Is there anything a average shooter can do to help loosen gun laws in this country

cosieman

Is their anything a average shooter can do to help keep gun laws the same in Ireland or loosen them is their any pro gun organisations politicians to vote for politicians to write to is their anything we can do.

Sparks

Sure. Write to your local TD, go to his or her clinic, every week, continuously, forever. Write letters to the editors of every paper, every week. Forever.
Vote against TDs who support more onerous firearms legislation; vote for TDs who do not.

Ain't sexy, it's just hard graft. Has a bad habit of both working and yet never being something we keep up.

Grizzly 45

And keep trying to educate the ignorant about what it is really like to be a hunter/gun owner.By any positive means and good example..Short of the Zombie Apocalypse happening,that's about all you can do and has been suggested in this thread so far.

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

Write letters to the editors of every paper, every week. Forever.
.

However, you don't want o to overdo it like a certain gentleman in Co Kilkenny on the anti side, who mass emails every "letter to the editor" column on a weekly basis, and whose rants are almost seasonal[Coursing will be his next topic this week and thru Feb] and has been doing so since the 1980s.What effect he has had on changing anything........... [crickets]
Editors just use his weekly rant as a space filler in the page at this stage, and everyone else just throws up their eyes to Heaven at his latest take on his favourite anti-field sports hobby horse,[or stable thereof]
Got to admire his consistency though.Or mule-headedness.

cavan shooter

cosieman wrote: »

Is their anything a average shooter can do to help keep gun laws the same in Ireland or loosen them is their any pro gun organisations politicians to vote for politicians to write to is their anything we can do.

You find that countries/governments that were formed by the gun tend not to like the ability of the same guns to be too readily available to the pleabs...so no.

Guns are nasty, black evil and used by nefarious People. Anyone who likes shooting or using guns are nuts according to the press. We need to get more into the local press about what our clubs do for good.

We also need to apply common sense, walking into SPAR VALUE on the mainstreet Camoed up with bandoleers of ammo doesnt look great neither does blocking the road with gun on hip waiting for a fox :eek: and not moving of the road for the church warden "Coz **** him Ive every right to be shooting foxes" (FACE PALM)

We need to be writing to Politicians and meeting them so they understand the voting block the shooting community has, last I hear Cavan RGC clubs are a voting block of 1100 members. (Members alone)

No politician except Michael Healey Raye and Enda Kenny ever said they like shooting or guns. Enda said it on the late late show years ago with Gay Byrne and Michael said it to Tommy Tiernan last week.

So yes we could do a lot to improve the chances but I would say only by improving the image.

gunny123

cavan shooter wrote: »

You find that countries/governments that were formed by the gun tend not to like the ability of the same guns to be too readily available to the pleabs...so no.

Guns are nasty, black evil and used by nefarious People. Anyone who likes shooting or using guns are nuts according to the press. We need to get more into the local press about what our clubs do for good.

We also need to apply common sense, walking into SPAR VALUE on the mainstreet Camoed up with bandoleers of ammo doesnt look great neither does blocking the road with gun on hip waiting for a fox :eek: and not moving of the road for the church warden "Coz **** him Ive every right to be shooting foxes" (FACE PALM)

We need to be writing to Politicians and meeting them so they understand the voting block the shooting community has, last I hear Cavan RGC clubs are a voting block of 1100 members. (Members alone)

No politician except Michael Healey Raye and Enda Kenny ever said they like shooting or guns. Enda said it on the late late show years ago with Gay Byrne and Michael said it to Tommy Tiernan last week.

So yes we could do a lot to improve the chances but I would say only by improving the image.

Michael McDowell (remember him) was a shooter, plenty of negativity towards the shooting community from him. So the fact someone like a td likes shooting or hunting, does not stop them stabbing us in the back when it is good for their career.

Plenty of so called "celebs" (i despise that term) are into shooting, but they keep it under their hats, because to admit it in public, is like outing yourself in the national press/media as a paedophile. The Rachael Allen picture of her posing with the brace of pheasants on the bonnet of the jeep, should be enough of a warning.

Grizzly 45

Think Vinnie Jones might disagree...:D As would Jack Charlton...
But then again you have to be either in the "don't give a fuk what you think!" camp or "No publicity is bad publicity." school of thought.

Mc Dowell, Kenny, Brian Fatty Cowen, that fellah that was PM before May in the UK.Are more than likely all in the Fudd school of shooting.All driven pheasants, side by sides in the 10 grand category taken out once or twice a year, and wearing a shirt &tie out shooting.

I bet none of them ever fired a handgun of any type, or shot a semi-auto rifle or were vermin hunters, let alone gutted and plucked one of their shot pheasants...So they categorise themselves as shooters alright, but would be utterly unaware and more than likely unaccepting of anyone else's preferences in the choice of guns or shooting disciplines..A Fudd can be more dangerous to us than the most rabid anti-gun nut.As you never know when they might turn Judas and throw you to the wolves to save their own hides.

Half-cocked

Remember when Finian McGrath went on a bit of an anti-firearm crusade a while back? Waving around photo's of shot up road signs (from another jurisdiction) etc etc. He was an opposition TD sitting on the Justice Committee at the time. Now he's in Government and not a squeak out of him on the issue. Why? Possibly because when he was going around the doorsteps in the run up to the 2016 General Election, he had it pointed out to him how many firearms owners there were in his constituency and how they were very unhappy about his stance. He scraped back into the Dail by a handful of votes on the umpteenth count. He's probably realized that his political future could be decided by firearms owners when things are that close. So it is possible to influence policy on occasion - but only by being an electoral threat to a politicians sense of self-preservation.

