Happy new year to all and let's start to make a change.

Zxthinger

Happy new year to all but let's make it a year with a difference.

Let press on the PTB to give sporting firearms more permanencey within our legal framework. I'm not calling on a RTKABA but right to own sporting guns without interference save in the public interest.

Personally I collared the minister for sport a few days ago and asked him to examine why 'less lethal firearms' such as air rifles were no eaiser to licence than convention cartridge based Ammo. I told him that he was doing a good job and had my support. Ur he needed to look at air powered firearms and lessen the red tape associated with them.

I told him that the common man has limited funds and if he (the common man) spent those funds on less lethal firearms then that would mean less high powered stuff in circulation.

Was I right or wrong. ???

Let's start pressing buttons

solarwinds

"I told him that the common man has limited funds and if he (the common man) spent those funds on less lethal firearms then that would mean less high powered stuff in circulation. "

Cant say i agree with that statement, as the more lethal stuff is in the hands of the criminals that no law will ever fix. High powered stuff in the hands of law abiding citizens is no issue.
I do agree the pressure needs to be kept on in 2019.
Happy New Year to all.

Sparks

Were you wrong to mention firearms legislation to Shane Fecking Ross?
Yes. 100%. Completely. That was not a good idea.
I mean, good grief, have we not enough hassle without asking the loony tunes to get involved?


NB: The idea is not bad, in fact it's the norm in a lot of places and there's low-level "well, that's not a bad idea" sort of support for it in various places within the PTB, but you need someone a bit more serious than Shane Ross...

Zxthinger

I have his ear as I have dealings with him before, I didnt press him. I just told him that air rifles need to be made easier to licence and that there was benefits to this logic.
Yer taking a single word a put a story behind it, .... go tell primetime.


I've been Sitting around for years and done noting, just watching the decay become common place.
If I was wrong then let it be know.. but also let it be know that I acted..yes acted with genuine heartfelt interest.

Sparks

Nothing wrong with the idea zx, just the fecking eejit is as much use as a chocolate fireguard and he'd just make it into a silly season story and cause more harm than good because the moment one of those eejits takes a side on anything, three more take the opposite side in order to get free press coverage and the whole thing becomes a three-ring circus and under cover of that mess, bad stuff almost always sneaks through.

Zxthinger

Criticism accepted.

solarwinds

Fair play for saying something we all need to be more proactive I think.
I would be a bit more selective in who I speak to though, I dont think we, shooters are a good fit in Mr. Ross plans.

gunny123

Maybe ask aodhan o'riordan or smokie mcgrath ?

deeksofdoom

Zxthinger wrote: »

Criticism accepted.

Have to agree with Sparks here.... maybe you should try the Healy Raes:pac:

Zxthinger

It's easy to sit there and scoff.. you know you really don't have to agree with anyone (such as sparks) as such consensus is lazy and dangerous option that see us voicing our anger here where it serves the least effectiveness.
Sit down to today a write a letter to your TD.



A bit harder to make your way into 'the system' and plant a seed for hope especially when all around you find both individual people and Irish gun orgs are plotting to carve up the sport and frame it in legislation that serves their own personal agenda.


I don't feed the trolls.. lol. God know I acted like one for long enough. Lol.
You want me o talk to Rae? 🤥
Rae was a renegade who had his 10/22 pull off him and they came from Kerry which is too far for a face to face encounter. Ross is a bit more cultured imo. I dont want to slat Rae but I don't know the man but that my first opinion of him, chances are he was sound but his current position is not as of yet of any importance to me or my task.

deeksofdoom

I'm sure the government has enough on its plate now with the whole Brexit debacle and every other thing that's happening here on their own patch.

I'ld be much happier with our elected representatives if they could concentrate their energies on steering us on a straight path through all that crap than petty distractions from the shooting community.

Cass

Genuine question. What do you expect Shane Ross to do or be able to do?

He has no say over licensing, the DoJ, An Gardaí, etc. At best he is the one to talk to regarding funding, but for everything else it's the minster for Justice who happens to be my local TD and judging by the response i received from his office (about three weeks ago) they have one goal and that is to remove firearms at all costs.

BTW that is not an opinion or guess, they said so regarding certain guns and hinted at it about others.

gunny123

Cass wrote: »

it's the minster for Justice who happens to be my local TD and judging by the response i received from his office (about three weeks ago) they have one goal and that is to remove firearms at all costs.

BTW that is not an opinion or guess, they said so regarding certain guns and hinted at it about others.

Why ? What they say Cass ?

Grizzly 45

Return the hint that it is EU and local election time this year, and that the last time they got in was because of their support of us four years ago, on certain firearms AGS wanted to be banned because of their own fukup.:) Also do make them aware of Article 42 and 43 of the Irish constitution and EUCHR Article 5and 7.

FUN will be asking every EU MEP candidate from all EU countries this year for their stance on firearms ownership, and not engaging with FUN, will be an automatic anti-firearms ownership rating. These ratings will be published EU wide as well.You seriously can't answer a dozen questions within a 5-month timeframe?? And it will also be done with all local national elections in all EU countries in the future too.

On that point of doing things. How many would support here, exploratory talks on the IPSC issue, with a view to getting it reinstated under German rules?

Cass

gunny123 wrote: »

Why ? What they say Cass ?

I cannot reprodcue the entire e-mail as i never made it clear i would be doing so, but i'll quote one particular line about semi autos:

I wish to advise that the Department of Justice and Equality
is committed to legislating to cease the new licensing of semi-automatic
centre-fire rifles.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Return the hint that it is EU and local election time this year,

A pointless threat as we [the shooting community] don't hold enough of a voting block to be effective in any county let alone country wide.

On that point of doing things. How many would support here, exploratory talks on the IPSC issue, with a view to getting it reinstated under German rules?

