Gardai proposals to ban firearms

Sparks

MacsuibhneR wrote: »

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.

Nor did I. Re-read what you wrote...

MacsuibhneR wrote:

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

And now read my response to you again and see if you can see what I was pointing out.

If you still can't see it, you can go back in this thread to where we were discussing this particular point in detail. Start here.

turismo2142

Sparks wrote: »

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

Sorry Sparks, you cannot be so definite about this.

That said, the healthiest approach to take would be to assume that you are correct and by that I mean we should take nothing for granted and hound the committee to exclude this proposed ban, the largest element of the proposal by far.

But I think I'll speak for a fair few people when I say that the lack of the shottie ban being mentioned suggests to me that it's not on the cards particularily in circumstances where the coalition (NARGC in particular) effectively represent a fair proportion of these licence holders and that the interim report reflects the shameful Coalition letter/proposals. The Shotgun ban is the largest area of concen to them and it appears that the committee have been steered away from it at the expense of CF semis/sub-five inch handguns.

I originally came to this forum as a concerned S/A shotgun owner and I must say if I thought about the issue now as I did in November I'd be happy to go about my merry way reasonably content that my gun was probably going to be spared at the expense of others (and if you ask me it always looked like the shotguns were included as pressure/leverage against the S/A CFs and handguns...and guess what...it appears to be working...disgracefully). That was by far the incorrect attitude and not one I have anymore. [I should also point out that I've been to Harbour House since...;-) ]

THAT SAID, we should resist the urge to believe that the shotguns are safe and assume that you are correct as it will serve us better.

Please don't go jumping down my throat Sparks because I agree that your untrusting interpretation is the best way to approach it until we categorically know otherwise.

And regarding the interim ban...dear God...Sparks and Cass et all are correct. It cannot be effected other than by way of primary legislation (and Act of the Oireachtais and not a Statutory Instrument)

Perhaps Sparks what you should have done was to explain same to our friend (he is perfectly entitled to say what he has and may I say he has done so in a polite and measured way and we should thank him for that).

As we all know the original Act was massively amended by Part V of the 2006 Criminal Justice Act.

Section 29 of the 2006 Act inserted Section 2B into the original 1925 Act (AKA Principal Act). What did that do? It left the Minister tidy up details by way of secondary legislation AKA Statutory Instrument. A very common thing indeed. In this case it allowed the Minister to the following;

The Minister may, in the interests of public safety and security, by order—

(a) declare specified firearms to be restricted firearms for the purposes of this Act by reference to one or more than one of the following criteria:

(i) category;

(ii) calibre;

(iii) working mechanism;

(iv) muzzle energy;

(v) description;

(it dealt with Ammunition also but that's not relevant for this post)

And guess what, in 2008 he excercised these powers and we got S.I. 21 of 2008 [Firearms (Restricted Firearms and Ammunition) Order 2008]

This very short document tells us all what's restricted and what is not. This is the power the Minister still has. The most she can do without resorting to primary legislation (I.e. a Bill a white paper and green paper oireachtais debates the Seannad etc...) is revisit the 2008 S.I. and tweak what is restricted or otherwise. She cannot effect a ban/stop the operation of the Act in any other way. Not at all. No AG required. First year law student introduction to the Irish Legal system Chapter 1!!!

Everything else relevant to the Oireachtais Committee Interim report is grounded in primary legislation. At best she can bump .22 pistols into the restricted category in the short term. That's about it I think

Now, I'm aware I've been overly simplistic but I hope that's a fair basic assesment.

turismo2142

One more thing. As firearms owners we do have rights...we have a right to ensure that our statutory decision makers act reasonably and do not exceed their statutory powers and Jurisdiction. It's not a right that stems from firearms ownership or the anticipation of same but is one we have in relation to any public decision making authority.

That, of course, is the fundamental premise of every Judicial Review.

So guys, if you leave it at that you can both get to be right...sort of...lol

Sparks

turismo2142 wrote: »

Sorry Sparks, you cannot be so definite about this.

I'm worried that I can be, because the Working Group does not report to the Joint Oireachtas Commitee. Both groups are sending their reports directly to the Minister. So she will see on one hand the working group advocate the ban on shotguns; and on the other hand she will see the committee not oppose this ban despite knowing of it. Silence in this case means assent.

Now, I'm aware I've been overly simplistic but I hope that's a fair basic assesment.

