Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)

Shooting Forum - Firearms licencing information


Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Sports Coalition boycotts FCP

24567…13

Comments

  • #32
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,789 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    AGS also spoke in favour of retaining the FCP and agreed that it was useful in facilitating the building of strong relationships and is the only forum available to discuss issues reasonably in the hope that recourse to the courts is unnecessary.


  • #33
    Grizzly 45
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,070 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    but I am given to understand that the "criminal complaint" he's referring to here is a written complaint submitted by the Sports Coalition to the Gardai accusing the NARGC of supporting criminal acts on the grounds that the compensation fund the NARGC runs is permitted by law to pay compensation even if the injured party was not in full compliance with the firearms act at the time of the injury.

    I believe even in the "pre-revolution" days of the NARGC.It was stated quite clearly by those in charge, that this fund would not pay out or be used in defence of anything criminal, or not above board on the member's side.
    Unless the SC really has some ultra damming evidence that will fly in a court. I'd be planning a new move on the SC committee members part to a new residence...Like under a bridge after the legal battle is over for defamation costs.

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • #34
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    AGS also spoke in favour of retaining the FCP and agreed that it was useful in facilitating the building of strong relationships and is the only forum available to discuss issues reasonably in the hope that recourse to the courts is unnecessary.

    That is the best news to come out of this whole mess so far.


  • #35
    cavan shooter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,070 ✭✭✭cavan shooter


    It was explained to the NARGC members that it's like driving a car. You make an illegal overtaking you have an acciden, it's an illegal act but your insurance will still pay out.

    What worries me now is if the NARGC is so off side on this then why wasn't this identified by the ex Director and their Legal Advisors over the years.

    I think this is just spiteful death throws of power hungry ghost organization.


  • #36
    Grizzly 45
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,070 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    Organisations, animals and wasps are the most dangerous in their death throes.

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • Advertisement
  • #37
    cavan shooter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,070 ✭✭✭cavan shooter


    solarwinds wrote: »
    Can anyone please explain in laymans terms to the thick here(namely me) as to what the SC end game is here.
    Because i am at a complete loss as to why a body who claims to represent shooting interests here seems to be doing its utmost to get rid of it.
    I mean who do they actually hope to be representing if they achieve their goal, whatever that is.
    I'm going to describe this as a form of red mist. They seem so angered enraged and pissed of at the NARGC there like a 2 man Banzai charge into a company of marines.....hey we cant win but by Christ we will take some of you cnuts with us. Word on the street is the PTB had seen through them and finally sense was to prevail and they were been given the boot. Looks like like they jumped before they were pushed.

    Collateral damage....well i feel sorry for the fishermen and Id say the NASPRC are sitting there wondeeing what the **** is happening........good opportunity for NASPRC members to ask some questions.


  • #38
    Rifter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 210 ✭✭Rifter


    Sparks wrote: »
    For anyone who's not familiar with compensation funds by the way, the practice that I'm given to understand the SC called "supporting criminal acts" is actually perfectly legal and above board. Given that such funds get run by everyone from the Law Society to the Government themselves, it's one of the more ludicrous allegations I've heard of against an NGB in the last few decades.

    If this is in fact the case, and an an outrageous accusation is being thrown around by the SC(btw who are the SC comprised of?), What can we do for damage control?

    Email all the TDs listed and the Minister?

    Is there any effective way we can get rid of the SC?
    From what I can see they represent nobody except a few vested intetested individuals(who wish to make money off my back)


  • #39
    wirehairmax
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 678 ✭✭✭wirehairmax


    cavan shooter wrote: »
    I'm going to describe this as a form of red mist. They seem so angered enraged and pissed of at the NARGC there like a man Banzai charge into a company of marines.....hey we cant win but by Christ we will take some of you cnuts with us. Word on the street is the PTB had seen through them and finally sense was to prevail and they were been given the boot. Looks like like they jumped before they were pushed.

    Collateral damage....well i feel sorry for the fishermen and Id say the NASPRC are sitting there wondeeing what the **** is happening........good opportunity for NASPRC members to ask some questions.

    I think you mean “kamikaze” 😜😜


  • #40
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Rifter wrote: »
    If this is in fact the case, and an an outrageous accusation is being thrown around by the SC(btw who are the SC comprised of?), What can we do for damage control?
    We as in you and I are somewhat limited on that specific item as we don't have locus standi in that affair, it's down to the NARGC.

    However, I think they're capable of tackling that by themselves.

