Firearms Consultative Panel

Kryten

Look at the picture. They are all standing shoulder to shoulder presenting a united front!! :D

Sparks

Yup. A disparate group of individuals, all independent (hence the not using the standard roman army picture from the history books), all looking after their own small space, and yet it's a cohesive and effective overall front. I know it's a bit corny to present ideas this way, but I like the visual metaphor...

NTSA

From the NTSA website:

NTSA Invited to join Firearms Consultative Panel

The NTSA has been invited by the Minister for Justice to nominate a representative to join the Firearms Consultative Panel. This Panel has been set up by the Minister to ensure that the programme of change within the firearms licensing system proceeds smoothly and has regard for all the interests involved including the public interest.

Along with the NTSA and other shooting bodies; An Garda Siochana and various interested Government departments will sit on this panel which will be chaired by the Department of Justice.

The terms of reference for the Panel are as follows:

1. to serve as a forum where all parties can work together to progress issues relating to the new firearms licensing regime;
2. to discuss minimum standards to be complied with by a rifle/pistol club or shooting range;
3. to discuss guidelines on the practical application and operation of the Firearms Acts;
4. to advise on public safety and the conditions which may be attached to firearms certificates and authorisations;
5. to advise on fee levels for firearms related activities and
6. to report to the Minister from time to time on the operation of the new licensing system.
7. to agree and promote guidelines on responsible firearms ownership;

This invitation represents a significant achievement for the NTSA and was made possible through constant contact with the department over the last year through meetings, emails and telephone conversations. For the first time your organisation will have a direct input into a very wide range of areas affecting our members rights and responsibilities as well as future legislation.

We wish to congratulate the Minister on this forward thinking inititaive and look forward to working closely with the members of the Panel to help direct the future path of responsible firearms ownership in Ireland. The committee have nominated the Chairman: Liam Crawford to represent us on the Panel and will keep you informed of further developments.

Sparks

Excellent, good to see it confirmed.

rrpc

It's been confirmed that we've been invited. No confirmation as yet that we will be there, but in view of the fact that others have published their invitations I felt we should do the same.

So far those definitely invited are:

Department of Justice
An Garda Siochana
NTSA
SSAI
ICPSA
Countryside Alliance Ireland.

I would imagine that the NARGC are also invited, but their website has been down for a long time now.

Bananaman

to discuss minimum standards to be complied with by a rifle/pistol club or shooting range;

What body is primarily providing expertise in this area?
Based on a lot of the comments above people are fairly polarised based on their own particular sport which invariably limits their view to certain calibres.

A Range on the other hand must cater for all calibres that fall under the classifications it allows e.g. Fullbore Rifle in essence means anything the Gardai allow.

"We" (The shooting community) should ensure that there are people on the panel who understand what is required and have an understanding of what has worked and what has not worked and what have been stupid recommendations made by previous bodies either in this or other jurisdictions.

I am a little worried when I see comments such as

An SSAI rep is not an NTSA rep, and there's a direct conflict of interest

"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.

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).

Practical Pistol is the IPSA's role (and you know the NTSA can't be involved on an organisational level there because of the ISSF-IPSC dispute)

I read from these a lot of "we're not playing with them coz they took our ball".

I am still not getting a warm fuzzy feeling that the full spectrum of shooting sports are being represented and that the bodies that are represented are politically, possibly morally and in some cases legally obliged to shaft some of the others.

Surely the Department will get the same feeling.

Anyway - who on the body as it stands today will be answering the question as to minimum height of a backstop for an outdoor full bore pistol range for both static and dynamic use?

B'Man

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

What body is primarily providing expertise in this area?
Based on a lot of the comments above people are fairly polarised based on their own particular sport which invariably limits their view to certain calibres.

A Range on the other hand must cater for all calibres that fall under the classifications it allows e.g. Fullbore Rifle in essence means anything the Gardai allow.

Range specifications are not new Bananaman. They've been around for a long time, and all the data realting to calibres and distances is available to anyone. There are and should be differences between range specs for target shooting and for other disciplines such as practical.

"We" (The shooting community) should ensure that there are people on the panel who understand what is required and have an understanding of what has worked and what has not worked and what have been stupid recommendations made by previous bodies either in this or other jurisdictions.

The expertise is certainly available to the NTSA nominee from a number of sources within the organisation. I'm referring to people who have worked with the Garda Ballistics Section and the Army.

