Restricted Firearms List Drafted

Kramer

Sparks wrote:

The G22 looks military.

"I definitely don't like the look of that" .

jaycee

the G22 does not come under the restricted list

CG , in all honesty and without getting into a state of panic, there is no way that the G22 , a grown up "Fun" plinking machine and designed for the deadly destruction of can and clay targets at close range could ever be considered a "Military weapon" (which anyone who has ever seen one in the flesh can attest to) by any informed and sane shooter.

Having said that , it's only one of a number of different types that WILL be covered by the restricted list on several counts..

1. It's overall length is less than 90 centimeters. (I measured one)
2. It is a semi-auto .22 with a magazine capacity of greater than 6 rounds.
3. It's a bullpup design (their given term "Military Bullpup design" is just one more example of some of their imprecise definitions, and in this case Design is the really important word.

Sad but true...!
I should point out , I don't want one. I just object to the principals under which it's evaluated and that by the extension of the logic used ,other fairly benign stuff will be restricted too.

For example , every ruger 10-22 is semi auto with a mag capacity of over 6 rounds .. as a hobby some people like to "dress these up" by changing the stock shape and other items. A harmless activity .These will be restricted too.

Have a look at the options available Here

It's a sad state of affairs when this type of stuff makes the DOJ nervous.
It's even sadder when so few people seem to think that's wrong.

Clare gunner

Sparks wrote:

The G22 looks military. That's all that's necessary from what I read of JC's post.
And it's magazine is much larger than 6 rounds.

Well if you READ the draft it says MILITARY Bullpups.Please inform us o all knowing one which army in the world uses .22lr as a std ammo and uses the Walther22 as a std infantry weapon???????
As for six rounds.OH GOD!!!!The World is falling in!!!! Ever hear of BLOCKING the mag people???[And then ordering in a few ten rounders???].Length,put a longer flash hider on it.What I am trying to point out is that all this is changeable on any gun,irrespective of what is brought in.

Says you, not the DoJ]

Says the World.If you want to argue the point with Janes infantry,NATO,US DOD,The EU court etc fine.THEY are obviously all wrong!!!!:(
If you obviously know better on this Sparks,that words have a double meaning here,please translate for us thickos who cant figure out irish politicalspeak.

Rew

Clare gunner wrote:

Please inform us o all knowing one which army in the world uses .22lr as a std ammo

IDF use .22lr and Ruger 10/22's

Sparks

Clare gunner wrote:

Well if you READ the draft it says MILITARY Bullpups.

Um. I'm kindof bound here in that we agreed not to release the contents of the draft, but you don't have the correct wording CG.

Says the World.

But not the DoJ.

Clare gunner

Well Sparks,I am reading Jaycees post here no123[?] in this thread.

States Bullpup rifles of a military design. Which the Walther is most definately NOT.It is not a current mil calibre,it has no full auto function,it is not tough enough to survive even as a plinker,not to mind the rigours of combat.t doesnt even look like a combat rifle.The Somtner & Ochenfuss rifle that is around in Ireland would be a more suitable canditate,and that isnt even a semi.

So this draft that is now out in a leaked format,is this a true document with proposals or just a noise maker???
Intresting to see that as usual no one can discuss anything,but knows the inside out of what is being decided for their behalf for their benefit.
So the DOJ is now the international knowledge base of firearms????I really hope that all these star chambers of Irish shooting organisations are pointing this out to them in clear langauge?[Which I personally doubt.]

BTw the IDF do not have an offical Ruger 10/22 as issued weapon.They stopped using the 10/22 as a riot control weapon as too many Palestinians were dying of head shots,when they should have been limb shots.Also they were contravening the Hauge convention on military use of non Full Metal Jacketed rounds with hollow points,whaqt a 22lr is.

kowloon

The gardai have recently become aware of a number of Military issue sporks in the country, the combination of both spoon and fork in a single unit make them more concealable than a full dinner set and therefore very useful for criminal elements looking for lunch on the go.
I believe these items should be placed immediately on the restricted cutlery list, especially black sporks with the tin opener.:D

jaycee

kowloon wrote:

The gardai have recently become aware of a number of Military issue sporks in the country, the combination of both spoon and fork in a single unit make them more concealable than a full dinner set and therefore very useful for criminal elements looking for lunch on the go.
I believe these items should be placed immediately on the restricted cutlery list, especially black sporks with the tin opener.:D

Dear God Noooo ..!:eek:
I really hope these aren't folding sporks..

BTW : since I have mentioned design ...
What about these ..?



Would that not look more scary than a 10-22 ...?
If you go on appearances and the probability of creating panic I'd say so.
It will escape the ban/restricted list ...it's a full size copy , an airsoft gun.

Kramer

Clare gunner wrote:

Also they were contravening the Hauge convention on military use of non Full Metal Jacketed rounds with hollow points

I doubt that worried them though .

I've refrained from really entering this discussion/debate but having spoken to someone this evening "in the know", I'm even more worried about the ramifications of this "proposed" restriction list.

I'm told it will be very difficult to get permission from the commissioner for anything "restricted". VERY, very difficult.

In effect, a defacto ban.

As regards plugging mags to comply etc., fine if you already have a semi auto .22 (& manage to keep it) but you won't be able to buy one in future - no import permits/supply to dealers etc. G22 situation as mentioned earlier.

If you manage to keep your Ruger (c/w modified mag), then pop in a 10rd mag, you'll be in possession of an illegal "restricted" firearm.
Go out bunny hunting with a mod. on your .22lr............same deal, illegal "restricted" firearm.