    On the wider issue of the attacks on the structure of the FCP by the SC, there I would write to the Minister in support of the FCP. It's the single best step forward we've had in firearms legislation and admin in this country since 1972, and arguably _ever_. Seeing it chucked out under murky circumstances by the complaints of an unelected group of private individuals would be an absolute debacle.
    Is there any effective way we can get rid of the SC?
    As the SC is not a company nor a state body but an unincorporated association, I don't think so, not directly, not at the moment.

    You could remove your affiliation from any of its constituent member bodies and tell them why you're leaving, but I think that's about the limit of our ability when it comes to having them shut down; and if they simply don't care about their membership as this action certainly seems to indicate, they'll just continue on regardless even as their constituent member bodies leave to protect their membership base.

    The SC's claim to representation of shooters on the other hand is entirely vulnerable to individuals simply writing in en masse to the Minister and stating that they do not represent shooting the way they claim to be doing and that you would like to see the matter reviewed and addressed.


  • #41
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,789 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Dear Minister Stanton,


    My name is BattleCorp and I am writing to you today to relay my dismay at the actions of the Sports Coalition with regard to the Firearms Consultative Panel.


    As a regular target shooter , I wish to inform you that the Sports Coalition do not represent my views or interests nor do they have the support of the vast majority of firearms owners.


    The Firearms Consultative Panel is a brilliant tool that has facilitated the building of strong relationships between firearms owners and the authorities. It is the only forum available to discuss issues reasonably in the hope that recourse to the courts is not necessary.


    Seeing as the Sports Coalition’s intention is to disrupt the effective running of the Firearms Consultative Panel, I believe the Firearms Consultative Panel and ultimately most firearms owners interests would be best served by removing the Sports Coalition representatives from the Firearms Consultative Panel and moving forward without them.


    Regards,

    BattleCorp


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    meathstevie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,772 ✭✭✭meathstevie


    Grizzly 45 wrote: »
    I believe even in the "pre-revolution" days of the NARGC.It was stated quite clearly by those in charge, that this fund would not pay out or be used in defence of anything criminal, or not above board on the member's side.
    Unless the SC really has some ultra damming evidence that will fly in a court. I'd be planning a new move on the SC committee members part to a new residence...Like under a bridge after the legal battle is over for defamation costs.

    The question really is what is "criminal" ?

    Is it your gun dog slipping out of the garden and getting ran over causing damage to a car ? Letting your dog wander is an offence. The fund will likely pay out.

    You shoot a pigeon on land you have permission on. Said pigeon falls into a greenhouse twenty yards away where you don't have permission. That essentially malicious damage through being reckless where the pigeon may drop. The fund will likely pay for the greenhouse repairs.

    You're out lamping deer without a section 42 on land where you haven't permission and end up shooting a race horse by mistake and are arrested, prosecuted and convicted. I'm quite sure one Mr Gavigan will be very quick to tell you where to go if you think the fund is going to cover the liabilities arising from your criminal conduct.

    All three of these examples are "criminal conduct" two of which the NARGC compensation fund will likely have no problem helping out with. Is that "supporting" criminal conduct ?

    If it is every motor insurance company is guilty of condoning and supporting the continuation of careless and dangerous driving if they pay out on third party claims because of their customer's conduct. If they didn't most drivers who made mistakes and cause crashes would never be able to afford a car again.


  • #43
    gunny123
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,611 ✭✭✭gunny123


    I wonder if this sudden outburst of bile, the sc copping on to the fact they are finished ? No support by shooters or other shooting org's, making crazy submissons to the fcp. They are finished, the final sting of a dying wasp ?


  • #44
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,789 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Has anybody been on to the NASRPC to see if they still support the Sports Coalition?


  • #45
    berettaman
    Registered Users Posts: 553 ✭✭✭berettaman


    Sparks wrote: »
    If someone could do that, I'd be interested in hearing the explanation as well, because the only people I can see benefiting from this are people who don't want private ownership of firearms in this country.
    Even the SC can't benefit from this. And frankly, if it was *my* name attached to this, I'd be on the phone to my solicitor talking about how much I'd have to set aside to fight a defamation case.

    Here is what I heard:

    Following recent contact between the NARGC and the Department of Justice the FCP meeting this morning had really only one item on the Agenda:

    Who are you and who do you represent ? Put your credentials on the table time.

    This was to establish legitimacy, that those around the table are representing more than just themselves.

    Once that became clear the only course of action open to some was to refuse to attend and cast doubt on the validity of others.

    In fairness the FCP should play an important part in Firearms Administration in Ireland.

