition's" proposal, but it was not researched, and the thought of discrediting the idea never came to mind. Instead the first thought was to accept it in lieu of keeping something else.

I was not involved in the last FCP and do not know the politics involved but again the NARGC seem to be the only body with the stomach to take on the fight and you cannot deny their success in the courts. We should not let any personal dislike for any of the individuals cloud our judgement in lobbying for the protection of our sport.

This is not about person vendettas and the mention of such seems desperately like avoidance/distraction of the issues.

The NARGC have spent God's knows how much on court cases for a sport they have nothing to do with. They destroyed to only viable and legal means to influence policy and then tried to ingratiate themselves by forming this coalition. Leaving aside the other main NGBs, firearms dealers, range operators, etc.

As for the lack of consultation, as set out our rep went up by himself and at his own expense and I have to trust his judgement. He in turn has to trust the judgement of the NARPSC. That is just the way democracy works and if we are unhappy with how they do their job we vote them out at the next AGM, that is if anyone else can be bothered to take on the role.

The simple fact is they are making sweeping statements that will affect everyone when they have not consulted with everyone. That is where the ire comes from. They have not made contact with the NRAI, NTSA, WDAI, IDS, Range operators, firearm dealers, Pony club, etc, etc. All of whom stand to loose something if the coalitions proposals are taken on board. Which going by the interim report they have been.

. Maybe I am just too naive but I believe that they just put forward an alternative. .

I don't want to insult you so i won't. However the proposla they put forward has so many faults it's laughable. The fact that the review committee took it on board will have long reaching implications that we won't fully understand or know until the final report is released. All i can hope for is that they see sense, realsie that what was proposed is illegal and unsound, and consult with all the bodies of the shooting community and not just the minority that claim to represent the majority.

Sparks

MacsuibhneR wrote: »

Sparks, I am well aware that a change in the law is required to implement the proposals of the coalition

And are you equally aware that those proposals were supposed to be enacted by SI without a change in the law? And that there is no way to do this?

but as concepts I agree with them

And for those of us who do not? Tough cookies, is it?

The simp!e fact is the current system is not working because of the actions of AGS which are forcing people into court on a regular basis to enforce their rights.

I'm looking at section 40 of the constitution and I can't see the bit about us having a right to firearms. Where is it?

The coalition have put forward an alternative to the AGS ones and again what is wrong with that.

I've told you - they had no right to suggest sacrificing firearms that they don't have any responsibility for without asking anyone who uses those firearms.
If that's hard to grasp, I think you might be deliberately trying to avoid grasping it.

As for the classes of firearms sacrificed there seems to me to be two categories of people involved; potential new entrants to SA CF rifles and restricted licence holders with sub 5 inch barrels.

No, you missed a group - everyone with an unrestricted smallbore pistol, bar a few who have some of the ISSF ones (and only some of the ISSF ones would be safe, and not even the majority of those).
And of course, everyone who ever wants to get into the sport in the future.

With regards to the second category the coalition are attempting to nullify one of AGS's biggest public safety arguments and I again agree that their approach is reasonable.

Are you not understanding their proposal?

The alternative is a ban and they are fighting to save these types of firearms.

BY BANNING THEM?
Seriously, did you read their proposals?
They are not trying to save smallbore pistol, they are saying they're fine with it being banned.

If the holders disagree then they need to lobby themselves and get their own bodies to make more noise.

Tell you what, how about tomorrow the NTSA calls up the Minister and says "You know, these lads with their bigger guns, this is all dodgey stuff, especially this pistol shooting that's not Olympic. Even the Gardai say so. How about we support you banning everything but our stuff?" Would that be okay by your standards?

Primetime showed the ugly way political debates work in this country

No, primetime showed that the Coalition is out of its depth. EVERYONE else knew enough not to go on prime time. EVERYONE. You think we weren't called? Hell, I spent an hour on the phone to them myself. We all said no because we knew what would happen. The Coalition thought they knew better and we got destroyed and now everyone else is cleaning up their mess with formal BAI complaints.
As usual.

I am aware that the licence holder will be paying for the ballistic testing, but you need to be aware that our sport is under a dangerous attack from AGS and the likes of Finian McGrath.

Is it? Gosh, I didn't know that. I was asleep you see. On Mars. In a cave. Behind a rock. With my fingers in my ears.

I was not involved in the last FCP and do not know the politics involved

/sigh

but again the NARGC seem to be the only body with the stomach to take on the fight and you cannot deny their success in the courts.

Have you seen the bill for their losses in the supreme court yet?
A realistic appraisal is not the same thing as a denial.

I again disagree with your assertion that the coalition did this to buy a seat at the table. Maybe I am just too naive but I believe that they just put forward an alternative.

After a decade of working with these people, I do not share your optimism or your faith in their good faith.

Sparks

MacsuibhneR wrote: »

I agree and this should be pointed out to the committee, if not already done so, but if it allays concerns then we may have to just do it.

Has already been done by written submission and by comment on the interim report.

Deputy Farrell: During the process of licensing firearms, does take a sample of a bullet fired from a weapon for comparative purposes?
Mr Healy: We do not do that. That is not a requirement. Chairman: Should it be?
Mr Healy: I suppose the answer is “Yes” from a security and a safety perspective. It is probably a cost prohibitive issue.
Mr Healy: I cannot definitively state whether [maintaining a library of ballistics forensic data on all licenced firearms] is done in other jurisdictions.
Mr Healy: Ideally we would prefer every firearm to be discharged and a record kept of it.
Chairman: What is stopping this from happening?
Mr Healy: The number of firearms involved and the cost of doing so is a factor.

Three points must be raised here:

1) The Gardaí and the Department are wiling to confiscate firearms from people specifically stated to be law-abiding people of good character who have met all the requirements in the Act, and all in the name of public safety; what exactly is the monetary price which is too much to pay for that same public safety?

2) Other jurisdictions have indeed attempted this practice. Maryland and California have done so in the United States. However, their experiences have done more to prove that the CSI effect lamented by professional forensic analysts has not diminished, than they have to prove that the concept works. A study carried out by the National Institute for Forensic Science for the California Department of Justice in 2003 indicated that in 68% of cases, the system was unable to determine if two bullets had been fired from the same firearm if the bullets were made by different manufacturers, and in 38% of cases if made by the same manufacturer (success in these tests was defined as the correct gun being in the top fifteen possibilities chosen by the system).

The cost of the system was also quite high, costing several million dollars to maintain (the Maryland estimate of $60 per firearm would suggest a cost in Ireland on the order of ten million euro). In 2005, the Maryland police department wrote a formal report to the state government recommending that the system be abandoned citing its cost, its unreliability and its failure in the five years since its introduction to yield a single conviction.

3) Despite the experiences in California and Maryland, it should be noted that the target shooting community currently adheres to far more invasive and onerous conditions for their certificates than spending twenty minutes in the Phoenix Park assisting the Gardaí in their job of protecting the public. Few would object to adding this condition to the list if it would see an end to the constant implications that licenced firearms are used in crime despite a near total lack of data to support these implications.

A ballistics record of all license firearms should be created and maintained;

As I mentioned in my original submission to the Committee:

Other jurisdictions have indeed attempted this practice. Maryland and California have done so in the United States. However, their experiences have done more to prove that the CSI effect lamented by professional forensic analysts has not diminished, than they have to prove that the concept works. A study carried out by the National Institute for Forensic Science for the California Department of Justice in 2003 indicated that in 68% of cases, the system was unable to determine if two bullets had been fired from the same firearm if the bullets were made by different manufacturers, and in 38% of cases if made by the same manufacturer (success in these tests was defined as the correct gun being in the top fifteen possibilities chosen by the system).

The cost of the system was also quite high, costing several million dollars to maintain (the Maryland estimate of $60 per firearm would suggest a cost in Ireland on the order of ten million euro). In 2005, the Maryland police department wrote a formal report to the state government recommending that the system be abandoned citing its cost, its unreliability and its failure in the five years since its introduction to yield a single conviction.

While I completely understand the Committee’s intent in this regard, the question of the cost of the system and it’s demonstrated efficacy in other states is such that I would suggest that perhaps a cost-benefit analysis should be carried out independently and that the experiences of California, Maryland and indeed Canada be considered when evaluating this recommendation during the preparation of the Committee’s final report. While many shooters would consider a one-off cost of similar levels seen in Maryland to be worth the price if it were to stop insinuations and outright statements that stolen licenced firearms are a main source of firearms used in gun crime (despite statements to the contrary being made by other sections of the Gardai), it is unlikely that such an affect would result from the creation of this system, and it is equally unlikely that such a system would be financially self-sustaining in the long term. This would lead to either a continuing escalation in one-off fees at the point of testing, or a continuing escalation in licencing costs for all firearms owners, despite the system being ineffective in preventing crime or convicting criminals.