An SSAI rep is not an NTSA rep, and there's a direct conflict of interest

Because the other sports the SSAI represent would require as a mminimum, certain firearms that would represent the maximum required by the NTSA. Which led in the past to an offer of the return of certain firearms being rejected because it did not reach that minimum and thus this quote:

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.

Do you understand?

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).
and
Practical Pistol is the IPSA's role (and you know the NTSA can't be involved on an organisational level there because of the ISSF-IPSC dispute)

The ISSF to which the NTSA belong, do not wish to be associated with the IPSC. They have threatened with expulsion and expelled member federations that have formed ties with the IPSC.

I am still not getting a warm fuzzy feeling that the full spectrum of shooting sports are being represented and that the bodies that are represented are politically, possibly morally and in some cases legally obliged to shaft some of the others.

No. there is no obligation to shaft other sports. Everyone at that table will do their best to represent all shooting interests, but you can't expect them not to put their own interests first. That's reality.

Surely the Department will get the same feeling.

The department recognizes the wide range of shoting interests and that is reflected in the diversity of those invited to join.

- who on the body as it stands today will be answering the question as to minimum height of a backstop for an outdoor full bore pistol range for both static and dynamic use?

Many of those present will know the criteria involved. I can give you that information now, if you tell me what distances will be shot, what calibres will be used and what area of ground the range will be on. I will also need to know whether you intend to use baffles and whether the sides of the range will be protected as well.

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

What body is primarily providing expertise in this area?

Currently, the Ministry of Defence in the UK!

I read from these a lot of "we're not playing with them coz they took our ball".

Actually, it's not like that. The NTSA-IPSA relationship is imposed by international stuff. I've had honest talks (last year as the NTSA secretary) with the IPSA people about it, they know precisely what the problem is and that there is no way for the NTSA to avoid it. It's not personal and doesn't apply below the organisational level - ie. people can be both NTSA shooters and IPSA shooters without any problems.

The NTSA-SSAI/NRPAI problem is more fundamental and it is something that has needed to be fixed for years though - but it's not that the NTSA are "legally obliged to shaft the others", it's that the NTSA directors are legally required to act in the best interests of the NTSA members. In other words, the NRPAI might opt to sacrifice pistol shooting in order to pursue fullbore rifle shooting (a decision as hare-brained as it sounds in my opinion because it was an offer that would have given us the thin end of the wedge for everything); but the NTSA would be legally bound not to do so, and if they ignored this and agreed to it, they would be acting ultra vires and the agreement would not be binding in any way.
To me, that's a better way to do things!

Anyway - who on the body as it stands today will be answering the question as to minimum height of a backstop for an outdoor full bore pistol range for both static and dynamic use?

The NTSA, the SSAI and the IPSA would all be able to answer that. And hopefully, the various shooting bodies would meet before the FCP meetings (as no doubt the other "side" would as well) in order to discuss common points of interest on the upcoming agenda items and so forth.

IRLConor

Bananaman wrote: »

I am still not getting a warm fuzzy feeling that the full spectrum of shooting sports are being represented and that the bodies that are represented are politically, possibly morally and in some cases legally obliged to shaft some of the others.

I don't think any of the bodies represented are obliged in any way to shaft any of the others. That said, don't expect any organization to speak in support of another.

To make this clearer:

• I would expect that none of the representatives would badmouth another shooting organization as they would know it would discredit them in the eyes of the DoJ.
• I expect all shooting organizations to concentrate on fully representing their own members. For example, if the NTSA rep spent time arguing in favour of allowing full-auto shotguns to be liberally licensed and in the end no-one could get a pistol license there'd be hell to pay at the next AGM. "Why were you wasting time for stuff we don't do..." etc.
• The NTSA can't promote anything to do with the IPSA without risking retribution from the ISSF. The ISSF as an organization does not like IPSC-style shooting and has prohibited any ISSF member from dealing with or participating in IPSC affairs. Whether this is right or wrong is a whole other debate, but it's a fact of life and both the NTSA and the IPSA have to deal with the consequences.

So, in short, don't expect any representative to speak outside the scope of the sport they're representing in either a positive or negative manner.

rrpc

In any case there are far more areas of agreement between the various bodies than disagreement.

