Sports Coalition boycotts FCP

Sparks

From their website issued for public release.

Press Release – SPORTS COALITION BOYCOTTS FIREARMS CONSULTATIVE PANEL – 20/2/18
POSTED BY PAUL WALSH ON FEB 20, 2018 | COMMENTS OFF ON PRESS RELEASE – SPORTS COALITION BOYCOTTS FIREARMS CONSULTATIVE PANEL – 20/2/18

Chairman: Paul Walsh Mod edit - we're not going to post his address or phone number
Email: paul.a.walshpc@gmail.com

SPORTS COALITION BOYCOTTS FIREARMS CONSULTATIVE PANEL

The Sports Coalition, an organisation representing the interests of varied groups of countrysports people, has served notice of its boycotting meetings of the Firearms Consultative Panel (FCP) and the Department of Justice because the Minister and his Department continue to sit around the table with people who are representing the interests of those who are the subject of a Garda investigation in relation to illegal use of firearms. This has arisen as a result of one NGO member’s unlawful use of the Garda logo, which is a criminal offence under the Garda Siochana Act and its acknowledged indemnity protection of illegal use of firearms while failing to report such incidents to the appropriate authorities. The Chairman of the Sports Coalition, Paul Walsh, said that it beggars belief that the Minister is prepared to encourage input in relation to the administration of firearms licensing policy from an organisation which has been caught condoning and covering up the illegal use of guns. Mr Walsh said, “This is crying out for the Minister to demonstrate the kind of moral leadership which citizens are entitled to expect. The people concerned should be excluded from any official meetings while criminal investigations are ongoing. The illegal acts identified are ones which would debar a person from owning a gun due to public safety concerns.” He said that the failure to report and the failure of the Minister to respond appropriately gives comfort to firearms offenders.

ENDS

20/2/2018

I've not been able to get the relevant minutes of the FCP meeting where it happened, but I am given to understand that the "criminal complaint" he's referring to here is a written complaint submitted by the Sports Coalition to the Gardai accusing the NARGC of supporting criminal acts on the grounds that the compensation fund the NARGC runs is permitted by law to pay compensation even if the injured party was not in full compliance with the firearms act at the time of the injury.

There are further documents released on the SC's website at this time:

http://www.sportscoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Pressstatement19.02.18.pdf
http://www.sportscoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Letter-from-SC-to-Minister-Staunton-19_02.pdf
http://www.sportscoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Letter-to-All-TD-And-Senators.pdf
http://www.sportscoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Sports-Coalition-to-M_Walsh-DOJ-19_02.pdf

Those are open letters to the Minister, every TD and Senator in the Oireachtas, and the Principal Officer of the DoJ Firearms Unit.

I've seen more petty, damaging, stupider acts carried out in the course of working on firearms legislation in Ireland during the last decade or two, but I think this is the first time I've seen one lobbying group formally and legally accuse another of a criminal enterprise to the Gardai and the Department of Justice. So it's a new low, if not a lower low.

Far be it from me to suggest a motive, but the cynic might read some paragraphs in the letter to the minister and extract a meaning from them which was perhaps not intended by the original author.

The members of the Sports Coalition are deeply concerned that it appears you intend to
conduct a meeting concerning the composition of the membership of the FCP which we can
only deduce from statements made publicly a member NGO that the meeting is being called
at their behest.

Grizzly 45

I guess the SC and Mr Walsh have missed out that lamping is perfectly legal in the UK and NI? If you are going to throw a wobbler of this magnitude, at least have your facts straight??? If they have fuked up on something as basic as this, what else are they screwing up on?:rolleyes: Teddies, pram and throwing said teddy out springs to mind here.

Rifter

Is there any way at a grassroots level we could make a submission, or petition the minister to remove the SC from the FCP as from what I can see they don't represent my interests or the shooting communities?

