Some clearence on the reloading issue???

Vegeta

It wasn't me! wrote: »

It's speculation based on logic, to be honest. The Gardai are not irrational robot types. They're just people, with a sense of proportion, and they'll almost certainly be happier to have these guidelines now to help them in their decisions. They're not out to make big executive calls and take a quiet campaign against shooters.

Have you been around this forum long. All I need to do is start a thread about "How did your license application go?" and people will post a torrent of abuse about the gardai.
All you have to do is look at the front page to see how a guy was given a cover note to go collect a gun when he didn't even have a license. Madness.
We are a tiny representation of shooters yet lots of us have horror stories of license applications. You seem to think these guidelines are a cure to stubborn Supers.

Have you ever had any hassle when getting a license?

What exactly are you preparing for, and what are you doing to prepare for it? I don't see how you can do anything beyond wait and see, but really, this is not going to be some mad end of the world scenario. It's incredibly overhyped and tempers are up as is, over what is in essence a storm in a teacup.

I am concentrating on 3 things which will effect me

Reloading, full bore sound moderators and legit reasons for the issue of permission to use one (I want one and my Super will not grant one of any description to anyone (fullbore, rimfire) no matter what reason is given, point blank refusal) and finally plinking/zeroing/informal target shooting.

I am currently trying to draft a mail for all the clubs I am a member of, who are on the FCP and the DoJ folk involved.

It may be useless but at least I did something

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

well Sparks maybe you have loads of time to be ringing the DOJ about every last letter you sent in.I dont.I send them in about things that are revelant to shooting,and one accepts that they are read or not,and thats it.

So you've a day job, but they don't?

Nope ,but there are plenty that says lads make us money ,and we wont bother you.Have a good cut yourselves and we are all fine NCT and NRA being two fine examples.

That's technically one example, and not actually a valid one, since the NRA is not an NGO, they're a state body.

So it was good to make noise now ,but not then pre 1990s?

Wrong again - the point is not to make noise, the point is to get things done. And pre-90s, I don't think we ever had a hope, not with the north putting public opinion where it was - any politician trying to rescind the TCO would have been committing political suicide for a measure that would probably have been overturned within weeks if not sooner.

Plus the minor matter of Europe having a say in that.CONTRAY to all assertations about to be presented that the EU has nothing to do with internal firearms policy.

The EU would not have been involved. EU firearms law specifically states it does not override local firearms law. And holding a firearm is not recognised by the EU as a human right so there's basicly no avenue to bring them in.

Ye can all sit here and bang on the DOJ door again and fight another 30 years,because you were duped down the garden path by a very coniving yet again Irish Govt dept.

OR, we could finally drop this useless dross of trying to "fight the good fight", "all stand together", "go down swinging" and "not living on our knees". :rolleyes:
See, that's the bit I never understood. We all wanted to go to the range (or wherever) and shoot. That's what we want. So why the bloody hell do some of us seem to get off so much on the whole "fight the man" trip?

It wasn't me!

Vegeta wrote: »

Have you been around this forum long. All I need to do is start a thread about "How did your license application go?" and people will post a torrent of abuse about the gardai.

Which is pretty much the problem. It's not as if firearms licensing is their only job, or their top priority. It's the paperwork aspect of the job which everyone, regardless of occupation, will avoid like the plague. "A bloody shootout in which I might be killed you say? I'll do it! Anything to avoid this mountain of feckin' paper!"

All you have to do is look at the front page to see how a guy was given a cover note to go collect a gun when he didn't even have a license. Madness.
We are a tiny representation of shooters yet lots of us have horror stories of license applications.

Pretty easy to imagine how that happened tbh, someone got wires crossed, thought they had the go-ahead to issue a covering note and did so while the application was actually refused, or the go-ahead was given and then the paperwork was lost and forgotten about and there was no aggrieved would-be shooter to complain about not having a gun, so it was further forgotten about. Silly stuff really, on both counts, but mistakes which can very easily happen in all walks of life.

Have you ever had any hassle when getting a license?

Apart from them not calling when it arrived, no, and if I ever do, I'll just work through it with them, as that's going to benefit my relationship with them in the long run, and probably speed up matters in the short term.

