Gardai proposals to ban firearms

Cass

MacsuibhneR wrote: »

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.

• I disagree with your naivety to think sacrificing one sport to save another is fair.
• I disagree your opinion that a needless and costly system should be set up that has proven to be useless.
• I disagree with your unexplained reasons for supporting a proposal simply because someone is fighting it.
• I disagree with short sighted explanation of why a graduated licensing system would work.
• I disagree with your lack of knowledge regarding how the law is, and that it cannot be changed easily, or at all, to what the proposals say.
• I disagree with your blinkered following of what this "coalition" is telling you considering their past actions
• I disagree with your refusal to see the bigger picture even though you have shown disagreement over what they have written
• I disagree with assertion that a "small" ban is better than an out and out ban on sports that have nothing to do with this "coalition"
• Lastly i disagree with the fact that you have shown no evidence or proof to support their stance, explain their actions, etc. in any way other than how it can play out other than to say "it's the best that can be done".

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.

You have just shown why speaking to you further is pointless. After four or five attempts to tell you that no such rights exist you still claim you have them.

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.

SMALL points.

• Banning of firearms
• Introduction of costly and pointless systems
• Throwing one sport under the bus for another
• No consultation with the appropriate groups
• No addressing of 8,000 firearms that face a ban or restricted licenses
• Graduated learning system that will cripple some sports
• Illegal steps to implement these steps.

Your idea of small and mine vary by some degree.

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

nuff said.

Enjoy it while you still have it and make sure to check back in here when they are gone. If only to refresh yourself as to how your coalition are acted on your part.

Sparks

MacsuibhneR wrote: »

Once again if you fulfil the criteria you can get a licence.

Can get. Not will get. There is no right to get a licence just because you fulfill the criteria.

Sparks, you say that if you fulfil the criteria then you may not be refused a licence.

No, I say the exact opposite.

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.

Again, you do not go to court to enforce your rights because you have no right to a licence.
If someone unlawfully refuses your application, you can appeal their decision - but as in the pre-2006 days, the usual outcome is that the issuing officer is told to reconsider. This is not an order to grant. And it is the only kind of victory we have ever seen in the courts - ie. the other side acted unlawfully and were told to act within the law. They were not ordered to grant a licence.

You have to distinguish between what is a right and what is not with great care when the law is involved. This isn't you and me nattering over pints where "you know what I mean" gives great leeway in conversation. The courts do not recognise that phrase...

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

Spare a thought for the people who just had their pistols and rifles put up for a ban by the Coalition so you could do that.

tac foley

Flame me if you care to do so, I'm almost 5000 km away and don't really care, but back in the UK people who join a gun club in which almost every kind of legal firearm can be shot - like, for instance, Oundle Rifle and Pistol Club in Northamptonshire - are required to serve SIX months probationary period in the case that they are total beginners, and THREE months if they are members of the Armed Forces. If they are already licensed firearms holders, then they are absolved this wait, although there may be some degree of familiarisation time until the next committee meeting accepts them as full members. Many new club members come from the deer-stalking community, and wish to join the club to ensure themselves of a place to zero their rifles, perhaps having moved home locations or jobs and taking them to another part of the country. Such people invariably have to undergo a learning curve on static range etiquette and behaviour from the safety POV.

During the six or three month probationay period, the probie gets to shoot any and all of the club guns - .22, then .223, then .308 or .303, and every kind of other rifle or carbine of black powder arm they get offered the chance to shoot. Since I have seven .22 rifles and ten other centrefire rifles in six calibres, including black powder rifles, and two revolvers, I could easily help them get acquainted with all these different calibres and gun operating systems - bolt, falling block, tilting block, trapdoor whatever, all by myself, but then, other folks have other guns, and the probies get to shoot them all, and get used to them all, and gain competency and safe-handling skills with them all, and log it in their documented gun-type experience log as they do so.

They get tested, too, on a couple of occasions during this period, on all manner of subjects relating to the safe handling and application of the guns that they have been shooting. If they want to shoot at Bisley, then they must satisfy our Chief RCO of their safe-handling and competency and obtain the requisite NRA Bisley Range Qualification certificate. The club has probably the highest proportion of NRA-qualified RCOs of any club in the entire UK - about 25% are so qualified. The club also has certified British Deer Society instructors and testers, if that is your thing.