    It behoves those in charge to make sure those around the table have a legitimate reason/mandate to be there.

    Otherwise the fruits of the FCP will be tainted.

    Hence the latest S.I . relating to firearm dealers is already under scrutiny.


  • #46
    Grizzly 45
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,070 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    meathstevie wrote: »
    The question really is what is "criminal" ?
    Is it your gun dog slipping out of the garden and getting ran over causing damage to a car ? Letting your dog wander is an offence. The fund will likely pay out.


    You shoot a pigeon on land you have permission on. Said pigeon falls into a greenhouse twenty yards away where you don't have permission. That essentially malicious damage through being reckless where the pigeon may drop. The fund will likely pay for the greenhouse repairs.

    You're out lamping deer without a section 42 on land where you haven't permission and end up shooting a race horse by mistake and are arrested, prosecuted and convicted. I'm quite sure one Mr Gavigan will be very quick to tell you where to go if you think the fund is going to cover the liabilities arising from your criminal conduct.

    All three of these examples are "criminal conduct" two of which the NARGC compensation fund will likely have no problem helping out with. Is that "supporting" criminal conduct ?

    If it is every motor insurance company is guilty of condoning and supporting the continuation of careless and dangerous driving if they pay out on third party claims because of their customer's conduct. If they didn't most drivers who made mistakes and cause crashes would never be able to afford a car again.

    There is a difference between Negligence, Accidental and outright Criminal in your examples. Two as you rightly pointed out should be paid out the other absolutely not.
    A slightly different situation with motor insurance.Even if you are an innocent party to the accident.Your premium skyrockets because you were involved in an accident and the insurance companies "statistics" rate you as a higher potential risk.As well as the Insurance companies having to pay out for the criminal behaviour f the uninsured driver, which goes into a national pot to pay the victims.As well as insurance fraud and IMHO the appallingly bad investigation of claims for "whiplash" and lower soft tissue back injuries.

    Fortunately, us Irish gun owners and shooters are a seemingly responsible lot with a 0% average rate of annual accidents and death.So we are good risks. So I really want to know what "Criminal activity " NARGC has been involved in to warrant these accusations. I mean using the Garda logo...Seriously??...The most dastardly heinous crime of the century in Ireland.... Did the NARGC all go off and impersonate Garda officers ,or what???

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • #47
    cavan shooter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,070 ✭✭✭cavan shooter


    Grizzly 45 wrote: »
    I mean using the Garda logo...Seriously??...The most dastardly heinous crime of the century in Ireland.... Did the NARGC all go off and impersonate Garda officers ,or what???

    How many memes generators and Face book spoof pages are now facing criminal investigation?? its really laughable. However at least the Minister has seen sense im worried if Berettaman is even half right, it took a meeting between the Chairman of the NARGC and the Minister to actually set it right and hit reboot. What does that say about the FCP up to that point.


  • #48
    Grizzly 45
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,070 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    Also, is AGS logo trademarked?
    Seriously, unless it was being used to impersonate or defraud or commit an offence, the only other "issue" is trademark infringement.
    Utterly bizarre,but there is nothing stopping you using things like the Great Seal of the United States, the CIA or whatever logo you fancy ,as they are not trademark protected.:eek:One to keep in mind.

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • #49
    Cass
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,623 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    berettaman wrote: »
    Hence the latest S.I . relating to firearm dealers is already under scrutiny.
    I wonder who had input into that. Did all the RFDs that were in the original Firearms Dealer Association have any input or was it only a select few?
    Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

    If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.

    Moderators - Cass otmmyboy2 , CatMod - Shamboc , Admins - Beasty , mickeroo



  • #50
    gunny123
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,611 ✭✭✭gunny123


    What is the dealer s.i. looking to do ?


  • #51
    Cass
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,623 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


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

    If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.

    Moderators - Cass otmmyboy2 , CatMod - Shamboc , Admins - Beasty , mickeroo



  • Advertisement
  • #52
    gunny123
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,611 ✭✭✭gunny123


    Seems a bit excessive, that would put a lot of home based dealers out of the game i would think.


  • #53
    Cass
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,623 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    Another one that came in under the radar but this one got through. As i said above and in many other threads who are these sub committees, who is on them, who gives input and is there proper and equal representation for all at them.

    I've a feeling certain groups are whispering in the ears of those in authority that will listen and those affected, usually being the majority, know nothing about it.

    It's why i asked above about who was in this committee.
    Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

    If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.

