Whats the biggest calibre rifle legal in Ireland?

Musashi

Are ye for real lads??? I think ye should stick to the playstations.

Who is this aimed at McG?? I am for real and willing to share technical information with anyone wants it, not into "Gundam" types though so may not answer every query!

There are bigger rounds than .22 legal.

I know , owning same...........

Deer hunting is popular.. and there's plenty of it.

If you are willing to pay, this is how my sport has gone over the years and I've been involved in hunting,and Deer Hunting in particular, my whole life.
Despite the NARGC objection to sport hunting "Tourists" the companies are there to bring them in and they will pay if we won't to hunt on our lands.
Our solution is to buy all the shooting rights for ourselves and keep them out, but YMMV.Use it or lose it lads, sport target shooting may be making a comeback but hunting game for meat is increasingly under threat!!

mcguiver

Musashi.... I think we gotta read from the start on this thread....

Whats the biggest calibre rifle legal in Ireland?

The last thing we need in Ireland is for the general public to be badly informed when it comes to shooting sports.... an example of this is the recent target pistol licence being granted... newspaper heading was something along the lines of "Irish gun laws to become as liberal as the USA"!!

rander00 Is a .22 the largest rifle you van legally own in Ireland?
ommy Vercetti afaik that is correct
Micheal Wittman Yeah the limit is .22,
jabberwock yes you do need a gun safe for all firearms now.
rander00 Most ppl that shooting deer use a shotgun

Thats why threads like this should be in the shooting forum so a mod can step in and delete/edit incorrect info

red vex

its most certainly not legal to shoot deer with a shotgun

jabberwock

mcguiver wrote:

jabberwock yes you do need a gun safe for all firearms now.

you want to go to your local garda station and ask them for a license. they'll ask you if you have a gun cabinet.

Sparks

they'll ask you if you have a gun cabinet.

And they have the right to do so as the Firearms Act states that you can't get a licence if it would be a threat to public safety. If you're just leaving the shotgun under the bed, the Garda can argue that that's liable to see it stolen and used in a crime.

The whole gun-safes case wasn't actually about gun safes per se, don't forget, but about whether or not the Garda commissioner can lay out a list of preconditions for getting a licence - he can't, according to the Firearms Act. But that doesn't mean the superintendent can't refuse you a licence because he's worried that without a gun safe, your firearm would be stolen (if for example, there was a spree of burgularies in the area where you live). His objection does have to be reasonable, and you can take him to the high court to argue about it, but there's nothing illegal about it.

mcguiver

jabberwock
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcguiver
jabberwock yes you do need a gun safe for all firearms now.

you want to go to your local garda station and ask them for a license. they'll ask you if you have a gun cabinet.

Answer to that one, yes I do have a gun cabinet. Yes I do have a licence.
No I've never been asked have I one when getting/renewing my licence.

I'd agreed that you SHOULD HAVE ONE, but know many shooters who dont.
Now I am open to correction, but didnt the authorities try to implement this a while back and ran into problems.....

jabberwock

i suppose that it comes down to where you are based and how you get on with the local gardaí.

Me and my father were told we had to get a gun cabinet or they wouldn't renew our licenses. It is common-sense after all though.

BTW I wasn't implying you didn't have any 'guns' in my previous post, was just making a point.

Sparks

mcguiver wrote:

jabberwock yes you do need a gun safe for all firearms now.

Er, no, you don't - not until the Criminal Justice Bill 2004 is passed.

I'd agreed that you SHOULD HAVE ONE, but know many shooters who dont.
Now I am open to correction, but didnt the authorities try to implement this a while back and ran into problems.....

Yes, but not because the idea of needing secure storage wasn't sound, more because of how they went about it. Basicly, they gave every gun owner in the country two months to get a gun safe. Gun safe prices hit the roof about ten minutes after the announcement, and most firearms dealers and gun safe manufacturers said there wasn't enough stock available to be able to physically do it even if they were free.
That's why the Dunne v. Donohue case was taken in the first place, though the grounds for arguing the case were different from the motivation.

mcguiver

Point taken Jabberwock...... no offence taken or intended.

I think what is needed is a sticky?? if thats the right term.
Outlining whats involved in gun ownership, land permits etc.
Club contacts etc. There's a lot of misinformation being bantered about, which is gonna confuse anyone with an interest in gun ownership.
In theory a chat with the local Gardai should provide all this info, but as most of us shooters know...depending on your local station..... this can be a bad experience. (When I first applied years ago in a city centre station they really didnt want to know, yet when I moved to the suburbs the local station were more than helpfull).

Any shooting moderators????

nadir

hehe guys, i seem to have inflamed a couple of peeps.
Firstly my knowledge of shooting is v.limited. A couple of points though,
I dont intend shooting deer with fmj's , that would be cruel and what not.
I mean tungsten core, like heavy core, soft jacket. Basically what type of 'fancy' ammo is legal if any, just for target shooting.
Im interested to know why a 22 250 semi auto is rediculous?

Sparks

Basically what type of 'fancy' ammo is legal if any, just for target shooting.

In the smallbore world, pretty much nothing. It's all standard subsonic ammo, the supersonic stuff is too inaccurate because of the buffetting the bullet has as it passes back through the sound barrier, and it's too affected by wind because the effect wind has on the bullet is proportional to the force of drag on the bullet.

In fullbore shooting, there's more variation, but even there the real competitive shooters don't mess about too much. You do see a lot of people talking about moly-coated bullets, and experimental loads but unless they're benchrest shooters, I don't think they've got a solid handle on where the largest source of inaccuracy is coming from when they pull the trigger. When you can only take two or three shots and then have to go have a cuppa while the barrel cools off, your technique is just going to suffer.

Musashi

the supersonic stuff is too inaccurate because of the buffetting the bullet has as it passes back through the sound barrier, and it's too affected by wind because the effect wind has on the bullet is proportional to the force of drag on the bullet.

Hunting rounds are generally Supersonic and not at all in accurate!
I shoot RWS rounds and these rounds are made for light skinned game and are both accurate and effective terminally!
Having loaded for bench rest and game hunters the accuracy is the same but the terminal effect is of more concern to the game hunter.A hole in paper is fine but a hole in an animal must have killed that animal or you have ****ed up!!
I load small hollow points for target shooters but Ballistic tips or Soft points for taking game.
Bulls eyes are well and good but a clean kill means a lot more to me!
Any one can hit paper, try it on a live target and see where "Buck Fever" plays its part!
I am not dissing target shooters here, but I've seen Army snipers cave in when required to make a kill shot, it is a part of the sport and I don't see how any one can ignore the mental part of actually killing as part of shooting?

Sparks

Musashi wrote:

Hunting rounds are generally Supersonic and not at all in accurate!

That depends on what you mean by accurate - to me, if I was to put ten rounds down the range and they don't all go through the same hole on the target, that's inaccurate. And usually, we prefer the hole to be here:

Bulls eyes are well and good but a clean kill means a lot more to me!
Any one can hit paper, try it on a live target and see where "Buck Fever" plays its part!
I am not dissing target shooters here, but I've seen Army snipers cave in when required to make a kill shot, it is a part of the sport and I don't see how any one can ignore the mental part of actually killing as part of shooting?