Grizzly 45

Roundpack wrote: »

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

For all the info out there on this guy he might as well be!
Type in his name in google and see what it brings back.................All the hits are in relation to the dail comittee hearing..Type in any of our monickers and see how many hits come back in relation to shooting related issues.That alone is a serious blip on the radar ,or should be.A name like that(Polish??)stands out,but there is nothing that I can find in relation to shooting .There is no mention of who he repersents on the panel,his expertise or disipline..I even commented on this in Feb.

So no one finds it odd that we have a utter unknown person in the irish shooting world giving evidence on our behalf to a govt comittee but seems to be quite pally with the chairman of the largest shooting body here??But no one has ever heard of him before the names were released in Feb as to who is submitting evidence??

Grizzly 45

homerhop wrote: »

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.

As were apprently some cf semi rifles as I have been informed in hindsight by PM with some ire too.!! So why the big secret??It would have been nice to hear that they were featured and that the comittee got to see them as well,as the RTE clips just showed folks shooting target style 10 .22s and target pistols Nor was there any mention of them being shown or demoed here...???? A bit more openness would be good in these situations and would prevent people getting peed off with each other.

MacsuibhneR

Cass, in response to your points:-

1. The rights and obligations of firearms owners are set out in the various pieces of legislation. If you fulfil the criteria you are entitled to get a licence hence the various favourable District Court decisions etc. It is the same for driver's licences, employment rights etc. Not every "Right" is a constitutional one.

2. The coalition have put forward a proposal, so can everyone else.

3. A firearms apprenticeship type scheme is not a bad idea and as I have said previously the devil is in the detail. Similar graduated licences exist for HGVs and have caused no issue (need a C licence before an EC). I still don't think a first licence should be for a .308 and in essence many Garda districts operate a de facto scheme anyway. Often someone will not get a licence for a rifle unless they hold a shotgun licence and again will not get a centre fire licence unless they have held a rimfire licence. This is no sell out of clay or game shooters (of which I am one) and some formal training for game shooters again is no bad thing. Club shooters tend to get training whether they like it or not but game shooters very often rely on someone more experienced who may or may not be a good teacher.

4. The guns I own are squarely in the category of what is being targeted, but again I think the coalition approach is reasonable. Most unrestricted pistols (if not all) currently licenced would be acceptable under ISSF rules and therefore suitable for use in their competitions. In addition they have highlighted the ridiculous 5 round magazine cap issue. If I am wrong please correct me.

5. The coalition has said that ballistic testing would be a matter to be discussed by a new body to be established. It is the committee itself who have asked that it be implemented now. No one wants higher fees etc. but at least these issues can be discussed. How is anyone stuck in their current sport. If I wished to take up F class there is no doubt I would need training.

6. Like you I don't have the few grand for legal fees and I am glad to see you agree with my point. The current system, due to the AGS is not working properly and the coalition have pointed this out.

7. Of course banning SA CF rifles and rimfire pistols would not sit well with me, where did you get that from?

8. I am implying that out of 100,000 plus only 200 people and organisations could be bothered to submit a proposal. Everyone had the chance and unfortunately more people did not care about the issue to go to the hassle of drafting a proposal. Different people have different opinions and what I think is good you think is bad. This does not stop either of us putting our viewpoint across.

9. The groups who are being affected do not seem to be getting the message across to the committee. That is what I meant by more noise.

10. I agree that he was the wrong man to send in, but that is easy in retrospect. He at least still went in.

11. I don't understand your point about everyone paying for a few. Surely it is the few affected that have to pay to either change firearm or barrel to allow the many to keep their firearms.

12. Again on ballistic testing the committee made the jump to bringing it in now and they were all over the point in the hearings. We know it doesn't work and it is up to us to show them. Sparks' letter is very good in that regard.

13. I never mentioned personal vendettas but it seems clear to an objective viewpoint that some people have issues with regards to how the NARGC and the people involved conducted themselves in the past. All I am saying is not to let that cloud thinking now.

14. I accept your point about the sweeping statements and can certainly see why ire would come in. It is however up to the other bodies involved to get their message across.

15. I am glad you don't want to insult me. Again it is up to the other bodies to get their message across.

tac foley

Two of THE definitive experts in the shooting world around the British Isles - Michael Yardley and Colin Greenwood, men of impeccable reputation and crediblity, live about 3/4 hour from Dublin by plane, and are ambassadors for shooters who are well-regarded, even by their unfortunate opponents, whom they frequently shoot down in flames in public debate on firearms and the law.

Instead, you have representation, of a kind, by somebody that nobody seems to have heard of, and, in spite of asking around on four continents, I'm one of those puzzled not only by his appearance at the top table, but by his agenda/motives.

I am not in the business of advising heads of civilian organisations how to run their presentation, but I'll risk getting banned here by saying that IMO 'shooing in' a person that none of us have ever heard of to represent some of the Irish shooting community may have served only the interests of those who want to take all the guns away.

tac

MacsuibhneR

Sparks,

In response to your points please note the following:-

1. I am aware that the coalition suggested that the law change be done by way of SI and I do not know if this can be accomplished by way of SI or primary legislation. No doubt the office of the Attorney General and ultimately our Judges would decide the issue, but again as a concept or idea I think it is reasonable.

2. For people who do not agree with the concepts it is not a case of tough cookies and I never said that. It is up to them to get their point across.

3. Who said anything about a constitutional right to firearms. Our rights and obligations as Licenced firearms holders are set out in the legislation. The constitution makes no mention of a right to have 20 statutory holiday days, these rights and many others are set out in the legislation enacted by the legislature under the Constitution.

4. Again I disagree with your analysis about sacrificing other firearms owners. I am not deliberately "not trying to grasp" anything.

5. If I am missing everyone with a small bore unrestricted pistol then I do indeed have a fundamental misunderstanding of the coalition proposal and would sincerely welcome your correction. The coalitions proposal states "The terms of resolution could restrict the licensing of such firearms to .22 calibre short firearms suitable for competition under ISSF rules (which include Olympic competitions), but with a barrel length of NOT LESS than 5 inches, and NOT LONGER than 30cm and with a magazine capacity NOT EXCEEDING 10 rounds." My understanding of this is that if a pistol is suitable for these competitions (and by implications is allowed within the rules) then it should be licenced. It is some years since I read the ISSF rule book but at that time I noted that it was mostly concerned with ensuring pistols are not overly modified to give an unfair advantage. Last year in our district court a .22 1911 clone was licenced on the basis that it was allowed under the rules, so my understanding was that all of these types of pistols, sig mosquitos, Walther P22, Buckmarks, Hammerli's etc. could be licenced without AGS stating that they are combat weapons. If I have misunderstood this fundamental point please correct me and my view will change.

6. Again maybe I am misunderstanding their proposal. They have stated that AGS have a concern about concealability and are attempting to nullify this by accepting a minimum barrel length of 5 inches.

7. Again maybe I am misunderstanding their proposal and as set out above I welcome correction if that is the case. If nothing else this debate will clarify this fundamental point. Are the coalition helping to save smallbore pistol shooting or are they destroying it.

8. I don't understand your point. I specifically said in my earlier posts that throwing others under a bus to protect your interests is not something I agree with and as a tactic does not work. I don't believe the coalition proposal does this. In any event the other organisations need to get their message across.

9. Time to wake up, leave mars, get out of your cave, move the work and take your fingers out.

10. Sorry to bore you, must be because, as you have pointed out, the current proposal is the FCP for slow learners like myself.

11. Haven't seen the bill, but they have won many fights in the courts.

12. I hope my faith is justified, that said, you know the individuals involved whereas I do not.

Grizzly 45

tac foley wrote: »

Two of THE definitive experts in the shooting world around the British Isles - Michael Yardley and Colin Greenwood, men of impeccable reputation and crediblity, live about 3/4 hour from Dublin by plane, and are ambassadors for shooters who are well-regarded, even by their unfortunate opponents, whom they frequently shoot down in flames in public debate on firearms and the law.

Instead, you have representation, of a kind, by somebody that nobody seems to have heard of, and, in spite of asking around on four continents, I'm one of those puzzled not only by his appearance at the top table, but by his agenda/motives.

I am not in the business of advising heads of civilian organisations how to run their presentation, but I'll risk getting banned here by saying that IMO 'shooing in' a person that none of us have ever heard of to represent some of the Irish shooting community may have served only the interests of those who want to take all the guns away.

tac

Tac
I dont think Colin Greenwood is travelling much anymore these days due to age and health as I had contacted him too about five years ago. I and four others met Mike Yardley here in Ireland in Jan 2010 in Nenagh to discuss him going as expert witness for the first batch of pistol cases.We got the impression that it would be expensive to get Mike aboard and he confirmed it himself too.Doubtless very experianced men but age and costs are precluding them.

Sparks

MacsuibhneR wrote: »

Cass, in response to your points:-

1. The rights and obligations of firearms owners are set out in the various pieces of legislation. If you fulfil the criteria you are entitled to get a licence hence the various favourable District Court decisions etc. It is the same for driver's licences, employment rights etc. Not every "Right" is a constitutional one.