Grizzly 45

Thing is, he nailed his colours to the mast in the enquiry.Without that we would never have known either which way whether he is friend or foe.This is the big problem with Irish politicians, they are ambiguous on every issue and will run with the hare as with the hounds for any aul vote.To most of them asking their opinion on guns here is like asking me about the reproductive capability of shower curtain mould.Don't know or care,"But I will certainly agree that shower curtain mould must be able to reproduce in properly allowed circumstances.After all I have some in my grannies shower so I bear it no ill will."And the issue is forgotten about until something happens and the monkey presses his Ta or Nil button in the Dail,as he is told to do under the whip.:rolleyes:

TBH Give me five Finian Mc Graths any day over 20 ambiguous supporters.An anti can be beaten with facts and logic, a sheep in wolfs clothing is a different matter.

cosieman

We do have a problem with fudds in this country thinking the most advanced thing we should own is a side by side and hoping the politicians ban everything else beside his guns. Guns for me Not for thee.

cavan shooter

So you reckon "Fudds" are a problem,
As a fudd i'd argue it's horses for courses. I like a bit of walked up, rough shooting and once a year a driven shoot ducks over my springer. The Stephens day club shoot and a bit of clays out of the game season.

Lets be honest, Some lads like to stand in the middle of a road in British Army DPM jacket with a semi auto on there hip with 4 shells in the tube and Other lads like to walk in to a garage wearing a pistol on there belt. There shouldnt be a them and us in shooting, but realistically there is same way there is in all walks of live. If it's about portraying a positive image I'm all for common sense it doesn't scare people.

Half-cocked

cosieman wrote: »

We do have a problem with fudds in this country thinking the most advanced thing we should own is a side by side and hoping the politicians ban everything else beside his guns. Guns for me Not for thee.

Imagine this actually happened. How long before there were noises from the PTB or the Anti's saying we should be restricted to being only allowed have 1 loaded barrel at a time;)

Grizzly 45

cavan shooter wrote: »

So you reckon "Fudds" are a problem,
As a fudd i'd argue it's horses for courses. I like a bit of walked up, rough shooting and once a year a driven shoot ducks over my springer. The Stephens day club shoot and a bit of clays out of the game season.

Lets be honest, Some lads like to stand in the middle of a road in British Army DPM jacket with a semi-auto on there hip with 4 shells in the tube and Other lads like to walk in to a garage wearing a pistol on there belt. There shouldn't be a them and us in shooting, but realistically there is same way there is in all walks of live. If it's about portraying a positive image I'm all for common sense it doesn't scare people.

As there knickerbocker and tweed characters, blind scuttering drunk out on drives that cant walk straight less shoot straight

Definition of such[urban dictionary]
Fudd
Slang term for a "casual" gun owner; eg; a person who typically only owns guns for hunting or shotgun sports and does not truly believe in the true premise of the second amendment. These people also generally treat owners/users of so-called "non-sporting" firearms like handguns or semiautomatic rifles with unwarranted scorn or contempt.
"See sonny, all those pistols in that cabinet... all thems is good for is killin people." -Example of ignorant comment from a Fudd at a local gun shop. See also: Zumbo.

Ignoring the second amendment references, the attitude is quite prevalent in a good few shooters here in the political and upper-class strata.Both here in the UK
If you don't like them fine...It does not give you the right to sit in judgement of other gun owners or use your position in the shooting community to disparage others choices or disciplines..A good example, unfortunately, is Micheal Yardley or his colleague and fellow writer Jim Zumbo.Now both share the title of Uber Fudds.And in Mr Yardleys position one of Uber hypocrite as well.[Disprageing semi-auto rifles, yet posing aplenty at every given chance with one on his travels]
Get this...Our enemies don't CARE whether you have a single barrel shotgun or a 50 cal Barrett.They want ALL guns banned.We are what the Kufir is to a good Muslim.The enemy that must be converted or destroyed.Simple as.

Already we see this attitude in the UK again, with the proposed banning of 50 cal rifles,MARS rifles and airguns being licensed.And shooting organisations applauding the banning of "bump fire stocks "in the UK.Under the crazy idea that they will work on .22 semi-autos:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:.

It is simple we must hang together, or we will hang separately in this sport.We are gun owners first, everything else second.As Churchill said, "An appeaser is one who throws all others to the crocodiles, in the vain hope they will be full when they reach him."

gunny123

cavan shooter wrote: »

So you reckon "Fudds" are a problem,
As a fudd i'd argue it's horses for courses. I like a bit of walked up, rough shooting and once a year a driven shoot ducks over my springer. The Stephens day club shoot and a bit of clays out of the game season.

Lets be honest, Some lads like to stand in the middle of a road in British Army DPM jacket with a semi auto on there hip with 4 shells in the tube and Other lads like to walk in to a garage wearing a pistol on there belt. There shouldnt be a them and us in shooting, but realistically there is same way there is in all walks of live. If it's about portraying a positive image I'm all for common sense it doesn't scare people.

In truth i am probably a fudd too. I like side by side shotguns, falling or rolling block rifles, and revolvers. Anything made ofter about 1935 does not really interest me.

However back in the 1980's when this country was on the verge of bankruptcy, i seen plenty of side by side shooters in dpm. Why ? Because they had no money to buy anything else, you could get a good jacket and trousers off a stall at the local market or trailer at the mart.

I do not know of anybody but a complete idiot who stands in the middle of the road with a firearm, its an offence to have any firearm in a public place uncovered, unless you have a very good reason afaik. So why you single out people who shoot magazine fed guns is beyond me.

The fact that a tiny minority of fools thought when pistols were licenced first, that Ireland would suddenly turn into rural texas in a year or two, is no reason to deny them to the hundreds of people who behave very responsibly with them.

Grizzly 45

In truth i am probably a fudd too. I like side by side shotguns, falling or rolling block rifles, and revolvers. Anything made ofter about 1935 does not really interest me.

