The Sandbox

Rovi

maglite wrote:

we all want to see the possible scource of yeir ,,,mutual dislike, towords eachother

All settled now-
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=FLAG&word2=Sparks

FLAG

FLAG wrote:

And your point is?

Apologies Riggser, my dyslexia kicking in, though it read, “I’m not waiting”, one of the problems with hasty responses and a persecution complex, Sparks tends to do that to you, hope my apology is accepted!

Riggser

Ner a bother, apology accepted.

FLAG

Hey Mark, I am still waiting for you to produce evidence of the allegation you made on the boards. Produce a copy or apologise and let that be an end to it!

Sparks

Sorry for the delay Declan, bear with me...

1911

Sorry for the delay Declan, bear with me...


PUT UP OR SHUT UP

Sparks

1911 wrote:

PUT UP OR SHUT UP

In the two years we've run this forum, I've never failed to put up, have I?
It's taking time to get a copy 1911, nothing more complicated than that. The letter exists, I've personally read it.

FLAG

Well mark if you have personally read it! Who was it from and who was it addressed to, that at least will allow me to research it and if I find it before you I will happily post it!

FLAG

Sparks wrote:

In the two years we've run this forum, I've never failed to put up, have I?
It's taking time to get a copy 1911, nothing more complicated than that. The letter exists, I've personally read it.

So you've personally read it, who showed it to you, who was it written by, to whom, when, any shread of information would be helpful. Doubt if you can put up with respect to this allegation!

Kimber

Sparks,
Any update please?
Thanks,

Clash

Flag (05/05/06) wrote:

Publish it or shut up!

Sparks (12/05/06) wrote:

Still going through my records looking for it. Soon as I find it, I'll post here.

Sparks (27/05/06) wrote:

In the two years we've run this forum, I've never failed to put up, have I?
It's taking time to get a copy 1911, nothing more complicated than that. The letter exists, I've personally read it....

08/06/06 - Almost five weeks later, and no letter. I would suggest at this point that no such letter exists, and that Sparks owes Declan an apology. I doubt Sparks would put up with an allegation hanging over his head for that length of time without demanding an immediate retraction.

Sparks

Clash, I haven't found it here yet. I've one last place left to look here. However, since I've held it in my hands and read it, I know it exists. So I've put in an FOI request to the DoJ to get a copy of it as well in case I can't locate it here. However, as you can imagine, they are somewhat swamped at the moment. I haven't forgotten this, and I don't mean to let it slide.

Clash

Clash, I haven't found it here yet. I've one last place left to look here. However, since I've held it in my hands and read it, I know it exists. So I've put in an FOI request to the DoJ to get a copy of it as well in case I can't locate it here. However, as you can imagine, they are somewhat swamped at the moment. I haven't forgotten this, and I don't mean to let it slide.

In all fairness Sparks, you should make this a top priority. It is five weeks since Declan asked you to publish the letter, and common courtesy if nothing else, should make this more than urgent. I know I'd be pretty upset if an allegation such as this was hanging over me for this long - true or not.

FLAG

Sparks wrote:

Clash, I haven't found it here yet. I've one last place left to look here. However, since I've held it in my hands and read it, I know it exists. So I've put in an FOI request to the DoJ to get a copy of it as well in case I can't locate it here. However, as you can imagine, they are somewhat swamped at the moment. I haven't forgotten this, and I don't mean to let it slide.

Hi Mark

Still having trouble getting a copy! As I have said before if you can give me details of who the letter was sent to, sent from and when it was I may have a copy and it will save you and the DOJ all the trouble of answering an FOI request, then again they are probably well used to FOI requests from your good self..................

Still waiting!

FLAG

Sparks wrote:

Clash, I haven't found it here yet. I've one last place left to look here. However, since I've held it in my hands and read it, I know it exists. So I've put in an FOI request to the DoJ to get a copy of it as well in case I can't locate it here. However, as you can imagine, they are somewhat swamped at the moment. I haven't forgotten this, and I don't mean to let it slide.

Well Mark, is it the “Ostridge” response, bury the head in the sand and hope the problem goes away. Please do not come back to me with I saw it so it exists, need I remind you that you have made some serious allegations on a public board clearly implicating me in a situation that you have yet to substantiate, I have also asked you to outline the detail of the communication so that I might look through my correspondence to see if anything resembling what you reported really exists. For your information, who was it from, who was it to and I suppose what might help who showed it to you? Lets get this sorted! If you can!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sparks

Do FLAG have a legal fund we can start contributing to ?

My closely-guarded views on FLAG (or the notion of waiting until the problem is here before we deal with it, when it's so much cheaper and easier to fix it before it becomes a problem) aside, pretty much all of the court cases taken in the last decade have been supported by the NARGC, not FLAG, including the largest (Dunne v. Donoghue). They would probably be a better place to send your money to.

But if you're willing to put hand in pocket already, can I ask that first you put hand on keyboard or even put pen in hand and write to people, whether it be to [url=mailto:brendan.howlin@oireachtas.ie?subject=Criminal Justice Bill 2004]Brendan Howlin in Labour[/url], or to [url=mailto:info@michaelmcdowell.ie?subject=Criminal Justice Bill 2004]the Minister himself[/url] or whomever your local TD is (or ideally, all three), and say you're not happy with the bill? Just click on either of those two links to open your email client with the address and subject line already set up.

