quick to criticize. I think its because myself and a couple of other enlightened individuals are doing something to make a difference and stop this issue of a ban from happening.
Now do your bit and lobby the various stakeholders and stop criticizing me at every turn for even telling you whats happening.
Should have known better than to put info on this forum
jb88 - I live in the real world,
That is questionable at best. Between the self agrandizing, cryptic, baseless and out right wrong information (or lack thereof) you have posted over the last two months, the real world is not something I associate with you.
jb88 - in this country rules are just guidelines
So the firearm acts are just a set of "guidelines? You're not with it at all, you really aren't. That isnot an attack on your character, but if you truly believe that rules (Definition: A set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct or procedure within a particular area of activity) are only guidelines you're on the wrong path.
jb88 - , you dont get the blessing from someone its dead in the water.
So backtracking on your claim you and two others have "saved the sport"?
jb88 - No consensus, no decision made.
Nonsensical jibberish.
jb88 - Id show you the proof but you still wouldnt believe me.
How would you know? You've yet to provide a scintilla of "proof". Other than your cryptc ramblings about secret meetings and back room deals, you have provided nothing even resembling proof. If you mean word of mouth, its not worth the paper its written on.
I spoke before, when you made your claim that you've single handedly saved these firearms and the sport, that if true show us and you'll receive the gratitude and adoration you seek, especially from me.
jb88 - There is a hierarchy to everything in this country and if you dont tip the hat to the right people nothing gets done.
So you are now claiming that you and these other two have done some back room meeting/deal without consulting or informing anyone else. The very thing you've spoken so ardently against since the start of crap show?
jb88 - Rules, when has that ever mattered to the Govt in Ireland . Thats what they write down. Its not what happens
The conspiracy theory forum is that way --------------------->
Frankly, from my own perspective and based on what you've written and failed to do, I view you as the very threat you have spoken about previously. I just hope that anyone of authority that you have made contact with can see that and that the damage you do is negligible.
I live in the real world, in this country rules are just guidelines, you dont get the blessing from someone its dead in the water. No consensus, no decision made. Id show you the proof but you still wouldnt believe me.
There is a hierarchy to everything in this country and if you dont tip the hat to the right people nothing gets done.
Rules, when has that ever mattered to the Govt in Ireland . Thats what they write down. Its not what happens
jb88 - He doesnt have the power or this would have been done already
Wrong.
Any Minister can bring forward a Bill and its called a Bill. If a TD does it its called a private members bill. The Minister is Minister for state within the Department of Jutice and Equality with responsibility for law reform. I mean the clue is right there in the name, law reform.
jb88 - He has had to slowly backtrack out of his statements
When did this happen? You claimed it was dead in the water 6 weeks ago, now you're saying he is backtracking, yet all the evidence points to the opposite.
It would be so much easier for people to get behind you if you stopped with the "wink, wink", "nudge, nudge" crap, spoke openly and clearly and simply said what it is you mean rather than obfuscate in what can only be described as some sort of attempt to engrandize yourself with subtle implciations of knowledge about this beyond what everyone else knows.
jb88 - to now establishing some think tank with no powers,
Wrong again. The review committee is part of the legal process.
The process is:
At the moment it appears to be at the beginning of the process, somewhere in the review committee stage. This is why he has set up a committee to reivew it, invite stakeholders, and discuss the contents of the Bill so that it can progress to the next step, a final draft and onto initiation of the Bill.
jb88 - see where all of this is going
Not in the same direction you wish it were, or think it is. Hope I wrong, but your calls for everyone to ignore this "dead issue" (as you call it) while at the same time telling people to write to the Minister/involved persons is confusing and contradictory.
Once again, and I know you'll simply disappear for a few weeks until you think its safe to raise your head above the parapet, I'd ask that you clearly, concisely and in no vague way explain what you have done, intend to do or know that will help this situation.
Those who have the most to lose, me and a few others. Made ourselves aware of the facts, identified the players and sent submissions.
The minister for state isnt a player. He doesnt have the power or this would have been done already and a ban would be in place. He has had to slowly backtrack out of his statements to now establishing some think tank with no powers, see where all of this is going....
Who'd have thought certain individual's secretive meetings wouldn't amount to much. Almost as if they were bullsh*tting us since the start for some unknown motivation. Who knows, maybe he'll get the Taoiseach or Michael D to intervene.
From replies gotten, and comparing to others, the wording used in all correspondence is "its my itent to move forward with prohibiting the licensing of semi-auto centrefire firearms".
So even with the formation, or rather planned formation, it seems he has the bit between his teeth and is charging on with the proposed ban.
So was the pistol ban, but it was also supported by an SI (337/2009). Its why I wondered about the pistol ban, but perhaps because the section regarding pistols, although contained within the criminal justice act, was not/does not criminalise the act after the fact it is legal. I mean the DoJ have enough "experts" to not allow an illegal aspect be put into legislation.
Time will tell.
Ah ok, thanks for clarifying that Cass. I believe the proposed ban is part of a criminal justice act, so I'll be interesting to see if the cut off date holds up.
The 15th September 2015 was the date the Minister stood in the Dáil and announced her intention to prohibit the licensing of any more SACF rifles. Like with the pistol ban the then Minister made the same statement on 18th November 2008, but the legislation to impose such a banwas not drafted until June 2009 and signed into law in July 2009. The legilsation is then retrospectively applied back to the date the statement of intent was announced in the Dáil.