It may be useless but at least I did something

Nah, they're all good ideas to get working on, and at least you are doing something. The thing I have a problem with is irrational anger with regard to the Gardai and the DoJ, but I especially dislike it when it's coming from the crowd who aren't doing anything to help it either.

It wasn't me!

Sparks wrote: »

we could finally drop this useless dross of trying to "fight the good fight", "all stand together", "go down swinging" and "not living on our knees". :rolleyes:
See, that's the bit I never understood. We all wanted to go to the range (or wherever) and shoot. That's what we want. So why the bloody hell do some of us seem to get off so much on the whole "fight the man" trip?

Agreed. What I've been trying to say, just put somewhat better.

Vegeta

Sparks wrote: »

So why the bloody hell do some of us seem to get off so much on the whole "fight the man" trip?

They wont let me bring my gun to work and boards isn't blocked yet

Considering the DoJ told us to "Bend over, this one is going in dry" with the CJA 2006, I know you agree there Sparks, I am a little aprehensive that the FCP is damage limitation rather than huge progression.

The FCP is 2 years too late to be 100% honest. None of this is their fault though and they are playing a blinder but only time will tell how this will play out.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

OH DUH!!! Yes I have read it! Now it finally dawns on you why I have said dont trust them??:rolleyes:

I wanted to respond to this seperately because you've missed my point. The CJA gives the DoJ the power to ban us all overnight. Immediately. Right now. Hell, months ago. Trust them? You're asking the equivalent of whether or not we should trust the pilot of the airliner we're flying on. It's not something there's a choice in - either yes, and you fly, or no and you don't (or you go to another airliner or take another flight). Same thing here. Either you go along with the FCP route or we go back to the good old days, but now without the legal avenue of the courts to use to protest internal DoJ policy on firearms licencing. I can't stress how fundamentally irrelevant the issue of trust is here.

Sparks

Vegeta wrote: »

The FCP is 2 years too late to be 100% honest.

I'd have said six myself - but the upside is that now we have all the shooting bodies going in and officially meeting with the DoJ instead of the old way of doing things. That is, in and of itself, a major step forward, even if it can't do much for us with regard to the CJA (which I agree, they really can't, though they could still do useful damage limitation).

Vegeta

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Which is pretty much the problem. It's not as if firearms licensing is their only job, or their top priority. It's the paperwork aspect of the job which everyone, regardless of occupation, will avoid like the plague. "A bloody shootout in which I might be killed you say? I'll do it! Anything to avoid this mountain of feckin' paper!"

The paper work will still have to be completed after the guidelines come out, using the above logic the situation will not improve.

The thing I have a problem with is irrational anger with regard to the Gardai and the DoJ, but I especially dislike it when it's coming from the crowd who aren't doing anything to help it either.

I suppose all I want from the Gardai and DoJ is to be dealt with fairly and professionally.

It wasn't me!

Vegeta wrote: »

The paper work will still have to be completed after the guidelines come out, using the above logic the situation will not improve.

I suppose all I want from the Gardai and DoJ is to be dealt with fairly and professionally.

Well, now there's a framework in place to make things smoother. You will never conquer human laziness (how many are engaging in this debate from work computers/college libraries?), but this might speed things up slightly. Do you feel as though you've been treated inordinately unfairly? You are applying for licences to carry firearms after all; it's not a matter to be taken lightly and it's quite a privilege. As a rule it doesn't take stupidly long, and at least they're not being handed out like sweets.

Vegeta

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Do you feel as though you've been treated inordinately unfairly?

In some cases, yes. For example the Super will not grant permission for a moderator, no matter what, to anyone. That is not fair.

You are applying for licences to carry firearms after all; it's not a matter to be taken lightly and it's quite a privilege.

I understand this, I am a very practical person but currently we are not all being treated the same. I am not talking about waiting times in particular either more along the lines of Super to Super variance

For example my brother has a fullbore pistol and needed nothing bar a valid reason, his range membership. This is pracically nothing compared to others

The .223 issue in Kilkenny

Permission for moderators.

I know the guidelines should (please god) clear this type of thing up but you asked about unfair treatment in the past. There is a good bit of it

It wasn't me!

