Straight Pull Rifle + Import from UK

Grizzly 45 · 23-05-2020 12:10pm

Mellor wrote: »

The previous agreed description isn't legally fixed however. So the next super can describe it differently. This is the issue with a subjective assessment forming part of a law.
I donlt know if any wording could be perfect, but t could certainly be better

This is where humanity comes in with having to deal with imperfect laws. Unless you are a complete dick with an agenda why would you try fixing s

[1]Somthing that aint broke?a
[2] Go against a decision of a now,no doubt superior officer to you in rank?
3] Have to justify it in a court because you are now accusing someone of virtually criminal negligence or intent, in now re classifying a gun you personally deem to be an asault rifle and your office incorrectly liscensed.

First question out of the defence barrister is going to be."Now Super,could you tell this court of your personal technical qualifications in firearms design,recognition and handling that made you come to this conclusion that this is an assault rifle?":)..And we'll go from there...

I wonder is a list of decisions, where the courts decided the status of X or Y would benefit other

.

If there is,it certainly would.Not just for firearms.

Mellor · 23-05-2020 2:53pm

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

This is where humanity comes in with having to deal with imperfect laws. Unless you are a complete dick with an agenda why would you try fixing s

[1]Somthing that aint broke?a
[2] Go against a decision of a now,no doubt superior officer to you in rank?
3] Have to justify it in a court because you are now accusing someone of virtually criminal negligence or intent, in now re classifying a gun you personally deem to be an asault rifle and your office incorrectly liscensed.

You could of course use that to try sway his opinion. But if he digs his heels in, then the "restricted label" sticks.

Because the previous classification is not relevant from a legal perspective. Which is a pain in the hole, but it's the reality of the law/system. What matters is whether or not it is classed as restricted when applying.

Imagine a super incorrectly identified a semi-auto shotgun as restricted. And forced somebody to get a restricted license. New super comes along, and says it's not restricted. It wouldn't be fair if they were forced to maintain the original restricted status. Goes both ways.

Or say you get to keep the non-restricted license based on previous super's opinion. But then I make a new application for the same firearm, with no previous opinion status. So it's restricted for me?

First question out of the defence barrister is going to be."Now Super,could you tell this court of your personal technical qualifications in firearms design,recognition and handling that made you come to this conclusion that this is an assault rifle?":)..And we'll go from there...

I think that would be a poor approach tbh.
Super could openly admit to not being a technical expert, and point to the fact that technical specs are not relevant to the definition of assault rifle under law.

That's the issue. The law allows appearance OR function to equally dictate status.

jb88 · 23-05-2020 2:55pm

A Steyr AUG is definitely restricted. It's a bullpup rifle, that's unambiguous.
The guy you know that has one, presumably has a restricted license. That's all[/QUOTE]

In .223 yes its restricted I assumed that was assumed, how over assumptive of me.

jb88 · 23-05-2020 3:05pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Here's the fcuked up thing about the law. One Super might think it is unrestricted (in other words he/she isn't concerned about its appearance) and they can grant an unrestricted licence for it. 5 years down the road when the Super retires, a new Super might consider it to be a restricted firearm (based on how they view its appearance) and hey presto you don't have the correct licence. That's my take on it anyway.

Not saying that hasn't happened, we all know cases of this. But as an applicant for a firearm its always the individuals responsibility to check the law thoroughly before applying and have all the facts straight.

Its always the guys who don't know their stuff who end up on this and a multitude of different forums and gun clubs moaning about why their application wasn't accepted or later rejected.

If in doubt consult with a lad who has done this already and learn to navigate the pitfalls and you will be ok.

A great former Super, very informed on all things firearms, once told me "Paper never refuses Ink", so write a letter in support of your application guys.

All above for the wider public Battlecorp.

You a man extremely aware in all things already know this well.

jb88 · 23-05-2020 3:15pm

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

I was para phrasing what the act says,And if you are following what I posted about my visit as FUNI rep to the DOJ in Dec on the question of compensation for surrenderd high capacity magazines, here we have been told to FO politely by both the DOJ and the EU court ruling on this too from the cases taken by the Czech Republic ,Slovakia and Poland last year...

So logically,are they going to pay you for a rifle you bought knowingly that under the 2017 legislation that such a liscense in theory cant even be liscensed,but because it isnt actually on the statue books, and we have no idea, if,how,when they might introduce suvchleaves you in legal imbo with a Damoclean sword over your head? IOW are you going to risk losing 2K worth of rifle because someone in the ministers dept thinks maybe 201 semi auto CF rifles is one to many,or 2000,or 20,000 and decides to push that paragraph into the statue book?
This is NOT to say dont go out and try and get one.I'd be the 1st to say go for it.It's just a "Cevat Emptor" of what might happen,or might not under our crazy legislation.

I disagree with this, if its not in law then it doesn't exist, and all this worry about paying for something and maybe someone is going to legally take it is blue sky thinking.

You want a restricted gun, then go out and get one, forget about what may or may not happen in the future. Ive been hearing this for ten years. Ten years plus of fun times with restricted firearms. Ten years when lad s are too afraid to get what they can legally apply for because they are worried.

Mellor · 23-05-2020 4:51pm

jb88 wrote: »

In .223 yes its restricted I assumed that was assumed, how over assumptive of me.

That’s all the previous poster was saying. That it was restricted.
And they (Bullpups) are restricted in all calibres. Even 22lr

tudderone · 23-05-2020 8:48pm

Mellor wrote: »

That’s all the previous poster was saying. That it was restricted.
And they (Bullpups) are restricted in all calibres. Even 22lr

Yes, but a pistol in .22lr is unrestricted :rolleyes:. So a .22lr pistol 5 or 6 inches long is unrestricted, but a 24 inch long bullpup is restricted. Irish logic at its finest folks.

Grizzly 45 · 23-05-2020 9:30pm

Mellor wrote: »

You could of course use that to try sway his opinion. But if he digs his heels in, then the "restricted label" sticks.

See ya in court then!He'd be on a hiding onto nothing if he dug in on those points. Contradicting and rescinding a superior officers previous decisions...Big career move there! Making a decision based on no tech knowledge,and despite the ballsitics telling him,not a good idea?

Because the previous classification is not relevant from a legal perspective. Which is a pain in the hole, but it's the reality of the law/system. What matters is whether or not it is classed as restricted when applying.

Initial first application!

[

QUOTE]Imagine a super incorrectly identified a semi-auto shotgun as restricted. And forced somebody to get a restricted license. New super comes along, and says it's not restricted. It wouldn't be fair if they were forced to maintain the original restricted status. Goes both ways.

