Criminal Justice Bill 2004

Riggser

Is there the likelyhood of this coming into effect by the end of summer 2006?

spideog7

Ya, surely it would make a whole lot of since to pass it before we start renewing our licences...... well for me anyhow the shooting year really "starts"
then..... although I shoot a bit all year round
eg. on "ranges" (apparently = fields and clays nowadays)

Thanks for the reply all the same

Sparks

End of summer this year? Hmmm. I dunno. It could technically be done, but it'd be a bit of a press for them.

Clare gunner

After reading all this,I think I'll write a very short book called"The wisdom of Irish politicans about guns".[Should be found in the shelf alongside, Stalin,a champion of democracy,and Great Achivements of Bill Clinton in the 2nd amendment defence.]:rolleyes:

As for when it should come in,I hear next yeay 31st July 07.
Doesnt mean that the actual act will be enacted in the same year either.The PSA act was 2004,and they are still puzzling out 2/3rds of it in reality it should be full operational by 2008

Sparks

Okay, the transcripts of the wednesday committee meeting are up on the dail website here.

Bit of a scrap at the start over the whole approach to the bill, with the multiple amendments and so forth. Then into the meat of it. I've picked out some interesting quotes.

With regard to section 2A (restricted firearms):

Mr. McDowell: ... The new subsection (2A) provides that in a case involving a restricted firearm - this does not relate to shotguns, air rifles, etc., but rather to high velocity weapons and short firearms - a person will be liable on summary conviction to a fine of €5,000 or 12 months imprisonment or both and on conviction on indictment to €20,000 or seven years imprisonment or both. ...
Subsection (2B) of the 1925 Act, which provides penalties in respect of sporting firearms, is being deleted consequent on this change in section (2A).

As it stands, the existing subsection (4) provides exceptions to the requirement to hold a firearm certificate. One of these relates to persons who are members of gun clubs, authorised by a superintendent, when using guns while engaged in competitions at ranges that are also authorised by a superintendent. Under the law as it stands, there is no obligation on gun clubs to be authorised and most are not. The only advantage of authorisation is that it confers an exemption on members from holding firearm certificates while engaging in competitions also authorised by a superintendent. The norm is that all members of gun clubs should have firearm certificates. However, under amendment No. 109 in my name, all rifle and pistol clubs and all shooting ranges will in future require to be authorised. Consequently, subsection (4) is being amended to include such clubs and shooting ranges. This means that if one goes to an organised competition, one can take up a weapon that another competitor is using and have it in one’s possession and fire it without having a separate certificate in respect of that weapon.

Good news there on that last point, thought whether or not it's worth the hassle from the authorisation legislation is a good question...

Mr. Howlin: I also support the amendments. On a point of clarification in respect of sporting events, clay pigeon shoots are often incorporated in field day events. Will some sort of licensing regime be required for each location consequent on this change?

Mr. McDowell: We are talking about rifles and target shooting as requiring authorisation. Clay pigeon shooting is not included. I will check on the point the Deputy raises. If I go to a hotel for a weekend and one of the recreations is clay pigeon shooting, am I breaching the law——

Aengus Ó Snodaigh: Is a clay pigeon not a target?

Mr. McDowell: That is a good point. It is not a target for me. I will check regarding whether there should be some provision covering casual clay pigeon shooting as a recreational activity.

So it basicly looks like noone mentioned clay pigeon shooting as target shooting to McDowell prior to this point.

On now to the training licence amendment:

Mr. McDowell:[/i] ... This amendment inserts a new section 2A into the Firearms Act 1925. It provides for a firearm training certificate to allow for the training of persons over the age of 14 in the use of firearms. In the course of discussions with my Department, many of the shooting organisations strongly advocated that the age at which a person may hold a firearm should be reduced from the current age of 16 years. They argued, in the interests of safety, that it is important that people be trained in the use of firearms and that such training should take place when a person is young. They also pointed out that other countries have age limits as low as 12 years - some had no age limits - and because children are properly trained at a young age, such countries have considerable success in international shooting competitions, such as the Olympic Games.

Hate to say I told you so, but the Olympics do carry weight because of the familiarity of the general public with the Games...

An incident which led to my particular interest in this matter was raised at my clinic a long time ago. A young fellow, who is probably over age now that the legislation has taken so long to come forward and who was a very skilled marksman - I hesitate to use the words “child prodigy” - pointed out that while Irish law allowed him to compete in foreign competitions, it did not permit him to operate in Ireland.

Interesting! Anyone know who this was?

Deputy Jim O’Keeffe proposes eight amendments to my amendment. His first proposes that the age at which a training certificate may be granted be increased from 14 to 16 years. His second amendment proposes that the age of persons supervising training be increased from 18 to 21 years. His third seeks to provide that the age at which the consent of a parent or guardian may be granted be increased from 16 to 18 years.

Under the law as it stands, a person aged 16 years is legally entitled to hold a full firearms certificate and own a firearm. To provide that a person may only be issued with a firearms training certificate having attained 16 years would defeat the purpose of my amendment which is to widen the scope of the legislation to provide the analogue of a provisional driving licence in respect of firearms. On the Deputy’s proposal to raise the age at which firearms instruction can be provided by a person from 18 to 21 years, I point out that many shooting clubs are attached to colleges in which the membership may be 18 years and under. My proposal to allow persons of 18 years to act as instructors will facilitate such clubs. The aim of my amendment is to facilitate the training of persons in the safe use of firearms under very controlled circumstances by persons who are themselves members of established clubs. The proposed age at which persons may be trained in the safe use of firearms strikes a balance and ensures that a young person may be properly and safely trained before he or she is legally entitled to own a firearm. I am not persuaded of the merits of Deputy O’Keeffe’s amendments.

Somewhat reassuring comments!

Deputy O’Keeffe’s amendments Nos. 5 to 8, inclusive, to my amendment are drafting amendments. I made a calculation on an envelope one time and, by multiplying the number of legally-held firearms by ten or 15 minutes, found that a significant amount of Garda time and an extraordinary number of gardaí must be devoted to the task of licence renewal every year. There is a great advantage to renewing on a three-year basis. In fact, if I were in radical rather than redundant mode, I would wonder if we should be thinking in terms of a firearms licensing agency separate from the Garda completely but with some level of Garda input. However, I want to get the legislation through rather than get into all sorts of outsourcing arguments. The three-year rule is a sensible one.

And that's an interesting thought to hear expressed by the Minister.

