The sooner that people cop on to the saying THAT GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE ITS THE PERSON BEHIND THE GUN. If u hold a firearms liseance u are in a position of trust and u will not do anything that will prevent u from having ur liseance taken off u.

I was yapping to a friend who does very little shooting and was explaining the new proposals to him. When I explained what the proposed white list was, he thought it was an excellent idea.

Then I told him that if you applied that rule across the board, you couldn't cycle unless you had a €100k Lotus designed bike or couldn't swim anywhere unless you had an Olympic size swimming pool. He soon saw how stupid that particular proposal was.

Anyway, that's another signature to go to my local TD with.

OTOH there is also a way we can actually "win" this by "losing".
Its not going to sound pleasent to 99.9% of us out there,but it gives any politican the utter title of "toughning up the gun laws in Ireland so they are the strictest in Europe,blah,blah ,blah with the support of Irish gunowners."
This will mean us agreeing to things like;.
written ,oral and practical shooting tests,on a once off basis before you can apply to a gun club for a 6months probation before the club signs you off on your large cal handgun or rifle.
Agreeing that the law is changed that if you are convicted for DUI you are minus your firearms certs as well for the time you are off the road.Even with eight points on your liscense..
Under 18/25 a head shrink visit if you are applying for a first time liscense.
Gun safes become mandatory for ALL types of guns inc the farmers.

Sounds terrible doesn't it?
BUT this is our wishlist in return.
AGS is removed bar backround and criminal checks UTTERLY from the liscensing procedure. Liscensing becomes a civil administration function staffed by NON former AGS personel,its an actual ban on application for a position.Hey, if they can refuse people from joining AGS reserve because of their professions,I dont see why they cant be precluded from a civillian job. Not having a GSOC situation of Garda cheif supers investigating other Garda Supers.

Liscense the man not the guns for six years.But you must also show use of it.
IOW not like some farmers ,pay for 3 years and toss it in the corner again to be taken out after 3 years and re liscense it.

Re intro of IPSC as it is a SPORT and not "combat training" or some other farsical paranoid notion that banned it here in the first place.Ask if it is combat training,why is it legal in NIreland,UK,France Germany ,Italy,??Or do we just perfer as usual an Irish solution to an irish problem and export our problems elsewhere without dealing with them in a mature manner?

We need to take a good hard look at ourselves too folks. Do we want?
1] To continue where we are and be at the whim of a person who in 95% of the time hasnt a bulls notion of our sport and has been indoctrinated from birth at Templemore that Guns = Bad ,trouble,IRA,criminal,nutter. Solution dont allow mere civillians to own if at all possible.

2] A very stringent system that will make sure you have a job getting hands on a firearm in any shape or form.BUT IF you provide the paperwork,and complete the tests for whatever desired fire arm you get it no further questions asked by law.That means if you want a modular sporting rifle with attachments and is jet black,but legal to own all over the EU.You get it.You want a semi CF pistol,you will get it.No more of this "idontlikedelookodatnow" crap.

This is just very much a back of a napkin broad brush stroke concept.
But there is a point that would it be better for us to be helping writing the law and showing that we are being reasonable and sacrificing some dubious advantages or freedoms in the real world,for the benefit in removing the greatest threat and bugbear in the whole equation from it fully for a system that while strict functions properly?

bpb101 wrote: »

National Association of Sporting Rifle & Pistol Clubs (NASRPC)


Who said politicians and Shooting don't mix ? at the Harbour House Christmas Party & Shoot on Saturday, there was 2 TD's in attendance, Ann Phelan TD - Minister of State at the Departments of Agriculture, Food and Marine and Transport, Tourism and Sport and Martin Heydon TD from Kildare South
(maybe a mod can downsize these images a bit , sorry about that )
Hopefully this was a good experience for the ministers and i hope they didnt come across to many criminals trying to rob guns there today.

And hopefully our elected representatives when away with a far better understanding of the sport we have.

Over 150 people were there to have an informal, but hotly contested, competition shoot and a sit down Christmas dinner.

There is another way to keep firearms legislation as is:

This thing has been kicked to committee, which can be a slow and torturous process, depending on the political will behind it.

Political will can be influenced.

Nothing is going to change this side of a general election, anyway.

If I was minister right now, I would leave this for someone else - I mean, what's the urgency?

gunhappy_ie wrote: »

Personally I think that it is a clear indication as to how incompetent, untrustworthy and bias AGS are that in this day in age do not recommend that all firearms have a safe.