Sparks

Just write to him. You're a voter, he's a Minister.

wirehairmax

Good riddance, don’t let the door hit you on the way out. Vindictive, petty, childish, bullying, ignorant etc etc

grassroot1

"The track record of the SC is one of honesty and diligence"
Quite,god sent us no greater loss.

wirehairmax

With any luck, the FCP can now move on and go about it’s business without these clowns to disrupt and drag everyone into the gutter with them. With the change of executive in the NASRPC, I would also hope they see sense and disassociate and distance themeselves from the SC before they have done themselves too much damage.

Sparks

I think the disruption to the FCP may not be over, given that they've just contacted every backbencher in the oireachtas....

solarwinds

Who needs anti gun groups when you have this lot.
I still fail to see how they are supposed to be bettering the perception of gun sports in ireland when all they seem to be doing is trying to shut them down one by one.

Grizzly 45

Start a change.org online petition?

gunny123

Walsh is trying to dictate to Staunton what groups he should and should not be meeting with ? Will he ever take a day off, or better yet do a Lord Lucan and disappear from the shooting sports in Ireland.

Rifter

Sparks wrote: »

Just write to him. You're a voter, he's a Minister.

1 email/letter is better than nothing, a couple of thousand would be better, no?

meathstevie

Who is the clown that wrote those letters ? Criminal matters ? Two allegations were made is probably what he means. And than having the neck to tell the minister such and such has to be excluded because the same party issuing the demand to the minister has made those allegations.

I think the minister is shaking in his boots....

BattleCorp

What are we going to kiss goodbye to because of this? Centrefire rifles, handguns? Something is going to go. The anti-gun powers that be must be pi55ing on themselves laughing.

grassroot1

BattleCorp wrote: »

What are we going to kiss goodbye to because of this? Centrefire rifles, handguns? Something is going to go. The anti-gun powers that be must be pi55ing on themselves laughing.

We may not lose anything, the SC who represent very few if anyone have resigned their seats at the FCP. The work of the FCP will go on.

If you think Paul Walsh(or his ghost writer) will save shooting they won't. They only work for themselves.

solarwinds

BattleCorp wrote: »

What are we going to kiss goodbye to because of this? Centrefire rifles, handguns? Something is going to go. The anti-gun powers that be must be pi55ing on themselves laughing.

Sure they have all disbanded this lot are more effective

BattleCorp

Are the NASRPC still part of this shambles?

BattleCorp

Lads, the more I read the letters issued by the SC this week, the more I despair.

What the fcuk are this crowd at? Will they be happy when nobody is left with a gun in the country at all? It looks like that is their aim.

By writing to Minister Staunton and every other TD they could get in contact with and accusing other shooters of engaging in illegal activity, they have painted us all as criminals.

They are a pack of wa*k*rs.

Sparks

BattleCorp wrote: »

Are the NASRPC still part of this shambles?

The last we heard, yes.

Cass

gunny123 wrote: »

Walsh is trying to dictate to Staunton what groups he should and should not be meeting with ?................................

To the above highlighted bit i give you this:

grassroot1 wrote: »

If you think Paul Walsh(or his ghost writer) will save shooting they won't.

BattleCorp wrote: »

Are the NASRPC still part of this shambles?

And you wondered why i had so much anger when i heard they rejoined?

BattleCorp

Cass wrote: »

And you wondered why i had so much anger when i heard they rejoined?

Are you sure it was me that wondered why you had so much anger when they rejoined?

Especially seeing as I'm not a fan of the NASRPC and have been very critical of them from when they changed their Constitution and removed votes from shooters. That's a few years ago now.

Sparks

Honestly, I'm just so looking forward to seeing a rerun of Finian McGrath's nonsense when he sees the SC's letter.
And the papers deciding it's silly season and using the SC's press release to tie us to the Parkland school shooting.
And the Gardai using this in hallway meetings to hint that maybe having "civilians" involved in the legislative process is counterproductive.