This is just wrong. We have obligations six ways from Sunday, but legally, we have no rights regarding firearms. I don't know who's told you otherwise, but they were incorrect. We have had favorable District Court and other judicidal decisions because other people also have obligations under the law and they had failed to meet them. We do not have a right to possess firearms. This has been stated, in so many words, by the courts. Here, in McCarron:

There is no constitutional provision providing for any right to keep lethal firearms such as that in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

2. The coalition have put forward a proposal, so can everyone else.

You are missing the point. All shooting bodies, in order to work together cohesively, take pains not to put forward proposals that would impact on other shooting bodies.

The Coalition does not have the authority from shooters to offer to sacrifice these kinds of firearms. It does not represent the people who use them, it does not govern the sports that use them, and it did not consult with those groups before making this offer. That is deeply unethical. When the Coalition does something like this, it is sending a clear message to every other shooting organisation in the country: “We regard you as being expendable and we value you as being worth less than ourselves”.

3. A firearms apprenticeship type scheme is not a bad idea

It just is. This nonsensical idea has been knocking about since a Coalition member sent it to the Department of Justice (in secret, instead of through the FCP which all shooting bodies at the time had agreed to work through). It was a horrific idea then and it has not improved with age. Firearms are not a trade. You do not learn them by apprenticeships. The first test in the Firearms Act for granting a licence is Does the applicant have a good reason for wanting this firearm – and the apprenticeship idea undermines this test by requiring applicants to first get licences for firearms they do not want to have at all. Then the idea assumes that you will magically gain the safety training for the firearm you want from using the firearm you have, even though they may be radically different with different risks and safety rules. So when you finally get the firearm you want in the first place, you have to learn what every novice would learn on day one anyway, but now you have more bad habits to unlearn, so you are less safe than under the current system.

This ridiculous idea has nothing to recommend it, and runs counter to both word and spirit of the law, but for some reason, Coalition members have been pushing it, mostly in secret, for years now.

4. The guns I own are squarely in the category of what is being targeted, but again I think the coalition approach is reasonable.

That's nice for you. Do you think you speak for everyone who has a firearm like yours?
Do you think you have that right?

Most unrestricted pistols (if not all) currently licenced would be acceptable under ISSF rules and therefore suitable for use in their competitions. In addition they have highlighted the ridiculous 5 round magazine cap issue. If I am wrong please correct me.

Sure. The ISSF rules don't have a rule about minimum barrel lengths, let alone one as high as five inches. They also don't have a rule about magazine size at all. The Coalition has added in the barrel length rule and because they didn't think about other people, they've missed the point that large numbers of licenced .22 pistols today (probably most of them) have shorter barrels. Including lots of ISSF pistols, both international level competitive models and basic entry-level beginner models. They've actually gone and banned half the ISSF pistols from the ISSF ruleset because they didn't ask the experts on the ISSF ruleset, they just threw in whatever sounded good to them.

5. The coalition has said that ballistic testing would be a matter to be discussed by a new body to be established. It is the committee itself who have asked that it be implemented now. No one wants higher fees etc. but at least these issues can be discussed.

They are being discussed openly now in the Committee and even the Gardai didn't want this idea because they know it didn't work as well as we do. Did you read Chief Superintendent Healy's comments from December to the Committee?

How is anyone stuck in their current sport. If I wished to take up F class there is no doubt I would need training.

And now you'd have to go spend thousands of euro and train for years in that stupid apprenticeship idea to change sport.

6. Like you I don't have the few grand for legal fees and I am glad to see you agree with my point. The current system, due to the AGS is not working properly and the coalition have pointed this out.

No, they're not the ones who pointed this out.
They're the ones who ran the non-judicial option we had into the ground and got us to where we are today by allowing the Gardai to do an end run direct to the Minister in private, which they couldn't do when the FCP was in place.

7. Of course banning SA CF rifles and rimfire pistols would not sit well with me, where did you get that from?

From you saying that the Coalition proposals are reasonable.

8. I am implying that out of 100,000 plus only 200 people and organisations could be bothered to submit a proposal. Everyone had the chance and unfortunately more people did not care about the issue to go to the hassle of drafting a proposal. Different people have different opinions and what I think is good you think is bad. This does not stop either of us putting our viewpoint across.

You didn't answer Cass's question there.

9. The groups who are being affected do not seem to be getting the message across to the committee. That is what I meant by more noise.

Bollocks. The reason you're seeing the Coalition stuff in the Interim Report is that nobody else was willing to sacrifice other shooters for their own gain. Look at the other things in that Interim Report - centralised licencing, a new FCP, a restatement of the law - all those things were suggested by shooting groups other than the Coalition. It was just not necessary to sacrifice anything, we were getting all we needed because the Committee could see the Gardai's case didn't hold up, and the Coalition has now thrown all that away.

10. I agree that he was the wrong man to send in, but that is easy in retrospect. He at least still went in.

And he should not have done so. Everyone else had the judgement to avoid that show because they remembered how the lack of editorial control and the way RTE thinks of firearms mangled us the last time. By cooperating with the show, they legitimised it and created a problem we didn't need.

12. Again on ballistic testing the committee made the jump to bringing it in now and they were all over the point in the hearings. We know it doesn't work and it is up to us to show them. Sparks' letter is very good in that regard.

And the Gardai also don't want it, and the Committee could have been convinced of this in the Committee stage.

13. I never mentioned personal vendettas but it seems clear to an objective viewpoint that some people have issues with regards to how the NARGC and the people involved conducted themselves in the past. All I am saying is not to let that cloud thinking now.

There is a long history in our sport. It takes almost a full page of text to summarise the relevant part of it. Many think that’s a problem, that history is something best forgotten and treated as water under the bridge, forgive and most especially, forget. And let’s all band together under the one banner and forward unto victory Tovarish!

And every time people listen to this and go along with it, history repeats itself. And personally, I'm sick of it. "We screwed you over yesterday and today is ruined because of it, but forget it, it's in the past, let me screw you over again today so tomorrow will be better!"

14. I accept your point about the sweeping statements and can certainly see why ire would come in. It is however up to the other bodies involved to get their message across.
15. I am glad you don't want to insult me. Again it is up to the other bodies to get their message across.

Again, see that point above about respecting the other bodies when drafting messages...

MacsuibhneR wrote: »

Sparks,
In response to your points please note the following:-
1. I am aware that the coalition suggested that the law change be done by way of SI and I do not know if this can be accomplished by way of SI or primary legislation. No doubt the office of the Attorney General and ultimately our Judges would decide the issue, but again as a concept or idea I think it is reasonable.

Ten years studying it says it can't be done. The law does not make provision for it. It's just not there.

IT. IS. A. DEAD. PARROT.

2. For people who do not agree with the concepts it is not a case of tough cookies and I never said that. It is up to them to get their point across.

You just said tough cookies, right there with that "up to them" nonsense.
Every sports body does put their point across, but only one has sacrificed the sports equipment of other bodies without asking anyone.

3. Who said anything about a constitutional right to firearms. Our rights and obligations as Licenced firearms holders are set out in the legislation. The constitution makes no mention of a right to have 20 statutory holiday days, these rights and many others are set out in the legislation enacted by the legislature under the Constitution.

How about we just point out above that a Supreme Court Judge says you're wrong and leave it there?

5. If I am missing everyone with a small bore unrestricted pistol then I do indeed have a fundamental misunderstanding of the coalition proposal and would sincerely welcome your correction. The coalitions proposal states "The terms of resolution could restrict the licensing of such firearms to .22 calibre short firearms suitable for competition under ISSF rules (which include Olympic competitions), but with a barrel length of NOT LESS than 5 inches, and NOT LONGER than 30cm and with a magazine capacity NOT EXCEEDING 10 rounds." My understanding of this is that if a pistol is suitable for these competitions (and by implications is allowed within the rules) then it should be licenced.

That's not the legislation.
And the ISSF rules have no rules in them at all about minimum barrel lengths or magazine capacity.
And large numbers of currently-licenced smallbore pistols, including ISSF pistols, don't have barrels longer than five inches.

If I have misunderstood this fundamental point please correct me and my view will change.

Just did.

6. Again maybe I am misunderstanding their proposal. They have stated that AGS have a concern about concealability and are attempting to nullify this by accepting a minimum barrel length of 5 inches.

Yup, you misunderstood it. They're accepting a ban on those pistols in order to attempt to nullify a concern about concealability which should not have been accepted in the first place (unless you think we're all criminals who conceal our pistols or you agree with the gardai that our pistols are used by criminals after stealing them despite all the argument and evidence to the contrary).
This is destroying the village in order to save it.

7. Again maybe I am misunderstanding their proposal and as set out above I welcome correction if that is the case. If nothing else this debate will clarify this fundamental point. Are the coalition helping to save smallbore pistol shooting or are they destroying it.

They are destroying it.

8. I don't understand your point. I specifically said in my earlier posts that throwing others under a bus to protect your interests is not something I agree with and as a tactic does not work. I don't believe the coalition proposal does this. In any event the other organisations need to get their message across.

Your sentences are contradicting each other.

