Casual Target Practice

civdef

Ref the debate on the upcoming legislation as detailed here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51303566&postcount=342

Basically, what this means, is that casual target practice with a pistol or rifle will be banned if this legislation goes through. Places where shooting has been carried out for years in a safe manner, will no longer be able to operate for that purpose. If you change the brand or batch of ammo, change your scope you use in your rifle, you will no longer be able to zero it before going hunting without travelling to a range. If you have a long field with a hill in it that you currently practice in of an evening, you'll either have to vconvert it into a dedicated range with full approval, or stop using it.

I don't see what this is achieving, any shooting in an unsafe manner is already illegal. I can see why there is a desire to regulate shooting range clubs, particularly when these clubs can allow people to shoot without holding a firearms certificate. But where a person is shooting safely on land with the permission of the owner, why the need to close that down?

Time to start calling your public representatives, I think.

Vegeta

This scares me, i would give up hunting altogether if this was made law as I could never even zero my air rifle without going to a range, the closest one to me is in Kerry

Rew

Its crazy. You can hunt but you cannt shoot a static target? Makes zero sense. I can understand authoriizing formal ranges where there is shooting on mass alright.

Sparks

It also means that anyone dry-firing at home would need to have their home authorised as a firearms range, according to the idea that a range is where you practise shooting. And anyone who's got a 10m long corridor in their house and is looking at that air pistol with a glint in their eye is also in trouble.

johngalway

Where would one find out the location of an "approved range"? It doesnt seem like common sense has been applied on this issue when as said a person can legally go out to hunt but if you're caught zeroing your rifle you're in trouble. *Sighs*

John

Esel

"Your honour, there was a rabbit right beside that piece of cardboard with all the holes in it. That's what I was shooting at. It was a windy day. The rabbit was mocking me."

Sparks

"Your honour, in the expert opinion of the Department of Justice/Gardai's firearms section, the defendant is lying. We substantiate this claim by pointing out the few hundred rounds in the backstop behind the mounted target, the prepared firing point, and the large stash of 'dirty bird' targets and metal silhouettes found in his bedroom closet by the Firearms Range Inspector"...

DDLR

lol

civdef

http://www.oireachtas.ie/members-hist/default.asp?housetype=0&HouseNum=29&disp=const

Sparks

I'd suggest starting with the Committee members, the DoJ Minister of State and the Minister himself for any letter-writing campaign civ; then the Dail TDs as they won't see this until the Report stage; then friendly faces in the Seanad and those on the Seanad Select Committee; and finally to the President if needs be.

Clare gunner

Instead of moaning and groaning about this.How about a petition or whatever is more effective to the commttie of whoever, is proposing this BS.Outlining the stupidity of this,the unconstitutionality of this,[as it would give a civil servant more power than the lawfully appointed police and customs officers of Ireland,]and the general FKology in the thinking behind this?
On this one THERE IS NO EXCUSE not to sign it,because this covers the shooters who go Ah sure I only shoot a few tins ,etc with my air rifle,.

On an aside,as this doesnt cover shotguns[yet] or their "ranges" what happens if you go target shooting with slugs or 00 Buck????
Also Sparks did your letters get published in the Irish Times??Dont get that paper.

civdef

Your local TD's are a good choice because they can get the issue to the head of the table, they are also pretty accessible to constituents - just ring their office. Senators aren't much good for anything. Definitely try the minister too, from experience, he answers his own emails!

If you are going down this road, don't lean too heavily on fundamental rights/constitution and the like, they hear that sort of talk a lot from the various characters who spend a lot of time hounding them. Concentrate on practical issues that will materially affect you as a decent law abiding VOTING member of the public.

Just ring up or drop into the constituency clinic, be clear, concise, polite and don't take too long, but be understood that you expect a response.

Petitions don't work well in this country at all, normally being viewed as publicity stunts.

17HMR

Now I fully accept that the the non shooting public in general (and politicians in particular) do not understand the notion that shooters have to zero sights regularly. The common belief appears to be that you buy a rifle (or pistol) off the shelf and you point and shoot it.

For example, my wife was surprised there recently when I announced I was going out to set up the sights on my new rifle - her view was that if it didn't shoot straight it should be brought back to the dealer and fixed !

Zeroing is a basic safety necessity for hunting.
It is also a basic necessity for a humane kill.