Looking at the terms of reference:
No. 1 is a given
No. 2 - I doubt if anyone will disagree on what constututes responsible firearms ownership
No. 3 - Minimum standards for ranges are fairly basic. The MoD document that Sparks referred is the current basis on which ranges are authorised here. There is certainly room for a reduction in some of the standards depending on the type of shooting and course of fire involved.
No. 4 - I can't see very many causes for disagreement on the application and operation of the Firearms Acts. We all agree that it should be a lot better
No. 5 - Public Safety and conditions attaching to Firearms Certs again should present no causes for disagreement.
No. 6 - And we certainly won't disagree on fees
No. 7 - Can't see a problem with reporting either, because that will be a feedback issue to which everyone here can have an input. In fact that's where Boards will really come into play as a forum for reporting on all aspects of the firearms acts on the ground.

So less of the moaning please. There will be at least 5 representative bodies involved here and this is the first time ever that we as shooters have had an opportunity to be involved at the highest level and in such a consultative capacity.

dresden8

If the DOJ see five fractured organisations at war that will give them the green light to shaft everybody, with the governing bodies blaming each other.

A perfect solution for Justice.

Oh, and don't expect any good news on the fees front, Cowan has a hole in his budget and we're gonna help fill it.

Bananaman

I'm not interested in the details of range specifications - it was just when the list of participating bodies was mentioned above and then the terms of reference for the Panel I didn't see who would be the body that would be able to provide expert opinion on areas such as range specifications.

I was looking at it from the perspecitive of practical pistol/rifle/shotgun as IPSA was not on the list published above.

Questions such as:

if you tell me what distances will be shot, what calibres will be used and what area of ground the range will be on. I will also need to know whether you intend to use baffles and whether the sides of the range will be protected as well.

Prove my point - I think - I'm no expert.

• You could be working with a 180 degree safety angle so you MUST have side berms.
• You could be standing, kneeling, lying prone and changing from one to the other or moving forwards or backwards the full depth of the range all multiple times in the same course of fire so baffles would be useless.
• Practical (any of the disciplines) can range from 5 metre shots to 60 metre shots all in the same course of fire where either the targets are closer to the shooter or the shooter can move forward to close the distance to the target - again negating baffles.
• You could be using anything from a 9mm (minimum calibre allowed for pistol) to 12 gauge slugs on that range
• You could be using paper or steel targets.
• etc.

I'm no expert on Practical either - IPSA are the recognised body - but just these few points outline a few differences that will not be taken into account by ANY other body on the panel as it will NEVER be a consideration in their sport.

Anyway - I'm not looking to start a slagging match here but I just want to be sure all the stuff I do like to do will stay with us - especially dynamic shooting - as it is the new kid on the block and has some obvious problems being supported by some of the more established bodies.

What else would I do?? I don't even remember what non shooting people do at weekends.

B'Man

Sparks

dresden8 wrote: »

If the DOJ see five fractured organisations at war that will give them the green light to shaft everybody, with the governing bodies blaming each other.

For a start, I doubt that the DoJ would be overly intimidated by us even if we had a single body representing every single shooter in the country.

But more importantly, thinking that such a body should exist is wrong. It'd be like thinking that there should be a single body to represent all ball-using sports in the country instead of the the GAA, FAI, IRFU, Basketball Ireland, Bowling League of Ireland, Bol Chumann na hEireann, Irish Tenpin Bowling Association, Irish Cricket Union, Croquet Association of Ireland, Irish American Football Association, Golfing Union of Ireland, Irish Ladies Golf Union, Irish Olympic Handball Association, Irish Hockey Association, Pitch and Putt Union Of Ireland, Racquetball Association Of Ireland, Republic Of Ireland Snooker and Billards Association, Irish Squash, Irish Table Tennis Association, Tennis Ireland, and the Volleyball Association of Ireland.

I mean, frankly, I think five is a very small number by comparison

astraboy

I'm new to shooting compared to alot of people here, and while I only recently joined my local gun club I have done a fair bit of shooting abroad over the past few years. I enjoy shooting, and whats more I would like to enjoy it in Ireland.

What I cannot understand is this. Ireland is a nation of 4 million people, the size of a large US city, less then the population of some states. We have a wide range of shooting organizations, each representing a part of our sport. With shooting being a rather niche sport(in comparsion to soccer for instance) and the views some people have on firearms, should all the groups not find it in ALL of their interests to stand together? The DOJ and guardi see a hunter/targetshooter/Practical shooter as the same, all gun owners, all needing regulation and all asking to keep a firearm in their house.