I think the word restricted is tripping people up there, and it's because it's been used unwisely in the coalition's proposal and the committee's interim report - neither means it in the sense of "restricted firearm". They mean "a temporary stay on licencing these kind of firearms for a short period of time". There's nothing in the Act that allows that.

The other meaning of restricted, that's a whole other kettle of very smelly fish. If the Minister wanted to, she could outright ban a class of firearm from being licenced - she has that legal power under section 2C of the the Act. She could also designate a class of firearm as being restricted firearms, under section 2B of the Act. If she did that to smallbore pistols with barrels under 5 inches, she would be in effect doing the same thing either way - banning their use and revoking all (or most) existing licences for them. So not a temporary stay - a mass ban and confiscation of firearms, without compensation, as in 1972. You might be able to hold yours if she just restricted it and you had it prior to 2008, but that's about it. Anyone who's only been in the sport six years or less, tough. You lose your firearm.

MacsuibhneR

Sparks wrote: »

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.

Well at least I am only kind of naïve now.

Sparks wrote: »

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 letter / proposal refers to it being discussed in the future. Again I don't think the sport's survival was as well secured as you believe it was.

Sparks wrote: »

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.

I have been talking about the Coalition's letter / Proposal. What original detailed proposal? and can you post a link to it anywhere?

Sparks wrote: »

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.

Yes, yes really they have. You said the coalition proposal was illegal. The recent drugs act is a good case in point as to how the courts ultimately decide if something is illegal or not.

Sparks wrote: »

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.

I have not said that, I have said that it appears past actions are clouding your current judgement.

Sparks wrote: »

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?

In court you enjoy the benefits of rules of evidence, procedure etc. No such rules apply in a political dog fight.

Sparks wrote: »

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

This is just plain wrong. The AGS were seeking to limit pistols to those designed for use in Olympic competitions. The Coalition have proposed those suitable for use in ISSF (to include Olympic competitions) subject to the minimum barrel length. We both agree that the ISSF rules allow a wide range of pistols to be used and to me seems to be clearly the wider definition.

Sparks wrote: »

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.

Please re-read my original post and subsequent comments. I at no time have said we have a right to a firearm. Yourself and Cass have in essence added the words "rights to firearms" and at other times "constitutional rights" onto what I have said in order to try to make your points. Again I say we have a right to have fair procedures etc. etc. applied to us and can go to court to enforce these rights.

Sparks wrote: »

/sigh
That's why we don't..

Well that's what he did. We are discussing the large swathe of shooters sacrificed by the coalition, which boils down to pistol holders whose firearms have a barrel less than five inches. As I said this number is likely to be significantly below 1,000.

turismo2142

Yes you're right...but thank Christ that's not what's being proposed. That would go straight into the confiscation scenario and no minister would want the immediate backfire that would create as there would be compensation issues not contemplated by the Act as it stands at the moment.

The term restrict is being thrown around in a manner other than as a term of art which is complicating matters.

turismo2142

In fact, after having read back my post I should have used the word moratorium rather than ban..if that makes sense.

Sparks

MacsuibhneR wrote: »

The letter / proposal refers to it being discussed in the future.

Yes, with ten to twelve people.
Take away the seats used by the powers that be, and I'd be willing to lay money on the bet that the only seats left were ones the coalition wanted for itself.
And given how they have just acted, I think that's a justifiable belief.

Again I don't think the sport's survival was as well secured as you believe it was.

Fine.
What are you basing that belief on?

I have been talking about the Coalition's letter / Proposal. What original detailed proposal? and can you post a link to it anywhere?

I already did post a link, in this thread, immediately after we saw the coalition's letter. But here, read: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=70217838

Yes, yes really they have. You said the coalition proposal was illegal. The recent drugs act is a good case in point as to how the courts ultimately decide if something is illegal or not.

The recent drugs act was not a case of a junior counsel getting uppity in court.
What you are saying is that we in effect cannot obey any law, because we can't just read it and believe what we read, that we have to go to the high court in every situation first.

Try driving at 120kph past a Garda on the M50 and see how well that defence holds in court.

I have not said that, I have said that it appears past actions are clouding your current judgement.

No, past actions are informing them.
It's a funny thought you are having here, that knowing what has happened in the past clouds judgement. Because everyone else in the world develops judgement by watching things happen and learning from them for the future.

