Sports Coalition boycotts FCP

wirehairmax

Wexshot1 wrote: »

Who knows but he seems to be everything else anyway.

Nobody around here goes near him,as far as I know he’s shut the shop and only has a safe/room at his range with scrap metal and a small bit of ammo.

plinker66

Please remember there is more than one involved in this the other RFD is just as accountable

gunny123

Is the jp craven i see on one of those sheets, the same jp craven who is/was involved on the midlands rifle range ?

Nekarsulm

I don't know about JP Craven,but the Gilliland is the chap owns Mourne Shooting ground in Monaghan.
Has pistol range, several trap layouts, Ceseare Geurini agency etc.
Ex Guard, Fine Gael County Councillor etc, etc.

gunny123

Nekarsulm wrote: »

I don't know about JP Craven,but the Gilliland is the chap owns Mourne Shooting ground in Monaghan.
Has pistol range, several trap layouts, Ceseare Geurini agency etc.
Ex Guard, Fine Gael County Councillor etc, etc.

Yes, i seen his facebook page last night, plenty of people still using his grounds, i won't though.
Kealan symes name rings a bell, any info on him ?

Grizzly 45

The ONLY good thing I saw,[and that's personal opinion] is the suggestion on separating gun dealers from gunsmiths in competency and profession. The rest....pass me the puke bucket, please..FFS! Banding firearms as to suitability?:rolleyes:
So it looks like Sgt Greene is now an inspector and looking after ballistics??... Better and better.:rolleyes:
And we can already see people angling for the next cushy number to screw up, the FAAA[Whenever that comes about].

Thing is, this is ancient history these releases...They are about a year and a half old.We need this info almost the moment the meeting has concluded. So it looks like every time there is a concluded meeting someone needs to be putting in an FOIA request to get some kind of handle of what was said within months, not years.

Grizzly 45

gunny123 wrote: »

Yes, i seen his facebook page last night, plenty of people still using his grounds, i won't though.
Kealan symes name rings a bell, any info on him ?

DRC or one of the East coast clubs ASFIK?Architect and does range designs.

Grizzly 45

gunny123 wrote: »

Is the jp craven i see on one of those sheets, the same jp craven who is/was involved on the midlands rifle range ?

Yup , owner.

gunny123

BattleCorp wrote: »

By the way, is Paul Walsh still a firearms dealer?

He is only the designated mouthpiece for he who will remain nameless.

gunny123

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

gunny123 wrote: »

Is the jp craven i see on one of those sheets, the same jp craven who is/was involved on the midlands rifle range ?

Yup , owner.

If he is still involved with this lot of bandits, he'd want to have a word with himself.

grassroot1

Wexshot1 wrote:

The biggest problem really is that no one properly understands any legislation. Hence the wide variation in licensing procedures from district to district. At the moment down in Enniscorthy people are being interviewed for substitute licence applications so there is an 8 week backlog at the minute. Wexford is a 2 week licence process at the minute.

What do you mean being interviewed?
As in attending the barracks to be quizzed by the superintendent?

Wexshot1

grassroot1 wrote: »

What do you mean being interviewed?
As in attending the barracks to be quizzed by the superintendent?

Exactly that yes

Grizzly 45

gunny123 wrote: »

If he is still involved with this lot of bandits, he'd want to have a word with himself.

Better to have someone in there than outside. He is the newbie in there and I wonder has he been initiated into all the secrets yet.
:eek:

grassroot1

Grizzly 45 wrote:

Better to have someone in there than outside. He is the newbie in there and I wonder has he been initiated into all the secrets yet.

If he is in there he is there because Voldemort chose him to be there

Cass

Wexshot1 wrote: »

The SC need to be abolished and they only way that’ll happen is of people know exactly what they stand for.

People fall into one of three groups:

1. Those who do not know
2. Those who do but don't care
3. Those who do and are trying to combat the actions/proposals (a very, VERY, small group)

The first and best step to combating them, as was discussed ad nauseam, is for the NASRPC and other groups that joined/rejoined the so called coalition to leave it. They only have the "authority" they have as a result of the support they garner from these groups.