Now all of ye on here realise that 99.99% of gun owners are not just law abiding, they are THE most law abiding people in the country for fear of damaging their sport, their hobby and the right to carry it out. Divided the shooting organizations will appear fragmented and not be able to gain anything for their members(Us!). Together the organizations can display how important shooting is to many, many people in Ireland and how our sport should be nurtured and seen as an opportunity, not a threat.

Just my 2cents.

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

I was looking at it from the perspecitive of practical pistol/rifle/shotgun as IPSA was not on the list published above.

Yet. There's no reason to exclude them from the panel, frankly.

I'm no expert on Practical either - IPSA are the recognised body - but just these few points outline a few differences that will not be taken into account by ANY other body on the panel as it will NEVER be a consideration in their sport.

Which is why having one body to represent all of us won't ever really work. You need people from all of us for something like this, and yes, that includes the IPSA.

dynamic shooting ... has some obvious problems being supported by some of the more established bodies.

Not by their choice, in fairness.

What else would I do?? I don't even remember what non shooting people do at weekends.

Volunteer for a committee. You'll learn fairly quickly

Sparks

astraboy wrote: »

should all the groups not find it in ALL of their interests to stand together?

Yes, as equals. We've been saying that for years. But standing together does not require that groups merge, just that they don't take lumps out of one another. Well defined areas of responsibility (and some common sense) prevent that.

The DOJ and guardi see a hunter/targetshooter/Practical shooter as the same

Indeed. And that must change. All of us have different needs and requirements and that has to be accounted for when drafting firearms legislation. The sooner we're seen as different groups with commonalities, the better.

Divided the shooting organizations will appear fragmented and not be able to gain anything for their members(Us!). Together the organizations can display how important shooting is to many, many people in Ireland and how our sport should be nurtured and seen as an opportunity, not a threat.

There's no reason that the shooting organisations cannot work together on something like this without merging into one body. There never has been any such reason. The problems usually stem from someone who doesn't see that and tries to force people into an umbrella group (as the ISC did), or who uses such an existing group for things it was never meant for. That's where toes get stepped on and that's where arguments start and that leads to a singe body where everyone in it is at war with everyone else. I'd rather a collection of independent bodies who worked loosely with one another than one body where everyone fought all the time, thanks!

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

I was looking at it from the perspecitive of practical pistol/rifle/shotgun as IPSA was not on the list published above.
I'm no expert on Practical either - IPSA are the recognised body - but just these few points outline a few differences that will not be taken into account by ANY other body on the panel as it will NEVER be a consideration in their sport.

It doesn't actually prove your point, it just proves mine. The information is available to anyone as to how to make a range safe for whatever sport you are doing. The questions I asked would be asked of anyone wanting to design a range and would then be input into the calculations. For Practical Shooting, the MoD specs would be very effective in designing a safe range. It's just more difficult and more expensive because of the courses of fire. But if it isn't the MoD document, it's just as likely to be some other international standard. We're not going to be writing our own.

Unless of course you are arguing against those specs and looking for a lower spec, which quite honestly I don't think you should.

Anyway - I'm not looking to start a slagging match here but I just want to be sure all the stuff I do like to do will stay with us - especially dynamic shooting - as it is the new kid on the block and has some obvious problems being supported by some of the more established bodies.

And as I've pointed out above, the areas of agreement far outweigh the areas of potential disagreement. Subjects such as range design are most likely to come down to an agreed international standard. We've no need to reinvent the wheel here.

IRLConor

dresden8 wrote: »

Oh, and don't expect any good news on the fees front, Cowan has a hole in his budget and we're gonna help fill it.

Total take from license fees is what? About €10 million? To be honest, that's a drop in the ocean in the scale that the government works on. See here for the current state of the exchequer (up to the end of September).

rrpc

IRLConor wrote: »

Total take from license fees is what? About €10 million? To be honest, that's a drop in the ocean in the scale that the government works on. See here for the current state of the exchequer (up to the end of September).

And as the terms of reference of the FCP include the fee issue, the Minister is hardly likely to pre-empt the decisions there for the sake of a tiny part of the budget which would be wiped out by a half days health spending.