Totally different!!! Shotguns are restricted here on barrel length ,mag capacity and whether they have an awkward stock on them or not. There are better defined parameters than "looks like"
And that situation is solved by a visit to a gunsmith/dealer to certify its mag capacity,to unrestricted and to correct there and then.Not a biggie and very unlikely as the default assumption here is they are unrestricted game guns anyway.
Also,lets dispense with another myth here.This "re application" phrase.Do we honestly think they sit down and re examine all the minatuae of every firearms details every 3 years?? Strange then that they issue pre filled application forms then for "new liscenses,which according to the law is what we are supposedly doing every 3 years? Its eye wash for a utopian situation,but like the restricted CFs there is reality of dealing with it day to day.And its no biggie either to change to restricted or unrestricted in a shotgun either.

think that would be a poor approach tbh.
Super could openly admit to not being a technical expert, and point to the fact that technical specs are not relevant to the definition of assault rifle under law.

And many did,buried themselves straight away by admitting such..It is an opinion not based of factual knowledgeThey referd it ot their ballistics experts, who were buried along with their predecessor,on the simple grounds too that just because they were Garda ballisticians,they too DID NOT POSSES the technical qualifications to say why a MSR was an assault rifle in the eyes of the Irish state. You actually do need a professional qualification in firearms engineering or firearms identification or both to be able to give an expert opinion in a court as to firearms.Same as if you were any other expert witness in a specialist field.

95% of cases for handguns and semi auto rifles were won on this in various different DC cases around Ireland.
IOW the judges agreed on these legal points and did not accept this plaver of looks like as written in the law. FACT!! QED!! NEXT!!!

That's the issue. The law allows appearance OR function to equally dictate status.

There is also the expression "The law is an ass!"

Once again...Form does NOT DICTATE function! Because somthing "looks like" does not mean it actually is! You can build a kit car on a Ford Escort chasis to look like A Ferrari GTI in all of the details,but unless it rolled out of Enzo Ferrari's factory in Italy sometime ,with his price tag as well,It's not a Ferrari

Also,we have ZERO,Nada, nichts, non definition of what a assault rifle is under the Irish law.So if you cant define an object in law how do you legislate for it?? Point of law!As well as having this proven by the Waterford tractor in the HC. The State could not define either objects in law,and therefore the judges rightly threw the states cases out.

Grizzly 45 · 23-05-2020 10:27pm

jb88 wrote: »

I disagree with this, if its not in law then it doesn't exist, and all this worry about paying for something and maybe someone is going to legally take it is blue sky thinking.

You want a restricted gun, then go out and get one, forget about what may or may not happen in the future. Ive been hearing this for ten years. Ten years plus of fun times with restricted firearms. Ten years when lad s are too afraid to get what they can legally apply for because they are worried.

REalllllyyyyy?? Blue sky thinking?? Just to remind you what happened FIVE years ago?? http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/Minister_Fitzgerald_announces_changes_to_Firearms_Licensing

Immediate cap on licensing of any new centre-fire semi-automatic rifles

The Minister intends to introduce an immediate temporary cap on the licensing of any new centre-fire semi-automatic rifles pending the establishment and determination of the Authority.
Legislation will provide for the revocation of any licenses issued between today
(18 September 2015) and the enactment of the legislation and it is intended that anyone applying for licenses of this nature will be informed of that fact

And for those who want a full discussion of this may I suggest the "more crap on the way " thread here in that time frame of the article??

Ya know it reminds me of when it was posted here by me that Dermot Aherne said in May 2008 at the Assoc of Garda Sgts and inspectors,that he weas going to tighten up on gun laws in Ireland to prevent an "American style gun culture"[Whatever the Hell that is!] It was poo-poohed here,as "Well the arse has just fallen out of the economy, so they will have better things to do than ban handguns!"Is one famous comment that stuck in my mind.

End result while our organisations were swinging thei lead ,as usual.
We suffered the equivilent of 9/11 to the nascent CF pistol shooting sports. .

Because of the greatest curse of Ireland the "Ah shure nuthin will happen !Be grand !" attitude we display as a people,and then it turns up and bites us,badly!:(:(

DO NOT delude yourselves that the DOJ/AGS are not waiting for this to reach a certain tipping point, of which we have no way of countering,as we dont know,who what, when,where,how?and they dump on those liscenses issued post 2017.
You have the evidence,you are responsible and smart adults,and I am 100% for anyone who wants one of these to go and apply and get one hopefully.

But DO NOT pitch up here then bawling in a month,a year,five years etc that your semi-auto liscense post 2015 for a 3 grand [irish price] AR15 was revoked and "we must do something about it!"
You are getting that liscense on the explict understanding that it CAN be revoked at any time under the legislation as it now stands by Fitzgeralds statement and decision.

I'm in the process myself of aquiring a Ruger mini14 in Germany to export to here,[450 euros],I can afford to lose that if it goes South in the future here with semis.
But FO if I am spending over 2 thousand euros for somthing that could be confiscated by this state and be told "Fk U if you think we are giving you a penny compo,because the EU high courts said we dont have to,despite the EUCHR saying we must":mad:

So if it is "blue sky thinking" to point out this Damoclean sword,well then I beg everyones forgiveness....Because I dont want to post here one day saying "Told ya!" on this topic.:(
Grizzly 45

tudderone · 24-05-2020 1:15am

Don't also forget too that from 1972 we could own sfa due to the cowboy gunslinging up north by the marxist/socialists. But that was not a law either, it was "Garda policy", not to licence pistols, centrefires over .22, semi-auto rifles over .22 and everything else apart from double barrel shotguns and .22 bolt actions. I believe the threat was if anyone went to court to challenge the "Temporary" custody order, which was supposed to last 2 weeks for ballistic testing, then there would be a move to enshrine the ban in law.

Mellor · 24-05-2020 2:38am

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Totally different!!! Shotguns are restricted here on barrel length ,mag capacity and whether they have an awkward stock on them or not. There are better defined parameters than "looks like"

Regardless of how parameters are defined, it proves how a restricted/non-Ireland status is set for life. If it’s incorrectly applied if can be fixed, in either direction.

95% of cases for handguns and semi auto rifles were won on this in various different DC cases around Ireland.
IOW the judges agreed on these legal points and did not accept this plaver of looks like as written in the law. FACT!! QED!! NEXT!!!

I’m not sure what handgun cases you are referring too. So I don’t know what sort of crossover there is. Technical firearm evidence does require technical expertise. We’re not talking about technical spec though, we should be, but we not not.

And just because somebody successfully argued a position in court, doesn’t mean that the law is fine. They should never have been there in the first place.

Also,we have ZERO,Nada, nichts, non definition of what a assault rifle is under the Irish law.So if you cant define an object in law how do you legislate for it??.

The SI defines what an assault rifle is. Under Irish law, that’s the definition.

As you said form does not dictate function. Yet the legal definition allows form to be used. It’s not a well written definition.

That’s the entire point here. The definition in the SI for assault rifles includes a subjective “resembles”. That is a bad definition. The second line shouldn’t be there. Just because people have argued past it in court does not make it ok. They shouldn't have to go to court in the first place.