Trying to force people into one of the handful of authorised ranges to perform this basic safety procedure is unworkable, all but unenforceable and likely to drive the process dangerously underground.

jeffshc1

Sounds like the lawmakers/anti gun folk your dealing with have the same agenda ours do.
It still boils down to If the fox is killing chickens punish the chickens.
Somebody has to take the blame. Politics can’t catch the bag guys but it can squash the rest.
I wish you luck.

Clare gunner

Not to mind that we only seem to have five or six ranges that at the moment would meet "approved"standards.All of them East and South of the Shannon as well.So we should have a nice backlog of say two years for folks wanting to sight their rifles etc.
Also noted from the dail debates that none of them seem to have a clue about reloading,ranges ,etc etc.I must ask this;has any of the organisations who are in contact botherd to bring in some hardware or reloading equipment and explain to this bunch of politicans the workings of reloading,the equipment,the fact that we do not use accelarants in reloading as mr o sinoadiagh[sic] seems to think.You use that in explosives.
And the fact that reloading is no more dangerous than using a chainsaw or shooting itself.Also how less dangerous powder is nowadays if burnt in a fire than domestic aerosols etc.
I think what alot of these people who are debating our futures are missing are actual practical hands on viewing of the stuff they are going to issue laws on.A pic tells a thousand words and all that.
Also,why should the job of range inspectors just be limited to civil servants who mightnt know a butt from a barrel??This should be a job open as well to members of the shooting public who would know the realities and common sense procedures of shooting in Ireland.
I have seen this happen in my profession as well,a civil servant who hasnt a clue as she freely admitted herself is being asked to draw up laws and procedure on a profession that is ultimately complex and manifold.Which could have been all avoided if one person of my profession had been included on the original dail comittiee.End result is they are now still coming up with dopey suggestions and requirements some which contravene EU law,but at least they are now taking onboard practical knowledge from those involved in the field.
Also,could somone tell us who is actually on the comittee?So at least we could email them a polite letter pointing out some trouble in their thinking and proposed legislation?

civdef

Members of the Joint Committee

---

Deputies:
Seán Ardagh (Fianna Fáil) (Chairman)
Joe Costello (Labour)
Máire Hoctor (Fianna Fáil)
Finian McGrath (Independent)
Breeda Moynihan-Cronin (Labour)
Gerard Murphy (Fine Gael) (Vice-Chairman)
Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Fianna Fáil)
Charlie O'Connor (Fianna Fáil)
Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fáil)
Jim O'Keefe (Fine Gael)
Peter Power (Fianna Fáil)
Senators:
Tony Kett (Fianna Fáil)
Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Joanna Tuffy (Labour)
Jim Walsh (Fianna Fáil)

Changes of Membership:
Deputies Dinny McGinley (Fine Gael) and Paul McGrath (Fine Gael) were discharged from the Committee on 20 October 2004.
Appointed in Substitution for them were Deputies Gerard Murphy (Fine Gael) and Jim O'Keefe (Fine Gael).
Senator Maurice Cummins was appointed in substitution for Senator Sheila Terry by Order of the Séanad of the 20 October 2004.

Sparks

Clare gunner wrote:

has any of the organisations who are in contact botherd to bring in some hardware or reloading equipment and explain to this bunch of politicans the workings of reloading,the equipment,the fact that we do not use accelarants in reloading as mr o sinoadiagh[sic] seems to think.

You've seen what happens when you ask such questions over in the CJB thread Clare; ask away again if you want, but I doubt a good answer will be forthcoming since it's pretty obvious that the contact people here have not done a wonderful job and we're about to get it in the neck as a result. CYA appears to be the order of the day in some parts these days.

Also,could somone tell us who is actually on the comittee?So at least we could email them a polite letter pointing out some trouble in their thinking and proposed legislation?

It's the Dail Select Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights:

Members of the Select Committee

Deputies:
Seán Ardagh (Fianna Fáil) (Chairman)
Joe Costello (Labour)
Máire Hoctor (Fianna Fáil)
Finian McGrath (Independent)
Breeda Moynihan-Cronin (Labour)
Gerard Murphy (Fine Gael) (Vice-Chairman)
Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Fianna Fáil)
Charlie O'Connor (Fianna Fáil)
Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fáil)
Jim O'Keefe (Fine Gael)
Peter Power (Fianna Fáil)

Clerk to the Committee: Ray Treacy
e-mail: ray.treacy@oireachtas.ie
Phone: + 353 (0) 1 618 3929
Fax: + 353 (0) 1 618 4123
Leinster House
Kildare Street
Dublin 2
Ireland

I'd strongly urge us to put together what we want to say to them in a simple, easy to read, no-further-work-needed-by-the-reader format before putting pen to paper though.

civdef

On the point of reloading (and I don't want to lose the focus of this thread), the lack of knowledge displayed didn't matter much, because the section allowing reloading went through untouched.