There were more damaging things they could have done, but this was pretty up there in terms of "stupid **** nobody should be doing unless they actively want to see shooting sports destroyed". I literally can't decide whether it'd be worse if this was done out of malice or if it was done out of incompetence.

Cass

BattleCorp wrote: »

Are you sure it was me that wondered why you had so much anger when they rejoined?.

The general "you" as opposed to one specific person. I only quote you as you have hit the nail on the head as to why i didn't want to see anyone lend support and credence to the sc.

Sparks wrote: »

I literally can't decide whether it'd be worse if this was done out of malice or if it was done out of incompetence.

It must be a little from column A, and a little from column B. Why else would they do it?

solarwinds

Can anyone please explain in laymans terms to the thick here(namely me) as to what the SC end game is here.
Because i am at a complete loss as to why a body who claims to represent shooting interests here seems to be doing its utmost to get rid of it.
I mean who do they actually hope to be representing if they achieve their goal, whatever that is.

Sparks

Can anyone please explain in laymans terms to the thick here(namely me) as to what the SC end game is here.

If someone could do that, I'd be interested in hearing the explanation as well, because the only people I can see benefiting from this are people who don't want private ownership of firearms in this country.
Even the SC can't benefit from this. And frankly, if it was *my* name attached to this, I'd be on the phone to my solicitor talking about how much I'd have to set aside to fight a defamation case.

BattleCorp

The FCP had a brief meeting today. There was only one item on the agenda - should the FCP be disbanded or should it continue?

There was no decision made at the meeting. The Minister listened to the views of whoever was there and has gone off to consider the views he heard this morning.

Sparks

BattleCorp wrote: »

The FCP had a brief meeting today. There was only one item on the agenda - should the FCP be disbanded or should it continue?

There was no decision made at the meeting. The Minister listened to the views of whoever was there and has gone off to consider the views he heard this morning.

If they disband the FCP over this, I'll have a name to give anyone who asks "why is it so hard to get into target shooting in this country" or "why can't I licence <such and such firearm>" for the next several decades.

I really don't have words to express what it feels like to look at something that you and a few dozen others poured a decade of your life into working hard to improve and see one or two individuals with at best murky and at worse malicious intent bring the whole thing crashing down with a smirk on their face.

cavan shooter

Anyone see this:

https://nargc.ie/press-release-21st-february-2018/

BattleCorp

I believe that the position of most people at the meeting was that the FCP must continue.

Sparks

Not yet, but to save the click:

Press Release 21st February 2018
Posted By: Michael Fenlon 1022 Views
NARGC STATEMENT:
We are aware of the recent reports emanating from the Sports Coalition and we wish to assure our members that we are monitoring these statements and that we will challenge all false accusations. We will defend our members against any malevolent and misleading accusations.


We wish to assure all our members and interested parties, that we will continue to represent our membership effectively at the Firearms Consultative Panel and in all other forums where our input is necessary to advance the interests of all our members and country sports persons.
Michael Fenlon
National Chairman

Seems to confirm what I mentioned above in passing:

I've not been able to get the relevant minutes of the FCP meeting where it happened, but I am given to understand that the "criminal complaint" he's referring to here is a written complaint submitted by the Sports Coalition to the Gardai accusing the NARGC of supporting criminal acts on the grounds that the compensation fund the NARGC runs is permitted by law to pay compensation even if the injured party was not in full compliance with the firearms act at the time of the injury.

For anyone who's not familiar with compensation funds by the way, the practice that I'm given to understand the SC called "supporting criminal acts" is actually perfectly legal and above board. Given that such funds get run by everyone from the Law Society to the Government themselves, it's one of the more ludicrous allegations I've heard of against an NGB in the last few decades.

Grizzly 45

So tell us, why is the general shooting population not calling Mr Walsh and the SC to account for his/their sins? No point in us fuming amongst ourselves...The man and that organisation need to know that he does not have the backing of the Irish gun owner and he is going to be called to account by us.