Mellor · 24-05-2020 3:20am

tudderone wrote: »

Yes, but a pistol in .22lr is unrestricted :rolleyes:. So a .22lr pistol 5 or 6 inches long is unrestricted, but a 24 inch long bullpup is restricted. Irish logic at its finest folks.

Yeah, that’s a good example of the pointlessness of the bullpup clause.
Centrefire semi’s are restricted anyway. So the bullpup rule really only targets rimfire rifles or with a few exceptions.

Grizzly 45 · 24-05-2020 1:13pm

Mellor wrote: »

Regardless of how parameters are defined, it proves how a restricted/non-Ireland status is set for life. If it’s incorrectly applied if can be fixed, in either direction.

Exactly,if it was done without malice...So the problem is???

I’m not sure what handgun cases you are referring too. So I don’t know what sort of crossover there is. Technical firearm evidence does require technical expertise. We’re not talking about technical spec though, we should be, but we not not.

90% of all owned CF handgun certs granted post 2008 were more than likely involved with legal proceedings,the threat thereof or granted by DC judgement.. Of the 190 +/- centere fire MSRs in the ROI we had the same problem as the handguns with liscensing from 2008 to about 2012. there's the crossover.Yes technical expertise is required and this was also a pertinent point The states witnesses of AGS ballistics were NOT technically qualified to offer such an expert opinion either ,on the guns or the law!!! Were we talking blood patterns,forensic evidence and such.Absolutely,and they are excellent in that field too. But technical knowledge on firearms,and using "Janes infantry weapons" as a reference in court...NO!!! A judge in Kerry pulled the then chief witness for the state for his constant referal to this book,and told him any further knowledge was to come from his head!... IOW the state didnt even have qualified personel to argue their own legislation.And still doesn't.

And just because somebody successfully argued a position in court, doesn’t mean that the law is fine. They should never have been there in the first place.

NEVER said the law was fine.It's an unmitigated disaster written by people wholly ignorant of firearms.But its also advantageous in another way,as it can have a "coach and four" driven thru it on its technical aspects. The devil you know an all that...

T

he SI defines what an assault rifle is. Under Irish law, that’s the definition.

No it does not!! Show me please in the act where it describes what an "assault rifle " is. Exactly as to its barrel length,features,firing mechanism,magazine capacity caliber ,etc? That is called a "definition" in law. IE the object being legislated id "DEFINED" as to what it actually is.

As you said form does not dictate function. Yet the legal definition allows form to be used. It’s not a well written definition.

It is an absolutely bad defintion,that is why the judicary chose to disregard it,as there is no description as to what an assault rifle actually is!

That’s the entire point here. The definition in the SI for assault rifles includes a subjective “resembles”. That is a bad definition. The second line shouldn’t be there.

As above

Just because people have argued past it in court does not make it ok

???

They should have to go to court in the first place.

???

Grizzly 45 · 24-05-2020 1:19pm

tudderone wrote: »

I believe the threat was if anyone went to court to challenge the "Temporary" custody order, which was supposed to last 2 weeks for ballistic testing, then there would be a move to enshrine the ban in law.

More like 30 days,so the NI situation would be over and calmed down in their thinking:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Mellor · 24-05-2020 1:40pm

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Exactly,if it was done without malice...So the problem is???

None of the examples are talking about malicious acts. If the super just beign a prick, that a different matter.
Either a fire arm is restricted or its not. Period.
the "but the last super said" stuff is not legally relevant.

90% of all owned CF handgun certs granted post 2008 were more than likely involved with legal proceedings,the threat thereof or granted by DC judgement.. Of the 190 +/- centere fire MSRs in the ROI we had the same problem as the handguns with liscensing from 2008 to about 2012. there's the crossover.Yes technical expertise is required and this was also a pertinent point

So they were debating technically aspects, or at least attempting to.
So not really relevant to a clause that deals in appearance is it? Or am missing something? Isn't the MSR is a bolt action, competition rifle.

NEVER said the law was fine.It's an unmitigated disaster written by people wholly ignorant of firearms.

So what exactly are you arguing with here?

No it does not!! Show me please in the act where it describes what an "assault rifle " is. Exactly as to its barrel length,features,firing mechanism,magazine capacity caliber ,etc? That is called a "definition" in law. IE the object being legislated id "DEFINED" as to what it actually is.

Wait, so are claiming that the Restricted Firearms Order 2008 doesn't define an assault rifle, and many other terms, for the purposes of that order? That is incorrect. It does, as you are fully aware of that.

It is an absolutely bad defintion,that is why the judicary chose to disregard it,as there is no description as to what an assault rifle actually is!

So you are agree it's a bad definition, but you literally just said there is no definition.

???

???

I'm saying the fact then can successful argue it in court does not make it ok. And it doesn't change the fact that the definition in the order includes a sloppy statement based on appearance. Pretending it doesn't is head in the sand stuff.

Grizzly 45 · 24-05-2020 2:42pm

Mellor wrote: »

None of the examples are talking about malicious acts. If the super just beign a prick, that a different matter.

Mis defining a unrestricted firearm by a Super as restricted,despite it being unrestricted for X number of years isnt malicious That certainly fits the prick aspect of somthing like this.Not to mind the"fking idiot" definition too.

Either a fire arm is restricted or its not. Period.
the "but the last super said" stuff is not legally relevant.

FACEPALM
Its actually VERY revelant! because you have someone now deciding you have comitted a criminal act,and are basing this on their own bias,and proable serious lack of technical knowledge,while also admitting that their predecessor and superior officer ws incompetent and doing this in a court of law...Not legally revellant..???FFS!!:rolleyes::rolleyes:

So they were debating technically aspects, or at least attempting to.
So not really relevant to a clause that deals in appearance is it? Or am missing something

?

Whatever debating they were doing is irrelevant.They won their cases in 95% of both handguns and MSRs,and will continue to do so.

Now if you want to go and argue with the gents with the robes and wigs that they were collectively wrong because they wouldnt accept precedntal HC law and a non definition of an object badly described in law...Go ahead!!! I'll await as will those justices your legal arguement.

Isn't the MSR is a bolt action, competition rifle.

Nope.It is a term used to describe semi auto rifles correctly,rather than the wholly incorrect term of "assault rifle"

So what exactly are you arguing with here?

Wait, so are claiming that the Restricted Firearms Order 2008 doesn't define an assault rifle, and many other terms, for the purposes of that order? That is incorrect. It does, as you are fully aware of that.

Really.I challenge you to show us all the act,paragraph and sentences that gives us a description on what an asault rifle is in the criminal justice Amendment act 2006/2008 amendment. Or ANY of the Irish firearms acts.That describes it under any definition Be it features,mag capacity,mechanisms,length etc....: Because a whole bunch of judges,solicitor,barristers,civvie gunowners,Gaurds are in mighty big trouble,if you found that.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

So you are agree it's a bad definition, but you literally just said there is no definition.

Read what I wrote again.. i said there is no definition or description in law as to what an assault rifle is under Irish law... Why is this so hard to understand??