Sparks

Now the good stuff, the responses from the Committee:

Mr. J. O’Keeffe: I move amendment No 1 to amendment No 104:
In the inserted section 2A(1), to delete “over 14 years of age” and substitute “, aged not less than 16 years,”.
We will take the Minister’s last thoughts as part of his legacy.

I favour the approach to firearms training certificates but I have tabled eight amendments. Four of them are of a technical nature and I am merely asking the Parliamentary Counsel to look at them to see if they improve the Bill.

The first four amendments, however, involve more serious issues. Do we want 14 year olds to be involved in firearms training? This is tied in with the firearms training certificate which can continue for three years. A provisional driving licence is only valid for two years so I cannot see the point in having a firearms training certificate for three years.

I spoke to some of those involved in sporting and gun clubs and some of them made a strong case for the age 14 limit. There is an urban-rural divide on the issue. It is interesting to hear a Minister from the capital city arguing a rural viewpoint while I, coming from west Cork, argue an urban viewpoint. People in urban areas cannot get their heads around the notion of 14 year olds being out with guns but in the past it was commonplace for children to shoot rabbits.

Mr. McDowell: I agree that we come from different perspectives but rural people came to my constituency office in Ranelagh on this issue. If there are weapons in a house and a 14 year old boy in the house has an interest in them, and a parent says there are no circumstances under which he can touch them, it could invite unsafe behaviour or create a temptation that could be too great.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe: I understand that point and I do not want to be a spoilsport but I am worried about this notion. We are planning for the future and it is unlikely this proscription will be changed for the foreseeable future. Are we really anxious to have young children of 14 toting shotguns? Consideration should be given to issuing the firearms training certificate at age 16 and, consequently, from the point of view of the application, raise the age from 16 to 18.

Mr. McDowell: There are international competitions in which 14 year olds compete.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe: I have put these amendments for serious consideration. We should address this issue.

Mr. Howlin: This is the first opportunity I have had to reflect on these amendments. I consider 16 a fine age to start. The thrust of this section is that firearms are dangerous and training in their use is required. There are those who say we should teach young people to drive at 12 but society sets a standard for the use of such lethal machinery. A person must be physically developed to the extent he or she can handle the weight of a firearm and carry it properly. A person must be mature enough to understand that these are lethal instruments.

Under the Children Act we determine that people are children until 18 years of age. When bringing people into a culture of the responsible handling of weapons, 16 is an acceptable age. There are exceptional individuals who will be mature and able but we are not dealing with prodigies, we are dealing with the generality. The signal from this is that age 14 is acceptable to commence training people in the use of firearms. There is a greater possibility of accidents and we know from health and safety statistics that the two main areas for accidents last year were construction sites and farms. Firearms were not involved in too many cases but farms can be dangerous places and we must inculcate a sense of safety. A degree of maturity is required for that.

Generally I agree with the Minister and I would not argue with people being over 18 or 21 one way or another under supervision, but 18 year olds would be well able to do it. The Minister should reflect again, notwithstanding the good arguments he has heard in favour of setting the age at 14. Firearms are dangerous and even for recreational use we should set a standard involving a degree of physical and emotional maturity that would generally apply to 16 year olds.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh: I do not have a major problem with an age limit of 14, although there should be some more restrictions. A training certificate should only be for use at clubs. The Bill allows for the carrying of firearms for hunting or target shooting under the supervision of a person over 18 years of age. There is a similar structure for the provisional licence and while everyone I know with such a licence is supposed to drive with a full licence holder, it does not happen. At least if we restrict it to clubs, someone will be present who is trained in teaching young people to handle the firearms correctly and safety.

Although the Minister said this takes up a lot of Garda time, because it is a training certificate, it should be awarded annually. Gardaí would then have to take into account whether a person had been using the firearm properly. If someone gets a training certificate at 15, he or she will be an adult when the certificate expires and that person can then apply for a full certificate.

The application must be also accompanied by written consent from an applicant’s parent or guardian. I have a difficulty with that and I believe the application should be made to a Garda station. I am not in favour of what the Minister is saying. The application should be made in person and in writing and the person should be accompanied by a guardian or an adult so that the Garda Síochána can see exactly who is making the application. We know, for example, that young people often prevail upon adults to buy alcohol for them. In the same way, an extra safety element is required to ensure that this section is not abused by young people and that such young people are properly restricted until they can apply for full licences at 18 years of age.

Mr. McDowell: Section 2A deals with applications to the Commissioner. Certificates from the Commissioner are not going to be handed out like confetti. Furthermore, knowing the way the current Commissioner operates, applicants will be obliged to go through their local Garda stations. The Commissioner will not deal with applications coming directly to him through the postal system. He will require some local guidance and I imagine that he will not simply receive applications in the Phoenix Park and give them his approval. He will be obliged to carry out local checks as to whether the applicant was of good character and so forth. The idea is to centralise the process in his hands so that there will be a consistent national approach and to ensure that the issuing of firearms permits is regarded as an important process and not just a favour that local gardaí can do for people. Certificates will not be handed out on a routine basis.

I take the point made about people aged 14, 16, etc., but fact is that there are international competitions. I have met young Irish people who participate in such competitions and it is strange that under the law as it stands they cannot even train in Ireland but they can win prizes in Europe.

Mr. Howlin: There are seven year old children involved in shooting it in Texas. However, that does not make a good law.

Mr. McDowell: I am not suggesting that we return——

Aengus Ó Snodaigh: If an international competition was held here, would we recognise the permits of visitors or would we be obliged to issue temporary firearms certificates for——

Chairman: Such a competition could not be held here.

Mr. McDowell: I do not know whether a temporary firearm certificate could be issued to a child, but I do not believe it could. Such a certificate cannot be issued to anyone under 16, so Ireland will not be a venue for such competitions.

Amendment to amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 2 to 8, inclusive, to amendment No. 104, not moved.

Amendment agreed to.

Huzzah! The amendments mucking about with the age for the training licence have been dropped!

Sparks

Now the rest:

Mr. McDowell: ... This amendment inserts a new section 2B into the Firearms Act 1925. That new section will allow the Minister to declare certain firearms as restricted by reference to a number of set criteria including category, calibre, action type, muzzle energy and description. For example, with regard to action type, one is referring to whether a firearm is automatic or otherwise. The law as it stands permits only superintendents to license firearms. However, amendment No. 106 in my name provides that only the Garda Commissioner, rather than a superintendent, may grant firearm certificates in respect of restricted firearms.