BattleCorp

AGS also spoke in favour of retaining the FCP and agreed that it was useful in facilitating the building of strong relationships and is the only forum available to discuss issues reasonably in the hope that recourse to the courts is unnecessary.

Grizzly 45

but I am given to understand that the "criminal complaint" he's referring to here is a written complaint submitted by the Sports Coalition to the Gardai accusing the NARGC of supporting criminal acts on the grounds that the compensation fund the NARGC runs is permitted by law to pay compensation even if the injured party was not in full compliance with the firearms act at the time of the injury.

I believe even in the "pre-revolution" days of the NARGC.It was stated quite clearly by those in charge, that this fund would not pay out or be used in defence of anything criminal, or not above board on the member's side.
Unless the SC really has some ultra damming evidence that will fly in a court. I'd be planning a new move on the SC committee members part to a new residence...Like under a bridge after the legal battle is over for defamation costs.

Sparks

BattleCorp wrote: »

AGS also spoke in favour of retaining the FCP and agreed that it was useful in facilitating the building of strong relationships and is the only forum available to discuss issues reasonably in the hope that recourse to the courts is unnecessary.

That is the best news to come out of this whole mess so far.

cavan shooter

It was explained to the NARGC members that it's like driving a car. You make an illegal overtaking you have an acciden, it's an illegal act but your insurance will still pay out.

What worries me now is if the NARGC is so off side on this then why wasn't this identified by the ex Director and their Legal Advisors over the years.

I think this is just spiteful death throws of power hungry ghost organization.

Grizzly 45

Organisations, animals and wasps are the most dangerous in their death throes.

cavan shooter

solarwinds wrote: »

Can anyone please explain in laymans terms to the thick here(namely me) as to what the SC end game is here.
Because i am at a complete loss as to why a body who claims to represent shooting interests here seems to be doing its utmost to get rid of it.
I mean who do they actually hope to be representing if they achieve their goal, whatever that is.

I'm going to describe this as a form of red mist. They seem so angered enraged and pissed of at the NARGC there like a 2 man Banzai charge into a company of marines.....hey we cant win but by Christ we will take some of you cnuts with us. Word on the street is the PTB had seen through them and finally sense was to prevail and they were been given the boot. Looks like like they jumped before they were pushed.

Collateral damage....well i feel sorry for the fishermen and Id say the NASPRC are sitting there wondeeing what the **** is happening........good opportunity for NASPRC members to ask some questions.

Rifter

Sparks wrote: »

For anyone who's not familiar with compensation funds by the way, the practice that I'm given to understand the SC called "supporting criminal acts" is actually perfectly legal and above board. Given that such funds get run by everyone from the Law Society to the Government themselves, it's one of the more ludicrous allegations I've heard of against an NGB in the last few decades.

If this is in fact the case, and an an outrageous accusation is being thrown around by the SC(btw who are the SC comprised of?), What can we do for damage control?

Email all the TDs listed and the Minister?

Is there any effective way we can get rid of the SC?
From what I can see they represent nobody except a few vested intetested individuals(who wish to make money off my back)

wirehairmax

cavan shooter wrote: »

I'm going to describe this as a form of red mist. They seem so angered enraged and pissed of at the NARGC there like a man Banzai charge into a company of marines.....hey we cant win but by Christ we will take some of you cnuts with us. Word on the street is the PTB had seen through them and finally sense was to prevail and they were been given the boot. Looks like like they jumped before they were pushed.

Collateral damage....well i feel sorry for the fishermen and Id say the NASPRC are sitting there wondeeing what the **** is happening........good opportunity for NASPRC members to ask some questions.

I think you mean “kamikaze” 😜😜

Sparks

Rifter wrote: »

If this is in fact the case, and an an outrageous accusation is being thrown around by the SC(btw who are the SC comprised of?), What can we do for damage control?