I can see a big announcement from mcdougal pre election about the big clampdown on gun crime: "minister announces huge initiative on firearms offences - restrictions galore, get the guns out of circulation" etc., etc.
Great publicity for mcidiot & his government.

To be fair & as it stands, I won't be affected by these "restrictions" - 3 BA rifles under .280 (lucky I got a .243 as I was thinking about the .223 at the time) but it will certainly curtail any future changes (still want a .223 - Tikka T3 Tactical, nice ).

I can't for the life of me understand where Flag's position is coming from though. Basically: "don't worry, it'll be grand" .
"Let's see what actually happens & then make some noise if it turns out bad" .

From where I'm standing, it can only turn out one way:
BAD!.

As far as reloding is concerned, I'm told that very, very few will ever be allowed a permit. The DOJ don't want power floating about too freely so expect extreme conditions to be attached to the issueing of permits. Extreme meaning impossible for the vast majority.

I'm not surprised TBH given the farsical way that "restricted" list has been compiled.

At present, your local super is the one saying "idonlikedlookodat"
In future, the commissioner with be the one saying "idonlikedlookodat".

Basically centralising it .

I'm off to see Willie O Dea 1st chance I get in the New Year anyway, for all the good it will do :rolleyes: . Any other Clare/Limerick peeps want to meet up & approach as a group, feel free to PM me.

Rant over :cool:

Clare gunner

As regards plugging mags to comply etc., fine if you already have a semi auto .22 (& manage to keep it) but you won't be able to buy one in future - no import permits/supply to dealers etc. G22 situation as mentioned earlier.

If you manage to keep your Ruger (c/w modified mag), then pop in a 10rd mag, you'll be in possession of an illegal "restricted" firearm.
Go out bunny hunting with a mod. on your .22lr............same deal, illegal "restricted" firearm.

yea,butthe big problem will be as what applies to the criminals and seeing as we are eing branded as them ,we might as well act like them if this comes to pass.Is Proof.
Unless the Govt is going to knock the internet,UPS,DHL, etc,monitor every phone call between the US and Europe,strip search every person coming off an EU flight,etc etc.You will be able to get 10,15,or 100 round mags with no problem,as they are not considerd a vitalfirearm part.
Next,how many times has anyone of us met a Garda out in the field out hunting,and one that is knowledgeable in firearms law??? Of course unless you are thick ,you are not going to be walking home with your black modded 10/22 with silencer and 30 rnd clip,for all to see are you?
Lokk,I dont also expect to lose any personal weapons in a gun grab here,I suspect you will be given the option like post Hungerford with the multishotguns to restrict them to three shot to keep them on the shotgun cert rather than a firearms cert.Ditto for all ready registerd weapons here.IE Rugers all ready held by people will be exempt,and I mean to incresae the barrel length and overall length is not a major feat of engineering either.Ruger stocks are made for midjets anyway.



I can see a big announcement from mcdougal pre election about the big clampdown on gun crime: "minister announces huge initiative on firearms offences - restrictions galore, get the guns out of circulation" etc., etc.
Great publicity for mcidiot & his government.

To be fair & as it stands, I won't be affected by these "restrictions" - 3 BA rifles under .280 (lucky I got a .243 as I was thinking about the .223 at the time) but it will certainly curtail any future changes (still want a .223 - Tikka

T3 Tactical, nice ).
I can see reloading and Ireland becoming a wildcat calibre nation very much in the fore if this goes ahead.

can't for the life of me understand where Flag's position is coming from though. Basically: "don't worry, it'll be grand" .
"Let's see what actually happens & then make some noise if it turns out

Better option would be to hear what is being discussedsee on paper what is being discussed,be able to put in our objections there and then to the repesenting bodies,and see that it is being acted on openly and transpently[remember that great FF fairy tale of long ago????].Rather than try to change it when it is sealed and done.Next chance of changing that ,proably in 30 years time again.[Be 70 then]
This has to be done right and right now,otherwise we are fuked for God knows how long.

As far as reloding is concerned, I'm told that very, very few will ever be allowed a permit. The DOJ don't want power floating about too freely so expect extreme conditions to be attached to the issueing of permits. Extreme meaning impossible for the vast majority.

Dont belive everything you hear.Especially from Garda,DOJ, or God forbid our own shooting repesentative bodies.

I'm not surprised TBH given the farsical way that "restricted" list has been compiled.

I'm not.

At present, your local super is the one saying "idonlikedlookodat"
In future, the commissioner with be the one saying "idonlikedlookodat".

Yea,but will have to give good reason in a D court.Also this nonsense will not hold up of ignoring it for 30 days the first time it is challanged in the high court,or if need be EU courts.As it is denying justice,and obstructing justice,this in laymans terms,there is a legal terminology for this,not up on the correct wording of it.

I'm off to see Willie O Dea 1st chance I get in the New Year anyway, for all the good it will do :rolleyes: . Any other Clare/Limerick peeps want to meet up & approach as a group, feel free to PM me.

Rant over :cool:[/QUOTE]

PM sent:)

Sparks

Clare gunner wrote:

Unless the Govt is going to knock the internet,UPS,DHL, etc,monitor every phone call between the US and Europe,strip search every person coming off an EU flight,etc etc.You will be able to get 10,15,or 100 round mags with no problem,as they are not considerd a vitalfirearm part.

