Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Private profiles - please note that profiles marked as private will soon be public. This will facilitate moderation so mods can view users' warning histories. All of your posts across the site will appear on your profile page (including PI, RI). Groups posts will remain private except to users who have access to the same Groups as you. Thread here
Some important site news, please read here. Thanks!

Good news for centrefire pistol owners.

  • 22-12-2017 11:08pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 10,210 ✭✭✭✭ BattleCorp
    Registered User


    I see that centrefire pistol owners can now substitute their pistols according to the NASRPC.

    Good news for anybody stuck with an inaccurate or badly worn pistol.

    Pity I came to the game too late to get a centrefire pistol.

    Can't link to the article as I'm on a piece of **** phone.


«134

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,085 ✭✭✭ alanmc
    Registered User


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    I see that centrefire pistol owners can now substitute their pistols according to the NASRPC.

    Good news for anybody stuck with an inaccurate or badly worn pistol.

    Pity I came to the game too late to get a centrefire pistol.

    Can't link to the article as I'm on a piece of **** phone.

    Just wondering what an RFD is supposed to do with the traded in pistol.


  • Registered Users Posts: 800 ✭✭✭ Wadi14
    Registered User


    alanmc wrote: »
    Just wondering what an RFD is supposed to do with the traded in pistol.

    He could cut it up as he'll prob charge an arm and a leg for the new one


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 40,053 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Sparks
    Moderator


    I am given to understand that the actual state of play is that if you took a case to court arguing that Section 3d(1) (the ban on licensing new restricted short firearms not licensed prior to 2008) was not a bar to substitution, you might be able to win the case.

    Now, personally, based on reading section 11(1) and 11(2) of the 1964 Act as amended, I disagree and think you would be on a hiding to nowhere and bringing either the Minister or the Commissioner to the court; but a court is an adversarial scenario at the best of times, so who knows. You pays your money and you takes your chances, as they say.

    The thing not being emphasised by the recent celebratory announcements however, is definitely nontrivial and I think bears explicit repeating.

    The department has explicitly stated in writing that while you might win in court and substitute your old pistol for a lovely shiny new one (with, I would estimate, around 12 to 18 months left on the licence, given the timetables of the courts these days)....

    ...at the next renewal date, you would immediately lose the pistol forever because it was a new pistol not licenced before 2008 and so 3d(1) directly applied.

    Now, anyone who'd dealt with the department before would probably interpret the news as being a roundabout and polite way of saying "you keep asking silly questions, but if you really want to push your luck, we'll sell you as much rope as you think you'll need to get in trouble". The civil service does have something of a habit of doing that. And if you think this is a victory... well, we have different definitions of what that word means.


    Look, you want to licence a new pistol, we need to change the list of restricted short firearms to add in centerfire pistols. That's really the only way it's ever going to happen. And it's utterly doable; but it will require slightly more finesse than trying to out-lawyer the people who write the law in the first place. As we've said, oh I don't know, seventy bajillion times in the last 20 years?


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,342 ✭✭✭✭ Grizzly 45
    Registered User


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    I see that centrefire pistol owners can now substitute their pistols according to the NASRPC.

    Good news for anybody stuck with an inaccurate or badly worn pistol.

    Pity I came to the game too late to get a centrefire pistol.

    Can't link to the article as I'm on a piece of **** phone.


    Here you go..
    http://nasrpc.ie/substitution-centre-fire-short-firearms-section-11-firearms-acts-1925-2009/

    Hmmmm,a lot of MAY rather than SHALL in that explanation from the DOJ for my liking.
    However, I think the cat was let inadvertently out of the bag for one of Cass's questions on where the SC and NASRPC stand in this statement.:rolleyes:

    Quote "The NASRPC being part of the Sports Coalition sought support, the Sports Coalition articulated the view to the DOJ that their position of 16th August was not in line with strong legal advice and seeking to avoid any potential for a necessary legal challenge to be lodged requested the DOJ to reconsider their advices.

    The second statement... Pass the vomit bucket please...

    cooperation of the NASRPC with the Sports Coalition and positive dialogue that showed the importance of two-way discussion with the Department of
    Justice. This also shows the importance of appropriate representation from knowledgeable individuals who are part of the NASRPC and the Sports Coalition.


