Firearms licensing, politics and GE16.

mayhem#

I've been advised by Griz, one of the more eminent members of this forum to put up a public post about this.
My better half is running for election in the upcoming general elections.
We're both long term (legal) firearms owners and are supportive of the needs of this "group".
To bring some attention to the issue herself issued a light-hearted press release yesterday: <SNIP>

This has received some criticism though and as she's not a member of boards I am posting on her behalf.
She's interested in constructive input so if things work out well she can work on furthering the rights of the shooting lobby.

What's she is proposing is a system not dissimilar to the way firearms are licensed in the Netherlands.
Basically if there are no reasonable arguments not to issue a license the authorities are compelled to issue one.
This in stark contrast to Ireland were in spite of certain advances it is still largely arbitrary.
As for proficiency test the same applies, she does not want an annual test, although personally that's a bad idea. However it would not be unreasonable to expect that the owner of a firearm becomes the member of a club, regularly practices and can proof this by having someone in the club sign of on it.

So, please let us have your comments.

Sparks

How about not using us to get publicity please. It's not helpful to us in any way. It's as beneficial to us in the long run as Finian McGrath's nonsense. The actual legislative changes we need are better approached via the FCP without all the media hoohah surrounding a general election. Pushing this line of "we want a right to keep and bear arms because we can't compete in the Olympics" that you have publicly stated is utter tosh.

mayhem#

As I said before Mark, she's not using "you" to get publicity.
It's an issue that she has brought up as far back as when she first ran in 2011.
And as people who have been firearms licence holders as far back as 1991.
So apologies if the press release came across wrong but she's actually trying to achieve something helpful here.

Sparks

Then tell her to stop using us as a talking point. Going on about a right to bear arms nobody wants and telling people we can't compete in the Olympics as we compete in Rio? That's a publicity stunt, nothing more.

Rimfire Shooter

I agree with Sparks we're better of saying nothing & letting people who we didn't elect or ask to represent us make decisions on our behalf that benefit their financial/business interests.

mayhem#

OK, appreciate the feedback.
However I am slightly at a loss who this "us" is.
She has spoken to a number of people in the constituency on this topic and the majority supports these proposals.
What I would appreciate is more feedback on issues that concern the shooting lobby.
Basically rather than commenting on what not to do why not say what should be done.
Unless of course everything is hunky-dory in shooting land.....

Sparks

How about the NTSA, since you're talking about the Olympics?
How about any of the groups sitting at the FCP right now working on the firearms legislation, since you're talking about changing that legislation?
How about having had any input or contact with that side of shooting in the last twenty years?
Because I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that those groups would want nothing to do with this, because this is Prime Time all over again only worse - it'd be the Prime Time treatment from every tabloid in the country, during silly season, when nobody needs it. And firearms legislation is a deeply technical, deeply delicate thing to work on outside silly season. And if Kate had anything to actually contribute that was worth contributing, she wouldn't have just released a press statement saying that we can't compete in the Olympics (we're doing fine there, thanks) because we don't have a right to bear arms (which we don't want thanksverymuch, I don't particularly want to see burglars or groups like StormFront armed). That was just written to get attention in the media, the way Michael Healy-Rae and Finian McGrath latched onto the most press-worthy soundbites they could when we were trying to actually do some good, and it's worth as much to shooters as a whole.

Frankly, compared to what you're offering? Yes, everything is completely hunky dory in "shooting land" (gee thanks, nice descriptive term there).

mayhem#

Mark, there is quite a substantial group of firearms owners who are not members of the NTSA, who don't shoot at ranges and who have a completely different approach to firearms use & ownership.
Fact is that Ireland still has an extremely restrictive licensing structure.
That and possibly more restructive EU wide legislation on the horizon indicates that the hush-hush committee approach might not be working.
We have a whole raft of areas ranging from centerfire rifles, reloading to limited magazine capacities that urgently need to be addressed.

Sparks

Oh for...

1) The EU and the FCP aren't related, they're in totally different areas.
2) We've got a restrictive licencing structure and we've had it since 1925 and it's not our problem.
3) A whole raft of problems? My goodness, I hadn't heard, for you see I live on Mars in a cave behind a rock with my fingers in my ears and with my eyes shut singing loudly.