Because the killing isn't a part of shooting, it's a part of hunting. The two are very different. And I don't want to hunt - I don't like killing, full stop. That's why I shoot ISSF disciplines - I don't want to kill something everytime I go off to have fun on a range, I don't even like the idea of shooting at silhouettes, and I want a serious challange when I do go shooting.

Renegade_Archer

Sparks wrote:

No, mainly gamekeepers. But there are quite a few who hunt them.


Technically you could do it with a solid slug from a shotgun or a hunting bow, but I doubt that either is as humane. I'm not even sure the bow would be legal.

Bow hunting is *very* illegal in Ireland, not only will the police fist you but the various archery associations in the country will be out for your blood as well

Sparks

not only will the police fist you

I think "eeek!" doesn't do that prospect justice!

Irishglockfan

Hi folks,
i have been following this thread with intrest and this is my first post on this forum.I have seen a few inaccuries here whichi have to point out,i also hate coming in like a know all on a first post ,but it has to be said.

First off the semi auto centrefire thing.
ASFAIK there is nothing in Irish law preventing you from applying and possesing such.Apart from the Garda.however if it is "policy" and not law to issue permits,I can see another high court case on this point of law.Also the Ar15 has now been changed so much in shape and looks from the basic "black rifle"and is made by many different companies nowadays you could have it totally changed that it wouldnt scare faint hearted firearms officers or politicians.Also there are dedicated 22lr rifles in military configuration if the powers that be have trouble with us mere civillians owning "military "rifles. The AR15,FN FAL,and H&KG3 spring to mind.I might also point out that I know personally of two remington woodmaster semi auto 270 rifles that are liscensed here with no bother and have been so for the last 20plus years.
Only way to do this would be,to apply for a liscense,import and see what happens.
The 223/222/5.56 issue
There is a bit of confusion on this re the AR15.After owning one .the correct military ammo for the mispec m16[select fire] is 5.56 NATO. It varies ever so slightly from the civillian 223 remington.Both ammo IS interchangable,however it becomes a question of accuracy and in some cases headspacing and barrell rifling.military rifle barrells are cut slightly larger,reason because a military rifle will be shot more dragged thru more dirt and possibly not get cleaned for awhile and may be fed oily,dirty or cruddy ammo.It must function regardless.So your civvie 223 rem is going to be rattling around abit in a milspec barrell thus not seating correctly and with a different bullet weight from the 55 grainFMJ mil round its accury isnt going to be to its full potential.As viseversa a 55grain round being fired from a civilinised AR15.however you can now get a barrell that is cutto accept both types of ammo with no problems.Expensive tho.
The 222/223 idiocy.Some bright spark over here thought that 222 being smaller it will fit in a 223 chamber!Yes it will all right.However such things as headspacing and chamber pressure,come into play.The 222 is shorter than the 223.it "fits"into the 223 chamber,However if you could get the bolt to close on it and fire it .The looseness in the chamber will cause the shell case to rupture uncontrollably,damage the bolt and more than likely blowup the gun.It would be a great thing if some of our lawmakers and enforcers could have a basic knowledge of firearms before they made laws that effect us all.
Slugs,
Yes they are legal to buy own or use on vermin or for target shooting.Not legal for deer at all.Which I think is foolish as in some cases they would be more safer to use than a high power rifle.Reason, travelling distance.A slug looses its accury after appx 60meters and its power drops dramatically after 100meters.[from a smoothbore]Hence the reason in some US states the deer season in some surburban counties only allow you to use a shotgun.Also the German hunters will only use slugs on some drives near villages or towns.I would consider that a major saftey factor as well over here.
Reloading
Again the jury is out on this.You can certainly "customise" your rifle ammo.IE change the powder loading,bullet types etc.However actually filling empties and primeing them,is considerd making ammo.The crux is the powder it is classified as an explosive[which it isnt unless it is properly confined].Maybe you could do your explosives liscense and be allowed to reload?A relative of mine did his in Germany[you really dont want to do this test or suggest such is brought in here.It is very complex and 80% does not apply to reloading].

All in all folks,i have to saywe have an exellent chance to get shooting established here in Ireland again.BUT we must be united in all types of shooting,not throwing some form we dont like to the sharks,because in the end you will be eaten as well.[mis quoteing Mr Churchill on appeasement]We got to be proactive NOW.Reactiveism lost us 35 years of shooting,and I would also add that we should also say that somthing like the 1972 order should NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN!!!How many of us are going to reapply for our uncles,fathers,brothers,etc old 303 or Luger or whatever?How many of us have applied to get a handgun,or rifle.?By sheer mass of applications we should be telling Dublin castle and the dept of justice,that we want our sport to thrive and continue.Think on this as well.The UK has the gun ban.As per usual no doubt we will have to sooner or later ape what the UK does.Why not turn it around for once?Consider how many british shooters would come over here to be able to shoot practial rifle and handgun?how much money would they bring into the ecnomy and into shooting sports in ireland?Also wouldnt it be nice to be able to repay those that had it and have now lost it.yet in the darkest days the UK and NI shooters gladly hosted many people from the republic for shooting days intheir respective clubs??If we SNOOZE on this we LOSE a window of opptunity.

Here endeth the sermon.
regds
Irishglockfan

civdef

Irishglockfan wrote:

How many of us are going to reapply for our uncles,fathers,brothers,etc old 303 or Luger or whatever?How many of us have applied to get a handgun,or rifle.?

By all accounts. loads of people it seems.

Sparks

Irishglockfan wrote:

First off the semi auto centrefire thing.
ASFAIK there is nothing in Irish law preventing you from applying and possesing such.

No, strictly speaking that's correct. Same's true of automatics. But very very few superintendents interpreted the policy that way!

Apart from the Garda.however if it is "policy" and not law to issue permits,I can see another high court case on this point of law.

No, because the Garda Superintendent is the sole authority when it comes to granting licences - and the NRPAI's case, Dunne v. Donoghue defended that point in the Supreme Court successfully. If the Garda Superintendent decides not to grant a licence, you have only one legal recourse, and that's to seek a judicial review in the High Court. Because of the expense and social mutterings associated with that, most people won't pursue that option; and those who do tend to find that on the day of the appearance, with thousands of euros and much time down the tubes to the soliciter, the "other side" shows up with licence in hand and it's all been for naught - because you may have to do it all over again at the end of the next July.

Basicly, you can't beat the Gardai into submission using the High Court, not in this country.

I know personally of two remington woodmaster semi auto 270 rifles that are liscensed here with no bother and have been so for the last 20plus years.

I think though that you'll find they're an exception - especially if they've been around for 20 years since it wasn't until around ten years ago that .270s have been licenced freely. Thing is, if your local superintendent were to decide to do it, he could licence you for pretty much anything up to, but not including, mortars and flamethrowers...

As viseversa a 55grain round being fired from a civilinised AR15.however you can now get a barrell that is cutto accept both types of ammo with no problems.Expensive tho.

Whatever about "dual barrels" (which I'd not heard of till now), the manufacturer states that putting milspec 5.56 rounds in a civilian .223 rifle can lead to seriously nasty consequences. I say that so that anyone reading gets the message - if you try this yourself, don't blame boards.ie!

Some bright spark over here thought that 222 being smaller it will fit in a 223 chamber!

That, and the way that you can get AR-15s in .222 and the way that the original .223 round was called a .222 Special or .222 Remington or whatever the after the .222 was...