I'm saying the fact then can successful argue it in court does not make it ok. And it doesn't change the fact that the definition in the order includes a sloppy statement based on appearance. Pretending it doesn't is head in the sand stuff

.

And my point is and it has been proven in over 150 cases for both handguns and MSR'si the court recognises that this is there in the law,burt will REFUSE to act on it because it is badly drafted,bad law!

They wont work on it bcause it
1] Does not define or describe in any shape or form what an assault rifle is in the act. Therefore you are trying to legislate on an undefined object.
2]There is precedent law in Ireland to back up this position
3] Form does not follow function,dismising the "looks like" clause
4] The states own technical witnesses are not qualified to offer an expert opinion on what an "assault rifle" is and how it is the same as a modern sporting rifle.
5] The internationally accepted definition of an assault rifle,made it a prohibited weapon under both EU and Irish law,so it was impossible to liscense legally anyway.So again the state failed in its case by lack of clarity of descriptions in the law.
6] Spuriousness of the states cases on "extradorinarly dangerous weapons in the hands of civillians"

Now that is what happened in the majority of these cases,and the judges gave the same verdicts and decisions on these core points.So they were all wrong in your opinion?

Kramer · 24-05-2020 3:09pm

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

You are getting that liscense on the explict understanding that it CAN be revoked at any time under the legislation as it now stands by Fitzgeralds statement and decision.

You have conflated two separate things in that sentence - a statement by a former minister/TD & legislation.
TDs & ministers make statements all the time & rarely do anything where as legislation is what must be enforced by the Gardai.

Currently, there is no impediment to anyone licensing a restricted semi-auto if they meet the criteria & something a failed/discredited TD said half a decade ago shouldn't have any bearing on that.

Mellor · 24-05-2020 3:34pm

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

FACEPALM
Its actually VERY revelant! because you have someone now deciding you have comitted a criminal act,and are basing this on their own bias,and proable serious lack of technical knowledge,while also admitting that their predecessor and superior officer ws incompetent and doing this in a court of law...Not legally revellant..???FFS!!:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Yes it’s not relevant. It it’s either restricted it not.
Nothing to do with a court of law. How is that hard to understand.

If a firearm is unrestricted for me. If should be unrestricted for you. History, past licenses, past supers. Is not a factor.

Really.I challenge you to show us all the act,paragraph and sentences that gives us a description on what an asault rifle is in the criminal justice Amendment act 2006/2008 amendment. Or ANY of the Irish firearms acts.That describes it under any definition Be it features,mag capacity,mechanisms,length etc....: Because a whole bunch of judges,solicitor,barristers,civvie gunowners,Gaurds are in mighty big trouble,if you found that.:rolleyes::

I already pointed to the relevant location.
Bait and switching in “act” is childishness.

Read what I wrote again.. i said there is no definition or description in law as to what an assault rifle is under Irish law... Why is this so hard to understand??

This is incorrect. You know exactly what it says.
All the rambling misdirection won’t change that.
I have no idea why you behaving like this.

You literally agreed it was a bad definition.
Now your saying it doesn’t exist. Which is it?

3] Form does not follow function,dismising the "looks like" clause

But I thought that clause doesn’t exist :rolleyes:

Now that is what happened in the majority of these cases,and the judges gave the same verdicts and decisions on these core points.So they were all wrong in your opinion?

Where did saying anything to suggest they were wrong?????
The judge ruling that those were not assault rifles means THOSE were not assault rifles. It doesn’t mean that assault rifles don’t exist or that no firearms are assault rifles under Irish law.

The fact the judges agrees that the definition is poor, and super not equipped to decide on it, does not mean it does exist. Which is the issue.
It would be great if the order was updated on the back of the decisions. But I won’t hold my breath.

Mellor · 24-05-2020 3:41pm

Kramer wrote: »

Currently, there is no impediment to anyone licensing a restricted semi-auto if they meet the criteria & something a failed/discredited TD said half a decade ago shouldn't have any bearing on that.

Correct.
Unfortunately a lot of people confuse restricted with banned. The classification is deliberately misleading, as certain technically restricted firearms are essentially prohibited (grenades, middles, :rolleyes:)

Would be a lot better if they split the prohibited items into a third class. And left restricted for items that can be licensed, albeit with tighter criteria.

Grizzly 45 · 25-05-2020 1:39pm

[

QUOTE=Kramer;113536270]You have conflated two separate things in that sentence - a statement by a former minister/TD & legislation.
TDs & ministers make statements all the time & rarely do anything where as legislation is what must be enforced by the Garda

i.

Yes,and how many times have "statements magically transformed into "law" here in some peoples mind in authorithy??Do you not think that that this could go the way of CF handguns too in 2006/08?
From the DOJ site again.

Immediate cap on licensing of any new centre-fire semi-automatic rifles

The Minister intends to introduce an immediate temporary cap on the licensing of any new centre-fire semi-automatic rifles pending the establishment and determination of the Authority.
Legislation will provide for the revocation of any licenses issued between today

(18 September 2015) and the enactment of the legislation and it is intended that anyone applying for licenses of this nature will be informed of that fact.

Yes the legislation is not on the statue books ...YET. But IF in some point in the future someone in the dept or god forbid we get another prick like Dermot Aherne into that office,this is already "in the ministers desk draw" ready to go.

THAT is all I'm trying to point out here, that there is a potential risk of revocation and loss minus compensation of your rifle in the future with this,and we dont know what the trigger point[proably in numbers issued] is that could push this to come onto the statue books.

Currently, there is no impediment to anyone licensing a restricted semi-auto if they meet the criteria & something a failed/discredited TD said half a decade ago shouldn't have any bearing on that.

But it does,because this is IRELAND,and people in uniform chose to use such things to impede people applying for liscenses! And if you want to spend money sorting it out in the DC... Fine for the Cheif,as now a judge has taken the responsibility off his shoulders and become persona designata in this case.

Grizzly 45 · 25-05-2020 2:00pm

Mellor wrote: »

Yes it’s not relevant. It it’s either restricted it not.
Nothing to do with a court of law. How is that hard to understand.

SNIPPAGE of much rehash strawmen and irrevelanvy

I'M'DONE HERE This is just now rehashing strawmen and more pendantic point scoring . The simple fact is this. You cant argue that 95% of these cases were successful and they failed on all those six points.
Contary to your assertions,and refusal to accept this there is no thechnical description or definition in law of an assault rifle or bullpup which makes things utterly impossible to legislate,and I challenged you to point this out in the act,and you are now avoiding it.Because you well know it does not exist!

Fact is folks,dont be fobbed by this "looks like an assault rifle" nonsense if your Super or Cheif comes up with it.It has fallen enough times in the DCs of this land,and is an unprovebale point in law.
About 140 ballpark cases successfully won on semi auto rifles between 2008 and 2012 should be proof enough to anyone.
Best
Grizzly45

Mellor · 26-05-2020 1:22am

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

This is just now rehashing strawmen and more pendantic point scoring You cant argue that 95% of these cases were successful and they failed on all those six points.

