Gardai proposals to ban firearms

ruger1894c · 04-04-2015 10:14pm

nastros wrote: »

Ya that is pretty much an exact description of what would happen. It looks to me that the coalition are trying to monopolise and control shooting sports. Not all members of the coalition but we know a certain member of the coalition has had a history of this.

Sorry should have been clearer but that is exactly what i meant Thanks for clearing that up for me sparks too much going on in the head after reading that manure from the coalation..

Zxthinger · 04-04-2015 11:02pm

What's the hidden agenda here with this crowd! What do they hope to gain for themselves?

Also not happy with the committees statement on making parts of the sport prohibitively expensive.. I feel that it's undemocratic to legislate in this manner.. surely this is fundamentally wrong..????

Also I read that only 200 submissions where received by the justice committee... However I have not seen any comment as to the number received my the dept of justice anyone know about this.

nastros · 04-04-2015 11:06pm

Zxthinger wrote: »

What's the hidden agenda here with this crowd! What do they hope to gain for themselves?

Also not happy with the committees statement on making parts of the sport prohibitively expensive.. I feel that it's undemocratic to legislate in this manner.. surely this is fundamentally wrong..????

Also I read that only 200 submissions where received by the justice committee... However I have not seen any comment as to the number received my the dept of justice anyone know about this.

Honestly I think they want to control licensing and monopolise shooting

grassroot1 · 04-04-2015 11:16pm

Do the sports collation hold any meetings to discuss their position?

Deaf git · 04-04-2015 11:32pm

@ Zxtinger - Money is the motive for some....power & position for others.

It's probably too late for anyone to try starting an alternative to the coalition at this point. There's no harm in sending on a few mails to the coalition pointing out errors in strategy and viable alternatives. As with all other mails to TDs etc better to keep it polite and try to ignore the personal issues.

Sparks · 04-04-2015 11:35pm

Really?
"Terribly sorry about this, but you're already bent over the table, you might as well enjoy it"?
**** that noise.

Deaf git · 04-04-2015 11:38pm

'Language shapes thought' or words to that effect.....

Sparks · 04-04-2015 11:39pm

Deaf git wrote: »

'Language shapes thought' or words to that effect.....

Yeah, can you guess from my language what I'm thinking about that bunch of ****ing chancers? These aren't elected public officials we're talking about here.

Deaf git · 04-04-2015 11:53pm

Sparks wrote: »

Yeah, can you guess from my language what I'm thinking about that bunch of ****ing chancers? These aren't elected public officials we're talking about here.

I know, am sure I can guess..... my son learned his best expletives when I vented at home about work crep.

I think we were over the table last November. I don't think we are as badly off now (largely courtesy of the other sides screw ups). When I looked at the committee hearings I figured some shooters present were not bff's.... But everyone retained composure in public and did what was required. Thats even more important now.

So lets get on with giving alternatives to the stuff in the interim report (like your mail to the chairperson). The difficult one here is a provision for cf sa rifles that can fly politically.

Cass · 05-04-2015 12:30am

Deaf git wrote: »

It's probably too late for anyone to try starting an alternative to the coalition at this point.

Why?

They are not recognised by the DoJ or AGS. Any interaction with them is purely by the grace of the AGS & DoJ. IOW lip service. As over 75%+ of the shooting community is not a part of the coalition i fail to see how if the other groups got together how they could not easily take the lead in this.

There's no harm in sending on a few mails to the coalition pointing out errors in strategy and viable alternatives. As with all other mails to TDs etc better to keep it polite and try to ignore the personal issues.

Not directed at you (more the sentiment) but f**k that. These people have shown time and again their self serving agendas or incompetence. The fact they are happy with the interim report and boast how it almost perfectly reflects their proposals as sent in February shows where their priorities are.

Deaf git wrote: »

I think we were over the table last November.

We were never, and never will be, on the giving side. To think we will be is naive and pointless. However we had not sent any letters offering to shoot ourselves in the back of the head for the sake of a crumb from the table.

I don't think we are as badly off now (largely courtesy of the other sides screw ups).

Which at the very least has been leveled by our own or at worst eclipsed.

When I looked at the committee hearings I figured some shooters present were not bff's.... But everyone retained composure in public and did what was required. Thats even more important now.

In the review committee meeting they did. However when face to face and having to speak on the spot it's harder to do things in the shadows.