    Ok,who is going to stick their head over the parapet this time and go get a new pistol??:eek: Ok,it is a quarter step forward after a mile of retreat in Irish firearms law and state history,but it really needs to be clarified properly,and accepted by those who issue liscenses.

    Full statement from the NASRPC website..

    Substitution of Centre Fire Short Firearms under Section 11 Firearms Acts 1925 to 2009
    by Mick | Dec 22, 2017 | News | 0 comments


    Changes to the Firearms Legislation with the introduction of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 placed a cap on the licensing of Centre Fire short firearms (pistols) essentially individuals who had licences prior to November 2008 were permitted to maintain their licence for centre fire pistols.

    Since 2009 it became practice by AGS to refuse applications for substitution for Centre Fire short firearms.

    Prior to the Firearms Consultative Panel meeting on 20th April 2017 the NASRPC sough and were granted the opportunity to make a submission on the basis that there was no prohibition in the legislation on the substitution of this class of firearm. We circulated this submission as it was presented to all clubs immediately after the meeting.

    The submission from the NASRPC had been made following convincing legal opinion that supported the view of the NASRPC that there was no legitimate reason whereby a substitution could be or should be refused.

    On the 16th of August 2017 the NASRPC received a communication from the Department of Justice and Equality with a number of reasons why substitutions could not be permitted. This was circulated to clubs immediately after receipt.

    The NASRPC immediately sent this communication to our legal advisor who further informed us that the reasoning would not support such a position as taken by the DOJ.

    The NASRPC being part of the Sports Coalition sought support, the Sports Coalition articulated the view to the DOJ that their position of 16th August was not in line with strong legal advice and seeking to avoid any potential for a necessary legal challenge to be lodged requested the DOJ to reconsider their advices.

    I am very pleased to advise that as of today after correspondence received (copy attached) from the Department of Justice & Equality, I can confirm that substitutions for centrefire short firearms are lawful under Section 11 of the Firearms Acts 1925 to 2009.

    This is very good news for our members who can now proceed with replacing their centre fire pistols that they use for the purpose of Target Shooting, the news is even better because it is a testimony to the importance placed on dialogue and cooperation, cooperation of the NASRPC with the Sports Coalition and positive dialogue that showed the importance of twoway discussion with the Department of
    Justice. This also shows the importance of appropriate representation from knowledgeable individuals who are part of the NASRPC and the Sports Coalition.

    Please see below recent correspondence from the Department of Justice & Equality

    Dear members, At the last meeting of the FCP on 20 April 2017, the NASRPC made a
    submission proposing that the substitution of restricted short firearms was
    allowed for under firearms legislation. The Department agreed to consider
    the matter and revert. We subsequently sought legal advice on the matter
    and would like to share with you the main points of legal advice received
    as follows:· Although a contrary argument can be made, our legal advice is that,
    on balance, a Court is likely to find that section 3D(1) of the
    Firearms Act 1925 as amended, does not act as a bar to a substitution
    of a restricted short firearm under section 11 of the Firearms Act
    194, as amended.· The advice is that a Court is likely to find that restricted handguns
    may be substituted during the currency of an existing firearm
    certificate, following which the certificate will apply to the
    substituted firearm.
    · However, once the firearm certificate for the substituted firearm
    expires, section 3D(1) of the Firearms Act 1925, as amended, applies
    and the new substituted restricted handgun is no longer licensable
    (as it was not licensed prior to November 2008).

    · The power of a Chief Superintendent under section 11 of the Firearms
    Act 1964, as amended, to substitute a restricted firearm is
    discretionary: it is a “may” rather than “shall” provision.

    · This discretion provided for with regard to substitution, as with all
    statutory powers of discretion, must be exercised in a manner that is
    reasonable and is not in accordance with a fixed policy.

    · Both restricted handguns (old and new) involved in a substitution
    cannot be licensed simultaneously.

    Kind regards

    Marion Walsh
    Firearms, Explosives and Private Security Policy Division
    Department of Justice & Equality

    You may be aware that this is my last year on the committee of the NASRPC, I am delighted that we have some news that is positive to target shooting and emphasises the importance of being part of a larger lobby within the Sports Coalition, it also shows how positive cooperative dialogue with the Department of Justice & Equality has the effect of avoiding the unnecessary expense of taking issues thorough the
    courts.

    Personally, I would like to thank the NASRPC committee for their support over the two years that I have been on the committee, I would like to thank the constituent members of the Sports Coalition for their enlightened views and their support in concluding this matter positively.