FLAG

Sparks wrote:

I wouldn't bet on it. Firstly, the Minister himself has said that he intends to bring forward further amendments; secondly, Labour are drafting amendments based on the concerns we've raised here - and I'd be surprised if the NARGC aren't having Fine Gael do the same; and thirdly, I don't think that a bill that makes it a criminal offence with a custodial sentence of seven years to engage in target shooting on an unauthorised shooting range while not defining either "target shooting" or "shooting range" is going to do well in any court case, and possibly isn't going to be seen as being constitutional by a court. And odds are that that means the Minister will be trying to correct those problems himself as if the bill was struck out, he'd lose much of what he wants as well.


My closely-guarded views on FLAG (or the notion of waiting until the problem is here before we deal with it, when it's so much cheaper and easier to fix it before it becomes a problem) aside, pretty much all of the court cases taken in the last decade have been supported by the NARGC, not FLAG, including the largest (Dunne v. Donoghue). They would probably be a better place to send your money to.

But if you're willing to put hand in pocket already, can I ask that first you put hand on keyboard or even put pen in hand and write to people, whether it be to [url=mailto:brendan.howlin@oireachtas.ie?subject=Criminal Justice Bill 2004]Brendan Howlin in Labour[/url], or to [url=mailto:info@michaelmcdowell.ie?subject=Criminal Justice Bill 2004]the Minister himself[/url] or whomever your local TD is (or ideally, all three), and say you're not happy with the bill? Just click on either of those two links to open your email client with the address and subject line already set up.

Mark, I dispute your opinion of what we do, have done, have been doing and are doing, we have worked very closely with the DOJ and the Gardai with respect to the current amendments.

What you continue to fail to see is the following:
1) Three year licence
2) Appeals process for all aspects of decision making (presently you have no choice but to go to the courts)
3) Facility to carry out reloading
4) Training licence for 14 years and up, there is no limit to the upper limit that one may apply for a training licence. This ensures that all firearms handled in a club etc are covered and no one is open to risk of prosecution.
5) Restricted firearms: Garda HQ will make decisions on restricted firearms like they used to before the court cases, this means that a skilled concentrated group will be able to determine the merits of an application based on sound guideline, presently most superintendents have no knowledge of sporting firearms.
6) Range regulations: To date anyone can set up a club anywhere with any firearms and no regulation, the amendment regulates clubs and provides for a minimum standard to which ranges will need to comply for the club to reap the benefits of an "Authorised Club" (no hassle for any applicant of an authorised club I expect), where all of this falls down is the scaremongering that takes place on this board generally perpetrated by your good self.
7) The writing into Irish Firearms Legislation Rifle and Pistol Club, sort of sends a reasonable signal to me that there will be pistol clubs into the future!
8) No bans on any calibre, type of firearm, things would have been different save for the representations we made, not on the floor of the house but to the legislators and advisors to the minister.

One cannot get legal opinion until something is actually legislation and open to challenge, figments of peoples imagination about what it could mean particularly yours cannot be challenged in a court of law.

One may claim that organisations like the NARGC did it all, but you will never know the activity, influence and successful negotiation that has taken place that will never be publicised. If I was in it for the glory I would be well gone by now.

A simple question Mark, what amendments were made to the legislation following your representation to Brendan Howlin, since you are so proud of getting so many thing raised in the house. You raised issues that were poor interpretations of the legislation and succeeded in confusing ministers and the public alike.

Cut the bull and lets get on with it, there is still a lot more work to be done during the regulation of this legislation, it is the way it is and it will not be changed, the acts are and were well outdated, we at least have something that we can work with, but the course of action is not to put down disruptive questions that are based on a poor interpretation of the amendments.

We are well capable of going to the high court when appropriate and the case that was taken exclusively by FLAG (not supported by any other organisation) was rulled on in October of the year that Franks case was also ruled on, it was the same outcome, the case was conceded with costs as was Franks, no landmark High Court decision resulted in pistols being returned, Franks Case was for a .22, the FLAG case was a 9mm, but then again Mark you are on the record as being happy with a .22 or less. It could easily have been the other way round but then again as I have said I am not in it for the glory.

Vegeta

FLAG wrote:

Mark, I dispute your opinion of what we do, have done, have been doing and are doing, we have worked very closely with the DOJ and the Gardai with respect to the current amendments.

What you continue to fail to see is the following:
1) Three year licence
2) Appeals process for all aspects of decision making (presently you have no choice but to go to the courts)
3) Facility to carry out reloading
4) Training licence for 14 years and up, there is no limit to the upper limit that one may apply for a training licence. This ensures that all firearms handled in a club etc are covered and no one is open to risk of prosecution.
5) Restricted firearms: Garda HQ will make decisions on restricted firearms like they used to before the court cases, this means that a skilled concentrated group will be able to determine the merits of an application based on sound guideline, presently most superintendents have no knowledge of sporting firearms.
6) Range regulations: To date anyone can set up a club anywhere with any firearms and no regulation, the amendment regulates clubs and provides for a minimum standard to which ranges will need to comply for the club to reap the benefits of an "Authorised Club" (no hassle for any applicant of an authorised club I expect), where all of this falls down is the scaremongering that takes place on this board generally perpetrated by your good self.
7) The writing into Irish Firearms Legislation Rifle and Pistol Club, sort of sends a reasonable signal to me that there will be pistol clubs into the future!
8) No bans on any calibre, type of firearm, things would have been different save for the representations we made, not on the floor of the house but to the legislators and advisors to the minister.