Always the pessimistic type, but it'd have been easier to play ball in the first place, not act the jock strap, and avoid having gotten it banned. That said anything that might reintroduce it and C/F pistols would be good, but you're looking at a mountain, in fact an Everest, of work not to mention repealing of multiple laws which has never happened.

minktrapper

Easier to licence air rifles. Just thinking the same myself last week. Ideal for controlling vermin around farm yards. Instead of using shotguns. I would think that a considerable number of guns that are stolen today are from farms. Now there's a good idea for AGS. Less shot guns and .22's on farms and more air rifles. Air rifles cheaper to run and probably just as effective. Maybe even more effective than shotguns.
But how do you make them easier to licence. A licence is a licence. Make the air rifle licence cheaper. Therefore more attractive to purchase. Suggestions please.

Cass

minktrapper wrote: »

But how do you make them easier to licence. A licence is a licence. Make the air rifle licence cheaper. Therefore more attractive to purchase. Suggestions please.

I would imagine the thinking is to do the same as is in the Uk and increase the energy limits therefore making anything over, say, 12ft/lb a firearm instead of the current 1 joule (0.7 ft/lb)

This would also eliminate most of the issues surrounding paint ball markers and other "firearms" that are not actually firearms, but legally speaking are.

Grizzly 45

Cass wrote: »

I wish to advise that the Department of Justice and Equality
is committed to legislating to cease the new licensing of semi-automatic
centre-fire rifles.

SOP answer.
Nothing really new there... They have been spouting this since 2017,and this is more of the same scare them into self-banning,by not risking buying or applying.No timeframe,no methodology etc in there.

A pointless threat as we [the shooting community] don't hold enough of a voting block to be effective in any county let alone countrywide.

But enough to worry them on the EU level. Remember all the parties are fielding EU candidates that are not voted for here in the voting system like voting in our govt. Everyone's vote from all over the 26 counts on getting their EU candidate into Brussels. So in this case, if Bill Bollix FG/FG/LAB/SF /whatever wants to have an EU MEP seat, he has to get a majority vote from everyone in Ireland who supports his party. The quota and constituency system doesn't count in the EU election.
Yes, we are a minority grouping,but the loss of any votes is critical in an election,esp on this level where the REAL power is anymore.

but you're looking at a mountain, in fact an Everest, of work not to mention repealing of multiple laws which has never happened.

Actually, believe it or not, not really. There is no need to change any primary legislation at all. The ban on "combat training" can stay there, seeing that most Western EU countries have a ban on it already. This is down to convincing and accepting legislation that has worked in two dominant EU countries[IE Irelands bosses] and definitions of what would be legal or not here.

minktrapper

Cass wrote: »

I would imagine the thinking is to do the same as is in the Uk and increase the energy limits therefore making anything over, say, 12ft/lb a firearm instead of the current 1 joule (0.7 ft/lb)



AGS probably want to reduce the number of firearms that are in circulation. The U.K. system would almost certainly increase the number. I would think that they want all firearms licenced. There would have to be some kind of a carrot.


Anybody know what kind of number of firearms are stolen off farms.

Zxthinger

Cass wrote: »

Genuine question. What do you expect Shane Ross to do or be able to do?

He has no say over licensing, the DoJ, An Gardaí, etc. At best he is the one to talk to regarding funding, but for everything else it's the minster for Justice who happens to be my local TD and judging by the response i received from his office (about three weeks ago) they have one goal and that is to remove firearms at all costs.

BTW that is not an opinion or guess, they said so regarding certain guns and hinted at it about others.

It's fair point. I know it's limited as to what he can do but I believe that I changed his mind set on air rifles now it's time to start up the broken record and send out the free samples to the other stakeholders. I approached him because he is the minister for sport and as such this 'sport' is suffering needlessly under stringent law designed to control more dangerous items.
I didn't ask him what he was prepared to do to free up the sport of air-rifle shooting but at least he knows now that this benign sport is being hampered by default of a overly strict system. I told him that rules need to be relaxed to some extent to prompt air rifle shooting thus making it more appealing than conventional firearm sports. I made it know to him that the general laws could get any more stringent regarding licensing but that if rules were relaxed around air rifles then it would divert shooting enthusiasts towards this less dangerous form of shooting.

Grizzly 45

minktrapper wrote: »

Easier to licence air rifles. Just thinking the same myself last week. Ideal for controlling vermin around farmyards. Instead of using shotguns. I would think that a considerable number of guns that are stolen today are from farms. Now there's a good idea for AGS. Less shotguns and .22's on farms and more air rifles. Air rifles cheaper to run and probably just as effective. Maybe even more effective than shotguns.
But how do you make them easier to licence. A licence is a licence. Make the air rifle licence cheaper. Therefore more attractive to purchase. Suggestions, please.

Ok, here is the problem with this sadly.
It's the reason we can't have nice things here. You make them off the ticket, every feckin gurrier and gob****e will be out abusing them and doing thicksht things with them. Like shooting cats, sniping at cars on the M50, or shooting their 6month old kid while skiteing out of their minds on drugs.:(.All of this has happened here or the UK and Scotland in the last 18 months, and it also was the same reason we lost crossbows.Bollixes abusing them,and not bein able to be charged with assault with a deadly weapon...With Scotland licensing them, and the UK looking at doing so, what realistic chance is there of taking them out of the licensing system? Zero hope on that I'm afraid.

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

SOP answer.
Nothing really new there... They have been spouting this since 2017,and this is more of the same scare them into self-banning,by not risking buying or applying.No timeframe,no methodology etc in there.

Yes, and no.

I got the SOP, but then received a second mail from another dept. which went into it in more detail.

The "self-ban" is currently in effect and works. The retrospective aspect of it will prevent anyone from buying and anyone who dares will, according to the dept, find themselves having their license revoked in the near future.

Its another case of picking on the smallest aspect of the sport. With only approx. 160 or so semi autos licensed no one will bat an eyelid when they are banned.

Yes, we are a minority grouping,but the loss of any votes is critical in an election,esp on this level where the REAL power is anymore.

You are working under the false impression that the shooting community will vote based on current events. They won't.

The Irish have always and will always vote for who they voted for before, and that is usually who their parents voted for. It's why we have this FF/FG merry go round with not a hope of any other party actually making any serious attempt at getting power. Even if they did, what would be a good outcome? Sinn Fein? F**K NO.

