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

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.

Grizzly 45

Cass wrote: »

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.


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).

Apprently you can now substitute. But no one has struck up the courage to put their head around the corner on it yet. That we know of here.
167??Horse **** there my man.Unless we are losing and have lost 60 licenses give or take per year since 08 Try around 500/600 still.

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.

Tell that to the Brits who look at envy at us over here on that one. Would you rather be like the UK shooting 12 in barrel things with bits of coat hanger sticking out the butt?

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

Big mistake...The real power is in the EU, not in a glorified county council up in Dublin anymore. Full of yes-men and sycophants,and wannabe patriots, who freely admit that they have abjurgated all major decisions to Brussels, since 1974,so long as the aul cheques arrived for them and will rubberstamp anything handed to them in directives. Then moan that its all Brussels fault.

Sorry I'd rather deal with the EU organ grinders rather than the Dail monkeys in heading off bad legislation or diluting it as much as possible before it reaches our shores. But that's just me.

Yet it's in the legislation:

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.

But it is now proven to be a bad law or definition, you know it is a bad law, so do I, so does the DOJ and AGS.So what do they do? Fine go to court again, get bitch slapped and cost the DOJ another few grand and make tools of yourselves again?? Good deal. They lost on that point, and have lost on that point and will lose again if they try it again on that point.The law is an ass on this point and everyone knows it,so its best not to use that point of law.

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.

We'll see...

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?

If it is an official delegation and request,I would expect that the man and his dept are professional and courteous enough to engage on a professional level.Hey, if they will entertain a bunch of drag queens and creatures of multiple genders moaning about their rights and garda brutality...I'm sure shooters can expect the same courtesy.

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

Has it been tried yet? Do you know this for an irrefutable fact that he won't be interested? Has any ONE person from our shooting reps talked to this man yet?On anything??Because if they have.I'd like to tlk to them myself..
Yes, that's known,and that's why he was employed, to break this circle of corruption, cronyism and other ills that have been in AGS for 90 years. Or would we rather we voted one of our own in again and AGS continues to slide to the level of the Mexican police force" dealing" with a narco gang on the US/Mexican border? Because that's where they are/were heading.

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

Northern Irish police force both RUC/PSNI actually.it is separate force in legislation and lpolice power in UK law. Seeing it is the only openly armed police force,[bar HM atomic police force,but they are generally confined to UK atomic facilities]. Be more likely to trust them than AGS or the UK on firearms issues frankly.

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.

So best not to try at all and still lose???Ok. We'll die by inactivity instead.:rolleyes:

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.

Yes quite obvious you can't regulate crazy,and the responsible suffer, and that Western judicial systems believe in collective punishment rather than individual punishment
Slight difference and keeping it within the parameters of the suggestion of not licensing airguns in the future,or whatever. Do you honestly think that if airguns are made free to all, that there will be all responsible shooters suddenly emerging and just conducting "vermin control" or plinking tin cans in safe areas?? Because if you really think that you are suffering from serious delusions of Irish or any society. You might as well hand 18-year-old boys car keys and a bottle of Jack Daniels as well. Because this would be actually a mini version of American society, where anyone could acquire an air gun down in their Aldi with a pint of milk.

It has to be one or the other. If they are freely available, that means you cant restrict them in any shape or form and they are freely available to any adult.

We all know there are people out there that shouldn't have a water pistol .not to mind an airgun, which can kill you as good as a .22 at close range if it is stuck in your temple..Or you have some control over them, as is licensing that exists here and now, and then why would you want to change it.

So your choice is a 3rd way.If you are already licensed for a rifle/shotgun,you should have the ability to have an "add-on" certificate for an air rifle. That way you fulfil the security requirements are still vetted and you have a safer and cheaper option for shooting. That would be the only version I could see of this working.As there is no way in Hell I could see, especially the Irish govt with the strictest gun laws in the EU loosening up to allow "air weapons" more freely here.