Croppy Boy

Sorry for intruding here but I was just taking a gander through the thread and noticed:

You can't be a member of the SSAI - only the NGBs can be members of the SSAI

Actually an individual can join the SSAI for €20 a year.
Just my 2c.

Rew

rrpc wrote: »

The expertise is certainly available to the NTSA nominee from a number of sources within the organisation. I'm referring to people who have worked with the Garda Ballistics Section and the Army.

The Army brought in guys form the UK recently to access their ranges which were all built by the british Army about 100 years ago!

rrpc

Croppy Boy wrote: »

Sorry for intruding here but I was just taking a gander through the thread and noticed:

"You can't be a member of the SSAI - only the NGBs can be members of the SSAI"

Actually an individual can join the SSAI for €20 a year.
Just my 2c.

Hmmm...

From the SSAI Constitution:

1. Membership of the SSAI shall be open to National Governing Body’s (NGB’s) of shooting sports that encompass target shooting in a type or form that complies with the rules, activities, principles and constitution of the: SSAI - Federation.

rrpc

Rew wrote: »

The Army brought in guys form the UK recently to access their ranges which were all built by the british Army about 100 years ago!

And the new Range Inspector (under the 2006 Act) is Comdt. John Guinane. Appointed in August this year.

dresden8

Total take from license fees is what? About €10 million? To be honest, that's a drop in the ocean in the scale that the government works on. See here for the current state of the exchequer (up to the end of September).

Good luck with that so.

Bananaman

1. Membership of the SSAI shall be open to National Governing Body’s (NGB’s) of shooting sports that encompass target shooting in a type or form that complies with the rules, activities, principles and constitution of the: SSAI - Federation.

Nothing there says an individual cannot be a member.

Croppy Boy

rrpc said

Hmmm...

Yep, they brought it in a few months ago. I was sent a form but it seems to have got mislaid

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

Nothing there says an individual cannot be a member.

Depends on how you define member. If you define it as someone who can vote at meetings than you are not a member according to the SSAI constitution.

Otherwise. Yes, no problem.

dresden8

Sparks wrote: »

For a start, I doubt that the DoJ would be overly intimidated by us even if we had a single body representing every single shooter in the country.

But more importantly, thinking that such a body should exist is wrong. It'd be like thinking that there should be a single body to represent all ball-using sports in the country instead of the the GAA, FAI, IRFU, Basketball Ireland, Bowling League of Ireland, Bol Chumann na hEireann, Irish Tenpin Bowling Association, Irish Cricket Union, Croquet Association of Ireland, Irish American Football Association, Golfing Union of Ireland, Irish Ladies Golf Union, Irish Olympic Handball Association, Irish Hockey Association, Pitch and Putt Union Of Ireland, Racquetball Association Of Ireland, Republic Of Ireland Snooker and Billards Association, Irish Squash, Irish Table Tennis Association, Tennis Ireland, and the Volleyball Association of Ireland.

I mean, frankly, I think five is a very small number by comparison

Indeed. But there are very few people out there who want to ban balls, just because they are in fact balls. A lot of people would be happy if guns, whatever sport they are used for would disappear entirely.

dresden8

rrpc wrote: »

And as the terms of reference of the FCP include the fee issue, the Minister is hardly likely to pre-empt the decisions there for the sake of a tiny part of the budget which would be wiped out by a half days health spending.

Anyone remember the savage 16? Pissed off people on 16 fronts for about 60 million in total. The Department of Finance would cut your arm off for an extra 10m. Anyway, doesn't have to be done immediately in the budget. Can be done later and get you on your renewal.

All that extra money going to the Gardai is going to have to be found somewhere. Why not off all the people who cause them so much extra clerical work and keep them from their gang-busting fantasies, I mean work?

rrpc

dresden8 wrote: »

Anyone remember the savage 16? Pissed off people on 16 fronts for about 60 million in total. The Department of Finance would cut your arm off for an extra 10m. Anyway, doesn't have to be done immediately in the budget. Can be done later and get you on your renewal.

Has to be done in the budget because firearms licence fees are a duty and have to be imposed by an act of the Dail.

Not that they have to this time anyway, the last finance act brought in an increase which was never imposed because of the uproar. It can be dredged up again at the stroke of a pen.

I have to revise my estimate and say that the firearms licence fees will pay for 5 hours health spending (assuming a 24 hour spending day)