If you could change one law...

gunny123

yubabill wrote: »

gunny123 wrote: »

Nearly everything was "temporarily" banned here in 1972, when the poo storm broke out in the north, Pistols were gone as were rifles over .22 calibre, everything was seriously restricted, even the amount of ammo you could have. Despite this there were shootings everyday. I certainly remember watching Charles Mitchell or whoever on the rte news, giving details of often multiple shootings all over the north. It became background noise.

So if most guns were banned, how come there were so many shootings ? People like Col Gadaffi, sent very effective military grade firearms and explosives, by the trawler-full. Also another paragon of virtue, Whitey Bulger, sent huge shipments of serious firepower here.

Simplistic "lets ban everything" just does not work.

AFAIK (was really too young to know all the ins and outs, but remember my father and grandfather handing everything in) ALL firearms were initially confiscated and only 22's and shotguns licensed after a 30 day period.

Yes, supposidily for ballistic testing. A sample round was fired through every rifle and kept on file in garda hq. Could be a lot of old boots though.

TeaBagMania

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Creating a law...A constitutional amendment that guarantees the right to keep and bear arms.

This, Ireland needs an equivalent to our 2nd amendment

tac foley

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

I dont "Need " gun ownership right ,it is an inalienable right already granted under US law and English common law going back to Magna Carta.Also because a very smart bunch of men 200 plus years ago saw that RTKBA would grauntee all the other rights in the US bill of rights .Otherwise what would enforce those rights on a govt determined to remove them?

Actually the DoI and the CoUSA do not GIVE citizens the right to bear arms. It PROTECTS their right to bear arms.

The common law obligation for men to be armed has been there since before the Norman Conquest: it being a requirement for each man to arm himself as best he could afford (“suitable to his condition”) and to train in preparation for the call-out should it ever come. The time and effort weren’t wasted because, if the realm wasn’t in peril, there could and would be threats to the peace closer at hand. The individual right to arms was legislated against by King James II (who used militia to enforce his laws, or more particularly to solve his tax-gathering problems). James’s abuses led to his gentle overthrow, and the Bill of Rights in 1689 restated the common law - among other things restoring to Protestants various rights that James had sought to curtail while not denying them to his fellow-Catholics. The UK's Bill of Rights gave PROTESTANT Englishmen the right to defend themselves against 'papacy'.

tac foley

TeaBagMania wrote: »

If the majority of citizens are armed England might think twice before they launch their next invasion of Ireland

Oh dear. Please talk us through this scenario, preferably on a new thread.

tac foley

TeaBagMania wrote: »

This, Ireland needs an equivalent to our 2nd amendment

If it wasn't written in to the founding document, it sure ain't going to be written into it now.

gunny123

TeaBagMania wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Describe why you need gun ownership as a right?

If the majority of citizens are armed England might think twice before they launch their next invasion of Ireland

Sorry, but what sort of gibberish are you spouting ?

TeaBagMania

ok so you would rather see more Cromwell's in your future without any means to protect yourselves

Witcher

tac foley

Like many well-meaning Americans, including those who bought and paid for the guns that Irishmen and women used to kill many other Irishmen and women between 1969 and 1995, as well as members of the Armed forces and Police Force, you obviously haven't got a clue.

Over here in England we see no reason to invade our friends in the Republic of Ireland, in fact, there's no need for any kind of invasion in either direction, given that around a fifth of the population of the Republic actually lives in England and the rest of the UK, and very welcome they are too. My own father and his five brothers and sisters were among them.

Anyhow, less of the blather, and more to the point. The late Mr Cromwell and his humourless minions are ancient history here. Just be grateful they didn't sail over to the Colonies. Hey, wait a minute, now there's a great story idea for Harry Turtledove to write - another alternative history where the Parliamentarians settled the New World!

You read it here first!!

Sparks

Suffering catfish lads, do you not recognise trolling when you see it?
Teabag, knock it on the head or you'll get a holiday.

To get it back on track..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrWq1mvxxDk

My opinion on this hasn't changed much in, oh, 20 years or so.

Sparks

Grand so, Teabag couldn't give it a rest so we're giving him a rest for a month.

Grizzly 45

TeaBagMania wrote: »

ok so you would rather see more Cromwell's in your future without any means to protect yourselves

I'd be worried more of plenty more Frau Merkels ,Junkners, Hofstedts , Sir Peter King-types,and Theresa Mays[when home secetary] and Celia Malestroms and other such types in Brussels, than anything coming from Westminister these days and being disarmed by their EU directives.:mad:

Grizzly 45

gunny123 wrote: »

Yes, supposidily for ballistic testing. A sample round was fired through every rifle and kept on file in garda hq. Could be a lot of old boots though.

Nope!!! TRUTH!!! My ol man imported his Anschutz .22 around that time and it got a stop off in Dublin for that test...Unfortunately, both age and damp put paid to the paperwork of that event here in my archives.

On something not so fr different...Remember certain organisations suggesting a national registry of ballistic fingerprints like this here? If this was so successful[, well then why wasn't it continued from post-1972 in Ireland?? And how many gun crimes did it solve here? The answers are self evident ....

Nekarsulm

yubabill wrote: »

AFAIK (was really too young to know all the ins and outs, but remember my father and grandfather handing everything in) ALL firearms were initially confiscated and only 22's and shotguns licensed after a 30 day period.

As far as I know, only pistols/handguns and rifles larger than .22 were confiscated.
Shotguns never were, at least the old Iver Johnston here wasn't.
Built into the confiscation was an amnesty for unlicensed handguns.

