Garda directive on under 16yr olds

entropy

In a response to what looks like a backlash to an article in the Irish Indpendent a few months back showing an 11yr old competing at an NARGC competition all clay pigeon clubs around the country have been circulated with a directive from the gardai telling them that under 16yr olds are not permitted to use or hold a shotgun even under supervision.

I'd love to know how the target and shotgun communities are going to develop the sport if you have to wait until you are 16 years old before you can even use a shotgun under supervision.

This does not bode well for the statement coming from the Minister for Sport and the Sports Council that they want to involve "young people from as early an age as possible" and get them into devlopment programmes. Or does this only apply to swimming and rowing etc ?

I would not be confident that the governing bodies for shooting will be able to respond in a cohesive and rational fashion. I know in the shotgun world that there is little in the way of juniors competing and in the Olympic disciplines I think the youngest is in his twenties.

With the pressure on teenagers to sign up to other sports within the community, waiting until the age of 16 before even getting to try out a shotgun in a safe and responsible environment will result I'm afraid in the slow death of the sport in Ireland.

Sparks

It's a very worrying development allright, and it's in this month's Irish Shooters Digest - and it's very explicit too. The Attorney General has advised the Gardai that no authorisation or licence should be granted to anyone where the firearm would be possessed, carried or used for the purposes of letting an under-16 shoot. And this happened for pistol shooters up north a few years ago as well. And I have heard of under-16s being physically removed from a competition in Ashbourne by the authorities (though I didn't see it myself you understand). So they're quite serious about it.

As to what to do, I'd suggest writing two letters. One to the Irish Clay Pigeon Shooting Association (or the National Target Shooting Association or the National Silhouette Association of Ireland or the National Association of Sporting Rifle Clubs, whichever applies to you), complaining about this and asking for it to be challanged; and the other to the Department of Justice about the upcoming amendments to the Firearms Acts asking for the situation to be fixed there. The DoJ link is in a sticky thread at the top of this forum.

entropy

Don't know about the other organisations but wouldn't waste the ink or the stamps writing to the ICPSA, they are notorious for their lack of action! Check their website out for good measure www.icpsa.ie not even a note about it

Sparks

Well, I know the PRO in the ICPSA, and I wouldn't say they don't know about it - but there's always inertia with bodies that large. But if you don't write the letter to the ICPSA/whomever, you lose the moral right to complain about them (they're representing you, which means that you need to tell them what you want done!) - and if you don't write to the DoJ, you lose the moral right to complain about the amendments.

I mean, seriously. You're online now, aren't you? Just send an email to the DoJ and another to the ICPSA, the addresses are:
firearms_CJB2004@justice.ie
and
honsecicpsa@iol.ie

civdef

In the past, like so much else regarding Irish legislation, this was dealt with on a "nod and a wink" basis.

This is another reflection of how out of touch the Firearms Acts are. Compare this to the law in the UK where there is no lower limit on using a firearm under supervision.

Wouldn't it be so nice for a genuine consultative process with Ireland's shooters to take place regarding new legislation to take place, where the opinions offered would be actually listened to and even acted on, rather than the current system of inviting submissions then ignoring them.

Sparks

Wouldn't be so fast on the UK law though Civ, not with their recent "consultation" on firearms law - Blunkett appears to have it in for target shooting there, which is a worrying attitude for a government offical to have. And their funding of IANSA despite Dr.Peter's stance on target shooting (ie, "there is no reason for any civilian to own a shotgun" and "you will have to get another sport" - both quotes from her at the NRA/IANSA debate in Kings College this month) is even more worrying.

I mean, I hate the miltancy and entrenched, NRA-like attitudes you see from some shooting administrators in Ireland because they're flat-out unrealistic and ineffectual in the long run; but when you start seeing the same attitude from the "other side of the table", so to speak, you know that there are problems afoot.

entropy

I've sent both postal mail and email in the past to the ICPSA and never received a reply, that's the basis for my observation. I'll kick one off to the DOJ , I agree with you in so far as they say, if you're not in you can't win!

civdef

The UK "Consultation" is a remarkably clever bit of work. Basically they want to get airguns regulated. Currently they are unregulated - in my book a very bad thing, when I was living there I got a chance to see just how bad.