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

OMG!!! Irony MUCH????:p:p Says the man who has just spent the entire post doing whataboutery and whatifery.:rolleyes::o:rolleyes:

Can we at least for 2019,stop self-doubting, self-censoring ourselves and at least TRY to move forward and see if some progress can be made?

Grizzly 45

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 ?

Liberal logic 101
"No one should have guns but the cops ... Cops shoot and kill unarmed black people and peaceful protestors.Ban guns!"

Oh, lefties and socialists have never been against guns.So long as THEY are holding and controlling them. Mao's All political power comes from a gun barrel speech in full is a great example.

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

F

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.

yup, because being left or right in Ireland,and thankfully we have never experienced either of these rather unpleasant ideals which are flip sides of a very bad coin fully here.Is just a cover for the biggest party of them all.ME FEIN!

Or put it more crudely.
Irelands politics is a pigsty,with all sorts of political pigs of various hues and breeds trying to get their snouts into the Dail trough.No matter what colour they are they are still pigs and will squeal the loudest every 4or5 year on how fatter and tastier they will be,if we leave them alone for another term when we come with the election knife to take one for the table. They are all grand and fat now.So maybe its time to get a new herd in,and get the old lot off to the mart?

judestynes

Hi all and a happy new year to everyone.

Question for you's all. What changes do we want ti make? Once we've agreed on them then we'll have to agree on how to make them. Been reading through this thread and to get any headway from people from outside the community we have to change our language. There's too much "lefty" and "liberal" references to those outside the community while i fully understand your sentiment and get frustrated by those persons myself we have to stop giving them reasons to compare shooters to criminals. We ourselves have to stop keeping our heads down. If any other sporting club be it football or golf or whatever run a charity event and raise much needed funds they make sure to use social media to shout the virtues of the cause. I noted a while back a decent sum of money was raised from a shoot at midlands. Why wasn't this broadcast more. We have one of the safest and best self governed sports in Europe and the general public need to know this.

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

It has.

What has, what?

Apprently you can now substitute. But no one has struck up the courage to put their head around the corner on it yet. That we know of here.

You cannot. Its the deluded ramblings of an organisation desperately trying to seem relevant. We discussed it at length here, and the the law (not anyone's opinions) makes it so that if you won a court case to get the substitution, you'll loose out when t comes to re-application time.

167??Horse **** there my man.Unless we are losing and have lost 60 licenses give or take per year since 08 Try around 500/600 still.

Where are you getting your figures from? Would like to see them as i'm working off old numbers because i have 160 or so centrefire handguns currently licensed.

Tell that to the Brits who look at envy at us over here on that one. Would you rather be like the UK shooting 12 in barrel things with bits of coat hanger sticking out the butt?

Irrelevant to us. I don't think about how the Brits are, what they want, etc.

But it is now proven to be a bad law or definition, you know it is a bad law, so do I, so does the DOJ and AGS.

Its still a law, like zeroing outside a range.

So what do they do? Fine go to court again, ..........

Doesn't matter the outcome, the majority will not go to court. You know this from reading posts where lads have been screwed and could easily win a case but don't want the cost, hassle, etc.

If it is an official delegation and request,I would expect that the man and his dept are professional and courteous enough to engage on a professional level.

See what i mean. You don't know, no more than i, but i'd wager i'm closer.

Has it been tried yet?

/sigh

I'm tired of this "If it's not Moses carrying it off Mount Olive its not true". Of course i don't know if it's been tried. I'm not involved on that level. As i said above the man was brought in to reshape an entire force that is shown to be corrupt or damaged at every level. Shooting sports is a tiny part of that forces duties and currently, and however poorly we think it is, it is running smoothly.

So best not to try at all and still lose???Ok. We'll die by inactivity instead.:rolleyes:

Name one time, one time, where this "fight the power" worked in our favour?

Slight difference and keeping it within the parameters of the suggestion of not licensing airguns in the future,or whatever. Do you honestly think that if airguns are made free to all, that there will be all responsible shooters suddenly emerging and just conducting "vermin control" ................