9. Time to wake up, leave mars, get out of your cave, move the work and take your fingers out.

I'm assuming that's just an unfunny joke.

10. Sorry to bore you, must be because, as you have pointed out, the current proposal is the FCP for slow learners like myself.

Nope, slow learners like the members of the Coalition who destroyed it the first time around.

11. Haven't seen the bill, but they have won many fights in the courts.

A High Court case costs a six figure sum to run, as a ballpark figure. The Supreme Court can run to seven, even eight figures. Even District Court costs (ask Grizzly) can run to thirty grand a pop. And you only get your costs back if you win. And they have not won every case (they're running about 50% of them in the Supreme Court).
Do the math.

12. I hope my faith is justified, that said, you know the individuals involved whereas I do not.

And ten years of working with them has seen that faith betrayed time and time again.
Some of us are out of faith and patience at this stage.

MacsuibhneR

Sparks,

Again you are saying that I have stated we have a constitutional right to firearms. I have not. I have said we can go to court to enforce our rights under the law. If we fulfil the criteria we can get a firearm licence and if the AGS refuse us not in accordance with the law we go to court. The right to be held equal before the law is backed up by the constitution.

When you say the coalition are saying everyone else is expendable you are reading too much into the proposal. I disagree with your reading of it.

I think an apprenticeship type approach is not a bad idea and nothing you have said has changed my mind. If someone wants to start F class then let them start first with one of the .22 disciplines to learn the fundamentals of shooting. F class costs many thousands anyway and the additional costs of a .22 rifle (especially when it can be sold on) should not be the deciding factor. Again I think you are reading into the proposals stuff which is not there. You are right to point out potential pitfalls but that does not mean that the scheme cannot work.

I have never said that I speak for anyone other than myself and my view are entirely my own. It is up to everyone to put their view point across and that does not mean tough cookies.

At least you accept that the coalition have not sold out every unrestricted pistol shooter, but rather only the ones whose firearms have a barrel length less than five inches. I genuinely do not know how many people this will affect but am guessing that the NASRPC would have had an input there. I do think the benefits outweigh the costs, but again that is only my view.

I have said I disagree with ballistic testing but members of the committee appeared to have latched onto the idea very early on.

In relation to moving disciplines again I think you are jumping the gun on how it would actually work. I agree there are pitfalls but surely that is the point of having the new discussion group.

In relation to the banning of the Centre Fire SA rifles or rimfire pistols you are again reading stuff into the proposal which is not there. They suggested a temporary cap (and we all know that this could be for years but again a matter for discussion) rather than the outright ban the AGS are looking for. Likewise the implementation of the AGS proposal on rimfire pistols would more or less have been a ban. As set out above this is not what the coalition proposal says.

I disagree with your view that we were getting all we wanted from the committee. I do not think they were going to ignore the AGS public safety arguments as readily as you seem to believe. Typically they were looking for some kind of middle ground and that came across from the committee meeting which I watched. Again this is only my opinion.

I accept that you have every right to be sceptical about the past actions of the individuals involved but this should inform your judgement not cloud it.

On the concealability issue the Gardaí do have a concern about this, right or wrong. The coalition are attempting to deal with this and that is fair enough.

I don't believe any of my sentences contradicted each other as, in my view, the coalition have not sacrificed anyone. At best your argument is that some unrestricted rimfire pistol holders will have to change their pistol. That is not throwing anyone under the bus. The comments about mars were in response to your statement, aw wait a moment, were you being sarcastic?

In summary the coalition proposals do seem reasonable to me, even though some people will have to pay money to either change barrel or firearm and surely that is better than them losing it altogether. I do not think the committee were as quick to dismiss the Garda concerns as you believe and some middle ground needed to be suggested (they are after all politicians) to keep them onside. If other groups feel they interim report is unfair let them voice their own concerns and I am not trying to be dismissive to them when I say that. As we have seen a lot of groups, such as the IFA etc., really do not care nor want to get involved. I have already said how I do not agree with the CF SA rifle cap, but can accept it in the context in which it was given.

Sparks

MacsuibhneR wrote: »

Sparks,

Again you are saying that I have stated we have a constitutional right to firearms. I have not. I have said we can go to court to enforce our rights under the law. If we fulfil the criteria we can get a firearm licence

Nope. There is absolutely nothing in the law that requires anyone to grant anyone else a firearms certificate. There's lots that prohibits that; but nothing in there says "If you do A, B and C, you will get a licence".

When you say the coalition are saying everyone else is expendable you are reading too much into the proposal. I disagree with your reading of it.

They have offered a ban on firearms they don't speak for.
I have the feeling you're not disagreeing because of logic here.

I think an apprenticeship type approach is not a bad idea and nothing you have said has changed my mind.

And you've considered the point that apprenticeships not only don't teach you competency - which is what the law is concerned with - but proficiency - which nobody from the shooting community should ever want to see in law, and which even the Minister for Justice disagreed with?
And the point that the apprenticeship scheme would require training and testing and that's a minefield for commercial exploitation?
Or are you just agreeing with it 'cos you're a member and you hope you'll be better off and to heck with everyone not in your gang?

I have never said that I speak for anyone other than myself and my view are entirely my own. It is up to everyone to put their view point across and that does not mean tough cookies.

It does when your viewpoint requires that other groups be banned and you don't consult with them.

At least you accept that the coalition have not sold out every unrestricted pistol shooter, but rather only the ones whose firearms have a barrel length less than five inches. I genuinely do not know how many people this will affect but am guessing that the NASRPC would have had an input there. I do think the benefits outweigh the costs, but again that is only my view.

What benefits?
Nobody was seeking a ban this restrictive on smallbore pistols. Even the ban the Gardai wanted wasn't this restrictive - the Coalition has just proposed something worse than what the Gardai were proposing, and you think that's okay?

I have said I disagree with ballistic testing but members of the committee appeared to have latched onto the idea very early on.

One. One member. Alan Farrell. And pointing out the flaws in that idea would have been sufficient there, given than neither Minister nor Commissioner nor the shooting community would have supported it.

In relation to moving disciplines again I think you are jumping the gun on how it would actually work.

Prove it.

In relation to the banning of the Centre Fire SA rifles or rimfire pistols you are again reading stuff into the proposal which is not there. They suggested a temporary cap (and we all know that this could be for years but again a matter for discussion) rather than the outright ban the AGS are looking for.

In other words, they want to ban them for years. Have people suddenly just decided that the 1972 TCO was no big deal because it was a temporary ban that only lasted a few years?
And you're still ignoring the point that it wouldn't be legal.

I disagree with your view that we were getting all we wanted from the committee.

That's nice, but that's not my view. My view is that we were getting all we needed from them. And the fact that so much of what we needed was in the Interim Report (and was not there thanks to the Coalition because the wording is from other proposals) backs that up.

I do not think they were going to ignore the AGS public safety arguments as readily as you seem to believe.

You do realise they just called for an independent investigation into the AGS, right?
Do you think that's a regular thing? That you do it even if you believe what someone's telling you?

I accept that you have every right to be sceptical about the past actions of the individuals involved but this should inform your judgement not cloud it.

That's what it has done.

On the concealability issue the Gardaí do have a concern about this, right or wrong. The coalition are attempting to deal with this and that is fair enough.

No, it's not. There's no mention of this in the Working Group proposals, and the Coalition have dragged it into this arena and made more work for everyone else now.

I don't believe any of my sentences contradicted each other as, in my view, the coalition have not sacrificed anyone.

Your view is wrong.
I'd put it in longer-winded terms, but I don't see what that would add. You just aren't reading their proposal, or the current law, or the history of the situation. And your view is uninformed as a result.
I know that sounds like argument from authority, but dammit, there's been ten years of this argument and you're wearing your lack of knowledge of that history like a badge here.

In summary the coalition proposals do seem reasonable to me, even though some people will have to pay money to either change barrel or firearm and surely that is better than them losing it altogether.

They weren't going to lose them in the first place.

I do not think the committee were as quick to dismiss the Garda concerns as you believe

Even though they've called for an independent investigation and have dropped some stinkers of written questions to the Minister and as much as stated publicly that they are deeply unhappy with the data the Gardai have given them.
Or do you think that's normal?
Do you actually not recognise that it's highly unusual?

As to putting our other views forward, here's a question - would you think it reasonable if the other groups were to tell the Minister that the sports the Coalition manages are actually not that important and the firearms they use are a danger to the public and offer to support publicly bans on firearms the Coalition uses as payment to safeguard their firearms? Or do you have a problem with "I'm alright Jack" when it's not you pulling up the ladder?

Cass

Sparks has covered every point in detail so there is no reason to rehash the same answer. However some points do need to be made abundantly clear for you. I have chosen a couple.