This new provision is being inserted in the context of a Supreme Court decision in Dunne and others v. Superintendent Kay Donohoe and others. Since the early 1970s, policies with regard to certification for ownership and use of firearms had been set on an administrative basis under directives issued by the Garda Commissioner. In other words, a direction was issued by headquarters in the Phoenix Park as to how it was to be operated. In the Dunne case, however, the Supreme Court ruled that the power to issue firearms certificates conferred on a superintendent by the Firearms Act was conferred on a persona designata and that it vested in the superintendent a discretion which could not be abdicated or directed by anybody else. The Supreme Court reached its decision on two counts. First, it found that the Commissioner’s directives were void in so far as they had the effect of fettering the discretion of a superintendent in the exercise of his or her functions under the Firearms Act 1925. Second, it found that a Garda superintendent was not empowered to impose a fixed condition on the granting of a firearm certificate, such as the acquisition of a firearms safe. The Supreme Court also made it clear that, in its judgment, a persona designata cannot adopt a fixed policy towards the exercise of his or her powers - in other words, he or she cannot say that he or she will never entertain an application in respect of a revolver - when making a determination because the powers are those laid down in the parent statute and any regulations made under it.

As a result of that decision, the Garda Commissioner no longer has a function with regard to the controlling and licensing of firearms. There is also no mechanism for uniformity. Different superintendents are entitled to take totally different views on this issue. This demonstrates the importance of what the Chief Justice said about being careful when one is drafting legislation. It is interesting that the Supreme Court effectively ruled that the Commissioner could not, within the context of a disciplined organisation, tell his superintendents the policy they were to follow with regard to restricted weapons.

We are dealing here with ammunition and firearms. We are stating that there will be restricted types and that, from now on, a person will be obliged to go to the top to obtain permission to possess such ammunition or firearms. I do not know whether anybody in Ireland privately owns automatic firearm but it will not be a question for their local superintendent to decide whether they can have a machine gun in their house. That will be for the Garda Commissioner to decide.

Amendment agreed to.

Not even a murmur of disagreement, and the Dunne v. Donoghue case, representing a huge investment of time and money and effort for shooters, is overruled without so much as a single dissenting opinion.
Hmmm.
Anyone else remembering the stories from '72/'73 when shooters were told by the government of the day that they could challange the de facto pistol/fullbore ban and win in court, but there'd be a new law in place by the end of the week overruling the court decision?

Sparks

On section three and the contention that if a licence wasn't granted after three months, it would be deemed to have been granted:

Mr. Howlin: For clarification, subsection (9) provides that a decision on an application for a firearm certificate shall be given within three months. What is the consequence if it is not given within three months?
...
Mr. McDowell: ...
In regard to what will happen if a decision on an application for a firearm certificate is not given within three months, the requirement to give a decision within three months is a directory provision. Theoretically, it would be unlawful not to do so within three months. A court would, therefore, direct that it be done. I will look at the possibility of providing that if it is not done within three months, the application will be deemed to have been refused to ensure there will be a right of appeal.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe: Can it be deemed that a certificate has been granted?

Mr. McDowell: No.

Sparks

Lots of commentary on whether or not we should all have to undergo psychiatric assessments...

Mr. McDowell:: ... The purpose in introducing these new conditions is to ensure that before a firearm certificate is granted, there will be proper scrutiny of an applicant’s fitness to hold a firearm. In the course of the tribunal of inquiry into the Abbeylara shooting being carried on by Mr. Justice Barr the question of the fitness of a person to hold a firearm was raised. In response to these concerns I am introducing a new provision which will require an applicant for a firearm certificate on the request of a Garda superintendent or the Commissioner to give written consent for inquiries in regard to the applicant’s medical history to be made from a health professional. The consequence of this is that Mr. Justice Barr has not yet reported his findings. Consequently I propose, as soon as he does, to bring forward any necessary amendments arising from any recommendations he may make in this regard.

Deputy O’Keeffe is proposing nine amendments to my amendment. Amendment No. 1 to the amendment proposes the insertion of two new conditions on which the Garda Commissioner or superintendent must be satisfied before deciding to grant a certificate, namely, that the person concerned is, first, of sound mental and psychiatric health and, second, that he or she has sufficient capacity to possess and operate a firearm responsibly and safely. The effect of the amendment, as drafted, would be to require the Commissioner or superintendent to make a judgment as to the mental or psychiatric capacity of an applicant - they could not object on the basis that they were unhappy with the application but would have to do a psychiatric assessment. I see where the Deputy is coming from, but he will appreciate that they are not qualified to make such a finding in respect of somebody. My amendment proposes, at subsection (3), that the applicant, on the request of the Garda Commissioner or superintendent, should provide written consent for any inquiries in regard to his or her medical history that may be made from a health professional. This will allow a third party to be brought in where there is a doubt about whether somebody is stable or suffering from mental illness. I do not suggest this in an arrogant way, but the Deputy is asking superintendents to make far-ranging findings about people. If it were to be put the way the Deputy suggests, it would amount to serious findings. If a superintendent said that a particular person was suffering from a psychiatric disorder and that he would not, therefore, grant a certificate——

Chairman: I am not sure Deputy Jim O’Keeffe intends that a superintendent should make that judgment.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe: While I agree with the approach generally and while, as such, the majority of my amendments are technical and put forward for the Parliamentary Counsel to consider, I tabled amendment No. 1 to the amendment because I have serious concerns that inadequate consideration is being given to the mental stability of applicants for firearms certificates.

Chairman: Surely, a doctor would be required to make the judgment.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe: The Minister made the point that a superintendent is not in a position to assess the mental and psychiatric health of an applicant, which I accept. However, the issue could be resolved by providing for a requirement by the applicant to produce a medical report, affidavit or declaration. If there are concerns, we must find a way of dealing with them. The same issue arises in the context of the revocation of firearms certificates. I was greatly affected by the case in Kilkenny and I am concerned about a system that could permit such circumstances to arise.

...

Mr. J. O’Keeffe: I want the Minister and his officials to give consideration to ensuring we have a structure that meets my concerns about people holding firearms being of sound mind and in good mental and psychiatric health. I am not sure the amendment I have proposed is ideal. There may be a better way of dealing with this, but as long as the issue is tackled, I will be happy. On that basis I will withdraw my substantive amendment on condition that it will be further discussed on Report Stage.