Well, you said it yourself, now we have what should prove the solution to these problems. Personally, I think moderators, like scopes, should be available over the counter, but we'll have to see how everything is implemented now in May. I'm carefully optimistic though. I think this has been a big advancement.

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

I wanted to respond to this seperately because you've missed my point. The CJA gives the DoJ the power to ban us all overnight. Immediately. Right now. Hell, months ago. Trust them? You're asking the equivalent of whether or not we should trust the pilot of the airliner we're flying on. It's not something there's a choice in - either yes, and you fly, or no and you don't (or you go to another airliner or take another flight).

to use this analogy. One gets on a plane in the safe asumption that the person flying the plane is qualified and knows the aircraft,mechanically,technically and knows the ins and outs of aerodynamics. But supposing your pilot was brought up the ranks from flight school,by how much paperwork he processed in a month,inter office flight schol politics and brown nosing, clerical promotions & reviews,and stated that he doesnt like aeroplanes,cos the crash and might kill people and quite frankly has never been in one.But he knows where the cockpit is so that makes him an expert..Would you get on a plane with that??

Same thing here. Either you go along with the FCP route or we go back to the good old days, but now without the legal avenue of the courts to use to protest internal DoJ policy on firearms licencing. I can't stress how fundamentally irrelevant the issue of trust is here.

Well then can we work at least with people who know what they are talking about???That might allay some peoples fears.

Traumadoc

I have all the equipment, but have not reloaded since my return to Ireland. Could I ask for compensation if the legislation is not enacted?

Grizzly 45

[No Sparks ,just too busy to chase up everything.My day should have 48 hours ,not 24.

Wrong again - the point is not to make noise, the point is to get things done. And pre-90s, I don't think we ever had a hope, not with the north putting public opinion where it was - any politician trying to rescind the TCO would have been committing political suicide for a measure that would probably have been overturned within weeks if not sooner

I see,so dont make noise at all.It will be returned to you somtime within the next 50 years.Some people do make noise 35 years later when the Govt had no good reason to not return Irish citizens property[even if they had good reason in the NI troubles time] and get their guns back ,and allowing for all of us to apply for our stuff.
It was wrong to make noise from them according to you,but indirectly you benefitted from it.Then when the Gov decide to tighten up legislation it is all the people's fault who made noise and got the collective freedom back,because we will be all dommed,doomed doomed in the future with the CJB Where we will be destroyed in a flash.
CJB comes and now we are all right because we have an advisory body with the DOJ. Last year everyone was posting about doom and gloom about being screwed by the firearms fees,we manage to win one battle and get an advisory body into the DOJ and suddenly we are INVINCIBLE!! And dont nobody DARE to express a skeptical opinion that all is now not so rosy in the garden. It seems to lurch here from total pessimism to hysterical optimisim.


.The EU would not have been involved. EU firearms law specifically states it does not override local firearms law. And holding a firearm is not recognised by the EU as a human right so there's basicly no avenue to bring them in.

Er Compo for me taken up firearms Boss?? Think there is somthing in the consitution about being deprived of ones property and a few EU law cases on thisas well???


OR, we could finally drop this useless dross of trying to "fight the good fight", "all stand together", "go down swinging" and "not living on our knees". :rolleyes:
See, that's the bit I never understood. We all wanted to go to the range (or wherever) and shoot. That's what we want. So why the bloody hell do some of us seem to get off so much on the whole "fight the man" trip?

[/QUOTE]
I dont know where in the HELL you keep getting this crap from Sparks!
I have never said this!!! I have said I dont TRUST the DOJ people on this issue,as their previous record of dealing with the Irish shooting community is less than satisfactory, and judging from dealing with them pre FCP days even back into the 1980s,they were not very receptive to listening to any suggestionsand treated uswith contempt.and there is a good chance of us being shafted at the last hurdle.PERIOD!:(

This seems to be now a heretical opinion to have.. Or the immediate slur is cast that one is trying to piss of the DOJ,ruin it for everyone else or is a snotty college kid who has done nothing for the sport here ever.
Great that some people are all so knowing...:rolleyes:

Gunter Mauser

Ah sure Grizzly they have to start somewhere. Kettle calling the pot black
gets us all smutted with the same brush.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

No Sparks ,just too busy to chase up everything.My day should have 48 hours ,not 24.