Griz, nobody suggested otherwise. As usual, you are arguing a point that doesn't exist. You confirm this by the fact you are rehashing a strawman, that's not helpful.

The fact they were successful doesn't mean they weren't restricted firearms.
Griz, you should know this!

Contary to your assertions,and refusal to accept this there is no thechnical description or definition in law of an assault rifle or bullpup which makes things utterly impossible to legislate,and I challenged you to point this out in the act,and you are now avoiding it.Because you well know it does not exist!

Conveniently slipping in the word thechnical [sic] there. :rolleyes:
That's not what was said above. Nobody suggest that the definition was technical. That's the entire point, its not a technical definition. It's a bad definition. You agreed it's a bad definition. But then claimed it doesn't exist. Which is it?

Here's the link,and the definition, for the purposes of the order.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2008/si/21/made/en/print

S.I. No. 21/2008 - Firearms (Restricted Firearms and Ammunition) Order 2008 wrote:

3. (1) In this Order—

“assault rifles” means—

(a) rifles capable of functioning as semi-automatic firearms and as automatic firearms,

(b) firearms that resemble such rifles;

“bullpup rifles” means rifles with a magazine located behind the trigger;

The technically accuracy of the definition is another matter. The fact is, for the purposes of the order, that's what it is.
This form of definition is permitted under the Firearms Act ((i) category; (ii) calibre; (iii) working mechanism; (iv) muzzle energy; (v) description; )

Due to the structure of the order, both definitions are redundant in almost all cases.

Fact is folks,dont be fobbed by this "looks like an assault rifle" nonsense if your Super or Cheif comes up with it.It has fallen enough times in the DCs of this land,and is an unprovebale point in law.
About 140 ballpark cases successfully won on semi auto rifles between 2008 and 2012 should be proof enough to anyone.
Best
Grizzly45

Of course they shouldn't be fobbed off. How many of those 140 semi autos were centrefire? Probably all of them. So proves nothing tbh.
You are misunderstanding or misrepresenting. I don't know which.

Griz, we're on the same side. You know I respect you opinion on the matter. But obscuration tactics is not helpful in this forum, by all means use every avenue in court - but people need to understand the law if they are going down that route.
Restricted firearms are licensable.

Witcher · 26-05-2020 9:37pm

LIFFY FISHING wrote: »

Can see why DOJ didnt take points onboard when you look at the type of posts like the current one on their FB page....is that page actually controlled by an Irish Sports Shooter ? Or is it like another Country Side Alliance cover for a non national group / organisation.

Far too much associating with American firearms politics on that group and not enough talking about the Irish landscape with regards to firearms ownership, competitions etc.

Sh1t like '2a applies to everyone... It keeps everyone nice&polite.' Has no place on a page linked to Irish firearms owners. Get to fook with that.

I know there's a poster on this thread linked to that group but they'd want to have a long hard look at that group and think about the image they're presenting. The optics of that page are way off. Some of the tripe being posted is making me cringe and I'm a firearm owner, it would look horrific to a neutral person who came across it.

otmmyboy2 · 26-05-2020 9:57pm

LIFFY FISHING wrote: »

Can see why DOJ didnt take points onboard when you look at the type of posts like the current one on their FB page

Well from what I've seen the DoJ seem to take sod all points by anyone pro shooting, regardless of affiliation.
Open to correction on that one though.

Honestly I don't see the problem, firearms laws have been increasingly more restrictive here and I don't see any organisation's approach lessening that, and FUN Europe wide do seem to make more of a stink for target shooters than the NARGC ever has, in particular calling out the EU on their lead ban shenanigans.

Hell, the last time I asked NARGC where their "robust response", their wording, to the ammo carriage & mag restriction SI was, I was sharply snubbed off with "this isn't the time for that discussion".

Utter bull***t IMO.

Witcher · 26-05-2020 10:06pm

otmmyboy2 wrote: »

Well from what I've seen the DoJ seem to take sod all points by anyone pro shooting, regardless of affiliation.
Open to correction on that one though.

Honestly I don't see the problem, firearms laws have been increasingly more restrictive here and I don't see any organisation's approach lessening that, and FUN Europe wide do seem to make more of a stink for target shooters than the NARGC ever has, in particular calling out the EU on their lead ban shenanigans.

Hell, the last time I asked NARGC where their "robust response", their wording, to the ammo carriage & mag restriction SI was, I was sharply snubbed off with "this isn't the time for that discussion".

Utter bull***t IMO.

There's kicking up a stink with regard ti relevant issues and then there's muddying the waters by associating the group with 2nd Amendment politics on a different continent.

Is '2a applies to everyone... It keeps everyone nice&polite.' an acceptable post for you on an Irish firearms group that anyone can view?

The last time there was a blow up Finian McGrath presented a photo of a road sign that had been in the UK to the Justice Committee and did enormous damage to our credibility...and it wasn't even anything to do with Irish firearms owners. Wait until the next time and he or someone else gets a whiff of that FB group...christ they'll crucify us. 2A politics like that quote above and sharing photos of the Virginia militia at one of their 'freedom' rallys.

Fcuk me I can see it now;

'So Irish firearms groups support intimidating members of the public with firearms? (Present quote above printed out'

'Are we to expect militias being formed here next?' (Present militia post printed out)

Etc. Etc.

As I said there's agitating for positive change with regards to firearms legislation by reference to relevant issues in Ireland and the EU as a whole. Presenting the positive side of shooting sports, charity events held at ranges etc. is what should be put to the fore. The 2A posting and any reference to the US firearm landscape in any form should be avoided, it's in no way relevant to the community here and provides ample mud to be slung at us when the time comes

tudderone · 26-05-2020 10:06pm

Witcher wrote: »

Far too much associating with American firearms politics on that group and not enough talking about the Irish landscape with regards to firearms ownership, competitions etc.

Sh1t like '2a applies to everyone... It keeps everyone nice&polite.' Has no place on a page linked to Irish firearms owners. Get to fook with that.

I know there's a poster on this thread linked to that group but they'd want to have a long hard look at that group and think about the image they're presenting. The optics of that page are way off. Some of the tripe being posted is making me cringe and I'm a firearm owner, it would look horrific to a neutral person who came across it.

The 2a stuff may not seem relevent at first glance. But if you look at the legislation in New zealand, Australia, Canada, attempted in the democrat controlled cities/states in America, and Europe, it all looks alike. 10 round mag capacity cap, bans on semi-auto rifles, restrictions on pistols, its like all the one law, the reason for that is the United nations are the ones pushing it. Also we have billionares like Mike bloomberg, George Soros, Rupert Murdoch, Bill Gates all meddling in gun laws all over the world.

