Firearms Consultative Panel

dresden8

rrpc wrote: »

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)

okay, they'll get you next budget, if not on this one.

CoachD

Guys,
I have spent the last few hours reading and considering all your views, arguments and differences, everyone in their own way wants to shoot, wheather it be rifle, pistol or shotgun of all calibers, would you not agree? It has been mentioned by a few in their own way "why argue between ourselves"? I would agree that a single "body" is not the answer but surely we can all agree that shooting is our sport and no matter how many different diciplines we create it is still within all our interests to keep it alive and well !! Dont let it slip away because of something that we will regret at a later date. Its not that long ago that this forum would not have existed, dont destroy it now. Some of you were refering to companies, well, a big company is a powerful company, and a big company has a lot of "say", and a big company can have as many different departments as it likes. come on guys, keep it together, lets be one and fight it together for our sport.

dresden8

I have been involved in clubs, committees and ngos for years. Whenever you reach this level of "hobby" involvement you get involved with petty, self obsessed assholes. This has been nobly illustrated in this thread and other threads.

God help all shooters when the **** hits the fan with DOJ shafting everyone. We may be ****ed, but we're all ****ed together. Well Done! You've done yourselves proud.

alan123

Yeah, what a load of tripe. I only came here to get away from the FLAG thread!

Im going to bugger of to the squirrel thread before someone has a go at me!!!

Or better still I might go shooting.

FLAG

alan123 wrote: »

Yeah, what a load of tripe. I only came here to get away from the FLAG thread!

Im going to bugger of to the squirrel thread before someone has a go at me!!!

Or better still I might go shooting.

While you can!

TrapperJohn

FLAG wrote: »

While you can!

Do you know what, I'm terribly dissspointed to see such negative sh"t from someone who in their own words was sworn to defend the rights of shooters no matter what discpline! What I see here is nothing more than parish politics. Let the NGBS sort their representation out amongst themselves, If you don't like iwhat they do, replace them at the next AGM. Otherwise shut the f**k up!. I never voted for flag to represent me and I don't want him/they to do so now! Let the NGB's run the sport as they are elected to do and no body else. I never voted for a sub-committees to do it for me!

Trapper John

FLAG

TrapperJohn wrote: »

Do you know what, I'm terribly dissspointed to see such negative sh"t from someone who in their own words was sworn to defend the rights of shooters no matter what discpline! What I see here is nothing more than parish politics. Let the NGBS sort their representation out amongst themselves, If you don't like iwhat they do, replace them at the next AGM. Otherwise shut the f**k up!. I never voted for flag to represent me and I don't want him/they to do so now! Let the NGB's run the sport as they are elected to do and no body else. I never voted for a sub-committees to do it for me!

Trapper John

Trapper John, please forgive my outburst of pessimism. The week that has been in it has been very stressful for all concerned.

I would be very surprised if our representation over the last years would have satisfied 100% of the shooting community, I am sorry that you feel that your particular views have not been represented, no doubt you have passed your specific requirements to whatever shooting club/association, organisation that you belong to so that you are not totally left out in the cold.

Of course if you could be specific about what you in particular needs then maybe they can be attended to? However by the tone of you mail I doubt very much if anyone could actually represent your needs.
On the point of representation, the events of the last two weeks have clearly shown that the structure of the SSAI with its constituent associations making decisions on behalf of the shooting clubs in this country, clearly got it wrong on this one and do not represent the views of the grass roots. At this point in time I would say that their is at the very least 90% of the rifle and pistol clubs in the country calling for the SSAI to reverse their decision, if you have not already visited the petition site then you should and you will clearly see considerable support for FLAG (Firearms Legislation Advisory Group), both national and international.

I do not have the benefit of knowing exactly who you?

You clearly know who I am, it must feel great to be able to vent your anger on a boards that allows you to hide behind an assumed name.

In any case we will struggle on and do the best we can for those who do feel well represented.

Declan Keogh
Chairman
FLAG
Firearms Legislation Advisory Group

Kryten

I have been asked to post the following message by a concerned shooter. He is not a member of boards but does tune in from time to time.

As a dedicated pistol shooting enthusiast, who for thirty two years had been deprived the right to participate in the sport of target pistol shooting, by the then Firearms Temporary Custody order of 1972.

I am deeply concerned that the National Shooting Organisations, and the members of such organisations, appear to have learned nothing from the events of 1972.