Funny, the last person to say that to me was in the firearms section of the DoJ.

I see,so dont make noise at all.

No, you don't see.

Some people do make noise 35 years later when the Govt had no good reason to not return Irish citizens property

See, this is part of what I mean. "Return Irish citizens property" implies there was an ownership transferal. An easy thing to use to discredit any argument made, because the ownership was never transferred. And saying that the noise was why we got things back isn't correct either. Noise didn't do it - noise got us the CJA. Talking got us the FCP which hopefully is a first step, but frankly, there's so much crap that's been foisted on us because of the noise that there's a long way to go before we're done.

It was wrong to make noise from them according to you,but indirectly you benefitted from it.

Bullcrap.

Then when the Gov decide to tighten up legislation it is all the people's fault who made noise and got the collective freedom back

Again, Bullcrap. We discussed this here for years. The noise is why we got the CJA. The noise is why the DoJ doesn't trust us. The noise is why we're in such an insecure position and why we're going to stay there until cooler heads prevail. Happily, we're taking our first steps towards that, but apparently some of us preferred the noise.

CJB comes and now we are all right because we have an advisory body with the DOJ.

Again, bullcrap. The CJA has screwed us over. The FCP is perhaps the only light in the whole damn tunnel, because it represents a direction that could see us in a more secure position because for the first time we might actually see legislators who don't have a mental image of firearms as being what get used in crime. No, it's not a sexy win. No, we don't get to be all dashing and exciting and cock our fingers to the world and declare that we know best. It's slow. And boring. And dull. And grown-up. And all about comprimise. But frankly, I've seen, up close and personal and in great detail, what the alternative used to be. And I'll chose this over that in a cold heartbeat.

And dont nobody DARE to express a skeptical opinion that all is now not so rosy in the garden. It seems to lurch here from total pessimism to hysterical optimisim.

Bullcrap. There are no illusions with the FCP. The point of it is that it's better than what we had before. It's still far from what we'd consider perfect. But that's the real world for you.

judging from dealing with them pre FCP days even back into the 1980s

So different Ministers, different governments, different civil servants and a wholly different political situation. Okay, I can see why you'd extrapolate without any adjustment, but do you not think it's still going to make some change when you change all the people and the very world they're living in? Or do you think our world today is like the one you and I remember from the 80s and early 90s?

they were not very receptive to listening

I've heard and read what we were saying. Frankly, I wouldn't have listened either.

Or the immediate slur is cast that one is trying to piss of the DOJ,ruin it for everyone else or is a snotty college kid who has done nothing for the sport here ever.
Great that some people are all so knowing...:rolleyes:

Yeah, because as we all know, I really, really, really, really hate those snotty college students. Yup, can't stand them buggers. Been saying it for years. Every chance I get. Yup, you got my number there allright.

chem

Sparks wrote: »

"Return Irish citizens property" implies there was an ownership transferal. An easy thing to use to discredit any argument made, because the ownership was never transferred. And saying that the noise was why we got things back isn't correct either. Noise didn't do it - noise got us the CJA. Talking got us the FCP which hopefully is a first step, but frankly, there's so much crap that's been foisted on us because of the noise that there's a long way to go before we're done.

Sparks, peoples property as you know, was taken from them and put into storage under a 3 month temp order and never returned, until afew years ago. And at that, only returned if the owner went looking to have it returned.

You say ownership was never transferred. I take it you mean the government never took ownership of the guns, just held onto them? Well if my car is clamped, its not owned by the clampers but its still no use to me to drive.

I would not see the "noise" as been the cause of the CJA, I think it was more the DoJ having a knee jerk reaction. Do you not remember, the minister at the time stating, gun crime had little to do with licenced firearms?

"Noise" can be good at times at it makes people listen, but you have to follow it with calm talking, as is happening now.

I for one do NOT think the DoJ is out to get me, but I do feel that from past history, we might get a shafting. As you say over night, we could lose all shooting sports. But do you not think, that if we all said notting we would be where we are now? Lets face it. Useing the north, as a reason to take guns out of the hands of licenced citizens hands was a load of $HiT, at the time, as they were still licenced, in the north all trough the troubles.