One cannot get legal opinion until something is actually legislation and open to challenge, figments of peoples imagination about what it could mean particularly yours cannot be challenged in a court of law.
.

In my own opinion the Criminal Justice Bill should have made shooting safer without making it harder to participate, instead they have made it harder to participate and not a whole lot safer.

SO is the above list 1 to 8, things you have done or things you are going to do. I mean no disrespect here as I appreciate anyone who fights on our side.

Other wise I might as well say, I continue to work on
1. Flying to the moon with my fart powered car
2. Making love to Kate from Lost.
3. Kicking Chuck Norris' ass.

i.e. is not worth a sh1te unless I have actually done them and they are fact.

I thank you for your ongoing efforts FLAG but the things you list 1 to 8 are no way near the biggest topics of concern for me.

1. Hunters and their rifles, where do we practice. Why should I have to join a range 100 miles away to zero a rifle.
2. Range Inspectors search powers
3. medical check ups, what are we even being tested on, sight, hearing, erectile dysfunction. Is there even a list of symptoms that will bar me from shooting. Who makes the decision the doctor (who may have never seen a gun in his life let alone be qualified to say who is healthy enough to hold a gun) or the gardai after seeing the doctors report.
4.fixed length application times (why do some people get licensed a gun in weeks while it can take over a year for others?

Fair enough you cant get legal advice on something that hasn't been legislation but you can offer legal advice while the legislation is being drafted. As they say prevention is better than cure

Again I mean no disrespect but there are some huge problems with the current Criminal Justice Bill and our sport will definitely suffer as a result if they go through as is and unchallenged

Sparks

As an aside, for those who don't know, Declan and I agreed with Civdef and Rew not to get into an argument outside the sandbox thread several weeks ago for the sake of the forum. Most of you remember that I have a problem with the NRPAI not following it's own rules. The sensation of deja vu is rather outstanding.

Now, regarding your post Declan -

What you continue to fail to see is the following:

Okay, let's ignore the odd fact that you're defending the Minister's Bill even though that's in conflict with what FLAG was set up to do, and just look at your points.

1) Three year licence

Which still licences the gun and not the man - and that was the main point that needed to be changed. As it stands, we gain nothing from a three year licence except a little less hassle. We pay the same amount, we have to have the same number of licences, and we have the same hassle with each new one. In fact, we have more hassle with each new application, so I'd say that it wasn't a fair trade for us.

2) Appeals process for all aspects of decision making (presently you have no choice but to go to the courts)

And under the CJB, the appeals process will be to go to the courts, just the District rather than the High Court. But I will say that it's a good thing to have a more defined legal appeals system. However, I first heard the proposal from Des Crofton, not you.

3) Facility to carry out reloading

Again, this is good, but is (a) just a regularisation of what we have at present, and (b) also from the NARGC.

4) Training licence for 14 years and up, there is no limit to the upper limit that one may apply for a training licence. This ensures that all firearms handled in a club etc are covered and no one is open to risk of prosecution.

First of all, the licence was supposed to have been for 12 and up for airguns, but that got dropped. Representing all shooters, were you?
Secondly, all firearms handled in a club or at a competition are already covered and noone is currently open to risk of prosecution. They only have to have an authorisation. Not only are these easy to get, they've been gotten for decades. College clubs get authorisations every year. Other clubs will get them for every competition.
Thirdly, the training licence was never for covering someone from prosecution - it was to address the needs of those who wish to train before the age of 16 and to give an entry path into the sport that allowed the mandatory prerequisite of competency with a firearm to be put into law.
Fourthly, the first people to talk about the training licence were, you guessed it, the NARGC.

5) Restricted firearms: Garda HQ will make decisions on restricted firearms like they used to before the court cases

Which was, if I recall, to put in place a de facto ban on all fullbore rifles and all pistols through a cynical application of the existing legislation.
This new Bill gives them many more mechanisms to allow them to do exactly the same thing but in a way that means that challanging them in court would be exceptionally difficult compared to the last decade.

, this means that a skilled concentrated group will be able to determine the merits of an application based on sound guideline, presently most superintendents have no knowledge of sporting firearms.

Do you truly believe that for less than 300 people who are doing something that the Gardai and Minister are evidently not happy with - something that you have publicly stated on many occasions - that the Gardai will create a specific group and invest significant resources in their training?

6) Range regulations: To date anyone can set up a club anywhere with any firearms and no regulation, the amendment regulates clubs and provides for a minimum standard to which ranges will need to comply

No, it does not. The Bill allows the Minister to set, without any form of appeals mechanism, nor any need for consultation, any minimum standard that he wishes. It makes no provision as to how conflicts between that standard and planning permission are resolved. It makes no provision for reasonableness in the standard. The Bill doesn't even legally define what a shooting range is, or haven't you read it?