So which organisations did this accumulation of shooting groups (not going to degrade myself anymore by calling it a coalition) contact before sending that bastard of a letter? When and where did they hold an AGM or EGM to ask their own members input on the matter? How did they think offering appeasements when none were asked for was going to play out?

So lets get on with giving alternatives to the stuff in the interim report (like your mail to the chairperson). The difficult one here is a provision for cf sa rifles that can fly politically.

There it is again. "Mistakes were made, but we need to move on". If these kinds of f**k ups are continuously ignored and explained away they will continue to happen. I'd like to give a warning as to how it might play out later on down the road, however that bridge has been crossed and the time for warnings has come and gone. If you (the entire community) want to continue on this path then more power to you. I for one will not support this anymore.

Any sort of letter writing, petition signing, e-mail sending, etc. by default is a confirmation of the shooting groups and i will no longer be a part of or in any small way associated to them or their goals. Nor should anyone else as that letter they sent clearly shows they are not on the same page as the rest of us. Anyone whoe says they are is either naive or doesn't own a gun.

Deaf git · 05-04-2015 4:25pm

@ Cass- If anyone wants to start up an alternative group to the coaliion go right ahead, it's a free country. This is a useful forum for debate- but that is all it is.
You can choose to respond to people as you see fit, civil or otherwise. But to an onlooker who doesn't know or care about who said such-and-such years ago, the person that displays a civil & professional approach will generally be given greater creedance. The Minister and committee are onlookers in this context.
I'm very much obliged to the people that represented us shooters at the committee hearings, reasoned professionalism abounded. Having said that, I wouldn't care to trade the time of day with two of the men speaking that day (I have my reasons).
The politics of shooting here always struck me as personality driven as opposed to policy driven. The moneygrabbing, hungry nature of some in the business fuppin sickens me. But we are where we are and that is a fact.

berettaman · 05-04-2015 5:16pm

Deaf git wrote: »

The politics of shooting here always struck me as personality driven as opposed to policy driven. The moneygrabbing, hungry nature of some in the business fuppin sickens me. But we are where we are and that is a fact.

There are good decent people within certain shooting organisations that want to remove the money grabbing arrogant barstewards at the top and build bridges to further shooting sports generally.

It will take time but don't write us all off. We don't want to monopolise anything but it is hard to remove the old regime and it is not for the want of trying...trust me on that..

berettaman · 05-04-2015 5:17pm

Deaf git wrote: »

The politics of shooting here always struck me as personality driven as opposed to policy driven. The moneygrabbing, hungry nature of some in the business fuppin sickens me. But we are where we are and that is a fact.

There are good decent people within certain shooting organisations that want to remove the money grabbing arrogant barstewards at the top and build bridges to further shooting sports generally.

It will take time but don't write us all off. We don't want to monopolise anything but it is hard to remove the old regime and it is not for the want of trying...trust me on that..

Sparks · 05-04-2015 5:18pm

Deaf git wrote: »

But we are where we are and that is a fact.

It is also a fact that if we keep saying that, we will always be here.
It is also a fact that the sports coalition just isn't necessary.
It is also a fact that we are here because of the people in it and what they have done in the past and you can keep saying "oh, it's all history" until you are blue in the face, it will not change the fact that that history is something that impacts on each and every last one of us, every single day of the week.
And it is also a fact that "it's all history" was said when the sport coalition was started and we were all told to row in behind it and forget all that went before - and here we are, not even a full year later, and we're seeing history repeat itself, again.

Something has got to ****ing give, or we're all going to be standing around the range holding lead pellets and throwing them at the targets and talking about the good old days when we used to have firearms and a sport to use them in.

Cass · 05-04-2015 5:24pm

Deaf git wrote: »

But to an onlooker who doesn't know or care about who said such-and-such years ago,

There is your problem right there. Past mistakes, errors, and grievous acts simply brushed to the side. Granted dredging up past mistakes can be a time sink, but it's very relevant when you consider the same people are doing the same thing once again.

Answer me this. Are you happy with what the "coalition" wrote on your behalf and are you happy that the interim report is a direct reflection of those proposals?

If we continue to allow these people to make/perform such massive and dangerous statements/acts on our behalf then any resulting actions lay at our feet and not just theirs because we allowed it to continue. The excuse, and make no mistake it is only an excuse, of "it's in the past" has been trampled out many times in the past.