At the end of their probie time, they are keen to discuss their likely acquisitions with other club members, and, of course, with the club secretary, who will be their principal referee on the Firearms Certificate Application Form. Having got the nod from the secretary, who will have been talking to all the other full-time club members about the applicant, as well as seeing him or her on the shooting days over the previous half-year, he or she will them put in their application for a Firearms Certificate, asking, usually, to 'acquire and possess one .22 calibre rifle/carbine, one .223 calibre rifle/carbine, one .308 calibre rifle/carbine OR a .357/38 calibre underlever, and/or a .44 calibre black powder revolver, or, to be honest, anything they feel they would like to pursue in the field of shooting sports that is carried out in that club and elsewhere. If a noob is extremely keen to try TR, then they buy a suitable rifle and get on with it, having been introduced to shooting over the previous time with a .22 calibre rifle that everybody starts with, and 99% end up buying anyhow.

In other words, they learn their competency and gain their skills at the same time, during which they shoot club guns, or those of other club members who have guns of the kind that interest them. So, we have a dedicated .22 calibre rifle team of renown, with a couple from the National Squad on it, we do FT and F-TR at the appropriate longer range locations, we do gallery rifle/carbine and .22 bench rest. The way that WE do it, any noob can join in the fun of whatever he or she wants to do, as soon as they have the firearms certificate in their hands that gives them the legal pretext for owning a firearm. They have served their time as 'learner drivers', now they have the 'open road' on which to hone their skills.

I've been shooting for the last 63 years, and I'm still doing just that.

tac

Grizzly 45

tac foley wrote: »

Like how bad is that system???Didnt know the UK had gone that way either with a 6months probie system and its a liscense the man not the gun eith mostly civvie administration doing the paperwork.Seens to becoming an EU norm.

tac foley

Grizzly45 - the firearms and explosives licensing department IS part of the county police headquarters, but the administration is totally civilian, not police. Having filled out your application, got the club secretary to do his or her thing, and two other referees as well, you mail it to them, and sit back and wait for the Firearms Enquiries Officer - a civilian, not a police officer - pays you a visit to make sure that you have the correct kind of security and that you are, quite frankly, who and what you say you are. No police officers are involved except that the county Chief Constable - two ranks above Chief Superintendent, signs off on your Firearms Certificate.

You'll notice that is is NOT a license. It is a certificate that certifies that the Chief Constable has been satisfied that you are a fit person to acquire and possess firearms, having satisfied him or her that you have met the conditions required by the so-called 'good reason' to acquire and possess firearms, and as such it can be revoked at any time, albeit for good reason, on his or her authority. As you note, it applies to the person, and not the firearm, and here in UK, that has always been the case since the whole certification began prior to WW2.

I therefore have ONE certificate, on which all nineteen of my current collection of Section 1 rifled firearms are detailed. It is renewed every five years, and currently costs, I think, just £12 per year. I don't have any shotguns, although the club to which I belong has one of the principal Practical shotgun ranges in UK, and many of the club members take part in that discipline which requires, of course, a shotgun that is not only a semi-auto, but hold up to eight rounds of 12g slug.

There is no such thing as a 'restricted' firearm - even a noobie knows that no .38 handgun cartridge is more powerful by far than a .308Win rifle cartridge...a look at any ballistic calculator will show you that the 'gigantic and world-threatening 45-70 cartridge' has less muzzle energy than even the teeny .223 Remington. Magazine capacity is not limited, nor is the 'appearance' of a firearm a decision-maker. Here it is well-known that it is the intent of a person that matters, not what colour or shape the 'tool' is. The thought that a little .22 rifle designed in 1902, that just happens to have its magazine in the stock, is actually a 'bull-pup' design and therefore banned seems ludicrous to the outsider, as is the determination that an empty cartridge case is as dangerous as a live one. I'll leave out the gun-safes that are 'firearms', and the crossbows that are 'firearms' and the de-acts........

True, there are positively NO semi-auto centre-fire long arms here in the entire UK - the inevitable government action taken after the Hungerford Massacre in 1986, and, on the mainland, no modern style of handguns, after another massacre in Dunblane. In both cases it has been shown beyond any doubt that the inadequacies of the police and their dealings with two known psychos was fundamentally to blame for the miscreants being able to continue to possess the firearms they used in such an appalling way. However, Northern Ireland had, strange as it might seem, an almost 100% record of absolutely NO legally civilian-owned handguns being used in the commission of crimes that they told the Westminster government to go pound sand back in 1997, and ignored the call for a general handgun ban.

tac

yubabill1

After a few days of quiet reflection, it looks to me like the Sports Coalition have presented the Justice Committee with a smorgasboard of false choices.

