Urgent Meeting

Blazher

HI all, Before i post this mail i have been sent, I would just like to say sorry if it has been posted before or if this is the wrong section,

I have been sent this mail and if its true, Worries me

If anyone has any information on this please post as this maybe the start of the end!

Due to the letter posted in this months Irish Shooters Digest and the UNLAWFUL RESTRICTIONS (1925 Act not applicable and relevant sections of CJA2006 not been commenced) being foisted upon ranges and clubs, it has been decided to hold an emergency meeting of IPSA, with an open invitation to all shooters and shooting organisations next Wednesday

Date; 09/04/08

Venue; Tullamore Heritage Centre, Bury Quay, Tullamore, Co. Offaly

Time; 8PM

This meeting will to discuss and investigate possible legal challenges, both to the letter in ISD and in relation to range specifications and to the fact that Justice are acting beyond their powers regarding CJA2006 (as it has not been commenced) and Range Inspector as he has not been appointed and as such has no legal power whatsoever

The letter in ISD not only affects practical shooting but almost every other discipline as well, e.g. Clay shooting--moving targets and moving firearm, ISSF--moving and turning targets, PPC1500--shape of target, Police Practical 1+2--use of holsters.

Basically, if let get away with this, Justice have in one stroke of a pen made possession of a pistol illegal as you will have no reason to hold a FAC for one as all target shooting disciplines are now illegal.

This has to be stopped in its tracks now.

I know that this is short notice but circumstances dictate that we act now rather than later. I urge every member to attend and to notify and bring any friends or colleagues that participate in any shooting sport

IRLConor

Does anyone have the letter in the ISD that it refers to? (My first inclination is to call bullsh*t on several of the points, but I want to know what the above is referring to before doing so.)

rrpc

AFAIK, the range inspector was appointed in August 2007. I remember seeing the notice in Iris Oifiguil.

The Letter

The Letter wrote:

and the UNLAWFUL RESTRICTIONS (1925 Act not applicable and relevant sections of CJA2006 not been commenced) being foisted upon ranges and clubs

Funny, I seem to have missed that email from the NTSA!

rrpc

Deleted User wrote: »

Funny, I seem to have missed that email from the NTSA!

Eh Zara?

The NTSA now publish the Irish Shooters Digest do they?

Grizzly 45

Letter posted in file here for everyones reading.

rrpc

rrpc wrote: »

Eh Zara?

The NTSA now publish the Irish Shooters Digest do they?

You missed my sarcasm..

I was stating how I seem to have missed the email where I was told my rights as a shooter were being infringed - hence, they probably aren't.

bigred

Does it actually define what a Target Shooting range is anywhere on the Statutes? Didnt realise if there is such a definition??

IRLConor

Thanks Grizzly.

There's no definition of what "target shooting" entails so I don't know how enforceable that decision is itself.

On the other hand, they can do it perfectly legally if the relevant Supers revoke the authorisation of all target shooting ranges and re-issue an authorisation for those ranges worded in such a way to prohibit the kind of shooting they wish to prohibit.

I don't think the DoJ can just issue a declaration saying what "target shooting" entails. That kind of legal interpretation is for the courts to decide.

The letter in the OP is still full of hyperbole though. "Justice have in one stroke of a pen made possession of a pistol illegal as you will have no reason to hold a FAC for one as all target shooting disciplines are now illegal" is rubbish.

rrpc

Deleted User wrote: »

You missed my sarcasm..

I was stating how I seem to have missed the email where I was told my rights as a shooter were being infringed - hence, they probably aren't.

Apologies Zara, missed it completely

rrpc

IRLConor wrote: »

The letter in the OP is still full of hyperbole though. "Justice have in one stroke of a pen made possession of a pistol illegal as you will have no reason to hold a FAC for one as all target shooting disciplines are now illegal" is rubbish.

Indeed, but if you were to read that letter literally (as if it were a law) It could quite easily refer to turning targets (electronic would be OK), ISSF running target and rapid fire pistol.

IRLConor

rrpc wrote: »

Indeed, but if you were to read that letter literally (as if it were a law) It could quite easily refer to turning targets (electronic would be OK), ISSF running target and rapid fire pistol.

Yes, but saying that "all target [pistol] shooting disciplines are now illegal" would still be nonsense since the likes of ISSF free pistol, 10m air pistol, etc. would still be allowed. Even if the most strict definition of that letter were law then it would still be possible to get a pistol for target shooting.