This is apparent by the continous bickering and sniping appearing on Boards week after week. I am also concerned by the recent actions and, in my opinion, incompetent decisions taken by the committee of the SSAI in replacing FLAG, who have for many years been negotiating with the Department Of Justice on our behalf. They have aquired the necessary experience in dealing with such departments and it would be unwise to change the negotiating panel at this crucial stage with people who through no fault of their own, dont have the necessary skills to engage with department officials, who are expert in debate and politics. It is their "Day Job" as it were.

If we wish for pistol shooting as a Sport to survive and flourish within the Republic of Ireland, the bickering must STOP. Personal differences must be put aside and all must work together in the interest of our sport. Otherwise history may repeat itself.ie:1972. We must realise that the sport is bigger than any one individual. Rather than snipe and pick at one another, why not offer some suggestions.


Message ends.....

Regards

Sparks

FLAG wrote: »

On the point of representation, the events of the last two weeks have clearly shown that the structure of the SSAI with its constituent associations making decisions on behalf of the shooting clubs in this country

...which you drafted yourself...

clearly got it wrong on this one

...no they didn't, they just didn't do what you wanted them to do...

and do not represent the views of the grass roots

...according to you alone, everyone I've spoken to in the trade and the sport is quite glad you're out of it and utterly unsurprised you're now whining like this in public despite years of insisting that such things had to stay out of public view...

At this point in time I would say that their is at the very least 90% of the rifle and pistol clubs in the country calling for the SSAI to reverse their decision

...of course you'd say that, but that doesn't mean it's what's actually happening....

if you have not already visited the petition site then you should

...damn right, it's good for a laugh, especially the way you can post as many times as you want and it's all counted as seperate votes, and the way that the majority of those supporting Declan are anonymous people or people who've had fallings out with the SSAI in the last year or two...

and you will clearly see considerable support for FLAG (Firearms Legislation Advisory Group), both national and international.

...International meaning "from Jersey"...

You clearly know who I am, it must feel great to be able to vent your anger on a boards that allows you to hide behind an assumed name.

...I notice it's not a hinderance to posting on your petition site though...

In any case we will struggle on and do the best we can for those who do feel well represented.

Really? Do tell. The FLAG has just been told by its parent body that its services are no longer required (actually, that's a little simplistic - Declan was told he'd be third chair not the lead representative, and he declined that arrangement and is now whining about not being picked first, and as a result, the SSAI is getting a first-hand look at what everyone who's had actual dealings - as opposed to a ten-minute phone call - with Declan for the past decade or so has known, so if FLAG is disbanded as a result of this, it shouldn't shock anyone) and your response is that you'll represent them whether they want that or not? Well, that's a pretty good indication as to why we're here, isn't it?

At any rate, the thread where we argue over the SSAI's choice of representative has been closed because of a libel threat from Declan, so I think we can cease discussing this particular line now. This thread's for discussion of the FCP itself, not the SSAI.

Sparks

As I said, this thread is for the discussion of the FCP. Not for discussion of who the reps will be. Posts on that topic are going to be punted to the thunderdome, since we can't seem to discuss them in here without FLAG threatening to sue the forum for libel.

Bananaman

I would like to start by pointing out that I am not making any form of a personal attack but feel that as both a boards Admin and a long term commentator on the shootng sports you are in a unique position to help with what is becoming a problem on these boards. I don't personally know you and as such can not comment on you and will not attempt to do so.

Many of the topics here have devolved into all out cat fights and have been closed or ignored due to it and in the long run have never answered the question that was raised or concerns that people have voiced have been lost in the shouting.

If the other thread
(http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055172806)
is to discuss the SSAI Representation on the FCP, in the interests of fairness, can we please change it's title to reflect that. Can it not be on the shooting forum where shooters will find it?

I would also suggest posting a message on that thread listing the petitions for and against the proposal to allow people to reach their own conclusions. Please take the high ground on this.

The topic was started, purely to gauge public interest, support and comment on the change in representation - lets leave it at that.

Insinuations that the petitions are in some way false are unnecessary - they are in a public arena with the admins able to keep them clean - both have had a number of duplicates, both accidental and deliberate, that have been cleaned up in the interest of fairness. Let them tell their own story.

I am assured that all entries, including the anonymous ones, contains a valid email address - it is simply not available to the public - which it totally understandable.

