Ticknock range

Riggser

Ha ha Skellig you phoney! All on your own in that hole. Put the shovel down.

skellig

rrpc wrote:

You mean you've lost the argument and won't admit it. You haven't had any problems drawing attention to ranges' shortcomings in the past.
And you can point me to the section of the firearms acts that specifically refers to the distance of ranges from the public road.

R.R.P.C

---

Im not 100% sure but the last time I read up about discharging a firearm from a public road and a dwelling house was as far as 100 yards correct me if im wrong (hopefully im wrong)
Is there any difference betwen a hunter firing a shot and a target shooter firing from a public road in relation to what distance they both should be.

Sparks----Planning permission , retention etc I think most individuals know something about it , is there any point in highlighting it on a shooting board ,there doesnt seem to be any point!

"Denegrated air rifle shooters" didnt intend to sparks! I was referring to the handiness of a range for Air rifle in comparison to fullbore range etc. Ive nothing against Air rifle . I spent many a great time plinking and hunting with Air rifles when I was younger and as a matter of fact like many others I would own one now, unfortunately its considered a firearm like a .22 and so on and I would have to part with another firearm in order to have one:(
(A very handy tool it was for killing vermin in the farm yard actually )

Rew---You shoot Auto weapons regularly "be God" your a great lad altogether .Ive shot them too particularly in the Curragh and quite enjoyable it is too. (pity civilians cant avail of such a fine range for the sport of target shooting)

Riggser---I believe you are a qualified instructor on a number of fully auto weapons well done!
You must admit though , how often have you seen auto weapons firing wildly on Range there not exactly tack drivers are they? (maybe in the right hands:) )

By the way Riggser -calm down thers no need to wind yourself up "alienated Rifle shooters " jeez Rig where did that come from:) .



Once again Sidney Reilly you are dead right "well said"

Sparks

skellig wrote:

Im not 100% sure but the last time I read up about discharging a firearm from a public road and a dwelling house was as far as 100 yards correct me if im wrong (hopefully im wrong)

I can't find that law on the Irish statute books. It is a law in the UK, and may be a part of the hunting laws here, but nowhere have I ever seen any reference to it being 100yards, not here and not in the UK.

Is there any difference betwen a hunter firing a shot and a target shooter firing from a public road in relation to what distance they both should be.

Yes; target shooting and hunting are covered by different laws by dint of being carried out in different circumstances. DURC, UCDRC, RRPC, for example are all indoor ranges, so the law does not apply.

Planning permission , retention etc I think most individuals know something about it , is there any point in highlighting it on a shooting board ,there doesnt seem to be any point!

There most assuredly does if discussing whether or not a range has it!

like many others I would own one now, unfortunately its considered a firearm like a .22 and so on and I would have to part with another firearm in order to have one

Says whom? That "one for one" idea only applies to UK FACs and they don't have to have licences for air rifles. There is no upper limit to the number of firearms a person may possess here.

scout

What is the distance you have to be from a road i thought it was 30 yards

rrpc

What is the distance you have to be from a road i thought it was 30 yards

OK, this is one of these Urban/Rural myths that has grown legs and is now 'law'.

There is nothing repeat nothing in the firearms acts that specifically mentions distance from public roads, or for that matter roads themselves. Absolutely nothing, nada, niet, rien, whatever..... no mention of roads in the firearms acts at all, at all, at all.

However, that does not mean you can now go out and shoot on the public road, as that would probably come under the 'dangerous/careless discharge of a firearm' sections (which incidentally do not mention roads either).

So are we clear on that?..... Skellig??

Oh and just one other thing (just for Skellig)... Stop coming on here and repeating hearsay, pub talk, bar stool lawyerspeak, "yer man said", etc. etc. as fact. If you are going to make definitive statements on firearms law, planning law or health and safety issues, check the facts first. There are plenty of places to do this. Most of them involve reading

b52

Ticknock saga is getting out of hand .The people involved in the range should be helped not sneered at, as some of you are doing.
RRPC. Comment that you are making (shooting at each other)in reference to the lead exposure question will not help anyone ,when lead is been used there is a risk of exposure not only ot the shooters but to everyone present on the range.On indoor ranges where shooting is carried out,let it be for .177 or.22 air rifle or rimfire rifle the ventilation system should be turned on a mim.of 15 min.before hand and 30min after shooting has stopped.

Sparks

On indoor ranges where shooting is carried out,let it be for .177 or.22 air rifle or rimfire rifle the ventilation system should be turned on a mim.of 15 min.before hand and 30min after shooting has stopped.

In practise, b52, it's been found that the single best preventative measure, beating all others well into negligibility, is to simply wash your hands and forearms with cold water after shooting. That's it, that's the whole deal. (Forearms too as particulates become trapped in the arm hair and travel down the arm to the hands where they can contaminate food and be ingested; cold water so that particulates aren't washed into pores).

Besides, how many of us are getting our blood lead levels checked regularly?

As to sneering at Ticknock, noone's sneered; except perhaps at skellig who frankly threw the first rock. In fact, several posters on here have tried to help the LRPC in the past. But it's undeniable that their choice of PR approach hasn't worked; noting that is not sneering, it's learning from another's mistakes. Don't do that, and we'll all have to make the same ones over and over and over.

skellig

:R.R.P.C---- "pub talk,not making "definite statements on firearm law" I think it is you who neds to learn to read properly and not let your personal feelings blind your judgment!!I said I wasnt 100% sure and to correct me if Im wrong (and I probably am and so what!!). I thought thats what these threads and discussions are all about ie questions , information , and so on. There should be no hierarchial system here , every contributors post should be as valid as anyone elses regardless of whether you agree with the content or not ---isnt that the whole point?