Okay, I'm going to stop you there CG.
Quit advising people to break the law please.
Apart from it being illegal, there's the minor little thing that it seriously pisses me off when someone says that it's fine that there's a law against something, because you can easily break it. I don't want to break the law. I just want to enjoy my sport.

Better option would be to hear what is being discussed, see on paper what is being discussed,be able to put in our objections there and then to the repesenting bodies,and see that it is being acted on openly and transpently

I agree wholeheartedly. But right now we've gotten ourselves stuck.

This has to be done right and right now,otherwise we are fuked for God knows how long.

CG, this had to be done right over the past four to six years. And I'm afraid that the CJA is a testimony to how badly it was done

Yea,but will have to give good reason in a D court.

And if you think for a heartbeat that that will be a problem, you haven't thought about this for long enough CG.

Also this nonsense will not hold up of ignoring it for 30 days the first time it is challanged in the high court,or if need be EU courts.As it is denying justice,and obstructing justice,this in laymans terms,there is a legal terminology for this,not up on the correct wording of it.

It won't be challanged. It can't be. It's perfectly legal and above board and explicitly set forth in legislation. And it's neither denying nor obstructing justice, it's merely introducing delays into the process, legally speaking.
Practically speaking, it'll be a complete farce. I have little doubt that there will be districts where the superintendent will virtually never again answer an application for a firearms licence, instead opting to wait three months and then have the applicant apply to the DC, and then issue the licence. As is happening now in many cases. Only now, it'll have the weight of statute behind it.

FLAG

Sparks wrote:

Not. I would be very surprised if the NARGC agreed to the draft you and I saw. And I've read nothing in the Digest that says otherwise, which does not surprise me, because the deadline for the most recent version of the Digest was before you or I saw the draft, and I believe that it was before the NARGC saw it as well.

Apologies it was the October issue of Gameshot:
Firearms matters by Des Crofton:
Quote" At first glance we agree with most of what the order proposes to restrict"

Our position was that we disagreed with most of what the order proposed to restrict!

Sparks

The deadline for the October issue of Gameshot would have been the start of September, several weeks before the SI we saw was drafted, Declan.

FLAG

Clare gunner wrote:

In principle I have to agree with what FLAG is saying.All this is doing is actually bringing this all in line with EU laws as well.Fine and good. BUT I am worried about the "Irish factor".IE take what they[DOJ,etc] want from it and ignore all the unpleasent bits.
Also on this thing with bullpups and some of this legislation.People please READ it!We are talking MiILITARY bullpups,not civvie 22 rifles encased in a stupid clam shell stock. Sit down read and absorb this stuff.Remember guns are subject to evolution as well.They can change and warp to the requirements.Up to 2000 Germany was prohibited from selling semi auto military lookalikes in any shape or form to the civillian .But they were there for sale,in civillianised versions with the letter of the law obeyed.Now,you can own it in whatever version you want,bar full auto.So what I am saying is;do you want a civillianised semi auto [that you can customise to a black gun within ten nims?] or none at all?Also some of this "draft" is full of legal holes,that you could drive a truck thru.I'm not saying which,but it contravenes Irish law procedure and EU law as well if it goes ahead.

What I think is pissing all and sundry off is the secrecy going on around here and the jostling of special intrest sectors,and personalities for the best position at the DOJ table.As well as the worry that everyones personal sector will be offered up in an appeasement for somones else to gain.Also the attiude of the organisations of ;do nothing by yourself,as we are doing this all behind closed doors for you,but we are not saying what we are doing.
Any other country the shooting organisations would be saying,go ahead,but keep it civil and keep it to the following points.... Why is there this assumption we irish shooters are not competant in doing this?????

Worst thing that can be done in times like this is keep people ignorant and uninformed.

Simply because I do not take time to post information on the boards does not mean that discussions with DOJ and the Gardai are kept secret, most meetings have been minuted and passed to the committee of the SSAI, where no minutes have been written up due to time issues then a verbal report is provided.

We drew together all clubs that we could in Abbleyleix during October and there were 22 clubs represented, a full frank and open brief was provided to all who bothered to turn up, all questions asked were answered.

There is nothing secret about our dealings with the Gardai and Justice.............

I will say it again about the draft list, we were asked by the DOJ not to circulate the list, it was a discussion document and we respected their request.

Thats it!

FLAG

Sparks wrote:

The deadline for the October issue of Gameshot would have been the start of September, several weeks before the SI we saw was drafted, Declan.

Why to you continue to argue when I am referring to a publication that is in black and white in front of me, I admit that I made a mistake referring to the Digest but I went and got my copy of Gameshot October 2006, do I really need to publish an image of it to stop your childish responses.

Sparks

FLAG wrote:

do I really need to publish an image of it

No, you really need to publish the date on which the comments from the NARGC were written and the date on which they saw the draft that you and I saw. You really need to do that to prove your allegation because from your post and what I know, I read that they saw an earlier draft and were happy with it (presumable it banned such things as category A weapons, which frankly, noone could object to).

Clare gunner

Sparks wrote:

Okay, I'm going to stop you there CG.
Quit advising people to break the law please.
Apart from it being illegal, there's the minor little thing that it seriously pisses me off when someone says that it's fine that there's a law against something, because you can easily break it. I don't want to break the law. I just want to enjoy my sport.

First off Sparks,this isnt law YET..Unless you know somthing we don't!