    Finally, I would like to thank our legal advisor William Egan, for without his expert opinion and tenacious nature we would not be enjoying the benefits of target shooting with certain classes of firearms.



    Declan Keogh

    National Development and Training Officer

    National Association of Sporting Rifle and Pistol Clubs.

    (NASRPC FCP Representative)

    22nd December 2017

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 315 ✭✭ Walter Mittys Brother
    Banned


    I reckon Sparks has it right.

    You may/might sub but would/could loose pistol upon renewal.

    Why pick at an old scab? Opening the door to a ban on fullbore pistols? Be easy enough to do I'm told under existing legislation?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,210 ✭✭✭✭ BattleCorp
    Registered User


    I reckon Sparks has it right.

    You may/might sub but would/could loose pistol upon renewal.

    Yep, it looks like Sparks is right. I thought it was good news but it looks like it isn't.


  • Registered Users Posts: 511 ✭✭✭ SVI40
    Registered User


    Folks the facts are as follows:

    NASRPC made a submission putting forward that there was no legal impediment to substitutions of Restricted Handguns.

    Department of Justice has responded and clearly have quoted verbatim their legal opinion.

    Now it appears that Sparks has a greater legal mind then the DPP, that be as it may and I do not agree with Sparks.

    Bottom line the DOJ have confirmed that it is lawful to substitute restricted handguns...............................

    The observation has been made that it is not possible to renew a substituted restricted firearm under the current restrictive legislation, fact.................

    Should one of the member clubs of the NASRPC make representation to the NASRPC on this matter, I am sure they will raise it with DOJ and make a further submission.

    But rather than scaremongering from our armchair lawyers, why not take the positive from it.

    Until such time as the renewal issue has been sorted what is legally wrong with the following.

    1) Substitute your current restricted firearm

    2) Store the existing one

    3) in the time leading up to renewal, substitute your original firearm

    4) renew in compliance with the legislation

    5) When renewal issued substitute again.

    Of course substitutions should be processed with no issue in line with the commissioners guidelines of a two week turnaround.

    Any issues with the process make direct representation to the NASRPC through your affiliated club, if you are not in an affiliated club then paddle your own canoe!


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,342 ✭✭✭✭ Grizzly 45
    Registered User


    What people are missing and it's pretty clear in this paragraph.

    The power of a Chief Superintendent under section 11 of the Firearms
    Act 1964, as amended, to substitute a restricted firearm is
    discretionary: it is a “may” rather than “shall” provision
    .

    IOW it is still up to the CS and whether you want to risk it on him being in a good mood or being a cranky obstreperous aul bollix on the day is up to you.Quite frankly, on this one I can see it being a harder point to argue in court than "good reason"
    But rather than scaremongering from our armchair lawyers, why not take the positive from it.

    Until such time as the renewal issue has been sorted what is legally wrong with the following.

    1) Substitute your current restricted firearm

    2) Store the existing one

    3) in the time leading up to renewal, substitute your original firearm

    4) renew in compliance with the legislation

    5) When renewal issued substitute again.

    Of course, substitutions should be processed with no issue in line with the commissioner's guidelines for a two-week turnaround.

    Any issues with the process make direct representation to the NASRPC through your affiliated club, if you are not in an affiliated club then paddle your own canoe!

    Go on Bro...You lead the charge! We're all right behind ya!Tell us how it works out,as someone is going to have to be first to stick their head around the corner...So those who know and profess should lead by example.:)

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



  • Registered Users Posts: 511 ✭✭✭ SVI40
    Registered User


    I'm thinking of giving it a go Grizzly, worst comes to the worst, I can have it moved to France if the substitution was refused. I do fancy another Infinity :rolleyes:


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 40,053 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Sparks
    Moderator


    SVI40 wrote: »
    I do not agree with Sparks.
    Free country...
    Bottom line the DOJ have confirmed that it is lawful to substitute restricted handguns...............................
    Hold on, that's not the full bottom line and it's skipping the most important bit which is that you're hosed if you do this unless you keep the old pistol in storage and your local chief super is minded to grant you a fresh licence for it when the new pistol is denied under section 3d(1) bearing in mind that you just dragged the Minister or Commissioner to court over this pistol.

