NARGC's "arrangemeent" with An Gardaí

Cass

Bit of a long story but i'll keep it short.

Some time ago, almost 2 years, i was contacted by a friend of a friend that was having trouble with an application. The Super was being especially troublesome to the point of, what i would call, vindictive. I last spoke to the chap about four weeks ago when he informed me that he still had not got his license (refused again).

I then got a call from him about 10 days later (two weeks ago). He had contacted the NARGC, i told him they might be able to help or steer him towards someone that has legal experience as he is a member, and they sent him out a form. He had rang me tto ask about the form. It was for a review or sorts.

Now the only thing i'd heard about was the civilian authority the Minister had promised us over 18 months ago, but that still was in the planning stages and not set up. So i was curious how this form could help the NARGC deal with An Gardaí.

I've since seen that the NARGC has signed or agreed to some sort of agreement or accord, as they call it, with An Gardaí.

Now first off let me say i think this is brilliant. The idea anyway. A route to be able to deal with troublesome Supers, and also weed out problematic applicants which avoids the need for court appearances is a great step forward.

1. However where does this leave the planned civilian review board?
2. Is it still going ahead?
3. Will it be separate to this agreement?
4. Is this a stepping stone until that is in place?
5. Is it only for NARGC members?
6. Have other groups done the same?
7. The NARGC are the sport coalition so are all groups in the sc covered?

I know this is new so answers may be thin, but as i'm not involved in the NARGC anymore i'm on the outside looking for answers.

Sparks

8. Exactly when did the Gardai get the legal authority to deviate from the Firearms Act and act to bring a civilian company into the process without the Minister's direction; and didn't we see a supreme court case (Dunne) about this already?

Cass

Never considered that as i viewed this as a similar project to the planned Civilian board. However the Minister will appoint those, and she has the authority to do so, i presume?

bluezulu49

Cass wrote: »

.........
I know this is new so answers may be thin, but as i'm not involved in the NARGC anymore i'm on the outside looking for answers.

Text of the notice sent to NARGC club secretaries is here --> http://nargc.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/NARGC-GARDA-Press-Release-Jan-2017.pdf

Too long I think to copy and paste here.

Bluezulu49.

Cass

Holy sh*t. Who's ass were they kissing on paragraph 4.

"Dropping the application through the letterbox is simply not good enough. You should meet the FO, and go through the application to find any shortcomings.".

Can whomever wrote that see daylight yet?

Granted there are some top quality Gardaí out there and they do the job perfectly. A great blend of professionalism, and keeping to the letter of the law. As for the rest.

Between FOs that are morons, not there, loosing paperwork, know less than we do, think they're the Super, refuse to accept applications unless you alter something they don't like, and in general being a dick i wonder who they were trying to kiss ass to when they wrote that segment of the article.

The majority of complaints i've seen and heard have been the fault of the FO. Not nby guess, but their actions have been wrong. Once they were shown to be, or bypassed the application process went along smoothly.

So perhaps the NARGC want to rethink their attitude towards their members and address some of the existing issues surrounding the made up job that is the FO.

RossiFan08

bluezulu49 wrote: »

Cass wrote: »

.........
I know this is new so answers may be thin, but as i'm not involved in the NARGC anymore i'm on the outside looking for answers.

Text of the notice sent to NARGC club secretaries is here --> http://nargc.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/NARGC-GARDA-Press-Release-Jan-2017.pdf

Too long I think to copy and paste here.

Bluezulu49.

Just reading over that, I noticed the storage requirements are missing the section regarding external locks for 5 forearms or more. Is this an omission or has this been changed

Cass

It seems to be a scaled back version. They are missing other things too like the "secured to solid wall" for level 2, the locks as you mentioned for level three, and the most important part, that all measures are minimums and subject to change.

RossiFan08

Cass wrote: »

It seems to be a scaled back version. They are missing other things too like the "secured to solid wall" for level 2, the locks as you mentioned for level three, and the most important part, that all measures are minimums and subject to change.

I find that worrying as it doesn't take much to add the few lines in

Sparks

It doesn't so much seem to be a new line of communications as it is the NARGC saying they'll help members fill out the FCA1 correctly. Which, to be fair, they should have been doing for years, but meh, at least they're doing it now.