It just seems to me, that the DoJ have an in-built fear of people having firearms. As an example. I rang the DoJ years ago looking to license a .410 SMLE, as .303 was out of the question. As I was talking to the girl the other end of the line, I asked if she tought, it would be ever likely that .303 would be licenced here? Reply "God no, sure we dont want it to be like the wild west, now do we?":rolleyes:

Grizzly 45

Sparks,
We will just agree to disagree.You have your weltanschaung on this and there is nothing I am going to say that will change it and vise versa.

So lets just leave it to history to decide which of the Irish shooter opinion is right in the end.
Do please have the last word.....I know you want it.:rolleyes:

Sparks

chem wrote: »

Sparks, peoples property as you know, was taken from them

Wasn't my point Chem. We both know the story very well. Point was that going to the Minister and saying "they took our property" is an argument that's easily turned around. It's an argument that says you habitually underestimate the person you're making demands of. It's an argument that ten seconds of thought would rule out for most reasonable people. And it's the kind of argument that kept pistols away from us for a good decade before 2004, don't forget because the offer was made in the 90s and rejected by us because air and .22 pistols weren't enough, we wanted it all or nothing.

I would not see the "noise" as been the cause of the CJA, I think it was more the DoJ having a knee jerk reaction.

Yes, to the noise. It was precisely the same story as with the bin tax and the Local Government Act.

Do you not remember, the minister at the time stating, gun crime had little to do with licenced firearms?

And I remember the Gardai contradicting him with the argument that stolen firearms were sued in crime. I remember that because the contradiction was one of the factors that led to the return of pistols.

But do you not think, that if we all said notting we would be where we are now?

There's a long gap chem, as you know well, between not saying anything; and not just making noise.

It just seems to me, that the DoJ have an in-built fear of people having firearms.

Yup. Because only 5% of us have experience with them. And the DoJ is just like the rest of us - only 5% of them, on average would know much about firearms. But with the FCP having an official place in there, the hope is to overcome their mindset, the same way we do it with everyone else - showing them what we're really like rather than what they think we're like. That's been our best hope for decades. Now we may finally have a chance to do that.

rrpc

+1

I believe that all this calling people idiots and ignorant is nothing but a display of ignorance and idiocy. Shooting is an incredibly complicated and convoluted sport. You only have to look through this forum to see that many people involved in the sport know very little about the whole sport or the legislation or its application.

But it's OK to call the people to whom the firearms acts make up less than 5% of their workload idiots, because they haven't got a grasp of the finer points of something not many of us can say we understand. That they formed the FCP in order to bridge that gap appears not to have crossed what people are pleased to call their minds.

There's irony for you :rolleyes:

chem

Sparks wrote: »

Wasn't my point Chem. We both know the story very well. Point was that going to the Minister and saying "they took our property" is an argument that's easily turned around. It's an argument that says you habitually underestimate the person you're making demands of. It's an argument that ten seconds of thought would rule out for most reasonable people. And it's the kind of argument that kept pistols away from us for a good decade before 2004, don't forget because the offer was made in the 90s and rejected by us because air and .22 pistols weren't enough, we wanted it all or nothing.

I can see notting wrong with wanting all or notting. We are lawfull folks and pose no danger, to the public so why not be allowed, own more or less anything we have a need for?

Sparks wrote: »

Yes, to the noise. It was precisely the same story as with the bin tax and the Local Government Act.

I agree. But because of the noise, and people standing up to bin charges (that most of the rest of the country were already paying) that there are some areas that still do not have to pay for there bins to be collected!!

Sparks wrote: »

And I remember the Gardai contradicting him with the argument that stolen firearms were sued in crime.

No one could argue, that stolen firearms are not used in crimes. Otherwise what would be the point in stealing them! But it was the ministers point at the time, that they were not playing a major part in gangland crime. Whats the point in having a side by side in your hand when you have a new AK:D

Sparks wrote: »

Yup. Because only 5% of us have experience with them. And the DoJ is just like the rest of us - only 5% of them, on average would know much about firearms.

Problem is sparks, that it is the DoJ`s job to know what they are making laws on. If I started a new job, as a rocket scientist, and knew F all about rocket engines how much faith would the astronauts have in the rocket I was after building?

