Restricted Firearms List Drafted

Sparks

macnas wrote:

An old DOJ 'negotiation' strategy, next thing it will be a done deal that is rubber stamped by the various organisations involved.

The SI has not been rubber stamped or approved by any shooting organisation I know of macnas; the NTSA I know for certain raised several problems with it and I don't doubt that other bodies raised a fair few more. And discussions are still ongoing. And yes, the secret squirrel stuff bugs the daylights out of me as well.

HOWEVER, there is nothing stopping anyone sending their own thoughts on the matter to the DoJ...

Terrier

Assuming that this "Restricted Firearms List" is adopted, and someone was in possession of a weapon\calibre which appeared on the list would it be a case that this would be confiscated \ licence revoked? Or would it be that licences would not be issued for weapons\calibres from that point on, allowing the pre-issued licences to stand?

civdef

Restricted means you have to apply to the comissioenr for the licence, and show a strong justification for needing the particular firearm. This doesn't necessarily mean they won't issue licences.

Sparks

Terrier wrote:

Assuming that this "Restricted Firearms List" is adopted, and someone was in possession of a weapon\calibre which appeared on the list would it be a case that this would be confiscated \ licence revoked? Or would it be that licences would not be issued for weapons\calibres from that point on, allowing the pre-issued licences to stand?

Neither, it means that you have to apply to the Commissioner directly, who can set blanket preconditions above those required by section four. In other words, he has the legal authority to require you to have whatever conditions met that he wants you to meet. That's not a ban, nor is it a prohibition; but, if he so desired, he could make it a de facto ban by setting the conditions too high; as we've been saying here since the CJB was first aired.

jaycee

civdef wrote:

Restricted means you have to apply to the comissioenr for the licence, and show a strong justification for needing the particular firearm. This doesn't necessarily mean they won't issue licences.

And it dosen't necessarily mean that they will allow importation of those firearms that they have decided are "Restricted" in the first place.
Kinda like "Keep your foot on the hose and the water will stop"

astraboy

So could they demand ridiclous security etc to be allowed keep a handgun, making it either very expensive or not financially worth keeping one? Do they not seem to trust people in this country with larger firearms?:(

Sparks

astraboy wrote:

So could they demand ridiclous security etc to be allowed keep a handgun, making it either very expensive or not financially worth keeping one?

Yes, they could if they chose to do so.

Do they not seem to trust people in this country with larger firearms?:(

No. Mind you, this is the same body that was tasked with dealing with the IRA for thirty years and is now tasked with dealing with a rising level of armed criminal activity, so you can see where their worries stem from, even while disagreeing with them.

Rovi

Sparks wrote:

No. Mind you, this is the same body that was tasked with dealing with the IRA for thirty years and is now tasked with dealing with a rising level of armed criminal activity, so you can see where their worries stem from, even while disagreeing with them.

Well, why don't they just not issue Firearms Certificates to IRA men and armed criminals then?

:rolleyes:

Sparks

I think their worry Rovi, was that they might give a licence to someone, who then legally buys lots of ammunition (that happens to fit an armalite), and then drops it in a hole in a field somewheres, declares it shot and buys some more and repeats the process - thus resupplying an illegal group through a legal front. It'd be a fair cost in manhours to find patterns like that, given all the paperwork the current system entails.

Rovi

Sparks wrote:

I think their worry Rovi, was that they might give a licence to someone, who then legally buys lots of ammunition (that happens to fit an armalite), and then drops it in a hole in a field somewheres, declares it shot and buys some more and repeats the process - thus resupplying an illegal group through a legal front. It'd be a fair cost in manhours to find patterns like that, given all the paperwork the current system entails.

Damn you and your sensible response!

Clare gunner

Sparks wrote:

I think their worry Rovi, was that they might give a licence to someone, who then legally buys lots of ammunition (that happens to fit an armalite), and then drops it in a hole in a field somewheres, declares it shot and buys some more and repeats the process - thus resupplying an illegal group through a legal front. It'd be a fair cost in manhours to find patterns like that, given all the paperwork the current system entails.