In court you enjoy the benefits of rules of evidence, procedure etc. No such rules apply in a political dog fight.

Oh for the love of...
Do you think we're arguing this stuff on the set of Prime Time? That nobody is checking facts? That there aren't any rules at all?
I don't know who's been telling you what's going on, but they have not done a good job of informing you.

This is just plain wrong. The AGS were seeking to limit pistols to those designed for use in Olympic competitions. The Coalition have proposed those suitable for use in ISSF (to include Olympic competitions) subject to the minimum barrel length.

Oh boy. The current law reads "designed for use". The Garda ban would be daft and we ought to oppose it, yes (hey, would you look at that, we were all along); but the Coalition ban would be worse than the Garda ban because it's even more restrictive than the Garda ban would be and more restrictive than the current law and harder to maintain. The Coaltion ban would be in primary legislation, not amendable without an Act and those are a pain in the fundament to get through and each is risky because some back bencher is going to jump on it to get into the media. The Garda ban, bad as it was, would have been done by regulation (ie. by SI). And could be dropped by SI as well.

But the shooting community was arguing against the Garda ban as being unnecessary, so the Coalition just cut that argument off at the knees in secret to the Committee by agreeing with the Garda premise that some sort of ban was needed.

Do you not see how this was a bad idea? We knew the Garda ban wasn't based on good statistics or facts and they'd tripped themselves up on that. This was going to be quietly canned and even if that failed at this hurdle, it could be quietly fixed down the road. Now, the Coalition have legitimised it and given it a pushstart and asked for it to be copper-fastened to the wall where you can't change it without an Act of the Oireachtas.

Please re-read my original post and subsequent comments. I at no time have said we have a right to a firearm.

You know we can read, yes?
And that you keep using the word "right", yes?
And that you keep talking about going to the District courts over firearms licence appeals "to defend our rights"?
And that you're now complaining because you think people aren't understanding you?

Well that's what he did. We are discussing the large swathe of shooters sacrificed by the coalition, which boils down to pistol holders whose firearms have a barrel less than five inches. As I said this number is likely to be significantly below 1,000.

No, he didn't. You confused 8000 pump-and-semi-shotgun owners with around a thousand pistols owners.





Look, I'm all for people asking questions, it's a good thing. I'm all for everyone learning more about what is going on.

But this nonsense of coming in and telling people who've been studying this for a decade that they don't know what's going on and you do despite you not having done the background work, this is just making you look silly.

Sparks

Nobody was asked to make further submissions; everyone was invited to submit any further documents they might have (you can hear the Chair doing that during the Jan21 meeting).

Sparks

toolazyforgolf wrote: »

OK so the Coalition then decided to submit further stuff & we are where we are?

Yup.

Have NTSA, NRAI or any other submitted further "stuff" or been in "talks" since then that we know about?

Not that I know about from them, but I'm a bit outside the loop there.
They were sent copies of the stuff from broadsheet about the March 5 Garda figures (the 1700 "firearms" that weren't) by me but I think you'll find that in this thread.
Other than that, don't know and it's not readily FOIable.

My point is, granted they MAY HAVE done damage to us ALL but are the groups outside the Coalition talking to the powers that be too in addition to what's already in the public domain?

Not that I know of.

yubabill1

toolazyforgolf wrote: »

Were the Coalition asked to make a further submission or did they they just do it?

Have NTSA or NRAI or any other group outside the Coalition been asked for a further submission or made a further submission in the same timeframe as the Coalition have?

Is there an element of sour grapes here?

Getting more confused every day

Take a look back at the justice committee presentations by shooting representatives/individuals - I believe there were people there other than the Sports Coalition and the effect was that a united front was presented.

Justice committee mentioned that further info could be submitted and absence of same from certain representatives/individuals means what?

To me, it means that those people had said their piece and expected the Justice Committee to take note of their arguments, which made the AGS/DoJE WG proposals look to have shaky foundations, at the very least.

Without mentioning that the Sports Coalition claim to represent all shooting organisations, apart from two smaller groups, their Feb 20th communication suggested compromises that:

undermined some shooters and

gave legitimacy to AGS/DoJE proposals based on spurious public safety fears.

They bottled it.

Everyone else had confidence in their own arguments.

turismo2142

I for one thought the harbour house rep was very compelling and effective. Has anyone asked him to counter the coalition letter on behalf of hh and rifle/pistol clubs?

