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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Wrong again. The review committee is part of the legal process.

The process is:

• Green paper on the Bill with input from stakeholders
• Publish the heads of the Bill
• Oireachtas review committee (also may include stakeholders)
• Initiation of the Bill
• Debate on the Bill
• Committee Stage (this is where amendments happen)
• Report stage
• Final stage (basically finalising the Bill before sending it to the Seanad)
• The other house of the Oireachtas goes through stages two to five
• Bill is passed by both houses and sent to President for signing into law.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So backtracking on your claim you and two others have "saved the sport"?

Nonsensical jibberish.

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.

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?

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.

MODERATOR WARNING.

Tell you what, you were warned before about making false/baseless claims without backing them up or providing evidence, not to mention attacking this forum and its memebrs. You have failed to heed them so therefore I take your continued posting as nothing more than trolling.

Contune to do this and you'll receive a thread ban. Continue after that and its a forum ban.

MODERATOR NOTE

Absolutely no way you will disappear without answering questions, then reappear demanding answers to the exact same questions that were asked of you.

You have been warned before about this behaviour and how it is low level trolling. As such you are now thread banned.

That means you are no longer welcome to post on this thread. Any attempt to do so will result in infraction, post deletion, and a forum ban.