It would be a great thing if some of our lawmakers and enforcers could have a basic knowledge of firearms before they made laws that effect us all.

This is true, and it's the job of the various associations to ensure that they are briefed so that the laws are good ones - it's just that that in the past either that wasn't done because people felt it was "siding with the enemy" to help them write firearms law; or because people didn't bother because they thought it was a waste of time as they wouldn't be listened to...

Again the jury is out on this.

Er. Not really. The equipment is certainly legal; but to get the component parts is something else alltogether.

Maybe you could do your explosives liscense and be allowed to reload?

Somehow I don't think that would be easy, but it's worth investigating.

All in all folks,i have to saywe have an exellent chance to get shooting established here in Ireland again.

What do you mean, again? We've never stopped shooting here!

BUT we must be united in all types of shooting,not throwing some form we dont like to the sharks,because in the end you will be eaten as well.

Again, I don't agree with this appeasement idea - in that I don't think that we all have to stick together. For example, all we need to ensure pistols are banned in legislation and remain that way in this country, is to have a single IPSC match covered by the media. That's all. Plus, the IOC and the ISSF will dissassociate from any ISSF group who's also associated with the IPSC. So we would all "hang together"!
I think the best we're going to be able to work with is a "non-aggression pact" kind of affair - and to be honest, with the way that the ISSF shooters have been diddled over in the past by other shooters, that's being generous!

I would also add that we should also say that somthing like the 1972 order should NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN!

Indeed - but as we're seeing in the UK, we'd better be far, far, far more circumspect in our measures. There are a lot of Irish shooters who think we just need to "charge the bastille" for some reason - but the simple fact is that we need to be far more pragmatic and realistic if we want to come out the far side with more than we have now. We are a minority in this country, and we don't have constitutional rights to bear arms; these two facts have serious, fundamental consequences to how we conduct ourselves while we further our interests.

By sheer mass of applications we should be telling Dublin castle and the dept of justice,that we want our sport to thrive and continue.

I've already heard rumours of some firearms dealer applying for an importation order for a thousand sidearms. Given that there were 300 licenced pistol owners before '72, you can imagine how that order request went down.

Frankly, I think it was a bad idea - we need to be stressing the "Safe and Harmless Fun" image, not the "combat pistol" image...

Consider how many british shooters would come over here to be able to shoot practial rifle and handgun?

None whatsoever, ever. There is now way that any responsible shooter's advocate would ever permit it because I can assure you it would mark the beginning of the terminal end of sports shooting in this country.
You'd have every tabloid and every broadsheet and every newspaper united in their call for a gun ban given the appearance of combat shooting (call it what it is - the word "practical" was only ever adopted for PR purposes and you can be damn certain it won't be used when the Sunday World is describing it!). And you can point out all you want how wrong the tabloids are - the fact is, it doesn't matter. Public Opinion isn't overly burdened by facts... but it does direct the actions of politicians in this country.

ISSF shooting? IMSSU shooting? ICPSA shooting? NASRC shooting? Hunting? Yup. All of the above. More shooters the better. But IPSC and PPC and 1500 shooting would do us an enormous amount of harm and cannot be allowed to start off here, for at a minimum the foreseeable future. Perhaps, a long ways off, when everyone knows that target shooting is safe and people have six ideas in their head when you say the word "shooting" to them (right now they only have five - IRA, Bank Robber, Police/Army, Hunter, Nutter) - maybe then. But not now.

entropy

Sparks wrote:

But IPSC and PPC and 1500 shooting would do us an enormous amount of harm and cannot be allowed to start off here

Right on Sparks!, its these gun nuts with combat pistols who are going to queer the pitch for all of us!

The newspapers and the media would crucify us and lets not forget it they always come out as the voice of thje people and thats what the govt pick up on.

If you want all this combat stuff then clear off to iraq or join the army! let the rest of shooting keep whats left of its hard earned image!

civdef

It's interesting to speculate where the line lies between "good" and "bad" disciplines...

Sparks

"Interesting" doesn't begin to cover it Civ!
But, like most things, the extremes are easy to identify - and IPSC, PPC, IDPA - these disciplines showing up here would get us closed down, in rather rapid order.

Irishglockfan

Sparks,
From the Ar15 barrels,it is either Rock River Arms or Fulton armoury who make them.They are abit more than the standard price.Which arms manufacturer told you that about the 223/5.56?Most AR15 barrells will accept either rounds.It is more an accurcy question than anything else.With the milspec barrells having a longer twist than the civillian barrells and set up for a specific load or vise versa.
The 222 was always known as the 222 remington.How it can get confused with the 223 is beyond me.Yes the French make it in Ruger or 15 rifles,because more of their laws regarding military calibres,it is too much hassle to own,so they go either up or down to avoid the paperwork.

Reloading
Yeah you can have the equipment,and cant get the components,eg powder,empty shell casings,primers.But you can customise your ammo via changing the powder loads ,bullets etc.But why bother doing that when you can get factory loads that are already set up?The initial price of setting up a reloading bench only justifies itself if you really burn powder regulary up to 500 rounds a month.

Shooting
as for having to challenge the Gaurds in the high court every year.
Does the Super not have to give a written reason as to why he is not renewing your liscense?So therefore if there was a hundred refusals every july31st Wouldnt it be a forgone conclusion that sooner or later one of these cases will be heard in the court and a decision reached one way or the other?

No we never gave up on shooting here.Just on large calibre and pistols.[my not clarified point]
This is where I disagree with you.The softly softly approach has got us nowhere really here for 30 years.We retreated into the closet and hoped that politicans would do somthing for us.[righhhttt]It took one man to force this issue into the courts of this land.Now we have to decide do we push forward and come out of the closet so to speak.Do we do it quietly,indeed to a point,or do we do a free for all,to a point as well.
Which brings me onto the fear of the media.
Get one thing straight.The media is biased against guns in any shape or form.Doesnt matter if you are a olympic pistol shooter or a deer hunter.
I will include our own RTE .[Network 2 newsnight coverage of the Assault weapon ban sunset on 9/13 was total anti gun propaganda,of the press statements of handgun control inc type.Newnite has been always INMHO anti gun].The gutter press will write anything anyway.Especially if it bleeds, it leads.
So we might as well be hung for a sheep as well as a lamb.The only way to counter this is to be proactive rather than reactive.Again I will point to Germany where practical pistol only came in about five years ago.The antis who are much bigger and better organised than anything over here,bitched and moaned about this killer sport coming in to train killers,etc to the german govt.
The shooters launched an effective PR campain that introduced the sport over there and it is now the fastest growing shooting sport in germany.The reason the germans are so effective for a minority sport of shooting&hunting is they are effectively organised,proactive and have a very effective lobbying system. Is this beyond us here?Not to mind a pretty stringent vetting and admin to get anywhere near firearms.Yet they are more liberal now in their laws after the shooting spree in Erfurt.[Semi autos in milspec which were banned sinsce 1945 are now available.]Again they did an exellent damage limitation exercise and had plans in place and were proactive after Erfurt

The reason Britan lost was Hungerford and Dunblane,and after Dunblane a "dignified" silence was the response.[lost media oppturunity]As well as ineffective shooting organisations.The response from the UKNRA to Hungerford was a compleate Joke!!!THAT is what we should learn from. I mean lets face it,what plans do WE have in place NOW if God forbid somone loses it and goes on a shooting spree with a shotgun or whatever??Will it matter wether we have practial pistol ,rifle or shotgun compititions or just air pistol shooting?
We will lose it ALL,because we are not organised effectively here.Ok lets not runn headlong and demand everything at once.But we should plan it on a five year plan that gradually these sports come in.We wont lose anything and have alot to gain.
Just my 2cents

Sparks

Irishglockfan wrote:

Which arms manufacturer told you that about the 223/5.56?