In terms of litigation and threats thereof - we ALL need to try to not allow these situations to arise. Everyone has their own opinion but lets try to refrain from voicing specific "beliefs" about individuals in a public forum and leading to this.

We can all discuss someones beliefs in a constructive way without apportioning blame and leading to a flame trail.

There have been a number of topics raised that we all (combatants included) know their will be no outcome to. That is not a helpful approach as it simply muddies the water.

The initial fires on THIS thread seem to have abated somewhat - I am hoping that in the embers of those flames we will find peoples actual concerns with regard to the FCP.

B'Man

Bananaman

Again I would like to point out that this is not a personal attack on anyone.

I know Declan and as I pointed out earlier in this thread he has been present, as an RO or competitor, at almost every event I have taken part in. Regardless of which, I will not comment on him either.

As a member of FLAG and another long term commentator on these boards he is also in a unique position to help with the problems that are becoming apparent on these boards.

People may agree or disagree but there is thread and petitions for them to voice that.

This thread is about the FCP - If we voice our concerns and questions here - I know that Declan will provide some insght and perhaps voice what he believes to be a likely outcome.

At least I hope so. We all know what is going on with the representation for SSAI issue and we have all seen the flames that have evolved from earlier topics on these boards. I hope that these have not smothered that source of information.

I hope (and am fairly confident that) that Declan with also take the high ground here and not be baited off the topic to hand as regardless of whether or not you support the motion to have him be in the FCP we all will benefit from his experience.

B'Man

Bananaman

The main topic of conversation with respect to the FCP over the last months and years has been the concept of the restricted List.

Im my opinion there has been a lot of faffing about as to what calibres etc. will be on this list. Surely, if the concept of "restricted" is reasonable it doesn't matter. You will ALWAYS require a legitimate "use" - currently the only thing standing in your way is your local station or super either not understanding the process or being unwilling to progress it.

I am making some sweeping assumptions here so bear with me .... if restricted means that you must have secure storage, monitored alarm and that the application must be dealt with by a dedicated office in the park - I can only see that as a good thing.

A dedicated dept would find their feet, develop an understanding of what is involved and in time, expedite the process where it is going to succeed.

Secure storage and alarm only makes sense in an urban setting regardless of calibre, even if all you have is an airgun -

a) It's expensive
b) you will have a hard time getting another if you had one robbed
c) The robbery of legally held firearms is ALWAYS brought up in the Dáil - We need to help get these numbers down for PR purposes.

In a rural setting there are untold shotguns and .22 rifles under beds and behind doors so the adminstration would be a nightmare to attempt to apply such restrictions to those.

Questions or comments on a postcard to......

B'Man

IRLConor

Bananaman wrote: »

In a rural setting there are untold shotguns and .22 rifles under beds and behind doors so the adminstration would be a nightmare to attempt to apply such restrictions to those.

That said, even if they don't force secure storage on those it's probably a good idea for the shooting community as a whole to try and encourage people to better secure their firearms. Get people into the mindset of making it as hard as possible for a criminal to steal their guns (safes/locks/whatever) and also making it harder for the criminal to end up with a usable firearm (separation of gun, action and ammo where possible).

Something that could be good PR for all of the NGBs right now would be for them to publicly send a message to their members encouraging them to secure their firearm and maybe even giving some general advice on how to go about it. It would have the added bonus of saying to the TDs who are bringing it up in the Dáil "Hey, we don't like stolen guns either!".

Sparks

The FCP isn't just about the restricted list, though that's a good chunk of it; there's also the licence fees, and perhaps most important of all, the guidelines issued by the Minister/Commissioner to the Superintendents on how to apply the firearms acts. Those are the real meat of the FCP's work to be honest.

Bananaman

Then by all means let us discuss them.

To start with I simply want to get some clarification as to the defintion of restricted in the context of the firearms restricted list.

B'Man

Sparks

Statement put out by the FCP bodies:

OVERVIEW OF THE NEW FIREARMS LICENSING CODE.
BRIEFING FOR THE SHOOTING COMMUNITY.

ISSUED JOINTLY BY THE ASSOCIATIONS LISTED IN THE APPENDIX TO THIS BRIEF

The work of the Firearms Consultative Panel has been making substantial progress. All shooting associations have been taking a very active part and there can be no argument but that every shooting representative has argued passionately for the cause of shooters and they continue to do so as there is still much to be achieved.