MacsuibhneR

Cass wrote: »

• I disagree with your naivety to think sacrificing one sport to save another is fair.
• I disagree your opinion that a needless and costly system should be set up that has proven to be useless.
• I disagree with your unexplained reasons for supporting a proposal simply because someone is fighting it.
• I disagree with short sighted explanation of why a graduated licensing system would work.
• I disagree with your lack of knowledge regarding how the law is, and that it cannot be changed easily, or at all, to what the proposals say.
• I disagree with your blinkered following of what this "coalition" is telling you considering their past actions
• I disagree with your refusal to see the bigger picture even though you have shown disagreement over what they have written
• I disagree with assertion that a "small" ban is better than an out and out ban on sports that have nothing to do with this "coalition"
• Lastly i disagree with the fact that you have shown no evidence or proof to support their stance, explain their actions, etc. in any way other than how it can play out other than to say "it's the best that can be done".

You have just shown why speaking to you further is pointless. After four or five attempts to tell you that no such rights exist you still claim you have them.
SMALL points.

• Banning of firearms
• Introduction of costly and pointless systems
• Throwing one sport under the bus for another
• No consultation with the appropriate groups
• No addressing of 8,000 firearms that face a ban or restricted licenses
• Graduated learning system that will cripple some sports
• Illegal steps to implement these steps.

Your idea of small and mine vary by some degree.
Enjoy it while you still have it and make sure to check back in here when they are gone. If only to refresh yourself as to how your coalition are acted on your part.

Cass,

I had been planning to let this matter be however after your assertions that because I disagree with your analysis that my views are naïve, short sighted, blinkered and are due to my lack of knowledge of the law I feel compelled to reply. Please therefore note the following:-

1. I have never said that I believe in sacrificing, throwing under a bus (or any other emotive imagery your care to use) is fair and in actual fact have stated on several occasions that this tactic does not work. I also do not believe the coalition does this. This does not make me naïve.

2. My opinion is that I agree with the coalition said such a system should be discussed in order to ensure the continued survival of the sport. The fact that it is needless and costly are sound arguments against it and should be made. This is all part of the discussion but the fact that you believe that such things should not be even discussed are unsound tactics on your part. The "not an inch" approach will not work because we are simply not in a strong enough bargaining position. I therefore suggest that you look at the big picture.

3. I am not agreeing to any unexplained proposal. I have said that I disagree with Sparks' original assertion that the coalition have sacrificed large swathes of the shooting community to get a seat at the table. I have said that I agree with some of the coalitions proposal. I am not being argumentative and I have outlined the reasons as to how I have come to that conclusion.]

4. I have said that the coalition proposal that training /graduated licensing system be discussed in a future group is a good idea. You have taken an imaginative leap into the future, come up with all sorts of restrictions that will be in such a system and then drawn the conclusion that the coalition were wrong to even suggest it. That is short sighted.

5. I suspect my knowledge of the law far exceeds your own. No legal professional would come with a statement that changing the law as suggested by the coalition (by way of SI) is illegal without first qualifying it with in "in my opinion" or a "court is likely to hold". Many a junior and senior counsel has had their wings clipped, while in full flight coming out with a statement a definitive as Sparks', by a Judge who will remind them that it is the court who will decide what act or omission is legal or illegal. I have said that I do not know if a change in the law in the manner suggested by the coalition is illegal or not, that the AG will advise the Government and if necessary the courts will ultimately decide. This demonstrates my knowledge of the law and how the system here works and the fact that you accept at face value such a definitive statement is not only foolhardy but demonstrates your lack of knowledge of not only the law but our entire legal system.

6. Your assertion that the coalition has no worth appears very much based upon the perceived wrongful past actions of some of its members. This, as I have said before, appears to be clouding your judgement. The fact that you cannot look at the proposal objectively is in fact the more blinkered approach.

7. It is precisely because I see the bigger picture that I can see merit in what they have done. We are a minority sport and the only clout we have is the fact that potentially we could sway the votes of licence holders in this state. The Gardaí are a large, powerful and relatively well organised body in this state. We cannot win in any kind of straight fight and must put forward a workable solution and convince the government of the merits of our arguments. As I have said above an intransigent approach will not work and until you can see past any alleged transgressions in the past you appear unable to see the bigger picture.