And is totally unrealistic,and now a very unimagnative excuse,and police thinking to be trotted out by the Gardai.Seeing that ASFIK the PIRA never even aquired shotgun shells like this.Nowadays if the local drug boys can land an odd ton of heroin once a week,a half doz HKs and ammo is not beyond their remit either?
IF they were serious about the above scenario,we would have to bring in all our used shells and exchange for fresh[be abit difficult mind with air rifles ].

It is simple with arms here.WE ARE NOT TO BE TRUSTED!!!!! I mean in communist China and Russia,even in Saddams Iraq they allow their comrades the right to posses arms with alot less hassle than we have to put up with.And THEY are supposedly the unfree societys???

jaycee

Originally Posted by Sparks
I think their worry Rovi, was that they might give a licence to someone, who then legally buys lots of ammunition (that happens to fit an armalite), and then drops it in a hole in a field somewheres, declares it shot and buys some more and repeats the process - thus resupplying an illegal group through a legal front. It'd be a fair cost in manhours to find patterns like that, given all the paperwork the current system entails.

Sorry, don't accept that as a legitimate reason to victimise licenced and law abiding shooters. It looks like an valid argument, but it isn't really. It's just more of the same blinkered viewpoint that we had for years.
That would be a hell of a way to try to supply a whole group...
Generally the quantities they are interested in are numbered in trawler loads.

Besides that , belonging to an illegal organisation is ...er.. Illegal ,
Supplying firearms or ammunition to those groups is also illegal .
So instead of beating the law abiding citizens , how about "Detecting" illegal activity.
BTW.. are they now admitting that the backround checks that they run before they hand out a licence are useless ...? Isn't that the whole point ..to filter out the dodgy characters. Where would this fictional character have been supposed to be shooting all that ammo ..? At an authorised range ..?
and nobody noticed him/her not turning up ..? and the record keeping by ranges, firearms dealers and the Gardaí is a waste of time too..?

Aw c'mon, how many more trojan horses are going to be trotted out as if they were genuine .?
:mad: :mad:

Vinniew

Any chance of some input from FLAG on all of this?

I thought there might be some "discussion" on whats gonna be restricted?????
Sounds like we're all waiting for the list to be sent forth from the DOJ and we're going to have to swallow it as per usual.
Ye have to wonder as to why the "representative bodies" are being told to keep this quiet.

Seems so far that nothing to benefit bonafide firearms owners has come from the CJB.
Just another PR exercise for that twat McD to be able to say he's done something other than donut berty.
The weapons amnesty was a farce, legit ranges have been closed/forced to rework their layout and now the "proposed restriction list".
Would be more in their line to get off their collective fat PD/FF arses and do someyhing about the real problems. Any little skanger that wants a hand gun or sawn off or even an smg can get one....with way less hassel than we'd ever have and evidently the police aren't able to stop them....oh teah and they don't have to pay the poxy license fees either or worry about section 7etc.
Face it! we're a soft target for the government.
Hope everyone remembers that come election time and we're being doorstepped by these fat, ignorant,corrupt useless bastards pretending to be public representatives.

Sparks

jaycee wrote:

Sorry, don't accept that as a legitimate reason to victimise licenced and law abiding shooters.

Neither do I, but I need to know where they're coming from.

It looks like an valid argument, but it isn't really. It's just more of the same blinkered viewpoint that we had for years.
That would be a hell of a way to try to supply a whole group...
Generally the quantities they are interested in are numbered in trawler loads.

Yup. But their point of view is that even if you've one lad doing it, it's too many. The PR problem it would create for them alone is staggering.

Besides that , belonging to an illegal organisation is ...er.. Illegal ,
Supplying firearms or ammunition to those groups is also illegal .
So instead of beating the law abiding citizens , how about "Detecting" illegal activity.

Because it's too many man-hours (and too much for us as well) to be counting the empties and tracking ammunition usage across 200,000 people. It's just far easier to not give them the stuff in the first place :rolleyes:

BTW.. are they now admitting that the backround checks that they run before they hand out a licence are useless ...?

