Advertisement
Boards are fundraising to help the people of Ukraine via the Red Cross at this horrific time. Please donate and share if you can, you will find the link here. Many thanks.

Revoking of SACF rifles & New Legislation (thread banned users in first post)

1567911

Comments

  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,268 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Cass


    The following may seem as a continuation of the post above, but I have split this off as it falls into the cateogry of personal points so should not be confused as a Moderator's actions but that of a poster.


    You are refusing to explain the claim you made, but will post in reply to other, non relevant, points. There can only be one of a few reasons for this:

    1. You're either making unfounded/false statements
    2. Its still only your opinion and you cannot support your claim with actual "proof". 
    3. You have exactly what you claim but won't share it.
    4. You have exactly what you claim but cannot share it (for whatever reason).
    5. The ban is still on, but not in the immediate future.
    6. The ban is still on, not in the immediate future, but consideration will be given to those licensed between 2015 and present

    Verification for what you claim can be given in the simple form of the names of people spoken to, how it happened, where it happened, and any/all official certification of same. Anything deemed "confidential" can be withheld, but saying people should be genuflecting to you and two other, unnamed, individuals for works you claim to have carried out which has resulted in the complete dismissal of a proposed ban is honestly astounding, but if true worthy of praise. 

    Frankly I don't see any reason for hesitation. I for one would most certainly thank you and name you as the architect for saving semi-auto firearms if you simply produce anything that counters the drafted bill, the Miinister's statement from 2015 and the Garda Commissioner's reiteration of the same from 2018. IOW proof of a ban.

    My disbelief stems from the fact that major shooting organisations, in the past, could not achieve, with dozens of experienced members in positions that allowed them to speak directly to "power" costing tens of thousands of Euro, the result you claim to have managed with (if I'm reading between the lines corretly) a demonstration to someone(s) in a position of authority which managed to undo the last 6 years.

    Forum Charter - Useful Information - RFDs - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads


    If you see a problem post use the report post function, "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.


    Your Shooting Forum Moderators - Cass, Cookimonster, Vegeta, Sparks, It wasn't me!



  • Registered Users Posts: 428 ✭✭ jb88


    "If true fantastic and well done, for your next trick can you please get CF pistols sorted."

    Thanks

    Thats the next plan, but its a longer term one and dont worry its being looked at.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,975 ✭✭✭ Feisar


    Any chance of getting reloading in while yer at it?

    First they came for the socialists...



  • Registered Users Posts: 701 ✭✭✭ otmmyboy2


    Never forget, the end goal is zero firearms of any type.

    S.I. No. 187/1972 - Firearms (Temporary Custody) Order - Firearms seized

    Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 - Firearms banned & grandfathered

    S.I. No. 420/2019 - Magazine ban



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 511 ✭✭✭ solarwinds


    By who or what organisation is working on this ?



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,058 ✭✭✭✭ Grizzly 45


    While you are at it, concealed carry and full auto would and should be a snip to you then as well.🙄

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,975 ✭✭✭ Feisar


    Gents as @otmmyboy2 said earlier I'd be of the same POVon these issues, mercenary. I don't care who's scoring the goals/getting man of the match as long as I'm on the winning team. If there is an outfit that are getting things done, please advise as I want to start paying my dues.

    First they came for the socialists...



  • Registered Users Posts: 411 ✭✭ Munsterlad102




  • Registered Users Posts: 14,058 ✭✭✭✭ Grizzly 45


    Be easy enough to find out with a FOIA request as to whether either ministers involved met with any private parties to at a public range to discuss firearms legislation with 3 or more people in Sept?

    Post edited by Grizzly 45 on

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 411 ✭✭ Munsterlad102


    I think it's fair to say that the government couldn't give a sh*t about what like 20 guys are saying online.



  • Registered Users Posts: 751 ✭✭✭ freddieot


    Quite the reverse. They have someone whose job (or part of their job) it is to check these sites daily and report back on anything that can be used to further their agendas or be used in context (or out of it) to help justify their policies. It's an ideal way to be ready to counter any reasoned argument, approach or move by getting sight of any argument or initiative well in advance of any petition by individuals or organisations.