So we still have to give up our medical records, but we no longer have to prove we'll be mentally healthy for the next three years, at least for now...

Sparks

At this point, it seems the Minister left and the Minister for State took over. Discussion continued on the point regarding character references:

Mr. Howlin: Subsection (3)(d) requires that the names and addresses of two referees be given, but there are no criteria as to who might qualify as a referee. I am tempted to say we should debar Deputies from being referees because I can see the queue coming. Apart from that, there should be some criteria. What is the point of requiring a referee if there are no criteria laid down as to who would be an appropriate person to give a reference?
...
Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. B. Lenihan): Deputy Howlin made the point that no qualifications are specified for the referees. A referee will provide a reference to a superintendent or to the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána. I am tempted to repeat what I often say in my area of responsibility, namely, that there is an onus on people to check references. The onus rests on the recipient of a reference to be satisfied as to the bona fides of the referee. Were we to set out qualifications and categories of people in the statute, it would be to introduce further prolixity into what is already a very detailed measure.

Another interesting point raised was that none of the conditions in section 4 which apply to full licences apply to training licences:

Aengus Ó Snodaigh: On the point I made when we were dealing with people under the age of 16 or 18 years, I suggested there should be more conditions attached to the application for a firearm training certificate. These should reflect the conditions required of the Garda and a young person. There is nothing laid down regarding the granting of a training certificate in terms of the need for written consent to make inquiries into the applicant’s medical history and the like. The section only deals with the firearm certificate. It includes conditions that should also apply to the training certificate, for example, that the applicant must have good reason for acquiring a firearm certificate, is not disentitled from holding a certificate, is a member of an authorised rifle or pistol club, and must provide proof of identity and written consent to inquiries about medical and mental health. Parts of this new section should be binding on those applying for a firearm training certificate.

Sparks

And now the spectre of section 4B, and absolutely no worry seems to have been raised as to the potential for abuse of this section, nor over the way that shotgun shooting seems to be wholly exempt from it:

Mr. J. O’Keeffe:... I have also tabled a number of technical amendments to amendment No. 110. While I will not press amendments Nos. 1 or 2 to the amendment, the requirement to give notice in writing to the firearms range certificate inspector is relevant. I would prefer to see inspectors inspecting ranges on a more regular and ordered basis and ensure they have power to enter and inspect without prior notice or permission. My amendments seek to reinforce the powers of firearms range inspectors.

Mr. Howlin: The inspection of ranges is an important issue in respect of which standards will be set out in regulations to be made under section 4A(13). In specifying the minimum standards, what advice will the Minister take? Perhaps I am still captured by my previous area of responsibility, namely, health and safety.

Mr. B. Lenihan: Deputy Jim O’Keeffe summarised, very fairly, that the purpose of his amendments is to strengthen the position of firearms range inspectors, in respect of whom provision is being made for the first time. The Deputy wishes to amend the relevant provisions to read “on an ongoing and regular basis and at any time and without prior notice” but I am advised by the Parliamentary Counsel that the section as drafted allows firearms range inspectors to enter and inspect as they see fit. The additional words proposed are unnecessary.

Deputy Jim O’Keeffe is also concerned with the power that must exist to revoke the appointment of a firearms range inspector. Again, I am advised by the Parliamentary Counsel that any appointments and terminations will be governed by the Civil Service Regulation Acts 1956 to 2005, as provided for in subsection (6). Accordingly, the Deputy’s amendment in this regard is also unnecessary. While Deputy Jim O’Keeffe’s concerns are understandable, they are covered by the provisions as drafted.

Deputy Howlin asked what minimum statutory standards would be required to apply at ranges by the new section 4A. The standards will be those that apply internationally in respect of safety of the location, security of firearms, construction standards and building materials at ranges, safety distances, proximity to housing or other buildings, visibility and remoteness of location.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe: How many ranges are there? Is it ten or 100? In responding the question on notice of revocation of an appointment, the Minister of State implied that the firearms range inspectors will be civil servants. I take it, therefore, that inspectors will be appointed by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. As they will be new appointments, can the Minister of State indicate how much inspectors will be paid and how many of them will be employed? Have the practical implications been thought through? I ask these questions to satisfy my curiosity, since the issue has been raised. I am prepared to accept the responses of the Minister of State to the issues I have raised and will examine them further. I will not press my amendments at this stage.

Mr. Howlin: I have a question regarding standards, which are important. The Minister of State will lay down the conditions and regulations after consultation with the Commissioner. It is not clear exactly what constitutes a range under section 4A(13). For example, if a farmer provides an ad hoc practice ground on his or her own land, is that a range encompassed by the legislation? Are standards required if he or she invites his or her neighbour over to practise? Are we putting in place a very burdensome regime?

Mr. B. Lenihan: In reply to Deputy O’Keeffe, there are six ranges known to the Department within the State. It is envisaged that on the enactment of this legislation there could be a substantial increase. There is a tendency towards an increase in the number of such facilities.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe: Can the Minister of State say roughly where they are and why is it expected there will be an increase in the number?

Mr. B. Lenihan: I do not have information on the exact locations but there are six such ranges.

Mr. Howlin: Why would an unregulated situation involve smaller numbers?

Mr. B. Lenihan: The clue lies in my reply to the Deputy that on the enactment of this legislation any target shoot involving rifles or pistols will require the place where it takes place to be subject to authorisation as a range.

Mr. Howlin: Is the Minister of State saying that if a farmer in County Wexford wants to provide a temporary range to practice, either with a neighbour or by himself or herself, he or she needs to apply for a licence and have it inspected by an appropriate inspector and comply with health and safety standards?

Mr. J. O’Keeffe: As alternative land use it would figure in the Department of Agriculture and Food booklets.

Mr. B. Lenihan: It applies to pistols and rifles, not shotguns. If he or she is practising with a pistol or rifle, he or she must be on a range.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe: Will firearms inspectors be former Army personnel? What qualifications will they have?

Mr. B. Lenihan: No decision has yet been taken on that issue.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe: The practical implications have not yet been worked out.

Looks like we're up for the shaft, basicly

Sparks

An exchange regarding reloading (by this time, the Minister has returned from his press conference):

Mr. Howlin: I have to start from a basis of ignorance. I do not understand what this is about, what “reloading ammunition” means, for example. It strikes me that it is a dangerous procedure. How many engage in this activity? Perhaps it is a regular occurrence, but it strikes me that there would be planning and health and safety issues involved. Is it necessary to provide for this in any way?