Witcher · 26-05-2020 10:21pm

tudderone wrote: »

The 2a stuff may not seem relevent at first glance. But if you look at the legislation in New zealand, Australia, Canada, attempted in the democrat controlled cities/states in America, and Europe, it all looks alike. 10 round mag capacity cap, bans on semi-auto rifles, restrictions on pistols, its like all the one law, the reason for that is the United nations are the ones pushing it. Also we have billionares like Mike bloomberg, George Soros, Rupert Murdoch, Bill Gates all meddling in gun laws all over the world.

It's not relevant full stop, there's no but. It's muddying the waters and drawing us too close to a country which has laws so far removed from ours they might aswell be on another planet.

We should be at pains to inform people the laws in the US are not a goal for us nor will they ever be. Quotes like the one I posted unfortunately suggest otherwise and will do little to help us if they're ever unearthed by the media.

I'm not going to labour the point, the operator of the page has obviously decided upon the direction the group is taking, the fact it is at odds with the Irish firearms landscape is unfortunate when the group could be doing so much more than posting freedom rallys and 2A sh1te.

otmmyboy2 · 26-05-2020 10:59pm

I dunno, certainly the second amendment concept has no place in current Irish law or firearms culture, for better or worse, but even the Canadians with their NFA in the wake of the current Trudeau gun ban, and the New Zealanders have been getting pretty pissed since their latest firearms restrictions have passed.

Countries which have previously been relatively similar to Ireland in their gently-softly approach to pro firearms reform have amped up the rhetoric in face of new gun control measures, even the US with the transition from the NRA to SAF and GOA.
I think it's a natural reaction when you are being victimised to lash out, and if there is a single law abiding group that seems to get the most flak for pursuing lawful activities, it's gun owners.
Here and elsewhere.

I'm not sure where the line of reasonable responses ends and too far begins, but I do think the more firearms advocacy groups the better.

tudderone · 26-05-2020 11:07pm

Witcher wrote: »

It's not relevant full stop, there's no but. It's muddying the waters and drawing us too close to a country which has laws so far removed from ours they might aswell be on another planet.

We should be at pains to inform people the laws in the US are not a goal for us nor will they ever be. Quotes like the one I posted unfortunately suggest otherwise and will do little to help us if they're ever unearthed by the media.

I'm not going to labour the point, the operator of the page has obviously decided upon the direction the group is taking, the fact it is at odds with the Irish firearms landscape is unfortunate when the group could be doing so much more than posting freedom rallys and 2A sh1te.

The realities of our firearms laws are lost on the irish public and have been for decades, thanks to the print media, RTE, and the lunatics in the north shooting people everyday until 20 years ago and latterly the psycho scum who deal drugs doing the same. They have never given us a break and never will. We are either Tweedy toffs blasting birds out of the air with our 100k side by sides and feasting on their bloody carcases in our brand new range rovers, or we are Rambo wannabe's gagging to shoot up a school.

I have brought people i worked with to the range, informed them of the shooting sports, shotgun, usually clays, pistol and target rifle shooting. I explain how difficult it is to get into the sport due to restrictive laws, that its not just a matter of walking into a gunshop and walking out 2 mins later with a firearm in your bag. They still come out with rubbish about guns should be banned when there is a gangland hit. Its all very simple to some.

tudderone · 26-05-2020 11:10pm

otmmyboy2 wrote: »

I dunno, certainly the second amendment concept has no place in current Irish law or firearms culture, for better or worse, but even the Canadians with their NFA in the wake of the current Trudeau gun ban, and the New Zealanders have been getting pretty pissed since their latest firearms restrictions have passed.

Countries which have previously been relatively similar to Ireland in their gently-softly approach to pro firearms reform have amped up the rhetoric in face of new gun control measures, even the US with the transition from the NRA to SAF and GOA.
I think it's a natural reaction when you are being victimised to lash out, and if there is a single law abiding group that seems to get the most flak for pursuing lawful activities, it's gun owners.
Here and elsewhere.

I'm not sure where the line of reasonable responses ends and too far begins, but I do think the more firearms advocacy groups the better.

You have to fight for your own corner, no one else will. Look at what happened in the UK in 96.

Grizzly 45 · 27-05-2020 12:17am

LIFFY FISHING wrote: »

Can see why DOJ didnt take points onboard when you look at the type of posts like the current one on their FB page....is that page actually controlled by an Irish Sports Shooter ? Or is it like another Country Side Alliance cover for a non national group / organisation.

Ah good...The controversial approach is working then!! Be worried if no one was talking about it.:D

Got some bad news for you too.if you think this is bad.You aint seen nothing yet! There is a NI group starting up called Owners Rights Cooperative [ORC] that is going to rock your and the shooting scene in the British isles.:D:D

People are getting fed up of the Fudds and surrender monkeys running the UK orgs,so aptly displayed by the lead ban in the UK,the zero fight put up for MARS rifles,and the compromises and throwing to the wolves of every sport the Yardleys and knickerbocker and tweeds didnt like, since Hungerford.

Also dont be afraid to use my handle here when you are replying Liffy or others.Say what you have to say to me and stop sneaking around alluding to me.Say it out straight,I'd respect you more...:)

NO FUNI or FUN has NOTHING to do with Countryside Alliance,NARGC,NASRPC or whomever.We are European orientated, and a EU associationso that means we post and keep European shooters and gunowners informed on gun rights battles globally,that means stuff that is outside Ireland too, but still revelant so if it offends your delicate sensebilities...Too bad.:)

Also we are a registerd lobby group in Brussels and in the EU parliment.A fact DOJ is now well aware of as are NARGC/FACE and any of the other EU lobby groups. Thing is,we dont have any big offices there,or take salaries,or wages.It's all our own time and pocket.Simple so we can say we are not behoven to anyone in the firearms or political industries.

Now as for the DOJ and that meeting,s[eeing you werent at it]... This was to clarify some points in the SI of last year about the high capacity mag ban,and former select fire genuine assault rifles that had been permantly converted to semi auto,but are now illegal CAT A firearms under the EU directive.As well as fully auto and select blank firing re enactment "weapons" owned by period re enactors. Iposted this and the outcome here on boards around the 1st week in Dec last,if you want to peruse it further.

A civilised and frank meet,that was done within an hour or so and hopefully transferred into sorting out some peoples concerns. no one had any intent in changing legislation as it was a done deal by then.We wanted clarification on how it was supposed to work and what options there were!

Nothing else.Not to table thump or yelling ,demands on our part or play one upmanship or dick measureing unlike SOME "Respectable and professional" Irish shooting organisations did in the past up there!!!!:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Times they are a changin as Bob Dylan sang,and it is going to get to the point that people will have to relise this is now a global fight of you being either pro or anti gun ownership,and if you are pro, the sooner you realise if you own a gun,you had better start getting political if you want to keep it and start fighting like the 3rd monkey on the Arks gangplank.As brother it's starting to rain!

Grizzly 45 · 27-05-2020 12:39am

Witcher wrote: »

It's not relevant full stop, there's no but. It's muddying the waters and drawing us too close to a country which has laws so far removed from ours they might aswell be on another planet.