The link was put up on the forum earlier, though I can't remember where.
http://www.thegunzone.com/556v223.html
It was the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute though, not an individual manufacturer.

The 222 was always known as the 222 remington.

Er, nope. There have been many .222 rounds, but the .223 was originally called the .222 Special. The links on the right-side panel of the above page gives the story. It's interesting, from a historical point of view.

The initial price of setting up a reloading bench only justifies itself if you really burn powder regulary up to 500 rounds a month.

Well, the ISSF 300m lads would go through twice that if training hard. And at two to four euro per round.... well, you see why 300m isn't shot at world class level in this country by any but the army team!

Plus, once you get into the target shooting at long range, and immediately when you get into benchrest shooting, being able to do your own loads is pretty much a requirement.

as for having to challenge the Gaurds in the high court every year.
Does the Super not have to give a written reason as to why he is not renewing your liscense?So therefore if there was a hundred refusals every july31st Wouldnt it be a forgone conclusion that sooner or later one of these cases will be heard in the court and a decision reached one way or the other?

By the time we got to that stage, there would be amendments made to the Firearms Act.... oh, wait, that's where we are now!

Besides, a written note saying "due to rising gun crime levels and burgularies, I cannot give out this licence for fear of comprimising public safety in line with the 1925 Act, Section 4" is not only a minute's work, but is also perfectly legal and above board.

On a totally unrelated matter, it's odd that we're seeing the Gardai noting a rise in gun crime in the press over the last few months, isn't it?

No we never gave up on shooting here.Just on large calibre and pistols.[my not clarified point]

This is true - but it wasn't so much "gave up on"!

This is where I disagree with you.The softly softly approach has got us nowhere really here for 30 years.

Except to see .270s return. And the hardball approach has already seen the under-16s cracked down on, and there are amendments now en route to the Acts - which, I'll remind everyone, are a damn sight harder to get changed than policies are.

It took one man to force this issue into the courts of this land.

Of course, depending on whom you speak with, that "one man" has various names...
(That's not a swipe at Frank Brophy, by the way, it's just that different people seem to be claiming credit for the Garda policy being rescinded at the moment).

Now we have to decide do we push forward and come out of the closet so to speak.Do we do it quietly,indeed to a point,or do we do a free for all,to a point as well.

On this point, you're wrong - we've been out of the closet and pushing in the media for over two years. I know, because I've been doing that. The problems are that we are a minority sport and many of our shooters are publicity-shy. But we've had TV coverage on the RTE news, we've had regular coverage in the Evening Herald's minority sports page, the FIS is pushing for the Indo and others to start similar minority sports columns, the local papers have been giving a lot of coverage as well, we have our website, we have this forum - there are things being done.
Not enough yet, by any means, but certainly not nothing!

Get one thing straight.The media is biased against guns in any shape or form.Doesnt matter if you are a olympic pistol shooter or a deer hunter.

Nope. Not a hope. You're dead wrong. I know these people personally. Some people, individuals, in the media don't think much of shooting - but so far my count of those people is at 1 (one).

I will include our own RTE .[Network 2 newsnight coverage of the Assault weapon ban sunset on 9/13 was total anti gun propaganda,of the press statements of handgun control inc type.Newnite has been always INMHO anti gun].The gutter press will write anything anyway.Especially if it bleeds, it leads.

RTE covered target shooting quite well this year. The AWB was only ever going to be covered one way - and since the media doesn't associate target shooting with assault weapons, they never contacted us for details. And if they had, I'd have told them we had nothing to do with assault weapons. I've been trying very hard to ensure our "Safe & Harmless Fun" image is not mucked up like that!

So we might as well be hung for a sheep as well as a lamb.

I'd much, much, much rather not get hung at all, thanks!

Again they did an exellent damage limitation exercise and had plans in place and were proactive after Erfurt

Germans aren't Irish though. There are serious differences in the national psyche. And you can't take an approach that works in (say) the US and apply it here. You'd be laughed out of the place at best.

The fact of the matter (and it's a bitter pill to swallow) is that our sport exists here on sufferance, as a priviledge - NOT as a right.

And that has serious, fundamental consequences for how you go about protecting and furthering it's interests - and one of them is not to take part in combat shooting in a country that's seen thirty years of parmilitary violence and a rising level of gun crime in the past few years.

The reason Britan lost was Hungerford and Dunblane,and after Dunblane a "dignified" silence was the response.[lost media oppturunity]

Indeed, but the more extreme pistol clubs in the UK during the 80s and 90s didn't help - guys showing up in camos with hip holsters and the biggest, loudest hand cannons they could get, blazing away at human silhouettes - that was the image that the tabloids wanted after Dunblane and Hungerford, and they got them in spades - and everyone paid as a result.

There's a difference, by the way, between striving to appear as a moderate underdog, and just plain throwing up your hands and giving in - I'm not saying that we should ever merely acquiese, but that if we want to succeed, we need to take more leaves from books written by Sun Tzu and Macheivelli, and less from those written by Jeff Cooper!

what plans do WE have in place NOW if God forbid somone loses it and goes on a shooting spree with a shotgun or whatever?

You mean like in Abbylara?
Yes, it has been considered - but you can't make detailed plans for incidents like that and if you could, they shouldn't be public, as you'd just be letting IANSA have time to develop counterarguments - and they've much, much more funding than us.

Will it matter wether we have practial pistol ,rifle or shotgun compititions or just air pistol shooting?

Yes.
Olympic shooting has great PR. Combat pistol has lousy PR. And PR decides public opinion.

We will lose it ALL,because we are not organised effectively here.

We certainly will if we act like we can demand anything and expect to get it! And if you want to believe the DoJ will ever allow sidearms in the state, go ahead - but you're not being realistic. And if we stand together and say "You give us everything or you give us nothing", well, we'll all wind up having to take up golf, because we won't have firearms - we know this because that's why we didn't get ISSF pistols back in the 90s.

Irishglockfan

By the time we got to that stage, there would be amendments made to the Firearms Act.... oh, wait, that's where we are now!

Besides, a written note saying "due to rising gun crime levels and burgularies, I cannot give out this licence for fear of comprimising public safety in line with the 1925 Act, Section 4" is not only a minute's work, but is also perfectly legal and above board.

Rather board and sweeping methinks.I would challenge that on the point that if he is issuing my liscense for a long gun and refusing a handgun whats the difference?As either gun could be "stolen" etc.

And the hardball approach has already seen the under-16s cracked down on, and there are amendments now en route to the Acts - which, I'll remind everyone, are a damn sight harder to get changed than policies are.

The under 16 thing is going on all over Europe BTW.I think it is more a EU thing.Amazing we had it for so long on the continent it has been 18 for years.
The only way to keep the amendments on our favour is to know they are coming,what they are,and have strong lobbying and pro gun politicos on our side.This requires organization and the will power of every manjack of us to do our bit.