No, you are a guy who likes pre-1935 guns..I've never seen you say those are the ONLY type of guns "mere civilians" should be using, and that anyone who likes semi-auto assault rifles or handguns should go join the police or military and go play soldiers there. [Typical Hiberno English type Fudd statement]

Liking a particular discipline or particular type of gun a Fudd does not one make.
Saying it is the ONLY type and discipline that everyone should be doing, and that certain types are not suitable and should only be used by "authority figures" is a sure sign of Fuddism.

judestynes

cavan shooter wrote: »

You find that countries/governments that were formed by the gun tend not to like the ability of the same guns to be too readily available to the pleabs...so no.

Guns are nasty, black evil and used by nefarious People. Anyone who likes shooting or using guns are nuts according to the press. We need to get more into the local press about what our clubs do for good.

We also need to apply common sense, walking into SPAR VALUE on the mainstreet Camoed up with bandoleers of ammo doesnt look great neither does blocking the road with gun on hip waiting for a fox :eek: and not moving of the road for the church warden "Coz **** him Ive every right to be shooting foxes" (FACE PALM)

We need to be writing to Politicians and meeting them so they understand the voting block the shooting community has, last I hear Cavan RGC clubs are a voting block of 1100 members. (Members alone)

No politician except Michael Healey Raye and Enda Kenny ever said they like shooting or guns. Enda said it on the late late show years ago with Gay Byrne and Michael said it to Tommy Tiernan last week.

So yes we could do a lot to improve the chances but I would say only by improving the image.

Do hunters ever donate carcasses or butchered meat to the needy or worthy causes? Even if they did would the media bother promoting it or worse put a negative spin on what is essentially an act of kindness and compassion, you'd think this would surely improve the image.

BattleCorp

judestynes wrote: »

Do hunters ever donate carcasses or butchered meat to the needy or worthy causes? Even if they did would the media bother promoting it or worse put a negative spin on what is essentially an act of kindness and compassion, you'd think this would surely improve the image.

Even if you were saving the lives of starving people, a spin would be put on that along the lines of 'why are you murdering poor innocent animals?'.

judestynes

BattleCorp wrote: »

Even if you were saving the lives of starving people, a spin would be put on that along the lines of 'why are you murdering poor innocent animals?'.

Alas your only too right. If an A lister like Kurt Russell can't escape the wrath of the do gooders (even though he's the one actually doing good) what chance have we got. He runs a charity hunt annually, people pay big bucks to participate and all the money raised and the meat harvested go to the needy. May be the vote boycott is the only route to go, perhaps if enough people in the shooting community realise the value of their vote and use that things might change, for the better I mean and just because no one is coming after elmer's side by side 12 bore now doesn't mean they won't in the future.

Sparks

Sparks wrote: »

Sure. Write to your local TD, go to his or her clinic, every week, continuously, forever. Write letters to the editors of every paper, every week. Forever.

So, did anyone try this at any point in the last nine months?

judestynes

Sparks wrote: »

So, did anyone try this at any point in the last nine months?

Yes. I did. It's not all I do

Cass

Yup. Continuously, but most recently on Sunday night gone by. Charlie Flanagan is my local TD and also the Minister for Justice so i wrote an e-mail to him regarding the semi autos, restricted list, pistols, guidelines, etc.

Took a few hours to write it, not because it was long, but because i wanted to make sure i didn't do a soapbox preaching session, criticize the previous Minister (much), and did not make the mistake of saying something i think is innocuous but may have repercussions for the sport/firearms i spoke about.

I also did not ask him to speak to me directly, i wouldn't be so presumptuous, but to engage with the shooting bodies.

I also wrote to some shooting bodies asking them to essentially, and i'm paraphrasing here, get their head out of their ass.

judestynes

Cass wrote: »

Yup. Continuously, but most recently on Sunday night gone by. Charlie Flanagan is my local TD and also the Minister for Justice so i wrote an e-mail to him regarding the semi autos, restricted list, pistols, guidelines, etc.

Took a few hours to write it, not because it was long, but because i wanted to make sure i didn't do a soapbox preaching session, criticize the previous Minister (much), and did not make the mistake of saying something i think is innocuous but may have repercussions for the sport/firearms i spoke about.

I also did not ask him to speak to me directly, i wouldn't be so presumptuous, but to engage with the shooting bodies.

I also wrote to some shooting bodies asking them to essentially, and i'm paraphrasing here, get their head out of their ass.

Good stuff there. I also cited history and heritage as it impacts on collectors like myself and other entusiasts. The representitive bodies do need to get more proactive though I completely agree with you there.

Grizzly 45

judestynes wrote: »

Do hunters ever donate carcasses or butchered meat to the needy or worthy causes? Even if they did would the media bother promoting it or worse put a negative spin on what is essentially an act of kindness and compassion, you'd think this would surely improve the image.

It's ASFIK never been tried out.
TBH,if your belly is empty as are your kids,are you going to look a free meal down because of your morals and outlook? Its one of the oldest tricks in the book,and it was even used against us in Black47, when you could "take the soup" if you forswore Catholicism in favour of converting to Protestantism.
Would bet anyone goes down to any of our soup kitchens in Dublin and made them an offer of properly butchered out venison carcasses, they would gladly take it. Worth a phone call or a visit isnt it? Screw what the media or the "animal rights "crowd say. They aren't feeding you or your children if you are desperate with their fake outrage.When you are hungry enough, you will be amazed as to what levels you will sink to.That includes scouring an American army garbage dump for food rests from tin cans as my grandparents did in post war Germany with milllions of other Germans in the Winter of 1945.

troyzer

As a non gun owner and someone who doesn't understand it, what would you want the laws loosened to?

I'm sure there are nonsensical hold ups which are a source of frustration that should be changed. But what exactly what you guys want changed?

Bearing in mind that as far as I know, a lot of this is under EU competency.

tac foley

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Think Vinnie Jones might disagree...:D As would Jack Charlton...
But then again you have to be either in the "don't give a fuk what you think!" camp or "No publicity is bad publicity." school of thought.

