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.