Wexshot1 wrote:

The real firearms dealers in Ireland were not consulted or represented at any of those meetings but it’s being shoved down peoples throats that they were.

Three RFDs (and i use that term loosely) were involved. The other 99 (or so) were not. That is not consultation as you said.

Cass

BattleCorp wrote: »

Aside from our own side apparently doing us no favours, is this proof that the DOJ are making up the law in relation to the importation of pistols?

A dealer needs to have pistols licensed before the DOJ will allow them be imported yet the same rules don't apply for rifles.

I wonder what legislation allows for that distinction?

None. There is no legislation to demand this and there is precedence with the McViegh (IIRC) case that states just this. An RFD DOES NOT need a/the person to be licensed prior to importing a firearm. Discussed briefly here.

Cass

plinker66 wrote: »

Please remember there is more than one involved in this the other RFD is just as accountable

Yup. Three, one of whom is an ammo RFD only afaik. Not a broad range of RFD, no restricted dealers, etc. IOW a mockery of "representation".

gunny123 wrote: »

Kealan symes name rings a bell, any info on him ?

Ammo dealer only, afaik, and well known in shooting circles.

Grizzly_45 wrote:

Thing is, this is ancient history these releases...They are about a year and a half old.We need this info almost the moment the meeting has concluded.

Unfortunately, yes. The SI has been published since Christmas and caught the majority of people unawares including the RFDs it affected.

Grizzly_45 wrote:

So it looks like every time there is a concluded meeting someone needs to be putting in an FOIA request to get some kind of handle of what was said within months, not years.

And that is only when they will give it. FOI can and have been refused.

Cass

gunny123 wrote:

Is the jp craven i see on one of those sheets, the same jp craven who is/was involved on the midlands rifle range ?

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Yup , owner.

gunny123 wrote: »

If he is still involved with this lot of bandits, he'd want to have a word with himself.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Better to have someone in there than outside. He is the newbie in there and I wonder has he been initiated into all the secrets yet.
:eek:

grassroot1 wrote: »

If he is in there he is there because Voldemort chose him to be there

Addressing all of these as one.

I'm not defending JP, he is big and ugly enough to do so himself, however i have spoken to JP on this matter before, during, and after the dates of the letters/FOI documentation.

He was invited to these meetings but would not attend. Hence the reason he is marked on the initial meeting on the 8th March 2016 as "Apologies". IOW not there. You'll notice Keelan Symes was also marked the same.

The rest of the documentation is dated 24th October 2016, 23rd January 2017, and 20th April 2017 with all those who actually attended. None of which show him in attendance for ANY of the meetings. This coincides with his assurances to me that he would not attend or be part of anything to do with the so called coalition.

Wexshot1

Cass wrote: »

People fall into one of three groups:

1. Those who do not know
2. Those who do but don't care
3. Those who do and are trying to combat the actions/proposals (a very, VERY, small group)

The first and best step to combating them, as was discussed ad nauseam, is for the NASRPC and other groups that joined/rejoined the so called coalition to leave it. They only have the "authority" they have as a result of the support they garner from these groups.

Three RFDs (and i use that term loosely) were involved. The other 29 (or so) were not. That is not consultation as you said.

There are over 300 rfd’s in Ireland Cass

Cass

Yeah that was a "fat finger" moment on my behalf. I meant 99. Now edited.

However you say 300!!! :eek: Did not know that. At last count, about 2 years ago, i knew of almost 100. Since then i know of 5 that have closed down only one that opened.

Wexshot1

Cass wrote: »

Yeah that was a "fat finger" moment on my behalf. I meant 99. Now edited.

However you say 300!!! :eek: Did not know that. At last count, about 2 years ago, i knew of almost 100. Since then i know of 5 that have closed down only one that opened.