• You have no rights and no entitlements to firearms in this country. None whatsoever. You apply, and if you have good reason, you are granted a license. That license can be revoked at any point.
• The graduated scheme would destroy certain sports. You say you if you wished to take up F-Class that the scheme would make you better prepared. How so? The sport is shot with a certain caliber. To train on anything but that caliber is less than pointless, and as you could not license the necessary caliber you cannot even train for that sport. So you would not enter the sport of F-Class but another. Plus the law doe snot make proficiency a requirement. These proposals do.
• Ballistic testing does not work. It has been tried and tested to great expense in other countries and abandoned due to it's ineffective and high cost. If you want an analogy think the e-voting machines from some years back. €50 million to end up sitting in a warehouse. Instead of capitulating to ballistic testing why did the "coalition" not explain why it would not work and rubbish the idea from the start instead of agreeing to it to appease them in some small hope of getting their other nonsensical proposals through. You have even said this would have been the better course of action, yet still say you agree with what they are doing????????????
• The "coalition" has not pointed out anything that was not already shown to be at fault.
• There is a long standing known idea of the "2% rule". It means 2% of people do 100% of the work. Sad, but it's true. However this does not give an rights or entitlements to that 2% to speak of work on behalf of those they do not represent. Another analogy. Imagine the NRAI (long distance shooting and rifle shooting in general) say they have no time for shotguns, etc. so write in their own proposals to ban or severely restrict previously unrestricted and not yet banned sports once long range shooting is not touched. This is what you are suggesting is okay as this is what is proposed by the coalition that you AGREE with.
• The NARGC and the NASRPC were not the only groups represented on the review committee. You'll see the NTSA, NRAI, etc were all represented at the meeting. They are doing their bit without the need to seek the limelight in order to do it. This is obvious in the Primetime show when they sent in a man that had no business or knowledge of firearms other than the legal end that he has done in the court room. The NARGC and other groups were on the receiving end of a hatchet job some years back so they knew well what was to come. It left others to try and clean up a mess that should never have existed.

I admire your conviction to the NARGC (or the "coalition" as a whole). However i fail to understand your (and everyone else's) blind allegiance to them in the face of what is being done. We are not making up stories about them. We are reacting to what they openly brag about doing, on Facebook/via the letter/via their proposals, without seeing the fault in their methods. Some being illegal, others impractical, and what little remains of such high cost as to render it unworkable. I mean if the Minister said that a report, just paperwork, was too expensive to create due to the man hours needed, what chance do you think they have of getting proofing, ballistic testing, etc. in?


The excuse of "at least we're doing something" is akin to "the road to hell is lined with good intentions". Sometimes not acting is the best course of action. If this "coalition" truly had the best interest of all sports in mind they would, as has been pointed out to me numerous times, forget the past and work with the other groups. Or at least consult them on issues (as outlined above by Sparks) on matters they don't know about or fully understand. They don't, and continue to run amok.

MacsuibhneR

Sparks,

I have said that if you fulfil the criteria you can get a licence. This is the law and has been upheld by the courts.

The coalition have not offered to ban any firearms, either the ones they speak for or the ones they do not. I am not agreeing with the coalition because I am a member. One of the clubs of which I am a member is affiliated to the NASRPC which is part of the coalition. That is as far as my involvement goes. My insurance is with countryside alliance, through a different club membership. I do not personally know any of the individuals involved and am giving my own personal view. I am not a member of any "gang". I do think training is a good idea and your concerns are matters that need to be thrashed out in the implementation.

Again I don't see the ban that the coalition have proposed. Their proposal would allow current CF SA rifle holders to keep their firearms and allow current pistol holders to continue in their sport.

The benefits of the proposal are that it would stop pretty much all pistol shooters having to purchase a handguns that are "strictly designed for use in Olympic competitions" - from the AGS report. The coalition proposal allows an infinitely wider number of pistols to be licenced and that is why I think it is reasonable.

On the ballistic testing again I cannot recall if Alan Farell was the only one who latched on to the idea but I seem to recall Padraig McLaughlin coming in on it and no doubt Mr. McGrath. That's three. The minister still has the final say and no doubt there will be very few from our side who will disagree with her if she drops it.

It is impossible for me to prove how a training scheme will work in the future and likewise it is impossible for you to prove that it will work in the way you fear it will. It is up to all of us to ensure we get a proportional workable scheme.

The proposed cap and changes to pistol licencing rules are of course illegal under the current legislation and I do not know if this would have to be done by way of primary legislation or by way of SI. As I said earlier this is a matter for the AG and the courts.

The concealability issue has always been there. In my own experience it is easier to get a restricted gallery rifle licence than an unrestricted pistol licence and any Garda I ever spoke to has mentioned it. If you think it was not there then I believe you are very much mistaken.

I readily accept my lack of knowledge of the history of this debate over the last ten years and only profess to comment on the proposal which I have seen. I do accept that you have more experience of the individuals involved.

The Gardaí were looking to ban all centre fire semi auto rifles and as set out above impose a more or less de facto ban on rimfire pistols. The coalition are countering these arguments, as no doubt so is every other shooting body. Notwithstanding the recommendation on the referral to the Garda Inspectorate, I still do not think the committee were going to discount the garda concerns, as you believe. Yes it is unusual for the referral but that is a far cry from not believing what the AGS have to say. The committee also have their own personal views and the majority appeared, in my opinion, to have a generally anti firearm view in the first place. The bogus AGS public safety concerns are not so easily dismissed as you believe.

As I have said earlier I have a problem with sacrificing others to safeguard your own interest and do not agree that it works. I do not think that the coalition proposal does do this, however I accept that the bracketed portion of the third paragraph could have been written more diplomatically.

Cass

MacsuibhneR wrote: »

I have said that if you fulfil the criteria you can get a licence. This is the law and has been upheld by the courts.

No, you said it's your right. It's not.

The coalition have not offered to ban any firearms, either the ones they speak for or the ones they do not

What about currently licensed, unrestricted pistols with a barrel length of less than 5 inches? They'd be gone or don't they count?

I do think training is a good idea and your concerns are matters that need to be thrashed out in the implementation.

The law, and previous Minister said that proficiency in the use of a firearm is not a prerequisite for getting a license. So why would the "coalition", and not for the first time, ask for a graduated training against the law and the views of the, then, Minster?

Again I don't see the ban that the coalition have proposed. Their proposal would allow current CF SA rifle holders to keep their firearms and allow current pistol holders to continue in their sport.

Not in the manner it is now. And at a severely high cost. So much so as to price people out of the sport. Time lock safes, etc. Tens of thousands to keep shooting your sport.

The benefits of the proposal are that it would stop pretty much all pistol shooters having to purchase a handguns that are "strictly designed for use in Olympic competitions" - from the AGS report. The coalition proposal allows an infinitely wider number of pistols to be licenced and that is why I think it is reasonable.

It restricts and eliminates currently licensed pistols so how can it increase the amount of guns when it's first act will be to reduce the number of them? As was pointed out to you numerous times the ISSF/Olympics do not even hold such a high standard for pistols. One it's over 10cm, and .22 rimifre it can be used. You may not win anything with it, but it can be used.

On the ballistic testing again I cannot recall if Alan Farell was the only one who latched on to the idea but I seem to recall Padraig McLaughlin coming in on it and no doubt Mr. McGrath. That's three. The minister still has the final say and no doubt there will be very few from our side who will disagree with her if she drops it.

Are you not reading my point above? If not allow me to once again explain it.

IT DOES NOT WORK. Instead of rubbishing the idea the "coalition" capitulated to it. It would have been more beneficial to explain to the committee why it could not work, the cost, and how it has failed in other countries it has been tried in. They did not do so choosing instead to endorse it. IOW they never bothered to research it.

It is impossible for me to prove how a training scheme will work in the future and likewise it is impossible for you to prove that it will work in the way you fear it will. It is up to all of us to ensure we get a proportional workable scheme.

Again you have not read my point above. A graduated licensing system will prevent any new person from entering the sport, in my case, F-Class. You canno train, practice or even take part in F-Class with anything under a centrefire rifle. This is not down to who has the best gun wins, this is down to the rules set out by ICFRA. Currently any person that wishes to shoot F-class can do so once they have a suitable centrefie rifle to achieve the distances it's shot at. With an air rifle, rimfire, or even varmint caliber rifle this is not possible. Plus some disciplines such as FTR demand a specific caliber. If a person is told to get a firearm that is not the suitable caliber, to train with for "X" period of time, before moving onto another firearm of again unsuitable caliber for another "X" period of time until after thousands of Euro and many years they can eventually show proficiency to use it they will turn tail and leave before they have started.

The proposed cap and changes to pistol licencing rules are of course illegal under the current legislation and I do not know if this would have to be done by way of primary legislation or by way of SI. As I said earlier this is a matter for the AG and the courts.

you have been told three times that it cannot be done via SI, and requires a rewriting og the Act.

The concealability issue has always been there. In my own experience it is easier to get a restricted gallery rifle licence than an unrestricted pistol licence and any Garda I ever spoke to has mentioned it. If you think it was not there then I believe you are very much mistaken.

Your experience does not indicate a pattern, and unless the every Garda you spoke to was of Chief Super rank or higher then their opinion is just that, their opinion. The concealability issue should have been rubbished much like the "mass shooting" statements were. They are a non issue, never have been, and therefore not worthy of a compromise. To acknowledge these "concerns" only gives them credibility.