Second we are all adults and will make our decisions without your guidance on right or wrong thank you very much...And I am pointing out the fact that anyone with abit of cop on and a realistic knowledge on how the really real world works,will know this allready.
So I'll thank you to stop lecturing us on morality and right and wrong.:( Also it might do the touts and grasses and other DOJ lowlifes who supposedly read the board here to see that there are some sheep out there who wont toe their dumb laws.If enacted

I agree wholeheartedly. But right now we've gotten ourselves stuck

.
Blaming ourselves for allowing and agreeing things not to be openly discussed.

CG, this had to be done right over the past four to six years. And I'm afraid that the CJA is a testimony to how badly it was done

Well,what was the option.????Sit around and ask for them back.We were doing that for the last 30 years and got sweet FA!!Please tell us how it would be got back ten years after the last tangible reason was gone to deny Irish shooters their restricted firearms.???I and many others would love to hear your master plan of how this should have been done....Seeing that you are always on about how wrong this was done.

And if you think for a heartbeat that that will be a problem, you haven't thought about this for long enough CG.

More than enough,and I am inclined to belive some pretty hard hitting SC that it is illegal.

It won't be challanged. It can't be. It's perfectly legal and above board and explicitly set forth in legislation. And it's neither denying nor obstructing justice, it's merely introducing delays into the process, legally speaking.
Practically speaking, it'll be a complete farce. I have little doubt that there will be districts where the superintendent will virtually never again answer an application for a firearms licence, instead opting to wait three months and then have the applicant apply to the DC, and then issue the licence. As is happening now in many cases. Only now, it'll have the weight of statute behind it.

Which in itself is illegal,as justice must be seen to be done within a reasonable timeframe,without obstructionism from either parties.You can delay ,yes,but you cant delay and say oh we never got it when it has been served in person upon the cheif comissioner and local super.Sauce for the goose etc.Be like a murder trial ,and the Gardai saying well we never got the forensic reports in on time,sure he is guilty anyway.

Clare gunner

[

QUOTE=FLAG]Simply because I do not take time to post information on the boards does not mean that discussions with DOJ and the Gardai are kept secret, most meetings have been minuted and passed to the committee of the SSAI, where no minutes have been written up due to time issues then a verbal report is provided.

Ok,well then I am sure it will be ok for me and other shooters SSAI members or not to request a copy of any minutes of meetings of the SSAI andDOJ and Gardai?? Can you tell me how much they cost per copy and your st addy?..I'll send the mO in Jan.

We drew together all clubs that we could in Abbleyleix during October and there were 22 clubs represented, a full frank and open brief was provided to all who bothered to turn up, all questions asked were answered.

There is nothing secret about our dealings with the Gardai and Justice.............

Lets just say I am from Missouri on that one.

I will say it again about the draft list, we were asked by the DOJ not to circulate the list, it was a discussion document and we respected their request.

Why did you agree to this point???The DOJ as a govt dept is supposedly coverd by being open and transparent,they should have no problem with this information being openly public in the shooting community.Sorry to say it smacks of collusion under duress on the shooting bodies part,and secrecy on the DOJ part.

Vegeta

just realised my air rifle may be restricted if the current draft is agreed upon (which lets face it, it probably will be, McDougal was so open to change for the CJB) ffs

its got a moderator!

FLAG

Sparks wrote:

No, you really need to publish the date on which the comments from the NARGC were written and the date on which they saw the draft that you and I saw. You really need to do that to prove your allegation because from your post and what I know, I read that they saw an earlier draft and were happy with it (presumable it banned such things as category A weapons, which frankly, noone could object to).

The date of the Gameshot is October, I cannot see from the publication any particular date.

There was only one draft restricted weapons listing.

We received our copy of the draft on 3rd October and I know from talking to Des that they hd theirs 7 to 10 days prior to that.

For your information Cat A weapons are already prohibited under current legislation, to include them in the restricted list would technially mean that they could be licensed given sufficient reason, that is why we recommended them to be removed and DOJ agreed with the technical position.

Your use of the word banned in the context of the restricted listing shows how little you understand about the situation, the listing is being drawn up to centralise the administration of the licensing process for certain firearms that they will deem restricted. Nothing is being banned, to introduce the terminology will only confuse further an already confused situation, nothing will be banned, the amended legislation does not allow for it.

For your information the listing of restictred firearms has been drawn up by DOJ in consultation and on he advice of the Gardai, they depend on the Gardai for Technical advice on these matters, the reality of the situation if you are trying to influence the content of the restricted listing then it is the Gardai you need to write to.


In any case there will be little further progress till the new year, and as soon as we are made aware of the update to the listing then we will circulate the information as appropriate.

Lets drop it until then!

macnas

FLAG wrote:

For your information Cat A weapons are already prohibited under current legislation, to include them in the restricted list would technially mean that they could be licensed given sufficient reason, that is why we recommended them to be removed and DOJ agreed with the technical position.

So what will happen to current owners of licensed Cat A full auto firearms?

Sparks

FLAG wrote:

The date of the Gameshot is October, I cannot see from the publication any particular date.

We received our copy of the draft on 3rd October and I know from talking to Des that they hd theirs 7 to 10 days prior to that.

So the NARGC had their copy in the last days of September. Assuming that Gameshot is twice as efficient at publication and distribution as the Digest, which frankly is not reasonable as we should assume parity, the comments in Gameshot cannot be about the draft you saw because they were written before that draft was written, according to the date on the draft, and before the NARGC saw them, according to your information.