That was a compromise won by farmers, I believe.

given rural burglaries, if that makes these proposals go away, then so be it IMHO.

Sparks wrote: »

You're thinking that just because the push is coming from the AGS that the best approach is to push back. Except that that's not the situation. The AGS is not pushing us; they are petitioning the Minister. We're not even invited to the table. If we want into this, we petition the Minister as well. In other words, we can't push back at the AGS the way you'd think and it'd be a bad idea to try because we'd lose anyway.

So you agree the AGS are pushing the ban also? Thats what I'am saying too. I agree we don't push them back, why would we, kinda like asking the dog to put his own lead on!! We petition the Minister in what will be a political decision. It may not even be the Minister decision, if Enda and headquarters (FG) decide they dont need any more potential votes lost. Frances Fitzgerald might be told make this go away.

Heckler wrote: »

Being said there will have to be a bit of give and take to sort this.

Whats acceptable ?

Some are saying measures such as very stringent security terms, i.e. gun safes for everyone incl. farmers. Monitored alarms for any more than one unrestricted firearm. Mandatory firearms safety courses for all new licence applicants. Some are advocating a mental health check for 18 to 25 year old new applicants which I think is a bit much.

So whats acceptable to sacrifice ? Make the remaining CF pistol holders hand up their firearms ? Have rimfire .22 pistol holders screwed because their firearms don't comply with olympic standards ? (which in most fact they do). SA CF rifles to go ?

I accept there has to be some negotiation but I believe if it involves any revocation of existing firearms then its a downward spiral to remove all we have.

Just to point out folks that all of the above is actually common place in Germany and the Netherlands,and in some shape or form within the EU states if you want to get a sports shooters liscense .[Lets not even go there as to what you need to do to get a hunting liscense!!] In the western EU states Germany proably does have the most regimented of the liscenseing systems,but OTHO has the most liberal,[compared to us and the UK] choice of arms available for the longest period of time with the least beuracratic meddling once you are liscensed.

As you can see from the least discussed bits of this proposal and one alot of people are missing INCLUDING THE GUN DEALERS WHOM THIS CONCERNS THE MOST!! They are almost spewing back verbatim that socialist Swedish EU minister cow Malstroms rubbish and utterly discredited survey of tightning up EU gun laws as good EU thinking and are approving that as well in these proposals!!! Think its bad trying to get a few bits in from the US now??Wait until that lands on our laps!!:eek:

So to the point,there is already EU meddling in our gun laws and if they will accept Malstroms rubbish as fact and good group think policy.What else could they adapt to make life miserable??So it might be just better to pre empt them on the EU legislation,adapt EU legislation on our terms,as we are wont to do here anyway...and try to control the game,before it utterly controls us??

So if we are not going to throw each other to the crocs in the hope they are saited when they reach our particular segment of the sports,whats left as bargining chips or counter proposals?? It's us simply having to give ground on legislation and losing some dubious "freedoms" to apply for a limited supply of different types of guns at the whim of a beuracrat in uniform,and having to go to great legal expense to a 50/50 win/lose in a court to appeal his decision..Or remove said beurcat in uniform and his entire organisation apart from one part of the application,for a stricter more regimented application process that once its done will leave us alone and allow us to apply and keep a greater choice of firearms??
If my choice is owning....Sorry...Being" gifted" [at eighty euros] for 3 years a DBBL and a bolt action .22 and maybe a "olympic style " pistol at the whim of a person who hates even me owning those guns and doing ewverything possible to refuse even them.

OR having to sit for three days in a classroom run by a private company or individual listening to stuff I already know as would anyone here on boards ,go to a range and pop off a dozen rounds safely from various guns,do a easy multiple choice question test on aspects of the firearms laws ,gun safety,and ballistics,answer a few questions to the satisfaction of the examiner,get a nice state approved cert and a shooting logbook, free refreshments all the three days in a lecture that is entertaining,informative and you are treated like an adult.

Then go to my range of disipline choice.Shoot six months as a probie,get signed off after that by the cheif RO as competant,then apply to a civillian body with the paperwork for the gun of my choice within a month,aND being allowed a "basic armouy" of three semi auto/pump or lever /bolt smoothbore or rifle and two handguns[including "conversion kits to different calibers] and then go and collect it from the dealer and go shooting with it until I'm 80[ unless I do something daft with it]
How bad?????

Sparks wrote: »

I've highlighted the weakness in an otherwise not heinous plan.
See, we go in and say "we'll accept A, B and C in return for D, E and F" and the response will be "we're in change - if we say you have to accept A, B and C you'll have to and you can forget about making demands to us".

