Gardai proposals to ban firearms

Grizzly 45

garrettod wrote: »

Hi,

Given the clear concerns being expressed here (amongst other places, no doubt) regarding some of whats suspected of having been going on behind closed doors, is there anyone here interested in presenting some of the points of concern, during the open meeting on 6th May & calling for direct responses to same ?

Personally, I'm not the man for the job, but it strikes me that if someone capable were to stand up and say they represent in excess of X licence holders, who have significant concerns about the following issues (TBC) & feel their interests are not being represented by the Sports Coalition, they might (a) get a hearing and (b) get some much needed attention or possibly even press coverage, which might in turn draw more support thereafter.

Ultimately, it's the same old story when it comes to just about anything in Ireland, we don't complain enough or stand up for ourselves when we should. Obviously, there's a right and a wrong way to stand up for yourself, but surely the more vocal at present the better ?

I agree. Wouldnt it be better to say something than saying nothing at all?? IF there is such a concern out there ,isnt it better to voice those opinions to the people that have caused it,whether you get a straight ansawer or not is a different matter,but it sends the message that some of us are not completely asleep and would like some explanations?? No point in grousing and muttering amongst ourselves,we need the SC to hear our concerns.

grassroot1

Maybe its just me but I am a bit concerned that a meeting has been called next week to discuss todays meeting with the minister....... is it to be some sort of a presentation of what has been agreed or an announcement?
The coalition has not given any information out before why start now

bravestar

grassroot1 wrote: »

Maybe its just me but I am a bit concerned that a meeting has been called next week to discuss todays meeting with the minister....... is it to be some sort of a presentation of what has been agreed or an announcement?
The coalition has not given any information out before why start now

Probably so people can stock up on the KY jelly...

yubabill1

From the SC website.


"This website was established to disseminate information to the members of the constituent associations concerning the latest proposals of the Gardai and the Department of Justice and Equality to further restrict possession of firearms for sporting purposes without justification. A large campaign has been launched to fight these very unjust proposals and the website will be the focal point for all our supporters. It is a “one-stop-shop” for information, updates, commentary and direction to member associations, clubs, individuals, supporters and politicians and will assist everyone in helping to oppose these most unreasonable proposals. The site will be updated regularly and I will post the latest information as it arises."

The only thing I can find is an update about the meeting on May 6.

This whole thing has lost cohesion since the justice interim report/ SC letter of 20th Feb.

the people who signed the SC petition deserve some respect.

Deaf git

Bearing in mind the contentious nature of the debate in recent weeks I would have hoped some form of statement should have issued from the SC or any other groups represented at the meeting. Being a pessimist I fear the news is not good-

So if anyone present at that meeting should happen to read this- PLEASE let us ordinary sods know what happened, eh now- today like. I'm sure the meeting was minuted so shouldn't be that difficult.

Nekarsulm

When it takes a week to organise a communication, you would wonder what amount of work is necessary to make it palatable enough for release.............

tac foley

Scalachi wrote: »

I am sure all your relevant groups or NGB's will be providing you with information as the sports coalition is doing.

I'm way too old and cynical to be fooled by a comment like this.

tac

garrettod

Sparks wrote: »

Why would you ask for a hearing from the cause of the problem?

Hi Sparks,

As Grizzley has mentioned, to show we're not asleep and simply letting it happen.

Also, you'd never know what potential support there might be in the room on the night, but needing a little leadership to help get the ball rolling.

Better to try and fail, than never to have tried, imho

Out of interest, has anyone made contact with one of the parties who attended the meeting yesterday to ask what was discussed, suggested and dare I say it, even "agreed" ? As a starting point, I think everyone interested, should be asking.

garrettod

http://www.sportscoalition.org/806/

Roundpack

Nekarsulm wrote: »

When it takes a week to organise a communication, you would wonder what amount of work is necessary to make it palatable enough for release.............

Has it occurred to anyone here that all of these people bar one are volunteers, have jobs, lives outside of shooting and families? Maybe next week is the only time they could commit to?

And while i'm at it, people here are so concerned about what is or is not happening that their response is to post on an anonymous forum...do you not think it would be more productive to contact your relevant organisation/rep and ask for an update instead?

Nekarsulm

Roundpack wrote: »

Has it occurred to anyone here that all of these people bar one are volunteers, have jobs, lives outside of shooting and families? Maybe next week is the only time they could commit to?

And while i'm at it, people here are so concerned about what is or is not happening that their response is to post on an anonymous forum...do you not think it would be more productive to contact your relevant organisation/rep and ask for an update instead?