The principal developments to date are:

1.GUIDELINES:
Guidelines for the administration of the firearms licensing code will shortly be agreed with significant input and change from the shooting associations. It is envisaged that the completed document will be widely available on websites and in other public areas. The Garda response to the input of the shooting associations is now back with the shooting associations for consideration.

2 MENTAL/PHYSICAL HEALTH:
The questions on mental/physical health, where they would apply, have been agreed to be time limited to the preceding 5 years.

3. MINIMUM STANDARDS OF HOME SECURITY:
The minimum standards of home security have been agreed:

LEVEL 1: It shall be sufficient where the license holder has only a single shotgun that it be broken down into it’s component parts and each part hidden separately. A gun cabinet is not required.

LEVEL 2: In the case of up to and including four non-restricted firearms, the minimum requirement should be a gun safe which meets an agreed specification and it should be bolted to a solid block or concrete wall where possible. Ammunition and component parts such as rifle bolts, pistol slide bars or shotgun fore ends should be stored separately in a secure and safe place.

LEVEL 3: Where five non-restricted firearms or more or even one restricted firearm is kept, the minimum requirement should be the same as for level 2 but in addition, the premises should have an alarm fitted (non monitored) and the external house door should be fitted with locks to BS3621 standard.

N.B. In all levels, the Superintendent for the area concerned will still have authority to require a higher level of security in circumstances where a demonstrable security concern arises. However, should it prove to be the case that Superintendents, or their Crime Prevention Officers, are insisting on higher security levels in all or a significantly high number of cases, it has been agreed that the matter will be referable back to the Firearms Consultative Panel to be dealt with.

It was further agreed that when travelling with a firearm, the firearm should be in a case or sleeve locked in the boot of the vehicle and should not, where possible, be accessible to passengers travelling in the vehicle. (The Gardai have indicated they may yet wish to discuss further this particular element of security while travelling in so far as short firearms are concerned.) It was further agreed that the carrying of short firearms by certificate holders in public places in particular should not occur and legislation may be required to address this issue. Furthermore, it was agreed that under no circumstances should firearms be left in vehicles overnight and where this occurs, resulting in the theft of the firearm, it will be regarded as negligence by the licence holder.

Central storage of firearms at authorised ranges may also be an option.

4. MINIMUM STANDARDS OF COMPETENCE:
The minimum standards of competence have been agreed. While the courses conducted by all national shooting associations will exceed the standard, it was necessary to set the minimum standard of competence to cater for those applicants who are not members of shooting associations and therefore do not have access to the courses. This has been achieved by the drafting of a national safety book which addresses the typical safety concerns and issues for the different shooting disciplines. It has been drafted by the shooting associations and will be widely published and available on various websites. Applicants will be required to obtain a copy of the book and indicate at the time of application that they have read the section applicable to the type of shooting for which the firearms certificate is sought and that they understand what they have read.

National associations will be required to lodge copies of their syllabuses with the Firearms Section at Garda HQ.

5. FEE STRUCTURE:
The last increase in the fee level was in 1992 and before that 1964! The Department of Justice will not seek to make a profit from license fee revenue but neither will the Department subsidise it. For the first three-year licence period, the Department of Justice will not seek to increase overall revenue income but will offset the cost of the scheme by savings which will be achieved in lower administration costs of the three-year licence.

All firearms will attract the same fee irrespective of whether the firearm is a shotgun, second/subsequent shotgun, rifle or pistol.

The fee per firearm will be based for the first three-year licence period on the total revenue in 2007 divided by the total number of firearms registered in 2007, multiplied by three. Based on the figures which were placed before the Panel at the time this structure was agreed, this would appear to indicate a fee per firearm somewhere in the order of €66 for the first three-year licensing period. However, the fee may vary slightly as the agreed structure for arriving at the fee will take account of the final revenue and final number of firearms registered in 2007.

The training licence fee will be 50% of the normal fee.

6. RESTRICTED LIST:
The long awaited Statutory Instrument (S.I. 21 of 2008) on restricted firearms was finally signed by the Minister on 12th of February 2008. It must be emphasised that restricted firearms MAY BE LICENSED!! They will be authorised by an officer of higher rank than a Superintendent who is nominated by the Garda Commissioner.