The coalition are countering these arguments

By introducing ban of their own.

The bogus AGS public safety concerns are not so easily dismissed as you believe.

So your thought is the "coalition" were better off adressing these bogus concerns by proposing changes to the firearms to address the concerns? And before you say that is not what you said, you've just said, on numerous occasions that you agree with the proposals.

As I have said earlier I have a problem with sacrificing others to safeguard your own interest and do not agree that it works. I do not think that the coalition proposal does do this,.

You have posted a good few times since yesterday. In all post you say you agree with the proposals. Yet since your first post you have said:

1. I don't agree with sacrificing others to safeguard my own interests
2. I don't agree with ballistics testing
3. I think the Garda figures/claims are bogus
4. It could have been drafted better
5. etc.

Well:

1. Banning anything below 5 inches is sacrificing others to safeguard your own interests (the general you, not you specifcially)
2. The "coalition" has ceeded the point on ballistic testing
3. The proposal to address concealability is giving credibility to bogus claims
4. It was not researched, not consulted on, written in secret and sent without any forethought. Sowas not written better.

Grizzly 45

I'm face palming every time I see this BS about the" apprenticeship" which it is not and should never be is brought u and the potential for a pigs mickey to be made of a relatively simple and functioning concept in Europe .

I mean if we want to liscense the man and not the guns,how does anyone propose we find out is the man competant to hold the guns??We see every day on our roads disasterous driving from people who got their liscenses literally for free in the 1980s.Do we want the same free for all for our guns too?

We are trying to bring in a new system and heath robinson it into our old system without giving much thought on how this can be done.
So Ill ask this.

1]
Do we agree or not that it would be a good idea that there was a basic three day saftey course done that would cover you for rifle,pistol ,shotgun,that consisted of a multiple choice questionare on firearms laws in Ireland,with a 75 % pass rate,and you answer a dozen questions orally on firearms laws to prove to the satisfaction of the interviewer you know the law or have a working knowledge of it.
For the practical side you shoot a big caliber rifle,a .22 a .22 pistol and a big caliber handgun on a range in a controlled and safe manner,with NO scoring for competancy,just so long as you hit the target?[An A4 piece of paper at 10 meters]
Out of this you get a lifelong valid State cert saying you are competant in the usage and handling of the three basic firearm groups. YES/NO?

2]Do we think it is reasonable to say that if you wanted to take up clay shooting say ,and keeping the above test and questions in mind.That it would be an utter farsce to say you must start with a .410 and then work up to a 12 GA,or would the above qualify you to use any type of smooth bore gun for clay shooting and caliber and left to your discretion? Likewise if yoiu wish to shoot .22 .308 or 500 nitro experss your commpetancy has been tested and you are qualified to do so by the State?

3]Would it be a bad idea to make people do a probationary period with a gun club of six months with them having to attend at least twice a month and a month after the probationary period,to assauge Joe Publics fears that anyone could join a club after the State test and immediately buy a firearm or do the probationary time and buy their guns and never be seen again and go and possibly commit mayhem? In the six months,you are shooting the club gun of the caliber of your choice or disipline and it allows people to get a handle on what type of person you are and whether you are safe and competant to sign off on owning a personal firearm at home?

THAT is how this system should work and does work in Germany and the Czech Republic...No you must achive a certain scoring quota ,or you must start off with an air rifle if you want a .308 rubbish. If you are enthaustic and shooting under supervision no doubt your scoring will improve anyway,but it is not mandatory to become a total bloody expert,just that you are safe and competant and can be trusted with a gun?

Now of course this bein Ireland I'm sure we can all figure out ways to make money out of this,by pass it,exeggerate or understate or generally dodge the saftey features...And make a total arse of it .:rolleyes: But thats how it should work,it measures your competancy and saftey not your shooting skills or your wallet.As seems to be the cases already.
If we want to be liscensed personally to own firearms ,this is something we have to consider.Otherwise we are stuck back with each gun being liscensed seperately at the whim of an authorithy figure.

Sparks

MacsuibhneR wrote: »

Sparks,
I have said that if you fulfil the criteria you can get a licence. This is the law and has been upheld by the courts.

This is not the law.

Here is the law (it's section four if you're looking to read it):

An issuing person shall not grant a firearm certificate unless he or she is satisfied that the applicant complies with the conditions referred to in subsection (2) and will continue to comply with them during the currency of the certificate.

That does not say you get it if you fulfill the conditions.
It says you don't get it if you don't. Those are not the same thing in the law.
You do not have a right to a firearm. And the last time we tried that argument in court was McCarron and we lost that in both the High and Supreme Courts.

The coalition have not offered to ban any firearms

Yes they have:

The Sports Coalition could accept the following as a basis to commence round table discussion on a wider review of the firearms licensing system:
...
In relation to the .22 handguns which are currently licensed, this matter must be resolved by a new S.I. before the 2015 renewal date. The terms of resolution could restrict the licensing of such firearms to .22 calibre short firearms suitable for competition under ISSF rules (which include Olympic competitions), but with a barrel length of NOT LESS than 5 inches

That's the ban, right there in black and white.
They will accept a ban on licencing .22 pistols with barrels shorter than 5 inches.

Again I don't see the ban that the coalition have proposed. Their proposal would allow current CF SA rifle holders to keep their firearms and allow current pistol holders to continue in their sport.

No, it would not. Again, read their proposal:

We could accept a temporary cap on licensing centrefire semi-automatic rifles with the exception of classic (old – pre 1950) models pending the outcome of a wider firearms licensing review. In other words, with immediate effect, no new licenses would be issued for this category until a full review is complete.

That "temporary cap" wouldn't be legal unless you rewrite the Firearms Act, and if it goes into that Act, it ain't coming back out. Especially not if there's a change of Minister between it going in and the review completing. Ever met a Minister who'd stand up for more liberal firearms licencing?

The benefits of the proposal are that it would stop pretty much all pistol shooters having to purchase a handguns that are "strictly designed for use in Olympic competitions" - from the AGS report.

So you'd require them to give up the pistols they own now by accepting a more restrictive ban than what the AGS are asking for?
Even though the AGS proposal wasn't likely to go through given the calling in of the Inspectorate?
This was a case of the Gardai looking for one ban and the Coalition saying "No, we want a more restrictive ban thanks".

The coalition proposal allows an infinitely wider number of pistols to be licenced and that is why I think it is reasonable.

Well, since it does not allow that, you're saying you think it is reasonable because you don't know enough about the situation.

The minister still has the final say and no doubt there will be very few from our side who will disagree with her if she drops it.

Why would she now? Our side just okayed it, the AGS won't object to a Minister and she gets to say she's done something to be tough on crime and we get to pay for it.

It is up to all of us to ensure we get a proportional workable scheme.

Bollocks to that. Why would anyone with any judgement legitimise either this idiotic idea or the actions of the Coalition by offering to help make it work? Do you honestly think the Coalition just have to send in a letter to the government and then we all have to toe their line? This is your idea of how this all works?

The proposed cap and changes to pistol licencing rules are of course illegal under the current legislation and I do not know if this would have to be done by way of primary legislation or by way of SI. As I said earlier this is a matter for the AG and the courts.

It's not. It's black and white. It cannot be done without an Act, and the recommendation was specifically supposed to happen before any Act was passed.
Pass an Act to allow it, and you'll get an unpleasant lesson in how sausages get made by committee and we'll all pay for it. Again. For the third time in a decade.

If you think it was not there then I believe you are very much mistaken.

I don't have to think it wasn't there, I can read their proposals and see it's not there.

I readily accept my lack of knowledge of the history of this debate over the last ten years

Then learn. It's all up here in black and white. Nothing's been hidden away.

The Gardaí were looking to ban all centre fire semi auto rifles and as set out above impose a more or less de facto ban on rimfire pistols.

And now the coalition has agreed to ban all center fire semi auto rifles other than those currently licenced, and to impose a de jure ban on more rimfire pistols than the Gardai wanted to ban.

This is not a good thing.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

I mean if we want to liscense the man and not the guns,how does anyone propose we find out is the man competant to hold the guns??We see every day on our roads disasterous driving from people who got their liscenses literally for free in the 1980s.Do we want the same free for all for our guns too?

We've had the system now in place for 90 years without that risk. And no, you could have all the things we see now for most of those 90 years. The need didn't exist.

If you want to bring it in, get everyone round the table and talk about it. You don't just send in your own narrow views as representing everyone!

1] Do we agree or not that it would be a good idea that there was a basic three day saftey course done

Nope.
The course you're describing would mean that all the other means of proving competence get ruled out.
And that practical test you describe is a proficiency test, just a lax one.
Competency is concerned with questions like Is the applicant walking about with his finger on the trigger of a loaded shotgun on a crowded range.
Proficiency is asking if he can hit the target he's aiming at, or how close he gets to it.
The law wants the former, not the latter, and frankly, I think that's a good thing.