So the outcome of a meeting with two Ministers, which took place yesterday, cannot be documented nor communicated to the people the organisation purports to represent, for a week?

Did any one take minutes?

And while I'm at it, I have a full time occupation as well, and a family. If I undertake to attend a meeting, then when I get home I'll do up whatever documentation has to be dealt with.
I have contributed, hopefully to some advantage, in other non anonymous spheres. And yes, I will be talking to other people about the meeting.
Has the fact that you are also anonymous here, escaped your notice? Or would you prefer if any other point of view to your own, conveniently went away?

Roundpack

Nekarsulm wrote: »

So the outcome of a meeting with two Ministers, which took place yesterday, cannot be documented nor communicated to the people the organisation purports to represent, for a week?

One Minister



Did any one take minutes?

Contact your relevant organisation/rep and ask

And while I'm at it, I have a full time occupation as well, and a family. If I undertake to attend a meeting, then when I get home I'll do up whatever documentation has to be dealt with.

You should volunteer/put yourself forward for election the next time your relevant organisation has an AGM, sounds like they could use you

Nekarsulm

Pardon me, One Minister, One Garda Commissioner, assistant commissioner, Gardaí reps etc.

Cass

Roundpack wrote: »

Has it occurred to anyone here that all of these people bar one are volunteers, have jobs, lives outside of shooting and families? Maybe next week is the only time they could commit to?

Horses**t.

Des Crofton has signed every letter on behalf of the "coalition" as Des Crofton, NARGC, Spokesperson......... blah, blah, blah. He is paid as are the staff of the NARGC to do exactly this. So as it's his job, his paid job, why can he not give out a notice as to how it went? He has staff that are paid to help so why does it take a week for them to get word out?

I'll tell you why, for dramatic effect. One week to spin whatever was said into a positive. One week to see if the ridiculous proposals he, and his "coalition", put forward are to be implemented in any shape or form. One week to come up with excuses to the ridiculous proposals that have gone unanswered here, and everywhere else since they were released (albeit some 6 weeks late).

And while i'm at it, people here are so concerned about what is or is not happening that their response is to post on an anonymous forum.

Seeing as how similar comments have disappeared on their Facbook pages, and no answers ever come from e-mails, etc. where else can people ask? I mean one member of the coalition posted above the same thing you just said. He has been asked a few questions, but in the short time since his post and now has lost the ability to type. Strange that.

..do you not think it would be more productive to contact your relevant organisation/rep and ask for an update instead?

Not more relevant, but a definitely a step to take. As the ""coalition" have put themselves squarely in the limelight as the champions leading this charge then why are you so defensive when people seek answers from them?

yubabill1

I see the SC getting a bit snippy and telling us to get info from our reps - but the Sc website purports to be a "one stop shop" for info and updates....

The defensive behaviour speaks volumes to me.

And the SC web has a questionnaire for pistol shooters around their economic contribution to society - pistol shooting fighting for its life?

And I'm presuming they have lost S/A rifles.

The intellectual behemoths at the SC are getting their political asses roasted on a spit.

Sparks

garrettod wrote: »

http://www.sportscoalition.org/806/

/falls over laughing

And this is the expert group negotiating the future of licencing laws for pistols, is it?
Who can't even run a survey without forgetting about air pistol, which makes up a sizeable chunk of all the pistol shooting in Ireland between the ISSF stuff and the Pony Club stuff and the Modern Pentathlon stuff?

Deaf git

As all parties to the meeting appear to be remaining shtum, I presume they were asked to do so. The question is why?
This would be the usual procedure if the Minister intended making a statement. Don't be surprised if this happens on the 5th or 6th.
I'll be looking at garda.ie to see if there is a further amendment to the Commissioners guidelines in the coming days.
Or I could be entirely wrong!
Let's hope common sense prevails.

Sparks

Roundpack wrote: »

And while I'm at it, I have a full time occupation as well, and a family. If I undertake to attend a meeting, then when I get home I'll do up whatever documentation has to be dealt with.

Cool.
Of course, at least one person in that room was a paid representative whose full-time job is just this stuff...


Of course, now that freedom of information requests are free...

email to foi at justice.ie wrote:

Dear sir/madam,
I would like to request under the Freedom of Information Act any and all records pertaining to the meeting between the Minister for Justice and various interested parties on the topic of firearms legislation review, held today, April 29 2015, including but not limited to invitation lists and dates of issue of those invitations, minutes or transcripts of the meeting, any agreed actions or further scheduled meetings to discuss this topic, and any and all documents submitted to the Minister or presented at the meeting.
Yours sincerely,

Sparks

Roundpack wrote: »

And while i'm at it, people here are so concerned about what is or is not happening that their response is to post on an anonymous forum...do you not think it would be more productive to contact your relevant organisation/rep and ask for an update instead?