I never suggested "free" guns for everyone so your argument on that point is moot.

OMG!!! Irony MUCH????:p:p Says the man who has just spent the entire post doing whataboutery and whatifery.:rolleyes::o:rolleyes:

Let me be clearer for you then. You have the most amount of posts on this entire forum for how to MacGuyver something into something else.

Your first reply about the air rifles being less retrictive was to say how it can be changed to something else. That is the "what ifs" i'm referring to. Its also why i said not everyone thinks that way, those that do are breaking the law, and if they break the law then laws and licensing or the lack of it, will not prevent or stop them.

IOW bad people do bad things regardless of the law. it's why we have criminals with guns.

Can we at least for 2019,stop self-doubting, self-censoring ourselves and at least TRY to move forward and see if some progress can be made?

As i said previously, and to bring this back to the thread topic, it's not about constantly being negative for the sake of it, but knowing what will happen based on past events and experience.

What laws would i change, i don't know. In the entire history of the state i don't know of any law that has been changed or repealed to make it easier on the shooting community.

There are some aspects of the law that need changed which has been agreed on by most factions including some past Ministers and the law society. I don't want to see an abolition of gun laws, which would never happen (and that is not self doubt, but fact), and i don't want to see a carbon copy of the British, American, or German system. Each one has their pros and cons in relation to our culture and our way of doing things. We seem to want to cherry pick the bits that relax it for us, while ignoring the aspects that would drastically change it.

Grizzly 45

You cannot. Its the deluded ramblings of an organisation desperately trying to seem relevant. We discussed it at length here, and the law (not anyone's opinions) makes it so that if you won a court case to get the substitution, you'll loose out when t comes to re-application time.

Well,lets let someone else stick their head over the ramp on that one shall we?

Where are you getting your figures from? Would like to see them as i'm working off old numbers because i have 160 or so centrefire handguns currently licensed.

Where are you getting YOUR figures from, because that sounds more like CF/SA rifle numbers than handguns? Last figures I have seen was still around the mid 600s And that was the 2012stats. There is no way we are losing between 50/60 CF pistol licenses PA.

Its still a law, like zeroing outside a range.

But its still bad and unenforceable law in reality.Anyone been prosecuted yet for shooting on their land at a paper target?

Doesn't matter the outcome, the majority will not go to court. You know this from reading posts where lads have been screwed and could easily win a case but don't want the cost, hassle, etc.

There is a great quote from the film "Fury" that applies here. "If you won't fight for what you got, then don't cry then for what you lost!"

I'm tired of this "If it's not Moses carrying it off Mount Olive its not true". Of course, I don't know if it's been tried. I'm not involved on that level. As I said above the man was brought in to reshape an entire force that is shown to be corrupt or damaged at every level. Shooting sports is a tiny part of that forces duties and currently, and however poorly we think it is, it is running smoothly.

Mount Sinai.:)
Then don't keep making obvious points, that we all know and understand, and then saying it won't work,or he won't see you from your "personal experiences".Which is about as the same as mine in this situation. But I'm willing to TRY and meet the man, and maybe have a different outcome? if it fails, you can then say "I told ya!":)
But if we never try, we'll never know. This is why we never advance here.We keep self-censoring ourselves on all issues relating to the shooting and unfortunately, its the ones with bad intentions for our sport that grabs the nettle,get heard and start fuking it up for everyone. The COVI springs to mind.

Name one time, one time, where this "fight the power" worked in our favour

?

The entire decade from 2008 to 2014 perhaps?? 95% wins in court cases?? Was that not "fighting da power?"

I never suggested "free" guns for everyone so your argument on that point is moot.

Neither did I,but the suggestion from the original previous posters is exactly that. Which is utterly divorced from reality, we would be laughed out the door even suggesting it. So hardly a moot point.We have the most restrictive gun laws in the EU,so trying to get anything less restricted in a gun type is going to be so difficult as to be impossible.