    I mean, it's a pretty fair guess a lot of chief supers would regard that as a career limiting move.
    The observation has been made that it is not possible to renew a substituted restricted firearm under the current restrictive legislation, fact.
    Yup.
    Should one of the member clubs of the NASRPC make representation to the NASRPC on this matter, I am sure they will raise it with DOJ and make a further submission.
    They sure can. You can ask the same question of the DoJ many, many, many times, it's a citizen's right to do so.



    Answers on the other hand...

    But rather than scaremongering from our armchair lawyers, why not take the positive from it.

    1) Telling someone that they will in all liklihood lose their pistol permanently if they pursue this course and may not succeed in the substitution (it's court, it's not a sure thing), despite huge expense and effort is not scaremongering, it's a realistic fair warning.

    2) There's a positive in this? It's only repeating what we've known since the legislation was drafted.
    Until such time as the renewal issue has been sorted what is legally wrong with the following.
    1) Substitute your current restricted firearm
    2) Store the existing one
    3) in the time leading up to renewal, substitute your original firearm
    4) renew in compliance with the legislation
    5) When renewal issued substitute again.
    Legally? Well, it assumes you'll win in court and won't be appealed to the supreme court in step one, and it assumes you'll get through all that process within the three-year lifetime of the original licence (you do know the courts are beyond busy due to literally thousands of cases being taken over replacement hips and other such cases because of our lack of a full class action mechanism, right?). Neither of those assumptions are solid. You can't ever assume you'll win in court for a start, and the length of time court cases drag on for at this level are legendary.
    Step two is fine, but step three will see you back in court again, also assuming you're going to win and assuming you'll get it done in time.
    It should be noted that by now you've probably become more hassle than the local chief super is willing to bear and your application may not be as trouble-free as you'd like.

    A more cynical man than me might also point out that you may well find the original substitution uncontested, a veritable open door; and that subsequent attempts to substitute things before they are lost at renewal time get contested right through to the supreme court because by doing so, another pistol is taken out of private ownership permanently.

    But I'm an optimistic sunny happy-go-lucky type so I'm not reading any sort of plan in the Department's statement. Despite the odd omissions regarding Section 11 in that statement.

    And moving on again, your final step once again assumes success in court and so forth.

    So across one renewal cycle, you are looking for up to four court cases (three substitutions and one licence application which could all be refused leaving you in the position of having to go to court or lose everything) to be taken possibly to supreme court level in the space of less than six years.

    I'm not saying it's not legal. I'm saying it's not practical, it's not realistic, it's overly ambitious, and if you fail once you will lose both pistols permanently and so will everyone else because the precedent will nail the door shut.
    Of course substitutions should be processed with no issue in line with the commissioners guidelines of a two week turnaround.
    Do the commissioner's guidelines make such a guarantee in the case of restricted short firearms? I don't recall them doing so...
    Any issues with the process make direct representation to the NASRPC through your affiliated club, if you are not in an affiliated club then paddle your own canoe!
    Sorry, quick question - in the above legal procedures and in the event of problems at any point in this process that induces up to four court hearings inside of six years and expenses which will run into the tens of thousands as a result.... is the NASRPC going to foot the bill? In fact, can you even speak for them on this point?

    If not, I'd think a bit more carefully about advising people to get to the stage where they need to make direct representations to the NASRPC lest the unwitting advice-taker find themselves two feet past the cliff edge when the dust clears.

    10152012_WileECoyote1_article.jpg

    After all, we all know you're a careful person and would never ever wish to see someone else put at risk through a careless piece of advice on your part.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,772 ✭✭✭ meathstevie
    Registered User


    Still doesn't stop anyone from changing parts like barrels, trigger mechs, firing pins etc etc....all you'll have left from the original is the serial number.

    Center fire pistols should have never been banned on spurious argument in the first place but that's a different discussion anyway...


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 40,053 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Sparks
    Moderator


    Still doesn't stop anyone from changing parts like barrels, trigger mechs, firing pins etc etc....all you'll have left from the original is the serial number.
    And, I would suspect, the barrel, given that there are special provisions for the barrel for other firearms...
    Center fire pistols should have never been banned on spurious argument in the first place but that's a different discussion anyway...
    Agreed on both points :(


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,342 ✭✭✭✭ Grizzly 45
    Registered User


    Centerfire pistols should have never been banned on the spurious argument in the first place but that's a different discussion anyway...