The first time something like this was done the excuse was "sure they didn't enact anything we proposed". So the fact that the proposal was laughed out of the building makes the act of submitting it okay? The second time such a travesty was carried out and the issue of the first proposal was brought up the excuse was "the proposal is in the past" and then no response to the second act at all. It was simply ignored as there was no excuse for what was done.

Now, once again, the same people have carried out an act without any consultation with other NGBs, organisations, or even their own members and your answer to this is "the other issues are in the past and people don't care about what happened before". How many times do you allow these people to dangerously affect out chances of keeping our guns? How much time has to pass before it's considered non relevant? How many mistakes are you going to allow them to make before you realise it's a pattern and a sign of their incompetence.

Seriously!!!

To turn a blind eye, say it's too late to do anything, or that all previous transgressions are not to be considered is a sure fire way to ensure we loose everything. These people are writing in, supposedly representing the shooting community, and making concessions and appeasements on our behalf without asking or talking to us. As i said earlier, the review committee has admitted they know nothing about the sport(s) and everything had to be explained to them in detail and basic detail. So when they receive a letter from the "Coalition" supposedly representing the shooting community they take it we all agree.

Mark my words, when the sh*t hits the fan, and that process is already under way, you'll be sitting at home in a year or two wondering where it went wrong and what could have been done to prevent it. So ask yourself is now the time to act or should this colossal f**k up be allowed to go unquestioned like all the other ones, because t happened in Februry. You know, 6 weeks ago. So it's in the past. :mad:

@Berretaman - I know and fully agree and support what you have said. My comments are aimed at the 5 to 10 people at the "top table". I've seen, spoken to and listened to members from within those organisations that were as shocked and disgusted that their OWN organisation would act as they did. Basically in secret. They don't consult their own members let alone other groups. What they have proposed affects all sports. While that is not acceptable (their own sport) it's sure as sh*t not going to fly for the others.

My only course of action now is to remove any support in form of letter writing, e-mails, meetings with TDs, etc. and write a letter to distance myself from the Coalition. I want it known their opininos and prosposals are in no way reflective of my opinions and thougts, and i'm also goin to write to other NGBs & organisations and urge them to do the same.

I'm afraid this Coalition have forced the issue of presenting a split community because no one in their right mind or that want to keep their guns could support such a group.

Deaf git · 05-04-2015 5:58pm

The coalition dont answer to me, there was no voting process as well you know. I cant stop some bunch choosing to say or do what they want, neither can you. Hence the fenian mcgraw style of politics.
But if you so strongly disagree with their actions, garner whatever support you can and put forward alternatives. Maybe put up proposals here and let's see if we can get an alternative off the ground, summon a meeting and I and others will attend.
All you can do is put forward an alternative and more reasoned point of view...

Sparks · 05-04-2015 6:10pm

Deaf git wrote: »

All you can do is put forward an alternative and more reasoned point of view...

How about this one: we use our NGBs. We elect our representatives there already and they're where all the expertise is. They already exist, no extra work has to be done, but we don't let any cabal get formed and if one starts, we call an EGM under existing rules and chuck 'em out.

This idea that we need a single lobbying group is just broken.

Deaf git · 05-04-2015 6:34pm

Sparks wrote: »

How about this one: we use our NGBs. We elect our representatives there already and they're where all the expertise is. They already exist, no extra work has to be done, but we don't let any cabal get formed and if one starts, we call an EGM under existing rules and chuck 'em out.

This idea that we need a single lobbying group is just broken.

There you go with those reasonable views again.
Yes, do that and hope the reps actually fuppin say something.

Cass · 05-04-2015 6:48pm

In case you missed it, as my previous post was fairly long i asked you a question:

Cass wrote: »

Answer me this. Are you happy with what the "coalition" wrote on your behalf and are you happy that the interim report is a direct reflection of those proposals?.

As for this:

Deaf git wrote: »

The coalition dont answer to me, there was no voting process as well you know.

Yes they do and yes there is.

These people are at the heads of their respective groups. They were put there via a vote from the members that is usually held each year at the AGM. In cases such as this you, and everyone in an organisation, has access to the EGM feature whereby if a situation arises that is causing problems or of an emergency nature you can call a meeting. I would think them pissing away any hope we have constitutues an emergency.