The plan as I see it is simple - threaten all sorts of restrictions, in order to encourage the shooting community to give in on the airguns as a quid pro quo for leaving the other stuff alone mostly. It's not a bad plan, as I see it.

red vex

i think the best way to encourage good gun practices is to teach it at an early age. There is very little danger involved regarding the supervised shooting done by that child, it promotes the sports appeal to the child and teaches him about guns in a very experienced and safe athmosphere. I know a few gunholders who i would regard as a little wreckless and irresponsible when it comes to gun safety; none of these had exposure to shooting at a younger age. My post is a bit of a ramble and a little incoherent but does nyone see my point?

entropy

I agree with you red vex completely. I've seen 'Adults' who are new to shooting behaving like 10yr olds playing cowboys and indians and I have also seen young teenagers who display a respect and control far beyond their years when at a shooting ground having been properly introduced and nutured from an early year. I think Ireland's Derek Burnett who competed at the last few Olympics started when he was about 11yrs old. That's a good enough example for me!

civdef

Adults are harder to teach to shoot, less inclined to follow what they're being thought.
Another group I've seen with some very variable safety habits are people who learned to shoot in the military. Military safety procedures are very mechanistic, and work well in that environment, but some individuals who learn this way can't operate safely on their own initiative.

foresight

I agree with the points made above and wish to add my voice also. I would hope that the DoJ and others would consider the valid points raised in relation to allowing young people supervised access to certain firearms.

I too come from a target shooting background and believe very strongly that if we wish to develop high performance competition target shooting at international level then it is imperative that provision is made to create and nurture a youth base from which we can grow future champions.

Victor

entropy wrote:

Don't know about the other organisations but wouldn't waste the ink or the stamps writing to the ICPSA, they are notorious for their lack of action! Check their website out for good measure www.icpsa.ie not even a note about it

In the context of the thread, not to be confused with the ISPCA.

target

Victor wrote:

In the context of the thread, not to be confused with the ISPCA.

Yeah good point, ICPSA is Irish Clay Pigeon Shooting Association ....

Martin Galway

As the father of such a person I will have no choice but to compete in england where he is allowed to compete in the sport of shooting .
Because the main bodies will adhere to the law which states that they can not hold a firearm , not alone this but you can not get a parentil.
licence as in england which I feel deprives my son to the right to be showen how to shoot

Sparks

It makes little sense really. I mean, if a kid is under 12 years old, I can understand not training them for clay pigeon or air rifle or any offhand position shooting - there's too much risk to their bone structure. Prone shooting, maybe, but not offhand. But after 12, it's quite safe (obviously the caveat of "if done properly" applies!). And with Pat Hickey and John Treacy and John O'Donoghue all praising Derek Burnett's performance in the Olympics, it's a rather odd directive to be getting - since Derek started shooting at age 11 himself...

Martin Galway

I feel that some maybe not all of the bodies that control our sport will claim that insurance also will be a reason for them not shooting , but country side allance cover states legally take part there is no age limit on there policy, nor is there a limit on ICPSA policyies ,
we should be trying to get them in not keep them out my fear is the people that make the directive are not looking at it from a sport point of view for the future of the sport

Sparks

To be fair, the insurance may say that it has no age limit; but it does also say that it covers nothing done illegally; and if the AG says that there's a legal age limit, your insurance is null and void if you're under that age limit...

And the AG is certainly not looking at the issue from the sport's point of view, that's not his job - it's the job of the sports bodies to lobby for their position.

foresight

The question remains - how can we get target shooting onto a similar acceptance level in the public mind as other 'respectable' sports?

The answer will have to include policies that raise the profile and promote the many positive aspects of the sport. In many ways, we, who are already in the sport are guilty of gross neglect. I'm over the age, I've a licence, I'm O.K. but I am also a poor shooter and I can give you hundreds of excuses to back that up. What I can't give you is excuses of why I'm not working harder to get younger members into our club and once getting them in trying to help them gain the necessary skills and confidence to have a chance at high performance. And when they get to the edge of HP, not busting myself to continue to encourage them to nurture the dream and seize the goal.