Er, no. And if they were to admit that, they'd just ban the lot on that basis anyway, right down to air pistols.

Isn't that the whole point ..to filter out the dodgy characters. Where would this fictional character have been supposed to be shooting all that ammo ..? At an authorised range ..?

Which didn't exist up until next year...

And nobody noticed him/her not turning up ..? and the record keeping by ranges, firearms dealers and the Gardaí is a waste of time too..?

I don't think the record keeping is a waste of time JC, but it'd take two or three fulltime people just to keep up with the paperwork one club generates (DURC, for example, is five Range Officer reports per week, each one containing details on up to 24 people's shooting for that night). Maybe if it were all computerised, it'd be a managable task to have automated data mining going on, but we don't have a great track record for computerisation in this country...

Aw c'mon, how many more trojan horses are going to be trotted out as if they were genuine .? :mad: :mad:

Don't shoot the messanger now. I don't think that we've been treated fairly either. But we're in the mess we're in now because we took a confrontational, nearly militant attitude, and we've been comprehensively shown how poor a strategy that is when you're as small as we are. We are not able to effect change that way. We need to find a better way to do this.

Sparks

Vinniew wrote:

Any chance of some input from FLAG on all of this?

I'd be far more interested in hearing from someone who actually carried any weight.

I thought there might be some "discussion" on whats gonna be restricted?????

You and me both.

Sounds like we're all waiting for the list to be sent forth from the DOJ and we're going to have to swallow it as per usual.
Ye have to wonder as to why the "representative bodies" are being told to keep this quiet.

The reason given is that this is a draft document. There's been no word as yet as to how many rounds of drafts and consultations there will be (there should be at least two, this being the first one (meet everyone, get input, make changes, distribute second draft, get more input, make changes, finalise), but we don't know.

Seems so far that nothing to benefit bonafide firearms owners has come from the CJB.

I wouldn't go quite that far - the 3-year rolling licence and the training licences are good; but certainly, it's not been worth the price and frankly I'm mad at how badly it has treated us, and I've said so in some detail here before.

Face it! we're a soft target for the government.
Hope everyone remembers that come election time and we're being doorstepped by these fat, ignorant,corrupt useless bastards pretending to be public representatives.

I'd love if that would work, I really would. But even if all 200,000 of us voted the same way, en masse, ignoring morgage repayments, child care, education, health system reforms, other aspects of policing, infrastructural policies, agricultural policies, environmental policies, economic policies and so forth - we're still too few and too far apart to do any good that way.

Far better to put pen to paper NOW and write in to the DoJ to voice your concerns and/or objections to the process or the list. We know this can work, we saw very positively in the CJB process that grassroots action is noticed at political levels - if in the space of less than one week we can get one change into the CJA2006 even though representative bodies can't do as much in that timeframe, then think what we could do here! And it's far better to do this now than to come back in a few months when this is done and dusted to complain that it was unfair!

The address is:

Firearms & Explosives Section
Dept. of Justice, Equality and Law Reform
94, St. Stephen's Green
Dublin 2

Fax: 01 6028374

Emails to :
Firearms_INBOX@justice.ie

Rovi

Sparks wrote:

Far better to put pen to paper NOW and write in to the DoJ to voice your concerns and/or objections to... ...the list.

The thing is though, it's a bit tricky trying to voice concerns/objections to something you've not seen or read...

17HMR

Without being able to see this Draft document, it's a bit difficult to voice concerns to local representatives or the S&E Section as to its proposals or contents....

(Ah... Rovi got the point in ahead of me !)

Sparks

Yeah, I know guys. That's why I said "voice your concerns and/or objections to the process or the list" - you can complain that this is being prepared behind closed doors with no opportunity for the general shooting public to comment on it.

macnas

I would love to know how this list was put together!!!