We should be at pains to inform people the laws in the US are not a goal for us nor will they ever be. Quotes like the one I posted unfortunately suggest otherwise and will do little to help us if they're ever unearthed by the media.

I'm not going to labour the point, the operator of the page has obviously decided upon the direction the group is taking, the fact it is at odds with the Irish firearms landscape is unfortunate when the group could be doing so much more than posting freedom rallys and 2A sh1te.

Done by FUNI sofar in the Irish context

Kept the Irish readers informed for five years on the progress of the EU firearms directive from almost the moment after the Paris massacres here on boards.

Likewise also on the lead ban,even before national Irish shooting organisations

Met DOJ reps regarding concerns of the high capacity mag and converted asssault rifles and blank firing in Dec 2020

Attended FUN Berlin conference Nov 2019,to give the Irish gun owners perspective of living under THE strictest gun laws in the EU,with corrospondingly the highest guncrime rate in the EU.While paradoxically living next door to six counties of the UK,that have significantly LESS stringent gun laws than both the UK mainland and the ROI,and allow concealed carry permits but had a virtual open civil war for 35 years.Conference attended by both German shooting press,and media.

Organised a petition on change,org with over 4000 signitures in as many days on the derogation ban for wood pigeon shooting ,complimented and thanked by a few RGCs and Irish hunters for this "great idea".

So not to shabby a start for an organisation that publishes "freedom rallies and 2a ****e" and is run on less than a 2nd hand shoestring here.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

tudderone · 27-05-2020 11:39am

LIFFY FISHING wrote: »

I really dont give a sh1t what the laws in Canada or the USA are, more interested in what the Irish laws are .." we drive on the wrong side of the road overhere...dont we...?

Switzerland are a sovereign country with gun laws that even the Americans wish for. The swiss didn't give a sh1t about anyone elses gun laws either, until the eu, which they are not a member of pressured them, successfully to change their laws, removing swathes of what they can possess and use.

We have a communist dictator, Xi Jinping of China, making announcements that American gun laws are a problem and need to be changed. Do you think if Jinpeng wanted to open a large business here and the price was that civilian gun ownership was banned, we'd have guns next week ?

P.s, I can see being made drive on the right when the brits leave the eu completely, there will be a push for that sooner or later under "Harmonisation" laws.

Grizzly 45 · 27-05-2020 12:48pm

LIFFY FISHING wrote: »

Yep its a FB rant page, touch of the "Narcisstic" attitude there alright.
Only one person post on it, usually non relivant to Irish sporting shooters.
I really dont give a sh1t what the laws in Canada or the USA are, more interested in what the Irish laws are .." we drive on the wrong side of the road overhere...dont we...?
BTW setting up a FB page or tailending the name " Ireland" does not mean it represents the rights or views or gives the authority to lobby approach the DOJ or any other government body...
FUNI would be FUNNY if it wasnt so serious that one persons over oppinionated view could be missled as a voice or lobby group with any authority to speak on anyones behalf...
Put the kettle on now...doubt the keyboard warrior will resist penning a novel now, telling us all how wrong we are to disagree with the posted views, or to have an alternative opinion...he may prob have to clean the mirror infront of the keypad while cooling down, and composing the reply...which now doubt is comming...bet he cant resist a reply...just wont come naturally not to have something to say,

Meeet the offical FUDD of boards.ie.:D:D

otmmyboy2 · 27-05-2020 12:58pm

LIFFY FISHING wrote: »

Yep its a FB rant page, touch of the "Narcisstic" attitude there alright.

Classy, totally ignoring everything they have done and only learning the page existed the other day. :P

I really dont give a sh1t what the laws in Canada or the USA are, more interested in what the Irish laws are .." we drive on the wrong side of the road overhere...dont we...?

Perfect showcasing of the Irish head-in-the-sand/sure-it'll-be-grand attitude, nice one!
If you cannot look at the history of firearms laws in other countries, compare them to ours and see where we are headed then I'm not sure what to say to you.
Sure, it'll be grand? :P

BTW setting up a FB page or tailending the name " Ireland" does not mean it represents the rights or views or gives the authority to lobby approach the DOJ or any other government body...
FUNI would be FUNNY if it wasnt so serious that one persons over oppinionated view could be missled as a voice or lobby group with any authority to speak on anyones behalf...

Totally, a name is just that, but given they are actually representing Irish shooters and there are Irish shooters that support them then I think that gives FUNI the chops to rep us. Maybe not all Liffy, but certainly some.
Especially when other orgs who have the chops already do not.
But if you want to play the losing side of the State's divide and conquer game some more please do, it's your choice entirely.

Put the kettle on now...doubt the keyboard warrior will resist penning a novel now, telling us all how wrong we are to disagree with the posted views, or to have an alternative opinion...he may prob have to clean the mirror infront of the keypad while cooling down, and composing the reply...which now doubt is comming...bet he cant resist a reply...just wont come naturally not to have something to say,

Personally I enjoyed Griz's "novel", detailing what FUNI is about, why it is there and what they have done, but whatever.

You stay classy now Liffy lol

solarwinds · 27-05-2020 1:15pm

And this is exactly the problem we have here in Ireland,
Groups who represent Clay shooting and dont care for anyone else,
Groups who represent Game shooting and dont care about anyone else,
Groups who represent Deer shooting and dont care about anyone else,
Groups who represent Target shooting and dont care about anyone else,
Groups for every fecking thing only interested in their own patch.
IF there was one cohesive effort here by all vested interests in the sport, and leave the egos and self preservation at the door, Irish shooting would be in a much healthier position.
We then would not need European based groups here to fight our corner and it would also close the door here to the SCOVI's who are trying to and achieving in throwing other aspects of the sport under the bus for their own financial gain.
Something needs to change here and fast or ALL aspects of FIELD SPORTS in this country are gone, then where are we.
This bickering and fighting of "well that group does not represent me" crap needs to stop. Everyone get together hash it out and come together with one voice and a coherent plan for progressing our sports, rather than the look at what they are trying to chip away at now reactionary voice we currently have.
A group is only relevant if its makes itself so.
But then again this is Ireland I would not hold out much hope in at least one person stabbing someone else in back.
Rant over.

otmmyboy2 · 27-05-2020 1:23pm

Couldn't agree more Solar, I don't hunt but I support hunters.

Personally I couldn't give a toss what makes other shooters happy, but I support them because they are shooters too, regardless of whether they shoot at paper, steel, vermin, game, deer, etc or are just collectors who just like firearms for what they are, the historical aspects, etc.

There can never be enough of us, and over the years I've brought a lot of people shooting and spoken to dozens more about shooting sports, so at the very least they aren't uninformed about firearms here, and best case they may take up the hobby.
Some already have and I'm hoping when everything blows over another may join us!

All arms of shooting sports need to stick together, or we'll be back to double barrels and single shot .22s again.
At best.