As for EU level, i'm not that up on the inner workings so i'll refrain from making a fool of myself by trying to discuss it with you, but i assume or MEPs assign themselves to an EU party, and they, like here, vote based on the party preference and not individual preference. IOW it still won't make a difference, but fi you fancy going for it lad, with FUN, then i genuinely wish you the best and hope you do make head way. I'd love to be proved wrong on this.

Actually, believe it or not, not really. There is no need to change any primary legislation at all. The ban on "combat training" can stay there, seeing that most Western EU countries have a ban on it already. This is down to convincing and accepting legislation that has worked in two dominant EU countries[IE Irelands bosses] and definitions of what would be legal or not here.

But section 4(c) says practical, dynamic or combat style. What does that leave? I've never shot IPSC. Is it a static target and static shooting position or active targets with static firing position, etc? Where would it fall in the above three categories?

Zxthinger

minktrapper wrote: »

Easier to licence air rifles. Just thinking the same myself last week. Ideal for controlling vermin around farm yards. Instead of using shotguns. I would think that a considerable number of guns that are stolen today are from farms. Now there's a good idea for AGS. Less shot guns and .22's on farms and more air rifles. Air rifles cheaper to run and probably just as effective. Maybe even more effective than shotguns.
But how do you make them easier to licence. A licence is a licence. Make the air rifle licence cheaper. Therefore more attractive to purchase. Suggestions please.

Special air power licence.!!!
Valid for 5 years.
One licence allows the holder to obtain and hold up to 5 air powered firearms all of which are under 18ft lbs
Exception from the storage SI in so far as from part of the head count. i.e. Still require locking up in approx ed safe.
An exception from target shooting protocols to allow informal plinking at tin cans etc on private land.
Short air arms included.
Modification of the wildlife act to permit hunting with spring guns and pneumatic air guns etc etc.

Cass

Zxthinger wrote: »

I approached him because he is the minister for sport and as such this 'sport' is suffering needlessly under stringent law designed to control more dangerous items.

Unfortunately he has no input into our sport, at all. It's because of our gun laws that the Minister for Sport has nothing to do with sports shooting. It's the DoJ.

I didn't ask him what he was prepared to do to free up the sport of air-rifle shooting but at least he knows now that this benign sport is being hampered by default of a overly strict system.

Reading some of my posts above people probably think i'm being Mr. Negative Well i am i suppose, but not without reason. The Minister for Justice was Minister for something else before his current posting and i asked him back then about situation regarding firearms, farmers, etc. and he was very happy to discuss it with me to the point he rang me twice and we discussed it at length. I felt very positive about the whole thing. Roll on 18 - 24 months later, he is now in the hot seat, and his attitude has changed to suit the party and the office he holds which is "gun are bad, m'kay".

The point is politicians will change with the wind. It's not surprising, even if it is annoying, but any Minister or TD for that matte can promise you the moon and stars because they are not int he "hot seat" of the position to make actual change and even if they someday make it there they will be told to hold the party line or risk loosing their button, and cushy pension.

minktrapper wrote: »

AGS probably want to reduce the number of firearms that are in circulation.

Without a doubt because you know taking guns from legitimate and licensed people has had a huge effect on violent gun crime of gangs. :mad::rolleyes::eek:

The U.K. system would almost certainly increase the number. I would think that they want all firearms licenced. There would have to be some kind of a carrot.

As was said above the UK, Scotland and others are actually now following our lead (not really, but they are doing the same) and licensing all firearms.

Rarely have we, the shooting community, been on the receiving end of a relaxing or easing of restrictive legislation, and never, that i know of, any repeal.

Anybody know what kind of number of firearms are stolen off farms.

Only AGS would know and i trust their numbers about as much as the CSO does. (they suspended the verification/certification of their stats ).

I mean this is the same group that for months wouldn't even give a committee the numbers and when they did they classed hundreds of individual rounds of ammo as a separate firearm to increase numbers, listed gun safes (and only the safes) as firearms, replicas, BBs, Toy guns, etc. were all listed as stolen firearms even though under any legislation they are not classed as such.

The Garda inspectorate even saying its a joke and that PULSE is hopelessly outdated and insufficient for the task it's used for.

So put what faith you like in any numbers you see coming from the AGS (and i wo't even touch on breathalyzers, etc).

minktrapper

Zxthinger wrote: »

Special air power licence.!!!
Valid for 5 years.
One licence allows the holder to obtain and hold up to 5 air powered firearms all of which are under 18ft lbs
Exception from the storage SI in so far as from part of the head count. i.e. Still require locking up in approx ed safe.
An exception from target shooting protocols to allow informal plinking at tin cans etc on private land.
Short air arms included.
Modification of the wildlife act to permit hunting with spring guns and pneumatic air guns etc etc.

Not bad. Maybe up the power limit a bit. I don't think the short air arms bit would rub too well.

minktrapper

Without a doubt because you know taking guns from legitimate and licensed people has had a huge effect on violent gun crime of gangs. :mad::rolleyes::eek:



I get your drift. But most farmers would only have one gun. So if it is only one air rifle then their is less chance of it being stolen and then being used by criminals. But having said that they will probably get them anyhow.

Cass

minktrapper wrote: »

But most farmers would only have one gun. So if it is only one air rifle then their is less chance of it being stolen and then being used by criminals.

They either don't know or are not sure when when they commit the burglary that a gun is there, but if they come across a firearm they'll will take it. Unless the law says an air rifle is no longer a firearm loosing an air rifle is no different to loosing a shotgun, legally speaking.

But having said that they will probably get them anyhow.

Possibly.

The other aspect of this is what do farmers want. I know a good few farmers, and most aren't that old, that wouldn't have a clue about rifles, zeroing, etc. and have told me they have no interest in it. They'd sooner go without i'd imagine, but a shotgun is a staple of any farm so i don't see a rush to trade or buy air rifles over a shotgun.

Grizzly 45

I got the SOP, but then received a second mail from another dept. which went into it in more detail.

The "self-ban" is currently in effect and works. The retrospective aspect of it will prevent anyone from buying and anyone who dares will, according to the dept, find themselves having their license revoked in the near future.