We can blame the NGB's, rightly or wrongly, but we must make the effort ourselves at ground level to make sure the NGB's do follow up on this and also work at local level to ensure that our kids and those who come after will be able to participate fully in their chosen sport.

red vex

didnt derek burnett shoot a winning score in the british open when he was thirteen. They didnt give it to him because he was competing as a junior

Pull!theother1

This under sixteen thing is a big problem because the law as it stands is open to interpretation by the local Superintendent. One might decide that he can grant a permission, rightly or wrongly, and the another may refuse a grant under the same statute, rightly or wrongly.
If a definitive stance is given, then we have something solid to act upon and try and change. Unfortunatly at present we have some people who would wish to sue, sorry, shoot the messenger rather than set about righting the situation.
As regards Derek and the winning of the British Open, I may be wrong but the competition in question may have been the Home Countries International where people compete in the relevent classes (Ladies, Vets, Juniors etc) and the High Gun of the Tounament was selected from the Seniors not only because it was the largest catagory but because the other classes competed in a different format over seperate traps. Wrong maybe, but thems the rules.
Personally I remember a junior shooting off for the British open agaist a senior in 1995 in Ashbourne and throwing it away in the last few targets....!

entropy

Pull!theother1 wrote:

As regards Derek and the winning of the British Open, I may be wrong but the competition in question may have been the Home Countries International where people compete in the relevent classes (Ladies, Vets, Juniors etc) and the High Gun of the Tounament was selected from the Seniors

still sounds like he was shafted, would have been good for the sport to have a junior take the honors

entropy

Pull!theother1 wrote:

This under sixteen thing is a big problem because the law as it stands is open to interpretation by the local Superintendent. One might decide that he can grant a permission, rightly or wrongly, and the another may refuse a grant under the same statute, rightly or wrongly.
If a definitive stance is given, then we have something solid to act upon and try and change. Unfortunatly at present we have some people who would wish to sue, sorry, shoot the messenger rather than set about righting the situation.

whats the icpsa thoughts on all this, anyone know? are we hassling the TDs ?

Pull!theother1

The ICPSA are activly in contact with both justice and sport on the under 16 situation but it is too early to call yet. If the association has a problem it is probably lack of communication within, and that goes from the bottom up as much as from the top down. Most people on the executive are too busy trying to get their own little bits done to have time to diseminate info. And most stories that do get out are added to as they travel around the circuit.
It is all very well bitching here with a limited audience. More do and less say! I got involved because I wanted to see things get done and try and make things better for all. Believe me it is neither easy or fast, but the intentions are good. After all, when it comes to the crunch, what have some of you activly done to put things right apart from tap a few keys?

JR

My God, I cannot believe how restrictive laws are about shooting in Ireland and the UK!!!!!!!!!!!

From an American perspective, it is insane.

Sorry guys. I'm just aghast at what you all have to put up with. :eek:

Sparks

Most of the Firearms laws here, JR, date to just after our civil war in the 20s - and at the time they were drafted, there was an effort underway to try to calm everything down. Hence the unarmed police force (the Gardai Siochana) and the emphasis in the Firearms Act on giving the local superintendent the power to grant or refuse firearms licences. The idea was that at the time (and still today in most of the country), the local garda knew who would be a threat if they owned a firearm - and so could refuse them permission to have one and could arrest them if they ignored being told they couldn't. By and large, it worked and up until 1972, it wasn't really restrictive - you could have a licence for pretty much anything except for artillery, flamethrowers and things of that nature. But any shotgun, rifle or pistol you wanted, you could get a licence for if the local garda thought you wouldn't be a threat to public safety with it.
It was after the Troubles in N.Ireland spilled over into the Republic in 1972 (when a Garda was shot in Dublin) that they clamped down and restricted everything.