Has it not occurred to you that there's nothing stopping you doing all of those things and more at the same time?

Deaf git

Entirely forgot foi route.

tac foley

Deaf git wrote: »

Let's hope common sense prevails.

Amen.

tac

garrettod

I'd have expected the likes of the various club and NARGC facebook pages to all be riddled with questions about what was discussed at the meeting the other day, whats the agenda for the meeting etc. but it's almost dead silent on the couple of pages I looked at.

Yet another example of sod all people speaking out....

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

homerhop

garrettod wrote: »

I'd have expected the likes of the various club and NARGC facebook pages to all be riddled with questions about what was discussed at the meeting the other day, whats the agenda for the meeting etc. but it's almost dead silent on the couple of pages I looked at.

Yet another example of sod all people speaking out....

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Considering there was a lot of all organisations there they are all very quiet.

Sparks

http://www.targetshooting.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=608:meetingwithminister&catid=99&Itemid=2

As a follow up to our attendance at the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality and the publication of its interim report, the NTSA were invited to send two representatives to a meeting with the Minster for Justice on 29th April at 10am. The Minister chaired the meeting and opened by asking each representative present to introduce themselves and give a brief synopsis of what they required from any legislative change and what they wanted to see as an outcome of the review. We would leave it to others to outline their own priorities but the NTSA’s position was to have consistency in the application of the Firearms Acts and stability for the future. These are aims that we have outlined during the public hearings and in our written submissions.

Having completed this process, the Minister then asked that we address each of the recommendations of the committee in open session. For each of the recommendations, there was lively discussion and again we would seek only to outline our own responses to these recommendations. Where a particular recommendation did not affect our members directly, we deferred to the relevant body to outline their own case as they did in relation to areas solely affecting our members.

1. We were strongly in favour of an independent review of the current licensing regime.
2. Centralised licensing is something that the NTSA is strongly in favour of. With regard to competency testing, we felt that we would still carry out our own competency procedures and that some competencies were not necessarily universal across disciplines.
3. The Department were aware of the experience in this area in other jurisdictions, but it was pointed out that this is already being done successfully in Northern Ireland. The NTSA’s view is that if this is necessary to continue the licensing of short firearms then we would have no objection.
4. The NTSA are not in favour of any cap on the licensing of short firearms; temporary or otherwise. The reasons for this cap have not been adequately explained and the purpose is unclear. A review is clearly necessary but placing a cap on licenses before this review is completed would seem to pre-empt the outcome of such a review. It was accepted by all present that the limit on barrel length would adversely impact our equipment and this was acknowledged by everyone present who deferred to us on this issue. Overall length was presented as an acceptable alternative.
5. The NTSA already recommends that our members use gun safes regardless of the requirements under SI 307/2009.
6. It was accepted that this recommendation may present insurmountable technological or logistical issues and requires further investigation as to ease of implementation.
7. Structured and graduated licensing has merit but would require careful consideration as to its implementation. The NTSA pointed out that our recommendation to aspiring pistol shooters is to start with air pistol for reasons of training and cost and graduate to cartridge pistol as proficiency is reached should that be the goal. Air pistol is a growing sport in its own right and many of our members take part in both air and cartridge pistol disciplines.
   We deferred to other sports bodies on how this recommendation would affect their sports.

The meeting concluded with the Minister thanking all of us for our considered and reasoned responses and assuring us that she would review the outcomes of the meeting over the coming weeks. Asked whether there would be further meetings, she admitted that she had not considered this but would not rule it in or out at this stage.

tac foley

I'm confused over the contents of Para 5.

What, precisely, are the 'insurmountable technological or logistical' problems to buying and installing a gun safe? It's a tin box bolted to the wall/floor, or both.

A couple of million gun-owners in nearby GB seem to have done it without major physical or mental trauma, as does the rest of Europe and much of the Free World where firearms are allowed to be possessed by Mr Joe Citizen.

tac

Witcher

tac foley wrote: »

I'm confused over the contents of Para 5.

What, precisely, are the 'insurmountable technological or logistical' problems to buying and installing a gun safe? It's a tin box bolted to the wall/floor, or both.

A couple of million gun-owners in nearby GB seem to have done it without major physical or mental trauma, as does the rest of Europe and much of the Free World where firearms are allowed to be possessed by Mr Joe Citizen.

tac

That's para 6 and they're referring to time lock systems.

Cass

tac foley wrote: »

What, precisely, are the 'insurmountable technological or logistical' problems to buying and installing a gun safe? It's a tin box bolted to the wall/floor, or both.

