NARGC's "arrangemeent" with An Gardaí

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