But from that NARGC document, it doesn't look like this is the same thing as the civilian appeals process the Minister was talking about, it just looks like exactly the same thing every NGB has been saying since the FCP was founded - if there's a problem, call us, we'll talk to the FPU about it because we're sitting next to them on the FCP.

Cass

From what i've gotten, in the lads case i mentioned in my OP, he filled in his form, what the problem was, why he was refused and will submit it for the NARGC to check.

If they feel he has been treated wrongly they'll act on his behalf, non legal i'm presuming, and if they feel he was treated fairly then, well nothing i guess.


The civilian appeals board as discussed by the minister is meant to be a legally binding alternative to court?

Sparks

Cass wrote: »

The civilian appeals board as discussed by the minister is meant to be a legally binding alternative to court?

I'm not sure about the legally binding part in a case where some Super gets completely set on ignoring the appeals board. That's something that would require a change in the Act to bring about (the same way that making the District Court judges the persona designata did). Totally could be done that way mind you - but I've not seen the details of it yet so your guess is as good as mine. But without that change, it'd be more of a norm than a law (the way that supers tended to grant licences if a judicial review case told them to reconsider their decision - they weren't legally required to do so, but most of the time they just granted it as if the court had made the decision for them).

Cass

Sparks wrote: »

I'm not sure about the legally binding part in a case where some Super gets completely set on ignoring the appeals board. .

That is why i asked about the legally binding part. There has to be something to "make" the Super adhere to the ruling of any board.

As you said with such a board a Super can choose to ignore their recommendation completely forcing someone to bring it to court and start the process all over again.

IOW it would make the board somewhat impotent perhaps even pointless if the ruling could not be, looking for the right word but failing, enforceable?

cavan shooter

My read of it...if you have a problem with a license issue contact X in NARGC. It is I hope an attempt to normalise relationships which had been fought for a while. I don't think they are trying to circumvent anyone's right to appeal etc..I think it's welcome I hear they also met with NPWS just after Christmas.

Sparks

Cass wrote: »

That is why i asked about the legally binding part. There has to be something to "make" the Super adhere to the ruling of any board.
As you said with such a board a Super can choose to ignore their recommendation completely forcing someone to bring it to court and start the process all over again.
IOW it would make the board somewhat impotent perhaps even pointless if the ruling could not be, looking for the right word but failing, enforceable?

It gets more complex the more you think about it. So, they could change the Act to put the board in between the Super and the DC and the whole problem of an entrenched Super goes away, but there's the flip side of this to consider; if the board rules against the applicant, what's the applicant's right of appeal?

It can't be "the board said no, you're done'' because the board isn't a court, the whole point of it is to be an arbitration body that isn't a court or the Gardai. So you can't take away a person's right to due process in a court, they have to be able to appeal the ruling to someone who isn't a civil servant or the other side of the case.

So either the board's ruling isn't final and you can go on to the DC as you do with a Super's decision now; or you say it's final and the only appeals process left is the Judicial Review route in the High Court, which is where we were stuck for decades and which would be a huge step backwards both for us (because the High Court sucks as a route to appeal an eighty-euro licence) and for the courts (because the High Courts are massively overworked at the moment, to the point where we had to have a referendum to set up a separate appellate court just to ease the workload).

Personally, I think they'd want to amend the Act to give the board some teeth, but leave in the route to the DC for both Super and Applicant because otherwise we wind up taking a massive step backwards. After that structure is in place, it becomes a cultural problem within the Gardai to accept the appeals board, but since they're on the FCP that'll be drafting the rules for how this all work, half that battle is already won. And if the DC starts to see board decisions being appealed as being appellate cases instead of application cases (ie. there's already been a process and now we're looking for errors in the process rather than errors in the application itself), then that'll help things along enormously as well.

Sparks

cavan shooter wrote: »

It is I hope an attempt to normalise relationships which had been fought for a while.

It does look that way, and that's something that's desperately needed, so it's probably a good thing.

berettaman

Lads,


For reasons that we all know there had been a very tense relationship between the NARGC and the Gardai in previous years and the most common form of communication was through legal process.

The Chairman and the Executive of the NARGC have made huge efforts to reform the Association from within and change how we go about our business when dealing with those outside the Association.