While the letter from the DoJ is a matter for concern and certainly worth fighting I disagree with the tone set in the letter in the OP. It seems to be written to produce a particular type of emotional response and has several inaccuracies (no mention of holsters in the DoJ letter, for example).

Who was the author of the letter in the OP? What body circulated it?

Sikamick

Open to correction, But I think any superintendent can close/stop shooting taking place in or on any piece of ground that he deems to be a danger to public safety.


Michael O'Connor
Secretary to Dublin Target Sports Club

packas

Other than IPSC,PPC & olympic pistol with .32S&W what pistol disciplines require you to shoot centrefire?

rrpc

IRLConor wrote: »

Yes, but saying that "all target [pistol] shooting disciplines are now illegal" would still be nonsense since the likes of ISSF free pistol, 10m air pistol, etc. would still be allowed. Even if the most strict definition of that letter were law then it would still be possible to get a pistol for target shooting.

While the letter from the DoJ is a matter for concern and certainly worth fighting I disagree with the tone set in the letter in the OP. It seems to be written to produce a particular type of emotional response and has several inaccuracies (no mention of holsters in the DoJ letter, for example).

Who was the author of the letter in the OP? What body circulated it?

I don't see the bit about 'shape of targets' either. One point in that letter is completely wrong though. Ranges were never authorised under the 1925 Act or any other firearms Act up to 2006.

The 1964 act introduced a permit for members of clubs to use, carry and possess firearms that were held under an authorisation issued to the club by the Superintendent. This was inserted into Section 2 as subsection 5.

Even a cursory viewing of the firearms act would support the view that this is an authorisations to hold firearms rather than to authorise ranges for the simple reason that it was inserted in Section 2 (which is the section that lists the various exceptions to the restriction on possession, carrying or using a firearm).

(5) (a) The Superintendent of any district may authorise in writing the possession, use or carriage of firearms or ammunition in that district in any of the circumstances specified in paragraphs (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (j) or (k) (2007 34) of subsection (4) of this section or of any component parts of a firearm, (1971 3) during such period, not exceeding one year, as may be specified in the authorisation.

rrpc

IRLConor wrote: »

Who was the author of the letter in the OP? What body circulated it?

It looks like the IPSA did. From the front page of the IPSA website:

Note to all IPSA members:

General meeting of the Association to be held at Tullamore Dew Heritage Centre, Bury Quay, Tullamore, Co. Offaly on Wednesday 9th April at 8pm.

Sikamick

rrpc wrote: »

It looks like the IPSA did. From the front page of the IPSA website:

This seems to be an add on (all shooters and shooting organisations next Wednesday)The IPSA websight does not say this that I can see, it is directed to their own members.


(Note to all IPSA members:
General meeting of the Association to be held at Tullamore Dew Heritage Centre, Bury Quay, Tullamore, Co. Offaly on Wednesday 9th April at 8pm.)

Looks like the sh*t stirrers may be at it again.

Sparks

packas wrote: »

Other than IPSC,PPC & olympic pistol with .32S&W what pistol disciplines require you to shoot centrefire?

Silhouette shooting as I understand it.

Reading the letter in the ISD, I can see why the IPSA would be worried. Thing is, this kind of thing is something you could have seen coming back when the FCP was formed and the IPSA wasn't on the panel. They're the only major group who wasn't, so far as I can tell (I know the deer hunters might disagree with me based on what they wrote in the ISD this month as well).

It's certainly an incredibly badly worded letter (the one in the ISD from the DoJ) - as written it covers every shooting sport out there, from ISSF running target and ISSF shotgun (clays not being shot at a set distance), through just about every formal and informal target shooting discipline out there, through to the IPSC and IDPA shooting that seems to be the focus of the between-the-lines bit of the letter (I'm pretty sure that given what the DoJ knows about shooting that that's what they're talking about - though that's just my personal opinion).

Perhaps a better route would be for the IPSA to be drafted onto the FCP and to discuss the matter in there, rather than immediately selecting a barrister? Membership of the FCP does not preclude later taking legal challanges, if it's really as bad as it sounds, but they really ought to be the avenue of last resort.

Sparks

Sikamick wrote: »

Looks like the sh*t stirrers may be at it again.

Hmmm. My comments were based on the idea that it was the IPSA issuing that letter (because in that letter it says it's from the IPSA). If not, and this is a redux of earlier twaddle, that changes things, and about the only reason to show up would be to tell the stirrers to take their spoon and go home...