    Now the big question is how do we unban them again?This isn't even a quarter step forward, but it is a start, more or less...

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



  • Registered Users Posts: 991 ✭✭✭ Gorgeousgeorge
    Registered User


    Grizzly 45 wrote: »
    Now the big question is how do we unban them again?This isn't even a quarter step forward, but it is a start, more or less...

    Every new pistol sold and licenced, should have a ballistic test done and stored like a little finger print.

    I dont know if that will work just read a good article somewhere and it made a lot of sense to an uninformed person like me who would love to shoot in centrefire comps because of the big targets and my bad eye sight ha


  • Registered Users Posts: 700 ✭✭✭ Uinseann_16
    Registered User


    Grizzly 45 wrote: »
    Now the big question is how do we unban them again?This isn't even a quarter step forward, but it is a start, more or less...

    How do we unban them and prevent CF semi auto rifles from getting thrown under the bus.


  • Registered Users Posts: 700 ✭✭✭ Uinseann_16
    Registered User


    Every new pistol sold and licenced, should have a ballistic test done and stored like a little finger print.

    I dont know if that will work just read a good article somewhere and it made a lot of sense to an uninformed person like me who would love to shoot in centrefire comps because of the big targets and my bad eye sight ha

    Ballistic fingerprinting doesnt work if the americans cant do it no way our crowd can
    http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-bullet-casings-20151107-story.html


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,210 ✭✭✭✭ BattleCorp
    Registered User


    Every new pistol sold and licenced, should have a ballistic test done and stored like a little finger print.

    I'd pay that price if it meant that I could get a centrefire pistol.

    But given that the powers that be have serious problems when it comes to entering things on Pulse, I'd say any system would be laughable (and unworkable).


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,342 ✭✭✭✭ Grizzly 45
    Registered User


    Every new pistol sold and licenced, should have a ballistic test done and stored like a little finger print.

    I dont know if that will work just read a good article somewhere and it made a lot of sense to an uninformed person like me who would love to shoot in centrefire comps because of the big targets and my bad eyesight ha

    Ahem...I hate to tell you this ...But it is the biggest load of an idea.It has been proven to be an utter waste of time in resources in both Germany and the USA.Maryland tried it and dumped it after a decade, when it was proven NOT ONE gun crime was solved by having a database like this.The German BKA dumped theirs in the mid-1980s,as being too expensive to maintain, and solving zero gun crime as well.Change the barrel, firing pin, ejector, extractor, bolt face, and sometimes the mag, and you have destroyed the ballistic evidence of the gun used.Yes, it came from, say a Glock, but which one of the millions out there.

    Eyesight, away to Specsavers with you my friend.:)The targets don't get any easier to hit with CF if your eyesight is bad.:D

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,342 ✭✭✭✭ Grizzly 45
    Registered User


    How do we unban them and prevent CF semi auto rifles from getting thrown under the bus.

    By simply saying there is a large cheque due, per gun, per shooter at current EU market value, for both the gun, ammo any and all accessories and license fees and court cases past, under EU EUCHR articles 5and 7 if they want to go down that road,and there is now an organisation called Firearms United in Europe with a branch in Ireland ,who have got enough hard-hitting EU lawyers and lobbyists who are gun owners and shooters,who have got a track record of hitting the EU with legislation and have influenced EU firearms law to prevent an EU wide SA ban this year, to take the Irish govt to EUCHR to present their case there if they want to...So if they want to...........

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 40,053 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Sparks
    Moderator


    Every new pistol sold and licenced, should have a ballistic test done and stored like a little finger print.
    It's a nice idea. But as we pointed out to the Department and the Oireachtas a while ago...
    Other jurisdictions have indeed attempted this practice. Maryland and California have done so in the United States. However, their experiences have done more to prove that the CSI effect lamented by professional forensic analysts has not diminished, than they have to prove that the concept works. A study carried out by the National Institute for Forensic Science for the California Department of Justice in 2003 indicated that in 68% of cases, the system was unable to determine if two bullets had been fired from the same firearm if the bullets were made by different manufacturers, and in 38% of cases if made by the same manufacturer (success in these tests was defined as the correct gun being in the top fifteen possibilities chosen by the system).