Thing is, if I sat Kate down right now to ask for a list of those problems, she'd get them wrong. How do I know that? Because I read that press release. That was something that you had full editorial control over and it's not only wrong, it's a total shambles that's almost custom written to get a panicky piece in a local paper. The kind of piece that tends to lead to calls for bans. And at election time, those calls are dangerously easy to answer.

Fact is, right now we've gotten the legal side of things back to a stable keel for the first time in several years and have a decent chance to get some actual good done without all the fuss and bother that you're looking to stir up. But it won't be done in time for the election. Oddly though, since we tend to stay in this sport till we're 90, really urgent pressing needs are few and far between and this isn't one of those times. This is a local independent who can't afford much media coverage trying to get that coverage by being "edgy" and "contraversial".

How about you campaign on not repealing the 8th or repealing the gay marriage referendum or one of Kate's other pet points instead? It's likely to do us a lot less damage.

Cass

Firstly, i applaud any act of trying to highlight the problems the shooting community must face from inconsistent decisions on applications, "makey-uppy" laws, forcing court cases that are not necessary all the way through to the recent/current attempts to ban firearms simply as a knee jerk reaction to their inability to combat the real cause of firearm offences.

That said there are loads of issues in the statement that i either don't understand or need clarification on.

• The first issue is about the right to have firearms. While it was said that if there is no reason to refuse then it must be granted, basically (and its in the title) she is saying that we should have a right to firearms. Here is where i have the first problem that perhaps you can answer (genuinely don't fully understand it). Is the right to something not a constitutional issue? If so this "right" to firearms would require a referendum? With that being the case how do you think this would go for the shooting community?
• The next issue is the second part. The "bear arms" part. Bearing arms, to me, means the ability to possess them at home, in public places (fields when hunting, etc), on ranges, and so on. Well we already have that. If it means something else then please correct me.

Once the license has been issued there also needs a system for regular checks that ensure that the license holder is proficient and safe in handling the firearm. There needs to be an ongoing check on regular (safety) training, mental health, criminal behavior and related factors according to Bopp.

• There are a few issues with this.
  1. Proficiency is not a part of the current licensing system. So why the calls for it to be introduced now?
  2. The mental health aspect is reminiscent of the same calls a few years back (from GPs IIRC).
  3. I'm not against safety checks as such, but it opens the door to yet another wave of private schemes were the prices are as varied as the decision making on applications by an Gardaí. Look at the competency courses as a source reference. Ran by anyone that wants to and no regulation, fixed prices, or even checks on the people running them.
  4. Lastly the bit about criminal behaviour is a moot point to me. If you step out of line then you run the risk of being arrested, charged and prosecuted which may lead to loss of your firearm(s). IOW we have this covered already.

• When you say that "Current legislation is too restrictive and even makes it impossible for Irish participants in the Olympic target shooting discipline to practice at an international standard " what exactly are you referring to? Olympic stuff usually consists of air rifle, air pistol, 22lr rifle, .22lr pisttol, 6mmbr rifle , etc. The only firearm is see a problem with is the centrefire pistol stuff.
• Lastly this: "Our government should work together with shooting organisations, farmer organisations and organisations such as the Countryside Alliance of Ireland to come up with a less restrictive and more coherent approach to country pursuits". We were doing this up till a few years ago under the umbrella of the FCP until we blew that up ourselves. Now we are back at the table again with the FCP this point is already happening.

As i said at the start of this post i'm unclear on some points, don't fully know the law on others and see more as already happening or moot. You say it was "light hearted" article, but in an election there is no such beast.

Final thing. As an independent candidate exactly how effective can she be in the grand scheme of things? What can she/does she hope to achieve without a party and with no chance to hold a ministerial position?

mick65cm

I dont mean to be offensive but I would see your wife as a loose canon.

For example

Why did she say we cant compete in the olympics when we can? Why did she say that? It was a complete lie. and she knew it was lie and she still went and said it anyway.

Thaat behaviour is too risky. I think she should stay away from shooter issues or shes liable to cause problems just when things are finally starting to right for us.

