Off Topic Chat. (MOD NOTE post# 3949 and post#5279)

gunny123

The uk police want to snoop on the social media of firearms applicants. What next ? Going through your dustbins ?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-43291740

Gravelly

gunny123 wrote: »

The uk police want to snoop on the social media of firearms applicants. What next ? Going through your dustbins ?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-43291740

That's a bit weird - and what would constitute a social media faux pas worthy of being turned down? Holding the "wrong" political opinions for instance?
A very slippery slope.

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

ASFIK the definition of a mass shooting is now 4or more people killed or injured , who were unknown to the shooter.

Not injured, killed. Four or more people, selected at random, are killed. This is the FBI definition, but there is no internationally accepted definition.

..guess we had our own mass shooting in the ROI then a up in the hotel a couple of years ago?

Erm, nope.

Gravelly wrote: »

Holding the "wrong" political opinions for instance?

Would make for an interesting case. Unless the person incited violence or bragged about illegal acts i don't see how a refusal would stand up. Although in Ireland we have this lovely thing called "Intemperate Character". Such a vague yet broad sweeping term.

Gravelly

Cass wrote: »

Would make for an interesting case. Unless the person incited violence or bragged about illegal acts i don't see how a refusal would stand up. Although in Ireland we have this lovely thing called "Intemperate Character". Such a vague yet broad sweeping term.

If you follow Mike Yardley on social media, he has strong views on what he perceives as underhand action taken against certain political (and pro shooting) views on social media in the UK.

Grizzly 45

The Ober Fudd Yardley.
Really doing the sport no favours at all anymore. Condemns semi-auto firearms and preaches no one but police an military BS and then poses at a moments notice on his FB page with any black rifle within grasping distance.Then goes off prattling on about maybe the UK could have 22 Olympic pistols, kept in clubs etc.And then goes and applies for the ultra-rare exemption in the UK for a handgun for himself.:rolleyes: Lost all respect for him years ago.Fudds can be more dangerous than the most virulent anti gunloon.

Cass

Gravelly wrote: »

If you follow Mike Yardley on social media

I don't know him but after a quick look, not my cup of tea.

underhand action taken against certain political (and pro shooting) views on social media in the UK.

Not just the UK.

Youtube has defunded some/most shooting channels. FB limit/ban certain topics all of which relate to shooting. For instance they blur/block or put a warning on a shooting video which may only be a rabbit being shot, but allow graphic and gory videos about road accidents, burning of people, and much worse.

Large companies are also in on the act by pulling support for shooting organisations. Like PayPal refusing to allow anything gun related be done via their site. Other companies like banks pulling support or services.

Then you have companies like Dick's, WalMart, etc. putting in place limitations that the law does not allow for. Seena video where a serving member of the Military who is also a registered gunsmith was refused ammo because he is only 20. Not a rifle, or pistol, but one box of ammo. He is a 3 year veteran, with a gunsmith qualification and cannot buy a box of ammo.

Delta airlines cut all ties with the NRA last week, but they may now face the loss of $50 million in tax breaks as a result of their "moral stance".

gunny123

Gravelly wrote: »

That's a bit weird - and what would constitute a social media faux pas worthy of being turned down? Holding the "wrong" political opinions for instance?
A very slippery slope.

Ever read Orwells 1984 ? Newspeak etc ?

Its becoming scarily relevant.

Gravelly

gunny123 wrote: »

Ever read Orwells 1984 ? Newspeak etc ?

Its becoming scarily relevant.

Totally agree - some of the stuff coming out of US colleges especially (trying to erase statues and such like) is straight from the pages of 1984.

Cass

Funny, you know who else destroys historical sites:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvOofC7zxjY

Grizzly 45

What are you as a gun owner using PayPal for in the first place?
They have been anti gun since the word go.Patreon is a great way of funding your favourite channels on youtube and keeping them going.The crazy German Georg Sprave of the Slingshot channel has formed a new group called Youtube Union,a trade union for people who use youtube for funding of thir channels.So for every trick, there is a counter trick...

Dicks and Walmart are facing now two lawsuits filed Monday on them breaching both state and Federal law on age discrimination,by a 20 year old in Washington State.Under the "Gay wedding cake law" and that this is not enacted state or fed law and they did admit to age discrimination for the refusal of sale...Not that NMSM will report it of course.But they will report on idiots who were eating laundry detergent pods last month ,and now are suddenly sage and wise constitutional lawyers on gun law.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Grizzly 45

Gravelly wrote: »

That's a bit weird - and what would constitute a social media faux pas worthy of being turned down? Holding the "wrong" political opinions for instance?
A very slippery slope.