The worrying part is the simplistic way people seem to accept this cannot be changed and when given options they put up roadblocks. IOW it's the 2% rule all over again. Too much grief so better to do nothing. Even if that nothing means those doing the work are not the best for the job.

I cant stop some bunch choosing to say or do what they want, neither can you. Hence the fenian mcgraw style of politics.

My intention is not to stop them. Never going to happen. My intention is to distance ourselves, or at least me, from a group that is not representative of the communities needs and does not listen or even confer with it's members.

But if you so strongly disagree with their actions, garner whatever support you can and put forward alternatives. Maybe put up proposals here and let's see if we can get an alternative off the ground, summon a meeting and I and others will attend.
All you can do is put forward an alternative and more reasoned point of view...

I intend to do just that. Might come to something, might not. However i will be wirting to the various other groups NOT in the coalition and asking what their intentions are, how they are getting on with their own proposals, any movement, etc. Then to justice committee, rview committee and pushing any association between the "Coalition" and me away with a big, long, bargepole.

Deaf git wrote: »

Yes, do that and hope the reps actually fuppin say something.

Eveyrone thinks the other groups are sitting on their hands. They are NOT. They are working, just in a less shouty and less "f**ked up" way. I'll take quiet and effective over mouthy and useless any day.

Deaf git · 05-04-2015 7:05pm

I'm not a member of NARGC, IFDA, ROAI etc. If you look at how the coalition is comprised it is largely the businesses associated with shooting. So I don't have voting rights. My representative group isn't in the coalition. But when I had recent difficulties my representative group was as useful as a chocolate fireguard- even when it came to advice. Some members of this forum gave their advice freely and from differing perspectives and i ultimately chose my course of action.

You appear to think I am a coalition supporter, believe me when I say I'm too cynical not to see the vested interests at play within that group. But having spoken to 2 men in my 'representative organisation' I wouldn't hold out much hope of a real contribution to mending shooting sports and laws in this country. I think a lot of people in these groups are members simply because their chosen club happens to be affiliated. I chose my club and range because I liked the extent of the ranges, the constant presence of a vigilant range officer, the owner appeared grumpy but definitely HONEST and the various disciplines open to me.

I wrote my submissions quietly, I spoke to TDs quietly, I wrote polite emails to Gardai etc. I dont see the coalition as the knight in shining armour. I know some of those involved would love to have state sanctioned testing through their facilities, coining it every inch of the way. BUT, I never got an email, letter or phonecall from my representative group calling for a meeting so how could they represent my views? Clairvoyance perhaps?

Like I said, aire your views and start something- I think its a bit late but who knows.

BattleCorp · 05-04-2015 10:30pm

I'm after reading the Coalition letter and would like a bit of help understanding the two proposals below.

.22 pistols - what would we lose, anything with a barrel length less than 5 inches? What else in the suggestions would affect .22 pistols?

Semi auto centrefire rifles - anything newer than 1950 can't be licenced? Where's the sense in that?

Kryten · 05-04-2015 10:54pm

But .22 pistols with a barrel length less than 5 inches, will inadvertently restrict a good proportion of Olympic pistols, the very ones the Gardai accept.

Sparks · 05-04-2015 11:15pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

.22 pistols - what would we lose, anything with a barrel length less than 5 inches? What else in the suggestions would affect .22 pistols?

We don't lose pistols because of it, because the proposal isn't legal. There's no way to effect it. That's the problem.

The committee has just given carte blanche to a shooting group, and the recommendation the shooting group gave turns out to be illegal. And not on some arcane technicality, but in a blatent and easily verifiable way. Now the committee's embarressed because the rest of us, not having seen the letter the coalition sent in (because everything's all secret-squirrel), have pointed out the flaws in the committee's recommendations, which have gone to the Minister. So they have egg on their faces and they know who caused it.

That's the main damage that's been done.

The secondary damage is that they've recommended five inches as the minimum barrel length, cutting off a swathe of smallbore pistol shooters as unimportant. They won't lose their pistols, but it speaks volumes as to what the mentality is.

Semi auto centrefire rifles - anything newer than 1950 can't be licenced? Where's the sense in that?

It's swiped from the US, I'd guess, they have a similar law (with a different year) for similar firearms there.