Mc Dowell, Kenny, Brian Fatty Cowen, that fellah that was PM before May in the UK.Are more than likely all in the Fudd school of shooting.All driven pheasants, side by sides in the 10 grand category taken out once or twice a year, and wearing a shirt &tie out shooting.

I bet none of them ever fired a handgun of any type, or shot a semi-auto rifle or were vermin hunters, let alone gutted and plucked one of their shot pheasants...So they categorise themselves as shooters alright, but would be utterly unaware and more than likely unaccepting of anyone else's preferences in the choice of guns or shooting disciplines..A Fudd can be more dangerous to us than the most rabid anti-gun nut.As you never know when they might turn Judas and throw you to the wolves to save their own hides.

At this very moment, no less than fifty MPs in the lower house have served in the Armed forces of the UK - with current or previous military service in a regular or reservist capacity. Having served either in the regular forces or in reservist organisations, it is a significant percentage of the whole. The MPs in attendance at the internal wreath-laying ceremony in the HoP last year represented military service in a variety of operational theatres including Afghanistan, Iraq, the Balkans and Northern Ireland, and, of course, there are a number of seving MPs who learned a lot about guns during their time in the RUC/PSNI and UDR.

So much for your comment about not knowing one end of a gun from the other.

Note also that the recent attempt by the a select committee of antis here in UK to pile yet more restrictions on legal shooters has been met with a mighty level of opposition from all major political parties - over sixty MPS having signed a counter-petition to the proposals, from both the lower and upper houses.

judestynes

troyzer wrote: »

As a non gun owner and someone who doesn't understand it, what would you want the laws loosened to?

I'm sure there are nonsensical hold ups which are a source of frustration that should be changed. But what exactly what you guys want changed?

Bearing in mind that as far as I know, a lot of this is under EU competency.

Hi Troyzer.

I can't speak for the rest of the community only for myself but what I would like is simply not to penalised for what criminals do. I enjoy a hobby and because of the unlawful activities of other people I can't enjoy it as I'd wish.

troyzer

judestynes wrote: »

troyzer wrote: »

As a non gun owner and someone who doesn't understand it, what would you want the laws loosened to?

I'm sure there are nonsensical hold ups which are a source of frustration that should be changed. But what exactly what you guys want changed?

Bearing in mind that as far as I know, a lot of this is under EU competency.

Hi Troyzer.

I can't speak for the rest of the community only for myself but what I would like is simply not to penalised for what criminals do. I enjoy a hobby and because of the unlawful activities of other people I can't enjoy it as I'd wish.

Right but that isn't very specific. For example, would you like an American style system? Or the current system simplified and made simple

troyzer

troyzer wrote: »

judestynes wrote: »

troyzer wrote: »

As a non gun owner and someone who doesn't understand it, what would you want the laws loosened to?

I'm sure there are nonsensical hold ups which are a source of frustration that should be changed. But what exactly what you guys want changed?

Bearing in mind that as far as I know, a lot of this is under EU competency.

Hi Troyzer.

I can't speak for the rest of the community only for myself but what I would like is simply not to penalised for what criminals do. I enjoy a hobby and because of the unlawful activities of other people I can't enjoy it as I'd wish.

Right but that isn't very specific. For example, would you like an American style system? Or the current system simplified and made simple

Made more accessible*

Grizzly 45

EU INcompentency more like.
The Paris and Charlie Hebdo shootings wouldn't have happened if 8 years ago the EU had implemented the directive on proper EU wide deactivation of firearms.They sat on it and, almost seemed to wait for a massacre to happen before implementing it and demanding a host of other bans and restrictions. Fortunately, due to EU wide Shooters getting their dander up,it has been seriously watered down but is still a shambles being implemented on national levels.
What we would like to see changed here is.

License the man,not the gun.It would make changing your firearms and sales alot easier. Make the liscense a 10 year liscense too.

Remove the pistol ban on CF pistols post-Nov 2008.It is ridiculous and was implemented out of pure malignancy by an anti-gun minister. Likewise the IPSC competition ban.

Allow the right of properly certified and trained people who can justify a good need the right to concealed carry for self-protection.It exists in Northern Ireland,the Czech Republic, Germany, and surprisingly in the UK as well, if you are granted a permit by the Secretary of state,as "a person of value to HM Govt"If Ireland ever takes over Northern Ireland,ALL of those above issues will have to be addressed anyway,so it is not too outlandish.

A gun is a gun,is a gun. They are all dangerous if used incorrectly or with bad intent. Otherwise they are inert lumps of wood metal and plastic. There are no such especially dangerous types of guns out there. Therefore it should be possible to license anything here once you are declared competent and of good mind, everything from a .22 rifle up to a 20mm semi-auto sniper rifle. The onous and responsibility is on YOU an adult ,use it safely and correctly,not for society to be acting as a nanny in a kindergarten controlling dangerous things.

judestynes

troyzer wrote: »

Right but that isn't very specific. For example, would you like an American style system? Or the current system simplified and made simple

OK the "American" system differs depending on what state your in. Really what I would like once you meet the legal requirements laid out you can purchase and keep what ever you want outside of fully automatic select fire weapons. Make the laws easy to follow so not following them the individual is penalised severely not the community at large.

Grizzly 45

troyzer wrote: »

Right but that isn't very specific. For example, would you like an American style system? Or the current system simplified and made simple

Whats" an American style system"???
Do you mean a constitutionally enshrined right of a natural law to keep and bear arms?
NOT going to happen the first bit in Ireland or the EU. Unless we overthrow the Govt and rewrite the constitution here. Or become the 51st state of the union.Maybe in a parallel universe...