I'm not a legal expert but from a cursory check this is legal but only in some forms of legislation. It does not apply to criminal matters which is why I also struggled to understand its legality as some firearm laws are contained within criminal justice acts, however from what I've read its only an issue if it makes something that was legal illegal causing someone who was not guilty of an offence "yesterday" to be guilty of an offence today.
In other words with no statement made and no law to prohibit owning/possessing/licensing a SACF rifle prior to September 2015 the law cannot be introduced to make what was legal, illegal prior to that date. Hence the reason a date is set.
I said either in this thread or another that the pistol ban was annunced, drafted, signed into law within 8 months. Its been over 6 years and only the first draft is done (apparently from last year) so I think people would have a strong-ish case to appeal the severe length of time between the statement of intent and the introduction of legislation (which still hasn't come) and the posible revocation of license in that time period.
But if the current minister can decide to revoke all licenses issued post 15th September 2015, despite there being no mention of such a date in any current firearms legislation, then surely Fitzgerald could have just picked a random date and leave 1 CFSA licensed. My point is what makes the 15th of September date so important? It has no legal basis, but is the dividing line between compensation and no compensation. What would stop the minister revoking all CFSA licenses issued post the 1972 "temporary" custody order, or the 2008 pistol cut off date? Surely there's more of a legal basis for those dates? I guess I'm just struggling to wrap my head around why something a minister thought 6 years ago has such an impact on whether compensation is given or not.
Thank God for that anyway, probably would have been a bit of an embarrassment for her, being forced down from such a hard line stance to settle for leaving so many scary fully semi automatic rifles out there.
She couldn't have revoked all existing licenses in the form of a ban as that would have led to ompensation claims. She initially said there would be no compensation, but after saying this things went "quiet" and her department later walked that back presumably after someone told her that the revocation of licenses, hence property, is something that would require compensation.
Remember if you go back to the 2014 paper,they were basing and still do this claim of no compensation on [1]Two high court judges comments in firearms cases about licensing being a privilege,but they NEVER mentioned anything about compensation and [2] A UK academics law paper, that had zero bearing on UK Law, whatsoever in relation to the Hungerford/Dunblane compensation cases and [3] If this is/was challenged in the HC it creates precedent law in Ireland which could have all sorts of knock-on effects in relation to all sorts of licensed items,goods and professions.However, they will no doubt quote the case of the Taxi drivers Vs the minister for state in 2000 who tried to sue for loss of earnings as their precedent, be rather shaky ground according to some legal heads.
As for why she didn't ban new ones, I honestly don't know. The pistol ban of 2009 came about in the exact same way and that is done under a change to the act, but also an SI, which the Minister could have done fairly quickly. Perhaps she was intending to draft legislation, but never got around to it.
It does seem odd alright, why leave it this long on the finger? It does give credence to the idea of a tipping point number of new imports and licenses issued? Maybe they were expecting post the DC cases and the Dail inquiry a surge like with the handguns that never emerged? Or that there was so much dirt coming up about AGS at the time that she was too busy doing a CYA after the burnings in the DC's and Dail inquiry, that she was being political and trying to be all things to all people?As the whole thing does sound like future music for someone else to deal with? Or that this is Browne trying to make a political name for himself by trying for some low hanging fruit? We can only speculate.
Here is Eugene Stoner father of the AR15 / M16 in his own words describing how he was a hobby shooter on the range, shooting a prototype self loading rifle he made for fun, when an executive from soon- to- be- formed ArmaLite asked him to join the company and design the AR10 which became the AR15 at the hands of John Sullivan.
so a civilian designed the AR while hobby shooting
Just a thought that came to mind, if Frances Fitzgerald planned to outright ban CF SA in 2015, why didn't she just ban the future licensing of these rifles? Seems a little bit stupid when you could just revoke all licenses issued and ban licensing them again. I know politicians aren't exactly known for their high IQs, but surely one of her advisors would have been semi competent enough to point this out.
So not dead then?
Reading your reply above seems your big hurrah was a bit premature. Never, never believe a politican 😉
“The main problem in any democracy is that crowd-pleasers are generally brainless swine who can go out on a stage & whup their supporters into an orgiastic frenzy—then go back to the office & sell every one of the poor bastards down the tube for a nickel apiece.”
― Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72
and on a lighter note..........
“Politics: “Poli” a Latin word meaning "many" and "tics" meaning "bloodsucking creatures".”
― robin williams
I have submitted my thoughts to relevant places not that I think it'll makes a blind bit of difference in this case. Heard a whisper it's not up for "discussion" ......... (& yes I took it with a lb of salt 🧂😋)
jb88 - This whole drama will be brought back in the new year,
What will be brought back next year? The proposed ban? Did you not do a "vicotry lap" a few weeks back with the claim its "dead"?
jb88 (23/09/2021) - Its not on the cards, not happening, those on the justice committee no longer looking at this.
And if you want to thank anyone, thank 3 people including myself, but really thank the other two, I just turned up and shot.
This issue is dead right now with the govt, not going ahead despite some peoples agendas.
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.
Seen as your back posting jb88 care to enlighten us now?
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.
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.
Had a good talk about converting them to 'Lever Release' on Saturday
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.
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).
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?
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.
I have decided to become a single issue voter.
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.