Surely this can be done still?

Cass

Apologies for my late arrival today. Have been in Dublin, at hospital, since 6am with my disabled Mother. Long story, but not long back so trying to catch up.

Seems the lads have covered most bases. However some points i want to answer:

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.

Perhaps you can explain this then from post 2318:

MacsuibhneR wrote:

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.

Anyone currently licensed on a pistol with a barrel less than 5 inches (which still meets ISSF rules/limits) would be sacrificed so others can keep and license their guns. You agree with the "coalition" on this. So how is that disagreeing with it?

The fact that it is needless and costly are sound arguments against it and should be made.

Should have been made by the "coalition", not endorsed by them.

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.

Please explain, in detail and not just your usual "i agree" method how a graduated system would work. And don't cop out by saying ask the "coalition".

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.

As was pointed out their previous actions have shown they have tried this in the past. However from the beginning of this thread i have "towed the line" by sending letters, signing petitions, e-mails, and rebuttals of the AGS proposals. So i have no problem supporting someone, a party, group or association regardless of their past actions. However when they once again betray that trust a line must be drawn.

7. It is precisely because I see the bigger picture that I can see merit in what they have done. .

Which is what exactly? Again facts and not some brush off with "read the proposal/ask them please. What exactly have they proposed that will best

Again past issues appear to be clouding your judgement.

You seem to be resorting to personal attacks, without knowing me, instead of answering or giving detailed explanations of your reasons. Please stick to the facts.

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.

Right so, i'll list them for you as you have a short memory:

Post 2296

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.

Post 2305

MacsuibhneR wrote:

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.

Post 2307

MacsuibhneR wrote:

Our rights and obligations as Licenced firearms holders are set out in the legislation.

Post 2310

MacsuibhneR wrote:

I have said we can go to court to enforce our rights under the law.

Post 2325

MacsuibhneR wrote:

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

As you progress in the thread you try to dilute your original assertion that we have rights in the firearms legislation as you've either realised your mistake, been told about it, copped onto it, or simply cannot argue it anymore. However you have said on at least 5 separate occasions that as firearms owners, under the firearms legislation we have rights and entitlements. Which is simply not true.

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.

Never said there were. From post 2300 you'll see i said there were approx 1,000 - 1,200 pistols, C/F semi autos and C/F pistols ion the state:

Cass wrote:

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?

You are once again misrepresenting the facts to distract from your own shortcomings as others have pointed out. I was referring to the 8,000 or so semi auto & pump action shotguns that are under threat and did not even warrant a line of defence from the "coalition" in my comments in post 2326:

Cass wrote:

No addressing of 8,000 firearms that face a ban or restricted licenses

As you can see i said "No addressing of ......... " which should have made it obvious to you, as it did to everyone else, that i was talking about the 8,00 shotguns. So when you say:

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

you'll excuse me for not believing you as you cannot even follow this thread.

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.

As was said already, but worth repeating, based on what the groups within the "coalition" have already tried to introduce with previous secret and stealth proposals it's not a leap. For example here is what they wanted before:

• It calls for a cap to be placed (at 800 licences)
• Mandatory testing run by NASRPC
• Mandatory apprenticeship run by the NASRPC (for 12 months)
• Licensing of smallbore rifle for 12 months before being considered for a pistol
• Mandatory 24-month apprenticeship programme to be subsequently undertaken by all applicants with a smallbore pistol under the NASRPC's supervision. Total of 3 years
• Two safes to be installed, to a standard beyond that specified by the Firearms Storage Regulations SI, the pistol to be broken into two parts and those parts stored in seperate safes
• A steel strongbox to be bolted, welded or chained to the chassis of the applicant's car
• Mandatory entry into NASRPC-run competitions to be a condition of the licence
• The kind of pistol sought must be "deemed to be a suitable target pistol" by the NASRPC
• The official recommendation of the NASRPC required in the form of a letter of support for an application
• It segregates the target shooting community into a hierarchy of worthiness to own a pistol as follows:
• 
• Where 'D. Others' are described in the text as 'dinner party Glock owners' and would be prohibited from owning a pistol.

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.

Care to explain the highlighted part? Correct?

turismo2142

toolazyforgolf wrote: »

HH are affiliated to NASRPC who are affiliated to Coalition .............................. not to mention he might be one of those who agreed to Coalitions proposal

I give up...I'm finding it hard to keep up.