And even if you had been correct in your assessment (which you're not), you're saying that the new Bill will make it harder to set up a club and that that's a good thing. Exactly which clubs that currently exist are giving you the idea that we shouldn't let just anyone set up a club Declan?

for the club to reap the benefits of an "Authorised Club"

Which are what exactly? All the Bill says is that you have to be authorised, you have to have a licence and pay for it, you have to give up privacy rights to the range as it can be searched by Gardai at any time, and you face criminal prosecution for failing to comply.
The Bill gives NO assurances of any kind with regard to "benefits" of this, that will be entirely at the Minister's discretion in the future.

(no hassle for any applicant of an authorised club I expect)

You "expect", do you? You're giving assurances on the part of the Department of Justice now, are you?
You don't know anything about this, do you Declan?

7) The writing into Irish Firearms Legislation Rifle and Pistol Club, sort of sends a reasonable signal to me that there will be pistol clubs into the future!

Care to point out to me where the Bill defines Target Shooting? Or a Shooting Range? If being entered in the Bill is what keeps you surviving Declan, then we're all in trouble.
To me, all I see is regulation without any benefit for Clubs.

8) No bans on any calibre, type of firearm, things would have been different save for the representations we made, not on the floor of the house but to the legislators and advisors to the minister.

There are no bans on any calibre or type of firearm, yes. There are only mechanisms by which any firearm, any group of firearms, any class, make, type, calibre, or any other grouping you care to think of, can be declared to be "restricted" and then 1972 can happen all over again, with far more weight of law behind it now.

Can you prove to me that it can't?

One cannot get legal opinion until something is actually legislation

That's plain wrong, or didn't you know that the final step before a Bill becomes law allows the president to send the Bill to the Supreme Court to get their legal opinion on it's constitutionality? And that legal opinion is given at several stages through drafting?

One may claim that organisations like the NARGC did it all, but you will never know the activity, influence and successful negotiation that has taken place that will never be publicised.

Strange to hear the man who claimed that FLAG did it all, and that we all have to pull together, say something like that.
Well. Not to me personally, you understand, as I've got a fair bit of experience in seeing how you treated my side of the sport. But it's nice to see a more open revelation like that.

If I was in it for the glory I would be well gone by now.

As I recall Declan, you did go. After a long whinging letter to the Shooters Digest in which you basicly blamed everyone for being mean.

A simple question Mark, what amendments were made to the legislation following your representation to Brendan Howlin

My representations are up on the web for all to see, here, here and the latest one here. Where are yours?
And a simple question - which amendments made to the legislation are your work (as opposed to things that the Minister did simply to correct minor errors, or things that came about because of lobbying by the NARGC or by representations made by other people) ?

You raised issues that were poor interpretations of the legislation and succeeded in confusing ministers and the public alike.

Says the person who has a vested interest in everyone thinking that the Bill is a wonderful thing. I'll call you on this one Declan. Are you saying the bill is problem-free because you stood up and said you'd be the point man in negotiations with the Department (when you "resigned" from the NRPAI) and now you can see the enormous mess we're all about to have land on our heads?

We are well capable of going to the high court when appropriate

And how many times (apart from your personal case) did FLAG fund a case to be taken to the High Court?
And when did FLAG get the funds to cover any potential loss? Last time I asked you, you didn't have enough pledged to cover anything near the cost of such an event. And that was money pledged, not money in the bank. If you had lost, how would the NRPAI have been able to say that costs could not have been recovered from them (and in turn from the NTSA, NSAI, NASRC and the Pony Club)?

and the case that was taken exclusively by FLAG (not supported by any other organisation) was rulled on in October of the year that Franks case was also ruled on

After Franks case, as he wrote in the Shooter's Digest. And his took longer to get to court, cost more, and he didn't have a prior case to use as precedent, whereas you had his case.

Franks Case was for a .22, the FLAG case was a 9mm

Declan, are you trying to imply that bigger calibres take some sort of priority over smaller calibres? What happened to "all shooters must stand together"? Or are some more equal than others?

FLAG

Vegeta wrote:

In my own opinion the Criminal Justice Bill should have made shooting safer without making it harder to participate, instead they have made it harder to participate and not a whole lot safer.

SO is the above list 1 to 8, things you have done or things you are going to do. I mean no disrespect here as I appreciate anyone who fights on our side.

Other wise I might as well say, I continue to work on
1. Flying to the moon with my fart powered car
2. Making love to Kate from Lost.
3. Kicking Chuck Norris' ass.

i.e. is not worth a sh1te unless I have actually done them and they are fact.

I thank you for your ongoing efforts FLAG but the things you list 1 to 8 are no way near the biggest topics of concern for me.

1. Hunters and their rifles, where do we practice. Why should I have to join a range 100 miles away to zero a rifle.
2. Range Inspectors search powers
3. medical check ups, what are we even being tested on, sight, hearing, erectile dysfunction. Is there even a list of symptoms that will bar me from shooting. Who makes the decision the doctor (who may have never seen a gun in his life let alone be qualified to say who is healthy enough to hold a gun) or the gardai after seeing the doctors report.
4.fixed length application times (why do some people get licensed a gun in weeks while it can take over a year for others?

Fair enough you cant get legal advice on something that hasn't been legislation but you can offer legal advice while the legislation is being drafted. As they say prevention is better than cure

Again I mean no disrespect but there are some huge problems with the current Criminal Justice Bill and our sport will definitely suffer as a result if they go through as is and unchallenged

Vegeta wrote:

In my own opinion the Criminal Justice Bill should have made shooting safer without making it harder to participate, instead they have made it harder to participate and not a whole lot safer.