Mr. McDowell: This arises from people coming to my Department and clinic. I had never heard of the phrase before and was not aware of the activity involved. If a person is an Olympics marksman, just as a billiards player chalk his or her cues, he or she will disassemble munitions to ensure the correct velocity or power. It is arcane in some respects but it does happen. Under the law, such a practice is illegal and regarded as the manufacturing of firearms. The people concerned have to test bench operations where they carry out these activities, all done in good faith. Specialised equipment is required. A person would not yank off the top of a bullet, shake out the powder and proceed in a crude way. It is a state-of-the-art process for the marksmen involved. They pointed out that technically what they were doing was illegal.

Mr. Howlin: Am I misreading the amendment? I understood the purpose of this section was to allow firearms dealers to do this work.

Mr. McDowell: No, it covers anybody who has a firearm certificate, which a person must have to carry out the work involved.

Mr. Howlin: The new section 10A(1) reads: “A person (except a registered firearms dealer or the holder of a licence under this section) who reloads ammunition is guilty of an offence.”

Mr. McDowell: Yes, without a licence, it is an offence.

Mr. Howlin: Could firearms dealers do this work?

Mr. McDowell: If they have a firearm certificate, they can.

Mr. Howlin: How many will be affected by this?

Mr. McDowell: I cannot put a number on it, but I am sure it is——

Mr. Howlin: Is the number entirely composed of competition marksmen, or are there others who may be reloading?

Mr. McDowell: I do not know how many have firearms and for what purpose. The amount who would dream of pulling apart a bullet and fiddling with the contents would be very small.

Mr. Howlin: I hope so.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe: They are high class shots who participate in competitions with a pistol.

Mr. McDowell: By this definition an ordinary decent thug who wants to shoot somebody’s head off will not reload cartridges. Only those who have a particular reason to do such as accuracy, muzzle velocity and related issues wish to have their ammunition at the peak of perfection.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe: It is legitimate.

Mr. McDowell: Yes, nobody who is bad-minded would be interested in this provision. If they were, they would be prosecuted for possession of firearms and ammunition.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe: They would not be looking for a licence anyway.

Mr. McDowell: Yes.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh: Premises must be defined as being separate or distinct from living quarters. There should be a secure workshop. From the description of the Minister, I do not know where——

Mr. McDowell: I will deal with those issues by way regulations.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh: Is there a section in the principal Act dealing with the repair of weaponry and associated matters?

Mr. McDowell: We dealt with that matter in the previous section.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh: This would not come under it; that is why I am asking.

Mr. McDowell: This section relates specifically to ammunition. It deals with a quasi-manufacturing process for ammunition.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh: Clearly, it has the same implications for the storage of equipment - the accelerant, gunpowder, etc.

Mr. McDowell: If a person has a licence, a superintendent is entitled to apply conditions to it. I have no doubt these would be stringent.

The rest of the discussion dealt with the criminal aspects of the firearms act, in particular minimum mandatory sentencing. The next meeting for the Committee is tomorrow at 1400, where they'll probably be continuing in that vein.

So, with the exception of the definitions, which are to be amended at the Report stage, it seems the Firearms Act will look something like this.

Vegeta

Sparks wrote:

And now the spectre of section 4B, and absolutely no worry seems to have been raised as to the potential for abuse of this section, nor over the way that shotgun shooting seems to be wholly exempt from it:


Looks like we're up for the shaft, basicly

What about hunting deer, why should a deer hunter have to join a range, this country is so f*cking stupid sometimes.

Road deaths are up so lets inrtroduce loads of laws with very little garda presence on the roads to enforce them and wonder why the deaths continue

Gun crime is up so lets make it harder to get legal guns and then wonder why gun crime hasn't fallen.

This governments approach to problem solving is hilarious, i think children would come up with better answers if asked questions on how to stop crime and reduce road deaths. What a joke

Vegeta

Sparks wrote:

An exchange regarding reloading (by this time, the Minister has returned from his press conference):


The rest of the discussion dealt with the criminal aspects of the firearms act, in particular minimum mandatory sentencing. The next meeting for the Committee is tomorrow at 1400, where they'll probably be continuing in that vein.

So, with the exception of the definitions, which are to be amended at the Report stage, it seems the Firearms Act will look something like this.

My god who is giving them their info, it is similar to the blind leading the blind and ill informed. They need to talk to the shooting community

Sparks

Vegeta wrote:

My god who is giving them their info, it is similar to the blind leading the blind and ill informed. They need to talk to the shooting community

I think they are talking to the shooting community - it's just that what they're saying is "don't take court cases against us or else", same as in 1972 - and our representatives don't seem to take the hint and so a bigger hammer gets used to drive the point home and we all suffer for it.

civdef

Time to start ringing TD's regaring the range definition folks.

Mr. Howlin: Is the Minister of State saying that if a farmer in County Wexford wants to provide a temporary range to practice, either with a neighbour or by himself or herself, he or she needs to apply for a licence and have it inspected by an appropriate inspector and comply with health and safety standards?

Mr. J. O’Keeffe: As alternative land use it would figure in the Department of Agriculture and Food booklets.

Mr. B. Lenihan: It applies to pistols and rifles, not shotguns. If he or she is practising with a pistol or rifle, he or she must be on a range.

This would mean we can no longer zero a rifle, fwithout going to a range, for example.

Sparks

Not to mention that anyone who trains (whether dry or live firing) at home with an airgun is in trouble. Or anyone who dry-fires their pistol at home, from the looks of it.

17HMR

Dictionary definition of a range (in this context) is:

"A place where shooting is practiced"
Penguin English Dictionary

Thus anywhere where any kind of shooting is practiced could be considered a range and thus require all the official nonsense being proposed.

The word "practice" though is interesting......
Could you claim you weren't practicing shooting but actually shooting for real ?

Surely for any of this to be enforceable the following, at the very least, need to be defined in law:

Range
Target
Hunting (as distinct from target shooting ?)
Practice

etc

Sparks

17HMR wrote:

Dictionary definition of a range (in this context) is:
"A place where shooting is practiced"
Penguin English Dictionary
Thus anywhere where any kind of shooting is practiced could be considered a range and thus require all the official nonsense being proposed.
The word "practice" though is interesting......
Could you claim you weren't practicing shooting but actually shooting for real ?