8. Of course a small ban is better than a big ban. No ban is best. The Gardaí are looking for a massive ban and the fact that the committee appears willing to accept a broad range of pistols with a barrel length in excess of 5 inches appears to me be a massive victory.

9. I have said before, and will say again that in the context of what we are facing, a total ban on restricted pistols, a total ban SA CF rifles, a de facto ban on SA Shotguns etc. that the coalition proposal is entirely reasonable. Again past issues appear to be clouding your judgement.

10. The fact that you cannot grasp that a person can go to court to enforce their rights is incredulous. I at no time said we have a right to a firearm although you no doubt wish I had so that you could correct me. I fail to see how me trying to explain such simple concepts means that it is pointless talking to me. As I have said before we have a right to fair procedures, we have a right to be held equal before the law and many other rights that the courts enforce.

11. You are right and these are not small points and that was careless use of language on my part for which I apologise. I should have used the word concise.

12. As set out above I believe the sub five inch rule is an acceptable compromise in the context in which it is given.

13. I have dealt with the ballistic testing argument above and likewise with the so called "throwing under a bus".

14. There are not 8,000 pistols in the state that have a barrel length less than five inches and very likely there are considerably less than a thousand. You can't just make up numbers like that.

15. Again on the graduated learning all the coalition suggested is that it be discussed in the future. As set out above you have taken a huge leap into the future to come up with the assertion that it will cripple some sports.

16. It your and Sparks' opinion that the move is illegal and unless your names begin with Mr. / Ms. Justice, it is only that. I have enough knowledge to know that it is foolish to come out with such a definitive statement.

17. I note that you could not resist a jibe about the fact that I went yesterday evening to participate in the sport that we are trying to correct. That is infantile.

yubabill1

MacsuibhneR, you are so entrenched in your misbeliefs that you convince yourself of your own righteousness by twisting cold, hard logic every time.

Now, why don't you test your assertions - go try and license a S/A centrefire or .22 pistol as soon as you can, there's a good man.

Let us know how you get on.

hexosan

I'll reply to point 14:
It wasn't said that there's 8000 pistol it was semi & pump action shotguns

hexosan

I'll reply to point 14:
It wasn't said that there's 8000 pistol it was semi & pump action shotguns

hexosan

The above back and forth is like reading the script for the movie ground hog day

tac foley

Strange name solved - Mr Crofton's oddly-named companion -

Quote from a friend.......

'Polish Count Kaz Balinski-Jundzill, musician and businessman,(international security?) the dashing Polish count -- or "Ziggy" as he prefers to be known among the beau monde of the Shelbourne -- has been seen on the arm of a mystery brunette. Allow me to solve that mystery for you. She is none other than Audrey Ferris -- a 28-year-old nanny from Donnybrook, who dated Leigh Arnold's brother, Nikki for a short spell. Audrey and Ziggy were spotted at the Ellier Developments launch of the Waterfront apartments at Hanover Quay in Dublin two weeks ago. The pair (I mean Ziggy and Audrey) were checking out the penthouse suite that was on show, and toasting with a glass of bubbly on the balcony.

Audrey was also to be seen at the Punchestown festival, looking gorgeous and talking to the suitably miserable-looking VIP publisher, Michael O'Doherty. (Perhaps he should ask his former business partner, John Ryan to take him out on the town to console him during his mourning period since his recent break-up with Sile Nolan).

Blue-blooded Ziggy may have been looking for a city-centre apartment to court his new dame, as he resides in a huge estate in Glendalough, Co Wicklow during the week.'

So there you have it. I'll leave those of you who actually live in the RoI to take this information any further, if at all. I'm going to bed - there's a LOT of snow to move in the morning before we can get the pickup out.

tac

MacsuibhneR

yubabill1 wrote: »

MacsuibhneR, you are so entrenched in your misbeliefs that you convince yourself of your own righteousness by twisting cold, hard logic every time.

Now, why don't you test your assertions - go try and license a S/A centrefire or .22 pistol as soon as you can, there's a good man.

Let us know how you get on.

I have already renewed my .22 pistol licence earlier this year and if you look at some of my past posts have been considering a SA CF rifle for a long time. Due to the AGS attitude and the fact that I would certainly have to go to court I have been reluctant due to the costs involved. As I said earlier anyone who is considering such a rifle would need to make their application ASAP to try to beat any cap which comes in (either by SI or Act of the Oireachteas).