JR

Sparks, just to give you an idea of why Americans find European gun laws so bizarre and unthinkable here, this bit has been in the US Constitution since 1789:

Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

In Ohio (the state where I live), one has to be 21 to purchase a handgun, 18 to purchase any rifle or shotgun.

There are no licenses or permits of any kind to purchase or own any kind of legal firearm.

There is a permit, however, necessary to carry a concealed handgun. That permit MUST be granted by the County Sheriff if the applicant does not fall under any of the very specific disqualifying criteria set by the legislature. If the applicant meets the criteria, the Sheriff MUST issue the permit.

The only security requirement when buying a firearm is to undergo a background check through the FBI's National Instant Check System. In almost all cases, the results of the check are returned while the firearms dealer is on the phone with the FBI. That check is required ONLY if you purchase a gun from a licensed dealer. If an individual sells a firearm to another, no check is necessary.

There are no limits on the types or quantity of firerams (semi-auto, bolt action, pump action, single shot) you may own. There is only a caliber limit in that any non-sporting caliber > .50" requires a very restrictive license from the Federal Government. That same license allows one to own FULLY AUTOMATIC firearms. There are no restrictions on the types and quantities of ammo you may have (one is not restricted to ammo for the arms one owns). There is no limit to magazine capacity.

There are no detailed firearms storage requirements. Only the legal duty to keep firearms away from unsupervised children. However, if you are negligent in storage and some gets hurt or killed with one of your guns, you will be held liable in both criminal and civil (tort) court.

Police cannot enter your home to check on your firearms. In fact, outside of an emergency, police may not enter a home unless they have a search warrant autorized by a judge. And they must show "probable cause" to convince the judge that the search would not violate the Fourth Amendment (The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.)

It is instructive to note that the cities with the tighest forms of gun control in the US are also the most crime ridden. While the cities with the laxest are the safest.

We both know gun control does NOT control crime. It merely controls those of us who obey the law. :mad:

Bet of luck in drawing and keeping young ones into the sport. We have the same struggle here, but for different reasons. :rolleyes:

entropy

i hear the national shooting grounds in ashbourne is ignoring the garda directive. heard from a shooter at the competition yesterday that there were a couple of under 16's shooting and the organisers turned a blind eye.

Pull!theother1

entropy wrote:

i hear the national shooting grounds in ashbourne is ignoring the garda directive. heard from a shooter at the competition yesterday that there were a couple of under 16's shooting and the organisers turned a blind eye.

Enjoy your holiday?

Cannot speak for Ashbourne as I was shooting in Athlone. I am surprised to hear that we had under 16's shooting OT, which is what was on Ashbourne yesterday as mostly it is older shooters involved here, unfortunatly.

I do know that at least one recently turned 16 year old at Athlone presented his certificate yesterday in order to shoot, but could not say if it was asked for or if volunteered.

Another youngster who will be 16 in a few months was present but did not shoot, to the best of my knowledge.

In terms of rumours of "blind eyes" etc., believe half of what you see and none of what you hear is a good motto. If I was to believe a fraction of what I hear at shoots, a lot of which from personal knowledge I know to be false, I would be a very confused bunny.........

entropy

yeah, had a great time, sporting a lovely tan!

Pull!theother1 wrote:

In terms of rumours of "blind eyes" etc., believe half of what you see and none of what you hear is a good motto. If I was to believe a fraction of what I hear at shoots, a lot of which from personal knowledge I know to be false, I would be a very confused bunny.........

might be rumours but i was a wondering if you could fill me in on what the executives postion on this. would they agree with ignoring the directive as is rumoured to have happened in ashbourne?

Pull!theother1

"might be rumours but i was a wondering if you could fill me in on what the executives postion on this. would they agree with ignoring the directive as is rumoured to have happened in ashbourne?[/QUOTE]"


To advise anyone to break the law would be a seriously foolhardy thing for any individual much less organisation to advocate and therefore I do not think for one moment that you would expect us to condone such an act.

This would be doubly stupid bearing in mind the current and ongoing communications with both the Depts of Justice and Sport on the matter and such actions could be counter productive in the long run. One of our biggest assets is the fact that we ARE after all upright law abiding citizens of the State!