I'm not buying the 'it's only restricted' arguement and you can apply to the commissioner for a licence. I think that this amounts to a de facto ban on these calibres and firearms. Instead of arguing about what's in and what's out on this list, our organisations should be arguing that there shouldn't be a list at all. We've all got that 'I'm alright Jack' thing going on, as long as I can keep what I have, B****x. There shouldn't be any restricted list, a valid reason for owning a firearm, yes but let's not make it easier for them to say no.
At the end of this process, it will be our own organisations telling us why certain firearms and calibres are restricted, not the DOJ.

Sparks

our organisations should be arguing that there shouldn't be a list at all

That had to be a point won during the CJB debates macnas, and it wasn't. The restricted list is now explicitly provided for by the Firearms Act 2006, Article 2B, and we have no grounds to tell the Minister that he shouldn't draft one, none that we could stand on anyways. Our best bet here is to ensure that nothing we actually use gets on that list. I'll admit, it's like choosing which finger to break - but the choice we're looking at is to choose one, or have them all broken...

civdef

I think it's inevitable a lot of what we currently shoot will be restricted, the thing will be ensuring that the attendant requirements/conditions don't forma a defacto ban.

Clare gunner

Sparks wrote:

Yeah, I know guys. That's why I said "voice your concerns and/or objections to the process or the list" - you can complain that this is being prepared behind closed doors with no opportunity for the general shooting public to comment on it.

Well and good Sparks,but do we even know these things are being read or listened to???I mean when they asked for input for the CJB,how many of us got ANY sort of acknowledgement that our email had been recived or letters recived??I sent a dozen and got not one reply that my emails or letters had been recived!It then transpires that in acknowledgements NARGC and other shooting lobbies get acknowledged for their inputs.Translated that means to me,unless you are there in person in a suit, with a organisation behind you at these talks,pi%s off,you unimportant little sheep!
So maybe a mob of us should show up at Mc Dowels door to express our concerns.But sure that will never happen,we will all find excuses here not to do anything.

Sparks

the thing will be ensuring that the attendant requirements/conditions don't forma a defacto ban.

I'd rather keep stuff off the list in the first place civ; what you're talking about is a step down the line and a whole lot harder again.

Sparks

Clare gunner wrote:

Well and good Sparks,but do we even know these things are being read or listened to?

Yes, they are. Whether or not they're acted on, that's more down to how many people write in. Which means every time someone says "Ah, don't bother, noone reads them anyways", it reduces the chances of us getting what we seek.

I mean when they asked for input for the CJB,how many of us got ANY sort of acknowledgement that our email had been recived or letters recived?

All of us, when we saw changes argued for on the floor during the debates. And with only a tiny amount of effort from just in here, we saw one change to the CJB get through (and dozens put to it but rejected by the Minister).

I sent a dozen and got not one reply that my emails or letters had been recived!It then transpires that in acknowledgements NARGC and other shooting lobbies get acknowledged for their inputs.Translated that means to me,unless you are there in person in a suit, with a organisation behind you at these talks,pi%s off,you unimportant little sheep!

Trust me, it's the other way around. The only reason the suits get listened to in the first place is the number of people they represent. Numbers means votes, and while we don't have enough to order something to be done, if a tweak that costs the Minister nothing will get him a few extra people pleased...

And if you want acknowlegement, call them and ask for it. Hell, if nothing else, that increases the notice they take of us. Look, we have what, a hundred people who read this forum (not post, just read)? A hundred emails/letters, combined with a hundred phone calls following up - that costs each person approximately 20 to 30 minutes (and 48 cents for a stamp if you're not using email) all told; but it adds up to a hundred logged phone calls and another hundred logged contacts in the department, and that gets reported. If everyone in the sport did it... well, at 5 minutes per phone call, that comes to a conservative guess of three thousand man-hours in the department just answering the phone, let alone the subsequent logging and reporting.

So maybe a mob of us should show up at Mc Dowels door to express our concerns.

Er, No. The last chap who unloaded a shotgun through the Minister's summer home's front window rather queered that particular approach for the rest of us.

Clare gunner

[

QUOTE=Sparks]Yes, they are. Whether or not they're acted on, that's more down to how many people write in. Which means every time someone says "Ah, don't bother, noone reads them anyways", it reduces the chances of us getting what we seek.