MacsuibhneR

hexosan wrote: »

I'll reply to point 14:
It wasn't said that there's 8000 pistol it was semi & pump action shotguns

Neither the Coalition nor the Committee have mentioned shotguns in their recent proposals.

hexosan

MacsuibhneR wrote: »

Neither the Coalition nor the Committee have mentioned shotguns in their recent proposals.

It's like you pick and chose the info you reply to.

YOU as in YOU were replying to Cass & Sparks implying they said 8000 pistols when in fact YOU are wrong as they were talking about the new proposals potentially banning 8000 semi & pump action shot guns.

Nekarsulm

MacsuibhneR wrote: »

Neither the Coalition nor the Committee have mentioned shotguns in their recent proposals.

Why not?
Numerically, these are the largest threatened section.

MacsuibhneR

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Why not?
Numerically, these are the largest threatened section.

I don't know, you would need to ask the Coalition and the Committee.

Sparks

MacsuibhneR wrote: »

1. I have never said that I believe in sacrificing, throwing under a bus (or any other emotive imagery your care to use) is fair and in actual fact have stated on several occasions that this tactic does not work. I also do not believe the coalition does this. This does not make me naïve.

Yes, it kindof does.
Especially when you're shown, in black and white, the coalition proposing such a ban and then seeing that proposal taken up and passed to the Minister.

2. My opinion is that I agree with the coalition said such a system should be discussed in order to ensure the continued survival of the sport.

So first of all, "discussion" and "sending letters to the government without telling anyone else" are not the same thing.

Secondly, the sport's survival was being well addressed and this wasn't a necessary step.

The "not an inch" approach will not work because we are simply not in a strong enough bargaining position. I therefore suggest that you look at the big picture.

Sorry, no, this is horse****.
The people you are defending are the ones who have torn our sports up over the last decade by calling for a "not an inch" approach. When every other NGB agreed to go along with the FCP process, they sank that boat and landed us back in the courts. We finally get to a place where we're actually being listened to by the Committee and the opposing case is weak enough to fall on its own merits and now they decide to not only give an inch, but give several of other people's inches and you think this isn't the big picture?
That's just plain denial.

4. I have said that the coalition proposal that training /graduated licensing system be discussed in a future group is a good idea. You have taken an imaginative leap into the future, come up with all sorts of restrictions that will be in such a system and then drawn the conclusion that the coalition were wrong to even suggest it.

It's not an imaginative leap into the future, it's us reading the original detailed proposal written by the NASRPC some time ago and noting that the original authors of that are now in the coalition proposing the same scheme.

Sometimes the history is important. And other times, like now, it isn't even history, it's current events.

5. I suspect my knowledge of the law far exceeds your own.

I strongly suspect otherwise

Many a junior and senior counsel has had their wings clipped, while in full flight coming out with a statement a definitive as Sparks', by a Judge who will remind them that it is the court who will decide what act or omission is legal or illegal.

No. No, they really haven't.
What I said was that there is nothing in the Act that permits a temporary cap on licence numbers being implemented. That's not some complex legal argument. That's reading the Act. To have an argument, you have to have something to argue against - here, there's just nothing. The Minister cannot invent the law herself - the Supreme Court in McVeigh specifically said so. She cannot have an overly general law - that's why crystal meth wound up legal in Ireland for 60 hours a week or two ago. And the Commissioner can't invent the law herself - the Supreme Court in both Brophy and Dunne said so.
It's not in there; they're not allowed invent it; therefore it requires new law.
Except the measure is supposed to come in before we get new law.
Therefore it's unlawful.
This is not rocket science.

6. Your assertion that the coalition has no worth appears very much based upon the perceived wrongful past actions of some of its members. This, as I have said before, appears to be clouding your judgement. The fact that you cannot look at the proposal objectively is in fact the more blinkered approach.

So you believe that looking at a person't past actions is the same as a personal dislike?
Strange, because nobody else in the world thinks that.

The Gardaí are a large, powerful and relatively well organised body in this state. We cannot win in any kind of straight fight

How exactly do you square this belief with your other belief that we've gone to the courts to "defend our rights" from the Gardai and won?

8. Of course a small ban is better than a big ban. No ban is best. The Gardaí are looking for a massive ban and the fact that the committee appears willing to accept a broad range of pistols with a barrel length in excess of 5 inches appears to me be a massive victory.