Is there somewhere I can go to familiarise myself with the "history" of all this infighting, coalition formation etc? What active (politically) group is not associated with the coalition?

meathstevie

Does anyone honestly think that the state is going to hand any power or supervision authority to any organisation or sporting body ? Are those people honestly that deluded ?

Would the minister for sports for example implement legislation that you need to be a member of the GAA before you can kick a ball in public ? Don't think so so where do shooting organisations get the notion from that they would have some sort of official role to play in the licencing and monitoring set up ?

juice1304

meathstevie wrote: »

Does anyone honestly think that the state is going to hand any power or supervision authority to any organisation or sporting body ? Are those people honestly that deluded ?

Would the minister for sports for example implement legislation that you need to be a member of the GAA before you can kick a ball in public ? Don't think so so where do shooting organisations get the notion from that they would have some sort of official role to play in the licencing and monitoring set up ?

That is the way it is in many European countries as it is, many of them have more lenient laws in relation to what you can own and shoot when you tick the boxes but getting a licence in ireland is 10000000 times easier, well from my prospective here in germany. 1 year probation even though i have owned firearms for the last 6 years, shooting test, theory test, a shooting book signed and stamped each time you go to the range which must have atleast 26 in it for the police etc.. etc... So i have to shoot with club guns each week but i dont mind as i still get to shoot. And once you have all these things completed you have the licence pretty much for life and atleast everyone has a bit more knowledge. I dont think it would eb bad if it were the same as there, fulfill all the requirements and then you can shoot ipsc, coyboy action, cf pistol, semi cf rifle, reload etc.. i think it is a much better system.

Deaf git

meathstevie wrote: »

Does anyone honestly think that the state is going to hand any power or supervision authority to any organisation or sporting body ? Are those people honestly that deluded ?

Would the minister for sports for example implement legislation that you need to be a member of the GAA before you can kick a ball in public ? Don't think so so where do shooting organisations get the notion from that they would have some sort of official role to play in the licencing and monitoring set up ?

When you get your car nct'd that is a private company carrying out a testing function on behalf of the Department. A good few of our target clubs are privately owned commercial ventures so provision of mandatory safety training by those private companies wouldn't be all that strange. If you have a 'shooting organisation' comprised of such private companies, well then an official role is possible as you describe above.
whether this is desirable is another matter...

Cass

Not the same though.

The NCT company do not have the power to:

• Issue or revoke your license
• Tell you what car you can drive
• That you must buy a Corolla, then a BMW, and eventually up to the Ferrari you wanted
• Do this over 3 years
• That you have to sit your driving test in their facilities ONLY
• Can only apply for a driving license via a letter of support from the NCT company
• That you do mandatorydriving testing on a regular basis throughout this at their facilities ONLY.
• They cannot ban certain types of cars
• They cannot put a cap on the amount of cars on the roads.

meathstevie

In all the examples above from the German licencing system to the NCT in all cases the state sets out the legal framework and the parameters under which the contract will be fulfilled and does perform inspections and monitors compliance.

What sporting associations here are trying to do is erode that power and acquire it for themselves which is pure unachievable nonsensical carry on.

Juice, I'm quite familiar with the hunting licencing set up in the Flemish region of Belgium and it's not too dissimilar with the German one. Practical and theoretical hunting knowledge needs to be proven together with firearms competence but at no stage have hunting clubs or sporting associations a power of decission in who gets a licence or not and obtaining a licence is for example not subject to being a member of the St Hubertus club. All proficiency tests and hunting licence exams are organised and or assessed by state agencies/ employees.

Sparks

The other point to remember about systems like the German system is that we still have a more strict licencing system because while we don't have the entry bar they do, we also don't have the privileges they enjoy afterwards.

Grizzly, to use you as an example, can you see yourself having to spend thirty grand fighting to licence a rifle in Germany that German law says is licencable?

We try to bring in a system like that here in one go and what will happen is that the politicians will back the stringent entry requirements and then not bother with the subsequent freedoms that are the second half of the system.


This is kindof why I only had two recommendations for the committee - don't pass the working group's proposals as is, and restate the firearms act to give us a baseline before you go patching it any further.

You try bringing in complex changes while there's a multi-way review process going on in the long runup to election time and it's going to be monumentally difficult.

