Firearms Consultative Panel

Sparks

Answer up:

121. Deputy Tom Sheahan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will provide data in respect of the number of recorded robberies of legally held firearms in the State during the period 2002 to 2007; the number of recorded robberies of legally held firearms to date in 2007; if sufficient measures are in place to minimise such robberies; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22566/07]

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Deputy Brian Lenihan): Following the submission in 2004 of a report and recommendations by an expert group on crime statistics, it was decided that the compilation and publication of crime statistics should be taken over by the Central Statistics Office, as the national statistical agency, from the Garda Síochána. The Garda Síochána Act, 2005 consequently makes provision for this and the CSO has established a dedicated unit for this purpose. Following the setting up of the necessary technical systems and auditing of the data from which the statistics are compiled, the CSO is now compiling and publishing criminal statistics and has published provisional headline crime statistics since the third quarter of 2006. In addition, it has compiled and published a series of quarterly and annual statistics for the period starting with the first quarter of 2003. I understand that the CSO are examining how the crime statistics published might be expanded and made more comprehensive.

I have requested the CSO to provide the statistics sought by the Deputy directly to him.

Every effort is made in the licensing process and otherwise to ensure that all licensed firearm holders are conscious of their obligations in relation to the safe storage of their firearm. To this end all firearm certificates are accompanied by recommendations and advice in relation to the safe storage and security of firearms.

The Criminal Justice Act, 2006 provides for increased fines and penalties for firearm offences. A person found in possession of a firearm in suspicious circumstances or with criminal intent is liable to imprisonment for up to 14 years with a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years.

I recently established a Firearms Consultative Panel to assist with the introduction of a new firearms licensing system which is provided for in the Criminal Justice Act, 2006. The Panel will comprise representatives of the various shooting interest groups, relevant Government Departments and An Garda Síochána. I will make details of the panel and its terms of reference known in the near future.

rrpc

I recently established a Firearms Consultative Panel to assist with the introduction of a new firearms licensing system which is provided for in the Criminal Justice Act, 2006. The Panel will comprise representatives of the various shooting interest groups, relevant Government Departments and An Garda Síochána. I will make details of the panel and its terms of reference known in the near future.

He did????

sidneyreilly

rrpc wrote:

He did????

Ditto

Sparks

Well, they did tell us they were thinking of doing it, we just weren't told it had been done...

Bananaman

The Panel will comprise representatives of the various shooting interest groups

[Apologies if this information is not in the public domain/interest and I'm asking questions out of turn]

Are we aware who these groups are?

Do we know what bodies are representing the various forms of licensed firearm?

B'Man

Sparks

a) The Gardai, DoJ, Department of Sport and "relevant national shooting bodies". Last I heard.

b) Nope. That the panel was even set up was news to quite a few of us.

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

a) The Gardai, DoJ, Department of Sport and "relevant national shooting bodies". Last I heard.

b) Nope. That the panel was even set up was news to quite a few of us.

There is as yet no evidence that such a body has been set up. Nothing on the DoJ website, no press releases and no statutory instruments.

One would think that such a step would have at least merited a press release.

Sparks

No evidence... except a direct written statement by the Minister to the Dail...

Sparks

Maybe a quick email to the DoJ is in order?

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

Maybe a quick email to the DoJ is in order?

Are you voulunteering? I've already posted a note to the committee on this. We certainly need to know what's going on.

Sparks

Are you voulunteering?

Are you proposing giving a non-committee member the power to speak on behalf of the committee?!?!?!

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

Are you proposing giving a non-committee member the power to speak on behalf of the committee?!?!?!

Sorry, should have put a smiley in there. I'm sure the secretary will get back to me about it and we'll draft something quickly.

I think I have a record of who we last wrote to in the DoJ.

It's useful that he's made this statement. We now can put our hand up and say "Me Sir"

Sparks

Ah right. Long day at work rrpc, my sense of humour is worn out right now.