And of course this was supposedly only a temporary measure, but when people looked for their property back, the date for applying for a new licence had passed.
The Government then declared the confiscated guns as unlicenced, and refused to either allow a new licence application, or return them.

Dessie O'Malley, take a bow.

gunny123

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Dessie O'Malley, take a bow.

You had to go and spoil a good christmas, mentioning that planks name, didn't you :mad:

gunny123

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

I'd be worried more of plenty more Frau Merkels ,Junkners, Hofstedts , Sir Peter King-types,and Theresa Mays[when home secetary] and Celia Malestroms and other such types in Brussels, than anything coming from Westminister these days and being disarmed by their EU directives.:mad:

Our own crowd in the eu are not too far behind that shower, lickspittles the lot of them. Their standard answer to everything is "yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir".

The pigeon man

I would remove the ban from hunting the likes of crows over plastic decoys. It's outrageous that you can't use them even when the birds are causing damage. There's no other effective way to control them.

yubabill

Nekarsulm wrote: »

As far as I know, only pistols/handguns and rifles larger than .22 were confiscated.
Shotguns never were, at least the old Iver Johnston here wasn't.
Built into the confiscation was an amnesty for unlicensed handguns.

And of course this was supposedly only a temporary measure, but when people looked for their property back, the date for applying for a new licence had passed.
The Government then declared the confiscated guns as unlicenced, and refused to either allow a new licence application, or return them.

Dessie O'Malley, take a bow.

I know my grandfather had at least one shotgun that I think was handed in. I remember going with my father when he handed in his 22LR rifle which had been used to put four-legged "chicken" on the table, once my sisters realised they were eating rabbit at the table one day.

And while Dessie himself was carrying an issued handgun at the same time.

They used to say about anything that was a handgun or not a 22 or a shotgun "you can apply for the licence, but there's no guarantee you'll get it...." with many colourful variations on the last bit.

Grizzly 45

yubabill wrote: »

And while Dessie himself was carrying an issued handgun at the same time.

Annnddd we were saying this year in a thread about PDW permits being issued in Ireland???
On the by, I had a chat with this with my new Super, out of idle curiosity, of course...:) About this.
Official word on this is not done anymore in any case, as no one in AGS has the statueatory power to issue one. Not even the Cheif Commish or the Justice Minister.Strange then when the US secret service might drop in,or whomever,these permits can be issued?

judestynes

My one change would be changing tbe people who make the laws.

judestynes

My one change would be changing the people who make the laws

Zxthinger

Maybe someone more advanced than I could include a pole upon which we could vote on some of the law that we would like to see changed.
The we could quote percentages at political puppets and make statements that 97% of shooters agree that air rifle laws need to be relaxed as the sport is being stifled.

Seriously though these posts just turn into sessions of mad posts.

Air rifles need to be given some consesions thereby allow civilian shooters to actually have, dare I say it, fun..

Air rifles are nearly a completely different branch of shooting. Let us have some degree of modern freedom by reducing the shackles of standard licensing protocol which severs to curtail the free trade in these "5mile guns" and leave it at that.

Sparks

I'm not sure the percentage of shooters who want something means the square root of sod all to the average TD. The overall percentage of the electorate in their constituency, maybe, but I don't think most of them worry a jot about target shooting, not with the housing crisis, brexit, general economic worries, school places, and all the other fun things in life...

judestynes

Sparks wrote: »

I'm not sure the percentage of shooters who want something means the square root of sod all to the average TD. The overall percentage of the electorate in their constituency, maybe, but I don't think most of them worry a jot about target shooting, not with the housing crisis, brexit, general economic worries, school places, and all the other fun things in life...

But this is one thing they can actually do something about Sparks. We could try appealing to their base instincts. Liscencing fees on cf pistols would be a nice revenue stream

Grizzly 45

judestynes wrote: »

But this is one thing they can actually do something about Sparks. We could try appealing to their base instincts. Liscencing fees on cf pistols would be a nice revenue stream

??????
We are already paying 80 euros and God alone knows what previously to keep them in court cases...Why single us out??

judestynes

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

??????
We are already paying 80 euros and God alone knows what previously to keep them in court cases...Why single us out??

Because we get so much bad press Griss. Another shooting in Finglas the other night and one in a takeaway newyears night. Whether its justified or not we get tarred with the same brush

Grizzly 45

The way the post reads is that you are personally suggesting that we pistol shooters should pay more because we hold CF handguns?

Chiparus

judestynes wrote: »

Because we get so much bad press Griss. Another shooting in Finglas the other night and one in a takeaway newyears night. Whether its justified or not we get tarred with the same brush

Not sure there is anything we can do about that, the shooting dead of 3 people in California makes top story in the media ( journal and RTE websites),

Yet this murder suicide gets nothing,
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/mystery-surrounds-hart-family-that-plunged-off-california-cliff/

If the mother had used a firearm, you can be sure it would be top billing in media here.

Zxthinger

judestynes wrote: »

Because we get so much bad press Griss. Another shooting in Finglas the other night and one in a takeaway newyears night. Whether its justified or not we get tarred with the same brush

I suppose they'll ban the use of santa costumes now at all ranges and make it illegal to wear any costume while carrying a firearm.
It's the type of knee jerk stufff we have be come used to.

judestynes

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

The way the post reads is that you are personally suggesting that we pistol shooters should pay more because we hold CF handguns?

I'm not suggestimg that at all. The liscence fee is already far too expensive but hey, it's an expensive hobby. With that in mind shooters tend to be older responsible well heeled people. You know, people who vote. Thats a power we never use to our advantage