Grizzly 45

meathstevie wrote: »

Juice, I'm quite familiar with the hunting licencing set up in the Flemish region of Belgium and it's not too dissimilar with the German one. Practical and theoretical hunting knowledge needs to be proven together with firearms competence but at no stage have hunting clubs or sporting associations a power of decission in who gets a licence or not and obtaining a licence is for example not subject to being a member of the St Hubertus club.


All proficiency tests and hunting licence exams are organised and or assessed by state agencies/ employees.

Thats for hunting guys.And thats a complete other ball of wax compared to what we have here.I'd say between 70 to 90% of the EU hunting course would be utterly irrevelant to us here,as we dont have the hunting traditions,"the Hunters Latin"[IE specific names for every part of a bird or beast,tree or plant] or even the wood to build tree stands.Nor so we play hunting horns in our spruce plantations for signalling each other,when a two way radio will do a better job these days .:)
IF a hunting course were to be done here,it should concentrate on firearms saftey,what species could be hunted and their seasons with what caliber and maybe if you want to sell your game commercially ,buthchering .

meathstevie

Sparks wrote: »

The other point to remember about systems like the German system is that we still have a more strict licencing system because while we don't have the entry bar they do, we also don't have the privileges they enjoy afterwards.

Grizzly, to use you as an example, can you see yourself having to spend thirty grand fighting to licence a rifle in Germany that German law says is licencable?

We try to bring in a system like that here in one go and what will happen is that the politicians will back the stringent entry requirements and then not bother with the subsequent freedoms that are the second half of the system.


This is kindof why I only had two recommendations for the committee - don't pass the working group's proposals as is, and restate the firearms act to give us a baseline before you go patching it any further.

You try bringing in complex changes while there's a multi-way review process going on in the long runup to election time and it's going to be monumentally difficult.

Sparks, the last people who should get their hands on such a reform are politicians. Genuine consultation (FCP anyone) with officialdom of the permanent kind (civil servants/public servants) and trashing out a proper blueprint to be converted in legalese by said members of officialdom to be presented to government and voted through is the only way.

Crucial is a Minister for Justice with the will to say right folks; until further notice all stays as is and now you have until half way through my term to go trash it out and come back to me with an agreed document in the form of a proposed act to be published and voted that will replace all legislation relating to civilian firearms use and ownership.

And the I woke up....

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

The other point to remember about systems like the German system is that we still have a more strict licencing system because while we don't have the entry bar they do, we also don't have the privileges they enjoy afterwards.

Grizzly, to use you as an example, can you see yourself having to spend thirty grand fighting to licence a rifle in Germany that German law says is licencable?

Unless I was caught driving a car,flying a plane or in charge of a water borne vessel ,from a rowing boat to a rhine barge under the influence of booze or drugs ,had diddled my income tax for the last two years,threatned the tax man or somebody with my gun in a non self defence situation and had 6 points on my driving liscense....Errr NO!

And not to mind no lawyer or shooting organisation would back you on liscense loss on ANY of the above scenarios.You could write your gun liscense off pretty much for good then.Thats the Bigger Stick over there...They find you untrust -worthy as a citizen or acting the maggot with any state granted privilidges[dont see how paying tax is a privilidge,but still...] you lose the lot.Drunk in charge of a car,can you be trusted with a gun then too?

We try to bring in a system like that here in one go and what will happen is that the politicians will back the stringent entry requirements and then not bother with the subsequent freedoms that are the second half of the system.

THAT would be my greatest fear too.

Grizzly 45

Cass wrote: »

N
The NCT company do not have the power to:

[
• That you have to sit your test in their facilities ONLY
  
• That you do mandatory testing on a regular basis throughout this at their facilities ONLY.
  

Just to point out that on those two points.They most certainly can!!

Unlike the UK MOT it is a monopoly and has to be carried out at their facilities and thy are the only company authorised to do so in the ROI.

clawback07

turismo2142 wrote: »

I give up...I'm finding it hard to keep up.

Is there somewhere I can go to familiarise myself with the "history" of all this infighting, coalition formation etc? What active (politically) group is not associated with the coalition?

I'm with turismo , I seem to recall it being recommended that submissions be made by members of the shooting community to the sports coalition and that petitions be signed to show our support in negotiations . I'm now a bit bewildered and as a pump owner more than a bit concerned . Mind you , I remember being castigated at a gun club meeting when querying why the top brass in nargc should be writing every month in an Irish shooting magazine about the rights of pistol shooters - I can't recall pistol shooting reps campaigning for game shooters AND would not expect them to .So , following this thread with great interest for the last while I think it is a pity to see highly experienced and intelligent people with basically the same agenda going around in circles while our "Rome" appears to be on the point of going up in smoke .