Let me be clearer for you then. You have the most amount of posts on this entire forum for how to MacGuyver something into something else.

Please clarify this???

Your first reply about the air rifles being less restrictive was to say how it can be changed to something else. That is the "what ifs" i'm referring to.

Ok, let's recap that.

We have the original poster suggesting that air rifles should be less restricted to encourage sports shooting and vermin control. In a country with the most stringent gun laws in the EU.

2] They put up a list of things that they would want to be done, some plausible, some out the door. The biggest one being, to me reading it, that somehow airguns become an off ticket item or are issued with a, call it a "firearms cert light" for want of a better description.
3] I suggest that the REALITY is this, and it's not to knock the idea or concept,its to point out the glaring holes that have to be filled if the idea is to be in any position to be followed or taken seriously. Is that there is no way airguns will come off ticket as no govt will ever requlinish control over firearms in this country [ii]Point is that any item that is off ticket here in Ireland gets abused by cretins and is then licensed and the law-abiding suffer for the sins of the few.So how will you sell this idea and not expect this abuse to happen if the guns aren't regulated? And if you want to change the licensing system to make them easier to license, what's the payoff for the powers that be? And why would they change a system that works for them and us, more or less?

4] Personal opinion of mine is as I suggested, is under the most ideal of circumstances, is that if you already have a cert, you can add the option on of having an airgun on it as well.IOW a "firearms cert light"

How is that changing something to something else??

Its also why i said not everyone thinks that way, those that do are breaking the law, and if they break the law then laws and licensing or the lack of it, will not prevent or stop them.[/
IOW bad people do bad things regardless of the law. it's why we have criminals with gun

It's not me or anyone here you have to convince on this much agreed on points.
We have to convince the PTB on that point, and they are not going to buy into the idea of less licensing of "guns" is a good option for" the security of the state."So we have established parameters of what the State will allow or not.What can we do or get within this small wiggle room?

As i said previously, and to bring this back to the thread topic, it's not about constantly being negative for the sake of it, but knowing what will happen based on past events and experience.

I would agree with you up to a point on that.But not fully.

What laws would i change, i don't know. In the entire history of the state i don't know of any law that has been changed or repealed to make it easier on the shooting community.

Its never happened in ANY state, or country that gun laws have been rescinded to make them easier to access. So we are not unique there.

and i don't want to see a carbon copy of the British, American, or German system. Each one has their pros and cons in relation to our culture and our way of doing things. We seem to want to cherry pick the bits that relax it for us, while ignoring the aspects that would drastically change it.

We aren't the only ones to cherry pick bits of other countries firearms laws. After all the acts since 1990 have been almost carbon copies of the UK [offensive weapons act 1990], The CJA 2008 has UK, Australian, Canadian, Swedish and some NZ in there as well. Sauce for the goose an'all that..

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Well,lets let someone else stick their head over the ramp on that one shall we?

Let's not. It's like trying homeopathy to cure cancer. Some experiments don't get run because of the high risk and complete lack of evidence to suggest a positive outcome is plausible.

But its still bad and unenforceable law in reality.Anyone been prosecuted yet for shooting on their land at a paper target?

Prosecuted in court, not that I know of but I don't have a list of all DC cases available to me.
Cease-and-desist warnings from the DoJ, yes, several people have gotten these. And they are not things to be sniffed at if you want to keep your licence.

I'm willing to TRY and meet the man, and maybe have a different outcome?

If we'd never heard of him, if he had a good track record, if he looked to be competent, yeah, sure, try it.
But it's Shane Ross. Who didn't know - as Minister for Sport - that he didn't control the OCI and didn't understand why an NGO that predates the modern state and isn't funded by the exchequer and had decades of a row with the ISC going on, might not be overly receptive to public demands from him. Whose reputation is one of being a D4 version of Jackie Healy Rae with less cop-on.
There's also the minor point that the Minister for Sport via the ISC is supposed to have been on the FCP since day one and has never engaged with it.
So neither the office (to date) nor the man has a reputation that says this has even a moderate chance of success - and anything we do carries a risk, so you don't just randomly try things like there was no cost to the attempt.