A: It will make it harder for some to participate,

SO is the above list 1 to 8, things you have done or things you are going to do. I mean no disrespect here as I appreciate anyone who fights on our side.

A: We have been dealing with DOJ since 1995, I have documented all meeting and communications, all of the positive aspects of the current legislation can be traced back to recommendations made by us. We were not going to get everything our own way, there are much stronger forces out there than us who have authority.

We generated a level of credibility and respectability and we made progress.

Other wise I might as well say, I continue to work on
1. Flying to the moon with my fart powered car
2. Making love to Kate from Lost.
3. Kicking Chuck Norris' ass.

i.e. is not worth a sh1te unless I have actually done them and they are fact.

I thank you for your ongoing efforts FLAG but the things you list 1 to 8 are no way near the biggest topics of concern for me.

1. Hunters and their rifles, where do we practice. Why should I have to join a range 100 miles away to zero a rifle.
A: Legislation on Ranges is related to organised Clubs, use of firearms on private property with permission is not effected: FACT
2. Range Inspectors search powers
A: Range inspections, fact of life in all other civilised countries, to be effective they need to be inspected and all good audit systems allow for unannounced visits, (more of these in nursing homes would have seen less abuse)
3. medical check ups, what are we even being tested on, sight, hearing, erectile dysfunction. Is there even a list of symptoms that will bar me from shooting. Who makes the decision the doctor (who may have never seen a gun in his life let alone be qualified to say who is healthy enough to hold a gun) or the gardai after seeing the doctors report.
A: There is no requirement for a medical certification in the coming legislation, what is there is enabling legislation to allow for the recommendations of the Barr tribunal, yet to be published. If the Barr tribunal (and it does not) recommend medicals then there will be medicals.
4.fixed length application times (why do some people get licensed a gun in weeks while it can take over a year for others?
A: There is no fixed length application time, one of the biggest issue we brought to justice was the lack of standardised response to firearms applications, they responded by putting into legislation the maximum time that is permitted for a firearms application to take, not a fixed time, most applications will turn around in a month, but now it will be in the legislation that the decision must be reached in three months max, MAX time. Rubbish about one month prior to renewal an application must be made, it does not mean that someone may be without a licence for two months because it can take three months, look at NI three year licenses have always been reissued in this way, where did you think they got the idea!

Fair enough you cant get legal advice on something that hasn't been legislation but you can offer legal advice while the legislation is being drafted. As they say prevention is better than cure

A: What exactly do we need to prevent, I have yet to see one legitimate issue, a lot of people are making up apparent issues, the legislation has yet to be regulated.

Again I mean no disrespect but there are some huge problems with the current Criminal Justice Bill and our sport will definitely suffer as a result if they go through as is and unchallenged

A: Exactly what will damage our sport?
3 year license
Reloading
Range standards being applied, this only effects club shooters, hunters and vermin shooters are not effected by this, it is a myth if you believe you are.

We need to stop belly aching and work favourably with what we have, I can assure you it could have been a lot worse and I can show you the letters from 2002 that would have removed all pistols permanently, high court actions did not pull that back but relationship building did.

The legislation is now published in its final format, we can like it or lump it, a lot of work will need to be done on the generation of guidelines that will work in our favour. I believe it can be worked with. If there are issues that need resolution in the courts so be it, but that is not the way to resolve issues, there is nothing that can't be sorted through dialogue................

FLAG

Sparks wrote:

As an aside, for those who don't know, Declan and I agreed with Civdef and Rew not to get into an argument outside the sandbox thread several weeks ago for the sake of the forum. Most of you remember that I have a problem with the NRPAI not following it's own rules. The sensation of deja vu is rather outstanding.

Now, regarding your post Declan -


Okay, let's ignore the odd fact that you're defending the Minister's Bill even though that's in conflict with what FLAG was set up to do, and just look at your points.


Which still licences the gun and not the man - and that was the main point that needed to be changed. As it stands, we gain nothing from a three year licence except a little less hassle. We pay the same amount, we have to have the same number of licences, and we have the same hassle with each new one. In fact, we have more hassle with each new application, so I'd say that it wasn't a fair trade for us.


And under the CJB, the appeals process will be to go to the courts, just the District rather than the High Court. But I will say that it's a good thing to have a more defined legal appeals system. However, I first heard the proposal from Des Crofton, not you.


Again, this is good, but is (a) just a regularisation of what we have at present, and (b) also from the NARGC.


First of all, the licence was supposed to have been for 12 and up for airguns, but that got dropped. Representing all shooters, were you?
Secondly, all firearms handled in a club or at a competition are already covered and noone is currently open to risk of prosecution. They only have to have an authorisation. Not only are these easy to get, they've been gotten for decades. College clubs get authorisations every year. Other clubs will get them for every competition.
Thirdly, the training licence was never for covering someone from prosecution - it was to address the needs of those who wish to train before the age of 16 and to give an entry path into the sport that allowed the mandatory prerequisite of competency with a firearm to be put into law.
Fourthly, the first people to talk about the training licence were, you guessed it, the NARGC.