What is not restricted:
Short firearms capable of firing only blank ammunition.
Shotguns capable of carrying not more than 3 cartridges (plugged).
All rifles (single shot, semi auto and bolt action) up to and including .308 (7.62 millimetres) and whose overall length is greater than 90 centimetres.
Single-shot, repeating or semi-automatic rim-fire firearms designed to fire rim-fire percussion ammunition and with a magazine having a capacity of not more than 10 rounds.
Air operated rifled or smoothbore long firearms.
Pistols of calibres .177 air and .22 designed for use in Olympic competition.
Silencers for long rifled rim-fire firearms.

What is restricted: (This is not an exhaustive list)
Shotguns with magazines capable of carrying more than three cartridges.
Shotguns with individual pistol grips (as opposed to normal stocks), folding or telescopic stocks.
Shotguns with a barrel length less than 60.9 centimetres (24 inches).
Assault rifles, or rifles that resemble assault rifles.
Rifles of bull pup design.
Rifles with magazines which carry more than 10 cartridges.
All handguns other than .177 air and .22 used in Olympic competition.
Slug ammunition for shotguns.
Grenades, bombs and other similar missiles.
Accelerator, incendiary or sabot ammunition.
Ammunition for restricted or prohibited firearms.
Moderators (silencers) for firearms larger than .22 calibre.

It is now hoped that the Panel will shortly be able to roll out the timescale for the introduction of all phases of the new Licensing Code.
The Minister will launch a major conference on the new licensing code, on the 8th and 9th of May 2008. A draft programme and agenda for that conference has already been circulated. While the conference will be by invitation only, as to leave it otherwise open would present enormous logistical problems, all interested parties will be represented. It will also be the first time that members of the shooting public and members of the Garda Siochana, particularly those responsible for firearms licensing and firearms policy, have been put together in the same room for the sole purposes of discussing, examining and evaluating the administration of firearms licensing in Ireland with particular reference to the new licensing code. Speakers from abroad from both the shooting world and regulatory authorities will also be participating at the conference along with Officials from key Irish Government Departments, sporting bodies, politicians, shooting representatives, the media etc
7. RELOADING:
Following advice from the Attorney General, the DOJ had decided to pause for thought on the advisability of allowing the reloading of ammunition in private homes by citizens. The Department has issued a discussion document on the subject setting out the pros and cons from it’s point of view and has invited submissions from the shooting interests.

8. TRAINING LICENCE
Discussion is ongoing regarding the new training licence which hopefully will result in the licence being applicable to a class of firearm rather than a particular firearm.

9. GARDA HQ
A new firearms policy unit is being established at Garda HQ which is intended will finally ensure consistency and service to the licensing regime. Also, a new firearms licensing training programme for Gardai has been announced.

10. THREE YEAR LICENCE
The new three year licence will not be available until 2009. Therefore, all licences will be renewed in August 2008 as usual. It is also the case that payment of fees for both new applications and renewals will be contracted out, as will the printing of firearms licences.

11. FIREARMS DEALERS:
Much attention has been focused on the criteria for granting of Dealers Licences.
The number of Dealers Licences has fallen dramatically in recent years. As of February 2008 there are 227 Registered Firearms Dealers in the State with a further 108 licensed to sell Shotgun Cartridges and .22 ammunition only. At the turn of the millennium there were in excess of 700 dealers. This number has already been greatly reduced.

Dealers Licences will in future be for 3 years and will cost €340.

Minimum standards are proposed for new registrations and for renewals after 3 years of all existing Dealers’ licences in areas of:

Planning - premises must comply with planning laws for storage & retailing.

Certificate of Tax compliance.

Suitability of premises in terms of security, monitored alarms, CCTV etc.

A minimum level of turnover has been suggested for restricted firearms dealers to ensure that only bone fide traders will be awarded licences.

For the new category of Dealers in Restricted Firearms it has been suggested that applicants must have a clean track-record of at least 3 years as an “ordinary” Firearms Dealer to be considered.

The Department of Justice has agreed to look at the question of allowing the maintenance of Firearms Registers electronically rather than the present hand-written books.

Other areas of discussion with the Department include the failure of the relevant authorities to-date in eliminating cross-border movements of ammunition etc, without proper documentation.

The current refusal by the DOJ to allow dealers to import handguns is still a matter of contention. The Department does however realise that individual importation by end-users is not satisfactory and accepts that a solution has to be found.