Vegeta

Sparks wrote:

You've seen what happens when you ask such questions over in the CJB thread Clare; ask away again if you want, but I doubt a good answer will be forthcoming since it's pretty obvious that the contact people here have not done a wonderful job and we're about to get it in the neck as a result. CYA appears to be the order of the day in some parts these days.


It's the Dail Select Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights:


I'd strongly urge us to put together what we want to say to them in a simple, easy to read, no-further-work-needed-by-the-reader format before putting pen to paper though.

I agree that we definitely need to say something, at the moment i feel quite powerless as I know Fcuk all about politics or law but still would like to educate the committee on a few points

civdef

The committee is sitting again today, then next Wednesday, and Thursday.

dbar

OK,
Didnt realise it until now, Gerard Murphy on that list (unless there is two Gerard Murphys from the same party) is from my home town, as in I know him to talk to (a while ago now to be fair) and my parents know him personally, I have no problem in going and talking to him on the issues.
I must admit, I am not fully up to speed on all the issues that are being proposed, but when I have time I can dig through the threads, unless some kind person wants to put together a simple document that I can go to him with.

Sparks

Sounds good dbar. I'll try to work something up and post it here and hopefully everyone else can add to it or edit it to get it right and then we could run with it.

Vegeta

dbar wrote:

OK,
Didnt realise it until now, Gerard Murphy on that list (unless there is two Gerard Murphys from the same party) is from my home town, as in I know him to talk to (a while ago now to be fair) and my parents know him personally, I have no problem in going and talking to him on the issues.
I must admit, I am not fully up to speed on all the issues that are being proposed, but when I have time I can dig through the threads, unless some kind person wants to put together a simple document that I can go to him with.

hey dbar did ya have a chance to chat to yer man

dbar

Naw,
I was across the water over the weekend, I will try to get to him over the next few weeks, I can talk to him about the range issue, and see what the
responce is like, mabey explain to him that there is a lot of concern over the changes, and what seems like a general lack of consultation to the ordinary shooter. Well thats what it feels like to me anyway.

cantona

Anyone manage to put together a submission that we could get to the committie before Wed. that covers all the relevent points?

Sparks

All I have is this cantona:

First off, there's the fact that the firearms regulations are so complicated by amendments and concatenations at this stage that it's hard for even the Committee to make head or tails out of it - how are we meant to? A restatement under the 2002 Statute Law needs to be prepared and should be distributed with every firearms licence issued, even if we get charged an extra euro for it (that's how much copies of the tribunals rulings cost; so it's not a bad price).

By Sections...

Section 1
Section 1 is being completely redrafted for the Report stage; definitions that are needed for the rest of the Bill but which weren't in the last Section 1 include "target", "target shooting" as opposed to "hunting", "range" and probably a few others.

Section 2a
This is the new Firearms Training Certificate - originally intended to let under-16s train for target shooting legally. 14 is a bit low for airguns, it really ought to be 12.

Section 2b
This says that for any firearms the Minister wants, he can force more hoops to be jumped through to get them, to the point where noone can get through the hoops, and it’s all legal and above board and can’t be challanged in court successfully. There's no appeals mechanism against a "restricted" decleration, there is no assurance of any kind that there would be consultation with firearms experts from anywhere beforehand, and there's no assurance that such a mechanism wouldn't be abused in an oppressive fashion.

Section 3a
Described as the “do anything you want” clause, this section empowers the Commissioner, or - according to Section 1 any Garda at or over the rank of Superintendent that the Commissioner wants to let do so - can set out “guidelines” for how the act is enforced, and for any extra conditions that we have to fulfill to get our licences. No mechanism for appealing these of course, nor for ensuring that firearms experts are consulted first, nor even for ensuring that these guidelines are put in the public domain…

Section 4
Not just almost rewritten, this section has been rewritten completely. No longer a simple section with just three conditions to meet to get a certificate, now you have nine conditions (or eleven for a restricted firearm); plus you have to furnish more information as the Gardai see fit, including character references, permission to check your medical records and proof of competence with the firearm.