.243

If your other half is really set on supporting shooters ,my advise is leave it be and come back to us in 6 months after the election,

mayhem#

Just for the record, it's not the first time she has spoken out on this topic.
When she first ran for office in 2011 she received an email from Mark/Sparks with questions on her position on a number of firearms related topics.
At the time she was one of the few candidates who replied in detail: https://irishshootingpolitics.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/kate-bopp-ind-policy-on-firearms/
So no, she is not just jumping on the bandwagon.

mayhem#

@Cass, points well made so I'll try to give straight answers:

- On the right to own a firearm; this is more principal issue; does a government have the right to ban you from owning anything when there is no clear argument against it (Like the risk of harm to others)? It's classic libertarian thinking and while neither of us supports much of the modern libertarianism we do support this. So while it is not directly a firearms related item it does apply here.

- The "bear arms" was an attention grabbing headline but as it says further on in the press release she does not support such an approach here in Ireland. We're too far down the statist rabbit hole to revert back to that.

- Proficiency and in specific items such as safe handling, storing and transporting should be enforced and subject to regular checks or oversight. Even if it is through a club supervisor system.

- Mental health issues (within reason) could be grounds for refusal. Of course there are privacy issues but rather than give Gardai access to medical records we should put a mechanism in place where the medical professional has the duty of care to report a person with certain "issues'. Not foolproof but there is no foolproof system for this.

- The Olympic shooting reference; as neither of us is a participant this is information given to us through 3rd parties. What was *not* meant is that current law excludes Irish people from participating. What *was* meant is that the limitations in magazine capacity hampers adequate training.

- While the FCP is a step forward it is too little too slow. I can go on about this for a while but we need some sweeping changes introduced by politicians who are willing to make a bold stand on this topic and who don't think that all firearm are bad and that ownership should be limited.

MacsuibhneR

mayhem# wrote: »

I've been advised by Griz, one of the more eminent members of this forum to put up a public post about this.
My better half is running for election in the upcoming general elections.
We're both long term (legal) firearms owners and are supportive of the needs of this "group".
To bring some attention to the issue herself issued a light-hearted press release yesterday: http://katebopp.com/2016/02/17/offaly-election-candidate-calls-for-the-right-to-bear-arms/

This has received some criticism though and as she's not a member of boards I am posting on her behalf.
She's interested in constructive input so if things work out well she can work on furthering the rights of the shooting lobby.

What's she is proposing is a system not dissimilar to the way firearms are licensed in the Netherlands.
Basically if there are no reasonable arguments not to issue a license the authorities are compelled to issue one.
This in stark contrast to Ireland were in spite of certain advances it is still largely arbitrary.
As for proficiency test the same applies, she does not want an annual test, although personally that's a bad idea. However it would not be unreasonable to expect that the owner of a firearm becomes the member of a club, regularly practices and can proof this by having someone in the club sign of on it.

So, please let us have your comments.

Fair play to her. This is democracy in action and there is no need to jump down her throat about it. She makes some fair points and gives people a choice. We complain on this forum about the system we have to operate under so I applaud her for trying to change it.

More people should get politically active if they are unhappy about aspects of government policy, if they want to try to affect a change. It may not work but it is good to see someone try.

BattleCorp

MacsuibhneR wrote: »

Fair play to her. This is democracy in action and there is no need to jump down her throat about it. She makes some fair points and gives people a choice. We complain on this forum about the system we have to operate under so I applaud her for trying to change it.

I'm all for change but this isn't the right way to do it. This will do harm instead of good.

When you mention "right to bear arms", this likens us to America. Straight away we are losing because people are then thinking of guns everywhere, schools getting shot up etc.

mayhem#

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm all for change but this isn't the right way to do it. This will do harm instead of good.

When you mention "right to bear arms", this likens us to America. Straight away we are losing because people are then thinking of guns everywhere, schools getting shot up etc.

Let me quote myself from an earlier comment: - The "bear arms" was an attention grabbing headline but as it says further on in the press release she does not support such an approach here in Ireland. We're too far down the statist rabbit hole to revert back to that.

Sparks

mayhem# wrote: »

Just for the record, it's not the first time she has spoken out on this topic.