We can all write in phone in etc,but as you say will it be acted on?See foxhunting ban in the UK.How many millions of the UK people went on the streets to be ignored by his Tonyness??

All of us, when we saw changes argued for on the floor during the debates. And with only a tiny amount of effort from just in here, we saw one change to the CJB get through (and dozens put to it but rejected by the Minister

).

Yeah,and I am now wondering did we educate the ignorant to make life more difficult for us by that?

Trust me, it's the other way around. The only reason the suits get listened to in the first place is the number of people they represent. Numbers means votes, and while we don't have enough to order something to be done, if a tweak that costs the Minister nothing will get him a few extra people

Or more like will the suits push for what "they" want??I mean alot of personal prejudices come into this as well as what is suitable or sporting or what is unacceptable in somones eyes.

And if you want acknowlegement, call them and ask for it[/i

].
How long do you think it will before the usual DOJ nrs will be permantly engaged to anyone of the public???

Er, No. The last chap who unloaded a shotgun through the Minister's summer home's front window rather queered that particular approach for the rest of us.

[/QUOTE]

Not quite what I had in mind Sparks,as I think I would be showing up with a RPG rather than a shotgun,if it came to that.I mean whats he going to do ?order the SB goon squad to open fire on peaceful law abideing people sitting in his clnic room???

Sparks

Clare gunner wrote:

We can all write in phone in etc,but as you say will it be acted on?See foxhunting ban in the UK.How many millions of the UK people went on the streets to be ignored by his Tonyness??

Yes, but how many votes were to be gained by ignoring them?

Yeah,and I am now wondering did we educate the ignorant to make life more difficult for us by that?

Do you really think they depend solely on us for their education? Or that our asking for stuff one week before the debate (by which time the bill was drafted) tightened the bill any? That thing was in the works for years. Read it. Every court case ever taken against the DoJ or Gardai is addressed directly by it, the thing is designed for that.

Or more like will the suits push for what "they" want??I mean alot of personal prejudices come into this as well as what is suitable or sporting or what is unacceptable in somones eyes.

Wouldn't that count as another, bloody good reason to write in yourself?

How long do you think it will before the usual DOJ nrs will be permantly engaged to anyone of the public???

Never. The entire DoJ switchboard permanently engaged? Have you any idea how much press coverage that would get?

Not quite what I had in mind Sparks

Just making sure
Speaking to him face-to-face in his local clinic? Good idea if you are a constituent. Bad one if not, because he won't care in that room if you can't vote for him as a TD.

astraboy

How about someone writing up a letter, stating our concerns. Each member then emails it or posts it to the department and signs it. I am not on the boards long enough or into shooting long enough to know about the restrictions or what would be reasonable to demand, however I would have no problem supporting a campagin that would allow me a greater choice of firearms when I graduate up the shooting ladder and gain experince.

Sparks

That's more or less exactly what's needed astraboy.

astraboy

Sparks wrote:

That's more or less exactly what's needed astraboy.

Would you and some other members write one up? It could then be posted up, made a sticky for a week or two perhaps and then people could recommend changes to the letter. When it is set right, we can all print it off and sign our name before sending it to the DOJ. It would only take 20-30 letters before they took notice of what we were saying, and how many people frequent the forum each day? It might work, if they push through laws and we did nothing we will be kicking ourselves.

zaitsev

astraboy wrote:

Would you and some other members write one up? It could then be posted up, made a sticky for a week or two perhaps and then people could recommend changes to the letter. When it is set right, we can all print it off and sign our name before sending it to the DOJ. It would only take 20-30 letters before they took notice of what we were saying, and how many people frequent the forum each day? It might work, if they push through laws and we did nothing we will be kicking ourselves.

Thats an excellent idea, I was about to suggest the same, then its just a sign and forward the e mail to the powers that be. Maybe one of the Mods would undertake the task. To expand it further could the various shooting organisations, clubs etc not do likewise and e mail their members to do the likewise.