Perhaps you'd care to retract your comment on the NARGC? I believe you've caused sufficient tension between the NRPAI and the NARGC as it stands.

For your information Cat A weapons are already prohibited under current legislation

For yours, only those in Category A1 are prohibited. Categories A2 through A5 are technically legal to licence in the state. They just haven't been in the past.

to include them in the restricted list would technially mean that they could be licensed given sufficient reason, that is why we recommended them to be removed and DOJ agreed with the technical position.

So your advice to the DOJ was so incorrect that five seconds of reading the actual EU directive annex involved shows it was wrong? Who proof-read your submission?

Your use of the word banned in the context of the restricted listing shows how little you understand about the situation

Pistols and rifles over .22 calibre were never banned in this country from 1972 to 2004 either Declan. Please stop trying to pretend that a back door de facto ban will not be the same as a front door statute ban in the effect it will have on the ground. A rose by any other name, and all that.

if you are trying to influence the content of the restricted listing then it is the Gardai you need to write to.

Then why did you meet with the DoJ? Answer, because - as we did - you figured that the DoJ make the final decision, not the Gardai, who just advise. They advise, we advise, the DoJ decides.

In any case there will be little further progress till the new year, and as soon as we are made aware of the update to the listing then we will circulate the information as appropriate.

As will we.

Lets drop it until then!

Certainly - if we want to put the sport in further risk of restriction. What an incompetent representative you would have to be to stop contact with the DoJ before this becomes public and thus set in stone!

civdef

Do such creatures exist?

Clare gunner

Didnt somone here have a Glock18 breifly last year??

Sparks

Because of an importation snafu only CG. But there's nothing in Irish law to say you couldn't have one.

jaycee

To Flag...!

Any update on how your queries into the M3 Import block is going..?
Just wondering .

Referring to the list , this puzzles me ..

What criteria will the commissioner use in deciding if a restricted item can be licensed to a person , retained by a person or imported.

Can we expect to see a set of those guidelines.... ?

Surely theres no need for any imposed secrecy on this one...?
If we don't know , or won't be told ...isn't that a little suspect ... ?

Clare gunner

Just going to throw one here hypothetically.if this comes in and semi autos and pump shotguns must be restricted to three shots without becoming restricted firearms[ironically,we are twisting the meaning as well,as in the UK they use the term restricted correctly.To mean that multi shots are "restricted" to three shot].They must be limited to three shots by a competant gunsmith,and proof house marked.
Knowing how we ape our lords and masters in Westminister on every bit of difficult law,we will no doubt follow suit.
So this then leaves us with 3 questions
[1] where do we get it proofed without the Euro/Stg expense of flodding Birmingham with guns needing proofing?Even if the UK is willing to carry out this work.
[2]Define a competant gunsmith in Ireland?It is not an apprenticeship trade over here,and saying you are a gundealer does not make you a gunsmith.Like a shoe salesman saying he is a podontorist.
[3]It has to be a std all along the board type gunsmith restriction job.So that means proper tooling and know how,who will decide the job spec in the DOJ,and are they competant to make a decision on each and every model?
Questions and not many answers.:rolleyes:

FLAG

macnas wrote:

So what will happen to current owners of licensed Cat A full auto firearms?

There are none!

Clare gunner

Sparks wrote:

Because of an importation snafu only CG. But there's nothing in Irish law to say you couldn't have one.

Yeah,I asked a couple of gun dealers on this in Germany over the Summer.They were as baffled as we were as how this could happen.One of them worked for Glock as a factory sales rep as well,and said it is an almost 99.9%impossibility that even an 18 would end up in a civvie dealership.Even the reps need to countersign out the deact model 18,and it is not possible to demo it to clients in Germany either.One thing is for sure heads would roll and police would be involved with the dealership.There was a slew of German and EU gun law broken there.

FLAG

Sparks wrote:

Perhaps you'd care to retract your comment on the NARGC? I believe you've caused sufficient tension between the NRPAI and the NARGC as it stands.

Then why did you meet with the DoJ? Answer, because - as we did - you figured that the DoJ make the final decision, not the Gardai, who just advise. They advise, we advise, the DoJ decides.

As will we.

Certainly - if we want to put the sport in further risk of restriction. What an incompetent representative you would have to be to stop contact with the DoJ before this becomes public and thus set in stone!

What an operator you are: In your responses you make further unfounded and damaging accusations: You are making an accusation that I am responsiblw for some form of tension between SSAI and NARGC.

We have met frequently with the Gardai as well as DOJ.

As will we: Are you now posting as the NTSA or the Olympic Coaches Association!

Now by conjecture of your intrepetation of what you believe you are saying that I am potentially an incompetent representative:

Quite frankly this really requires no response.

jaycee

FLAG wrote:

Quite frankly this really requires no response.

Quite frankly ....this does !

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=52535308&postcount=177

FLAG

jaycee wrote:

Quite frankly ....this does !

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=52535308&postcount=177

If you have specifics perhaps I can help, but is is clear that in this game you cannot please all of the people all of the time, in sparks case and clearly yours, you are the minority that will not be pleased at all.

With the allegations and innuendo from sparks, it has just got plain dirty and I am not playing any more!

maglite

lads will ye put you personal problems aside

i couldent care less if the NTSI dont get on with the NSAI or who ever

al i care about, along with all the other reader on this forum, is what are the changes and impacts that will result due to this legislation.....