Out of this you get a lifelong

Hell no.
Did we not learn that lesson with driving licences?
A better idea might be You get reported for a breach of competency and you lose the cert and have to regain it.
And and even better idea might be You get everyone round the table and talk about it and what we get for agreeing to it in the first place given than we've had an outstanding safety record for 160 years without it.

2]Do we think it is reasonable to say

No, because that's a test of proficiency, not competency.

3]Would it be a bad idea to make people do a probationary period

That's a lot of power to give gun clubs. It's a de facto veto on firearms licencing. Where are your safeguards in case (to use a common example) the local gun club says you can't join because you're not from the parish or they don't like you? Do we have to look forward to applicants taking gun clubs to court over membership disputes?

THAT is how this system should work and does work in Germany and the Czech Republic.

And they didn't bring it in overnight and they don't act the way we do (that whole national psyche thing). Learn from them, yes. Parrot them, no.

If we want to be liscensed personally to own firearms ,this is something we have to consider.Otherwise we are stuck back with each gun being liscensed seperately at the whim of an authorithy figure.

Or, we go with the proposals the Committee took from the other shooting bodies for independent licencing, restated simplified law, independent investigation of the practices and statistics of the firearms licencing system and so on. Walking up to people who are adjudicating between you and people who want you banned and offering to discuss the terms of the ban is not a good approach.

MacsuibhneR

Sparks,

If you look at my original post I set out why I disagreed with your analysis that the coalition offered to sacrifice large swathes of firearms in return for a seat at the table. I then met with two very robust rebuttals and having been putting my view point across since then. This is why I have posted a lot in the last day or so however you will note that in my first post I did say I did not agree with all of the proposals 100%.

I said in my second post that people were forced by the actions of AGS to go to court to enforce their rights, whereupon it was pointed out that we have no constitutional right or indeed legal right to a firearm. I have never said that I have a right to get a licence and have said that if you fulfil the criteria you can get a licence. How can you say that such a simple statement is wrong? Until the current law changes that is the simple position and if unfairly treated by AGS can appeal to the courts to uphold your rights (e.g. right to be held equal before the law, fair procedures etc.).

Despite all the hyperbole I think it boils down to the following:-

1. It is your view that the coalition have sold out pistol shooters by proposing that no pistol with a barrel length less than five inches be licenced. I think this approach is reasonable in the context of what the Gardaí were looking for and should make it easier for people to continue in the sport or new entrants to enter it.

2. It is your view that the coalition sold out owners of SA CF rifles and potential new entrants into the sport. I believe that in the context of a total ban their approach was reasonable and that is why I support it.

3. It is your view that any sort of graduated / training / apprenticeship scheme is unacceptable because it will impose unnecessary restrictions and expense. It is my view that such a scheme, properly implemented, is a good thing and should lead to higher standards of marksmanship.

4. It is your view that the coalition were wrong to suggest ballistic testing is something a new body should discuss. It is my view that if necessary it is something we should live with in order to safeguard our sport, even though we all agree it is a waste of time.

5. We all agree that the coalition by publishing its letter did it in a self serving move which has annoyed many other shooting groups.

Cass

MacsuibhneR wrote: »

If you look at my original post I set out why I disagreed with your analysis that the coalition offered to sacrifice large swathes of firearms in return for a seat at the table. I then met with two very robust rebuttals and having been putting my view point across since then. This is why I have posted a lot in the last day or so however you will note that in my first post I did say I did not agree with all of the proposals 100%.

With all due respect you are arguing against points without either reading the original proposals, the interim report, or without full understanding of what consequences will come as a result of such. There can be no half measures in this. You either agree with the proposals in their entirety or you don't agree with them at all. You say you agree with some of them, but not all. Then you cannot support such a letter or set of proposals on the hope that only the ones you like get picked and if they implement them all, well it's a price you are willing to pay to keep what you have.

That is throwing one section under the bus for the sake of your own. However way you wish to dress it up. It's unacceptable.

I said in my second post that people were forced by the actions of AGS to go to court to enforce their rights, whereupon it was pointed out that we have no constitutional right or indeed legal right to a firearm. I have never said that I have a right to get a licence and have said that if you fulfil the criteria you can get a licence. How can you say that such a simple statement is wrong? Until the current law changes that is the simple position and if unfairly treated by AGS can appeal to the courts to uphold your rights (e.g. right to be held equal before the law, fair procedures etc.).

I'm not getting caught up in word play, but legally the terms "entitled to" and "rights" are very, very, important legal definitions. You have used both, one more than one occasion, then back tracked to say that is not what you said or meant. I set out a clear and easily understood list of the main points. The first one being we have no Rights or Entitlements under the law. If you are not disentitleed to may apply for a firearm, but success is not guaranteed with each application. The result may be a trip to the courts, but that still does not guarantee, entitle you, or give you the right to hold a firearm.

1. It is your view that the coalition have sold out pistol shooters by proposing that no pistol with a barrel length less than five inches be licenced. I think this approach is reasonable in the context of what the Gardaí were looking for and should make it easier for people to continue in the sport or new entrants to enter it.

It is not my view, and i won't speak for others, it's what has happened. You excuse away the "coalitions" proposals on the basis that a restricted/subtle ban, as they have proposed, is better than a complete ban. Who are they to speak for everyone? As said above and many times before this what they propose is a ban to certain types of guns, instead of arguing for a case where no ban is necessary.

2. It is your view that the coalition sold out owners of SA CF rifles and potential new entrants into the sport. I believe that in the context of a total ban their approach was reasonable and that is why I support it.

As above. You believe an illegal cap/ban on C/F rifles is better than a complete ban. Who are the coalition" to make such a gesture on behalf of all C/F semi auto holders?

Add to this the time lock issue and they have taken it a step further than is necessary, once again with an impractical and prohibitively costly practice. So those that avoid the ban by buying a new gun with a 5 inch barrel are now banned due to the inability to afford the €15 grand price tag of a time locked safe.

3. It is your view that any sort of graduated / training / apprenticeship scheme is unacceptable because it will impose unnecessary restrictions and expense. It is my view that such a scheme, properly implemented, is a good thing and should lead to higher standards of marksmanship.

Once again i'll say it clearly. PROFICIENCY is not a prerequisite for a license. The Law says it, the previous Ministers have said it. So why would such a scheme be proposed by our own? As this will have a knock on effect to all sports, and fieldsports how can they justify, what is effectively, a banning or restriction on new members to most types of sports?

The other aspect is who runs these? Might seem like a trivial matter, but as An Gardaí do not endorse any safety or competency course at present it would fall to whomever or whatever group decides they are qualified to run such a scheme. It smacks of the same nonsense we suffered with teh meat handling courses. No regulation and now every Tom, Dick and Harry is running a course, and the prices vary from €50 to €400. The NARGC being the most expensive one if memory serves.

It has had the same effect on safety courses. An Gardaí will not entetain an application without a certificate. You can go to a firearms dealer, NARGC, range, clay range, basically anyone who names themselves as an instructor in the same, and get the certificate. Prices again varying from €30 to €200.

Other than being ridicuous, impractical, and a death knoll to some sports (most of which are not represented by the ""coalition" it is open to abuse and failure. It will not improve safety and has no bearing on proficiency.

4. It is your view that the coalition were wrong to suggest ballistic testing is something a new body should discuss. It is my view that if necessary it is something we should live with in order to safeguard our sport, even though we all agree it is a waste of time.

Sweet baby Jesus. Can you hear what you are saying. I's okay for the ""coalition" to recommend and support a system that is destined to fail as long as you get what you want?

5. We all agree that the coalition by publishing its letter did it in a self serving move which has annoyed many other shooting groups.

Not only what they published but the manner in which they done so. They did not inform anyone before it's release, during the last 7 weeks since it's release and only stuck it up on their Facebook page 5 days ago, and 2 days after the interim report was published.

Gets you thinking if the review committee had known then how flawed it was, would they have utilised so many aspects of it, and if not would we have ever seen or known about these secret proposals?

Sparks

MacsuibhneR wrote: »

I have never said that I have a right to get a licence and have said that if you fulfil the criteria you can get a licence. How can you say that such a simple statement is wrong?

Because the law does not say what you think it says.
The law does not say that if you fulfill the criteria you will get a licence. Instead, it says that you may not get a licence unless you fulfill those criteria. This is not an agreement or promise to give you a licence if you do meet the criteria. You simply have no such expectation in the law. At all. This is a principle that has been in the law for ninety years now, and it has never been changed.

1. It is your view that the coalition have sold out pistol shooters by proposing that no pistol with a barrel length less than five inches be licenced. I think this approach is reasonable in the context of what the Gardaí were looking for and should make it easier for people to continue in the sport or new entrants to enter it.

Firstly, it's not reasonable, because it requires you to accept the Gardai's argument. We have expended considerable effort showing the flaws in the Gardai's argument and debunking it.

Secondly the Coalition do not have the right to make such a proposal. Those aren't their firearms, and those aren't their sports that they're offering up.
It's not a case of "everyone makes their own points" - it's a case of them pointing at other groups and saying "We think you should ban them instead of us".