Of course, depending on whom you speak with, that "one man" has various names...
(That's not a swipe at Frank Brophy, by the way, it's just that different people seem to be claiming credit for the Garda policy being rescinded at the moment).
Very,very sad to see the me fein attitude in action here on this.

On this point, you're wrong - we've been out of the closet and pushing in the media for over two years. I know, because I've been doing that.

Glad to hear it.Been doing this as well with not very much sucess

The problems are that we are a minority sport and many of our shooters are publicity-shy.
Point taken.How do we improve this situation?

But we've had TV coverage on the RTE news, we've had regular coverage in the Evening Herald's minority sports page, the FIS is pushing for the Indo and others to start similar minority sports columns, the local papers have been giving a lot of coverage as well, we have our website, we have this forum - there are things being done.
Not enough yet, by any means, but certainly not nothing!


Nope. Not a hope. You're dead wrong. I know these people personally. Some people, individuals, in the media don't think much of shooting - but so far my count of those people is at 1 (one).

I count six,two in RTE TV ,two in radio two in the TV stations and two editors of the broadsheet variety.Were not intrested,didnt want to know.

RTE covered target shooting quite well this year. The AWB was only ever going to be covered one way - and since the media doesn't associate target shooting with assault weapons, they never contacted us for details. And if they had, I'd have told them we had nothing to do with assault weapons. I've been trying very hard to ensure our "Safe & Harmless Fun" image is not mucked up like that!

Would it not be better to inform them on the total misinformation of what an assault weapon is and on what a semi auto rifle is?

Germans aren't Irish though. There are serious differences in the national psyche. And you can't take an approach that works in (say) the US and apply it here. You'd be laughed out of the place at best.

True,then however we "claim"to be Europeans nowadays.We have a chance here to be as good as or better[which our politicans seem to brag alot about] than our European neighbours.Has any European or US policies been ever tried out herein shooting?We dont know till we try.And we have the tendency here in Ireland to import the worst ideas from around the western world


The fact of the matter (and it's a bitter pill to swallow) is that our sport exists here on sufferance, as a priviledge - NOT as a right.

Unfortuneatly.Everything seems to be a privilidge here,from owning a gun to driving a car to owning property.What exactly are our RIGHTS arond here?[not just on the gun issue]

And that has serious, fundamental consequences for how you go about protecting and furthering it's interests - and one of them is not to take part in combat shooting in a country that's seen thirty years of parmilitary violence and a rising level of gun crime in the past few years.

Is that the ligitmate shooters fault??That should be made absolutely clear to all and sundry.Criminals and terrorists will always get guns.Hence them being criminals or terrorists.Why call it "combat" shooting?Why not "practical"that is already putting a bias on one aspect of the shooting sport.Not a swipe, just a point regarding appeasement.As a matter of fact anyone could point out that as a law abideing shooter it would be impossible to be a criminal as you are vetted so much these days a criminal record of any shape precludes you from owning a firearm ligitmately.
Ahh yes the rising level of gun crime.Ae there any detailed studies on this as to how many ligit guns are used in this?And how many stolen,ex terrorist weapons,drug imported sweetners,etc are used.It would be an intresting study to have and be able to use.

Indeed, but the more extreme pistol clubs in the UK during the 80s and 90s didn't help - guys showing up in camos with hip holsters and the biggest, loudest hand cannons they could get, blazing away at human silhouettes - that was the image that the tabloids wanted after Dunblane and Hungerford, and they got them in spades - and everyone paid as a result.

Didnt matter if you were or looked like quasi Rambo or were the epitome of respectability.It had the ingrediants for a ban ,a media fuelled public outcry,which gave more air time to the antis than the pros BTW]a general election upcoming or just past[forget which]and unprepared firearm groups busily throwing each other to the wolves to appease the outcries in the hope they would survive.
Both Ryan and Hamilton were gunclub members.So therefore "gunclubs" were painted by the media as somthing between a terrorist camp and a den of iniquity.I remember the British commonwealth pistol champ being interviewed on Sky[or C4?].Despite him being the clean cut image he was being compared to Ryan or Hamilton on a hand picked panel of antis.
Image will mean nothing in the end.It is what the powers that be want the people to belive.The big lie as Gobbels called it.If the only thing to that has guns are single shot olympic air pistol teams.Belive me the media will dig deep enough to find somthing to make one of them look evil and "unfit" to hold a gun.Of course it is easier to make a story around somone wearing cammo,etc etc,and I take your point about it not making it easier for them.However I belive that after a period pistol shooting will just become a minority sport in Ireland in the backround,that will only come to light if somthing goes greviously wrong.We could be doing anything in shooting disiplines here.Has there been many outraged letters from "the usual suspects" in the papers about pistol and large calibre rifles coming back?


There's a difference, by the way, between striving to appear as a moderate underdog, and just plain throwing up your hands and giving in - I'm not saying that we should ever merely acquiese, but that if we want to succeed, we need to take more leaves from books written by Sun Tzu and Macheivelli, and less from those written by Jeff Cooper!

Ahhh a man of my literary tastes and thinking!! what did Machivelli say about the non possesion of arms?
And Sun Tzu on using advantages and knowing your enemy .
The Col[whom I have met personally] comes at things from the US perspective.You gotta take what is revelant from him.But dont ever dismiss him.It would be a fatal mistake.

You mean like in Abbylara?
Nope, more like a Dunblane /Hungerford situation. The way that situation was handled was a criminal disgrace.Which no doubt us ligit shooters will be blamed and made paid for.See the mumbles of psychlogical examinations by your local doc or shrink.

Yes, it has been considered - but you can't make detailed plans for incidents like that and if you could, they shouldn't be public,

Obviously

as you'd just be letting IANSA have time to develop counterarguments - and they've much, much more funding than us.

IANSA who are they??

Yes.
Olympic shooting has great PR. Combat pistol has lousy PR. And PR decides public opinion.

That depends on which side of the fence you are standing on.Uninformed sheeple will think and not be informed any better by the media that olympic pistol and practial handgun are as different than chalk and cheese.All it will be is guns are baaadd.

We certainly will if we act like we can demand anything and expect to get it! And if you want to believe the DoJ will ever allow sidearms in the state, go ahead - but you're not being realistic.
Errr could you quantify this statement???Is that not what we are hoping for?
Or is it only a paticular type revelant only to YOUR type of shooting??

ect these peopleAnd if we stand together and say "You give us everything or you give us nothing", well, we'll all wind up having to take up golf, because we won't have firearms

We will be back at pre 04 levels more than likely.shotguns,rifles up to 270 and of a paticular type,and with a prerequsite for secure storage more than likely.That every shotgun and rifle is pulled in from all over the state could have been done in 1972 as well,yet it wasnt.So I doubt it would be done now.it would be a logistical nightmare.
-
we know this because that's why we didn't get ISSF pistols back in the 90s.
Whose "we"??This is a new one.Who,what,where,when was this decided?

xm15e3

Lozjm wrote:

M16 uses .764 same as the old british forces SLR

I didn't see a response to this, so disregard if someone else caught this.