With the Doj writting letters to the ISD and stating that reloading, is almost as dangerous as allowing people to build there own DIY atomic bomb in there shed:D how can we have faith in anything they have to say on firearms

A good example of government thinking is the port tunnel. "Oh! we made it to small to allow super trucks to pass trough it. I know, lets ban super trucks from the roads":rolleyes:

Gunter Mauser

You can say that again,what is it up to now 12 pages,training for Beijing marathon. The point is handloading Reloading what ever you want to call it makes the sport of target / shooting complete not forgetting the hunters. On he go to China thats another ethical question altogether. Tarifs on imports, incrementally!!

Sparks

chem wrote: »

I can see notting wrong with wanting all or notting.

With wanting everything, I see nothing wrong. With demanding the Minister give you everything instead of accepting less as a first step, I see everything wrong. We could have had air and .22 ten years before '04. And, be fair, those make up at least half if not more of all the actual pistol shooting out there at the moment; and everyone here would recommend - and has recommended - starting with air or .22 to a beginner looking to take up pistol before going for fullbore stuff.
So basicly there was a good offer on the table and it was turned down because someone couldn't be pragmatic about day-to-day stuff. Be idealistic over your long-term goals by all means, but feck's sake. Ten years wasted.

I agree. But because of the noise, and people standing up to bin charges (that most of the rest of the country were already paying) that there are some areas that still do not have to pay for there bins to be collected!!

You're missing my example. More detail perhaps. Forget fingal. The bin tax protests happened years earlier in Cork. Many stopped paying, the council said "fine, we stop collecting from ye", and rubbish built up outside some homes. The high court ruled that because this had negative effects on everyone's health, it was group punishment and forced them to start collecting again - and the bin tax protestors won. Two years later, the Local Government Act was passed, which specifically said it was legal to refuse to collect from people not paying the bin tax regardless of this group punishment thing and the High Court can't overturn an Act, so the bin tax protestors lost. The moral of the story is that you can't beat the legislative branch with the judicial branch because you might get a temporary victory but the legislative branch can just change the rules of the game to win. And this might sound familiar, because it was said here years ago.

No one could argue, that stolen firearms are not used in crimes.

Exactly. Except of course, that the Gardai never tracked if they were used in crimes. But that's a point that never seemed to be used in argument for some reason.

But it was the ministers point at the time, that they were not playing a major part in gangland crime.

And the point in all of this that was of any relevance to us was that after those kind of contradictions came out, the Minister stopped being invited to Garda conferences and other such DoJ-Gardai scraps happened; and that was a major factor in us getting to where we are now, in my honest opinion.

Problem is sparks, that it is the DoJ`s job to know what they are making laws on.

No, it should be but it isn't. Their job is to know how to make laws, how to codify rules into a form usable in court. That's why you have expert state bodies like the NRA, the RSA, the ISC and the like which actually do day-to-day running of those areas where a Ministry is in charge of them.

With the Doj writting letters to the ISD and stating that reloading, is almost as dangerous as allowing people to build there own DIY atomic bomb in there shed:D

I must have missed that part. I saw a letter saying that the route being espoused for getting the legal documents to own propellant at the moment is not going to be permitted in the future for such a purpose and that the reloading licence is being held up by complaints by the Attorney General (who is not a member of the firearms department last I checked).

how can we have faith in anything they have to say on firearms

Why are we supposed to? You said it yourself, they're not experts in firearms. They're just the people who draft firearms law. So the best thing to do is to, oh I don't know, have some sort of body that has official, regular, formal contact with them to advise on how to draft that law. Hmmm, wait a moment....

A good example of government thinking is the port tunnel. "Oh! we made it to small to allow super trucks to pass trough it. I know, lets ban super trucks from the roads":rolleyes:

Actually, that's not a great example, because as every civil engineer who designs roads will tell you, "super" trucks do an inordinate amount of damage to roads all across europe - and I think ours are already in a bad enough state to begin with.

Grizzly 45

Actually, that's not a great example, because as every civil engineer who designs roads will tell you, "super" trucks do an inordinate amount of damage to roads all across europe - and I think ours are already in a bad enough state to begin with.