Which was, if I recall, to put in place a de facto ban on all fullbore rifles and all pistols through a cynical application of the existing legislation.
This new Bill gives them many more mechanisms to allow them to do exactly the same thing but in a way that means that challanging them in court would be exceptionally difficult compared to the last decade.


Do you truly believe that for less than 300 people who are doing something that the Gardai and Minister are evidently not happy with - something that you have publicly stated on many occasions - that the Gardai will create a specific group and invest significant resources in their training?


No, it does not. The Bill allows the Minister to set, without any form of appeals mechanism, nor any need for consultation, any minimum standard that he wishes. It makes no provision as to how conflicts between that standard and planning permission are resolved. It makes no provision for reasonableness in the standard. The Bill doesn't even legally define what a shooting range is, or haven't you read it?

And even if you had been correct in your assessment (which you're not), you're saying that the new Bill will make it harder to set up a club and that that's a good thing. Exactly which clubs that currently exist are giving you the idea that we shouldn't let just anyone set up a club Declan?


Which are what exactly? All the Bill says is that you have to be authorised, you have to have a licence and pay for it, you have to give up privacy rights to the range as it can be searched by Gardai at any time, and you face criminal prosecution for failing to comply.
The Bill gives NO assurances of any kind with regard to "benefits" of this, that will be entirely at the Minister's discretion in the future.


You "expect", do you? You're giving assurances on the part of the Department of Justice now, are you?
You don't know anything about this, do you Declan?



Care to point out to me where the Bill defines Target Shooting? Or a Shooting Range? If being entered in the Bill is what keeps you surviving Declan, then we're all in trouble.
To me, all I see is regulation without any benefit for Clubs.


There are no bans on any calibre or type of firearm, yes. There are only mechanisms by which any firearm, any group of firearms, any class, make, type, calibre, or any other grouping you care to think of, can be declared to be "restricted" and then 1972 can happen all over again, with far more weight of law behind it now.

Can you prove to me that it can't?


That's plain wrong, or didn't you know that the final step before a Bill becomes law allows the president to send the Bill to the Supreme Court to get their legal opinion on it's constitutionality? And that legal opinion is given at several stages through drafting?


Strange to hear the man who claimed that FLAG did it all, and that we all have to pull together, say something like that.
Well. Not to me personally, you understand, as I've got a fair bit of experience in seeing how you treated my side of the sport. But it's nice to see a more open revelation like that.


As I recall Declan, you did go. After a long whinging letter to the Shooters Digest in which you basicly blamed everyone for being mean.


My representations are up on the web for all to see, here, here and the latest one here. Where are yours?
And a simple question - which amendments made to the legislation are your work (as opposed to things that the Minister did simply to correct minor errors, or things that came about because of lobbying by the NARGC or by representations made by other people) ?


Says the person who has a vested interest in everyone thinking that the Bill is a wonderful thing. I'll call you on this one Declan. Are you saying the bill is problem-free because you stood up and said you'd be the point man in negotiations with the Department (when you "resigned" from the NRPAI) and now you can see the enormous mess we're all about to have land on our heads?


And how many times (apart from your personal case) did FLAG fund a case to be taken to the High Court?
And when did FLAG get the funds to cover any potential loss? Last time I asked you, you didn't have enough pledged to cover anything near the cost of such an event. And that was money pledged, not money in the bank. If you had lost, how would the NRPAI have been able to say that costs could not have been recovered from them (and in turn from the NTSA, NSAI, NASRC and the Pony Club)?


After Franks case, as he wrote in the Shooter's Digest. And his took longer to get to court, cost more, and he didn't have a prior case to use as precedent, whereas you had his case.


Declan, are you trying to imply that bigger calibres take some sort of priority over smaller calibres? What happened to "all shooters must stand together"? Or are some more equal than others?

Can't be bothered reading the garbage, I never agreed to any such thing, if you are attacking my character I am entitled to respond in whatever thread it is generated, yet again you started with an inflamatory remark! You have still to produce documentary evidence of the serious allegations you have already made on this thread. Get a life Mark!

Sparks

FLAG wrote:

A: We have been dealing with DOJ since 1995, I have documented all meeting and communications, all of the positive aspects of the current legislation can be traced back to recommendations made by us.

I strongly suspect that the NARGC would differ on the notion that FLAG is responsible for all the positive things. I know that others would too, as shown by the letter Frank Brophy wrote in the Shooter's Digest.

We were not going to get everything our own way, there are much stronger forces out there than us who have authority.

So why did you continually antagonise them, even as people like me told you that it was a very bad idea?

We generated a level of credibility and respectability and we made progress.

Indeed. Through untruthful press releases and the like?

A: Legislation on Ranges is related to organised Clubs, use of firearms on private property with permission is not effected: FACT

No, it is not fact, it is wishful thinking. There is nothing in the Bill to suggest that your interpretation is anything else; and there are explicit statements from the Minister for Justice to the contrary of your wishful thinking, I posted them in the CJB thread earlier. The Minister has stated that hunters zeroing rifles will be covered by legislation on ranges.

A: Range inspections, fact of life in all other civilised countries, to be effective they need to be inspected and all good audit systems allow for unannounced visits, (more of these in nursing homes would have seen less abuse)

Indeed. However, the current Bill's language grants them the unlimited power to enter any place, dwelling, premesis, vehicle or aircraft if they suspect target shooting is going on; but it does not define what target shooting is, so how can you prove reasonable cause for entry? How can you prove you were not target shooting? And there is a serious custodial sentence involved here, Declan.