Unfortunately, much of the thinking in the Department with regard to Firearms Dealers’ issues is based on the Survey conducted by Lansdowne Market Research. The Department is happy with the level of response to this survey at 37%. However the average annual turnover in firearms sales among the 122 dealers responding to the survey was only € 18,300, which suggests that few of the larger dealers responded.

12. TARGET SHOOTING
The Firearms Consultative Panel (FCP) established Sub-Group Two to examine and report on the minimum standards for the following:
In the case of a Shooting Club:
 The security of the premises
 The membership of the Club
 The management of the Club

In the case of a Shooting Range:
 The security of the Range
 The membership of the Range
 The management of the Range
 The design, construction and maintenance of the Range
 The types of firearms and ammunition to be used on the Range
 The levels of competence of persons using the Range

(Game Clubs and clay pigeon shooting ranges are not considered within CJA 2006 and were not considered as part of the sub-groups deliberations. However, it is recommended that each Game Club should be encouraged to appoint a liaison officer to maintain formal contact with An Garda Síochána.)

The requirement for a club to be properly established
A. It is suggested that clubs must be properly established before they can be considered for authorisation by An Garda Síochána, in accordance with the S 33 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006.
B. That in order to be properly established each club should have at least a recognised Chair, Club Secretary and Training Officer
C. The club must have an agreed constitution and should consist of at least five active members. The club should also have a geographical location associated with it.
D. It was recognised that whilst all shooting clubs and shooting ranges must be authorised by An Garda Síochána, only shooting ranges will need to be certified by the Department of Justice Equality and Law Reform.
E. The application fee for a club or a range will be €100 and will be subject to review by the FCP after a period of one year.

Shooting Clubs
A. The membership of the club will be considered by An Garda Síochana during the authorization process. This will require the secretary of the club, or some other club officer, to present a complete listing of club members to An Garda Síochána during the authorization process.

B. The management of a club will be critical to the efficient running of the club. It is therefore suggested that the club should develop a comprehensive constitution or articles of association and rules and procedures, which address all relevant matters pertaining to the running of the club. A set of Shooting Clubs and Shooting Ranges Regulations should be mandatory for all clubs and ranges. While some clubs are formed as companies limited by guarantee, it is not necessary that clubs be incorporated bodies.
C. Some ranges will operate without any firearms or ammunition storage facilities; others may wish to have an authorisation to store either firearms and/or ammunition. Secure storage guidelines in this situation are being addressed by the sub group.

D. From the safety perspective, it will be crucial for the club to develop and implement a comprehensive series of safety procedures and standard operating processes to ensure the safe and efficient running of the range. Whilst most existing clubs have such procedures in place, it would be advantageous to ensure that as the certification procedures develop, the safety arrangements in ranges throughout the country develop in a similar direction. A set of Shooting Clubs and Shooting Ranges Regulations will be published, which should be mandatory for all ranges. In addition a sample document entitled Range Operating Instructions will also be published. This document is not exhaustive but is offered by way of guidance.

The design, construction and maintainance of a range
A. The Sub-Group have considered it most suitable to adapt the Canadian Guideline document entitled ‘Range Design and Construction Guidelines. There was agreement that this document would be suitable for application in an Irish context. Accordingly, the Sub-Group recommends that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform implement the necessary procedures to ensure that the Canadian authorities grant their consent to the adoption of the document within Ireland.
B. It was agreed that the type of firearms and ammunition to be used on each range should be determined, in the first instance, by the range operator and, subsequently, the limitations imposed would be considered by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the range operator as the range certification is being processed. This should be done in accordance with the adopted guidelines as mentioned above.
C. It was agreed that the issue of the competence levels of shooters on a range was a matter for each range to determine in the context of their range operating instructions and other associated documents. The safety and well being of shooters, spectators and members of the public must be paramount during the conduct of shooting at any facility. New members of a range must be given adequate safety instruction before being allowed to use firearms. This should be enshrined in range regulations.
D. Under the Criminal Justice Act 2006, all shooting ranges must be authorized by the Garda commissioner. A draft form for the application for authorization of a firearms range is under consideration by the panel at present. The Gardai will be able to advise on the development of this form from their perspective following internal consultation. In addition, under the Criminal Justice Act 2006, all shooting ranges must also be certified by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. A draft form for the application for certification of a firearms range is under consideration at present, the Sub-Group will further consider this document.

MATTERS ON WHICH DISCUSSION IS ONGOING AND WHICH ARE STILL OF CONCERN TO THE SHOOTING ASSOCIATIONS.