Argh! Okay, first the information - how do tourists or those outside the state provide character references, and if they don’t have to, why do I? Why should the Gardai be able to see my medical records when for every other licence (driving, pilots, etc) that has a medical concern, I just take a test and either pass or fail? Who in the Gardai sees my records? The Commissioner? The Superintendent? The secretary? Are they returned to the doctor? Are copies kept if they are returned?

Now, the mandatory conditions. (a) through (c) are just the current conditons, and (d) is just secure storage, which most shooters will have anyway, if they’re in any way sensible - though what exactly “secure” means isn’t defined, which leaves this mechanism open for abuse again.

"(e) where the firearm is to be used for target shooting, is a member of an authorised rifle or pistol club,"
What about clay pigeon shooters then? Or do you not need to be a member of a club for shooting at clay disks? If so, I predict a rise in the number of shooters shooting rifles and pistols at said disks. This was brought up by Brendan Howlin, but needs to be followed up on.


Section 4a
Here’s where it gets even more fun. Any shooting club or range that’s not authorised isn’t allowed to exist, basicly. Anyone shoots there, then both they and the operator of the range/club get fined anything up to €25,000 and go to jail for up to seven years. No, that’s not a misprint. You can go to jail for up to seven years for not having paperwork authorising something that the Bill doesn’t even define.

And if that authorisation is revoked and your rifle is in the club safe? It goes to the gardai lockup. Doesn’t matter that it’s not owned by the club.

Oh, and the authorisation can be set according to the competence of the people using the range - and from what we’ve heard, that’s a very, very, very likely thing to happen. By the way, how many newbies do you know who are competent from before their first shot? And yet, if they get a training licence for target shooting, they can only shoot on a range; but if they’re not competent they can’t shoot on that range. Lovely, isn’t it?

Section 4b
This section creates the post of Firearms Range Inspector, and it then empowers this person - who doesn’t have to be a Garda, a civil servant working for the Department of Justice, or even a firearms expert - hell, they don’t even have to not be a criminal - to enter and search anywhere they want to, any time they want to, without a set warrant, in case they think there’s target shooting going on in that place, dwelling or vehicle. As it was put in the committee meeting on wednesday, this looks like a search warrant on the cheap; it's wide open to abuse. And since neither what a range or a target is is defined in the Bill, who can say if the search did or did not succeed?

civdef

Too long and detailed, which means it won't get read (it doesn't matter how well put the letter is, or how coherent the arguments). It appears to be ptretty much asking for a rewrite of the bill. The restatement thing has already been agreed to by the Minister.

You want something short and simple, to the effect that the new legislation appears to be totally banning informal target practice on private property with anything other than shotguns in the persuit of regulating shooting clubs. This will seriously inconvenience numerous individuals as regards, keeping in practice with their rifles, zeroing etc, particularly when they live a distance from an approved range. There's no problem with regulating clubs (or enforcing that as necessary), but there's no need to introduce an excessively burdensome relulatory regieme on private individuals who have been shooting safely for years. Additionally, any unsafe shooting is already amply covered in the Firearms Acts.

Vegeta

Sparks wrote:

All I have is this cantona:

First off, there's the fact that the firearms regulations are so complicated by amendments and concatenations at this stage that it's hard for even the Committee to make head or tails out of it - how are we meant to? A restatement under the 2002 Statute Law needs to be prepared and should be distributed with every firearms licence issued, even if we get charged an extra euro for it (that's how much copies of the tribunals rulings cost; so it's not a bad price).

By Sections...

Section 1
Section 1 is being completely redrafted for the Report stage; definitions that are needed for the rest of the Bill but which weren't in the last Section 1 include "target", "target shooting" as opposed to "hunting", "range" and probably a few others.

Section 2a
This is the new Firearms Training Certificate - originally intended to let under-16s train for target shooting legally. 14 is a bit low for airguns, it really ought to be 12.

Section 2b
This says that for any firearms the Minister wants, he can force more hoops to be jumped through to get them, to the point where noone can get through the hoops, and it’s all legal and above board and can’t be challanged in court successfully. There's no appeals mechanism against a "restricted" decleration, there is no assurance of any kind that there would be consultation with firearms experts from anywhere beforehand, and there's no assurance that such a mechanism wouldn't be abused in an oppressive fashion.