But, the prior poster was right. The M16/AR15 and that British Bullpup design (SLR??) all use 5.56 NATO. There are varients of the AR's that are chamberd in 7.62X39 (AK-47) and 7.62 NATO, but the -16 is 5.56. (nit picking)

BTW. .223 and 5.56 NATO aren't technically the same round even though the rifles will generally fire both reliably. (really bad nit picking)

Sparks

Irishglockfan wrote:

Rather board and sweeping methinks.I would challenge that on the point that if he is issuing my liscense for a long gun and refusing a handgun whats the difference?As either gun could be "stolen" etc.

You certainly could challange it - but you'd have to do so in the high court as a judicial review. Which is a lengthy and expensive prospect. There is no other legal recourse in this country.

The under 16 thing is going on all over Europe BTW.I think it is more a EU thing.Amazing we had it for so long on the continent it has been 18 for years.

That's not quite correct - under-18s certainly can't hold a firearms licence in many parts of the EU, but they can shoot pretty much everywhere else - that's how the other countries get their young target shooters. Look at the GB Juniors in the UK, for example. It also pretty much nails the Irish Pony Club to the wall for tetrathlon, since tetrathlon starts for kids as young as ten and that's a world-wide thing, not just an Irish thing.

The only way to keep the amendments on our favour is to know they are coming,what they are,and have strong lobbying and pro gun politicos on our side.This requires organization and the will power of every manjack of us to do our bit.

You are right in that we have to lobby; but we have to do more than work hard, we have to work smart. And there aren't any real pro-gun TDs, and only one Senator that I know of who shoots at all.
In fact, every TD in there has at one time or another defended target shooting, including McDowell - and not one of them would stand up and defend it if it became in any way "dodgy" in their eyes. And they don't know enough to know what's really suspect and what isn't. So we need a squeakier-than-clean image.

Very,very sad to see the me fein attitude in action here on this.

Indeed, but that's how it's transpiring.

The problems are that we are a minority sport and many of our shooters are publicity-shy.

Point taken.How do we improve this situation?

The first may well not be fixable - we're just never going to be the other GAA - and the second will fix itself, with time, as the cause of the second problem was more personal security in a country with a long-standing terrorism problem than it was a case of shyness.
(Not that that's to say that there aren't shy shooters, mind!)

I count six,two in RTE TV ,two in radio two in the TV stations and two editors of the broadsheet variety.Were not intrested,didnt want to know.

Well, I've seen one in the broadsheets (though his reporters don't share the sentiment), and we had one reporter in the Tribune do an ill-researched piece, but that's about the only outright hostility I've ever seen - everywhere else, we do get the initial hesitation caused by a lack of knowlege of the sport, but given five minutes to explain it, they go from "Is he IRA or UDF" to "This would make a great novelty piece".

Would it not be better to inform them on the total misinformation of what an assault weapon is and on what a semi auto rifle is?

No. I mean, why bother? Why get our name tied up in a story about the US which couldn't possibly benefit us?
Nope - wait until we either can benefit directly from speaking up; or until not speaking up would directly harm us.

True,then however we "claim"to be Europeans nowadays.We have a chance here to be as good as or better[which our politicans seem to brag alot about] than our European neighbours.Has any European or US policies been ever tried out herein shooting?We dont know till we try.And we have the tendency here in Ireland to import the worst ideas from around the western world

Ha! Do you really think anyone in the Dail will stick out their neck for the chop with a cabinet reshuffle in the immediate future and a general election on the cards, for an experiment in liberal firearms laws in a country that's seeing a rise in gun crime?

Unfortuneatly.Everything seems to be a privilidge here,from owning a gun to driving a car to owning property.What exactly are our RIGHTS arond here?[not just on the gun issue]

See your constitution, article 40. (There are some other rights that are implied by law, but they don't include the right to shoot either).

Is that the ligitmate shooters fault??That should be made absolutely clear to all and sundry.

Nope, it's not, and McDowell has said so in the Dail. But if you think we'd ever see liberal firearms laws as a result, you're daydreaming.

Why call it "combat" shooting?Why not "practical"

Because it was called combat shooting in the beginning and no-one's ever going to forget that except the IPSC.
And believe me, the tabloids would crucify it to the wall in a heartbeat. Hell, they're already asking in the Indo if Sinn Fein are going to be calling for a shooting range in every parish after Derek Burnett's performance in Athens, and that was Olympic Trap - can you imagine the field day they'd have with an IPSC match?

As a matter of fact anyone could point out that as a law abideing shooter it would be impossible to be a criminal as you are vetted so much these days a criminal record of any shape precludes you from owning a firearm ligitmately.

Not true. A criminal record sufficently far in the past is an invalid reason to deny a licence. And the bit about how a law-abiding shooter can't be a criminal is just true by definition.

Ahh yes the rising level of gun crime.Ae there any detailed studies on this as to how many ligit guns are used in this?

Nope. Do you want to be the one that stands up in public and tells the Garda Commissioner that he knows nothing about crime statistics?
Kiss goodbye to your credibility if you do...

Didnt matter if you were or looked like quasi Rambo or were the epitome of respectability.It had the ingrediants for a ban ,a media fuelled public outcry,which gave more air time to the antis than the pros

Yes, but the antis got the better images. You didn't see too many 50m free pistol shooters being held up as the reason to ban pistols, did you?

Both Ryan and Hamilton were gunclub members.

Bollocks. Hamilton was refused membership in every gunclub in scotland - it took the chief of the scottish police to sign off on his FAC, which contained an illegal firearm anyway!
Dunblane and Hungerford weren't caused by poor gun laws though - they were caused by the poor enforcement of those laws - and that's the point that has to be made there. The same applied to Abbylara.

Image will mean nothing in the end.

Wrong. Image is the factor that sways public opinion, and public opinion is what drives policy decisions. Be seen as dangerous and noone supports you. Be seen as Safe, Harmless, Fun, and even something to take pride in, as in Derek Burnett's case, and you get some support.

Has there been many outraged letters from "the usual suspects" in the papers about pistol and large calibre rifles coming back?

Not yet. Just an article in the tribune. But in the meantime, we've been writing to every editor with the full story there, briefing them on ISSF target shooting so they wouldn't think that this was a case of sidearms reappearing. Which seems to have worked so far, though I am anticipating a fair few anti-gun articles in the next few months.

Ahhh a man of my literary tastes and thinking!! what did Machivelli say about the non possesion of arms?

I was more thinking of what he said regarding how to get what you want!

and Sun Tzu on using advantages and knowing your enemy .

And not fighting battles you can't win?

The Col[whom I have met personally] comes at things from the US perspective.You gotta take what is revelant from him.But dont ever dismiss him.It would be a fatal mistake.

Mainly because he'd shoot you. The man's not someone I'd have a pint with.

IANSA who are they??

The largest gun control organisation in the world, backed by the UN and funded by a half-dozen governments and many more private sources. They make the Brady foundation seem small and inconsequential by comparison.

Errr could you quantify this statement???Is that not what we are hoping for?

Hope in one hand, defecate in the other, and see which hand fills up faster...

We will be back at pre 04 levels more than likely.

Nope. Pre-04, it was a policy, easily changed in back-room chats. Post-04, it'll be a law, on the books, changable only in the Dail.

Whose "we"??This is a new one.Who,what,where,when was this decided?

We being the Irish shooting community. And if I said who, where, what and when, I'd have to start watching my mailbox for soliciter's letters. It's an open secret though - ask around in the pub after the next competition. Basicly, ISSF pistols were on the table, but the "all or nothing" line was used. And oddly enough, with the IRA blowing things up and shooting british soldiers at the time, "all" wasn't the response.