A: There is no requirement for a medical certification in the coming legislation, what is there is enabling legislation to allow for the recommendations of the Barr tribunal, yet to be published. If the Barr tribunal (and it does not) recommend medicals then there will be medicals.

What is in the legislation at present is not the demand for a medical - that would be far more acceptable than what is there, namely that the Superintendent has the right to have full access to your personal medical records, and can talk to a huge range of people about your mental health, including your optician and your dentist. I'd love to know how you feel this was something that didn't need to be argued against Declan, I really would.

A: There is no fixed length application time, one of the biggest issue we brought to justice was the lack of standardised response to firearms applications

You? Or the NARGC? Or other people? Mind showing us why you're taking credit for this?

Rubbish about one month prior to renewal an application must be made, it does not mean that someone may be without a licence for two months because it can take three months

Yes, it does. You can apply one month prior to the licence running out, and the gardai must process that within three months. That's in black and white in the Bill, but nowhere is there anything on what happens if the renewal is not processed during the two month overlap.

A: What exactly do we need to prevent, I have yet to see one legitimate issue, a lot of people are making up apparent issues, the legislation has yet to be regulated.

Declan, are you one of these people that thinks a building isn't dangerous until after it falls on your head?

A: Exactly what will damage our sport?

Do the list of problems above not answer this comprehensively?

Range standards being applied, this only effects club shooters, hunters and vermin shooters are not effected by this, it is a myth if you believe you are.

Rubbish. McDowell has explicitly stated it will affect hunters.

I can show you the letters from 2002 that would have removed all pistols permanently

Please do so.
Also, please let us know about the deal put forward the year before where it was offered to return air and .22 pistols, a deal refused on the "all or nothing" principle.

The legislation is now published in its final format

No, it isn't, the Minister has stated he wants to bring forward more amendments at the Report stage next Tuesday.

we can like it or lump it

Or, we can appeal to TDs to point out the problems in it now, and senators to point them out at the Seanad stage, and to the President before it's signed into law. Do you always roll over and give up so fast on our behalf Declan?

If there are issues that need resolution in the courts so be it, but that is not the way to resolve issues, there is nothing that can't be sorted through dialogue

That's a new tune for you to sing Declan. I'd like it, except that it's one we've been telling you was the right one since 2001, when FLAG started. It's one I've told you umpteen times in private emails. And it's one you were explicitly told about in public at the 2001 NRPAI AGM - and in fact, what was said on the floor in that meeting is precisely what has happened since, namely that the court cases were won but the Law is now being changed. I recall you dismissing that concern then on the grounds that the government would be taken to the high court for contempt of court if they changed the law.

Sparks

FLAG wrote:

Can't be bothered reading the garbage

More accurately, you know I'm right and that you have dropped us all in it. And now you'd like to spin it so that it looks like this is the best deal we could have gotten, when in fact it's a bad situation precipitated by the adversarial relationship you helped maintain between us and the DoJ. I'm not buying it for one Declan, and the letters in the Digest show that I'm not alone.

I never agreed to any such thing

Would Civdef and Rew care to comment on this statement?

And as to comments on character, I'll point out that you're the one who's crossed the line laid out in the charter more times than I've kept track of. It's even been pointed out to you that had we applied the charter to you, you'd have been banned months ago. Instead, an exception was made for a specific thread, and yet you still feel like you're persecuted. Methinks you need a thicker skin Declan. Do you respond to any slights from DoJ officials or the Minister with personal insults as well?

You have still to produce documentary evidence of the serious allegations you have already made on this thread.

Yes, but I'm seeking to do so, you seem to have no intentions of answering the 28 unanswered questions put to you earlier here.

Get a life Mark!

I have one, thanks Declan. And my sport is a big part of it. And you're a major threat to that sport, so please don't think I'm going to leave you continue to threaten it without comment.

civdef

Lads, agreed or not, to be honest I don't really care. This thread was set up to keep the whole slugging match localised. So far it seems to be working.

FLAG

Sparks wrote:

More accurately, you know I'm right and that you have dropped us all in it. And now you'd like to spin it so that it looks like this is the best deal we could have gotten, when in fact it's a bad situation precipitated by the adversarial relationship you helped maintain between us and the DoJ. I'm not buying it for one Declan, and the letters in the Digest show that I'm not alone.


Would Civdef and Rew care to comment on this statement?

And as to comments on character, I'll point out that you're the one who's crossed the line laid out in the charter more times than I've kept track of. It's even been pointed out to you that had we applied the charter to you, you'd have been banned months ago. Instead, an exception was made for a specific thread, and yet you still feel like you're persecuted. Methinks you need a thicker skin Declan. Do you respond to any slights from DoJ officials or the Minister with personal insults as well?


Yes, but I'm seeking to do so, you seem to have no intentions of answering the 28 unanswered questions put to you earlier here.


I have one, thanks Declan. And my sport is a big part of it. And you're a major threat to that sport, so please don't think I'm going to leave you continue to threaten it without comment.