You are ignoring, wilfully, the point that the ban the coalition have proposed is more restrictive than the ban the Gardai have proposed.

Again past issues appear to be clouding your judgement.

No, past actions are informing our judgement. I know it sounds like a small difference, but it isn't. It's the difference between a judge not liking your shoes; and legal precedent.

10. The fact that you cannot grasp that a person can go to court to enforce their rights is incredulous

Actually, we all grasp that. It's just that that's not what shooters have been doing for the last fifteen years in this country because we have no rights in regard to firearms to defend in the first place. Supreme and High Court Justices have all said so, Ministers have said so, legal experts have said so.
I'm curious as to why you think your opinion outranks theirs.

14. There are not 8,000 pistols in the state that have a barrel length less than five inches and very likely there are considerably less than a thousand. You can't just make up numbers like that.

/sigh
That's why we don't.

15. Again on the graduated learning all the coalition suggested is that it be discussed in the future. As set out above you have taken a huge leap into the future to come up with the assertion that it will cripple some sports.

Nope, he's read their proposals in the past for exactly the same idea.

16. It your and Sparks' opinion that the move is illegal and unless your names begin with Mr. / Ms. Justice, it is only that. I have enough knowledge to know that it is foolish to come out with such a definitive statement.

No, it really isn't.
Ten years of studying the one law is kindof sufficient to be able to tell you that someone isn't granted a specific legal power in that law.

Sparks

MacsuibhneR wrote: »

Neither the Coalition nor the Committee have mentioned shotguns in their recent proposals.

Which means the original Garda-proposed ban stands unopposed, as you'd know if you'd read this thread.

meathstevie

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 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.

I for one think the apprenticeship idea is nonsense as well and to an extent something like it is already in place with the training licence. If you go down that road the training licence for the tool of choice would be far preferable.A year's training licence followed by a compulsory competence test in safe handling and basic shooting skills and on to a "full" licence for the tool of choice after. This can be done at a relatively small extra cost, say for example a 12 month training licence at the cost of a normal 36 month licence inclusive of test fee. Tests to be done at licenced clay grounds and rifle and pistol ranges. Grading to be done by qualified judges and range officers in the respective disciplines. For game shooters it can be done on a sporting layout with compulsory walking from stand to stand with gun in hand and few obstacles to be negotiated like a wire fence, farm gate and ditch to jump or climb. To make it even more realistic a silhouette of an angler, walker, cyclist or whatever other hazard can be thrown into the mix.

Sparks

But that brings us right back to the law concerning itself with proficiency rather than competency. That's an idea we really, really do not want to entertain.

meathstevie

Sparks wrote: »

But that brings us right back to the law concerning itself with proficiency rather than competency. That's an idea we really, really do not want to entertain.

Sparks, scores wouldn't come into it. The more proficient the better of course if only for one's own enjoyment but the only pass or fail issue in the grading of an applicant should be based on safety issues.

Safe handling (loading and unloading, checking barrels and safety, safe carrying, fire point safety routine for target shooting etc etc) and safe shooting ( hazard awareness, usage of appropriate backstops with rifle, proper full control hold and mounting etc etc) should be the only assessed criteria. You could even break it up in a few broad categories being target shooting handgun, hunting shotgun and rifle, target shooting shotgun, target shooting rifle and a separate category for airguns both long arm and handgun.

In the end the exact caliber or type of action matters very little, safe shooting is safe shooting wether it is with a .22lr or a .308 rifle, a .45acp pistol or a 20 or 12 bore shotgun or .22 airgun.

tac foley

The cost of acquiring a 'training certificate' in the RoI is something I really don't understand. Everywhere else that I've ever been shooting, 'training' is part of the familiarisation with firearms that EVERY newcomer to the sport undergoes. A 'training certificate' implies that there are national standards of competency in firearms handling and the behaviour/attitude of the person actually doing it.

So -

1. What body sets the standards? In other words, who tests the testers?

2. Who is qualified to carry out the certification, and, more to the point,

3. how many separate disciplines of the shooting sports are there qualified testers in competency?

4. What fees are taken for these certificates? And to whom are they paid?

5. And what legislation covers the charging for the services of competency training, and gives the right to raise monies by doing so?