Section 3a
Described as the “do anything you want” clause, this section empowers the Commissioner, or - according to Section 1 any Garda at or over the rank of Superintendent that the Commissioner wants to let do so - can set out “guidelines” for how the act is enforced, and for any extra conditions that we have to fulfill to get our licences. No mechanism for appealing these of course, nor for ensuring that firearms experts are consulted first, nor even for ensuring that these guidelines are put in the public domain…

Section 4
Not just almost rewritten, this section has been rewritten completely. No longer a simple section with just three conditions to meet to get a certificate, now you have nine conditions (or eleven for a restricted firearm); plus you have to furnish more information as the Gardai see fit, including character references, permission to check your medical records and proof of competence with the firearm.

Argh! Okay, first the information - how do tourists or those outside the state provide character references, and if they don’t have to, why do I? Why should the Gardai be able to see my medical records when for every other licence (driving, pilots, etc) that has a medical concern, I just take a test and either pass or fail? Who in the Gardai sees my records? The Commissioner? The Superintendent? The secretary? Are they returned to the doctor? Are copies kept if they are returned?

Now, the mandatory conditions. (a) through (c) are just the current conditons, and (d) is just secure storage, which most shooters will have anyway, if they’re in any way sensible - though what exactly “secure” means isn’t defined, which leaves this mechanism open for abuse again.

"(e) where the firearm is to be used for target shooting, is a member of an authorised rifle or pistol club,"
What about clay pigeon shooters then? Or do you not need to be a member of a club for shooting at clay disks? If so, I predict a rise in the number of shooters shooting rifles and pistols at said disks. This was brought up by Brendan Howlin, but needs to be followed up on.


Section 4a
Here’s where it gets even more fun. Any shooting club or range that’s not authorised isn’t allowed to exist, basicly. Anyone shoots there, then both they and the operator of the range/club get fined anything up to €25,000 and go to jail for up to seven years. No, that’s not a misprint. You can go to jail for up to seven years for not having paperwork authorising something that the Bill doesn’t even define.

And if that authorisation is revoked and your rifle is in the club safe? It goes to the gardai lockup. Doesn’t matter that it’s not owned by the club.

Oh, and the authorisation can be set according to the competence of the people using the range - and from what we’ve heard, that’s a very, very, very likely thing to happen. By the way, how many newbies do you know who are competent from before their first shot? And yet, if they get a training licence for target shooting, they can only shoot on a range; but if they’re not competent they can’t shoot on that range. Lovely, isn’t it?

Section 4b
This section creates the post of Firearms Range Inspector, and it then empowers this person - who doesn’t have to be a Garda, a civil servant working for the Department of Justice, or even a firearms expert - hell, they don’t even have to not be a criminal - to enter and search anywhere they want to, any time they want to, without a set warrant, in case they think there’s target shooting going on in that place, dwelling or vehicle. As it was put in the committee meeting on wednesday, this looks like a search warrant on the cheap; it's wide open to abuse. And since neither what a range or a target is is defined in the Bill, who can say if the search did or did not succeed?

Maybe a stupid question here, but are these laws meant to make gun crime/deaths in Ireland fall.

The only thing they seem to do is make practicing the sport of shooting harder.

IThe closest range to me is Offaly or kerry,long way to go to zero the rifles and a nice high price for membership on an already very expensive sport

Whats McDowells e mail???

pm.

Vegeta wrote:

Maybe a stupid question here, but are these laws meant to make gun crime/deaths in Ireland fall.

The only thing they seem to do is make practicing the sport of shooting harder.

I live in Clare the closest range to me is Offaly or kerry,long way to go to zero the rifles and a nice high price for membership on an already very expensive sport

Whats McDowells e mail???

how much dose it cost to join a range ?

civdef

Between 2-400 Euro, on average.

Sparks

civdef wrote:

Too long and detailed, which means it won't get read (it doesn't matter how well put the letter is, or how coherent the arguments). It appears to be ptretty much asking for a rewrite of the bill. The restatement thing has already been agreed to by the Minister.

More a case of asking for additions to the bill - definitions, mechanisms to provide a degree of oversight and protection for our interests to be defined in law and so on.

You want something short and simple, to the effect that the new legislation appears to be totally banning informal target practice on private property with anything other than shotguns in the persuit of regulating shooting clubs.

Yup, that covers that point quite well - but what about the rest of the problems with the Bill?