Training License.
We will continue to press for the license to be issued for a class of firearm rather than for an individual firearm. The training licence simply could not work otherwise. In the longer term, we will press for the minimum age to be reduced below 14 years in line with other EU jurisdictions. Also, we are anxious to see an appeal system put in place where applications fror training licenses are turned down.

EU Firearms Passport.
We wish to see this fully implemented as originally intended. We also want the Gardai to consider early renewal of the EU Firearms Passport to facilitate foreign travel where necessary.

The shooting associations are seeking to have a copy of the EU Pass being acceptable to the Gardai instead of the original, as this causes huge problems for sports shooters wishing to travel to other events while the Gardai are holding the original document for up to one month.

Three Year Licence and Club Membership
We will be addressing the issue of annual membership of clubs in a three year licensing period. Many clubs and associations are concerned that the three year licence does not provide a mechanism for individuals to opt not to renew club membership after the first year. The DOJ appreciates the problem and a solution will be agreed.

The Form of License
The shooting associations still wish to see a different type of licence, possibly a credit card or other suitable type with the holder’s photo.

The form and layout of the new licence is yet to be agreed.

Referees
The definition of referees needs further discussion and clarification as the draft Guidelines and the relevant annex – Annex E – appear to be contradictory. Also, the reference quoted from the Barr Tribunal seems to further confuse matters. It is also the case that young applicants may have difficulty in drawing from a pool of qualified referees from the designated list as they are less likely to be acquainted with the calibre of person who could act referee.

Air Guns
The associations wish to see a lower criteria for the licensing of air guns, which in many countries are not licensed at all.

Silencers
The associations are not happy with the restricting of silencers for all rifles above .22 calibre. We believe the protection of one’s hearing should be sufficient grounds for requiring a silencer for any long gun.



Re-loading
The associations are very concerned with an apparent rowing back on the legislation to allow for the re-loading of ammunition. This is a very common practise in a great many European countries and while the associations note the reported advice of the AG in relation to this matter, they are not at all convinced that the advice bears close scrutiny. This view is held based on what is common practice in a large number of European countries, noticeably without the “consequences” which seem to concern the AG.

Restricted Dealers’ Licenses
The shooting groups are vehemently opposed to the proposal by the DOJ not to allow restricted firearms dealers to import and stock handguns. This proposal is set against a background where dealers will be requested to pay a higher licence fee for the restricted category and where trade is being lost to business interests outside the jurisdiction. It is unanimously felt by the various associations that this is simply unjust.

The issue of compensation for “restricted” stock which has to be disposed of by dealers who will not, for various reasons, qualify as “restricted” dealers, remains of deep concern to the trade. It is felt that the Minister cannot have it every way i.e. directing dealers that they must dispose of their stock by a certain date while at the same time curtailing the opportunities to sell the stock by the creation of a list of restricted firearms which by its very nature dramatically reduces the opportunity to sell. There is a great sense of injustice about this.



March 2008











APPENDIX:

For further information or clarification contact your representative organisation by email only.

Issued on behalf of:

NARGC – Des Crofton – nargc@iol.ie

IFA Countryside – Bernard Phelan – Bernard.phelan@fbd.ie

SSAI – Declan Cahill – shootingsportsireland@gmail.com

Midlands Shooting Centre – John Paul Craven – jpcraven@eircom.net

Countryside Alliance – Lyall Plant – lyall@caireland.org

NTSA – Joe Kinane – joe.kinane@targetshootingireland.org
Liam Crawford – liam.crawford@targetshootingireland.org
Kealan Symes – kealan.symes@targetshootingireland.org

ICPSA – John McCormack – icpsa@eircom.net
Cian Merne – cian.merne@dcu.ie

IGPA & Irish Deer Society – Liam McGarry – lmcgarry@nba.ie

Irish Shooting Association – David Brennan – db@ardeesports.com

Millard Brothers (Ireland) Ltd – Philip Jordan – pjordan@milbro.com

Firearms Dealer – Philip Maher - philip@fishhunt.ie

Grizzly 45

I cant see how the DOJ and Co are thinking they are going to get away with the restrictions to be put on restricted dealers:eek:. Are they not aware that they are leaving themselves well open for an EU court challenge on restrictive practises,free trade and movement of goods???