Irishglockfan

Ha! Do you really think anyone in the Dail will stick out their neck for the chop with a cabinet reshuffle in the immediate future and a general election on the cards, for an experiment in liberal firearms laws in a country that's seeing a rise in gun crime?

find me somone who will and i will personally do everythingi can to get him elected.But like anywhere we have BS Gutless politicans.iwas thinking more on the lines of the shooting organisations trying to organise on a European level.

See your constitution, article 40. (There are some other rights that are implied by law, but they don't include the right to shoot either).

Not very much then, and all have been violated in some shape or form by the state since its foundation.

Nope, it's not, and McDowell has said so in the Dail. But if you think we'd ever see liberal firearms laws as a result, you're daydreaming.

That must be said about everything.Ten years ago anyone who would have said that handguns would come back would be accused of daydreaming.It proably goes back to the first Irish caveman who said the fellow building that round thing called the wheel who claims that it will make things easier move is daydreaming! I find that an unfortunate trait among us Irish folk.Ok I dont expect it to be like pre 1932 USA.But I dont see why we cant get our laws to a point of where all types are reasonably available without major hassle and that the guidelines for obtaining them are correctly laid down in concrete in law.Not that it is refused/granted/twisted on whims,pull,etc.If that is daydreaming...God help us that is the way any other western country runs itself.

Because it was called combat shooting in the beginning and no-one's ever going to forget that except the IPSC.
And believe me, the tabloids would crucify it to the wall in a heartbeat. Hell, they're already asking in the Indo if Sinn Fein are going to be calling for a shooting range in every parish after Derek Burnett's performance in Athens, and that was Olympic Trap - can you imagine the field day they'd have with an IPSC match?
I assume another tounge in cheek article by the Indo?

Wait till somthing happens here it wont matter a damn what image or PC disipline we practise.It will be branded the same.
I take it you dont like IPSC??

Seriously,has anyone ever actually asked SF what their policy is on firearms ownership??

Not true. A criminal record sufficently far in the past is an invalid reason to deny a licence. And the bit about how a law-abiding shooter can't be a criminal is just true by definition.

I know three people down here in Limerick that have been refused lisences on the following grounds.
1]known to be associating with known subversives [ goes to the Sean South commeration every year as he was related to him]
2] previous criminal record.[was a occasional joy rider 20 years ago.fined and reformed himself,has never been in bother since]
3]Refused lisecnse because his adluterous wife claimed he was a danger to the family.case and custody was awarded to the husband.Liscenses never returned because of the statement.



Nope. Do you want to be the one that stands up in public and tells the Garda Commissioner that he knows nothing about crime statistics?
Kiss goodbye to your credibility if you do...

Nope, I want HIM to provide them along with a very detailed and anaylitical report thereon,and I want it available to the public[us] for scrutinity and reference.


Bollocks. Hamilton was refused membership in every gunclub in scotland - it took the chief of the scottish police to sign off on his FAC, which contained an illegal firearm anyway!

Really?? Funny that he was LISTED as a member of Stirling /Dunblane gun club and was a regular shooter there.


Not yet. Just an article in the tribune. But in the meantime, we've been writing to every editor with the full story there, briefing them on ISSF target shooting so they wouldn't think that this was a case of sidearms reappearing. Which seems to have worked so far, though I am anticipating a fair few anti-gun articles in the next few months.



I was more thinking of what he said regarding how to get what you want!
Hmmm ingrate yourself with the prince and become the power behind the throne?

And not fighting battles you can't win?
Agreed but we are discussing the tactics to win the battle here.

Mainly because he'd shoot you. The man's not someone I'd have a pint with.

Judge not lest you be judged!!!!!.Have you ever met him personally?

We being the Irish shooting community. And if I said who, where, what and when, I'd have to start watching my mailbox for soliciter's letters. It's an open secret though - ask around in the pub after the next competition.

Rumour,heresay,opinions and inneundo is what you will get.Its got to be substanisable to a court level
If you dont want to say so on an open forum ,Email me privately

Basicly, ISSF pistols were on the table, but the "all or nothing" line was used. And oddly enough, with the IRA blowing things up and shooting british soldiers at the time, "all" wasn't the response.[/QUOTE]

Intresting ,as the IRA & Co were on ceasefire[more or less] for the last ten years especially around 1994 when the first moves were made on the large calibre stuff.

civdef

Lads, can we tidy up the quotes a bit? Some of the recent posts have been very hard to follow.

As for Sinn Feinn, they're always giving out about the number of licenced firearms in NI.

Sparks

Irishglockfan wrote:

find me somone who will and i will personally do everythingi can to get him elected.

Which would be an inordinate waste of time. One single TD in the Dail against a majority government?
Nope, far better off making sure everyone sees that we're Safe and Harmless.

But like anywhere we have BS Gutless politicans.

To be fair, they don't have the luxury of anonymous action, or expertise in the areas they make decisions in (which is something I'd like to see changed, but that's another day's work). So they're never going to stick their necks out on something that looks dangerous, no matter how dangerous or safe it actually is.

That must be said about everything.Ten years ago anyone who would have said that handguns would come back would be accused of daydreaming.

Ten years ago, anyone who said the IRA wouldn't be back bombing London in a week would have been accused of daydreaming as well. Different world back then.

But I dont see why we cant get our laws to a point of where all types are reasonably available without major hassle and that the guidelines for obtaining them are correctly laid down in concrete in law.

Because it would be expensive in time and manpower. For example, your question on silencers and night vision scopes and the legalities involved there - the reason the law is nebulous is that it wasn't tested in the courts (most law tends to be like that), and to solidify it as you're suggesting would take much time and many cases. That would cost a lot of money and manpower.

I assume another tounge in cheek article by the Indo?

Not sure of the tongue in cheek bit, but it was written by Moore McDowell, the Indo's version of Kevin Myers. Both the ICPSA and the NTSA responded to the article but only the ICPSA's letter was printed.

Wait till somthing happens here it wont matter a damn what image or PC disipline we practise.It will be branded the same.
I take it you dont like IPSC??

Personally? To be honest, I don't care. By which I mean that my efforts go on my sport - ISSF shooting. If another discipline can help that, such as 3P air rifle, or 25yd NSRA-style shooting, I'll expend energy on them; and if a discipline would hurt that, like IPSC, IDPA, PPC, or 1500, then I'll expend energy to defend my sport from them. But that's more of a "professional" thing than a personal one, if I can use that term for someone who's an amateur by definition.
I know that I do have problems with some of the people who shoot IPSC, in that I do think that they are gun fetishists - but that doesn't extend to all IPSC shooters. Personally, though, I think of it as a game originally designed to teach self-defence with firearms, not a sport - though again that's a difficult distinction to define.

However, on a non-personal note, the ISSF has explicitly ruled in the past that ISSF affiliation will not be extended to IPSC shooters - so the NTSA has to remain strictly segregated from IPSC in both word and deed. The IOC has given the same conditions as well. So basicly, IPSC shooting would shut down the NTSA very rapidly because of international pressure; and shooting in Ireland in general because of public pressure.

Seriously,has anyone ever actually asked SF what their policy is on firearms ownership??