    The cost of the system was also quite high, costing several million dollars to maintain (the Maryland estimate of $60 per firearm would suggest a cost in Ireland on the order of ten million euro). In 2005, the Maryland police department wrote a formal report to the state government recommending that the system be abandoned citing its cost, its unreliability and its failure in the five years since its introduction to yield a single conviction.
    How do we unban [centerfire pistols]
    You don't; you just get them taken off the restricted list. Which would probably happen in a phased manner - up to a set calibre first, then up to another level and so on. The Minister went onto the front page of half the nation's newspapers, above the fold in large font, to "Ban all handguns". Any walkback from that line has to be done in a way that doesn't embarrass the Minister. So the ban remains; it just applies to less and less things.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,632 ✭✭✭ gunny123


    I had a few centrefires when they were released over a decade ago now. A glock 9mm, sig sauer .40, and a cheap italian 1911 in .45acp finally (my favourite). But i have to say the .22 is just as much fun, easier to shoot, easier to feed, cheaper to feed. With the hysteria over gun crime and Dublin being basically Dodge city at the moment, i do not see centrefires being unrestricted any time soon.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,555 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Cass
    Moderator


    Still doesn't stop anyone from changing parts like barrels, trigger mechs, firing pins etc etc....all you'll have left from the original is the serial number. .
    Yes it does, kinda.

    I was refused permission to change the slide on my 9mm, and after some arguing the conditions imposed were so ridiculous as to make it unworkable.
    Grizzly 45 wrote: »
    This isn't even a quarter step forward, but it is a start, more or less...
    I don't see it as anything other than false hope, tbh.
    ............. and prevent CF semi auto rifles from getting thrown under the bus.
    Well a good start is to have our "own" lot stop calling for bans and caps on them.
    gunny123 wrote: »
    ............... With the hysteria over gun crime and Dublin being basically Dodge city at the moment, i do not see centrefires being unrestricted any time soon.
    Sure all the Gardaí have to do is trace the bullet fragments through ballistic testing back to the licensed owner of the handgun and all those crimes will be solved............................... :rolleyes::mad:

    Forum Charter - Useful Information - RFDs - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads


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


    Your Shooting Forum Moderators - Cass, Cookimonster, Vegeta, Sparks, It wasn't me!



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,632 ✭✭✭ gunny123


    Cass wrote: »

    Sure all the Gardaí have to do is trace the bullet fragments through ballistic testing back to the licensed owner of the handgun and all those crimes will be solved............................... :rolleyes::mad:

    Yeah, easy to be snippy, but its all about public perception of legal gun ownership (hint, its not popular). We are paying the price in loosing nearly all our centrefire pistols, over an article in the papers with Baron Shortarse and his "courses". Then we have the senior gardai whispering potential horror stories about "dem big guns" into the ministers ears.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,555 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Cass
    Moderator


    gunny123 wrote: »
    Yeah, easy to be snippy,..........
    As a C/F owner, no its not easy to be snippy, but when i seen the inaction of our own lot to defend our sport what else can i do other than be pissed and cynical.
    but its all about public perception of legal gun ownership (hint, its not popular).
    What has legal gun ownership got to do with criminals using illegal weapons?

    That is not about perception its about ignorance.
    We are paying the price in loosing nearly all our centrefire pistols,
    We could have dealt with this much MUCH better back when there was an option but some groups, as peer usual, decided they knew better and went their own way. Others felt the courts were too much grief for something they didn't use and so sold it, and this left the small minority that either kept their pistol or fought it in the courts and kept it.
    over an article in the papers with Baron Shortarse and his "courses".
    Wasn't just that. The type of shooting, the lack of support in the FCP from other groups, the lack of leadership from those pretending to represent the pistol shooters, etc, etc. I might sound like a broken record, but if that is what it takes for people to wake the f**k up and cop on to the fact that our so called "own" are our worst enemies then i'll keep at it.
    Then we have the senior gardai whispering potential horror stories about "dem big guns" into the ministers ears.
    The Gardaí don't need to whisper anything, in fact they have been more than vocal with their objection to any handguns being registered/owned. They lost on point of law in the courts and the Minister showing either the "goodwill" to allow us to continue having them or simply not being in form for the financial/judiciary cost of banning them.

    All of this and a nation of snowflakes that cannot distinguish between firearms for sporting purposes and some junkie shooting up another junkie with an illegal gun along with those that think guns are bad because ....................... they just are. M'Kay. :rolleyes:

    To get back on topic, i firmly believe this is nothing more than false hope. As was said above, so i won't repeat it all, if any subs are successful the person will have a serious fight on their hands come renewal time. It'll be messy, costly and regardless of the end result not worth it for most.