The worse damage though comes in subsequent "suggestions" like a firearms apprenticeship scheme (hey, who needs the "good reason" test when you can be in charge of something, eh?), and lovely phrases like "Centrefire variations which are unattractive to criminals" and "I and my colleagues take our obligation to show leadership very seriously" and that kind of fun thing.

I mean, it's almost like someone thinks we can't read.

Kryten · 05-04-2015 11:52pm

But .22 pistols with a barrel length less than 5 inches, will inadvertently restrict a good proportion of Olympic pistols, the very ones the Gardai accept.

Kryten · 05-04-2015 11:53pm

Sorry. Used the back button and reposted the same post.

Sparks · 05-04-2015 11:54pm

Kryten wrote: »

But .22 pistols with a barrel length less than 5 inches, will inadvertently restrict a good proportion of Olympic pistols, the very ones the Gardai accept.

Kryten, how would they cap the licencing of a class of firearm like that with a numerical limit on the number of licences issued?
There is nothing in the Act that permits that. Nobody has the legal authority to do so.
And yes, you could rewrite the Act to allow it, but this was a measure specifically supposed to come in before that happens.

Unless, of course, the Coalition actually meant to have the Minister declare such pistols unlicencable, which would revoke all such existing licences...

garrettod · 06-04-2015 12:34am

toolazyforgolf wrote: »

....Once again people posting about things here they know nothing about.

Would you please expand a little on that statement, I'm not sure I follow you ?

Thank you.

Grizzly 45 · 06-04-2015 1:31am

Sparks wrote: »

It's swiped from the US, I'd guess, they have a similar law (with a different year) for similar firearms there.

NO SUCH LAW over there.
The US states base their bans or restrictions on "military "features, or mag capacity or brand. Thats why you find in example California or New York state named firearms brands with distinctive features.

In NY state for example the Walther.22 GSP Olympic pistol is now illegal under the SAFE act as it has its mag in front of the trigger group not in the butt.A feature only found on "assault pistols"
Go figure...

That has in some cases actually caused guns like the Garand or M1 carbine [well before 1950 models] to be considerd illegal.[Courtsey of Sarah Brady and and her Handgun control Inc ]
So a Colt AR 15 pre the 1995 assault weapon ban,known as the crime control act which grand fathered in 2005 would be illegal to own yet a Remington R15 would not.As it has no military features.

If this is trues.It leaves some intresting possibliities open on then liscensing intresting things like STENS, MP40 Schmeissers, Thompsons and FG 42 or MP 44s open to liscensing then as these are now made in Germany in semi auto and have been cleared by the BKA technical division as suitable for sale to civillians. Be quite happy changing my R25 for a FN FAL or a springfield M14....Well actually no need after all AGS claimed my rifle was based on the AR10 which was in limited production in 1954

However in reality I see this as likely as a herd of Unicorns on O Connell st for Easter Monday.
As with a lot of these counter proposalsthey are as unreasonable as the AGS proposals.Both sides are throwing up unreasonable and unrealistic demands that they know will never be agreed to,but in the hopes they walk away with more than their bare minimum they needed.
Thats my take on whats going on here.

tikkahunter · 06-04-2015 7:58am

toolazyforgolf wrote: »

You said

My post below which if you'd posted the whole thing here I reckon it would adequately explain why I thought your comment was out of order as it is an ingenious attack on Garda vetted & DOJ licenced people. To me it also showed an obvious lack of knowledge of the subject as if you knew they were vetted & licenced you's hardly reckon they would be giving information to people who should not have it.

Trying to get banned off 2 sites in as many days?
Money talks just because someone is garda vetted does not mean they won't give out your details for a few bob if they are in a tight spot.

Sparks · 06-04-2015 12:05pm

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

NO SUCH LAW over there.

When did they repeal the Firearm Owners' Protection Act?

As with a lot of these counter proposalsthey are as unreasonable as the AGS proposals.Both sides are throwing up unreasonable and unrealistic demands that they know will never be agreed to,but in the hopes they walk away with more than their bare minimum they needed.
Thats my take on whats going on here.

If you're playing the "ask more than you need" game, you don't start by giving away stuff that you don't want to give up, and you sure as hell don't start by giving away stuff that isn't yours to give away in the first place.

Shooting Forum - Firearms licencing information

Gardai proposals to ban firearms

Comments

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County