FLAG

maglite wrote:

lads will ye put you personal problems aside

i couldent care less if the NTSI dont get on with the NSAI or who ever

al i care about, along with all the other reader on this forum, is what are the changes and impacts that will result due to this legislation.....

I would imangine the vast majority of people would agree with you, personally I am sick of it, any time I respond to a question or post information I am subject to a torrent of abuse by Sparks and his cronies.

It is not always possible to go into full detail on the boards as things can be taken out of context, it is not really good practice in my mind to make our business too public, one does not know who is viewing the dialogue and with that mind one needs to be cautious, I keep referring to people seeking the approprite information through their respective shooting associations and clubs, this isby far the best mechansm to get full detail.

Clare gunner

Trouble is some of them seem to be none the wiser,than we are.

civdef

any time I respond to a question or post information I am subject to a torrent of abuse by Sparks and his cronies.

You really seem to be seeing conspiracies where there are none.

FLAG

Clare gunner wrote:

Trouble is some of them seem to be none the wiser,than we are.

look for your information through your shooting association or clubs and you will not suffer the defiiency of information, if you depend on the boards for information then you will be disappointed!

FLAG

civdef wrote:

You really seem to be seeing conspiracies where there are none.

No worries about conspiracies, how can you fail to appreciate the difficulty that I have posting when sparks and co kick in, as a mod on the boards you must also appreciate that sparks makes allegations that he cannot uphold and depends on the hypothetical answer to justify the question.

It does not take a large number of individuals to undo the good work that has been done to date.

jaycee

I have said it before , but I'll repeat it.

I'm not looking to score any points nor am I anyone's crony, I'm just looking for specific answers to simple questions. I have no idea why that should make me appear to be either unhelpful or disruptive.

You asked me for specifics .. I thought thats what I had given !
I'll try again.

1. How go's your inquiries into the M3 import ban , you responded earlier that you intended to check out my allegations to that effect.

2. What criteria will the commissioner use in deciding if a restricted item can be licensed to a person , retained by a person or imported.

3. Can we expect to see a set of those guidelines.... ?

Surely theres no need for any imposed secrecy on this one...?
If we don't know , or won't be told ...isn't that a little suspect ... ?

I don't see any hidden booby traps in these questions and I suspect they are
of interest to most people ..not just me.

FLAG

jaycee wrote:

I have said it before , but I'll repeat it.

I'm not looking to score any points nor am I anyone's crony, I'm just looking for specific answers to simple questions. I have no idea why that should make me appear to be either unhelpful or disruptive.

You asked me for specifics .. I thought thats what I had given !
I'll try again.

1. How go's your inquiries into the M3 import ban , you responded earlier that you intended to check out my allegations to that effect.

2. What criteria will the commissioner use in deciding if a restricted item can be licensed to a person , retained by a person or imported.

3. Can we expect to see a set of those guidelines.... ?

Surely theres no need for any imposed secrecy on this one...?
If we don't know , or won't be told ...isn't that a little suspect ... ?

I don't see any hidden booby traps in these questions and I suspect they are
of interest to most people ..not just me.

1) As of today the importer/distributor of benelli informs me that they are still importing M3's
2) Reference the amended firearms legislation contained in the CJA 2006, the commissioner can only use the legislation in his determination, the criteria is written in the legislation.
3) Guidelines as defined in the new legislation will be used to Guide individuals wishing to license firearms as well as those tasked with implementing the legislation, they are presently being drafted by DOJ and the Gardai, at some point we will be consulted and asked to make our input. The guidelines will be published for all to see.

When can we expect to see the guidelines? As soon as they are shown to us, I would expect Q1 2007 but no later than Q2 2007.

Nothing hidden in the answers, they are as they are. No doubt Sparks will be pulling the answers apart but they are as I see it and I have answered as honestly as I can.

I can only make a determination on you being a crony of Sparks by the content of your posts, I have no doubt that you know him well and are of the same mind as he is, I do not know who you are, it is very difficult to be rational in response when one hides behind the veil of the asumed name, certainly thanks to sparks my name is bandied around the boards with no problem to him, pity he does not consider the safety implications of making ones identity know to those out there who may not be in shooting for the sport.

By clearly identifying me time and time again he not only puts me in danger but also my family and I take a poor view of that!

jaycee

FLAG wrote:

1) As of today the importer/distributor of benelli informs me that they are still importing M3's

Well thats a recent change , 3 different firearms dealers on the same day 2 weeks ago told me that they had been blocked. One rang his distributer and rang me back in no time with that story. I shall have to check after Christmas. Interesting times we live in.

Nothing hidden in the answers, they are as they are.

Fair enough..

I can only make a determination on you being a crony of Sparks by the content of your posts, I have no doubt that you know him well and are of the same mind as he is, I do not know who you are, it is very difficult to be rational in response when one hides behind the veil of the assumed name.

Yes I have met Sparks in person , it wasn't an arranged meeting , just in the course of shooting . I know and have met with a lot of people but it doesn't mean I automatically agree with everything they say. and if you contend that personal contact makes one a Crony , I can eliminate that theory immediately for I have met you twice as many times as Sparks. So we can drop that one.
I have never hidden behind an assumed name as many regulars here can verify. If you wish to know my Identity you may PM me (for the stated security reasons)

I have an interest in the shooting sports and extracting the maximum value and minimum harm from the current CJB and Draft ..hence the questions.
If one sets one's stall out as a representative who deals with and claims input into those pieces of legislation it is only natural that the reasoning behind them and their likely effects will raise several questions.