This meeting was important because bridges needed to be built with the Gardai and dialogue is important.

There are issues regarding substitutions etc that needed to be raised with the Gardai. NARGC does not expect to be in a position to provide a solution to every licence problem but if a situation can be solved with a phone call instead of a legal barrage then surely that is a good thing? (Cheaper anyway.) If a legal is the only ooption in the end, then so be it.
And some times members need to be told that what they are looking for is off the wall.:D

While the NARGC are indeed a part of the Sports Coalition there is a feeling that this was required to put our members concerns across. The "disconnect" between NARGC and S.C. is a matter for another day.;)

NARGC Officers also spoke to NPWS regarding various issues. This needed to happen and should be encouraged.

NARGC Chairmans door is open and he is willing to talk to anyone in the interests of growing the sport.

Compared to where we were this can only be a good thing.

Have to say fair play to the NARGC on this one.

Tackleberry.

I'd have to think, that this NARGC process must have a very quick turn around time, or would you need to be also engaging your solicitor so as to not miss the 30 day deadline, something that I have experienced with the application made at 32 days, only to get to court and for the state to point this late application, my case could not be heard.. 30 days is pretty tight if your considering to exhaust all options now available.

cavan shooter

With respect and don't get me wrong, its great to see the NARGC opening up channels in all directions, but i'm also scared that this this mean we will be further sold down the road.

The minutes of the SC meeting does not make good reading regarding activities we are involved in and the "Shared concern" comment about competency of shooters, link this with the ballistic testing, lead shot and proofing still to raise its head. ..To borrow a good old Irish saying Lead shot hasnt gone away you know.....
If a lead shot ban comes in for example we will all be buying new guns or doesn't it make a lot of existing guns unsaleable? yest these are things that are very quiet at the moment and the fact the SC is made up of ranges and gun dealers, I think the wolf is minding the sheep

I know the NARGC has been busy over the last year but I do hope the NARGC will be a bit more proactive in standing up for their "members" interests and make hard decisions when its needed.

berettaman

I think that the NARGC is acting from a very shooter orientated viewpoint.

I do not think the Exec or Gov Body of the NARGC would go along with the S.C.s "shared concerns". We shall soon know at the next G.B. meeting.

I think there will either be a realignment of the S.C.s priorities or the NARGC will do its own thing..just my opinion...

cavan shooter

I hope so...when you look at what they are they don't represent and have not been representing the man that pays into the NARGC fund. I told our lads in Cavan this over Christmas and handed them the minutes if the SC to prove it.

gunny123

berettaman wrote: »

some times members need to be told that what they are looking for is off the wall.:D

Could you expand on this please ? Do you mean the nargc could support supers/chief supers decision to not licence something ?

Grizzly 45

Cass wrote: »

That is why i asked about the legally binding part. There has to be something to "make" the Super adhere to the ruling of any board.

As you said with such a board a Super can choose to ignore their recommendation completely forcing someone to bring it to court and start the process all over again.

IOW it would make the board somewhat impotent perhaps even pointless if the ruling could not be, looking for the right word but failing, enforceable?

It's another added in step to see if whatever problem can be sorted out without going the legal route.Sort of like martial counseling before you hit the messy process of Irish divorce .So IOW you are going to need some seriously knowledgeable heads on this who know both the firearms laws and technical aspects of firearms as well.Going to be intresting to see who gets chosen for that role,as pulling out a copy of "Jane's infantry WEAPONS" is not going to be qualification enough for this.;)

cavan shooter

Support ...might be too strong of a word...but let's be honest alot of NARGC members remember the thousands of (hundreds of thousands of euro) spent on pistols and it's maybe about time the NARGC focus on what affects them and only them.

Hunters don't need semi auto 9mm pistols. Yet it was the NARGC members money that was used to fund these cases.

Grizzly 45

Yeah ,has the NARGC now got a "new" position on things like;

Reloading ammo for hunters both shotgun and centrefire?

Still think IPSC ,cowboy action shooting,etc a "game of nutters",and any possibility of some support on getting legislation changed to re allow both?

