Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

New SI released, changes to licencing upcoming.

1235

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 40,055 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Yup, but it could be done if the motivation was there. The JR avenue can't ever be removed though.


  • Registered Users Posts: 40,055 ✭✭✭✭Sparks




  • Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    sounds good to me, the FCP can only be a good thing if managed properly, we need to remove confrontation with the AGS . no good ever came from it


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,523 ✭✭✭Traumadoc


    BoatMad wrote: »
    sounds good to me, the FCP can only be a good thing if managed properly, we need to remove confrontation with the AGS . no good ever came from it

    I would disagree, if it were not for challenging the Guards, we would not have any pistols, or anything bigger than .22


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    Traumadoc wrote: »
    I would disagree, if it were not for challenging the Guards, we would not have any pistols, or anything bigger than .22

    sorry , I beg to disagree, the primary change was as a result of a legal challenge against the state. The subsequent challenges against the AGS have proven counter productive


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 40,055 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    And to remind you both, we were offered pistols back in the late 90s and turned them down. The legal stuff could have been avoided from a long way back.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,075 ✭✭✭gunhappy_ie


    Traumadoc wrote: »
    I would disagree, if it were not for challenging the Guards, we would not have any pistols, or anything bigger than .22


    Im not going to speak for Boat Mad but I will say for myself I wouldn't have thought that was the point.

    I have to say that some members of representative associations weren't completely respectful in dealing politicians on this. Fair enough they were dealing with AGS who IMO are completely untrustworthy/incompetent but their frustration about the matter but it did not paint a nice picture for the shooting community.

    Challenging AGS in the courts is a completely different matter !


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,523 ✭✭✭Traumadoc


    BoatMad wrote: »
    sorry , I beg to disagree, the primary change was as a result of a legal challenge against the state. The subsequent challenges against the AGS have proven counter productive

    No, the primary change was the temporary custody and retention of firearms in 1972.
    The guards would have been more than happy to keep it that way and have been trying to get it back that way ever since.
    Witness the falsehoods put out in the media about toys being stolen firearms, if it were not for a few brave and committed individuals who were prepared to challenge the Guards , we would have lost all pistols and all semi-auto shotguns.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    I have to say that some members of representative associations weren't completely respectful in dealing politicians on this. Fair enough they were dealing with AGS who IMO are completely untrustworthy/incompetent but their frustration about the matter but it did not paint a nice picture for the shooting community.

    I have no wish to derail this thread, but this type of generalisation "AGS who IMO are completely untrustworthy/incompetent" is at the kernel of the matter. Im sure , like all societies , there are bad apples in the AGS, but to paint the police force of the state as "completely untrustworthy/incompetent" is no way to advance licensing issues.

    sitting round the table , debating and arguing is far superior that trying to sue various parts of the Guards in the courts ,m we have to get away from loudspeaker politics in this regard.

    ( and I know you were actually agreeing with me in a way )


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    No, the primary change was the temporary custody and retention of firearms in 1972.

    err that was a challenge against the state not the AGS, that what I said


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    The guards would have been more than happy to keep it that way and have been trying to get it back that way ever since.

    actually its been the shouting and roaring of the various sporting bodies that have equally done us harm. I dont not expect the Gardai to be agnostic on firearms, no more then they are on road safety. Hence they will from time to time promote certain ideas, ideas we may not like.

    What we have now is at least a clear consultative route to " challange" any such initiatives in the future. we can be sure the AGS will continuously keep the pressure on, Ive no issue with them in that , what we must do is be organised to present our case, not start screaming amongst ourselves or labelling all guards as " incompetent " etc


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,523 ✭✭✭Traumadoc


    BoatMad wrote: »
    err that was a challenge against the state not the AGS, that what I said

    I thought it was the Guards who refused to re-license the firearms hence they continued to remain in garda custody.

    Was it senior gardai that altered application documents after the fact that the pistol licenses had been refused and were subject to court challenge?

    What ever happened to that?
    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/calls-for-probe-after-top-garda-altered-gun-licence-forms-26814213.html


  • Registered Users Posts: 40,055 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Traumadoc wrote: »
    I thought it was the Guards who refused to re-license the firearms hence they continued to remain in garda custody.

    Two separate policies, challenged in two separate Supreme Court cases. Both ruled to have been illegal.


  • Registered Users Posts: 40,055 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Traumadoc wrote: »
    What ever happened to that?
    We* settled the case and part of the settlement was an agreement that no wrongdoing had taken place.


    *"we" meaning those taking the cases on everyone's behalf, even those who though it was a terrible idea from soup to nuts.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,082 ✭✭✭bravestar


    Reading some of the posts here, you would swear we just got fed another sh!t sandwich. We should be happy how things are going and discussing how best to keep the good vibes alive, rather than bickering over history.

    Sincerely yours,

    Someone who is completely untrustworthy and/ or incompetent. :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,943 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    I think we are now going into the "trust, but verify" stage of things.But as said this all has to survive a Gen election and if Frannie is voted back in by some chance😄.Whats the chances she will be still in the same job,Our dear leader has said he is retiring and Frannie has an eye on the ultra most high poobah job in FG.
    Will this become another DoJ door stopper or wonky desk leg support like the TCO for another few decades?Or can it be hustled with us asking via the FCP?Or will this be another Xmas rush it thru bill before the holidays this Xmas?
    We are still in intresting times .