The entire decade from 2008 to 2014 perhaps?? 95% wins in court cases?? Was that not "fighting da power?"

I thought you always maintained you weren't going to court to fight da powa but because you had no other alternative available Grizz?

trying to get anything less restricted in a gun type is going to be so difficult as to be impossible.

We have the original poster suggesting that air rifles should be less restricted to encourage sports shooting and vermin control. In a country with the most stringent gun laws in the EU.

...that somehow airguns become an off ticket item

...they are not going to buy into the idea of less licensing of "guns" is a good option for" the security of the state

Its never happened in ANY state, or country that gun laws have been rescinded to make them easier to access. So we are not unique there.

points to the 1 joule limit.
So, that has already happened.
It's not beyond the bounds of realistic optimism.

The problem was not the idea; just the person being approached about the idea.

yubabill

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

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?

I spoke to several MEP's and/or their secretaries at considerable length during the EU firearms directive debacle and found at least some support or sympathy from all bar one;

Mairead McGuinness

whose final message was palpably hostile.

yubabill

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.

I wonder are they planning to do these things when transposing the new EU firearms directive into Irish law (assuming the Cz etc challenges to the directive fail)?

Grizzly 45

QUOTE=Sparks;109016331]Let's not. It's like trying homeopathy to cure cancer. Some experiments don't get run because of the high risk and complete lack of evidence to suggest a positive outcome is plausible.

True,but then again I suppose if you ae desperate in that situation,you will try anything for a cure.

Cease-and-desist warnings from the DoJ, yes, several people have gotten these. And they are not things to be sniffed at if you want to keep your licence.

So IOW someone was acting the complete dick, on numerous occasions then? We can only speculate on this, but it was hardly Dad and Johnny setting up a bunch of tins one Sat , once a year to zero the rifle?

If we'd never heard of him, if he had a good track record, if he looked to be competent, yeah, sure, try it.
But it's Shane Ross. Who didn't know - as Minister for Sport - that he didn't control the OCI and didn't understand why an NGO that predates the modern state and isn't funded by the exchequer and had decades of a row with the ISC going on, might not be overly receptive to public demands from him. Whose reputation is one of being a D4 version of Jackie Healy Rae with less cop-on.
There's also the minor point that the Minister for Sport via the ISC is supposed to have been on the FCP since day one and has never engaged with it.
So neither the office (to date) nor the man has a reputation that says this has even a moderate chance of success - and anything we do carries a risk, so you don't just randomly try things like there was no cost to the attempt.

Errr...I was talking about the Garda chief Commissioner Sparks.:P:)

I thought you always maintained you weren't going to court to fight da powa but because you had no other alternative available Grizz?

I did, and I still do say that was my Ultima Ratio,but taken in the context of Cass's comment of what did "fighting da power"ever bring us surely every case where no one had an option but to fight or hand in their guns would classify in this context?No one ever set out, least of all me, to go sock it to" Da man!" The man put us in that situation where he was going to do nothing when he realised he had a fight on his hands, until someone else relived him of blame and responsibility in a court of law.

points to the 1 joule limit.
So, that has already happened.
It's not beyond the bounds of realistic optimism.

Yes, its exactly why the EU brought that part in, a directive so that people wouldn't be prosecuted as you have often rightly pointed out for having a WH Smiths toy crossbow or the like. And to allow airsoft.[Which has had enough idiots acting the bollix with those already,and is already looking possibly at stupid UK style regulations as well]

But unfortunately, most airguns, bar airsoft are well above 1 joule around here.
The 3 stumbling blocks I see here are;
1] How will they be "less regulated" than normal firearms?
2]How is this going to be sold to the most anti-gun ownership permanent govt in the EU?
3]Doing this without changing statue law,and to whose benefit?