The record of who we wrote to last should be in the internal email list archive, and we've already expressed a strong desire for representation on the panel, but it wouldn't hurt to remind them.

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

Ah right. Long day at work rrpc, my sense of humour is worn out right now.

The record of who we wrote to last should be in the internal email list archive, and we've already expressed a strong desire for representation on the panel, but it wouldn't hurt to remind them.

Just received this from Countryside Alliance:

Countryside Alliance Ireland has been invited by The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Brian Lenihan T.D. to be an active member of the Firearms Consultative Panel that is being established to assist with the introduction of the new Firearms Licensing system and related matters.

We are keen to ensure that the programme of change which is being undertaken proceeds smoothly and has legitimate regard to all to have an interest. We will keep you all informed over the coming weeks.

So by now it seems that anyone who was to be invited onto the panel has been.

We should hear soon if any other bodies have been invited to join.

Sparks

Well, the final details aren't announced yet. I'd get pushing now rrpc, get the NTSA a seat on that panel...

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

Well, the final details aren't announced yet. I'd get pushing now rrpc, get the NTSA a seat on that panel...

I suspect that the larger bodies are the only ones that will be invited. I'd hazard a guess that the NARGC have also been invited (their website appears to be down at the moment), but it appears that the SSAI have not (or if they have they didn't say so at their last meeting).

We'll put in a request and see what happens.

Sparks

We'll have to push harder than that rrpc, the last time we left them go without NTSA input, every aluminum-stocked ISSF rifle (air, smallbore and fullbore) wound up on the restricted list along with every ISSF smallbore and fullbore pistol...

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

We'll have to push harder than that rrpc, the last time we left them go without NTSA input, every aluminum-stocked ISSF rifle (air, smallbore and fullbore) wound up on the restricted list along with every ISSF smallbore and fullbore pistol...

OK Sparks, calm down. I've got more information on this. As far as I know there are representatives from the NARGC, CAI, ICPSA and SSAI on the panel.

There may be more, but at the moment the Chairman is out of the country (as you know) so I can't get any more detailed info than that. It's plain that if we are not attending that we must have the agenda and a prepared input for whoever represents us at the table, followed by a detailed debrief after the meeting.

BryanL

one man one license has to be pushed!
Bryan

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

there are representatives from the NARGC, CAI, ICPSA and SSAI on the panel.

That's not particularly reassuring me that the NTSA will be represented at the table. An SSAI rep is not an NTSA rep, and there's a direct conflict of interest, as has been discussed on a regular basis for the past seven years or so.

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

That's not particularly reassuring me that the NTSA will be represented at the table. An SSAI rep is not an NTSA rep, and there's a direct conflict of interest, as has been discussed on a regular basis for the past seven years or so.

No it's not perfect, but it appears that it's what we have to deal with. Dealing with it in a way that will be open and transparent and represent our views will undoubtedly occupy a great deal of our time and energy.

Sparks

It's not perfect and it's also not really acceptable RRPC - a director of the NTSA cannot represent NTSA interests and SSAI interests without an inherent conflict of interest. I've gone blue in the face repeating this regarding the relationship between the NTSA and the NRPAI and the SSAI for the past seven years. It's not stopped being true in the last ten minutes.

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

It's not perfect and it's also not really acceptable RRPC - a director of the NTSA cannot represent NTSA interests and SSAI interests without an inherent conflict of interest. I've gone blue in the face repeating this regarding the relationship between the NTSA and the NRPAI and the SSAI for the past seven years. It's not stopped being true in the last ten minutes.

You're assuming that a director of the NTSA will be attending. Not an assumption I can make at this time.

Sparks

I am at that. You know me, the eternal optimist.
I mean, if a director of the NTSA wasn't attending, that'd be even worse.

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

I am at that. You know me, the eternal optimist.
I mean, if a director of the NTSA wasn't attending, that'd be even worse.