    Just because they don't comment does not mean they are not reading every single word.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,058 ✭✭✭✭ Grizzly 45


    Long known and noted. All they are getting here if they are still wasting their time and taxpayer money is chatter.No one is discussing strategy or what dirt we have on them on an open forum or what our plans are. For all they know is what we are talking about here could just as easily be a massive spoof organised between us all too?

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



  • Registered Users Posts: 335 ✭✭ yubabill


    Been working on a submission to DoJ and schadefreud lurking here.


    only got as far as finding a couple of themes I might work under.

    wouldnot be entirely surprised if this ban has been dropped btw.

    they would have used the EU firearms directive to do it if they were ever going to imho.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,058 ✭✭✭✭ Grizzly 45


    They couldn't use the directive for 2 reasons;

    All the grownups in Europe realised that it would have cost billions to compensate every owner, and would have tied up the European courts in Brussels with claims for compensation from every member state.Not to mind the EU gun makers building these models.

    So EU/UN goody two shoes little Ireland wasn't going to go against what the grownups decided in Brussels. Even though the EU court decided it is a privilege and not a right and therefore not subject to compensation under EU law contrary to EUCHR article 5... [So much for your fundamental rights under the EU dictatorship!]National Govts could still say FU to this directive under national firearms laws. As Italy and the East blockers did.

    They [Irish gov]don't need to. There is still Irish legislation in the acts that allows such.But then it becomes a challengeable issue in the courts for compensation. And with the judiciary granting such in 95% licenses of these cases it becomes very messy to try and remove stuff that has been used in 0% of gun crime in the ROI.

    NEVER assume a bill is dead until we hear it from officialdom. Not from some Shill on a web chat group, who has offered zero proof of their actions. This makes me believe they are a Govt plant amongst us caused to try and cause dissent.Either that or they are an utter Walter Mitty.

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



  • Registered Users Posts: 396 ✭✭ JP22


    WRONG.

    As freddiot says in his post,

    They may not give a hoot about what we think or what we want, but they know everything that’s going on and you can bet your last euro in your pocket, they read every media comment (the good, bad and the ugly) that’s made about them or their policies.

    Never ever forget - Information is power.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,975 ✭✭✭ Feisar


    Agreed, I'm not exactly Machiavelli but if my competitors were chatting away on an open forum I'd be taking notes.

    First they came for the socialists...



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,058 ✭✭✭✭ Grizzly 45


    Newstalk live now.Firearms discussion,talk about the firearm expert comittee with James Brown td.Only got the tail end of this but there was talk of bringing in psychological testing and this comittee reporting to the minister within 6 months.

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,268 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Cass


    That idea was floated before and utterly rejected as unworkable. Plus is the psychologist now liable if someone under their supervision/review does anything? Its for this reason AGS does not certify or officially recognise any competency course, yet demands one when applying.

    Forum Charter - Useful Information - RFDs - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads


    If you see a problem post use the report post function, "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.


    Your Shooting Forum Moderators - Cass, Cookimonster, Vegeta, Sparks, It wasn't me!



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,959 ✭✭✭ Melodeon


    I think a lot of what's currently driving this SACF purge is the Jacinda Ardern effect.

    Politicians around the world saw how she was practically canonised for her immediate and decisive move against EBRs, and how little pushback she got from the gunowners directly effected. They've seen how being 'tough on guns' has no downside whatsoever in jurisdictions where there's no strong pro-firearms lobby and where the great majority of those who do own firearms don't decide their vote on firearms issues.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,975 ✭✭✭ Feisar


    I have decided to become a single issue voter.

    First they came for the socialists...



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,058 ✭✭✭✭ Grizzly 45


    Having a massacre in a church of the "religion of peace" helps immeasurably for your agenda. As well as having a complacent gun lobby like what was in NZ,and even mentioned in the terrorist manifesto as to why he chose to use such firearms in his spree. Not to mind in Horse face Arden's case being a "Blair babe" in her interim days,she was infected by that war criminals anti-gun agenda.