The Irish state deprived Irish sportsmen and women of the means to carry out a lawful and respected pastime for many years. Now new legislation has been written which has the potential to ruin our fledgling sport again . Much of it is written and presented with an unbending attitude , ambiguous terminology , questionable logic and a strong tendency towards secrecy.

We as shooters may appear suspicious of their motives , but their track record in dealing with us hardly inspires confidence.
If their motive are pure , why the secrecy. ?
Why issue a discussion document (Which the Draft is supposed to be ) and ask people not to discuss it...?

As I understand it, a copy of the guidelines will be available for discussion by Q1 or Q2 2007. Surely the items and descriptions on the restricted list need to be trashed out and agreed or amended first .

Reference the amended firearms legislation contained in the CJA 2006, the commissioner can only use the legislation in his determination, the criteria is written in the legislation.

I have already read in depth the new firearms section of the CJB 2006.
Thats why I asked , because under that he can make it up as he go's along and we're all at the mercy of his /her whims and dislikes.
It's hardly an inspiring thought or one we can draw much comfort from if one is contemplating spending around €6000 on a long range target rifle when the powers that be might decide when it's finished that they either don't like the look of it , or the calibre.

It's not just idle speculation , people are investing huge amounts of their own money into equipment and facility's that may be rendered useless at the wrong stroke of a pen. So if people seem a tad anxious ..theres a reason.

FLAG

jaycee wrote:

Well thats a recent change , 3 different firearms dealers on the same day 2 weeks ago told me that they had been blocked. One rang his distributer and rang me back in no time with that story. I shall have to check after Christmas. Interesting times we live in.



Fair enough..



Yes I have met Sparks in person , it wasn't an arranged meeting , just in the course of shooting . I know and have met with a lot of people but it doesn't mean I automatically agree with everything they say. and if you contend that personal contact makes one a Crony , I can eliminate that theory immediately for I have met you twice as many times as Sparks. So we can drop that one.
I have never hidden behind an assumed name as many regulars here can verify. If you wish to know my Identity you may PM me (for the stated security reasons)

I have an interest in the shooting sports and extracting the maximum value and minimum harm from the current CJB and Draft ..hence the questions.
If one sets one's stall out as a representative who deals with and claims input into those pieces of legislation it is only natural that the reasoning behind them and their likely effects will raise several questions.

The Irish state deprived Irish sportsmen and women of the means to carry out a lawful and respected pastime for many years. Now new legislation has been written which has the potential to ruin our fledgling sport again . Much of it is written and presented with an unbending attitude , ambiguous terminology , questionable logic and a strong tendency towards secrecy.

We as shooters may appear suspicious of their motives , but their track record in dealing with us hardly inspires confidence.
If their motive are pure , why the secrecy. ?
Why issue a discussion document (Which the Draft is supposed to be ) and ask people not to discuss it...?

As I understand it, a copy of the guidelines will be available for discussion by Q1 or Q2 2007. Surely the items and descriptions on the restricted list need to be trashed out and agreed or amended first .



I have already read in depth the new firearms section of the CJB 2006.
Thats why I asked , because under that he can make it up as he go's along and we're all at the mercy of his /her whims and dislikes.
It's hardly an inspiring thought or one we can draw much comfort from if one is contemplating spending around €6000 on a long range target rifle when the powers that be might decide when it's finished that they either don't like the look of it , or the calibre.

It's not just idle speculation , people are investing huge amounts of their own money into equipment and facility's that may be rendered useless at the wrong stroke of a pen. So if people seem a tad anxious ..theres a reason.

I take all your points on board, but I still think the forum is not the area for publishing detailled information for many reasons, why not contact me in person and I will discuss any aspect of the discussions with DOJ/Gardai that you wish, I have also offered the flagireland@eircom.net e-mail as a mechanism to get specific questions answered.

Clare gunner

FLAG wrote:

look for your information through your shooting association or clubs and you will not suffer the defiiency of information, if you depend on the boards for information then you will be disappointed!

See my answer above.It ranges from,heard nothing,it's all going to be gone,we will ose everything,it will be all right,to... is there new laws???
With that level of information,I and many others here no doubt feel left out inthe cold,confused,and wondering what is fact and rumour.
Then having the ,dare I say night &fog manouverings going on about this policy document,it doesnt make for trust of the shooting organisations ,local or national level,or the DOJ.[Nor does the personality clashes and bitch fests,do much to inspire confidence as displayed here.]
If I may point this out from a military perspective;the worst thing to demoralise your troops or company is to allow unbridled rumours run rife or not handle openly and truthfully so all can see what is going on,and to quell the rumours with facts. It would be in the intrests of Irish shooting organisations to get a statement into the Shooters digest next month,or in house publications as well as to what is going on and where the state of play is at that phase in time.

Sparks

FLAG wrote:

In your responses you make further unfounded and damaging accusations: You are making an accusation that I am responsiblw for some form of tension between SSAI and NARGC.

No, I'm reporting a fact. As evidenced by the written statements by both Frank Brophy and Des Crofton in the Digest in recent months.

I am potentially an incompetent representative

I believe you are not well suited to the job of representation of our interests at any level Declan, and I enter for supporting evidence two things; firstly the significant restrictions and losses to our sport that the CJA2006 represents, a piece of legislation brought in during your tenure and which you are now defending; and secondly the unbelievably uncivil manner in which you have behaved in this forum. Here, you are given a free voice (even to the point of being granted special privileges in terms of not being punished for violation of the forum charter time and again), time to research and compose your answers (you even get to spellcheck them) and still you respond in a belligirent and unhelpful manner, squandering an opportunity to give information to shooters in a widespread manner and taking every opportunity to abuse the forum to make unwarranted personal attacks while claiming to represent a national body.