Its another case of picking on the smallest aspect of the sport. With only approx. 160 or so semi autos licensed no one will bat an eyelid when they are banned.

Of course, it works, they are afraid of a pistol rush like in 2006. However,I think we have learned that maybe softly,softly on this works better.TBH I'd say in the classic and probably gallery there is a slight nudge up in numbers with both Garands and M1carbines?? seem to be more of them about these days?? So i think if they stay under a certain X number,no one in the DOJ is going to be too panicky.But say 15000 applications arrive in Feb 2019....Then it would be panic stations.

You are working under the false impression that the shooting community will vote based on current events. They won't.

Einstein's definition of lunacy has a remarkable similarity with Irish people voting.
:rolleyes:


A

s for EU level, i'm not that up on the inner workings so i'll refrain from making a fool of myself by trying to discuss it with you, but i assume or MEPs assign themselves to an EU party, and they, like here, vote based on the party preference and not individual preference. IOW it still won't make a difference, but fi you fancy going for it lad, Iith FUN, then i genuinely wish you the best and hope you do make head way. I'd love to be proved wrong on this.

They assign themselves to a voting bloc when they are in Brussels. FG belongs to the largest the European Peoples Party. But to get there, there are X number of Irish MEP seats for grabs, esp as FG's man is retiring this year. So AIUT,a candidate has to be proposed by the Irish party and be supported by the party.This choice has then got to go to the Irish people, and if it is a single candidate,they can be assured of the job with a majority vote,or are competing for the EU seat against whomever in their party. But there is no vote quote transfers,or whatever other baloney we have in national elections. Then lets say it is two or more opposition party canditates competing for the one seat in Brussels,it is who got the most votes from their countries citizens gets in.

But section 4(c) says practical, dynamic or combat style. What does that leave? I've never shot IPSC. Is it a static target and static shooting position or active targets with static firing position, etc? Where would it fall in the above three categories?

[/QUOTE]

First off the definitions are as vague as hell straight off. What is "combat style shooting"?We have been here before with "combat style rifles and pistols"

To give a general definition of IPSC it is moving with a loaded firearm on or off ground over obstacles shooting at various targets, static or moving in an enclosed scenario under time pressure. You have the option of walking and running three times thru the course before you go "on the cards".You are followed at all times by the RO for scoring and safety.

COMBAT shooting OTOH has nothing got to do with this.You do not in IPSC, for example, have to draw a firearm from underneath a jacket and engage multiple targets at 1metere, while retreating and carrying in a fireman's lift or dragging an 80lb dummy made out of old fire hoses. Or wearing a respirator engage in low light friend/foe targets in a killing house. Least of all, you do not rush thru a combat course! Its done slowly, as you are not scoring points on paper,but trying to stay alive and save lives. Nor do your hostiles obligingly stay in the same place,three times in your dry run.

Seeing as Germany has banned "combat shooting,or the training, imitating, or instruction of military,or police tactics,or personal self-defence with firearm training." Since..oh..1945 or thereabouts.Yet has an ever growing pouplation of IPSC shooters...How is this? simply, IPSC reps and the German police,govt and military at down and decided, what was the definition in the Govts eyes as combat training? They came up with things as being a NO NO for IPSC shooting like;

No scenarios that involve shooters being off ground on unstable platforms shooting live ammo.
No moving between targets with a loaded firearm. you must load on station and shoot from a static position. You can move with an unloaded firearm between targets hostage/enemy targets or scenario.No using or shooting around real or simulated cover. No shooting thru "doors or windows".They defined what was considered both door and window in size,and made that it has to be smaller thn the average household door and window in size.

There is a whole bunch of others, that I can't remember. But the point is this.If it can be agreed on in a country that has a similar law to us and proper definitions.It wouldn't be beyond us to surely make out what the Irish PTB would consider combat shooting and what is a sport of shooting multiple targets in unconventional surroundings?

Also,at the moment we have a Garda chief commissioner who [1] Does have practical firearms knowledge [2] Came from a part of the land where IPSC is considered a sport and not a training ground for the local Provos or UVF [3] Is not part of the "Aul lads" network.So we might get a fairer hearing on this issue.[5] It has been over a decade since the debacle, people have moved on on both sides in govt and shooting.So maybe a cleanpage attempt might work?

minktrapper

Cass wrote: »

They either don't know or are not sure when when they commit the burglary that a gun is there, but if they come across a firearm they'll will take it. Unless the law says an air rifle is no longer a firearm loosing an air rifle is no different to loosing a shotgun, legally speaking.

Possibly.

The other aspect of this is what do farmers want. I know a good few farmers, and most aren't that old, that wouldn't have a clue about rifles, zeroing, etc. and have told me they have no interest in it. They'd sooner go without i'd imagine, but a shotgun is a staple of any farm so i don't see a rush to trade or buy air rifles over a shotgun.

Very true about the burglary bit. But if a firearm was to be stolen I would think that the theft of an air rifle would be better than that of a shotgun. I personally know of the theft of a rifle and a shotgun off a farm. And nothing else stolen.

Maybe younger farmers could be taught about the finer points of vermin control. Rat poison itself is not encouraged anymore because of the harm it does to birds of prey. I control crow's myself on a number of farms. And they do need to be controlled. Absolute astronomical numbers of them. God only knows the amount of damage they do never mind the disease they spread.

minktrapper

Einstein's definition of lunacy has a remarkable similarity with Irish people voting.
:rolleyes:

Don't forget the moving statues episode.

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Of course, it works, they are afraid of a pistol rush like in 2006. However,I think we have learned that maybe softly,softly on this works better.TBH I'd say in the classic and probably gallery there is a slight nudge up in numbers with both Garands and M1carbines?? seem to be more of them about these days?? So i think if they stay under a certain X number,no one in the DOJ is going to be too panicky.But say 15000 applications arrive in Feb 2019....Then it would be panic stations.

Without having any new figures we can safely say there are probably 20 to 30 new restricted semi autos firearms licensed (rifles)? So we have under 200 (assuming no one has cancelled or surrendered their one) or to put it in context less than one per month since the announcement was made in September 2015. If it hasn't happened by now, it won't.