Not so unusual in Germany the cops and secret service are doing it now against so-called "Reich Burger" A type of "Freemen of the land "organisation, who believe the Federal German Republic doesn't exist as a legal entity and that the original German state of the Weimar Republic is still the real German state.As it was never formally disbanded in 1945. Most are social malcontents and nutters like their Freemen brethern who don't pay taxes, issue their own car number plates,ID documents and declare their houses and property Reich protected areas and passports etc...Until one shot dead one cop and injured three others.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/21/germany-fears-radicalisation-of-reichsburger-group-after-attacks-on-police

More sinister is, however, a case in Schweinfurt where one lad has to go back to German supreme court to get his gun back for just Liking a post that said in the recent rape sprees in Berlin and Cologne, German women should be taught how to use firearms for self-defence. That like was classified as "hate speech" and he was made out to be a neo-nazi, which almost automatically precludes you from owning anything in Germany.
So two things to take from this.

Never have your FB account in your name, and probably wise to use an IP blocker.
Expect our lot to start snooping on FB too,"shure if everyone else is doing it in Europe?"type justification.

Grizzly 45

And others with irrational fears these days.From the Jews for the preservation of firearms ownership website.

http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

gunny123

http://www.thejournal.ie/legalise-pepper-spray-tasers-ireland-3887693-Mar2018/

gunny123

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

And others with irrational fears these days.From the Jews for the preservation of firearms ownership website.

http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

What is odd though Grizz, is that the main advocates for gun control in the usa are jewish, Chucky Schumer, Diane Feinstein and their ilk. Maybe they have forgotten their recent history.

Grizzly 45

Read what their co religionists in JFPO think of them.:D

Grizzly 45

Cal Ward on gun control in Ireland from his blog... Is it really this bad as he makes it out to be ??

https://calward.blogspot.ie/2018/03/gun-control-ireland-how-bad-can-it-get.html

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Cal Ward on gun control in Ireland from his blog... Is it really this bad as he makes it out to be ?

Simple answer, no.

Long answer,

"When shooters seem capable of nothing more effective than anonymous online ranting"

Our online "ranting" got the brakes put on the illegal privatization by an unauthorized and uncredited group on mandatory deer stalking courses.

Our online "ranting" got the attention of those groups (our "own" groups) that sought to further restrict night time shooting, introduce time lock safes, ban certain firearms.

For a chap that complains about anonymous online ranting why is he running a blog, ranting about the state of firearm ownership? :rolleyes:

His second paragraph goes on an incoherent and somewhat vague RANT about corruption and host of other things with little to nothing to do with firearm ownership other than to point out that Gardaí don't want guns in civilian hands (or at least some types). Well d'uh.

On we go with more RANTING about genocide in African countries, mass shooting in America, and the Irish Famine. What has this got to do with firearm ownership. Also his reference to the legislators/law makers doing X, Y, and Z is ridiculous. In recent years the biggest threat we have faced is our own doing secret deals and pushing for legislation that will line their own pockets.

He continues to complain this time about home security. The more guns you have the higher your security so it's not a case, as he infers, that everyone be at or above level 4. Using his personal, and singular, case as a yardstick is not evidence nor a pattern. Also if i've spent thousands or tens of thousands on firearms i want security to protect them regardless of Gardaí designated levels.

Now we move onto his lack of knowledge. He talks about the "move to ban zeroing outside of a range". There is no move, it's ALREADY illegal to do so. Has been for a good few years. Yet he blames the authorities saying they know the effect a ban will have. A ban ALREADY exists.

He talks about night shooting and the own goal scored by the "shooting and hunting community". He blames irresponsible fox lampers for shooting near isolated dwellings while completely ignoring the fact that it was NOT the shooting community but the so called coalition and other vested interest groups that proposed this ban. Then through a strong letter/e-mail campaign organised here and other forums the shooting community let those proposing this what they felt.

Now onto the topic of courses. He reminisces about days gone by while listing his credentials (one of which he should consider removing "..... and i load all my own ammunition") and then once again blames the Government for all this. Now i'm all for "sticking it to the man", but this proposal has once again come form our own. First it was the NASRPC, and most recently the deer alliance with the hcap. So no wonder the Government might consider when once again vested interest groups keep asking for it to be made mandatory.