Do you mean each state deciding its own laws on firearms ownership, but recognising the 2A?
We have that with the European Union, more or less. Without the fundamental right as individuals to KBA.

troyzer

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

EU INcompentency more like.
The Paris and Charlie Hebdo shootings wouldn't have happened if 8 years ago the EU had implemented the directive on proper EU wide deactivation of firearms.They sat on it and, almost seemed to wait for a massacre to happen before implementing it and demanding a host of other bans and restrictions. Fortunately, due to EU wide Shooters getting their dander up,it has been seriously watered down but is still a shambles being implemented on national levels.
What we would like to see changed here is.

License the man,not the gun.It would make changing your firearms and sales alot easier. Make the liscense a 10 year liscense too.

Remove the pistol ban on CF pistols post-Nov 2008.It is ridiculous and was implemented out of pure malignancy by an anti-gun minister. Likewise the IPSC competition ban.

Allow the right of properly certified and trained people who can justify a good need the right to concealed carry for self-protection.It exists in Northern Ireland,the Czech Republic, Germany, and surprisingly in the UK as well, if you are granted a permit by the Secretary of state,as "a person of value to HM Govt"If Ireland ever takes over Northern Ireland,ALL of those above issues will have to be addressed anyway,so it is not too outlandish.

A gun is a gun,is a gun. They are all dangerous if used incorrectly or with bad intent. Otherwise they are inert lumps of wood metal and plastic. There are no such especially dangerous types of guns out there. Therefore it should be possible to license anything here once you are declared competent and of good mind, everything from a .22 rifle up to a 20mm semi-auto sniper rifle. The onous and responsibility is on YOU an adult ,use it safely and correctly,not for society to be acting as a nanny in a kindergarten controlling dangerous things.

judestynes wrote: »

OK the "American" system differs depending on what state your in. Really what I would like once you meet the legal requirements laid out you can purchase and keep what ever you want outside of fully automatic select fire weapons. Make the laws easy to follow so not following them the individual is penalised severely not the community at large.

Sounds like you both want the American system. I know that it varies by state, but it is guided by the principle that you have the right to own a gun and the restrictions are designed later. Whereas it seems to me that in Ireland, gun ownership is a privilege that you have to earn in advance.

I think both of you are being unrealistic if you think that the main impediment is a bunch of politicians. The public are apathetic towards this issue because it's very minor and our regulations are strict, but any sustained and effective campaign to liberalise gun laws will be shouted down by a much, much larger lobby which would pop up to defeat it.

A more realistic goal it seems to me would be to accept that semi autos are a no-go. It'll just never happen. So how do we make the rules fairer or more accessible?

Sparks

troyzer wrote: »

As a non gun owner and someone who doesn't understand it, what would you want the laws loosened to?

I'm sure there are nonsensical hold ups which are a source of frustration that should be changed. But what exactly what you guys want changed?

Bearing in mind that as far as I know, a lot of this is under EU competency.

Well, to give an example that's down to an accident and is well within our competency to correct, it'd be nice if going paintballing wasn't a criminal offence in Ireland with a seven year jail sentence and a 20 grand fine as a maximum punishment.

I mean, I could give you a few dozen more, but that one seems to be the one that generally gets understood fastest by people who aren't target shooters or hunters.

troyzer

Sparks wrote: »

Well, to give an example that's down to an accident and is well within our competency to correct, it'd be nice if going paintballing wasn't a criminal offence in Ireland with a seven year jail sentence and a 20 grand fine as a maximum punishment.

I mean, I could give you a few dozen more, but that one seems to be the one that generally gets understood fastest by people who aren't target shooters or hunters.

I've gone paintball? It's not a criminal offence?

Or do you mean unorganised paintball?

gunny123

Why jump to the Americans all the time ? How about the swiss system ? All men of military age must hold a service rifle and be able to use it, plenty of government owned ranges around.
But the good ol' eussr want to put an end to that.

Grizzly 45

troyzer wrote: »

Sounds like you both want the American system. I know that it varies by state, but it is guided by the principle that you have the right to own a gun and the restrictions are designed later. Whereas it seems to me that in Ireland, gun ownership is a privilege that you have to earn in advance.

I think both of you are being unrealistic if you think that the main impediment is a bunch of politicians. The public are apathetic towards this issue because it's very minor and our regulations are strict, but any sustained and effective campaign to liberalise gun laws will be shouted down by a much, much larger lobby which would pop up to defeat it.

A more realistic goal it seems to me would be to accept that semi autos are a no-go. It'll just never happen. So how do we make the rules fairer or more accessible?

Ok wrong on multiple points. Your last one first.

Semi-autos and I assume you mean rifles,as there are handguns and shotguns too are a GO.[Modern Sporting rifles,to give them their correct term] Even in Ireland. They are liscenseable here and are out there, and are becoming more and more popular throughout the Union. I am a member of Firearms United, and we fought long and hard in Brussels to make sure they will stay legal here.So sorry on that point.

Sorry if it sounds "unrealistic" to you, but the above points are valid and realistic and will be of concern to Ireland if we do unite. It might be unrealistic or moot to Paddy and Mary Blogs out there but becomes very valid when there are people demanding protection as they are still targets for subversives[like the current Garda chief comissioner] because of their pasts or associations in the NI troubles. Plus there are 100% justifiable rasons for some people to have a concealed carry permit even today in the Republic.

The majority of our bad gun laws here are because of either [1] Can kicking down the road attitudes and let it be someone else's problem. Hence we have the shambles of the aftermath of the TCO 1972 where the army will be forever more be storing on the taxpayers' dime, old handguns and rifles, because no one thought of what would happen if their owners died out,etc
2] Ignorance of the items being legislated on and trying quick fixes by banning things.
3] Bending to the mob and instead of acting like mature statesmen, slapping quick fixes on everything, rather than balanced and reasonable legislation.See UK for post-Hungerford/Dunblane.In comparison to Germany post-Erfurt and Wenidigen

And NO I don't want an "American system" which you haven't defined yet,as I pointed out it will not work in Europe and anyway any comparison of the US to Ireland in any aspect of life is a utter fallacy of an argument anyway.300 million people with well north of 450 million known firearms and a constitutional rifgt to keep and bear. Compared to 4.5 million with +/- 250, 000 liscensed guns is no comparison whatsoever.