AFAICT, this happens nowhere else in the world, except Canada, where there is a Federally-accepted national standard of competent firearms handling requirement BEFORE a PAL [Canadian firearms license] can be obtained.

tac

Sparks

The point of the training cert tac, is that unlike target shooting, you can't shoot a rifle while hunting that isn't your own. So you can't take your son out hunting and legally let them take a shot. If you live near a range, not an insurmountable problem if you have the money, but not everyone is that fortunate. So it serves a purpose. But yes, its name is downright confusing.

Grizzly 45

To the above points
1-3 .The US NRA courses modified to whatever standards neeed would cover that.
4] Unknown as of yet,but no doubt the Irish state in the backround with a public private partnership setup.

5] Unknown as there is none in place at the moment.


AFAICT, this happens nowhere else in the world, except Canada, where there is a Federally-accepted national standard of competent firearms handling requirement BEFORE a PAL [Canadian firearms license] can be obtained.


Germany and Czech Republic[?].Done in 3 days flat @250 euros in Germany by myself last Sept .Covered for rifle ,shotgun handgun of ALL calibers.
Can be taught by anyone with the states authorisation and has sat the German equivlent of a FETAC to run the course.Up to them how much they charge for the course,so long as the States fee is coverd..

The situation is
Will there ba a change in our legislation to a EU standard of testing competancy and saftey which does seem to be going the way of EU harmanisation,but after reading things like what that crazy Socialist Swedish loon Malmstrom wanted,i doubt very much that it will be libralised so much that we could buy airguns over the counter in our local Smyths toyshop.[After all in Ireland we are ala carte EU members when it comes to legislation.]
Or will we stick with the same old legislation having to slog this out every 3 years in the DC for whatever modifications or gun you want?
OR worse.
We get an utter "Heath Robinson" abortion of both systems??:eek:

Both systems have their pros and cons,but maybe we should look at the following;

What is the most likely system to be advocated by the PTB bearing in mind how we have dealt with EU law in the past and this countries present state?

What will continue our exellent saftey record and make us even more safer in the eyes of the public,and that it possibly does weed out a nutter.

I'm all for something that makes my shooting life easier and that there is a system that tells me if I do X i get Y in return by law,and not
Well if you do X you might after Z and S are satisified,and K doesnt object to an issue with W.which is what we have at the moment

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

The point of the training cert tac, is that unlike target shooting, you can't shoot a rifle while hunting that isn't your own. So you can't take your son out hunting and legally let them take a shot. If you live near a range, not an insurmountable problem if you have the money, but not everyone is that fortunate. So it serves a purpose. But yes, its name is downright confusing.

But you could modify this to include Young hunter training cert/clause?.IOW you can take your son out hunting and he is authorised to use your gun under your direct supervision to learn how to hunt ,until he reaches a certain age where he can apply for his own gun.wouldnt be the hardest to sort out.

Sparks

The problem here with talking about changes is this:
No matter how perfect your proposed changes are, and no matter how high the fidelity between your idea and the Bill that the Minister lays before the Dail (and no matter how little mangling the AG's office did to it before that point), every backbencher with an interest in getting into the press ahead of the upcoming General Election is going to want to tweak it so they can get into the media as helping to stem the gun crime problem. Won't matter if their idea's good or bad (though past experience says it'll be woeful), they'll want the air time to help keep their seats because every politico is eyeing the next election the way a postman eyes a rottweiller.

This is the problem with trying to drive through large or complex changes in the law. You want to do it as little as possible, and you want it as tightly scoped as possible and you want to do it in as quiet a time as possible. Otherwise, you start off with a good idea and end up with a rats-nest of a nightmare on your hands.

yubabill1

MacsuibhneR wrote: »

I have already renewed my .22 pistol licence earlier this year and if you look at some of my past posts have been considering a SA CF rifle for a long time. Due to the AGS attitude and the fact that I would certainly have to go to court I have been reluctant due to the costs involved. As I said earlier anyone who is considering such a rifle would need to make their application ASAP to try to beat any cap which comes in (either by SI or Act of the Oireachteas).

I think you genuinely are unaware that you are not making sense.

MacsuibhneR

yubabill1 wrote: »

I think you genuinely are unaware that you are not making sense.

What do you mean? I have not applied for a SA CF rifle, but anyone who wants one should apply now. They are of course going to have a battle on their hands.

MacsuibhneR

Sparks wrote: »

Which means the original Garda-proposed ban stands unopposed, as you'd know if you'd read this thread.

Sparks the Coalition will be glad to see you accept that they are the only spokes people who matter and their submissions are the only ones which count -:cool:

Even I did not go that far.