Last time, she specifically answered questions she was asked. Every candidate got the same questions.
None said they were going to ban us. Loads said they'd support us. All of them pretty much then vanished after election day. Kate included.

We kindof expect that. We're used to it. But this going to the press as we're sitting down with the Minister and finally dealing with the legislative problems and saying we need firearms for self-defence because we can't compete in the Olympics is just publicity seeking rubbish that gives not one fig about what happens to all of us afterwards.

It's the same game Michael Healy-Rae is playing. It's also the same game Finian McGrath is playing, he's just the flip side of the coin. Neither's interested in our sports five minutes after they have the publicity they're looking for.

mayhem# wrote: »

- On the right to own a firearm; this is more principal issue; does a government have the right to ban you from owning anything when there is no clear argument against it (Like the risk of harm to others)?

That's not even a question, it's been the law in Ireland since 1925 (and was the law here from far earlier).
And it's never been the problem. The problem has been people not adhering to the law. Election campaigns are not how you address that problem.

- The "bear arms" was an attention grabbing headline but as it says further on in the press release she does not support such an approach here in Ireland. We're too far down the statist rabbit hole to revert back to that.

In other words, say whatever to get into the press. And afterwards, when you manage to start a row and get people yelling, you've gotten free publicity and if we all find we're now subjected to another round of bans, well, hey, that's not your problem, is it? Oh, Kate will support us all the way, and call for the bans not to happen and fight the good fight, but since she's just one independent candidate, well, can't outvote the larger parties, eh? Oh well, she's sorry we lost our sport, hard luck.

- Proficiency and in specific items such as safe handling, storing and transporting should be enforced and subject to regular checks or oversight. Even if it is through a club supervisor system.

There's a very good reason that proficiency is not in the law right now.
It's that proficiency has to be judged. And that means testing. Which in turn means courses. Which in turn means financial gain and now we're in a whole world of hurt. It's bad enough where we are now, but you're looking to make it worse when even the worst of those cracking down on our sports over the years never sought this. When Michael McDowell says it'd be going too far down the regulatory road to introduce something, why the hell would anyone claiming to be on our side think it was a good idea?

- Mental health issues (within reason) could be grounds for refusal. Of course there are privacy issues but rather than give Gardai access to medical records we should put a mechanism in place where the medical professional has the duty of care to report a person with certain "issues'. Not foolproof but there is no foolproof system for this.

First of all, mental health issues are grounds of refusal and have been grounds for refusal since 1925 for good reason.
Secondly, the Gardai already have access to our medical records.
Thirdly, medical personnel have had that duty of care for a very long time.
If you don't know the law, could you please refrain from calling for changes to it? You're going to do more harm than good.

- The Olympic shooting reference; as neither of us is a participant this is information given to us through 3rd parties. What was *not* meant is that current law excludes Irish people from participating. What *was* meant is that the limitations in magazine capacity hampers adequate training.

So you went to the press with a scaremongering headline for publicity and had no clue what the hell you were talking about and you think that's fine? You want to go to the press and talk about Olympic shooting, but you didn't ask either of the Olympic NGBs what the actual story was?

- While the FCP is a step forward it is too little too slow. I can go on about this for a while but we need some sweeping changes introduced by politicians who are willing to make a bold stand on this topic and who don't think that all firearm are bad and that ownership should be limited.

The FCP has had two meetings so far. And hasn't sorted out eighty years of bad legislative drafting while coordinating six or seven different stakeholder groups, some of which are having their own political infighting delaying things.
Colour me shocked.
What do we need to fix this?
More patience than the average six-year-old. This isn't some six-month job we're looking at here. It took decades to cause this problem, it is not going to be sorted out in a week, and if you honestly think you're going to help by throwing your arms about and yelling, go look at how much Michael Healy Rae sped the process up over the last six months doing exactly what you're doing now.

You're out to use us for cheap publicity and you'll destroy years of work in the process before we have a chance to actually fix anything. That's not the action of someone who's "on our side".

Grizzly 45

OK couple of points..

-

On the right to own a firearm; this is more principal issue; does a government have the right to ban you from owning anything when there is no clear argument against it (Like the risk of harm to others)? It's classic libertarian thinking and while neither of us supports much of the modern libertarianism we do support this. So while it is not directly a firearms related item it does apply here.