Sparks talk about he who cast the first stone and of course you would call mine a "rock":) (I certainly wasnt the first )


Sneering -not a very nice word at all and if Im the victim well a big BOO HOO from me . By the way if your going to give it , you have to be able to take it back:) Wouldnt you agree



Lead exposure--"simply wash your hands and forearms with cold water after shooting " I think what B52 actually meant was the lead exposure in the Air in indoor ranges and thats why he mentioned the air ventilation. God air ventilation prevents people inhaling toxic air contaminated with lead.:) This system beats yours anytime . Could you imagine it Sparks taking the old lungs out to wash in cold water (what do you think R.R.P.C )




All joking aside we all need to take our health seriously and I must say B52 has raised a valid point. Whatever about .22 being shot indoor being a hazard without ventilation Im not so sure (apologies in advance R.P.P.C for this non-definitive statement ) about air rifle being as bad if indeed at all.


Hopefully all going well with Ticknock Range

---

one thing they dont have a problem with and thats "air" and lots of it too!

Traumadoc

I know its going off topic- and while hand and forearm washing may be the best way to reduce exposure - im not sure that it alone is adequate.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5423a1.htm

rrpc

skellig wrote:

:R.R.P.C---- "pub talk,not making "definite statements on firearm law" I think it is you who neds to learn to read properly and not let your personal feelings blind your judgment!!I said I wasnt 100% sure and to correct me if Im wrong (and I probably am and so what!!).

Yes but first you said

Skellig 27th Feb wrote:

for example are all firing points from Public roadways the correct distances??!!

Implying that you were certain that some were not, when there is no legislation in this country to support such a view. You only said you weren't 100% sure when a number of people here cast doubts on your assertion.

I thought thats what these threads and discussions are all about ie questions , information , and so on. There should be no hierarchial system here , every contributors post should be as valid as anyone elses regardless of whether you agree with the content or not ---isnt that the whole point?

Of course there is a hierarchical system here, it goes something like this: Fact, Opinion, Bull.

Lead exposure--"simply wash your hands and forearms with cold water after shooting " I think what B52 actually meant was the lead exposure in the Air in indoor ranges and thats why he mentioned the air ventilation. God air ventilation prevents people inhaling toxic air contaminated with lead.:) This system beats yours anytime . Could you imagine it Sparks taking the old lungs out to wash in cold water (what do you think R.R.P.C )

You were both talking about lead exposure at the firing point, if you need reminding, here's your quote

Skellig wrote:

lead exposure in the line of shooters shooting out of containers , buildings , indoor ranges etc.

This is what Sparks and I were talking about. There are no regulations in place here for the proper ventilation and maintenance of indoor (or outdoor) ranges. We have to look to the United States for a proper evaluation of these risks. The CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) have issued guidelines for ranges in the US, and these should be applied here. The major cause of lead contamination has been identified as improper maintenance. (dry sweeping etc.) Although there is some lead contamination at firing points, this is in the main, restricted to the handling of empty shells and propellant fumes. Positive airflow downrange from the firing point will eliminate the latter and as Sparks has pointed out, proper washing after shooting will eliminate the former. The reports in the US are further complicated by the fact that most indoor ranges there cater for heavier calibres than the .22 or .177 that are so predominant here. A further mitigating factor here is that most shooters on indoor ranges take part in the ISSF disciplines which require specialist clothing only used for shooting thus preventing cross contamination of 'street' clothes.

All joking aside we all need to take our health seriously and I must say B52 has raised a valid point. Whatever about .22 being shot indoor being a hazard without ventilation Im not so sure (apologies in advance R.P.P.C for this non-definitive statement ) about air rifle being as bad if indeed at all.

All shooting sports that use lead projectiles expose the shooter to possible lead contamination. The major cause of lead dust in the atmosphere is the partial disintegration of the projectile hitting the backstop.

Hopefully all going well with Ticknock Range

---

one thing they dont have a problem with and thats "air" and lots of it too!

It's not just the air. The EPA in the US (again the only source of info here) produced a document in January 2001 entitled 'Best Management Practices for lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges' In this document, they pointed out the danger of lead contamination in ground water on outdoor ranges. This is one of the few areas that has been identified as a possible hazard in this country, and was the subject of a further information request by Wicklow County Council in the course of our application for planning permission for a new range.

None of us takes these matters lightly. Most of us who have responsibility in these matters, have taken the time to study this information and to implement in so far as is possible these best practices with very little in the way of guidelines or assistance in this country. Your approach of attacking other ranges or clubs for what you perceived to be breaches of firarms law, health and safety issues, planning issues or anything else you could lay your hands on was motivated by a particularly Irish begrudgery of 'if we can't have it, then no-one else can either'. I attacked that post for what it was, and if you're not 100% sure of something, then shut up until you are. If your motivation was to be corrected if you were wrong, why then would you complain when you are so corrected?

Leupold

Skellig, are you by any chance from the MNSCI? I have noticed that people associated with this organisation often seem to criticize other ranges for their layout, planning permission etc.. They seem to display an attitude which implies "we have the best and the only range which will comply with (future) legislation so you better join us" If you look at the NRAI mission statement, you will even see there that this organisation( closely associated with the MNSCI) includes the following objective " # To have a minimum standard on shooting ranges - build quality, layout, backstop height etc.". Whilst this is very noble, why have they said this?

Clash

Leupold wrote:

Skellig, are you by any chance from the MNSCI?

You may be right Leupold, I seem to recall Skellig referring to talking to the lads at MNSC in another thread, and also something about living in the area.

Rew

Right im calling a halt coz I dont like where this is going.

Good Luck and good night.