He goes on about Buzzards and his perceived decline in all wildlife. I won't comment here as his thoughts are his own and with no population checks no one can say for sure.

On the topic of legislation. He says people are given licenses for a rifle for either target shooting or hunting but not for both. Other than my FTR rifles all my firearms were for dual purposes. As were those held by pretty much everyone i knew. When he talks about people being prosecuted for shooting a rabbit with a "target" license or vice versa well two things jump to mind. What did the person apply for the firearm for (in section 4.2 did they tick both boxes?) and also where are all these cases. You cannot claim something without at least naming a few of the court cases as i've not heard of them.

He goes on, still about legislation, and talks about how ballistic testing has already been introduced. Since when? It was proposed, once again by our own, but never acted upon and other than the recent RFD SI there has been no new legislation. He then hints we would be considered criminals with any gun crime and subject to botched/faked forensics like the Birmingham six. I mean FFS, come on.

More talk about restrictions such as deer tagging and geo locating. When did this come in? Then about ranges installing cameras. Like about it has been a requirement since 2011 under the Range SI, and it's for the members protection as well as the ranges. Then a hint at drones being used to spy on hunters/shooters. The DoJ won't spend our license fees on proper license cards, to properly fund the NPWS, etc. but they'll pay for drones to monitor hunters.

He finishes his legislation section with a nameless story about a "sting" operation in the UK as told to him by his "informant". Without questioning the validity of the story no one should have access to your firearms other than the you (the licensee). However the laws in the UK work in Ireland the person calling out will be the CPO (Crime Prevention Officer) and other than that it'll be An Gardaí with a warrant.

He speaks of people with health (physical and mental) issues having their license revoked or denied. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but he says this is permanent and with no basis for appeal. Again a lack of how the law works shines through. You have recourse, it's called the courts because the Superintendent is no longer end stop or the Persona Designata. You can appeal any decision via the courts including revocation and refusal. Minister Shatter even gifted us the ability to seek expenses. Having a firearm revoked or refused DOES NOT make you a criminal as he says.

He goes on about transport of firearms in other countries and gives an "apparent" story about someone, again, in the UK. Another Story about someone done for having a knife while driving. Well that come sunder the 1990 offences weapons act which says if you have no lawful reason for having it then you shouldn't have it on you. More talk about, in his own words, unrelated to firearm corruption by the Government and law enforcement. Then more talk about police corruption, which i'm still wondering what it has to do with firearms.

He finishes his segment on the topic of Anti-gun EU. He starts with a parable on car owners and if they had to face the same restrictions there would be uproar. Well news flash, there already is the same restrictions. Drink driving, drug driving, dangerous driving are all offences. No seatbelt, don't use a phone, no smoking in your own car if there are kids, speed limits, traffic lights, rules of the roads are all restrictions designed to control what you can and cannot do. Then there is the tax on buying the car, tax on the fuel (three taxes actually) tax on importing, insurance, NCT, tax on the parts to keep it running, etc.

Here is a change of pace, i actually agree with him, to an extent, on the media bias we all see. However that is primarily in the US with its second amendment, but the rest of the world has no such right.

The attitude towards guns has never been favourable. It's not a new movement, the anti gun sentiment, but shooters account for 3% of the population with 80% of those not interested in the politics of it all, and the remaining 20% too busy trying to fight of attacks from our own to try and change the minds of those against it. However the majority of those not involved with guns/shooting are not that pushed to do anything to curtail it further. They're too busy with their own lives and as a nation we have a stellar safety record when it comes to firearm, all of which is self policed (more or less).

We have strict gun laws, but they should not be confused as attacks on our sport. We can license pretty any caliber, and most every type of firearm, some even our UK neighbours cannot. We haven't got everything other countries have, but we have the ability to discuss this with the PTB and attempt to change that via the FCP.

The biggest threat we face, as i've said umpteen times here and on other threads, is the threat from within. Those that seek to control or capitalize from shooting with no regard to the sport, only the power/money. In the last three years we have faced mulitple proposals and recently a new law/SI because of these vested interest groups.