To debate that here is impossible because you have to go well into RTKBA terrority to answer it properly.So not going to happen...

- Proficiency and in specific items such as safe handling, storing and transporting should be enforced and subject to regular checks or oversight. Even if it is through a club supervisor system.

What happens if you are not in a club,and are a hunter,wild fowler,deer stalker etc?

-

Mental health issues (within reason) could be grounds for refusal. Of course there are privacy issues but rather than give Gardai access to medical records we should put a mechanism in place where the medical professional has the duty of care to report a person with certain "issues'. Not foolproof but there is no foolproof system for this.

Slippery slope and if you read my last post You would see the EU dictatorship is already recommending this and are surprised at the massive resistance it is getting in the EU. It goes then to notifiable ailiment s perhaps?Bad eyesight? Also how can a doctor report someone without violating his Hippocratic oath?Its the same as the seal of the confessional.Both accepted points of Western law.

- While the FCP is a step forward it is too little too slow. I can go on about this for a while but we need some sweeping changes introduced by politicians who are willing to make a bold stand on this topic and who don't think that all firearm are bad and that ownership should be limited.

OK apart from your missus...Who else is there??Not one politican will touch this topic with a brge pole for the simple reasons;

They know nothing about it.It showed at the Dail comittee,people were swayed one way with AGS showing horror pictures of their evidence locker,and we swayed them back collectively by rational arguement,ber a few no hopers like Mc Grath and a Shinner or two.

Its not a majority issue in Ireland.Maybe when finally the pro cathderal has become the new Sala ah din memorial mosque and Irish heads and hands are being lopped off in front of the GPO every 3rd Friday after prayers..Maybe then.

Plenty would take the opposite view and figure its a good "get tough on crime" or "we dont want a US style gun culture" in Ireland bandwagon vote catcher .

The majority are bought and paid talking heads of their political parties line.
We dont do independant thinking in Irish politics or encourage it either.Why would we have a whip system and guiltone in the Dail otherwise?The few that are independant thinkers ,are sitting up in the Dail with the pink t shirted bearded tax dodging one,the two sour puss ICABS supporters and the turf digging pot smoker,who got out and went to Brussells. or the FG lite Renua Lucinda,polling at 4% at the moment .
All of them are not exactly pro gun either. So where ,unless we get a bunch of ex pat Irish /US congress men who are pro gun running in the elections for some reason.It aint going to happen.

Deaf git

To the OP-
In the last week I've had 7 or 8 people at my door feigning interest in my problems and making promises they can't keep. What strikes me most is none of these people gave a flying fcuk about my problems for the last 5 years. I even had correspondence from one of them going back a few years stating he didn't give a flying fcuk about my problems. What's worse is not one single organ donor seeking my vote on the doorstep could offer realistic solutions to sovereign debt of 200+ billion euro.
If you want to help your partner develop a political career I'd suggest 1.Solid constituency work helping people, 2. Develop and trouble shoot policies on finance, justice, education etc. 3. Develop a reputation as an intelligent, honest, hard worker that doesn't jump on bandwagons or talk shyte.
I can fully understand the hostility displayed to your partner's statement on this forum. You see, we have been fcukd properly in the past by politicians and their attempts to boost popularity. Thats the problem with politicians, popularity is their life's blood and I reckon any politician would royally screw us to secure election.
So firearms aside, what are you proposing to do about unsustainable sovereign debt?

Cass

mayhem# wrote: »

- On the right to own a firearm; this is more principal issue; does a government have the right to ban you from owning anything when there is no clear argument against it (Like the risk of harm to others)? It's classic libertarian thinking and while neither of us supports much of the modern libertarianism we do support this. So while it is not directly a firearms related item it does apply here.

You have not answered my question (think the political machine is kicking in already).

What you are saying is giving a RIGHT to a firearm. Replacing "may issue" with "must issue". Is this a constitutional issue?

Secondly the right to a firearm is a dangerous thing as not everyone should have a firearm.

- The "bear arms" was an attention grabbing headline but as it says further on in the press release she does not support such an approach here in Ireland. We're too far down the statist rabbit hole to revert back to that.