[/QUOTE]

Now that is BULLCRAP OF THE HIGHEST ORDER!!

Rovi

Just to clarify, what Grizzly is hinting at is that the 'super cube' trucks that can't use the Port Tunnel are taller than conventional trucks, not heavier.
They do no more or less damage than any other articulated truck.

Good to see the Sparks and CG of old are back...

chem

Sparks, I wont pick trough your message point by point because, we will just go around and around. You have a different view of things then me, and so the world is an interesting place to live in:)

My problem is that, sitting back and waiting for the DoJ to allow pistols done notting. It took court action and noise to get things started. Now is the time alright for a nice chat, over tea and cake, with the DoJ and its happening. But we did not lose anything for making noise. If anything we gained everything. Hell, even grenades are only restricted:D

Your point on .22 air and Lr pistols, saying 10 years were wasted. I dont think air guns, should ever have been put onto licence. So its over 30 years wasted from where I sit. Where were all the shouts back then? Did anyone take the government to court because they never got there pistol back after the temp ban? People just set back and let it happen and so it took over 30 years to get anything back:mad:

rrpc

Rovi wrote: »

Just to clarify, what Grizzly is hinting at is that the 'super cube' trucks that can't use the Port Tunnel are taller than conventional trucks, not heavier.
They do no more or less damage than any other articulated truck.

Actually they have damaged quite a number of railway bridges, the one on East Wall road being the most notable.

rrpc

chem wrote: »

My problem is that, sitting back and waiting for the DoJ to allow pistols done notting. It took court action and noise to get things started. Now is the time alright for a nice chat, over tea and cake, with the DoJ and its happening. But we did not lose anything for making noise. If anything we gained everything. Hell, even grenades are only restricted:D

I believe it was the court action and not the noise that worked. The noise was totally useless.

Your point on .22 air and Lr pistols, saying 10 years were wasted. I dont think air guns, should ever have been put onto licence. So its over 30 years wasted from where I sit. Where were all the shouts back then? Did anyone take the government to court because they never got there pistol back after the temp ban? People just set back and let it happen and so it took over 30 years to get anything back:mad:

There was plenty of noise, but no progress. The difficulty was that whilst the 'troubles' were going on, the minute the temporary custody order was overturned for not being temporary, it would have been replaced with another one. Net result a lot of cost and no result.

Airguns have been on cert for a lot longer than since the temporary custody order. They were added in 1964.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Now that is BULLCRAP OF THE HIGHEST ORDER!!

Said the security guard to the engineer, who was quoting what other engineers across Europe have been observing.

chem wrote: »

You have a different view of things then me, and so the world is an interesting place to live in:)

Words to live by!

But we did not lose anything for making noise.

Actually, the noise lost us an awful lot because it's why we have the CJA to cope with.

Your point on .22 air and Lr pistols, saying 10 years were wasted. I dont think air guns, should ever have been put onto licence. So its over 30 years wasted from where I sit.

Well, right now airguns under 1 joule are off licence. If we're lucky, we could raise that to the EU standard of seven joules, and then most airguns (certainly all the target shooting ones) will be off licence again and we will see a large rise in airgun shooting at that point for similar reasons to airsoft now growing faster than paintball. That's one reason to back the FCP from my personal point of view. But while we couldn't do much about that until now, we could have gotten the pistols back (at least some of them) in the 90s had we boxed a bit more cleverly. That was a case of an opportunity actually spurned - and that gets under my fingernails.

Where were all the shouts back then?

As explained to an NRPAI AGM not too many years ago by someone who was in the room at the time, the first protest happened in early 1973, just after the TCO ran out and the policy showed up - they were taken to one side by the DoJ at the time, and it was explained that they could either leave everything at the unofficial policy level, where it could be rescinded easily when the troubles were over (and at the time, it seemed it was going to be a short-lived thing) - or the DoJ could give up the firearms, wait a few days, then pass a law banning them outright, and any hope of retrieval would have gone out the window, and in the political climate at the time, it wouldn't have raised any eyebrows outside of ours. Those were very different times - don't forget we came fairly close to actual, official open warfare between our state and the UK at one stage there. Our sport took a very distant seat indeed at the time.