We as in you and I are somewhat limited on that specific item as we don't have locus standi in that affair, it's down to the NARGC.

However, I think they're capable of tackling that by themselves.

On the wider issue of the attacks on the structure of the FCP by the SC, there I would write to the Minister in support of the FCP. It's the single best step forward we've had in firearms legislation and admin in this country since 1972, and arguably _ever_. Seeing it chucked out under murky circumstances by the complaints of an unelected group of private individuals would be an absolute debacle.

Is there any effective way we can get rid of the SC?

As the SC is not a company nor a state body but an unincorporated association, I don't think so, not directly, not at the moment.

You could remove your affiliation from any of its constituent member bodies and tell them why you're leaving, but I think that's about the limit of our ability when it comes to having them shut down; and if they simply don't care about their membership as this action certainly seems to indicate, they'll just continue on regardless even as their constituent member bodies leave to protect their membership base.

The SC's claim to representation of shooters on the other hand is entirely vulnerable to individuals simply writing in en masse to the Minister and stating that they do not represent shooting the way they claim to be doing and that you would like to see the matter reviewed and addressed.

BattleCorp

Dear Minister Stanton,


My name is BattleCorp and I am writing to you today to relay my dismay at the actions of the Sports Coalition with regard to the Firearms Consultative Panel.


As a regular target shooter , I wish to inform you that the Sports Coalition do not represent my views or interests nor do they have the support of the vast majority of firearms owners.


The Firearms Consultative Panel is a brilliant tool that has facilitated the building of strong relationships between firearms owners and the authorities. It is the only forum available to discuss issues reasonably in the hope that recourse to the courts is not necessary.


Seeing as the Sports Coalition’s intention is to disrupt the effective running of the Firearms Consultative Panel, I believe the Firearms Consultative Panel and ultimately most firearms owners interests would be best served by removing the Sports Coalition representatives from the Firearms Consultative Panel and moving forward without them.


Regards,

BattleCorp

meathstevie

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

I believe even in the "pre-revolution" days of the NARGC.It was stated quite clearly by those in charge, that this fund would not pay out or be used in defence of anything criminal, or not above board on the member's side.
Unless the SC really has some ultra damming evidence that will fly in a court. I'd be planning a new move on the SC committee members part to a new residence...Like under a bridge after the legal battle is over for defamation costs.

The question really is what is "criminal" ?

Is it your gun dog slipping out of the garden and getting ran over causing damage to a car ? Letting your dog wander is an offence. The fund will likely pay out.

You shoot a pigeon on land you have permission on. Said pigeon falls into a greenhouse twenty yards away where you don't have permission. That essentially malicious damage through being reckless where the pigeon may drop. The fund will likely pay for the greenhouse repairs.

You're out lamping deer without a section 42 on land where you haven't permission and end up shooting a race horse by mistake and are arrested, prosecuted and convicted. I'm quite sure one Mr Gavigan will be very quick to tell you where to go if you think the fund is going to cover the liabilities arising from your criminal conduct.

All three of these examples are "criminal conduct" two of which the NARGC compensation fund will likely have no problem helping out with. Is that "supporting" criminal conduct ?

If it is every motor insurance company is guilty of condoning and supporting the continuation of careless and dangerous driving if they pay out on third party claims because of their customer's conduct. If they didn't most drivers who made mistakes and cause crashes would never be able to afford a car again.

gunny123

I wonder if this sudden outburst of bile, the sc copping on to the fact they are finished ? No support by shooters or other shooting org's, making crazy submissons to the fcp. They are finished, the final sting of a dying wasp ?

BattleCorp

Has anybody been on to the NASRPC to see if they still support the Sports Coalition?

berettaman

Sparks wrote: »

If someone could do that, I'd be interested in hearing the explanation as well, because the only people I can see benefiting from this are people who don't want private ownership of firearms in this country.
Even the SC can't benefit from this. And frankly, if it was *my* name attached to this, I'd be on the phone to my solicitor talking about how much I'd have to set aside to fight a defamation case.