Right.

So you used an American slogan, with connotations of American style gun culture just to grab attention. Considering RTKBA is a no go in Ireland and with images of everyone walking around with a gun on their hip, could you not have done it differently? I'd say to use a little more tact, but there is none to begin with.

- Proficiency and in specific items such as safe handling, storing and transporting should be enforced and subject to regular checks or oversight. Even if it is through a club supervisor system.

You have, once again, not answered my question. Why is she complaining about restrictive laws, then looking to impose stricter conditions with new laws regarding proficiency in certain aspects which is not currently a requirement? Why is she seeking to impose another system of self regulation which is prime to abuse and exploitation like the competency courses were/are?

- Mental health issues (within reason) could be grounds for refusal. Of course there are privacy issues but rather than give Gardai access to medical records we should put a mechanism in place where the medical professional has the duty of care to report a person with certain "issues'. Not foolproof but there is no foolproof system for this.

This would require continuous assessment which no GP is qualified for and which would overload the current mental health system (tying up Psychologists).

Also, and i'm not a medical professional so correct me if i'm wrong, a GP cannot ring the Gardaí and tell them s/he (the GP) thinks you might be disturbed, unsettled, etc. based on a hunch. It violates the very patient/Doctor privilege you talk about and can result in the loss of someones firearms based on an opinion.

I understand that Doctors have a duty of care and if they think someone is going to hurt themselves or someone else they are obliged to report it but there is a difference between someone loosing their sh*t and screaming blue murder, and a lad that is quiet, depressed, etc yet not a danger to anyone.

- The Olympic shooting reference; as neither of us is a participant this is information given to us through 3rd parties. What was *not* meant is that current law excludes Irish people from participating. What *was* meant is that the limitations in magazine capacity hampers adequate training.

So it's not just badly written, it's wrong and unverified!!!!

First rule any politician knows. Never say something for definite unless you can back it up with fact.

Secondly as the 5 shot rule applies to pistol shooting and they only use 5 shots in Olympic pistol is still fail to see how it affects the sport or anyone's participation in it.

- While the FCP is a step forward it is too little too slow. I can go on about this for a while but we need some sweeping changes introduced by politicians who are willing to make a bold stand on this topic and who don't think that all firearm are bad and that ownership should be limited.

As i asked above, and still have not gotten an answer to. How does she intend to do this as A) an independent, with no ministerial role, C) needing the support of the majority to pass any such changes to the law?

A single TD cannot do squat. Even a Minister within a Government party cannot do as they please. They will tow the party line, and do as instructed or whatever way the winds of public opinion blow.

The FCP has slowly worked over the years until is was pissed away. Thankfully its back, and hopefully will resume being a useful tool. You say its too slow, do you know how long it takes to draft new law, and then get it through all the phases of the Seanad/Oireacthas and still have it come out the same as when it started and not some monstrosity with all the amendments that people will want to tag onto it?

I'll be brutally honest and i'm by no means being personal. I was giving the benefit of the doubt at first, but the above has sickened me. You admit:

• It was a sensationalist headline to get attention
• To never researching information provided
• To not understanding some aspects of specific sports you discussed
• Calling for relaxing of restrictive laws, then seeking to implement even stricter ones
• To being completely wrong on other issues you claim are one thing but actually another.

MacsuibhneR wrote: »

Fair play to her. This is democracy in action and there is no need to jump down her throat about it.

Hold on a minute. If you seek public office you should be able to speak for yourself and answer basic questions.

She makes some fair points and gives people a choice.

Really? Care to list the good points, and what choices you approve of?

We complain on this forum about the system we have to operate under so I applaud her for trying to change it.

SHE CAN'T.

mick65cm

Cass wrote: »

A single TD cannot do squat.

i guess tony gregory didnt get the memo!!!! joke

Cass

Wonder how she got on.

Sparks

1% of the vote according to twitter.

https://twitter.com/ElectionNT/status/703561355299790848

FG Final tally:
Bopp IND 500 1%
Corcoran Kennedy 6666 /15.95%
Cowen 11903 28.49%
Fetters Green 408 .98%
Fitzpatrick FF 3197 7.65%