Possibly clarify, on how deep in the Brussels manure their parent organisation FACE actually is to their members?[So deep in fact that previously pro hunting politicans are drifting to the antis,because FACE is not keeping their eyes on the ball due to internal strife.]

gunny123

cavan shooter wrote: »

Support ...might be too strong of a word...but let's be honest alot of NARGC members remember the thousands of (hundreds of thousands of euro) spent on pistols and it's maybe about time the NARGC focus on what affects them and only them.

Hunters don't need semi auto 9mm pistols. Yet it was the NARGC members money that was used to fund these cases.

I shoot game, stalk and also shoot target pistol and target rifle. You seem to think the categories of different shooters are in their own little camps and never the twain shall meet.
It was a similar attitude that caused the mess in the first place back in the 70's. "To hell with pistols and fullbore rifles so long as i can keep my trusty oul double barrel".

berettaman

The Shooting fraternity, we are a "broad church" so to speak..We can cater for a broad swathe of shooting sports but the G in NARGC stands for game.

Gunny asked about off the wall... some members would may look to challenge a correct decision. I am not going to comment on the past but we cannot take challenges for the sake of it. If a guy has been refused something for a correct reason he should be told so.

If a super is acting the tool and a challenge is needed so be it. It is about knowing when to talk and when to fight..(i.e. legal Challenges)

cavan shooter

gunny123 wrote:

I shoot game, stalk and also shoot target pistol and target rifle. You seem to think the categories of different shooters are in their own little camps and never the twain shall meet. It was a similar attitude that caused the mess in the first place back in the 70's. "To hell with pistols and fullbore rifles so long as i can keep my trusty oul double barrel".

No Gunny ...I'm just tired of the NARGC funding all this.

cavan shooter

berettaman wrote:

The Shooting fraternity, we are a "broad church" so to speak..We can cater for a broad swathe of shooting sports but the G in NARGC stands for game.

And about time.!!

Sparks

gunny123 wrote: »

Could you expand on this please ? Do you mean the nargc could support supers/chief supers decision to not licence something ?

They have explicitly stated this to be the case in the past. And no NGB in its right mind would ever rule out this option.

Tackleberry.

berettaman wrote: »

The Shooting fraternity, we are a "broad church" so to speak..We can cater for a broad swathe of shooting sports but the G in NARGC stands for game...

I Think the NARGC Fund was started for the Game Shooting lads among us, I also enjoy game shooting but I am also a keen target shooter, but since our Island has put some distance and time free of the period known as troubles which now for the most part in the past thank god, we now see large calibre rifles for deer stalking and short firearms for target shooting being licensed, so I'm guessing here but the NARGC just grew with deer shooters and target shooting looking for Insureance cover using there fund hence they now cover all types of shooting interests.
I'm a member of a target shooting club where the NARGC provide the cover at the range, so I'd feel hard done by with paying my fee if there not lovers of target shooting as much as any other shooting sport, at sometime a pistol shooter needing there help using this new method will appear I hope he is as welcome as the game shooter...

Grizzly 45

Comes from having a shoddily worded contract Cavan Shooter and no future foresight. It states that the NARGC legal fund would fight for members whose "firearms" were giving problems with liscensing with AGS[ broadly speaking].it did not say,"double barrel shotguns and bolt action rifles used for game hunting only." So NARGC was obligated and proably still is, to cover the legal cost of such cases,or face multiple lawsuits on breach of contract.
Choices are in future.

Get competant lawyers to read these membership conditions, and put in reservation to change and modify T&C ,and state specifically WHICH firearms are excluded from this insurance.

Hopefully Firearms United and when the Ireland branch is set up will provide as de riguer a limited legal service up to the high court maybe,but certainly to the DC and individual personal liability insurance with its membership,to anyone who owns a firearm irrespective of type.

Cass

cavan shooter wrote: »

My read of it...if you have a problem with a license issue contact X in NARGC. It is I hope an attempt to normalise relationships which had been fought for a while. I don't think they are trying to circumvent anyone's right to appeal etc..I think it's welcome I hear they also met with NPWS just after Christmas.