No-one's ever wanted to go near that can of worms, not when SF up north are making noises about how if the IRA gives up their guns, unionist civilians who have licenced firearms have to do so as well...

I know three people down here in Limerick that have been refused lisences on the following grounds.
1]known to be associating with known subversives [ goes to the Sean South commeration every year as he was related to him]
2] previous criminal record.[was a occasional joy rider 20 years ago.fined and reformed himself,has never been in bother since]
3]Refused lisecnse because his adluterous wife claimed he was a danger to the family.case and custody was awarded to the husband.Liscenses never returned because of the statement.

Those could be challanged (possibly successfully) in the High Court. But there's nothing illegal about the decisions - the super wouldn't face sanction, he'd just be instructed to reconsider the licence application again in light of the court's decision (which is precisely what happened with Frank Brophy's case).

Nope, I want HIM to provide them along with a very detailed and anaylitical report thereon,and I want it available to the public[us] for scrutinity and reference.

Then ask - you can do so under the FOI act and it'll only cost you 20 euro. To be honest, I'm not sure why the NTSA hasn't done so yet...

Really?? Funny that he was LISTED as a member of Stirling /Dunblane gun club and was a regular shooter there.

Well, he was kicked out of the Bridge of Allan club, misled the police when applying for an amendment on his FAC by saying he was still in it, breached section 19 of the firearms act (the UK act now, not ours) by showing off his firearms to one of the kids in one of his "boys clubs", then did so again and committed an act of assault by pointing his gun at the woman who complained about this; he was formally cautioned for having a Smith&Wesson that wasn't on his FAC - and then the police put it on his FAC. He was refused membership of another club five weeks before the shootings; and he was about to be booted from the gunclub he was shooting in at the time (though he'd only shot there for a short time) because as the testimony of the club secretary put it, he was far too suspect a character to be in the club. So yes, he was technically in a club - but if the shootings had been a few weeks later, that wouldn't have been the case.

All of which is, in and of itself, a very good argument for two things:
1) Better oversight of the enforcement of firearms laws;
2) Better self-policing of the target shooting community.

Hmmm ingrate yourself with the prince and become the power behind the throne?

Something like that. More along the lines of knowing how to get the best deal possible though.

Agreed but we are discussing the tactics to win the battle here.

No, we're talking about how to win the war.

Judge not lest you be judged!!!!!.Have you ever met him personally?

No, just through reading all of his writings. Which scare the bejaysus out of me - how any man can be so callous about killing other men is beyond my ken.

Rumour,heresay,opinions and inneundo is what you will get.Its got to be substanisable to a court level

And the liklihood of ever getting a sworn statement is right up there with winning the lotto.

Intresting ,as the IRA & Co were on ceasefire[more or less] for the last ten years especially around 1994 when the first moves were made on the large calibre stuff.

But at the time, the "more or less" was a matter of great debate and noone really believed it would last.

Irishglockfan

Sparks wrote:

Which would be an inordinate waste of time. One single TD in the Dail against a majority government?
Nope, far better off making sure everyone sees that we're Safe and Harmless.

It would be really nice if one TD or senator stated that they were openly pro gun,and were on no compromise issue on that.somthing along the line of Sen Noirris.Whatever of his personal lifestyle,you got to respect him on the fact he stands his ground on gay issues,and is more respected for that.I would respect somone more for that they draw a line in the sand and wont compromise.Pity Sen Norris is anti hunting.

To be fair, they don't have the luxury of anonymous action, or expertise in the areas they make decisions in (which is something I'd like to see changed, but that's another day's work). So they're never going to stick their necks out on something that looks dangerous, no matter how dangerous or safe it actually is.

Fact!but that doesnt stop politicos anywhere of the world from legislating on laws that they know little or nothing about,with no pertinent information from both sides of the arguement.


Ten years ago, anyone who said the IRA wouldn't be back bombing London in a week would have been accused of daydreaming as well. Different world back then.


Because it would be expensive in time and manpower. For example, your question on silencers and night vision scopes and the legalities involved there - the reason the law is nebulous is that it wasn't tested in the courts (most law tends to be like that), and to solidify it as you're suggesting would take much time and many cases. That would cost a lot of money and manpower.
True for both sides.Yet one can do a thing right first time,as well as doing it wrong.isnt it smarter to sit down and define an object correctly in law,but I suppose i am asking too much.



Not sure of the tongue in cheek bit, but it was written by Moore McDowell, the Indo's version of Kevin Myers.

Well, the Indo does have a anti SF slant anyway.Surprised at Moore,he isnt usually a political comment man,more ecnomics.


Both the ICPSA and the NTSA responded to the article but only the ICPSA's letter was printed.
BTW you do know that one of the"usual suspects" in the anti fieldsports/anti gun crowd does work in the Indo?.Names will not be mentioned to protect the guilty!

I know that I do have problems with some of the people who shoot IPSC, in that I do think that they are gun fetishists - but that doesn't extend to all IPSC shooters. Personally, though, I think of it as a game originally designed to teach self-defence with firearms, not a sport - though again that's a difficult distinction to define.

I agree with you wholeheartdly on the"sport" side of it.Anything in a pistol that I cant shoot relatively well straight out of the box,without having it tuned to twice the price of the original gun,I really dont want to know.
But I still do think it has a place,maybe more in practical rifle or shotgun format,without the man targets and the more militristic side of things.
I did throw out some feelers on this here in the nineties.There was/is an intrest in getting it going,but location and insurance were the killers.
A three gun match would have more revelance to self defence.
Even the US folks who shoot it say it is no more than a sport,it has really no more revelance to self defence courses.Maybe it's just me I prefer a more active addition to my shooting.




No-one's ever wanted to go near that can of worms, not when SF up north are making noises about how if the IRA gives up their guns, unionist civilians who have licenced firearms have to do so as well...

Thinking more here in the republic where they made some gains in the last local election.Know your enemy....


Those could be challanged (possibly successfully) in the High Court. But there's nothing illegal about the decisions - the super wouldn't face sanction, he'd just be instructed to reconsider the licence application again in light of the court's decision (which is precisely what happened with Frank Brophy's case).
Again,they didnt know where to turn to,or to whom,and just lost intrest when they heard it would involve courts,solicitors etc.


Then ask - you can do so under the FOI act and it'll only cost you 20 euro. To be honest, I'm not sure why the NTSA hasn't done so yet...

Hmmm do you think we will get the full monty or a truncated report and another merry go round when it comes to firearms issues,involving the FOI ombudsman,the gardai pulling the report under"national security" or some other smoke and mirror tactics,when embarassing matters crop up in the State? Still worth a try.




No, just through reading all of his writings. Which scare the bejaysus out of me - how any man can be so callous about killing other men is beyond my ken.
Ex USMC,stays with you.[no offence to any of uncle sam's wayward children reading this].His attitude impresses me as being a soilders,it was either them or me.


And the liklihood of ever getting a sworn statement is right up there with winning the lotto.
Not necessary ,just the facts[BTW thanks for clearing it up somwhat for me]


But at the time, the "more or less" was a matter of great debate and noone really believed it would last.
It did though, and we could have pushed on. There was no threat to the Republics security[as if there ever was a creditable threat].It seems to be as you said,no minister will ever stick the head out.
I think the killer was Dunblane [no pun]That put us back on the defensive again.