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

It's certainly an incredibly badly worded letter (the one in the ISD from the DoJ) - as written it covers every shooting sport out there, from ISSF running target and ISSF shotgun

On further reflection, these would not be affected as (a) ISSF running target (and RF Pistol) are shot on defined lanes and (b) shotgun isn't included under the range authorisations as specified under the 2006 act.

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

On further reflection, these would not be affected as (a) ISSF running target (and RF Pistol) are shot on defined lanes and (b) shotgun isn't included under the range authorisations as specified under the 2006 act.

First off, I'm thinking that this isn't a formal statement of policy from the DoJ (I know it's not law), but a letter trying to give the gist of the thing. But, if it was, it would include ISSF running target and ISSF RF pistol because the targets move and he says "where the shooter and the targets are static and the shooting is carried out at fixed distances along fixed lanes".
You're completely right about the shotgun though, my bad.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

First off, I'm thinking that this isn't a formal statement of policy from the DoJ (I know it's not law), but a letter trying to give the gist of the thing. But, if it was, it would include ISSF running target and ISSF RF pistol because the targets move and he says "where the shooter and the targets are static and the shooting is carried out at fixed distances along fixed lanes".

Well, you'll have to drop RF pistol as well because the targets don't move, there's just five of them. And in case you were going to say "but the shooter moves", he doesn't, just his arm.

So it's running target only then.

That's if you're going to be a Pedantic Pat about the letter, which of course neither of us are.

I don't understand that letter about taking legal action though, because there is nothing at this point in time to take legal action against.

Sparks

RF Pistol targets turn though - unless you're a member of a well-off range with electronic targets for smallbore pistol

rrpc

Ok I'll grant that they turn but....

they're still static and you're not supposed to shoot at them when they're turned.

But seriously, there's no change in the backstop element whether the target is turned or not, which is what I think that letter was driving at.

chem

This is just more crap from DoJ. Do what I say as I know best rubbish (even if I know F all about shooting). Can these issues be taged on by DoJ and made law or is it the same problem we had with the gardi and gun safes before the law was changed?

Was it a case that DoJ worded everything so it looked OK to us at first , but now they are showing there hand?

Why are Irish shooters so much more stupid, dangerous and pose more of a risk to the public, then any other european shooter?:mad:

Tell you what DoJ. Why not write a law that only allows Gardi, TD`s and priests to hold a firearms licence, because us pond scum will only revolt if we get our hands on anything other then a shotgun.

Where is DoJ getting its stats from? Shooters in Ireland are amongest the safest in the world in the sport. But if we had reloading or practical pistol etc.. we will become blood crazed and triger happy?

I dont like the direction this seems to be heading:mad::mad::mad:

Bananaman

Great to see the shooting community rallying behind one of it's largest groups - almost brings a tear to my eye :rolleyes:

If you are to take the letter sent by an individual PO from the DOJ (I am correct in saying that PO is just a grade in the department and not somone who can make policy ??) as read it is a very worrying development.

Any limitation of the privileges which the shooting community have enjoyed to date - and exercised in the safest and most responsible way possible - is a backward step on what has, of late, seemed to be a very progressive move on the part of the various departments and bodies.

As an example we have had IPSC Practical Pistol here for some time. We have been recognised as the most improved region in the world this year. We have had official enquiries from other countries with respect to adopting our qualification and safety criteria as they are some of the safest in the world.

I hope that the views expressed in this letter are just the views of an individual or a topic of discussion that was meant to be just that and is not, in fact, a statment of intended policy.

I hope that we can get some clarification from the departments involved and the FCP as the body tasked with expressing and safeguarding the interests of the very sportsmen and sportswomen who are concerned about this.

In terms of the meeting that was called. I have no doubt that Practical Pistol Competitiors will attend - after all there are hundreds of active members of IPSA who have invested heavily in equipment, certification, practice and in many cases foreign travel to represent their country and sport. I am one of those and as such can state that I will be attending for those very reasons. Many clubs have also invested heavily in providing facilities where these sports can be exercised in the safest possible manner. Due to the phenomenal growth of the sport in the country this is not to be underestimated.

As I am not active in any of the other affected sports - although I know many who are and are also very concerned - I won't comment of what they will or will not do.