As i said in my OP i think it's brilliant and welcome the move. I was just curious if this was the new civilian board or an alternative to it while the Minister's one gets up and going.

berettaman wrote: »

There are issues regarding substitutions etc that needed to be raised with the Gardai. NARGC does not expect to be in a position to provide a solution to every licence problem but if a situation can be solved with a phone call instead of a legal barrage then surely that is a good thing? (Cheaper anyway.) If a legal is the only ooption in the end, then so be it.
And some times members need to be told that what they are looking for is off the wall.:D

I wanna stress this. I'm not using this thread or forum to try and expose some dirty little secret i think i've found.

When my mate asked me if i knew anything about it i had to say no. As i'd heard nothing about this program, and seen no press release, etc. i was still in the dark. Then someone told me it was officially announced. I got the basics behind it, but not what it was about.

I'm "out of the loop" regarding NARGC stuff, so had to ask somewhere. Now i know, and at the risk of repeating myself, i think it's great. If it can help resolve simple issues and even the occasional awkward one without the need for court, etc. then that is excellent news for all concerned.

Cass

Tackleberry. wrote: »

I'd have to think, that this NARGC process must have a very quick turn around time, or would you need to be also engaging your solicitor so as to not miss the 30 day deadline, something that I have experienced with the application made at 32 days, only to get to court and for the state to point this late application, my case could not be heard.. 30 days is pretty tight if your considering to exhaust all options now available.

Good point, but i think, and someone correct me if i'm wrong, it's not a substitute for court, but a trouble shooting (no pun intended) group. IOW before court is ever an issue.

If things went or were going legal i think they would be precluded from talking to each other (Gardaí and appellant).

berettaman wrote: »

I think there will either be a realignment of the S.C.s priorities or the NARGC will do its own thing..just my opinion...

Not wishing to drag this thread off topic, so i'll make this brief, but something needs done about the "SC".

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

It's another added in step to see if whatever problem can be sorted out without going the legal route.Sort of like martial counseling before you hit the messy process of Irish divorce .

Cheers.

So IOW you are going to need some seriously knowledgeable heads on this who know both the firearms laws and technical aspects of firearms as well.Going to be intresting to see who gets chosen for that role,as pulling out a copy of "Jane's infantry WEAPONS" is not going to be qualification enough for this.;)

Erm, yup.

I'm not concerned about "our side", but given past history i'd be worried about A) who represents AGS, and B)what their agenda is given the party line of AGS.

Cass

cavan shooter wrote: »

Support ...might be too strong of a word...but let's be honest alot of NARGC members remember the thousands of (hundreds of thousands of euro) spent on pistols and it's maybe about time the NARGC focus on what affects them and only them.

gunny123 wrote: »

I shoot game, stalk and also shoot target pistol and target rifle. You seem to think the categories of different shooters are in their own little camps and never the twain shall meet.

I understand and even agree with cavan shooter on this, to an extent.

The NARGC are primarily a game association and their focus should always be on that primary concern.

As there are numerous other groups including one that has pistol right there in its name you'd think they would have been the face of any push back, but it was not to be.

Again i won't derail the thread, we all know about secret proposals, gun grabs, etc., but i can understand the desire to focus more on the goals and objectives of the NARGC and a little less on trying to "save everyone" when there are more groups out there than ever before. IOW enough for pistol owners to be well represented without 28,000 others having to pay for a couple of hundred. I mean you don't see the IFA jumping on it because one farmer might be a member of a pistol range.

gunny123 - Not being pessimistic chap, but this daydream of a "united shooting community" will never happen. There are too many different people in different disciplines, and at the end of the day its people that make the decisions.

So while that is the case personalities will clash, objectives/goals differ and for the most part people will keep to their own. There will always be some transfer and cross over, but never enough to "unite" the factions.

It's sad, but true.

Grizzly 45

Cass wrote: »

G

I'm not concerned about "our side", but given past history i'd be worried about A) who represents AGS, and B)what their agenda is given the party line of AGS.

A] The usual suspects,one in the pic of the NARGC article who has been at near enuff every DC case relating to firearms of the last seven years Take a wild assed guess!:)

gunny123

Cass wrote: »

gunny123 - Not being pessimistic chap, but this daydream of a "united shooting community" will never happen. There are too many different people in different disciplines, and at the end of the day its people that make the decisions.


It's sad, but true.