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • Registered Users Posts: 228 ✭✭Deaf git


    Someone who is completely untrustworthy and/ or incompetent. :)[/quote]

    In any group of 13000 ish people there will be a percentage who fall into this category. There will be further percentages of bone lazy, nuts, bullies and general headcases as there are throughout other branches of the public service and society in general. These categories colour public perception of the rest that just get on with their job.
    So don't take it personally.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,943 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    Deaf git wrote: »
    Someone who is completely untrustworthy and/ or incompetent. :)

    In any group of 13000 ish people there will be a percentage who fall into this category. There will be further percentages of bone lazy, nuts, bullies and general headcases as there are throughout other branches of the public service and society in general. These categories colour public perception of the rest that just get on with their job.
    So don't take it personally.[/quote]

    And usually wayy up the pay grade than the pavement pounders.No such thing as bad men only bad officers who lead them.

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,082 ✭✭✭bravestar


    Deaf git wrote: »
    Someone who is completely untrustworthy and/ or incompetent. :)

    In any group of 13000 ish people there will be a percentage who fall into this category. There will be further percentages of bone lazy, nuts, bullies and general headcases as there are throughout other branches of the public service and society in general. These categories colour public perception of the rest that just get on with their job.
    So don't take it personally.[/quote]

    I don't, hence the smile :) just some light hearted fun at a silly assertion.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,449 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    It's almost laughable that a few people i've spoken of the last few days have said how this is a disgrace, we've been sold out, and how they'll never "help" again if something else comes along even though most if not all of what has happened was proposed by the SC:
    Of significance is the fact that all of the arrangements which the Minister has announced were sought by the Sports Coalition.

    I'm not getting into all the crap we went through over the last 18 months again as it's covered in the other thread, but how in the name of God can people be surprised at what was done if the end result is exactly what was sought (by some)? Did not they not realise this was what was being asked for?
    Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

    If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.

    Moderators - Cass otmmyboy2 , CatMod - Shamboc , Admins - Beasty , mickeroo



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    I'm not getting into all the crap we went through over the last 18 months again as it's covered in the other thread, but how in the name of God can people be surprised at what was done if the end result is exactly what was sought (by some)? Did not they not realise this was what was being asked for?

    personally I think we did well, given where this process started. The AGS in effect wasn't believed by the Minister and some of the more wacko ideas got shot down


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,449 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    As a pistol and semi auto owner i can say it's not as bad as i thought it might have been. I'm not "happy", but i'm not upset or angered. As you said considering where we started from and what may have happened it's about the best we could have hoped for.

    To the vast majority it changes nothing. To others it means they cannot apply for something (or more accurately can but may loose it) they never had. To those suffering through DC cases to keep or get back their .22 pistols it's a help. My concern would be what may come in the future (as each new Act has never been overly kind to us) but that is a worry for another day as we may have a different Minster or the same with a different agenda.
    Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

    If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.

    Moderators - Cass otmmyboy2 , CatMod - Shamboc , Admins - Beasty , mickeroo



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    presumably it puts an end to the : bull-pup " nonsense like the ruger etc , it certainly as far as I can see allows a very wide range of 0.22lr handguns to be licensed


  • Registered Users Posts: 40,055 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    No, the bullpup definition still stands (it's part of the Act and can't be changed by SI), but the actual pistol itself is fine (but then that particular one always was - other pistols like the GSGs were running into problems and this should fix that).


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,943 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    Thing that i find hilarious about this is now suddenly people who had never a desire to own a semi auto and were actually bad mouthing them,then saying whats the point in applying for one shure they will be gone ,even the lisensed ones..Are now suddenly bitching and moaning about wanting one!!!...And its not fair that others have them and shure if people hadnt fought those court cases we would have been grand...
    Effin bloody hyprocrites!!
    Why didnt you get off your holes when they were available, buy a cheapish one ,and have liscensed it and maybe taken a DC day out which you would have proably won anyway and had one instead of being another master of Whinese?
    Im far from happy on that issue of the sa cf too.But then again they are less than CF handguns and the thing is there is no restriction afaics on being to substitute liscense for those in store or with others here like there is on the CF handguns.If and when we get the FCP up there is still hope that we can argue the cause for them and the central register of restricted firearms by ags.Wonder why that was set up ?Because of the sheer stubbornness of CS not dealing with this fairly.
    Its not all doom& gloom on this issue yet.

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • Registered Users Posts: 228 ✭✭Deaf git


    Some people are only happy when they have something to bitch about...and when they don't they still bitch.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,075 ✭✭✭gunhappy_ie


    Deaf git wrote: »
    Some people are only happy when they have something to bitch about...and when they don't they still bitch.

    You can please some of the people some of the time but you can't please all of the people all of the time !


  • Registered Users Posts: 228 ✭✭Deaf git


    I wonder when we will see an amended Commissioner's Guidelines that reflects S391/15?


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    Deaf git wrote: »
    I wonder when we will see an amended Commissioner's Guidelines that reflects S391/15?

    I doubt we will see any , The specific 0.22lr pistol recommendations in the appendix have been withdrawn and there no need to re-instate that as the SI does that.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 228 ✭✭Deaf git


    BoatMad wrote: »
    I doubt we will see any , The specific 0.22lr pistol recommendations in the appendix have been withdrawn and there no need to re-instate that as the SI does that.

    There are sections on the Restricted/Unrestricted (page 9) and Suitable Firearms (page 23 I think) that are now out of kilter with SI391. I'm surprised it hasn't been updated. It was amended last November and there was no new legislation at the time.
    Much has been written on these pages about the complexity of the legislation, guidelines are very useful for all involved.


Advertisement