Suffice it to say that if this is real ( I still hope it is a fart in the wind ), I for one, will not allow this travesty to take place without every avenue having been explored, including a legal challenge, where necessary.

through to the IPSC and IDPA shooting that seems to be the focus of the between-the-lines bit of the letter

Do not try to associate IPSC with IPDA - IPDA is a discipline which is not practiced here in Ireland - it is a discipline largely confined to the U.S.A these days and was never popular in Europe. We, in Ieland, neither use their categorisations nor target types.
Practical Pistol in Ireland comes under the auspices of IPSC only .

Perhaps a better route would be for the IPSA to be drafted onto the FCP and to discuss the matter in there

I realise that IPSA were not extended an invitation to take part in the FCP at the start - which I, personally, believe to be a outright disgrace due to the size of the sport in Ireland but if memory serves there were many people stating on these very boards that it would not be an issue as the other bodies would look after their interests. Can I have a show of hands please :rolleyes:

I assume that IPSA would see it as a welcome development if they were to be asked to partake in the FCP - they would be sure to extend support to all other sports which need it and represent their interests where asked to do so - but I would also assume that there is absolutely no way they will ever accept this - there is not even any room for discussion in that letter.

Looks like the sh*t stirrers may be at it again

Klass - with a capital K. I'm sure if you go you'll bring a big swizzle stick.

B'Man

Sparks

It's not a good turn, but I think that it's not without solution. First step would be to get an IPSA rep onto the FCP and discuss it in there. Going to the courts or TDs before that point really would be a case of not doing your homework first.

Bananaman

First step would be to get an IPSA rep onto the FCP

Like the last time that was suggested??

IRLConor

Bananaman wrote: »

If you are to take the letter sent by an individual PO from the DOJ (I am correct in saying that PO is just a grade in the department and not somone who can make policy ??) as read it is a very worrying development.

PO is short for Principal Officer. I don't think any civil servant can make policy, that's a political function. Civil servants typically implement policy. I suspect that he would have looked for prior approval from his boss(es) before sending any letter in his official capacity.

The following is a diagram from Wikipedia showing the different grades:

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

Great to see the shooting community rallying behind one of it's largest groups - almost brings a tear to my eye :rolleyes:

Much as I would like to rally behind you B'man, the notice that the OP put at the head of this thread was not signed by any organisation and included a number of hysterical statements that were not backed up by a reading of the ISD letter. To top it all, the notice purported to speak for ISSF shooters amongst others and I as one of those felt it incumbent upon me to allay the fears incited by the meeting notice.

If the IPSA wish to engender support from other shooters and bodies, they would do well to sign their statements (if in fact the statement quoted at the beginning of this thread did come from them), refrain from hyperbole and deal with the facts only.

Sparks

Banana, I'm pretty sure I can guess at what your mood is right now, but I do want to point out one or two things:

Bananaman wrote: »

Suffice it to say that if this is real ( I still hope it is a fart in the wind ), I for one, will not allow this travesty to take place without every avenue having been explored, including a legal challenge, where necessary.

I've no objection (and don't really think I would be able to stop it anyway) to people resorting to the courts - but I really, seriously, sincerely and honestly believe that the courts are not the first place to try. Getting the IPSA on the FCP would be probably the first thing to try to do. That way there's more information available, and you have a direct line to talk to the people involved; and it may well be that that's all that's needed. Up until very recently, everyone in the DoJ "knew" that fullbore rifles and all types of pistols were far too dangerous for us to use - they've since learnt that what you know is often wrong. This may just be another step in that process, in which case it's far more important to be there to do the teaching than to be trying to pick a fight with an 800lb gorilla.

Do not try to associate IPSC with IPDA

I'm not. I know the history of both and they are clearly distinct in my mind - but I doubt that the DoJ representatives on the FCP would see any difference. For the same reason that their initial stab at a restricted list managed to restrict virtually all olympic rifles purely by accident. And the central thing both IPSC and IDPA have in common is that they are both dynamic in that the shooter moves to shoot at targets. The philosophical differences, the target differences, the rule differences; I don't think that they were foremost in the mind of the person drafting that letter.

if memory serves there were many people stating on these very boards that it would not be an issue as the other bodies would look after their interests. Can I have a show of hands please :rolleyes:

You won't see mine, I thought they should have been there from day one. I wrote to the DoJ at the time to say so.

Klass - with a capital K. I'm sure if you go you'll bring a big swizzle stick.

If I read Sikamick right, he wasn't talking about the IPSA as being ****-stirrers, it was a reference to the earlier hullabaloo about who got to sit at the FCP table and who didn't; a topic that's not germane to this thread.