Wrong - dry-firing is done more often than live firing by those who are really serious about their training...

Surely for any of this to be enforceable the following, at the very least, need to be defined in law:
Range
Target
Hunting (as distinct from target shooting ?)
Practice
etc

Yup. Section 1 (the definitions) were so badly abused at committee stage that they've been withdrawn in full and a new amendment for that section, probably replacing it in full, will be presented later, at the Report stage.

17HMR

Aengus Ó Snodaigh: It has come to my attention that bipods are used by snipers to ensure long range killing accuracy. As these items should only be of interest to trained military personnel I purposed that the minister issue a blanket ban on these highly dangerous items for civilian use.

Mr. McDowell: I am aware of the bipod issue and I am in consultation with the Army Ranger Sniper school on their use. I do not at this time foresee a blanket ban as proposed by the deputy, however, I do propose to require any member of the public seeking to own such a device to have to undergo a weekend residential psychological evaluation and demonstrate to a panel of seven Garda Superintendents that they both need such a device and that they are competent to use such a lethal accessory.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh: Will the minister be making a distinction between the fixed style of bipod such as the Harris 1A2 series and the newer tilt and swivel models I believe are now on the market ?

Mr. McDowell: Yes. I will be making a distinction. I do not foresee any possible use of the tilt and swivel style models by the public and so will be restricting civilian use to the fixed platform models.

OK OK..... so I made this up
Scary though how easily it could become true....:mad:

FLAG

I have watched with interest the posts on the boards with respect to many issues that have been raised.

I think it now important to make the following observation:

When we have made enquiry with respect to any issues raised in the course of the publication of the legislation, the response has always been to analyse the section with respect to the overall context in which it was written.

If one takes any aspect of the incoming legislation in isolation without considering why it is there they are most likely to come up with a very wrong interpretation.

Lets take the raging debate about range authorisations and the fears that individuals have with respect to where they might use their firearm!

1) One must consider the context of the initial application, if one applies for a firearm specifically for target shooting then it would not be unreasonable that a condition may be applied restricting the use to authorised ranges, as is done in Northern Ireland.

(Sorry folks the .pdf image of the proposed section did not copy, however look at the Secton 2 The conditions for the grant of a certificate)

Lets look at the proposed condition (e) where the firearm is to be used for target shooting, is a member of an authorised Rifle or pistol club, if that is the only reason given then one can expect this condition to apply.

If one is applying for a rifle for hunting then (a) might apply “has good reason”, one would not be restricted to an authorised club.

It would be my suggestion that everyone calm down with respect to what might or might not happen with respect to the legislation.

The devil is in the detail and once enacted the legislation can only take effect after appropriate regulation is put in place, note also that the legislation ensures that the firearms legislation will be applied according to guidelines to be drawn up, these guidelines will be drawn up taking into consideration submissions from all interested parties.

Bringing forward legislation in this area is complex, consider what the legislators are trying to achieve, they do want something that is workable that protects public safety primarily but is fair in the process.

Unregulated ranges while they have been safe to date and thankfully we have not have had any accidents are a thing of the past, in particular when one considers the number of pistols now in use. The primary purpose of an authorised range is to ensure that they are built to a standard that will protect everyone’s interest. Remember also that the new legislation recognises the legitimate ownership of pistols and rifle that have not been available to us for the last 30 years, a three year licence and of course reloading.

Lets all calm down and look at the context of the legislation.

Once again I make the offer to any club/association affiliated to the SSAI to contact me at flagireland@eircom.net if they have a specific query. We will get it answered if we cannot answer it ourselves.

Declan Keogh
FLAG

PS Sparks lets not turn it into a slagging match, I am trying to be helpful!

Sparks

FLAG wrote:

If one takes any aspect of the incoming legislation in isolation without considering why it is there they are most likely to come up with a very wrong interpretation.

Any aspect of the incoming legislation can be applied in isolation. Examining it in isolation is not invalid.

Lets take the raging debate about range authorisations and the fears that individuals have with respect to where they might use their firearm!
1) One must consider the context of the initial application, if one applies for a firearm specifically for target shooting then it would not be unreasonable that a condition may be applied restricting the use to authorised ranges, as is done in Northern Ireland.
Lets look at the proposed condition (e) where the firearm is to be used for target shooting, is a member of an authorised Rifle or pistol club, if that is the only reason given then one can expect this condition to apply.
If one is applying for a rifle for hunting then (a) might apply “has good reason”, one would not be restricted to an authorised club.

It would be my suggestion that everyone calm down with respect to what might or might not happen with respect to the legislation.

On what basis? While your analysis is not incorrect, it is incomplete.
Take the case of a person applying for a rifle for hunting. Without a definition of target shooting in the Bill, how can you zero a rifle without falling foul of the regulations regarding authorised ranges unless you join such a range?

note also that the legislation ensures that the firearms legislation will be applied according to guidelines to be drawn up, these guidelines will be drawn up taking into consideration submissions from all interested parties.

Where is our assurance that these submissions will be heard at all, let alone actually used? We have a long, long, long history which tells us that these submissions will have precious little influence. A long, long, long history which you have yourself personally recounted at such events as the NRPAI AGM where FLAG was set up.

The primary purpose of an authorised range is to ensure that they are built to a standard that will protect everyone’s interest.

And that's a laudable thing; but will the current bill actually protect our interests? All I can see in it are mechanisms which have no checks or balances on the powers granted to the Minister or Commissioner. I see no appeals process against orders deeming firearms restricted; I see no mechanisms for contact with the shooting community over guidelines to be enacted or even for notifying them of those guidelines; I see no assurances whatsoever that we will retain pistols on the basis we now enjoy, and much commentary from the Minister which suggests that the opposite is true. And while we do have the ability now to go to the District Court over licences being granted or not, we don't seem to have the ability to challange conditions applied to those licences by individual superintendents.

Remember also that the new legislation recognises the legitimate ownership of pistols and rifle that have not been available to us for the last 30 years, a three year licence and of course reloading.

The old legislation also recognises the legitimate ownership of pistols and fullbore rifles as well. Thing is, there was a de facto ban put in place by a cynical use of that legislation, as you well know. And if that can happen in 1972, there is no reason it cannot happen today. Remember the Minister's comments and what you were told by JK Walsh in the 2001 NRPAI AGM - namely that we were told before that we could win in court on monday and face a new Firearms Act by friday.