Pistols went from nothing to over 2,500 in a couple of years and the murder of Shane Geoghahan gave the DoJ the excuse they needed to target us.

Einstein's definition of lunacy has a remarkable similarity with Irish people voting.
:rolleyes:

I know that, you know that, hell most people know that, but when you have people cheering Seanie Fitz back as a hero, ignoring Denis O'Briens €300 million write off, ignoring Regina Doherty's write off and use of An Gardaí towards a journalist (to name a tin portion), and then vote for the same people that put them there, support them or have the same values then what chance is there?

They assign themselves to a voting bloc when they are in Brussels. FG belongs to the largest the European Peoples Party. But to get there, .............

I understand what you are saying but to stop you right there, when they get there or if they get there they won't vote against the party block. Simple as.

First off the definitions are as vague as hell straight off. What is "combat style shooting"?We have been here before with "combat style rifles and pistols"

To give a general definition of IPSC...............

Firstly thanks for the explanation. Secondly it won't mean spit what you or anyone else thinks it is. it's why we have the laws around guns that resemble other guns. So even though it cannot do what they gun they are afraid can do, as long as it looks like it, we'll ban it.

Same thing here. The definition will be purposely vague so they can attach any definition they see fit to it, and ban it. Call it what you like, but Practical, dynamic, combat will encompass what they want gone.

Also,at the moment we have a Garda chief commissioner who [1] Does have practical firearms knowledge [2] Came from a part of the land where IPSC is considered a sport and not a training ground for the local Provos or UVF [3] Is not part of the "Aul lads" network.So we might get a fairer hearing on this issue.[5] It has been over a decade since the debacle, people have moved on on both sides in govt and shooting.So maybe a cleanpage attempt might work?

i wouldn't be looking to our new Commissioner for any sort of input as he has his hands full with real world issues and not addressing the concerns of a small section of the population that is already covered by law.

Also while AGS will have an input, and it'll carry more weight than any NGB or organisation representing shooting, they don't legislate so it's not him we need to convince.

Cass

minktrapper wrote: »

Very true about the burglary bit. But if a firearm was to be stolen I would think that the theft of an air rifle would be better than that of a shotgun. I personally know of the theft of a rifle and a shotgun off a farm. And nothing else stolen.

We know the limitations of the various firearms, but on paper, and that is what will be used to beat us at a later date, it'll just be another stolen firearm.

I mean the "figures" from the AGS listed a grenade. Now i don't know what is funnier:

1. That is was listed as a firearm
2. That is reported by someone as being stolen (i'd love to hear that call)
3. That they thought it would be go unnoticed on civilian list

Maybe younger farmers could be taught about the finer points of vermin control. Rat poison itself is not encouraged anymore because of the harm it does to birds of prey. I control crow's myself on a number of farms. And they do need to be controlled. Absolute astronomical numbers of them. God only knows the amount of damage they do never mind the disease they spread.

I don't disagree with you, and perhaps it could be done. Something our shooting bodies could look into instead of focusing on the individual or the specific nature of certain disciplines.

Grizzly 45

Zxthinger wrote: »

Special air power licence.!!!
Valid for 5 years.
One licence allows the holder to obtain and hold up to 5 air-powered firearms all of which are under 18ft lbs
Exception from the storage SI in so far as from part of the head count. i.e. Still require locking up in approx ed safe.
An exception from target shooting protocols to allow informal plinking at tin cans etc on private land.
Short air arms included.
Modification of the wildlife act to permit hunting with spring guns and pneumatic air guns etc etc.

The big problem with all of this is simply,you are assuming people will be personally responsible on points 4and 6.

Point 2.Whats to stop anyone from modding their gun to put a stronger spring in the gun to ta it above the legal limit?And who will chrono individual guns to see if they are within legal limits?

minktrapper

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

The big problem with all of this is simply,you are assuming people will be personally responsible on points 4and 6.

Point 2.Whats to stop anyone from modding their gun to put a stronger spring in the gun to ta it above the legal limit?And who will chrono individual guns to see if they are within legal limits?

That is sort of nit picking to a degree. The general trend would be of more responsible firearm use and of course better control of vermin.

Would it be the wrong place to bring up the topic of self harm.

Grizzly 45

[

QUOTE=Cass;109010462]Without having any new figures we can safely say there are probably 20 to 30 new restricted semi autos firearms licensed (rifles)? So we have under 200 (assuming no one has cancelled or surrendered their one) or to put it in context less than one per month since the announcement was made in September 2015. If it hasn't happened by now, it won't.

Did you include restricted shotguns[proably] in that figure?

Pistols went from nothing to over 2,500 in a couple of years and the murder of Shane Geoghahan gave the DoJ the excuse they needed to target us.

Dermot Aherne himself more like.And we had plenty of warning noises of him that it was incoming,but like the US command at Pearl harbour,our orgs were asleep or infighting,as usual.It was a decade ago like I said things might and have changed.They thought the ban would finish off CF pistols...We still have them, and we are shooting .22 as well.

I understand what you are saying but to stop you right there, when they get there or if they get there they won't vote against the party block. Simple as.

The EU firearms directive would say otherwise. There is no whip system in the EU parliament. We had Spanish socialists voting along rightwing Irish conservatives for this legislation. Where the main decisions are made are in the star chambers known as Trilouges.That's where Sir Peter King was table thumping at 3AM, demanding of fellow UK MEP Vicky Ford, that the EU adopt the UK firearms legislation,as it was the best in the EU,and she was having none of it!!

Firstly thanks for the explanation. Secondly it won't mean spit what you or anyone else thinks it is. it's why we have the laws around guns that resemble other guns. So even though it cannot do what they gun they are afraid can do, as long as it looks like it, we'll ban it.

Err No...We had to sort this out at DC and HC level.Form does not follow function!You cannot ban or not liscense it on the "Idontlikedelookodatnow" clause anymore. That was AGS main argument, and it failed miserably in 98% of the court cases.