Around 100 active and another couple of hundred between estates gunsmiths partimers etc

Cass

So out of 300 registered as RFDs due to their business or activities only the 100 or so i mentioned are actually RFDs in the sense they sell guns/ammo, etc?

I think the point you made, and has been discussed previously, that 3 RFDs that claimed to represent all RFDs is not a true representation and somewhat disingenuous.

Wexshot1

Cass wrote: »

So out of 300 registered as RFDs due to their business or activities only the 100 or so i mentioned are actually RFDs in the sense they sell guns/ammo, etc?

I think the point you made, and has been discussed previously, that 3 RFDs that claimed to represent all RFDs is not a true representation and somewhat disingenuous.

Exactly
There was no discussion with any active dealer to speak of before all this took off.
The so called Firearms dealers association was a farce to get to an end with the minister.

The IGTA are the only dealers association in Ireland that actually have any members.

Cass

Wexshot1 wrote: »

The so called Firearms dealers association was a farce to get to an end with the minister.

It was created to give the so called coalition some semblance or credibility. However it only "represented" it's own three members.

The IGTA are the only dealers association in Ireland that actually have any members.

They represent the majority, but were excluded from all talks. The DoJ would have no issues with this because the so called coalition and vested interest groups gave the DoJ all the rope they needed to hang the RFDs out to dry.

gunny123

Cass wrote: »

BattleCorp wrote: »

Aside from our own side apparently doing us no favours, is this proof that the DOJ are making up the law in relation to the importation of pistols?

A dealer needs to have pistols licensed before the DOJ will allow them be imported yet the same rules don't apply for rifles.

I wonder what legislation allows for that distinction?

None. There is no legislation to demand this and there is precedence with the McViegh (IIRC) case that states just this. An RFD DOES NOT need a/the person to be licensed prior to importing a firearm. Discussed briefly here.

Back to that old stunt are they ? Policy, made up by god know who, with no basis in law, becomes the law.

Wexshot1

Cass wrote: »

It was created to give the so called coalition some semblance or credibility. However it only "represented" it's own three members.

They represent the majority, but were excluded from all talks. The DoJ would have no issues with this because the so called coalition and vested interest groups gave the DoJ all the rope they needed to hang the RFDs out to dry.

Exactly right.
It’s on loop up there,
Dealers weren’t represented “yes they were” no they weren’t “yes they were” and so on.
Like I said a few posts ago if people want to keep their local dealers open and stop the rot they need to open their eyes to what’s going on.
I’ve personally wrote to all my TD’s and I’ll keep writing till I get some answers.
Everything is wrong with the system at the minute.
I’ll be forwarding the minutes of those meetings to all of them too with an explanation of exactly who’s who and what’s what with them.

Cass

As said in the thread i linked to the RFDs won't have an issue with this, i'd imagine, because they have either money or some sort of guarantee before bringing in a pistol.

Doesn't make it right but making someone license a pistol before it being imported, while not a legal requirement, is unfair. Imagine if the same principle was applied to all firearms. RFDs would be pictures of guns on their walls with notes saying "can be ordered". No more checking for fit, feel, etc.

Wexshot1

Cass wrote: »

As said in the thread i linked to the RFDs won't have an issue with this, i'd imagine, because they have either money or some sort of guarantee before bringing in a pistol.

Doesn't make it right but making someone license a pistol before it being imported, while not a legal requirement, is unfair. Imagine if the same principle was applied to all firearms. RFDs would be pictures of guns on their walls with notes saying "can be ordered". No more checking for fit, feel, etc.

It’s also illegal under eu law to licence a firearm that’s not in the state 😉

Cass

Have you a link to that directive?

Also Ireland can veto some laws as long as those the apply are more strict and not less so than the EU directive.

Wexshot1

Cass wrote: »

Have you a link to that directive?

Also Ireland can veto some laws as long as those the apply are more strict and not less so than the EU directive.

I’ve no link to hand but it pretty set in stone from the sources I got it from.
A lot of time and energy is going into this at the minute.
Hopefully more will come clear in the near future.