You cannot under EU law decide on a minimum turnover in a busisness to grant further priviliges to trade in articles. Called restrictive monoploy I belive.
Nor can U put preconditions on experiance of the dealer to allow trade.Contrary to ALL EU laws on free trade.They are asking for it!!!

rrpc

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

I cant see how the DOJ and Co are thinking they are going to get away with the restrictions to be put on restricted dealers:eek:. Are they not aware that they are leaving themselves well open for an EU court challenge on restrictive practises,free trade and movement of goods???

You cannot under EU law decide on a minimum turnover in a busisness to grant further priviliges to trade in articles. Called restrictive monoploy I belive.
Nor can U put preconditions on experiance of the dealer to allow trade.Contrary to ALL EU laws on free trade.They are asking for it!!!

The DOJELR can decide who they give a licence to, it's perfectly legal to do so where the trade is licensable, the same as pubs etc.

Grizzly 45

Wait and see then RR.
It is not about giving the liscense it is about the preconditions on it...Contrary to EU law.Sorry EU law overides them on this.According to a barrister I asked who specialises in EU law and is willing to take a case should the need arise on this.

rrpc

I wouldn't go jumping into court straight away on this Grizzly, the word used was 'suggested'. I'd imagine the AG will have to look over this before it's published and any anomalies ironed out.

I believe the intention is to put a higher bar on 'restricted' dealers the same as there is on firearms dealers as opposed to ammunition dealers.

Not necessarily something to be opposed IMO.

LadyTBolt

My my my, the FCP have been busy, which is great to see. They do seem to have covered alot of issues which is great. The various levels of home security seems reasonable and well thought through. Also, the new Firearms Policy Unit at Garda HQ is much needed. Well done FCP!!! It'll all come good eventually.

Grizzly 45

What more can U put on a firearms dealer that makes him more safer,competant or otherwise better by saying his turnover must be X thousand a year??In that case a clause could be put in place that you would have to turnover 800K say for arguements sake.
So then it would be only proably a monoply of possibly two dealers in Ireland???? Why does three years make you a safer dealer to deal with restricted firearms??You are either competant to deal firearms by being liscensed by the DoJ or you are not??

Security,what more can you add to a secure premises to make it more secure without making it totally stupid and vexatious???Right you have built a bunker with alarms,cctv,etc.What more ...a moat full of gators and an A10 warthog tank destroyer on call? There is No such thing as total security in this life

I just dont understand their thinking legally here when Ireland has been hauled up on this sort of stuff so many times.Are they REALLY that arrogant to think no one would think or challenge this???

Apart from that and a few other clangers on things. Like reloading, shotgun slugs accelarator ammo and restricting multi shot shotguns ,being abit too ambitious with the liscense fees and three year liscense,and insisting on using CANADA as a good example for firing ranges ???.[.All I can say on that is EH?].It is better,mostly than I expected. So 5.5/10 for attempt,but MUST TRY HARDER

bigred

Well done to those involved. It's good to see solidarity once in a while. Regular communications such as this one vastly improve the visibility of what's being done to improve our sport. It also removes the rumour and misinformation that is sometimes commonplace on this forum.
Good Job!:)

dresden8

It is also the case that payment of fees for both new applications and renewals will be contracted out, as will the printing of firearms licences

Um, surely it will be in the best interest of the contractor to ramp up the cost as much as possible. We've been here before in Ireland.

bullets

WOW!!! Thats great info to see. Especially the bit about the security and
number of firearms etc. It could put an end to Supers with a God Complex
that want crazy things done before they issue you a licence.

One thing I did not see mentioned was anything about the Ammo Limit
or one man one licence.

I know for myself I was refused an ammo increase from 100 to 500 because
I did not have an alarm at the time so where does the likes of that
fall into the play of things.

~B

Great to see the news here.

Would have liked to have gotten it from my NGB though..

IRLConor

Deleted User wrote: »

Great to see the news here.

Would have liked to have gotten it from my NGB though..

It's on their website, front and centre.

ah, i was waiting for an email about it,

I don't check the website that often.

rrpc

Deleted User wrote: »

ah, i was waiting for an email about it,

I don't check the website that often.

It wasn't emailed to people Zara because (a) it's too big, and (b) the mailing list is very small and seems to be out of date. We've been getting complaints from people about stuff going out to them willy-nilly, so it was thought best to put it on the website and here.

The last newsflash on the FCP had 1700+ hits, so the website seems to be the best place.