Same thing here. The definition will be purposely vague so they can attach any definition they see fit to it, and ban it. Call it what you like, but Practical, dynamic, combat will encompass what they want gone.

Of couse its vauge.Thats why they need to be pinned down and asked a simple question."What do you define as combat shooting/training?" And if a shooting sport had none of these agreed on points,is it a combat training scenario/ If it doesnt can we shoot it as a sport without let or hinderance?

i wouldn't be looking to our new Commissioner for any sort of input as he has his hands full with real world issues and not addressing the concerns of a small section of the population that is already covered by law.

Irrespective...He is obliged to meet under the garda charter of public service with any group of citizens.

Also while AGS will have an input, and it'll carry more weight than any NGB or organisation representing shooting, they don't legislate so it's not him we need to convince.

But his input will be experience from outside this corrupt anti-gun police force,and if he says , lads what are ye on down here banning a sport?It will certainly carry more weight alright. Also, there is NO NEED TO CHANGE OR LEGISLATE ANEW!This is the whole point!No one wants to shoot combat here,so we want a definition of what "combat training " is actually here,and avoiding all the combat training aspects...We can shoot iPSC,which is a very felxible organisation in accomadating local and national rules.Its why they even have an airsoft section for places like Japan,Korea an China.

Grizzly 45

minktrapper wrote: »

That is sort of nit picking to a degree. The general trend would be of more responsible firearm use and of course better control of vermin.

Would it be the wrong place to bring up the topic of self harm.

It's the sort of practical problems that anyone with common sense and in power will point out to you straight away.Not trying to piss on your parade, just trying to point out glaring holes you need to fill in straight off. Lookit,if the general trend is say,DUI is becoming less and less acceptable...Wil the RSA say after a few years"Ok lads,its ok to have just one pint again because you have learned to be responsible?"
It's not me you need to convince.i grew up in a country where you got an air gun for your tenth birthday and used it responsibly in your back garden,and didnt take it out of the house grounds without a parent present. And if you did act the bollix with it, your parents were held responsible under law for any damages you didand where buying an airgun today is as easy as buying your cigs and paper,as they are usually for sale in a tobacconist. Compare that to here...When was a parent last held responsible for underage Johnny Scrote Jnr's acts of crime in a court? This is our problem.lack of responsibility for our actions.:(

gunny123

minktrapper wrote: »

Einstein's definition of lunacy has a remarkable similarity with Irish people voting.
:rolleyes:

Don't forget the moving statues episode.

As i heard one gobshine say about a candidate up for election, that he was going to vote for him. When i asked why, he said "well he will win if i vote for him or not, so i might as well vote for him" .

You know what churchill said about a five minute chat with an average voter don't you ?

Moving statues ? Yes i remember them well, it was a combination of stupidity, alcohol, more stupidity and the emperors new clothes syndrome.

solarwinds

I cant help but feel reading this thread that there seems to be an idea that we need more lax laws around air rifles because they are "less lethal" and if we had more of them then no one will need or want a .308.
Making representations to the fools in power along those lines will only lead to one thing and that is we won't even have sling shots in the future. Just because a person may only use an air rifle does not mean the rest of us should be thrown under the bus for more relaxed laws pertaining to your own sport.
Any representations made to our elected officials should be done with the ENTIRE shooting community on board and all singing from the one hymn sheet. There has been enough self interest in the past which in the long run is affecting everyone regardless of your shooting discipline.
If representations are made to relax laws on behalf of air gunners they might get what they want, but the PTB will only see a shooting organisation saying we are good they are dangerous because they use guns that can kill. This would only lead to even greater restrictions on C/F owners and the usual response of " sure won't an air gun put a hole in paper you dont need a .308".
Any representations need to be made by a UNITED shooting community and for the interests of the community as a whole.
Dont get me wrong I to would like to see laws around air rifles / pistols relaxed buy you have to make sure there are no unintended future consequences to any short term gains.

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

[
Did you include restricted shotguns[proably] in that figure?

No because as of this moment there is no illegal ban on semi auto shotguns. Its why i put the word rifles in the post.

They thought the ban would finish off CF pistols...

It has.

You cannot substitute them, get a new one, no new licenses. Once the few that remain are gone, they're gone. That currently stands at, last count, 167 (very close to the number of semi auto rifles).

22 rimfire pistols restricted to 5 shots is not a substitute for any C/F handgun you could have had. Its a case of jangling the keys while they pick your pockets.

The EU firearms directive would say otherwise.

There is veto power and while the EU legislation is the basis a country can impose harsher conditions, not more lax. So i still maintain that MEPs are a waste of breath.

Err No...We had to sort this out at DC and HC level.Form does not follow function!You cannot ban or not liscense it on the "Idontlikedelookodatnow" clause anymore. That was AGS main argument, and it failed miserably in 98% of the court cases.

Yet it's in the legislation:

(a) rifles capable of functioning as semi-automatic firearms and as automatic firearms,

(b) firearms that resemble such rifles;

I'll grant you it's about restricted, but based on the same principal that even though it doesn't function as a restricted firearm it IS one because it looks like it.

Of couse its vauge.Thats why they need to be pinned down and asked a simple question."What do you define as combat shooting/training?" And if a shooting sport had none of these agreed on points,is it a combat training scenario/ If it doesnt can we shoot it as a sport without let or hinderance?

You won't get a straight answer for the very reason i said and you just repeated above, and if you think that because they don't specifically name it that you can go for it, well then more power to you.

Irrespective...He is obliged to meet under the garda charter of public service with any group of citizens.

Does it set out a timescale when he must appear, length of time spent at said meeting, the level of his input, does he have to appear or can he delegate, etc?

The man is up against it with the very "auld boys club" you mentioned above. I doubt his appointment would be seen favorably by any of the old brigade, and with rampant corruption, lies, old attitudes, etc. as said he won't be interested.

But his input will be experience from outside this corrupt anti-gun police force,

You do know he can from the British Police force. Not a shining beacon of trustworthiness and fondness for gun owners.