Well in a tiny community like ours thats daft for a start. Even if other shooters don't like a discipline, stfu about it and live and let live. I remember when the first shooter in our club got a pistol licenced, we had two old gits who only shot clays banging on about pistols being "cop killers" to anyone who would listen, including to a party from the local community who were invited to the club to look around.

Cass

gunny123 wrote: »

Well in a tiny community like ours thats daft for a start.

I agree with ya, but it hasn't changed in over 40 years.

Even if other shooters don't like a discipline, stfu about it and live and let live.

It's not just that, in fact it's that in spades. They don't care about it, so do nothing to help if that sport needs it or comes under threat.

The simple fact is you're going to have differences and human nature is to take care of number 1 first, then maybe others.


However given the new air of co-operation, as per the theme of the thread, perhaps times are changing. It's a slow, slow process. Anything in shooting that is. Nothing happens fast. So we might not see anything in our lifetime.

Sparks

Well in a tiny community like ours thats daft for a start.

Our community is not tiny, it's somewhere north of 150,000 people. That's somewhere between all of Limerick city and Galway city combined at the low end to all of Cork city at the high end.

Tell me, have you ever seen the entire city of Cork agree completely on anything? FFS, they'd disagree on the best lineup for the team in a Cork-v-Kerry Munster Final, and that's in an our-team-versus-the-enemy scenario. That's just human nature; get more than three people together and you've invented both law and politics at the same time.

Even if other shooters don't like a discipline, stfu about it and live and let live.

So, first off, that's not a united community, that's just basic civility. There's a difference between the two; you can disagree fundamentally on something and still be civil (there's a reason the first rule in the forum charter is "be civil", not "be united").

And secondly, it's not hard to think of cases where you shouldn't "stfu about it" -- for example, if a particular discipline or club is regularly doing things that aren't safe or which pose a very strong risk of causing enormous harm to everyone else. (Happily, I can't think of any discipline or club in that category today, but we've had many real examples of this in the last decade or so, mainly on the court or legislative sides of things). And that's for groups; for individuals it's equally likely and there we have a moral duty to not "stfu about it". Example; how many people here picked up the phone and called either the Gardai or the DoJ Firearms Section after Michael Healy-Rae's monumentally idiotic television appearance where he appeared to break the Firearms Act several times in less than a minute? And that's for a case where you might just think someone was acting the idiot; what if you encountered a case where you genuinely thought someone was going to be a danger to themselves or others?

"stfu about it" isn't a great policy unless you have exceptions to it, and if you have exceptions to it, well, you're not united anymore.

And frankly, there's nothing wrong with not being united. Just because we work together on specific things or in specific contexts (like the FCP), doesn't mean that we all march in lockstep, regardless of the wishes of a few usual suspects whose motives are more to do with being the person in charge rather than to do with ensuring things work well for everyone.

g00167015

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

A] The usual suspects,one in the pic of the NARGC article who has been at near enuff every DC case relating to firearms of the last seven years Take a wild assed guess!:)

Had the pleasure of his company meself Grizz as you know ;-D, he accompanied me in watching the Judge criticise the actions of my Sup't in the strictest possible terms in a lengthy and strongly worded judgement.

Imagine all the airmiles he has built up trying to aid in the defence of public servants acting outside of their discretion as vested by Statute. ;-)

......and all the hotel and subsistence expenses wasted out of taxpayers funds in the process

gunny123

Sparks wrote: »

Our community is not tiny, it's somewhere north of 150,000 people. That's somewhere between all of Limerick city and Galway city combined at the low end to all of Cork city at the high end.

Tell me, have you ever seen the entire city of Cork agree completely on anything? FFS, they'd disagree on the best lineup for the team in a Cork-v-Kerry Munster Final, and that's in an our-team-versus-the-enemy scenario. That's just human nature; get more than three people together and you've invented both law and politics at the same time.


So, first off, that's not a united community, that's just basic civility. There's a difference between the two; you can disagree fundamentally on something and still be civil (there's a reason the first rule in the forum charter is "be civil", not "be united").