Once again I make the offer to any club/association affiliated to the SSAI to contact me at flagireland@eircom.net if they have a specific query. We will get it answered if we cannot answer it ourselves.

I would be surprised to hear of a club affiliated to the NRPAI since at the most recent NRPAI AGM, individual memberships were abolished...

PS Sparks lets not turn it into a slagging match, I am trying to be helpful!

Declan, if you want to help, please answer queries posted here to disseminate information more rapidly. Those I have listed above are valid, impersonal questions, which all of us, yourself included, need to have answered.

17HMR

FLAG wrote:

While the questions may be asked publicly I reiterate the point that it is certainly not the place for answers to be posted, clearly and obviously this is a public board, there is no control over who posts or who views and we are in grave danger of shooting our selves in the foot.

I do not have anything to hide, despite what you might say, but I am not prepared to post responses that may cause potential issues with people we deal with in Justice or the Gardai.

Might FLAG publish something on their contribution to this piece of legislation when its all over and passed into law so that we might see just what was said and done ?

17HMR

I'm sure dealing with the DoJ and the Gardai is a delicate business and that discretion and diplomacy is needed.

I'm not looking to get at FLAG by suggesting that he/they publish something on their efforts. Rather the opposite really. Seems to be a rather thankless task at present as so few know what is really going on.

Sparks

The latest transcripts (from Wednesday's committee meeting) are up on the web here.

The issue of target shooting off authorised ranges came up:

Mr. Howlin: I strongly support the new appeals system. I posed a question on some of the matters covered by this amendment, namely, the issue of ranges and so on. I do not know whether the Minister has had time to consider these since I raised them.
I also mentioned to the Chairman that because I came late to this debate, I did not have the benefit of being addressed directly by the shooting lobby. That has been rectified in the interim. Several issues were raised by those to whom I spoke who requested me to put them to the Minister, particularly in the context of the regulation of shooting as a sport. This discussion of the appeals mechanism for the refusal of firearms training certificates in the Minister’s amendment may be the only opportunity I will have to pose those questions.
Did the Minister consider the definition of ranges since I raised the matter at our previous meeting? People are concerned that it is necessary to have a licensed range and the penalty for shooting at an unauthorised range, namely a fine of up to €25,000 and jail for up to seven years, is severe. People legitimately involved in sport shooting want to ensure that they do not inadvertently run foul of this. The Minister said that he would revisit this matter.
Under the new section 4A to the principal Act, newcomers to shooting will be able to train only at shooting ranges. If one is not competent, however, one is not permitted to shoot at such a range. This seems to be a catch 22 situation. How does one become competent if one can shoot only at a range and only if one is competent to do so?
Provision is made under the new section 4B for the appointment of firearms range inspectors. Such an inspector will be permitted to enter any premises without warrant when he or she suspects that target shooting is taking place. This is regarded as an extraordinarily wide-ranging power to give to any individual who is not obliged to be a member of the Garda Síochána, although the section encompasses gardaí and customs officials. Some would argue that it is a search warrant on the cheap if one wants to enter a premises without a warrant.
I hope the Minister will forgive me for using the umbrella of this amendment to raise these points.

These were the questions we were raising here. Hands up those who believe we shouldn't discuss these things in public please?

I've emphasised some of the following in red:

Mr. McDowell: In response to Deputy Howlin’s points, the definition of a range does not apply to the use of shotguns on a farm but it does apply to the use of .22 rifles, etc. If one has a range on one’s land to carry out target practice, one must obtain permission for it. For example, people cannot be allowed to carry out target practice next to a public road or a golf course where passers-by might be hit by ricochets, etc. I appreciate that a farmer who wants to keep his eye in with his shotgun can put up a tin can somewhere on his property and shoot at it. However, if someone establishes a place where he regularly fires lethal weapons——
Mr. Howlin: All weapons are lethal.
Mr. McDowell: Yes, but shotguns are exempt from this.
Mr. Howlin: They are lethal.
Mr. McDowell: They are lethal in certain circumstances. It should not be the case that a farmer could never practice shooting on his own land and not be covered by the law. In respect of other firearms——
Mr. Howlin: The Minister could not tell us on the previous occasion how many ranges exist. I think there are many informal ranges.
Mr. McDowell: There may be but they should be controlled. If someone moved onto a farm next to one’s own farm, erected a bank of earth and began firing shots all day, one would say that he should at least have permission to do so.
Mr. Howlin: If he has 200 acres and is half a mile from the nearest——
Mr. McDowell: It is a matter of forcing him to practice shooting half a mile away from the perimeter of his land. That is why permission is required. Otherwise, he would put it wherever he wants on his land. We have been informed that there are approximately 30 ranges in the country.
Mr. Howlin: Do they require planning permission?
Mr. McDowell: I am not sure.
Deputy Howlin: They probably would require it.
Mr. McDowell: I am not an expert in planning law.
Mr. Howlin: I thought the Minister was familiar with that area.
Mr. McDowell: Shotguns were used on my property but I was not responsible for their discharge.
Chairman: It was someone missing a tin can.
Mr. McDowell: I was very grateful to a local government councillor from the Chairman’s party who soothingly told me that it might have been a duck hunter on the local lake. When the spray of shot through the hole in the window was triangulated, it was discovered that the muzzle of the firearm was discharged eight feet from the house. There must have been a low flying duck.
Mr. Howlin: In order to obtain a training licence, one needs to be competent and one cannot use a range unless one is competent.
Mr. McDowell: There are two points here, namely, in order to get a training licence one must be competent.
Mr. Howlin: One cannot shoot at a range unless one is competent.
Mr. McDowell: Is the Deputy referring to a training certificate or a licence to train to shoot other people?
Mr. Howlin: A training licence. A licence to shoot other people - I do not think one can get that.
Mr. McDowell: A firearms training certificate authorises the person to posses a firearm and ammunition, except a restricted firearm and restricted ammunition, only while carrying and using the firearm for hunting or target shooting under the supervision of a person over the age of 18 years who holds a firearms certificate in respect of it or where the firearm is used for target shooting on the premises of an authorised rifle or pistol club or at an authorised shooting range and complying with such other conditions, if any, as the commissioner may impose in the interests of public safety and security. I do not see the problem.
Mr. Howlin: If a person wants to take up target shooting, he or she can shoot only at a range.
Mr. McDowell: The person must be over the age of 14 years.
Mr. Howlin: One can shoot only at a range, however, one can shoot at a range only if one is competent.
Mr. McDowell: One needs to be competent to hold a firearms certificate. One does not need to be competent to hold a firearms training certificate.
Mr. Howlin: No, but one can fire at a range only when one holds a training certificate.
Mr. McDowell: Is the Deputy stating that somewhere in the Bill, we provide that one can only fire——
Mr. Howlin: —— at a range if one is competent.
Mr. McDowell: I will check that. If that is the case, we will deal with it.
Mr. Howlin: I have a question on the inspectorate, the firearms range inspectors competence and powers. It was pointed out to me that——
Mr. McDowell: That he or she does not have to go to court to get an order to search.
Mr. Howlin: Is it a search warrant on the cheap?
Mr. McDowell: I do not think so. It is a practical measure. If one hears noise coming from over the hill, the idea that one must go to the District Court to recount what one heard——
Mr. Howlin: One could make the same argument for any search warrant on that basis. If a garda believes it would be useful in solving a crime to barge in, why would he or she not? We have a constitutional preservation of private property.
Mr. McDowell: TV licence inspectors operate on the same basis. One is not talking about moving into people’s homes. One is talking about going on to land. Unless people have turned the inside of their houses into a range, which I think is unlikely, one is talking about going on to another’s land. Practicality suggests that if a member of the inspectorate suspects an unauthorised range, he or she should be able to check it out rather than having to go to the District Court and invoke the powers of a judge to do so. One is not talking about a dwelling of a citizen. It is a question of what is reasonable and practicable. If the local sergeant hears shooting in the local quarry in the early hours of the morning, the idea that he or she should raise the district judge from his or her slumbers before going down to see if it is being used as a range is tilting the scales too much against practicality.