Compare it more realistically to something in the EU.Czech Republic.Europes Texas. license system, concealed carry,full auto available to own.ZERO shooting sprees.Likewise Switzerland.

Grizzly 45

I think the Swiss are going to have a referendum on that point soon Gunny.
They might just say "FU Brussels and your Schengen agreement!":)

troyzer

gunny123 wrote: »

Why jump to the Americans all the time ? How about the swiss system ? All men of military age must hold a service rifle and be able to use it, plenty of government owned ranges around.
But the good ol' eussr want to put an end to that.

I don't think you can realistically look to Switzerland for solutions in any area, they're such an oddity. The reason why everyone has a gun is because Switzerland's national defense is still based on Napoléonic style leveé en masse.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Ok wrong on multiple points. Your last one first.

Semi-autos and I assume you mean rifles,as there are handguns and shotguns too are a GO.[Modern Sporting rifles,to give them their correct term] Even in Ireland. They are liscenseable here and are out there, and are becoming more and more popular throughout the Union. I am a member of Firearms United, and we fought long and hard in Brussels to make sure they will stay legal here.So sorry on that point.

Sorry if it sounds "unrealistic" to you, but the above points are valid and realistic and will be of concern to Ireland if we do unite. It might be unrealistic or moot to Paddy and Mary Blogs out there but becomes very valid when there are people demanding protection as they are still targets for subversives[like the current Garda chief comissioner] because of their pasts or associations in the NI troubles. Plus there are 100% justifiable rasons for some people to have a concealed carry permit even today in the Republic.

The majority of our bad gun laws here are because of either [1] Can kicking down the road attitudes and let it be someone else's problem. Hence we have the shambles of the aftermath of the TCO 1972 where the army will be forever more be storing on the taxpayers' dime, old handguns and rifles, because no one thought of what would happen if their owners died out,etc
2] Ignorance of the items being legislated on and trying quick fixes by banning things.
3] Bending to the mob and instead of acting like mature statesmen, slapping quick fixes on everything, rather than balanced and reasonable legislation.See UK for post-Hungerford/Dunblane.In comparison to Germany post-Erfurt and Wenidigen

And NO I don't want an "American system" which you haven't defined yet,as I pointed out it will not work in Europe and anyway any comparison of the US to Ireland in any aspect of life is a utter fallacy of an argument anyway.300 million people with well north of 450 million known firearms and a constitutional rifgt to keep and bear. Compared to 4.5 million with +/- 250, 000 liscensed guns is no comparison whatsoever.

Compare it more realistically to something in the EU.Czech Republic.Europes Texas. license system, concealed carry,full auto available to own.ZERO shooting sprees.Likewise Switzerland.

If we do have semi autos in Ireland, I stand corrected.

There definitely isn't a valid reason to have concealed carry in Ireland. Not when you weigh them against the risks of an increasingly armed society. The Garda comissioner doesn't need the right to a hidden Glock, I'm sure he has a security team.

Subversives are becoming less and less of a problem every year as the old farts die off. And I'm sure a better case could be made for better Gardaí protection of particularly vulnerable people. Surely that's safer and more effective then saying people can arm for self defence?

I have quite clearly defined the American system. One where gun ownership starts as a right to be limited rather than a privilege to be earned.

judestynes

troyzer wrote: »

Sounds like you both want the American system. I know that it varies by state, but it is guided by the principle that you have the right to own a gun and the restrictions are designed later. Whereas it seems to me that in Ireland, gun ownership is a privilege that you have to earn in advance.

I think both of you are being unrealistic if you think that the main impediment is a bunch of politicians. The public are apathetic towards this issue because it's very minor and our regulations are strict, but any sustained and effective campaign to liberalise gun laws will be shouted down by a much, much larger lobby which would pop up to defeat it.

A more realistic goal it seems to me would be to accept that semi autos are a no-go. It'll just never happen. So how do we make the rules fairer or more accessible?

Your right in so far as a campaign to liberalise our firarms laws would be shouted down but wrong to think the community is a minor one. There are roughly 200,000 liscenced firearm owners in the state and the reason the majority are unfamiliar with firearms and the shooting community is because we are law abiding. The only exposure they get to firearms is from criminals. This larger lobby you speak off would be shouting down an issue to which they are 99% ignorant.

Sparks

troyzer wrote: »

I've gone paintball? It's not a criminal offence?

Or do you mean unorganised paintball?

No, I mean if you held a paintball marker in your hand, you were in possession of an unlicenced restricted short firearm, which is an offence under section 2 of the Act, with a maximum penalty of seven years in prison and 20 grand in fines.

Doesn't matter that you didn't know it.

Give you another example readily understood by the general public, go into The Gadget Shop and look at their toy crossbows and buy one. Congratulations, you are now in possession of an unlicenced restricted short firearm, which is an offence under section 2 of the Act, with a maximum penalty of seven years in prison and 20 grand in fines.

And so on.

Irish firearms legislation is a *mess*. Seriously, instead of one Act we have over a dozen, plus EU directives, plus somewhere north of sixty SIs:



It's got mutually exclusive definitions of terms, it has clauses you can't practically adhere to because they require you to break others, it has clauses that nobody actually knows the meaning of and which will require test cases in court just to get a first interpretation of (at which point either it will all be okay or someone's going to prison), and there are maybe 4-5 dozen people in the entire state, including the judiciary and the legislature and the Gardai, who have a solid working understanding of it. There's one single textbook, and it's out of date. And everyone is supposed to adhere to it, and "everyone" in this case includes people who don't know that, such as you.