Yup, now where's that conflict word that was flying around here earlier?

Sparks

Still in force.
If there's an NTSA director there, then the NTSA knows what's going on first-hand, without any intentional or unintentional filtering; if there isn't there's nothing but second-hand information at best. That's why it'd be better to be there than not be there. But it's the difference between being on the left or the right of the car when the train hits it, really.

The conflict is still alive and well - if an NTSA director is there, he is required by company law to act in the best interests of the NTSA, not the SSAI. His obligation to the SSAI has no such legal weight, and even if he ignores this and acts in the best interests of the SSAI, and against NTSA interests, he is acting ultra vires, and his actions cannot be binding in any way, shape or form - that means no vote he makes is valid unless it benefits the NTSA.

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

Still in force.
If there's an NTSA director there, then the NTSA knows what's going on first-hand, without any intentional or unintentional filtering; if there isn't there's nothing but second-hand information at best. That's why it'd be better to be there than not be there. But it's the difference between being on the left or the right of the car when the train hits it, really.

Depends which side the train hits

The conflict is still alive and well - if an NTSA director is there, he is required by company law to act in the best interests of the NTSA, not the SSAI. His obligation to the SSAI has no such legal weight, and even if he ignores this and acts in the best interests of the SSAI, and against NTSA interests, he is acting ultra vires, and his actions cannot be binding in any way, shape or form - that means no vote he makes is valid unless it benefits the NTSA.

The smart answer is to send a non-Director and thus no legal conflict arises. However, I doubt any NTSA committee member would act in the interests of the SSAI above those of the NTSA, and I can't really envisage a situation on the FCP in which such a conflict would arise.

I also doubt whether any of the attendees to these meetings would have a vote as such, rather that they would be there in an advisory capacity to point out any problems with proposed legislation or protocols and to put forward suggestions.

A simple case in point would be the one man one licence; no conflict there. The proposed restricted list should also present no conflicts, but certainly would benefit from our input as regards some of the descriptions as pointed out before. The point about the non-restricted list could be proposed again with us providing the list and being accredited as USAS is in California.

jaycee

The proposed restricted list should also present no conflicts, but certainly would benefit from our input as regards some of the descriptions as pointed out before.

I for one, have a huge problem with the proposed restricted list.
I have a huge problem with even the concept of a restricted list where a 10 year old child can tell that the descriptions and definitions are so muddy as to be nothing short of almost, a deny them all charter.

To quote a common bit of gallows humour on here , the expression IDONTLIKETHELOOKOFTHAT.. is all thats needed to make the acquiring of any firearm intensely difficult if not impossible. Why do i say that...?
Because much of the descriptions , and decisions based on them are left to subjective interpretation on the part of the person granting a licence.

So... for example , if someone decides that a black coloured rifle = a military looking firearm .. on the basis of that list it can be restricted. Using that logic you could be denied a licence for a CZ Silhouette .22lr rifle . I have one , all weather synthetic stock...black , put a scope on it and the media will be prepared to describe it as a sniper rifle . Result ? .. another restricted firearm.

Stupid ?... you betcha ..
Possible ?.... you betcha.

Now , lets think about the word restricted .
Hmmm ... Ok, what will that mean ..?
Will i need increased security to hold such an awesome item..? ...Perhaps.
How much security .. Ahhh well , thats the next catch . Because thats all subjective too.. It will require the degree of security that the person granting the license sees fit . Without any definition that could be construed as requiring a helicopter gunship and a constant armed patrol of the property.
Maybe it wont be that bad , maybe it will only take 5000 euros worth of security equipment and converting a part of your home into a bunker.

Stupid .. ?... You betcha !
Possible ..? Ditto.

Now the last time i mentioned the deny them all charter , Oops restricted list and its possible implications to someone who is supposed to know .. The first response I got was .. "Restricted ..dosn't mean banned " Oh yeah ..?
Well the powers that be managed to restrict the hell out of Pistols in Ireland for over 30 years without ever banning them, and with these new bits of legislation , they would have an easier time doing it than ever before .