Just to point out - the Bill says the inspector can go into any place and defines place as including dwellings, premesis, vehicles and land...

Chairman: This can be revisited. We went through this on amendment No. 104.
...
Amendment agreed to.

So it's been passed despite the objections above. Am I the only one who has little faith in good intentions towards our sport from the Minister?

Sparks

The rest of the transcript bears reading; there is a section on the ownership of ranges by limited companies, and an somewhat cheering comment from Brendan Howlin:

We can lose the run of ourselves by stating decent citizens at shooting ranges, engaging in a hobby that dates from time immemorial, must be circumscribed beyond reason. I seek to bring balance to the debate.

There was also a brief statistic on firearms ownership - 163,000 shotguns, 46,055 rifles and 312 pistols, 109 of which are revolvers.

The "what is a joule" point came up later and unfortunately the Minister took a bit of a drubbing on the point, but hopefully it'll lead to someone being yelled at and the level of briefings in the future will be higher, which would be better all round!

Silencers came up:

Aengus Ó Snodaigh: I do not know of any reason a person would possess a silencer. The penalty in that regard appears low when compared with that for providing false information on a certificate in relation to firearms.
Mr. McDowell: The Deputy may think there is no innocent reason for which a person would possess a silencer but some huntsmen like to use them. I do not wish to disturb their quarry.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh: They are obviously bad shooters wishing to take a second shot.
Mr. McDowell: No, they are trying to get two animals rather than one.
Mr. Howlin: I presume one can be licensed to possess a silencer.
Mr. McDowell: Yes.
Chairman: People wishing to look at “Oireachtas Report” might wish to get in some practice before doing so.
Mr. McDowell: A silencer is a firearm within the meaning of the Act. A person in possession of a silencer in suspicious circumstances would be guilty of an offence.

The discussion had moved on to the Explosives Act amendments by the end of the meeting. Next meeting is next Wednesday, May 10.

Rew

Fair play to Howlin, I just dont get how they think hunting is ok and target shooting is not on the same land?!

As for Ó Snodaigh I wonder has he ever seen a gun except on telly...

civdef

You know the concept of having a range authorised wouldnt be so bad, if we had any idea what it would involve. If it was a matter of "look, here's the field I want to shoot in, its miles from any houses, points in a safe direction, and has a big hill". If they start looking for full commercial range provisions, it'll put people out of shooting altogether.

Rew

I just dont see it being that sensible a process thought

jaycee

Have to agree with you Civ ..

It's nonsense to suggest that a place that is safe to hunt on , where a quick shot may be called for ..is less safe if you want to carefully and slowly shoot at a target. BTW .. what's the definition of a target anyway ..?
Is not the thing at which you intend to shoot.. your target ? , be it a rabbit made of fur or paper.

As far as the safety issues involved go, the basic rules of firearms ownership always apply , or you shouldn't be shooting. They are not dependent on whether you are hunting or target shooting.

As in....

The Fundamentals of Firearm Safety

The three basic general rules of safe gun handling.

1. Always point the muzzle in a safe direction; never point a firearm at anything you don't want to shoot.

2. Keep your finger off the trigger and outside the trigger guard until you are ready to shoot.

3. Keep the action open and the gun unloaded until you are ready to use it.

Additional specific rules of safe gun handling

Safety Rules Related to the Shooter and His Behavior.

1. Treat every firearm as if it were loaded.

2. Never pass a firearm to another person, or accept a firearm from another person, until the action is open and you've personally checked that the weapon is completely unloaded.

3. Before handling any firearm, understand its operation.

4. Never rely on any mechanical device for safety.

5. Think before shooting: once you pull the trigger you can't take back the shot you've just fired!

6. Never joke around or engage in horseplay while handling or using firearms.

7. Be alert at all times; never shoot if you're tired, cold or impaired in any way. Don't mix alcohol or drugs with shooting.

8. Safeguard your sight, hearing and health. Always wear eye and ear protection.


9. If you see unsafe behavior any time when firearms are being handled or used, speak up and take action to correct the unsafe behavior at once.

10. Receive competent instruction from a qualified person before beginning to shoot. If questions arise later, after you've been shooting for a period of time, get answers to those questions from a competent authority.

Safety Rules Related to Your Target

1. Positively identify your target before firing at it.


2. What's behind your target? Always make sure that a stray shot, or a bullet which penetrates its intended target through and through, will be safely stopped.


3. Never shoot at a hard surface, or at water -- your shot may glance off, ricochet and injure someone.

I object to the implication that hunters are serious and responsible , while those involved in a little harmless target practice are judged likely to make a dangerous nuisance of themselves[FONT=&quot]. So any 18 year old with their first shotgun is no risk , while an experienced shooter with 30 years of rifle shooting behind him /her is...? Awww come on...:mad:
[/FONT]