So when we say we'd like reform of the law, it's not necessarily saying we want a change in how things are done (I for example do not want the US system thankyouverymuch); but it is saying that right now, nobody knows the answers to a lot of questions that we need answers to at some point before someone's facing jail time for doing something the way we've done it for over two centuries without incident, because of an interpretation of an overly vague wording in the legislation.

meathstevie

Troyzer, the Swiss defence model is anything but a Napoleonic mass mobilisation. Mass mobilisation is essentially grabbing every fella of military age, give him some sort of a uniform and if lucky some training and a weapon.

The Swiss have regular small professional cadre and all the other lads are militia men who train regularly, are well equipped and know exactly what their roles are.

Grizzly 45

I

f we do have semi autos in Ireland, I stand corrected.

No worries:)

here definitely isn't a valid reason to have concealed carry in Ireland. Not when you weigh them against the risks of an increasingly armed society. The Garda comissioner doesn't need the right to a hidden Glock, I'm sure he has a security team.

"An increasingly armed society"...Love that media-inspired hystironic!!:)
o Yeah first time in the history of the state and AGS that this has ever become a thing that the CC has armed protection.

The Garda Commissioner can do as he damn well pleases as the top dog here.He can issue me, you or himself for that matter a concealed carry permit for anything.Hidden ,nah,I reckon he still has his service pistol in a handy spot somewhere.:) Also I will point out there ARE some people in Ireland with issued concealed carry firearms out there.So what makes a peace commissioner more valuable than you or me to be granted such?Also please explain how you are going to sort othe esteal with the est 30k worth of NI folks who have concealed carry pistols if we ever unify??You will need a lot of convincing that the threat has passed with them lot.:P

Subversives are becoming less and less of a problem every year as the old farts die off. And I'm sure a better case could be made for better Gardaí protection of, particularly vulnerable people. Surely that's safer and more effective then saying people can arm for self-defence?

There are plenty of younger farts and middle-aged farts out there friend, on both sides who are only still too willing to keep the armed struggle going as a nice cover for drug dealing, extortion, etc, etc. Plus the minor fact we are getting in plenty of armed former East block farts who see this country and its natives as a pushover here ??A couple of years in the Joy would be a paid holiday to these boys compared to a Gulag-style prision in their home countries.I mean where do you think brand new sub machine guns are coming from that are on our streets?Also if it isnt a problem then why has the comissioner got,for the first time in the history of AGS an armed protection unit on him??

Sure, you can make a case for more Gardai...But whats an unarmed Garda going to do against a bunch of Ali Snackbars who are permanently offended because someone said wrote or drew something against their religion,and do a Charlie Hebdo on that person's house or office? That unarmed French cop was a power of good.
Now the next thing...COST... How much does it cost to train up an armed Garda? Equip him? And then keep a TEAM of armed cops on a principal? 24/7/365?And then until the threat is over?Say witness protection of a jury?
Your bill for something like that can run to literally millions in overtime and resources.That's taxpayers money ..IE you and me are paying for protection.It's just not feasible ,as anyone in LE will tell you to keep that up financially.It comes a point that the LE protection will be pulled, and you are on your own.

Also,its wouldn't be everyone either in a free for all.It would require training, qualification and renew and review on an annual basis.So once the threat is over,you hand in the concealed carry permit.

No need for anyone?? Veronica Guerin might beg to differ, if she could,Paul Williams,The former and current head of CAB.Anyone dealing with moving&transporting large amounts of cash on a personal basis[IE bookies?] Potential Tiger kidnapping victims?Of course they could employ armed people to look after them?Oh right they would need concealed carry permission too?:P

Grizzly 45

I don't think you can realistically look to Switzerland for solutions in any area, they're such an oddity. The reason why everyone has a gun is because Switzerland's national defense is still based on Napoléonic style leveé en masse.

Well, let's not look to the US in future for any comparisons of gun laws with EU countries either.:P

In fac t,there are other EU countries that apply militas and armed reservists as part of their national defence plan. Lithuania would be a close fit at the moment to the Swiss.Norway I believe does it too,Finland as well.Czech Republic does as well.The Swiss are unique in the fact that their entire armed forces are reserveist based.

Sparks

BTW, we've been highlighting serious problems in the laws to the people who could change them for a while now Troyzer. At the risk of sounding pompus:

Some Random Eejit Years Ago wrote:

In contrast to this, the Firearms Act is frustratingly complex to read and there is no single rule book for everyone to look at. The judgements it calls for are highly subjective and how they are reached is opaque to the applicant. The decisions which affect us vary from issuing officer to issuing officer, so what is allowed and what is not under the Act is often a function of one's address, with no way to tell ahead of time what the decision might be. I am not even touching on the problems of those parts of Irish firearms law that are plainly daft, although we can discuss them if the committee wishes.

This might sound like a niche problem which affects a small number of sportspeople in a minority sport but it is not. It has an effect on the public in general. We have seen hundreds of District, High and Supreme Court cases over the last decade or so, many of which have as a fundamental cause a Firearms Act that is effectively unreadable to the average person. These cases not only represent enormous amounts of time, money and stress to shooters – the equivalent of building and equipping several badly-needed national-level shooting ranges – they also represent thousands of Garda man hours, millions of euro of public money, and the court's time, all of which are badly needed elsewhere, not arguing in a court over fiddly points of badly-written law with people who would rather be on the range taking part in our sport.