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,058 ✭✭✭✭ Grizzly 45


    It was floated again in the UK by Privi Patel post-Plymouth this year, and the UK doctors have been going nuts about it, even the head shrinkers. .On a UK doctors chat group on FB [Dr Rant] it came up as;

    Half of the GPs said they wouldn't sign off on it as they are not qualified to diagnose mental health and don't want the extra work or the blame if something happens.The other half said they are anti-gun and refuse to sign off as it is on the medical requirement as it is.The head docs said pretty much they dont want the responsibility or work load either.

    BTW did you know it is a directive in EU law that every EU member state does have to have some sort of medical investigation in any firearms liscense since 1990? It's already in the 1990 eU directive if I rightly recall. Funny THIS particular point hasnt been mentioned in any opinion pieces or commentary sofar?

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



  • Registered Users Posts: 751 ✭✭✭ freddieot


    The entire psychological testing or rather validating is unworkable in reality for the average person at least. When anyone applies for a cert, you already include your Doctor or medical professional details. This gives the AGS the option to check with your GP etc. Prior to my Court Case (during the great unpleasantness), I proactively get a letter from my GP (just in case the issue arose in court - there was no reason why it should, and it did not, but best to be over-prepared for all arguments and issues). However, all my GP could say, as is the case for most medical professionals, is that 'he has never observed any behaviour or reason that might make me an unsuitable person to possess a firearm'.

    Even after Abbeylara, the formal position as I understand it from the medical community was that it would take several sessions with any individuals before any proper opinion could be put forward as to the mental suitability (or not) of any person to possess firearms or be prohibited from same. That's not practical for normal licensing purposes except I assume in cases where the individual has had a certain history of relevant issues. Therefore any move to include something like that in the general process would be flawed and I suspect also start off a whole new era of court dramas as well (e.g. what is a relevant issue).



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,058 ✭✭✭✭ Grizzly 45



    Directive 2017/853 [11]As regards Member States' obligation to have a monitoring system in place in order to ensure that the conditions for a firearms authorisation are met throughout its duration, Member States should decide whether or not the assessment is to involve a prior medical or psychological test.

    We were ahead of the curve in Ireland on this already with Abbylara and the Carthy inquiry. It was a recommendation in that report and is in our firearms law.So that minor point should be already made a lot stronger by everyone.

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,717 ✭✭✭ clivej


    Had a good talk about converting them to 'Lever Release' on Saturday



  • Registered Users Posts: 411 ✭✭ Munsterlad102


    Just a thought, but if you converted your SA CF rifle to single shot by putting in a block in the mag well you might be able to keep it. More of a middle finger to the Oireachtas rather than anything practical as you'd still effectively have a SA CF rifle, just not being allowed to put any mags in it. Something along the lines of the SI420/2019 mag ban.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,268 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Cass


    Munsterlad102 - as you'd still effectively have a SA CF rifle

    There would be the problem right there, you'd still have a S/A. The functioning of the firearm would remain unchanged only its ability to fire more rounds simply because you didn't load anymore. IOW its a case of functionality. They want the self loading function of the S/A gone.

    Forum Charter - Useful Information - RFDs - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads


    If you see a problem post use the report post function, "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.


    Your Shooting Forum Moderators - Cass, Cookimonster, Vegeta, Sparks, It wasn't me!



  • Registered Users Posts: 137 ✭✭ BSA International


    Seen as your back posting jb88 care to enlighten us now?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 428 ✭✭ jb88


    sorry BSA some people need more than just enlightenment.


    Best advice, if its an issue you care about write your submission, lobby TD's and take it from there. TD's dont read this forum, they have better things to do and so should we all. Nothing gets solved here.

    This whole drama will be brought back in the new year, along with a new series called CFSAR 2. With all the main co stars appearing here.



Advertisement