What you want to do is find a third party (where the first two parties are the AGS and us) - in our case the Minister. Then you want to point out to her pros and cons of various options. If you can craft an option which has more pros and fewer cons than the AGS options, she picks that one. It's complicated because every option we craft has "annoys the AGS" as a con automatically, but apart from wrinkles like that, that is how things work at that level.

You've got to stop thinking it's us against the AGS. It's not. It's us and the AGS talking to a third party. Whole other ball game, with different rules and regulations.

On the upside, if it actually was us against the AGS, we'd already have lost, so there's that....

+1, Sparks for president of NARGC

gunhappy_ie wrote: »

From the meeting I attended last week in Fermoy I asked about this compromise. In particular about a licensed unrestricted shotgun not requiring a safe. I was told that compromise was about increasing security measures and not about handing up firearms.

The speaker told the room of 130+ people that if they were in the category of not having a safe to get 1.

Personally I think that it is a clear indication as to how incompetent, untrustworthy and bias AGS are that in this day in age do not recommend that all firearms have a safe.

We were at the same meeting in fermoy. Some very valid points raised. The English guy knows his stuff. Good to have him with his knowledge of English law that they seem to be basing all this nonsense on on our side.

Sparks wrote: »

How much does it cost to run the German setup annually Grizz? How much would it cost to set it up here, train people, build facilities, and so on?

And how much more do we get charged when it's implemented Irish Water style?

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

All of the courses,hunting,sports shooting,reloading are farmed out to private individuals and companies. I re did the sports shooters liscense in Sept this year and that cost me 300 euros well 350 euros to be exact as I added on the test for concealed carry .
Re doing my hunting liscense next year ,that's a 3 1/2 week intense cram course of which 80% would be irrevelant to the Irish situations,and that will cost me about 1800 euros. BUT thats it then...I have them both until I'm 80 and beyond.
Then its a interview and docs cert every year.[Knowing my family's longivity that means proably another 15 years...:D]

Admin on a local govt level ,I cant say as it is included in a regions budget for administrative services .

Training,TBH,you me or anyone who has taken a blind bit of notice and involved themselves in this sport could proably teach it and put together a 3 day course to approved govt standards .The teacher can also qualify as an examiner too,and dont even THINK of trying to bribe these guys... They would have too much too lose career and liscense wise.

Facilities,any range that we have here at the moment would suffice that can handle rifle and pistol. Class room,on the range or rented office space.Nothing costing the taxpayer a red cent. Paid by the instructor and or the company teaching this.

Yeah,I can see your point that as usual here some greedy Feckers will see training = EURO symbols in their eyes = Monopoly = More money to be coined off the hapless.Not to mind words and brown paper envelopes being foisted on people in charge and all the rest of fair busisness practise in Ireland.:(
But if it is open to competition as it will have to be under EU anti monopoly rules ,you would be looking at all in "irish prices" a thousand euros for a lifetime liscense?

Im sure the revenue collected from 179833* licensed firearms @ €80 each generating some €14,386,640 would make a nice start for this

*page 10 of the working groups report.

GH

The week before last a delegation went to see the Minister, to tell her that legislation she's introducing will make their lives harder and more dangerous.

The legislation has been counterproductive in two* of the three countries that have tried it, and it has been rejected by Finland, Denmark, Scotland, England and France. It is also opposed by the UN, the WHO and a list of global organisations as long as your arm. The particular subject is not relevant here, but what is relevant is that at the end of the meeting the Minister said that in her view its more important to "send a message".

So once again we have the Irish Solution - if enforcement of the current laws is too much trouble, we'll pass another law. So we'll solve the problem of crime in Ireland by banning all the guns. This is the mindset of what passes for politicians in this country.

The only way you'll get anything from this Minister is if she's told to "make the problem go away". She has already demonstrated that she's prepared to throw people under the bus for votes.

Sparks is right, this is a numbers game. You need to get the public onside as much as possible, and demonstrate that this firearms grab will lose more votes than it will gain. It's that simple. The plan might then get punted back to a committee somewhere as "too hard", and if you're lucky you might get a chance to have an input. The government have plenty of other stuff to do over the next 15 months (some of which is urgent, and far more important), including 3 or 4 referendums.



*No reliable data exists yet for the other one.

Was there any mention in this months shooters digest, I did not see anything .

I thought it was a funny day/ time to release it plus the short initial timeframe for consultation. ( I believe the consultation period was increased)


I think they were hoping for a limited response.

So I would suggest the more responses the better.