So I am a major threat to shooting sports! Thats rich coming from someone who got kicked off the NTSA committe for an accumulation of the same garbage that you publish on the boards. This is really not worth continuing with and I am fed up of your slights, now a very real proposition, you better produce the letter that you cited in earlier posts or get a really good solicitor because I have, you have 21 days.

DDLR

TBH First hand i know FLAG has and is doing alot for my/our sport,

When i was in need, FLAG was the only ones to come to my side,
I will say it here on public forums

Keep up the great work FLAG, We would have been lost with out your hard work over the years,

And for mark, I dont know you dude, But from what i read on this boards you have a personal attachment to FLAG, I dont know why you spend so much of your day going OUT of your way to undermine FLAG, I have to aggro with Declan when he said

Get a life Mark!

One more thing, If Declan was to spend his day answering all the stupid question he gets every day, FLAG wouldnt have been able to do the great work that they have done,

I know Declan gose out of his way far to much to reply to mails, and im going to be honest if i was him i wouldnt, anyways who am i! but a simply man who loves shooting and thanks to FLAG i can keep doing what i love!

Sparks

FLAG wrote:

So I am a major threat to shooting sports!

Reread the first question in that list of 28 Declan. You specifically undercut the NTSA to the Irish Sports Council the very first time I tried to work with you. I sent a private email to you to talk informally about bringing all the shooting organisations into one body, something you were talking about at the time in public - you replied with an official letter to the ISC that threatened our funding. More recently, you opposed reforming the carding grant criteria, thus preventing far more competitive shooters from getting carding grants to help in their training, and by not engaging with the ISC on their reform effort, lead to them ruling that non-olympic shooting disciplines no longer qualified for carding grants, something the NTSA was trying to avoid. There are other incidents, but that's sufficient to justify my comment.

Thats rich coming from someone who got kicked off the NTSA committe for an accumulation of the same garbage that you publish on the boards.

A nice story, but not true. You specifically sent an email to the Chairman of the NTSA threatening legal action unless I was forced out in an EGM. The letter was read to the committee at the time. And your very next sentence shows what I mean.

This is really not worth continuing with and I am fed up of your slights, now a very real proposition, you better produce the letter that you cited in earlier posts or get a really good solicitor because I have, you have 21 days.

Yeah, that's going to help the shooting sports. Will you be paying for the soliciter personally or will FLAG? And is it the same solicitor you were going to use to take legal action against the NTSA for reporting a statement from the High Court on their own website? And how do you intend to bring a case against me when I'm waiting on the DoJ? And further, on what grounds do you intend to bring a case?

DJKH

Well Mark let me respond without my flag hat on.

No FLAG funds will not be paying the solicitor that I have engaged, you will be.

To set the records straight I never threatened the NTSA with legal action, I threatened you with legal action, and my communications to the NTSA had little to do with your removal, it may have been cited as an issue, I was not there but there were a lot more issues with you and the NTSA than my little side argument. Its such a pity that you keep playing the same old broken harp.

We are in the here and now, you really have a problem and you need to get it sorted!

On a personal note, don't start to blame me for what you perceive are issues with the current amendments to the firearms acts, while you piss on everyone from the outside, we tried very hard to work on the inside and make a difference. They could have been very draconian and they are not. By misleading people with interpretations that are sensational and unrealistic is doing more harm to the process than good. Questions you managed to engineer in the house were confusing to all concerned, responses by the minister were also confused and they are not the legislation, the legislation is the legislation.

I ask you again, what actual amemdements were made to the legislation in response to the questions that you had asked?

DJKH

FLAG wrote:

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. S. Power):

Before briefly outlining the proposals which it is intended to bring forward on Committee Stage, I thank the many sporting organisations involved in shooting, particularly the National Association of Regional Game Councils and the Shooting Sports Association of Ireland. They have engaged constructively with the Department in the development of a number of these new proposals. Over the years, members of all these shooting organisations have demonstrated an extremely responsible approach to their sport. Their excellent safety record in the handling and use of firearms bears testimony to this fact.

“Comments made on the referral of the bill to the Select Committee, certainly does not substantiate the allegations that have been made by Mark, if he cannot put his hands on a copy perhaps he might publish, who it was from, when it was written and to whom!"
Declan

Mark a reminder in case you have forgotten, we are in the here and now!

Sparks

DJKH wrote:

To set the records straight I never threatened the NTSA with legal action, I threatened you with legal action

You've only stated that in the past few weeks on here. At the time, your comments were most assuredly not specific to me and were not interpreted as such by the NTSA committee.

Its such a pity that you keep playing the same old broken harp.

Pot, meet kettle.

By misleading people with interpretations that are sensational and unrealistic is doing more harm to the process than good.

I'll repeat - your wishful thinking about the Bill is not what the Minister is explicitly saying about the Bill.

Questions you managed to engineer in the house were confusing to all concerned, responses by the minister were also confused and they are not the legislation, the legislation is the legislation.

What form of nonsense is that? The questions highlighted problems with the Bill, so there's at least a chance they'll be fixed. Better than your solution, waiting until it's passed and then dealing with the problems by going to court, and with other people's money at that!

I ask you again, what actual amemdements were made to the legislation in response to the questions that you had asked?

And how would I know that any more than you would? Or are you telling me you have been told by the Minister that you're personally responsible for a particular amendment? I'm not the one running about here claiming that all the good things that happen are down to me!