3. It is your view that any sort of graduated / training / apprenticeship scheme is unacceptable because it will impose unnecessary restrictions and expense.

That is not my view. My view is that it will impose unnecessary restrictions and expense, undermine the fundamental core of the law in both letter and spirit, bring a focus from competency to proficiency in the law which would be bad for everyone, create weaknesses ripe for commercial exploitation by the unscrupulous at our expense, and worst of all, compromise our safety.

4. It is your view that the coalition were wrong to suggest ballistic testing is something a new body should discuss.

Correct, because it is already being discussed and could be dealt with now, before it gathers momentum and while it is opposed by all sides equally.

5. We all agree that the coalition by publishing its letter did it in a self serving move which has annoyed many other shooting groups.

Annoyed. No.
Angered, enraged, betrayed, and confirmed the worst suspicions of other groups yes, but Annoyed isn't a sufficient word for this task.

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

We've had the system now in place for 90 years without that risk. And no, you could have all the things we see now for most of those 90 years. The need didn't exist.

Because proably 90 years ago people had a bit more practical sense maybe? Feck it even when I started shooting at ten years of age with a 410 39 years ago,i had more sense than most 16 year olds or even some 24 year olds these days. I certainly think you are right in the "if it aint broken dont fix it" school of thought.However ,whats to say someone in power with nothing better to do decides it is broken and we must have it fixed for us?This is whats going to come down the pipeline or somthing of the like.

If you want to bring it in, get everyone round the table and talk about it. You don't just send in your own narrow views as representing everyone!

Agree 100% ,and what i'm asking is more about the mechanics rather than the politics of this.

Nope.
The course you're describing would mean that all the other means of proving competence get ruled out.
And that practical test you describe is a proficiency test, just a lax one.

Competency is concerned with questions like Is the applicant walking about with his finger on the trigger of a loaded shotgun on a crowded range.
Proficiency is asking if he can hit the target he's aiming at, or how close he gets to it.

The law wants the former, not the latter, and frankly, I think that's a good thing.

How do you prove otherwise you are safe with a firearm?Either you are or you are not.No ifs or buts.And they want to see more saftey than competancy on the range,nice if you get all 10 in the paper,no harm if you only get one or two flyers.And thats a bad idea in your opinion?

Hell no.
Did we not learn that lesson with driving licences?
A better idea might be You get reported for a breach of competency and you lose the cert and have to regain it.

Good job I didnt mention what the penalties outside competance would be for losing your liscense.DUI,diddlingyour taxes,getting over five points on the drivers liscense and the recent having to store all firearms now in a safe and allowing 3rd party random inspections of your safe at any time of day or night to see if you are complying..The Germans are doing their nut about the last one.
To use the driving liscense example ,as it stands we would and technically are back in the early 80s when we could buy your driver liscense and for whatever category and go off driving an artic without ever having ten minutes driving lessons on one.All grand until somthing goes wrong or some Eurocrat says you MUST do it under some EU directive "harmonising EU gun laws"and we get a worse dose of the sht than we proably could have avoided,and dont think that isnt coming down the pipeline either.

And and even better idea might be You get everyone round the table and talk about it and what we get for agreeing to it in the first place given than we've had an outstanding safety record for 160 years without it.

Again agree,


.

That's a lot of power to give gun clubs. It's a de facto veto on firearms licencing. Where are your safeguards in case (to use a common example) the local gun club says you can't join because you're not from the parish or they don't like you? Do we have to look forward to applicants taking gun clubs to court over membership disputes?

More like national organisations and they are allowed in the EU to set their own limits of pre requsits before signing you off so that case would be discrimination .Local gun clubs in Ireland are more hunting clubs for ducks and pheasents not training facilities to hunt [,see again the trying to slam to different methods together?].The Europeans have a different set of rules for hunting.And if you think what I suggested was bad on the target shooting side..You dont want to see what sort of competancy and proficency you need to show for the German hunting test!
But then you have it until you are 85 and can buy as many long arms as you want and stuff your house full with ammo as well and no one will say boo to you,just register the gun within 30 days with your local authorithy.

And they didn't bring it in overnight and they don't act the way we do (that whole national psyche thing). Learn from them, yes. Parrot them, no.

Said a mouthful there alright and especially about us learning[ and perverting it to someones agenda for ego and/or profit]It could be claimed that this bastardised mess that is being spewed about is the "learned from other EU countries adapted to Ireland" solution.IOW a feckin dogs dinner!:mad:

Or, we go with the proposals the Committee took from the other shooting bodies for independent licencing, restated simplified law, independent investigation of the practices and statistics of the firearms licencing system and so on. Walking up to people who are adjudicating between you and people who want you banned and offering to discuss the terms of the ban is not a good approach

.
There you go with those logical and practical un Irish solutions to things again!:)

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

That is not my view. My view is that it will impose unnecessary restrictions and expense, undermine the fundamental core of the law in both letter and spirit, bring a focus from competency to proficiency in the law which would be bad for everyone, create weaknesses ripe for commercial exploitation by the unscrupulous at our expense, and worst of all, compromise our safety.

Sparks could you elaborate on the bits I've underlined in thew above??

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

How do you prove otherwise you are safe with a firearm?

Because firearm safety has a lot more than just being able to hit a target involved with it. From basic handling (as opposed to basic shooting), maintenance, storage, even the rudiments of the law, security, and so on.
Does you no good at all from the point of view of competency if you can put five rounds in the bullseye from your pistol if you then holster it and get back in the car with it in your holster and drive home thinking you're grand...

All grand until somthing goes wrong or some Eurocrat says you MUST do it under some EU directive "harmonising EU gun laws"and we get a worse dose of the sht than we proably could have avoided,and dont think that isnt coming down the pipeline either.

Grizzly, if the EU decided today that their gun law had precedence over member state's gun laws, do you know what would happen here?
We'd see the biggest loosening of Irish firearms in history. Whole swathes of things that today need full licences can suddenly be bought and sold openly without licences. You wouldn't know where you were with all the choice you'd have.

You dont want to see what sort of competancy and proficency you need to show for the German hunting test!

I've seen it, but that system's grown into place organically, not dropped in whole on top of a system that doesn't use anything like it and hammered down into place...

There you go with those logical and practical un Irish solutions to things again!:)

Comes from being used to logical and practical rules for a sport whose most prominent feature is brutal honesty...

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Sparks could you elaborate on the bits I've underlined in thew above??

unnecessary restrictions and expense
If I see, for example, the NRAI creedmoor match video and think "I want to shoot that", right now you go to the range, and get started learning to shoot that. You buy F-Class kit, and licence an F-class rifle and do F-Class training.
Under an apprenticeship scheme, you'd go get either an air or a smallbore rifle, have to hold those for a set period of time to be determined by someone else, shooting a sport you have no interest in, spending money buying the rifles to do so, and then working up to an F-Class rifle in however many steps someone else determines to be right.

By the way, that someone else will not be the NGB for F-Class rifle, and this approach will cripple that sport's intake of new people, as this approach will do for all sports that you don't start off in immediately.

So by the time you get your F-Class rifle now, you'll have bought at least one other rifle, and possibly two or three, the secure storage arrangements for that many rifles (which is more than you'd have paid for for just the F-Class rifle), you've paid for several licences, you've sat several exams (and presumably paid for those too) and waited years and then finally, you get to do what you would have done on day one today.


competency to proficiency in the law which would be bad for everyone

Apprenticeship is based on the idea of proficiency, not competency. You apprentice to learn how to do something. The law, meanwhile, as I've mentioned above, is based on competency - ie. that you will not present a danger to yourself or others while you gain proficiency. The law should focus on competency instead of proficiency.

compromise our safety.

You know who we have to watch more closely as new members to our clubs? People who've shot before in other sports. They've always learned habits, conciously or unconciously, that can cause problems on our ranges. Complete newbies on the other hand, are blank slates. Tell them that X is dangerous and not to do it, and they listen, they don't have a voice in their head going "I used to do X all the time in the FCA/ERU/whatever, it's fine, they're being daft". You bring in an apprenticeship scheme, you turn every new member into people we have to watch more closely as they unlearn habits. That's our safety compromised.

MacsuibhneR

Cass / Sparks,

I have read the AGS proposals, the interim proposals and the Coalitions letter. I simply disagree with your analysis of the proposals and letter submitted by the coalition for the reasons previously outlined. You both obviously disagree with my analysis.

Once again if you fulfil the criteria you can get a licence. Sparks, you say that if you fulfil the criteria then you may not be refused a licence. Either way if there is an unlawful refusal you can go to court to enforce your rights which was my point in the first place. That is not word play on my part.

If nothing else we have at least summarised our differences of opinion down to a number of small points so hopefully that can be of assistance to anyone else looking in to help them come to their own opinion on not only the Coalition letter, but also the Committee's recommendations.

On that note it is a beautiful evening and I am away to the range with my pistol and rifle.

nuff said.