If you do this in such unpressured circumstances, what are you like on the fly in a room with the Minister or his representatives, people who truly have no interest in the sport as opposed to in here, with people who have a vested interest in the furtherance of it?

FLAG wrote:

I respond to a question or post information I am subject to a torrent of abuse by Sparks and his cronies.

Thank you for that, but I don't have cronies, and valid - if awkward - questions are not torrents of abuse.

It is not always possible to go into full detail on the boards as things can be taken out of context

That's a logical absurdity - you can only avoid being taken out of context by giving all the information. Something difficult to do in a face-to-face meeting, but easy to do here as you have time to consider and compose your answers.

it is not really good practice in my mind to make our business too public

And with that one sentence, you justify immediately and permanently striking from your future comments any reference or implication to representing me or those in my sport. My sport is above board. I have nothing to hide by partaking in it. I have no problem whatsoever with public coverage - in fact, I welcome and seek it for my sport. I think what we do is laudable and honorable, not something to be kept secret and hidden away like some sort of minor crime that might disadvantage us in other parts of life. I represent my country in an olympic sport Declan. I do not appreciate, nor do I condone or welcome any attempt by any person, especially one who claims to represent me, to even hint at the notion that this might be in some way unseemly or dodgy. So take your "keep it hidden" ideas and keep them to yourself!

FLAG wrote:

if you depend on the boards for information then you will be disappointed!

Bullcrap. Boards has done more for shooting in two years than you have in ten by virtue of the sheer numbers involved. You've answered how many phone calls in ten years? Boards has been read just shy of 20,000 times in two years. Can you best that? Of course not, you can only talk to one person at a time - boards can reach thousands at once. But you never did see or embrace that...

FLAG wrote:

2) Reference the amended firearms legislation contained in the CJA 2006, the commissioner can only use the legislation in his determination, the criteria is written in the legislation.

Perhaps you need to read the CJA. The criteria in the legislation is for unrestricted firearms. There are no criteria that ensure a licence will be granted according to the legislation. There are minimum criteria that must be met if one is to be granted; these are in section four. For restricted firearms, there are more criteria, as determined by the Commissioner, but no list of these has been provided, and not only that, the Minister in the Dail during the debates argued strongly against public disclosure of those criteria, which is sufficient for us to assume that that will be the situation. But even if all those criteria are met, it is still not illegal for a licence to be refused.

You see what I mean about your not being suited to this job?

3) Guidelines as defined in the new legislation will be used to Guide individuals wishing to license firearms as well as those tasked with implementing the legislation, they are presently being drafted by DOJ and the Gardai, at some point we will be consulted and asked to make our input. The guidelines will be published for all to see.

First off, why are you waiting to be asked? Your job is to be active, not reactive.
Secondly, the Minister was quite clear that there was no onus on him to publish all the guidelines, and the leglislation is very clear that there is no requirement for them to be published. Read the CJA Declan, then read the debates on it in the Dail records. You can find them on the oireachtas.ie website or on the CJB2004 thread in this forum, along with commentary.

they are as I see it and I have answered as honestly as I can.

That's the problem. If that's the best analysis you have, we need someone better.

pity he does not consider the safety implications of making ones identity know to those out there who may not be in shooting for the sport.

Perhaps you should have thought of that before volunteering to a public office and seeking publicity in the Digest and other publications, including the national media?

By clearly identifying me time and time again he not only puts me in danger but also my family and I take a poor view of that!

And for that daft allegation (you were in the media before I ever even knew you, let alone the founding of the forum here on boards), you can take a week to cool off Declan. Check your PMs for details.

civdef

I think this thread has about run its course.

Kramer

civdef wrote:

I think this thread has about run its course.

Na, I reckon there's loads left in it yet .

Thread locked.

Vegeta

why does it always get personal lads

it just ruins the debate

Clare gunner

Solution on the boards here;Thunderdome!!!Two go in ,the posts and insults go round and round,one leaves.:D

johngalway

Deleted out by poster.

Riggser

If I can, I would like to introduce a marvelous option that every boards.ie member has pleasure of using, it's called the private message.

I don't want to fan the flames here but public tit for tat tiffs aren't doing you or the sport any favours. Once you get personal you lose the debate in my view. If the shooting sports in this country ever needed a boost it's now.

I don't want to get into the politics of shooting in Ireland. I want to go out to a range or a field, shoot at a target, clay or game, lock up the firearms, head to the pub, few brews and talk sh1te to who ever wants to listen to me. Simple, yes? Wrong. There's an awful lot of alpha male chest beating going on and for what? Here you have two very prominent members of the shooting sport scene in Ireland who are bickering. Agree to disagree lads and be done with it. Everyone should be working together on this, even if you depise each other.

You go to one superintendent and he's says yes to a .308 and then the other super over the otherside of the road (literally) wouldn't let you go into Smyths Toy store and buy a spud gun! Is this going to change? If yes when is going to change? Is there going to be any easier process of obtaining a firearms certificate? Are certain firearms completely banned?

What I'm saying to anyone out there who has the power to make things happen (and I'm doing my bit by the way,believe me), try and make the whole shooting sport scene as clear, simple and of course safe as possible for all.