Also, there is NO NEED TO CHANGE OR LEGISLATE ANEW!This is the whole point!No one wants to shoot combat here,so we want a definition of what "combat training " is actually here,and avoiding all the combat training aspects...We can shoot iPSC,

From your lips to God's ears. I don't think the world works the way you want it to and most definitely not when it comes to firearms.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

It's the sort of practical problems that anyone with common sense and in power will point out to you straight away.Not trying to piss on your parade, just trying to point out glaring holes you need to fill in straight off.

Have to agree with Minktrapper on this.

Anyone acting outside the law will do so regardless of the law. You cannot legislate based on the actions of the unpredictable few, and it is a few. A lad loading four into his "blocked" semi auto is breaking the law, a lad loading 6 into his 22lr pistol (unrestricted license) is breaking the law, etc, etc.

Not everyone has your proclivity towards what ifs. Most people just use what they have the way it was meant to used.

Cass

solarwinds wrote: »

I cant help but feel reading this thread that there seems to be an idea that we need more lax laws around air rifles because they are "less lethal" and if we had more of them then no one will need or want a .308.

I'd say most would like to see a loosening of the air rifle laws, but for me at least it's nothing to do with less lethal.

Any representations made to our elected officials should be done with the ENTIRE shooting community on board and all singing from the one hymn sheet.

That is a pipe dream that needs to be thoroughly done away with so people no longer believe it's a possibility. It's a fallacy for more than a dozen reasons not least of which are:

• Self interest groups
• Too many disciplines
• Money
• Control

There has been enough self interest in the past which in the long run is affecting everyone regardless of your shooting discipline.

In the past!!!

It's still happening, but most ether don't know, don't want to know or chose to ignore it because it doesn't affect them.

If representations are made to relax laws on behalf of air gunners they might get what they want, but the PTB will only see a shooting organisation saying we are good they are dangerous because they use guns that can kill. This would only lead to even greater restrictions on C/F owners and the usual response of " sure won't an air gun put a hole in paper you dont need a .308".

Yup.

They'll take what you offer and then the rest that you didn't. not that they need the offer. Gun ownership is a privilege in this country and so if they could weather the s**t storm they could just ban them all in the morning by refusing to issue licenses and that is the end of shooting.

Any representations need to be made by a UNITED shooting community and for the interests of the community as a whole.

Again it won't happen. Not to be "that guy" again, but decades of experience and seeing this happen has shown that each time someone or some group come along, think they can do it it better, and make the exact same mistakes.

Others don't even make "honest" mistakes, but outright lie, steal and cheat to get control, and the money that comes with that control while, throwing other sports under the bus in the vain hope of saving their own.

it will always be a collection of interest groups and they should look our for themselves, but not to the detriment of others.

minktrapper

The less deaths/ accidents by firearms the better. It can only be good for the different forms of shooting. When was the last time you heard of anyone saying how dangerous cars are. And yet the amount of people killed in car crashes across the E.U. Is hugh. 1793 reported road fatalities in 2017 in G.B. alone (a quick google). Never mind injuries.

If firearms are banned in the morning how can vermin be controlled. Firearms to me are an essential tool for vermin control.

Cass

minktrapper wrote: »

The less deaths/ accidents by firearms the better. It can only be good for the different forms of shooting.

How about 0.

That is how many deaths have occurred from shooting sports over the last 165 years.

It is the safest, self policed, sport in the country with a record that not even the GAA can stand against.

This is why i don't buy into the whole "less lethal" talk because it's talk the DoJ and AGS use. It's erroneous, and dangerous for us to spread its use for them.

minktrapper

Cass wrote: »

How about 0.

That is how many deaths have occurred from shooting sports over the last 165 years.

It is the safest, self policed, sport in the country with a record that not even the GAA can stand against.

This is why i don't buy into the whole "less lethal" talk because it's talk the DoJ and AGS use. It's erroneous, and dangerous for us to spread its use for them.

Excellent.
But once firearms are seen to be used in robberies/ incidents of self harm or any other acts of violence they will always be seen as dangerous.

tac foley

For reference purposes, and, indeed, by way of clarification -

1. Northern Ireland, part of the United Kingdom, has similar airgun laws to the Republic of Ireland, IOW, a firearms certificate [FAC] is required to acquire and possess an airgun with a m/e of more than 1 Joule.

2. Scotland, STILL part of the United Kingdom at the time of writing, requires an Air WEapon Certificate for ALL air guns.

Read -

To own a low-powered airgun in Scotland you now have to be licensed, much the same as if you wanted to own a shotgun or a firearm. Such a licence is called an Air Weapon Certificate (AWC). An application is made to Police Scotland on an AWL1 form, then “light touch” checks are conducted to assess your suitability to be granted a certificate and to own or possess an air gun. Any person who is granted an air weapon certificate may possess numerous air guns. It is the person who is licensed, not the air gun.

The definition of air weapons, for the purposes of the 2015 Act, covers all low-powered air weapons with a muzzle energy exceeding 1 joule (0.74 ft/lbs), but not those required to be held on a firearms certificate under the 1968 Act i.e. air rifles with a muzzle energy exceeding 12ft/lbs (16.27 joules), or 6ft/lbs (8.13 joules) for an air pistol.

The licensing regime also covers the component parts of such air guns and any accessory designed or adapted to diminish the sound of their discharge.

3. Wales and England still have the no-FAC for sub-12 ft lb air rifles and 6 ft lb for air pistols.

Cass

Minktrapper wrote:

Excellent.
But once firearms are seen to be used in robberies/ incidents of self harm or any other acts of violence they will always be seen as dangerous.

You're dead right, and lets not dress it up, guns are dangerous. It's why we have background checks and firearm licenses to own/possess them. The problem is not guns, its the people that have them and how they came about them, namely criminals with illegal guns.

The problem arises from criminals that the AGS and Government cannot combat so they seek to limit (and i'm tired of this saying too) law abiding gun owners because the great unwashed don't differentiate between criminal guns and legal guns, just guns, and all guns are bad.