If something can be made to carry such and any conditions before it is accessible or available to you isn't it a de-facto ban...?

The whole thing is full of teeth to bite us , with no way to rein it in.

The example I picked is only one of the many in that so called negotiated agreement , and far from the most serious.

In that sense , conflict between someones role with an organization or fighting about who get to go to the party pales into insignificance .
we have plenty of conflicts ahead , it would be better if we concentrated our energies on trying to clean up the mess that is on the table in front of us.

Kryten

Why has'nt the SSAI informed us about this Firearms consultative panel. They are supposed to represent the majority of target shooting clubs. There appears to be a serious communication problem with the SSAI. Even their website is old news!

At the very least, Club secretaries should be kept in the loop. I know there are SSAI Committee members working hard (proficency courses, range specs and the like), but we the shooting community need to know our corner is well covered.

bunny shooter

What we need is for every member of the attending group/s to revcieve a complete copy of the proposals, and I repeat the proposals, before anything is agreed to. These group/s reps shouldn't be allowed to agree to anything without their members approval in advance.

This is likely to be the last review of firearms licensing in our lifetime. So it has to be right, for all shooters sakes, irregardless of their discipline/s

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

Depends which side the train hits

Ever see a car hit by a train? The difference is the extra 20 microseconds you have before you're pulped.

The smart answer is to send a non-Director and thus no legal conflict arises.

Except that now the NTSA directors are voting to send a representative who won't be bound to act in the NTSA's interest and so they're acting ultra vires and the appointed representative doesn't actually have the NTSA's official backing because the decision to send them was outside the power of the board.

It's not a conflict you can get around rrpc. That's why I've been pointing it out for the past seven years.

However, I doubt any NTSA committee member would act in the interests of the SSAI above those of the NTSA, and I can't really envisage a situation on the FCP in which such a conflict would arise.

"Air and smallbore pistols lads, but stop asking about the fullbore rifles, would you?" was the situation outlined to me by a member of the NRPAI who was in the room when the offer was made. This would have been back before 2000.
So I don't need to envisage such a conflict, because I know they've already arisen and NTSA interests were not served (by NTSA committee members as it happens). (And for the non-NTSA folks, there was no restriction that those air and smallbore pistols be ISSF-only, and it would have been the wedge in the crack to get everything back, just not all at once - we'd have had everything we got before '04 and without the CJA2006 giving the Minister the power to close down our sport overnight).

I also doubt whether any of the attendees to these meetings would have a vote as such, rather that they would be there in an advisory capacity to point out any problems with proposed legislation or protocols and to put forward suggestions.

And if there's no NTSA person there? Last time, they put all the ISSF alu-stock rifles (air and smallbore and fullbore) along with all the ISSF pistols (smallbore and fullbore) on the restricted list!

A simple case in point would be the one man one licence; no conflict there.

Sure. But it's a better idea for the shooting NGBs to meet as equals beforehand and compare agendas and agree points of mutual support and points that were NGB-specific and resolve conflicts there. We both know that that doesn't happen within the SSAI and that it didn't happen in the NRPAI.

Not to mention, if we go in as the SSAI, the uncomfortable question of the NRPAI/SSAI and the illegal AGM that brought about that change is a stick on the table for any other party to beat us with.

The proposed restricted list should also present no conflicts

Sure, if the DoJ and Gardai don't mind the list being empty.

The point about the non-restricted list could be proposed again with us providing the list and being accredited as USAS is in California.

I still don't like that idea so much. We'd have to give a list, so would the ICPSA, the NARGC, the SSAI groups, the practical pistol lads (who, by the way, have no rep at this table because they can't be in the SSAI at the same time as the NTSA). It's more work than keeping the restricted list empty.