Cass · 27-05-2020 1:39pm

Alright folks, we're wandering into insult territory so i'll ask that we stop it right there.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but as we always say attack the post, not the poster.

Grizzly 45 · 27-05-2020 7:56pm

And Y'know it's hideously simple to achive?
All these collective groups need to do is simply agree on a few things.
[1] A non aggression pact against each other,and
[2] A common defence policy against any attack of shooting buy any outside entity.
[3] Support a strong pro gun lobby in Brussels,as alot of future problems will come from there,and national govts keep losing or handing up power to Brussels.
4] Become "No compromise" on any further infringements on gun ownership,both here and EU wide. That was the stance taken with the EU gun ban,and it did work,as we did manage to avert the worst of the proposed ban.It was a stalemate or a phrrric victory for gun owners EU wide.
Maybe in a parallel universe European and Irish gunowners will or have done this already. Not in this one unfortuneatly.

yubabill · 28-05-2020 9:25am

The best way we can keep our sports is to take the thousand mile perspective;

most people who don't shoot see US mass shootings and drug feuds on TV etc. most days - they never met a licensed shooter and there is an understandable conflation going on.

When we get on the MSM we usually get a hatchet job done on us - the solution is to be consistently reasonable and personable as much as possible in all communications and stick together like glue.

Believe it or not, we have largely been doing this the last 5/6 years or so.

This is how we win - public perception.

tudderone · 28-05-2020 5:34pm

yubabill wrote: »

The best way we can keep our sports is to take the thousand mile perspective;

most people who don't shoot see US mass shootings and drug feuds on TV etc. most days - they never met a licensed shooter and there is an understandable conflation going on.

When we get on the MSM we usually get a hatchet job done on us - the solution is to be consistently reasonable and personable as much as possible in all communications and stick together like glue.

Believe it or not, we have largely been doing this the last 5/6 years or so.

This is how we win - public perception.

Front of the papers today, Brazilian hitmen in Offaly tooled up with mac-10's. All over a 100 euro debt. Whats happened to the oul place ?

BattleCorp · 28-05-2020 6:51pm

tudderone wrote: »

Front of the papers today, Brazilian hitmen in Offaly tooled up with mac-10's. All over a 100 euro debt. Whats happened to the oul place ?

Given the intended targets, I'm surprised the hit team weren't armed with slash hooks.

Grizzly 45 · 28-05-2020 8:25pm

MAC 10s?45ACP...Oh!!!!Old school,Where did they get those antiques from?They went out with pastel coloured shirts sockles deck shoes and Miami Vice somtime in the late 80s.

tudderone · 28-05-2020 9:09pm

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

MAC 10s?45ACP...Oh!!!!Old school,Where did they get those antiques from?They went out with pastel coloured shirts sockles deck shoes and Miami Vice somtime in the late 80s.

Who the fcuk gave them the thumbs up to come into Ireland ? Hardly people of good character previously. Or is it now come one come all ? Who ever stamped the visa's should be sacked.

yubabill · 29-05-2020 8:57am

tudderone wrote: »

Front of the papers today, Brazilian hitmen in Offaly tooled up with mac-10's. All over a 100 euro debt. Whats happened to the oul place ?

I just wanted to say that being reasonable while not giving an inch are not mutually exclusive.

We need a media liaison who is attractive, intelligent and personable.

This person should be adept at framing our argument in emotive language, I have watched the likes of Trudeau etc. - they begin with what is called "framing the argument" in an emotive way and tone, but this allows them to then hammer home their main point, which is usually something uncompromising.

BattleCorp · 29-05-2020 9:08am

yubabill wrote: »

We need a media liaison who is attractive, intelligent and personable.

That's me ruled out so.

Mellor · 29-05-2020 10:47am

yubabill wrote: »

This person should be adept at framing our argument in emotive language, I have watched the likes of Trudeau etc. - they begin with what is called "framing the argument" in an emotive way and tone, but this allows them to then hammer home their main point, which is usually something uncompromising.

Trudeau and his likes are target big media stories (shootings, crime) for points and shooters are bycatch caught up crossfire. The public support the main message, who doesn’t oppose public shootings and criminals. But they are so so ignorant of genuine shooters it’s not even funny.

But that presents a massive problem. As soon as you defend your position as a genuine shooter it invariably makes it seem like you opposed the anti-crime message. It aligns you with the criminals. Sheets nonsense obviously, it’s not a binary situation. But it will come across that way.

The best form of opposing imo is distance yourself as much as possible from “gun-problems”. Highlight that it’s non binary and highlight that the control measures are flawed, rather than suggesting they are wrong.

Grizzly 45 · 29-05-2020 11:42am

Also you want your spokesperson in PR to be prefably physically disabled,female or trans gender or gay,and non white.(Bonous points for a follower of Islam)...As well as having cast iron resolve ,as the abuse that will be thrown at them will be unbeliveably nasty on social media.

Seriously it should make it very hard for anyone in the PC crowd to be able to attack or portray shooting as being the preserve of old white guys with that sort of combination.

The days of a bit of gammon in tweed or a a shirt&tie harramumphing on about "shooting is good,so long as you are just using a sxs "on Sky is as out of fashion as gentlemans spats for their shoes.

We have to change the perspective and "deprogramme"people as well to make it out that everyone goes shooting.
Remember how quick Sen Bavick was in her box in the Dail hearing when she heard shooting was totally gender inclusive?Imagine if she had been told that by a Panti Bliss type!

Grizzly 45 · 29-05-2020 1:16pm

Small tip from a politican,who is on our side.;).
Dont go into a debate/interview to win an arguement. Go into there to get your ,single,two at uttermost point across,and make you look like the good guy or victim. You only have so many minutes of air debate time,so you can't argue finesse and details.

In the case of Tradeau,you would hit back by saying
[1] He is utterly incompetant and should resign,along with the head of that police force involved as he is now covering for a police force that is being coverd for its sheer incompetence in letting a prohibited person from accessing firearms
[2] Canada has some of the worlds strictest firearms laws in relation to those kind of firearms used in the shooting.The mass shooter aquired them illegally, with police knowledge apprently,how will banning privately held property and collectively punishing an innocent group of people further public saftey?A clear failure of Tradeau and his police force!

To win at this we have to become media street brawlers,and not Queensbury rule boxers. Sometimes you just have to put on the overalls and waders and climb into the warm&brown stuff to clear the blockage.:P

Mellor · 29-05-2020 2:35pm

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

[2] Canada has some of the worlds strictest firearms laws in relation to those kind of firearms used in the shooting.The mass shooter aquired them illegally, with police knowledge apprently,how will banning privately held property and collectively punishing an innocent group of people further public saftey?A clear failure of Tradeau and his police force!

Pointing out he held them illegally is a good start.
But the full picture needs the where or how did he sourced them illegally. I haven't seen that info, but it's hugely relevant.

Shooting Forum - Firearms licencing information

Straight Pull Rifle + Import from UK

Comments

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