Here is what I heard:

Following recent contact between the NARGC and the Department of Justice the FCP meeting this morning had really only one item on the Agenda:

Who are you and who do you represent ? Put your credentials on the table time.

This was to establish legitimacy, that those around the table are representing more than just themselves.

Once that became clear the only course of action open to some was to refuse to attend and cast doubt on the validity of others.

In fairness the FCP should play an important part in Firearms Administration in Ireland.

It behoves those in charge to make sure those around the table have a legitimate reason/mandate to be there.

Otherwise the fruits of the FCP will be tainted.

Hence the latest S.I . relating to firearm dealers is already under scrutiny.

Grizzly 45

meathstevie wrote: »

The question really is what is "criminal" ?

Is it your gun dog slipping out of the garden and getting ran over causing damage to a car ? Letting your dog wander is an offence. The fund will likely pay out.

You shoot a pigeon on land you have permission on. Said pigeon falls into a greenhouse twenty yards away where you don't have permission. That essentially malicious damage through being reckless where the pigeon may drop. The fund will likely pay for the greenhouse repairs.

You're out lamping deer without a section 42 on land where you haven't permission and end up shooting a race horse by mistake and are arrested, prosecuted and convicted. I'm quite sure one Mr Gavigan will be very quick to tell you where to go if you think the fund is going to cover the liabilities arising from your criminal conduct.

All three of these examples are "criminal conduct" two of which the NARGC compensation fund will likely have no problem helping out with. Is that "supporting" criminal conduct ?

If it is every motor insurance company is guilty of condoning and supporting the continuation of careless and dangerous driving if they pay out on third party claims because of their customer's conduct. If they didn't most drivers who made mistakes and cause crashes would never be able to afford a car again.

There is a difference between Negligence, Accidental and outright Criminal in your examples. Two as you rightly pointed out should be paid out the other absolutely not.
A slightly different situation with motor insurance.Even if you are an innocent party to the accident.Your premium skyrockets because you were involved in an accident and the insurance companies "statistics" rate you as a higher potential risk.As well as the Insurance companies having to pay out for the criminal behaviour f the uninsured driver, which goes into a national pot to pay the victims.As well as insurance fraud and IMHO the appallingly bad investigation of claims for "whiplash" and lower soft tissue back injuries.

Fortunately, us Irish gun owners and shooters are a seemingly responsible lot with a 0% average rate of annual accidents and death.So we are good risks. So I really want to know what "Criminal activity " NARGC has been involved in to warrant these accusations. I mean using the Garda logo...Seriously??...The most dastardly heinous crime of the century in Ireland.... Did the NARGC all go off and impersonate Garda officers ,or what???

cavan shooter

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

I mean using the Garda logo...Seriously??...The most dastardly heinous crime of the century in Ireland.... Did the NARGC all go off and impersonate Garda officers ,or what???

How many memes generators and Face book spoof pages are now facing criminal investigation?? its really laughable. However at least the Minister has seen sense im worried if Berettaman is even half right, it took a meeting between the Chairman of the NARGC and the Minister to actually set it right and hit reboot. What does that say about the FCP up to that point.

Grizzly 45

Also, is AGS logo trademarked?
Seriously, unless it was being used to impersonate or defraud or commit an offence, the only other "issue" is trademark infringement.
Utterly bizarre,but there is nothing stopping you using things like the Great Seal of the United States, the CIA or whatever logo you fancy ,as they are not trademark protected.:eek:One to keep in mind.

Cass

berettaman wrote: »

Hence the latest S.I . relating to firearm dealers is already under scrutiny.

I wonder who had input into that. Did all the RFDs that were in the original Firearms Dealer Association have any input or was it only a select few?

gunny123

What is the dealer s.i. looking to do ?

Cass

Read this.