And secondly, it's not hard to think of cases where you shouldn't "stfu about it" -- for example, if a particular discipline or club is regularly doing things that aren't safe or which pose a very strong risk of causing enormous harm to everyone else. (Happily, I can't think of any discipline or club in that category today, but we've had many real examples of this in the last decade or so, mainly on the court or legislative sides of things). And that's for groups; for individuals it's equally likely and there we have a moral duty to not "stfu about it". Example; how many people here picked up the phone and called either the Gardai or the DoJ Firearms Section after Michael Healy-Rae's monumentally idiotic television appearance where he appeared to break the Firearms Act several times in less than a minute? And that's for a case where you might just think someone was acting the idiot; what if you encountered a case where you genuinely thought someone was going to be a danger to themselves or others?

"stfu about it" isn't a great policy unless you have exceptions to it, and if you have exceptions to it, well, you're not united anymore.

And frankly, there's nothing wrong with not being united. Just because we work together on specific things or in specific contexts (like the FCP), doesn't mean that we all march in lockstep, regardless of the wishes of a few usual suspects whose motives are more to do with being the person in charge rather than to do with ensuring things work well for everyone.

Well when sports like practical shooting were legal here (and as far as i know every other country in the world except the likes of north korea) I heard more than one very experienced shooter complaining bitterly about it and got the "It should be banned" line. When the doj/gardai wanted practical gone, which they did, it was an easy target when they can trot out "some of your own want it gone".

To me i think it was a case of throwing someone elses sport under the bus to hopefully take the eye off their's.

As for keeping stfu about any illegal activity with a firearm, i never suggested that. When those idiots went swanning into shops in wicklow with legally held pistols on their belts like walker texas ranger, i was glad they lost their licences. As for the Healy-rae's, they are the ultimate in people living up to a stereotype (gawd help us) and no one needed to report them as they did their antics on tv, and the local super nearly choked on his horlicks and didn't need anyone to come in and report them.

Sparks

I think the practical pistol example is wrong; the DoJ and AGS don't need any excuse to ban a sport. The Minister has the legal authority to do it on a whim; which is exactly what happened. The risk that has to be controlled is not the DoJ banning it; it's bad PR which can prompt calls for the Minister to "do something", because that's the trigger event most of the time (the Minister is not about to shepard a bill to amend the Firearms Act through the Dail and Seanad on the whim of a chief super, as we've just seen this past year).

In practical pistol's case, they didn't get out ahead of the PR game far enough and Deasy was able to use them as a stick to beat the Minister with in the Dail. That certain people in AGS were happy to see the ban didn't really matter; when the Minister says jump, everyone in the DoJ and AGS effectively has to ask how high on the way up. To be fair, I'm not sure IPSA could have done anything about it; things moved so fast at the time that getting out ahead of them would have required professional full-time staff at least (and even then it wouldn't have been guaranteed).

That's not to say we've not seen some groups attempt to throw other groups under the bus anyway; we've called it out explicitly more than a few times here, with groups like the Coalition and others. It's just that the Minister may or may not care about it when it happens and probably won't care enough to start anything on foot of it unless it becomes a public embarrassment.

Oh, and everyone did report the Healy-Rae incident; the DoJ's phone was allegedly ringing continually over it for a day or two, and they do have to be called in order to start an investigation (the Garda Supervisor can - and apparently did - act independently of this).

Grizzly 45

In practical pistol's case, they didn't get out ahead of the PR game far enough

In fact they made a pigs arse of the whole thing,were warned not to do what they did, and didn't listen to anyone about having a fall back position on shotgun or rifle,in case handguns went tits up, which it did.But that's only part of the story,there was enough anti IPSC/pistol sentiment and feeding to wolves in the Irish shooting community to help kill it off.Anyone remember the utter outrage when ISD published an article about it?? Numerous knicker- bocker and tweed SXS ISD reading shooters must have had to been taken into hospital suffering from palpitations after that article was read.:rolleyes:I certainly remember the comments HERE on boards about it and IPSC.They weren't non too supportive...And if I remember correctly too not too many of the organisations wanted to recognise it as a ligit shooting disipline either.

and Deasy was able to use them as a stick to beat the Minister with in the Dail.

Not forgetting that miserable Aherne was the most anti gun minister we had in a long time,who announced his intent to clamp down on "American gun culture" in Ireland at the Garda Sgt and inspector conference in May of 08 and used a gangland murder in Limerick to crucify handgun owners here.