As was said above it's the time lock issue that was proposed by the SC. Further back in this thread we already discussed the vast cost of time lock safes, the almost impossible task of having them wired to a current house alarm system, and the ability to even get them (safes) in the first place with only one company (out of three) definitely doing a gun sized safe but to the cost of €15,000 and up.

We're not so bad that we cannot figure out what the rest of the UK, Europe and the free world has How to bolt a safe to a wall, that is.

Cass

Sparks wrote: »

http://www.targetshooting.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=608:meetingwithminister&catid=99&Itemid=2

The report above by the NTSA is most welcome in that they have released the information to all as soon as they could. A lot of points have merit and will work with all groups across all disciplines. However I'm wondering what impact the SC's proposals had on proceedings? I said earlier on when news of this meeting first came out that the worse case scenario would be the various groups at the meeting arguing with each other in front of the Minister. I say this because some things stand out to me.

3) The Department were aware of the experience in this area in other jurisdictions, but it was pointed out that this is already being done successfully in Northern Ireland. The NTSA’s view is that if this is necessary to continue the licensing of short firearms then we would have no objection.

In the context of the notice it would seem they are continuing to discuss competency. If so what are they referring to in other jurisdictions? Are they discussing proficiency more than competency? If so this would explain why they said if it were necessary to do this to keep get licenses then they'd agree. If that is the case then i'd ask them to reconsider, but no point in getting into this without knowing the full context of the meeting and responses.

4) The NTSA are not in favour of any cap on the licensing of short firearms; temporary or otherwise. The reasons for this cap have not been adequately explained and the purpose is unclear. A review is clearly necessary but placing a cap on licenses before this review is completed would seem to pre-empt the outcome of such a review. It was accepted by all present that the limit on barrel length would adversely impact our equipment and this was acknowledged by everyone present who deferred to us on this issue. Overall length was presented as an acceptable alternative.

I'm in support of this for the most part. This is why i say what impact had the SC's proposals on proceedings? The SC has already proposed to restrict pistols based on barrel length (nothing under 5 inches). The statement above from the NTSA does say they are opposed to any cap although it does not say if they mentioned during the meeting that any such cap is currently illegal. The overall length as an alternative does not sit well with me, but i will say it's much more preferable than a ban on barrel length. It means you can have any gun of any barrel length once the overall length is not below a certain length. Much like what we have with rifle (nothing below 60cm), etc. Again i'm opposed to such limitations of any sort, and dislike the idea of proposing alternatives, but considering what came before this i'm wondering how much room we have to try and rubbish all proposals still> IOW are we now forced to make alternatives whereas 6 months ago we could have simply rubbished them?

7) Structured and graduated licensing has merit but would require careful consideration as to its implementation. The NTSA pointed out that our recommendation to aspiring pistol shooters is to start with air pistol for reasons of training and cost and graduate to cartridge pistol as proficiency is reached should that be the goal. Air pistol is a growing sport in its own right and many of our members take part in both air and cartridge pistol disciplines.
We deferred to other sports bodies on how this recommendation would affect their sports

Not sure if the NTSA have thought this one through as to can such a structured or graduated licensing system really work in their organisation. However as they did not claim to talk for all groups, as i highlighted above, it does not have the same impact as the SC's claim that such a system should be implemented across all shooting sports. However i still maintain that if an organisation wish to implement such a scheme it should be a "per group" decision and not a requirement in law. So if someone is advised to start with an air pistol, but refuse and want to go straight to a rimfire they should be able to.


All in all it's not bad at all with only a few small points i'd like to get more on. However the bigger issue is the points above (in the notice and not my post) have no real context without knowing the full content of discussion on the night. IOW what was the tone, the full list of questions, all the groups represented, etc, etc.

Grizzly 45

From what I've got back from my source..It was a unique meeting in the fact that everyone was talking TO each other and not AT each other with absolutely zero table pounding and inter disiplne animosity.
As well as there seems to be an agreement that gunsafes will bea good idea for all firearms,even apprently the IFA was in agreement with this.As well as that ,DOJ is most anxious to avoid any more DC cases!!!![Maybe because there is a money element involved now?] and would like to get the .22 pistol issue sorted as a pirority,proably becuse Autumn 2015 will see a whole raft of renewals showing up.
Can anyone verify the above points via their contacts??

tac foley

Strider wrote: »

That's para 6 and they're referring to time lock systems.

Apologies, I got the five and the six mixed up - blame old age and general decreptitude.

I agree totally - time locks on safes is something that banks can afford, but not the average citizen.

tac