I have spent years involved in the legislative side of our sport which I regard that as time wasted and sporting opportunities lost. We had no choice but to be involved - even from the first days our sports were at risk of being crippled purely by oversight or misunderstandings in the drafting process - but there are far better uses for our resources. If we had clear, universal rules in the Act, that would be possible. The only way I know to get to that happy scenario from where we are now is, as I recommended in my submission, to undertake a restatement of the Firearms Act. Once we have the Act written clearly in one place, we can consider correcting some of its more obvious anomalies but until then, if we apply more patches to an already over-patched body of law, we will simply be confusing the situation even more than it currently is and will in all likelihood create more problems than we solve. If we go down that road, we will be back here again in a few years, with even more Garda man hours and public money and sporting resources lost as a result.

In the meantime, the average voter is even more in the dark about what protections the law provides them and, given how the media portray problems like gun crime, this can be nothing but a source of fear. Good law should reassure people by showing that a potential risk is understood and a fair system exists to govern it. The Firearms Act at present fails woefully in this task because almost nobody really knows what is in it. I therefore urge the committee to reject the review's proposals in their current form and to recommend that the Firearms Act be restated to give us a known baseline from which to work. I ask the committee to recommend that those changes - whose necessity will be clear and obvious to everyone - be worked on by all the stakeholders together, to produce a clear, readable, boringly consistent law which everybody understands and can follow. The first Firearms Act stood unamended for almost 40 years because it had those characteristics

And:
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/joint_committee_on_justice_defence_and_equality/2015-01-21/speech/209/

And:
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/joint_committee_on_justice_defence_and_equality/2015-01-21/speech/238/

And:
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/joint_committee_on_justice_defence_and_equality/2015-01-21/speech/247/

Random Eejit again wrote:

Share
On the question as to what changes we would make, having studied this for ten years or so – ten years I would like to get back, to be entirely honest – there are definitely things that are broken. For example, it is not right that since 2009, those at stag party paint-balling in Wicklow for a weekend are committing a breach of the Firearms Act. Technically, that requires them to be put in jail for seven years and fined €20,000, along with everybody who works in the companies that run these services. I do not think anybody would think that is a great way to have the law. If hunters going out to shoot rabbits for the pot take a shot before they start hunting the rabbits to ensure their sights are aligned, that is technically target shooting outside of an authorised range, which is illegal act. The Minister for Justice and Equality at the time said afterwards that was an unintentional mistake in the law. There are many errors in the law to which we can point and that is really awful. There is the Firearms Act 1925 and there are eight more Acts which amend parts of it. Nothing has ever been repealed. There are another 12 Acts which have parts in them which define the behaviour target shooters and hunters are supposed to follow, including the Wildlife Acts, the Airports Act and the Explosives Act, which covers the reloading shooters do. There are Acts from before the foundation of State, including both of the Explosives Acts. The Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Act 1851 still applies. It relates to how far away from a road one has to be before one can start hunting bunnies. There is no single place a person starting off in the sport can go to see what the rules are to which they must adhere. Before we start to make any changes to these things, and there is a list, we need to have a solid base from which to work.

What has to be done is that all of those nine or ten Acts, which amended the Firearms Act, need to be restated under a Statute Law (Restatement) Act 2002. That was called for by the Law Reform Commission in 2004 and by Mr. Justice Charleton in the High Court a few years ago but it has never been done. The Law Reform Commission has prepared informal restatements of these Acts. The only textbook ever written on firearms law in Ireland, which was only just published last year, has a restatement in one of the appendices but that is not the same thing as a restatement of the Act under the law, because at that point, we would take all that has gone before it, repeal it and replace it with the Firearms Act, as amended, and we would have a single document to which we could all go.

If we do that, then we can start to talk about the fairly silly things in it that need to be fixed. For example, if I am doing my Christmas shopping and I walk into a popular shop in a popular shopping centre and see a shelf full of toy crossbows being sold – they are obviously toys and are meant for firing suction darts at walls and so on - under the current Firearms Act, they are restricted firearms.

These are obviously toys and meant for firing suction darts at walls and this kind of thing. Under the current Firearms Act, these are restricted firearms and need to be licensed. If a person does not have a licence for it, he or she faces seven years in jail and €20,000 in fines. This is beyond silly.

(yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, blowing my own trumpet, but sod it, it's the same damn question and it saves typing that lot all out all over again )

gunny123

Sparks wrote: »

Irish firearms legislation is a *mess*. Seriously, instead of one Act we have over a dozen, plus EU directives, plus somewhere north of sixty SIs:

Don't worry Sparks, Sinn fein will sort it all out when they get into power :eek:.

Sparks

gunny123 wrote: »

Don't worry Sparks, Sinn fein will sort it all out when they get into power :eek:.

From what I remember of that day, they'd grant us all weapons certificates and not understand why we'd look at them funny about it...

judestynes

gunny123 wrote: »

Don't worry Sparks, Sinn fein will sort it all out when they get into power :eek:.

Thats just what the NRA nutjobs in the states thought when Trump was elected. Didn't quite work out that way

Grizzly 45

Yeah losing a piece of plastic that stimulates full auto,[ but trigger packs that do the same are not even mentioned in the legislation if you want to waste your money on silly toys]for nationwide concealed carry reciprocity and getting silencers off the NFA ticket...Not bad for those NRA nutjobs .;)

gunny123

Sparks wrote: »

gunny123 wrote: »

Don't worry Sparks, Sinn fein will sort it all out when they get into power :eek:.

From what I remember of that day, they'd grant us all weapons certificates and not understand why we'd look at them funny about it...

One of them wanted all "weapons" to be kept in garda stations. If you wanted to go shooting, you would have to go to the station and sign it out, then sign it back in when you had finished.

gunny123

judestynes wrote: »

gunny123 wrote: »

Don't worry Sparks, Sinn fein will sort it all out when they get into power :eek:.

Thats just what the NRA nutjobs in the states thought when Trump was elected. Didn't quite work out that way

Don' t quite understand what you mean.

judestynes

gunny123 wrote: »

Don' t quite understand what you mean.

They thought they'd be allowed back into starbucks with their AR's over their shoulders