    Moderators - Cass otmmyboy2 , CatMod - Shamboc , Admins - Beasty , mickeroo



  • #54
    Walter Mittys Brother
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 314 ✭✭Walter Mittys Brother


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Has anybody been on to the NASRPC to see if they still support the Sports Coalition?

    Very good question considering the new nasrpc chairman is a member of an riocht which is an nargc affialated club.

    Tinfoil hat on ....... Been a power shift in nasrpc? Nasrpc no longer support sc? So sc now has no big player in it? And all of as sudden nargc pushing for groups to show their credentials..............better than a good spy novel this stuff :p


  • #55
    cavan shooter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,070 ✭✭✭cavan shooter


    gunny123 wrote: »
    Seems a bit excessive, that would put a lot of home based dealers out of the game i would think.

    I think that's the general idea push the smaller firearms dealers out of business and those in the Sports Coalition of vested interests are sitting back nice and smug. You wouldn't see what happened on that front in a failed African state or central American banana republic. Oh I can hear the dept now, of course I spoke to the Firearms dealers, the 2 of them were 100% supportive.

    If the scuttlebug is correct over 100 of the smaller firearms dealers met with the NARGC last week to set up opposition to this. However, I fear its too late.


  • #56
    Backbarrel
    Registered Users Posts: 156 ✭✭Backbarrel


    Grizzly 45 wrote: »
    There is a difference between Negligence, Accidental and outright Criminal in your examples. Two as you rightly pointed out should be paid out the other absolutely not.
    A slightly different situation with motor insurance.Even if you are an innocent party to the accident.Your premium skyrockets because you were involved in an accident and the insurance companies "statistics" rate you as a higher potential risk.As well as the Insurance companies having to pay out for the criminal behaviour f the uninsured driver, which goes into a national pot to pay the victims.As well as insurance fraud and IMHO the appallingly bad investigation of claims for "whiplash" and lower soft tissue back injuries.

    Fortunately, us Irish gun owners and shooters are a seemingly responsible lot with a 0% average rate of annual accidents and death.So we are good risks. So I really want to know what "Criminal activity " NARGC has been involved in to warrant these accusations. I mean using the Garda logo...Seriously??...The most dastardly heinous crime of the century in Ireland.... Did the NARGC all go off and impersonate Garda officers ,or what???

    No impersonation. The garda and nargc logo were on a jointly approved and released documents as far as I know...

    if you are clamping and shoot a farmer's cow by mistake..you knock on farmers door give him the fund number and the accident is covered. not deliberate..the accident.

    I heard that it is all currently being investigated so I will leave it at that..

    S.C. of vested interests can explain that one to their members at the next AGM.. oh wait...


  • #57
    Backbarrel
    Registered Users Posts: 156 ✭✭Backbarrel


    Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »
    Very good question considering the new nasrpc chairman is a member of an riocht which is an nargc affialated club.

    Tinfoil hat on ....... Been a power shift in nasrpc? Nasrpc no longer support sc? So sc now has no big player in it? And all of as sudden nargc pushing for groups to show their credentials..............better than a good spy novel this stuff :p

    Not all of a sudden ..definitely not..just finally listened too.

    If Nasrpc and fissta leave it will cut down on the cost of holding meetings I would say..;)


  • #58
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,789 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Backbarrel wrote: »
    Not all of a sudden ..definitely not..just finally listened too.

    If Nasrpc and fissta leave it will cut down on the cost of holding meetings I would say..;)

    No statement regarding this on the NASRPC website so I'm guessing that the SC have their full support.


  • #59
    clivej
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,061 ✭✭✭clivej


    Cass wrote: »
    I wonder who had input into that. Did all the RFDs that were in the original Firearms Dealer Association have any input or was it only a select few?

    My local RFD told me that the new SI was never given/told to the dealers.
    They are not happy with the new regulatons


  • #60
    berettaman
    Registered Users Posts: 553 ✭✭✭berettaman


    clivej wrote: »
    My local RFD told me that the new SI was never given/told to the dealers.
    They are not happy with the new regulatons

    My local RFD showed me the letter he got from the Dept of Justice stipulating the new rules..the one with the time locks etc.

    No prior consultation.


    The title of the document was the "guide to the obligations of registered firearms dealers in Ireland. "Last revision February 2018


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    gunny123
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,611 ✭✭✭gunny123


    cavan shooter wrote: »

    If the scuttlebug is correct over 100 of the smaller firearms dealers met with the NARGC last week to set up opposition to this. However, I fear its too late.

    Reminds me of the old saying "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance". Never as apt in this case.


Advertisement