Article in the Examiner today

Sparks

Spotted in the Examiner (perhaps only the cork edition?):

Terrier

As an NARGC member is great to know their putting up a front against these reforms...
Any chance they would inform there members of what they are doing? Website is months out of date, no press releases....

I'm all in favour of Gun Safes, never asked its members for there opinions! :mad:
Have they contacted fellow shooting organisations for there opinions?
:rolleyes:

Sparks

Not the NTSA anyway Terrier.

civdef

I have heard a couple of NARGC members express unhappiness with the current line that organisation's leadership is taking, that by aligning themselves with Fine Gael they risk becoming politicised unduly.

Similarly, is the fact that these amendments are being made in a Criminal Justice Bill that big a deal? Personally I feel the NARGC should be taking a more constructive approach, and I don't think rowing in with one opposition party to propose an alternative bill which has zero chance of passing is doing a lot to improve the situation.

gouda

civdef wrote:

Similarly, is the fact that these amendments are being made in a Criminal Justice Bill that big a deal? Personally I feel the NARGC should be taking a more constructive approach, and I don't think rowing in with one opposition party to propose an alternative bill which has zero chance of passing is doing a lot to improve the situation.

Yes. There is no reason for the Minister to bring these changes under the Criminal Justice Bill when they could be dealt with entirely under the Firearms Act. As for the NARGC forming links with FG, I can't see a problem. Traditionally FG has been regarded as the "farmer's party" and as the majority of shooters use farmland to pursue their hobby, doesn't it make sense to enhance relationships with them? FF are tradionally regarded as being supporters of the building industry and as the building industry is doing it's best to reduce land available to shoot on or build ranges on, it would seem silly to cosy up to FF. Incidentally, I am definitely not a supporter of FG but can see a certain logic in the NARGC's direction. As regards the NARGC taking a "more constructive approach". How,exactly?

gouda

As an NARGC member is great to know their putting up a front against these reforms...
Any chance they would inform there members of what they are doing? Website is months out of date, no press releases....

Terrier wrote:

I'm all in favour of Gun Safes, never asked its members for there opinions! :mad:
Have they contacted fellow shooting organisations for there opinions?
:rolleyes:

Isn't it one of the aims of the NARGC to pursue all means to improve the lot of Irish shooters? By taking the High Court action on gun safes I think they prevented a situation which would have allowed the Garda Commissioner to create new laws whenever he had a notion to do so. This is entirely unconstitutional and was ruled as such in the High Court. Totally in keeping with the NARGC's with their aims. Have you asked if any shooting organisations if they approached the NARGC on this one? My understanding is that they were approached by members of the NARGC to pursue this matter. Anyway, does it really matter who initiated it as at the end of the day it was the correct thing to do and was seen as such by the High Court.

Sparks

gouda wrote:

Yes. There is no reason for the Minister to bring these changes under the Criminal Justice Bill when they could be dealt with entirely under the Firearms Act.

Gouda, they are being dealt with entirely under the Firearms Act. The Bill is not the Act, that's basic procedure. Any Bill can modify any Act. Should we be equally upset if a Firearms Bill modified an Offences against the State Act?

It's not that it's a perfect solution, you understand - just that in two year's time, noone will care what the bill was called, they will only care about what it did. So I'd rather see people put their energy into watching the content rather than the nametag...

As for the NARGC forming links with FG, I can't see a problem. Traditionally FG has been regarded as the "farmer's party"

I need a smiley with a raised eyebrow. I don't know what farmers you know Gouda, but all the ones I ever knew would have pointed out that they regarded Fianna Fail as "their" party. FG were more seen as the "professionals" (doctors, soliciters, etc) party. Mind, that's probably a viewpoint that differs from place to place in Ireland.

and as the majority of shooters use farmland to pursue their hobby, doesn't it make sense to enhance relationships with them?

At the expense of becoming politicised? That's not a trivial debate. Not to mention that they're drafting a firearms bill with no consultation with other shooting bodies, something that we all decry when it's done by the DoJ.

FF are tradionally regarded as being supporters of the building industry and as the building industry is doing it's best to reduce land available to shoot on or build ranges on, it would seem silly to cosy up to FF.

But FF are the ones with the majority government right now and therefore the only ones with the power to change things (at least until the next election). If you're going to politicise, it's best to choose the winning team, no?

Incidentally, I am definitely not a supporter of FG but can see a certain logic in the NARGC's direction.

So can everyone else - the question is whether it's the logic that everyone else can agree with following.

As regards the NARGC taking a "more constructive approach". How,exactly?

Well, not promising a civil war would be nice. I mean, seriously - "the most vigourous campaign of opposition ever witnessed"? In a country that's seen a civil war over a political decision, 30 years of terrorist violence over another set of political decisions, and only recently, over 100,000 people marching through the capital over yet another political decision?

Seriously, we know the NARGC wasn't advocating anything immoral or illegal, but I've already had people outside shooting commenting to me on what that statement looked like coming from a "group of people with guns" (their words, not mine). And even if the comment didn't have that negative connotation associated with it, how is the NARGC with it's 24,000 members going to top a protest that had over four times that many people marching through Dublin - and which still was ineffective?

Sparks

gouda wrote:

By taking the High Court action on gun safes

Gouda, I don't think that Terrier's talking about Dunne v. Donoghue (which, by the way, I agree was the correct line of action to take, but the publicity it garnered wasn't handled well as the public now think the case was so we wouldn't have to have gun safes, whereas in fact it was so the Firearms Acts would be followed as written and not circumvented to install de facto legislation drafted by whomever the commissioner happened to be that year).

He's talking (if I've interpreted this correctly) about the NARGC's protesting the CJB's amendment to the Firearms Act over secure storage. Which I'm still trying to figure out myself, to be honest.