    Frankly with so few of us left the DoJ could just pay us off and ban them. The fact they haven't means there might be hope to remove C/F calibers from the SI that prohibits them.

    Forum Charter - Useful Information - RFDs - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads


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


    Your Shooting Forum Moderators - Cass, Cookimonster, Vegeta, Sparks, It wasn't me!



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,632 ✭✭✭ gunny123


    Yes cass, but td's and ministers have to go back to those uninformed snowflakes every 5 years if they want their lotto win salaries, perks and pensions to continue. The public and media (Rte primetime especially) are not on our side and yes the great unwashed probably do associate gangland crime and legal gun ownership. I got that ****e in my ear at work when i had a centrefire pistol and there was a murder in the headlines "oh those terrible guns should be banned", " if there were no guns, this couldn't happen".

    Its a bit like the guy in the canteen munching a ham sambo telling you you are a murderer because you shoot game or deer, pure stupidity, (i've had some of that rubbish too) but how do you fight that ?


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,555 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Cass
    Moderator


    gunny123 wrote: »
    Yes cass, but td's and ministers have to go back to those uninformed snowflakes every 5 years if they want their lotto win salaries, perks and pensions to continue.
    Its not a big ask though. Its not like they have to convince them that guns are bad as that is already the prevailing attitude. To be honest i doubt the topic even comes up that often. People have bigger, real world, concerns.

    As for what to do. Short answer is i don't know. I could give a list of things i think would work and could produce results but we have one massive problem before anything can get done. The various groups claiming responsibility for certain disciplines and representing us during any meetings.

    They have people with their own agendas and this is not a rant as it's been happening for decades. As long as the personal agenda outweighs the good of the sport it won't change.

    Forum Charter - Useful Information - RFDs - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads


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


    Your Shooting Forum Moderators - Cass, Cookimonster, Vegeta, Sparks, It wasn't me!



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,342 ✭✭✭✭ Grizzly 45
    Registered User


    As to converting Mr Bacon Sanger man. Just pop on any anti-meat vegan undercover video of how his sanger content was slaughtered in front of him on your phone while he/she is filling their face.I find that shuts that kind of people up real quick. When they have finished projectile vomiting, you can explain to them that the deer you shot had never and would never experience such a death at your hands..

    As to the guns are bad..Mkay? types. Without violating all boards rules on RKBA and whatnot, there are countless arguments to pro-firearms ownership when you see what is happening all over Europe at the moment, and WILL happen one day in an Irish city too..So research and use to best advantage or have a look at FU Ireland or FU.com for a choice of those.:cool:
    You will never get consensus from a herd of sheep on any topic.But you can steer them in a direction of your choice.

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,223 ✭✭✭ Chiparus
    Registered User




  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 40,053 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Sparks
    Moderator


    Chiparus wrote: »

    Not much, for two reasons.

    One, the statistics they had on stolen firearms before now were bull****.
    http://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/03/06/the-gunshow/

    Two, the CSO still refuses to publish their statistics on the grounds that they're not accurate enough to be relied on.
    http://www.cso.ie/en/csolatestnews/pressreleases/2017pressreleases/pressstatementcsorecordedcrimestatistics7thseptember2017/

    Basically, the story is saying that a number the CSO say is bull**** is lower than a number we know was bull****.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,223 ✭✭✭ Chiparus
    Registered User


    Sparks wrote: »
    Not much, for two reasons.

    One, the statistics they had on stolen firearms before now were bull****.
    http://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/03/06/the-gunshow/

    Two, the CSO still refuses to publish their statistics on the grounds that they're not accurate enough to be relied on.
    http://www.cso.ie/en/csolatestnews/pressreleases/2017pressreleases/pressstatementcsorecordedcrimestatistics7thseptember2017/

    Basically, the story is saying that a number the CSO say is bull**** is lower than a number we know was bull****.

    Yep but at the same time they are putting down the lower reported instances of firearms theft as a result of tighter restrictions, when there is no proof that it the case.

    Plus there are statements like this:

    "The new measures included a requirement for owners of multiple guns to store them in different safes while individual shotguns must also be disassembled and the parts stored separately in a home."

    ???


Advertisement