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Just to point out that on those two points.They most certainly can!!

Unlike the UK MOT it is a monopoly and has to be carried out at their facilities and thy are the only company authorised to do so in the ROI.

Sorry Grizz. As i kept on mentioning driving test and licenses i assumed it was known that is what i was referring to. I've edited my post above to include these words in those two points, already in the other ones, to make sure there is no further confusion. See below:

Cass wrote: »

• That you have to sit your driving test in their facilities ONLY
• That you do mandatory driving testing on a regular basis throughout this at their facilities ONLY.

Cass

clawback07 wrote: »

I'm with turismo , I seem to recall it being recommended that submissions be made by members of the shooting community to the sports coalition......

By whom?


Submissions were to be sent to the Oireachtas joint committee and justice. Makes no sense to send your submission to the "coalition".

and that petitions be signed to show our support in negotiations .

Yeeaaahhhhhh. Not touching that one.

Grizzly 45

clawback07 wrote: »

I'm with turismo , I seem to recall it being recommended that submissions be made by members of the shooting community to the sports coalition and that petitions be signed to show our support in negotiations . I'm now a bit bewildered and as a pump owner more than a bit concerned . Mind you , I remember being castigated at a gun club meeting when querying why the top brass in nargc should be writing every month in an Irish shooting magazine about the rights of pistol shooters - I can't recall pistol shooting reps campaigning for game shooters AND would not expect them to .So , following this thread with great interest for the last while I think it is a pity to see highly experienced and intelligent people with basically the same agenda going around in circles while our "Rome" appears to be on the point of going up in smoke .

If you mean the ISD,thats about the only place most non tech savvy shooters actually find out whats going on in Ireland in the pistol and rifle scene.Not all of the old boys are computor savvy . 90 % of ISD is game,dog and clay related anyway.So I'm sure you can survive or flick pass the monthly NARGC breif or rant?

And speaking as a game shooter,pistolero, pump shotgun owner and CF semi rifle owner / deer stalker.I.for one am most grateful for any support afforded by game shooters,target shooters,farmers and anyone else to me keeping my guns I have done and will return the favour anytime anyone elses sport is under threat.As I think will most others involved in the shooting sports.

Deaf git

My point is that there wouldn't be anything that unusual about a govt department handing over part of a role to a private company- the evidence of this will become self evident to you if you get clamped or towed away on your next trip to Dublin.
Other regulatory functions have already been given to private companies to deliver and that includes licence monitoring under environmental legislation.
It's quite common for entire functions of the state to be outsourced- within perameters set out by the relevant department and subject to kpi's.
In the case of the nct test, just remember that if the tester considers your car to be actually dangerous he is required not to give the keys back to you and must not allow you drive away- a heavy duty power by any standards.
Re Driving licences- Mandatory 12 driving lessons with a instructor before you can sit the test at a cost of 400ish euro and that applies to a hell of a lot more people than us shooters.

In the case of shooting sports I could see the commercial elements within our sports being very enthusiastic about adopting elements of the licensing process. In an odd sort of way the private sector were involved when we were required to put our GP's name on the FCA1 form as a means determining physical/mental competancy- my GP is definitely a commercial element.

I could see a role for the private sector but it wouldn't be along the lines of that range operators suggestion from a few years back.

clawback07

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

If you mean the ISD,thats about the only place most non tech savvy shooters actually find out whats going on in Ireland in the pistol and rifle scene.Not all of the old boys are computor savvy . 90 % of ISD is game,dog and clay related anyway.So I'm sure you can survive or flick pass the monthly NARGC breif or rant?

And speaking as a game shooter,pistolero, pump shotgun owner and CF semi rifle owner / deer stalker.I.for one am most grateful for any support afforded by game shooters,target shooters,farmers and anyone else to me keeping my guns I have done and will return the favour anytime anyone elses sport is under threat.As I think will most others involved in the shooting sports.

I'm in total agreeance with you Grizzly45 and have also supported every form of shooting all my shooting life and will continue to do so, however I'm still very confused as to where all this going .My "rant" re the nargc concerns having your own house work done before doing someone else's !