If the Government keep hearing from those that, falsely, claim to represent us that we want more control, more restrictions, mandatory courses, less "rights", etc, etc then what possible reason would the Government have not to act given their already anti gun sentiment?

gunny123

The bould Leo up to his PR spin tricks with the Gardai.

http://www.thejournal.ie/taoiseach-garda-crime-campaign-3911572-Mar2018/

Cass

I see Youtube is, yet again, restricting gun content including how to videos, demos, etc.

gunny123

Cass wrote: »

I see Youtube is, yet again, restricting gun content including how to videos, demos, etc.

Youtube is going to go that way in the end, no matter what they say. But they do not own the internet, thankfully.

https://www.full30.com

Grizzly 45

Full 30.com has joined up with porntube.com to protest internet censorship.

BattleCorp

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Full 30.com has joined up with porntube.com to protest internet censorship.

Porntube.com Never heard of them.

Sparks

Hm. This is a bit disturbing: http://www.iflscience.com/environment/europe-is-facing-an-ecological-disaster-as-wildlife-numbers-plummet/

Grizzly 45

My new CS is looking for such for the last 3 years from the range.
ASFIK he is entitled to ascertain my membership,but not my attendence?
Yes/No? If so under what part of the act. "reasonable enquiries? Or??

Sparks

It's in the Clubs SI Grizzly (SI 308/2009), section 4:

(4) A club shall maintain a register which shall include—
...
(d) an attendance record in relation to each member,
(e) the name of each member who holds a firearm certificate and who has not participated in any of the shooting functions organised by the club in the preceding 6 months.

Section 5 allows AGS access to those records:

(5) All records maintained by a club pursuant to these regulations shall be—
(a) retained by the club for a period of at least 6 years, and
(b) made available for inspection by a member of the Garda Síochána upon request by that member.

They are supposed to ask the club for those records directly though.

Grizzly 45

An interesting one has just pitched up, your convictions, which we all assume to be criminal convictions on the application, now apparently also include CIVIL convictions according to the new boy in Henry St Limerick.I apparently now have two dating from around 2008,of no NCT and no road tax...

[Sht happens when you are self-employed and waiting for people to pay you so you can give the Irish govt more money for driving on pot holed roads trying to get work.]

If this is a new policy being brought in by AGS, then I think 95% of the country is goosed as somewhere, and in various civil matters we all have had a brush with the law. Speeding, DUI, no tax, insurance,NCT,DOE,whatever...
Anyone seen or heard anything??

Gravelly

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

An interesting one has just pitched up, your convictions, which we all assume to be criminal convictions on the application, now apparently also include CIVIL convictions according to the new boy in Henry St Limerick.I apparently now have two dating from around 2008,of no NCT and no road tax...

[Sht happens when you are self-employed and waiting for people to pay you so you can give the Irish govt more money for driving on pot holed roads trying to get work.]

If this is a new policy being brought in by AGS, then I think 95% of the country is goosed as somewhere, and in various civil matters we all have had a brush with the law. Speeding, DUI, no tax, insurance,NCT,DOE,whatever...
Anyone seen or heard anything??

If they count speeding I’m well and truly ****ed.

solarwinds

Next they will want to contact your priest to see if you've ever said bad words or were mean to your brother or sister.
Is there no limit or stunt that won't be pulled to find some meaningless reason to refuse a license.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

An interesting one has just pitched up, your convictions, which we all assume to be criminal convictions on the application, now apparently also include CIVIL convictions according to the new boy in Henry St Limerick.

I always just assumed that was the case.
*shrug*
There's a proscribed list of offences that automatically bar you from a licence - see section 8(1)(d) and (e):

(d) any person who has been sentenced to imprisonment for—
(i) an offence under the Firearms Acts 1925 to 2006, the Offences Against the State Acts 1939 to 1998 or the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005, or
(ii) an offence under the law of another state involving the production or use of a firearm,
and the sentence has not expired or it expired within the previous 5 years,

(e) any person who is bound by a recognisance to keep the peace or be of good behaviour, a condition of which is that the person shall not possess, use or carry any firearm or ammunition,

If someone's being refused for offences outside that list, that's a case of the licencing officer's judgement and if that seems to be unduly fettering the decision, it can be appealed in court. You don't ever want to have to do that, but it's a long walk between "I can but I'd rather not" and "I cannot".

Grizzly 45

Just find it weird,that with all the DC dances I have had with them since 2008,they would consider bringing it up now.Especially as these are civil torts/convictions not criminal convictions.