Along with "Baron Jim Short" running dubious bodyguard courses up in his constituency of Louth,and plenty of rumour and innuendo being thrown around about some BS of paramilitary training on a range somewhere in the middle of Ireland.

To be fair, I'm not sure IPSA could have done anything about it; things moved so fast at the time that getting out ahead of them would have required professional full-time staff at least (and even then it wouldn't have been guaranteed).

Yeah,there is plenty they could have done,but didn't want to listen and go softly softly.But then with the reception it got from the Irish shooting community would it have made much difference?In short it was a pigs dinner in which no one side can say they came out innocent.This was a case of collective guilt where everyone in the village pulled on the trigger rope.:(

cavan shooter

Good read lads sorry im only back now, my comments wont be popular but im not out to offend.

If there is NARGC members in NARGC affiliated Clubs with pistols then of course they need to have the same backing as everyone else, they are a member and have the same rights has everyone else. However, lets make sure they are all members, and lets try and sort it out before it starts costing hundreds of thousands. Lets make a court appearance a last and desperate thing to do after exhausting all avenues open to us.

But I am of the opinion that NARGC took the brunt of these cases and it leaves a sour taste and seem to be funding everything including that disgraceful Sports Coalition. The new "regime" has been told stop wasting "our" money.

If a pistol or target association has an issue with a type of firearm or caliber sort it your self.

Same way I am of the view that if an NARGC member wants to licence an AR 15 and a silencer and 30 round magazines in 223 for foxes and is upset with the local Superintendent has said "Give me a ****ing Gooood reason" why should NARGC members pay for it.....or and I kid you not a NARGC clay shooter is upset his allowance for 25,000 shells was refused and he only got 250......why should the NARGC pay for any case to be fought. Surely we need to actually start looking at what our expectations are from each other and what is reasonably expected.

berettaman

gunny123 wrote: »

As for keeping stfu about any illegal activity with a firearm, i never suggested that. When those idiots went swanning into shops in wicklow with legally held pistols on their belts like walker texas ranger, i was glad they lost their licences...

I heard a story like that before.. about a guy who is now very prominent in a certain coalescing group of sporting entities..AN absolute W@#ker..
Could W@#k for Ireland..delighted if he lost his licence..wouldn't let him licence a catapult.

berettaman

Sparks wrote: »

And frankly, there's nothing wrong with not being united. Just because we work together on specific things or in specific contexts (like the FCP), doesn't mean that we all march in lockstep, regardless of the wishes of a few usual suspects whose motives are more to do with being the person in charge rather than to do with ensuring things work well for everyone.

This is spot on! There was a whole spectrum of bullsh1te built around the man in charge and it is slowly being dismantled..the sport will be the stronger for it..

Look, we each have our own areas of interests and we should be able to band together when needed to face certain challenges ...

Dialogue is important and that's why NARGC spoke with Gardaí and NPWS...and I know some people don't like that because they held that only one person could speak for us...well guess what?;)

berettaman

Cass wrote: »

Not wishing to drag this thread off topic, so i'll make this brief, but something needs done about the "SC".

+1000

I think the penny is starting to drop with people. The Emperor has no clothes...and it is later than they realise...

Grizzly 45

berettaman wrote: »

I heard a story like that before.. about a guy who is now very prominent in a certain coalescing group of sporting entities..AN absolute W@#ker..
Could W@#k for Ireland..delighted if he lost his licence..wouldn't let him licence a catapult.

Is this an actual verified and true story,or another mouse that became an elephant within a day story ,from back then?

berettaman

As far as I know it is true.

A certain individual wandered into a Mace/Spar in Wicklow with a pistol on his hip...:eek:

Cass

Slightly unrelated but i see the NARGC have a new and revamped website.

cavan shooter

Very good. I saw Michael Fenelon, Chris Gavican and Dan Curley with Minister Humphries and Peter Mc Vity at the Ballyconnell Game Night last night. He was chatting to quite a few folks doing the rounds so to speak. An approachable man heard him having a good natter about the new arrangement with the Gardai. I gave him an earful(ish) about the sports coalition of vested interests. I saw our lads there too

clivej

Here in black and white

http://nargc.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/NARGC-GARDA-Press-Release-Jan-2017.pdf