Look at only yesterday when yet another shooting took place in Dublin. There was one two weeks ago, a few weeks before that yet another. They cannot combat illegally held guns because they're not registered, but we are and that makes us easy targets to score political brownie points when the public is outraged. Hence the pistol ban of 2008 in response to Shane Geoghahan's senseless murder. Now we have semi autos under threat because of the actions of religious fanaticals and medically ill people that should not have ever had access to firearms IN OTHER COUNTRIES, but that won't stop our Government trying to jup on the political bandwagon.

I've been told it's a taboo topic, and it's distasteful or downright disrespectful to mention it, but you asked for i'll answer. The last few suicides involving firearms have not been civilians. Secondly if someone is intent on self harming a firearm is not their only option and even those with access to firearms have used other means when committing this self harm.

We [the shooting community] are misrepresented, and shown in a bad light at every opportunity by AGS/DoJ who have 24hr access to a microphone thanks to the national propaganda channel (otherwise known as RTE). We are told guns are outdated, not needed and there is no point in them. It's an old saying and one i rarely use on this forum due to it's connotations, but where would we be if our founding Fathers had the same thought? This country was founded at the end of the barrel, as was every other country. Guns have been used to feed, defend, and help people for centuries, and now in so called peace times we are meant to cast off that tradition and legacy because we're all soy drinking, gender fluid, enlightened, non secular, "person"kind.

I think not, and if i've lead a civil and law abiding life i'm entitled to enjoy my spare time as i see fit. I don't mind, in fact i support firearm legislation, but at what point are we going to stop being the whipping boys for the latest political fancy?

Here endeth the rant.

gunny123

Cass wrote: »

We [the shooting community] are misrepresented, and shown in a bad light at every opportunity by AGS/DoJ who have 24hr access to a microphone thanks to the national propaganda channel (otherwise known as RTE). We are told guns are outdated, not needed and there is no point in them. It's an old saying and one i rarely use on this forum due to it's connotations, but where would we be if our founding Fathers had the same thought? This country was founded at the end of the barrel, as was every other country. Guns have been used to feed, defend, and help people for centuries, and now in so called peace times we are meant to cast off that tradition and legacy because we're all soy drinking, gender fluid, enlightened, non secular, "person"kind.

I think not, and if i've lead a civil and law abiding life i'm entitled to enjoy my spare time as i see fit. I don't mind, in fact i support firearm legislation, but at what point are we going to stop being the whipping boys for the latest political fancy?

Here endeth the rant.

Yup, i have a niece a student in DCU, and thats her outlook basically, "All guns are bad, abortion and nancy's getting married is the future". And as far as i can see there is no conservative party who is resisting that. FG used to be conservative, but they have jumped on the liberal wagon.

Cass

We've gone somewhat off topic, and i'm to blame for that, but just for clarification.

I'm not opposed to others views, way of life, diets, beliefs, etc. I don't want to appear (probably too late) as though i am. It's frustration has me using language i normally wouldn't and it's at this point i should step away from the keyboard, and i will.

However the last two years have been a time when anything goes, everyone is offended, everyone has to not only recongise but validate everyone else's way of life and if you don't provide that validation (even if it's through apathy) then you're a racist, bigot, and Nazi.

It's tiring.

Anyway, i think we've wandered way to far from the OP of this thread and i'll ask the other mods to have a read over the thread and separate the off topic stuff into the off topic thread and leave the relevant stuff for folks to continue with.

gunny123

Cass wrote: »

We've gone somewhat off topic, and i'm to blame for that, but just for clarification.

I'm not opposed to others views, way of life, diets, beliefs, etc. I don't want to appear (probably too late) as though i am. It's frustration has me using language i normally wouldn't and it's at this point i should step away from the keyboard, and i will.

However the last two years have been a time when anything goes, everyone is offended, everyone has to not only recongise but validate everyone else's way of life and if you don't provide that validation (even if it's through apathy) then you're a racist, bigot, and Nazi.

It's tiring.

Anyway, i think we've wandered way to far from the OP of this thread and i'll ask the other mods to have a read over the thread and separate the off topic stuff into the off topic thread and leave the relevant stuff for folks to continue with.

There is now a backlash against all that across Europe, America, Canada, South America etc, but of course Ireland is behind the curve so it will happen, but in a few years time. As for people being offended, let them be offended, you have no right to pass through life un-offended.

But part of the leftie ideology is being against the private ownership of firearms, so what can you do ?

solarwinds

I find it funny that the people in power who want them banned are the same people who won't leave the house without their heavily armed monkeys and armoured cars.

Rows Grower

I have to say that was quite a read there folks, very interesting and educational.

There should be more of this type of brain storming for the good of the sport.

Happy new year to all.

Sparks

gunny123 wrote: »

There is now a backlash against all that across Europe, America, Canada, South America etc, but of course Ireland is behind the curve so it will happen, but in a few years time. As for people being offended, let them be offended, you have no right to pass through life un-offended.

But part of the leftie ideology is being against the private ownership of firearms, so what can you do ?

For the record, the only reason this forum exists is because one of those you're merrily painting as the nadir of modern humanity, despite not being a shooter or having any interest in it, took on a pretty sizeable risk and let us get set up here for free, despite threats of legal action from the usual suspects (and some utter nutters) and despite winding up on the phone to the DoJ unexpectedly once or twice.

Seems pretty piss poor thanks to be giving back in return, that kind of trash-talking. I didn't see anyone else standing up for us back then. Plenty of "our own" said they were, but as the last 20 years have repeatedly shown, they were, how shall I put it delicately, lying through their teeth.

Also, when I look at all the Ministers that signed into law the gradual ratcheting down of the law on our backs, who pulled fast ones with the law in '72 and who've been where the buck stops for a few hundred high court cases so far? None of those were what you'd call "lefty liberals". They've all been "traditional" lads, right of center by a marx-stomping degree (at least by our standards), happily voting or lobbying against all these horrible liberal referendums we've been having of late.

You know the bit where the Taoiseach was running ads asking us all to turn in our neighbours for social welfare fraud while the Anglo bondholders got all their money back courtesy of the exchequer and nobody went to jail? Same thing. Point out a scapegoat with one hand, pick your pocket with the other when you look where they point.