Statement from the shooting organisations on the Firearms Consultative Panel

Rovi

The Shooting Mods have received the following from the members of the FCP, asking us to post it here for the consideration of the general shooting public.

As received, verbatim:

FCP wrote:

Statement from the members of the Firearms Consultative panel:


A year has passed since we have entered into this process of consultation.

It would be fair to say it was a bold step forward into a new way to inform and cooperate with all sides of this process, the Department of Justice, the Garda Representatives and ourselves, the people put forward to voice the wishes, desires and concerns of those involved in the shooting sports.

In all negotiations there must be willingness to compromise or progress is impossible. The history of shooting and firearms policy in Ireland has at times been a source of much disagreement and conflict and so, inevitably, the past year has been as much about gaining trust and educating each other as it has been about the fine details of legislative change.

At this point we have established that there is a wide line of separation between sporting shooters and the elements in our society who would abuse our laws for criminal motives. The three strands of Government, Shooters and the Gardai are absolutely committed to protecting the safety of our citizens in general while allowing law abiding citizens the opportunity to enjoy their sport.

Agreement on what constitutes a reasonable level of security for storage has been reached. However we need to ensure that these standards will be applied in an even-handed and sensible manner. There are a series of stepped security levels in place and we would hope that these will be respected in the spirit they are intended and that the flexibility inherent in them will not be abused by making the maximum level of security the norm by practice.

Simply requiring the highest level of security in all cases in the absence of better understanding does neither the Gardai nor the firearms owner justice.

In this regard we turn our attention to that vital link in the chain between the prospective or existing firearm owner and the appointed crime prevention officer (CPO). Too many times it has been evident that there is a substantial need for further training of these officers. Lack of knowledge in the area of firearms can lead to unreasonable demands which only tend to reduce their authority and the respect of the people they are sworn to serve. The area Superintendent is dependent on a concise and realistic report from these officers as part of the process of granting a licence; it would be best practice to ensure that the report is as well informed as possible. The establishment of the Garda Síochána Firearms Policy Unit could and should lead to consistent advice being offered to all the Garda Síochána districts around the country.

Similarly we propose that personal dislikes or bias against firearms by any member of An Garda Síochána has no place in the decision making process relating to the granting of a firearms certificate. We respect their personal opinions and merely ask for the same courtesy in return.

The consultation process itself is sometimes frustrating in its operation; draft proposals are sometimes placed before the panel members with little time in which to take advice or to consider fully the implications. Occasionally, even at very short notice the panel have pointed out errors and omissions which would have created problems for all sides in the future. Common sense dictates that as it is a consultative process, we are given reasonable timeframes in which to consult.

We urge all the various strands to honour the spirit in which the FCP was established by coming together to formulate proposals in the first instance, rather than squandering precious time for all with debates over details afterwards.

This new legislation and its implementation will have far reaching consequences for us all. Let us strive to make it the best we can by drawing on each other’s experience, discussing the concerns openly and progressing together.

We as shooters and sportsmen and women have a deep admiration for the work of the Gardai, which is often in difficult or dangerous situations. Much of the delays in the processing of applications to date have been a result of a shortage of resources and unwieldy legislation in dire need of clarity. There have been some isolated incidents in which obstructive tactics were employed but mercifully these have been few and by and large good service has been given. Needless conflicts are regrettable but with a deeper understanding of each other’s concerns a way forward is always possible.

We would encourage a policy where Garda members acting as Firearms officers were allotted sufficient time to carry out their role, and special status granted them. We would welcome their visits to our shooting clubs and ranges and their participation in events. Only through a wide ranging exposure to the different disciplines can they be expected to perform their duties with the knowledge and confidence that such a responsibility demands.

The road we have travelled together has had some sharp corners and bumpy patches and there are probably many more ahead. Working together we can iron out the difficulties.

The FCP is not a battle between opposing forces, but a chance for truly progressive dialogue, cooperation and greater understanding.


Statement on behalf of the Firearms Consultative Panel. (FCP)

Tuesday, 28 October 2008

Anyone choosing to respond to this thread should please bear the following in mind:

• All the rules in the Charter and the various applicable Sticky threads at the top of this Forum are still in effect and apply fully to this thread.
• The FCP has no official 'presence' here, and as far as we know, no individual members of the FCP are members here either (and even if they are, they are not in a position to provide information or responses in such capacity); so, please don't expect to get an 'official' response to any question or comment posted here.

Regards,
The Shooting Mods.


edited to add:
Clarification:
The above statement was issued by the representatives of the shooting bodies on the Firearms Consultative Panel.

It wasn't me!

It's great to hear a full and open progress statement on the matter. May the good work go on.

bunny shooter

Contains no real information on specifics eg, reloading, range authorisations, restricted lists, training licences, 3 year licences, format of licences (credit card with photos etc), recent reports of minister considering banning of pistols and all the other issues raised since this process was commenced.

"............and ourselves, the people put forward to voice the wishes, desires and concerns of those involved in the shooting sports." Maybe a thorough briefing on the current status of the actual "wishes, desires and concerns" could be forthcoming ?

BryanL

Not everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet though,


From Today Examiner

Friday, October 31, 2008

Concern over rise in gun ownership

By Cormac O’Keeffe
GARDAÍ have expressed concern at the sharp rise in the legal ownership of handguns in recent years.


Figures show that the number of handguns licensed has jumped from one in 2004 to 1,835 in 2008.

The main Garda association, and senior Garda sources, said they were concerned about the rise in semi-automatic and automatic handguns. They called for handguns to be banned or to put heavy restrictions on their use and storage.


Justice Minister Dermot Ahern said he was concerned and would soon review the law surrounding handguns.

Gun clubs said there was no significant rise in semi-automatic handguns and superintendents had the right to refuse licences.

Michael O’Boyce, president of the Garda Representative Association, said: “Anything that increases the danger to the public or our members we have concerns about, particularly the increase in the availability of handguns.”

Senior gardaí complained of the continuing lack of legislation governing the area. “The .22 target pistols for target shooting don’t cause too much damage, it’s the 9mm Glock or .45 or .44 automatic we would be concerned about,” said one superintendent. “These are weapons we consider to be military police weapons. These have a magazine with 11-13 rounds, with a rapid rate of fire. These are not for sporting purposes.”

He said the lack of legislation meant it was up to each superintendent to decide whether to issue or not.

Mark Dennehy of the National Target Shooting Association said the figures should not be a cause of concern. The rise was over a period of four years and all the firearms issued were legal before 1972, when they were all taken into custody during the Troubles and not released to owners until the end of the 1990s.

He said their estimates suggested there were only around 100 to 150 people using “full bore” firearms (.32 calibre up), including the likes of the 9mm Glocks. He said a Firearms Consultation Panel, comprising the shooting associations, Garda and the Department of Justice, were looking at the area and trying to find solutions which would feed into the minister’s review.

Firearm figures

TOTAL number of firearms licensed:

2004 — 215,304
2005 — 221,609
2006 — 221,449
2007 — 227,287
2008 — 233,120

SHOTGUNS:

2004 — 170,236
2005 — 173,556
2006 — 171,916
2007 — 174,832
2008 — 177,455

RIFLES:

2004 — 44,967
2005 — 47,596
2006 — 48,536
2007 — 50,986
2008 — 56,689

HANDGUNS (pistols and revolvers):

2004 — 1
2005 — 347
2006 — 882
2007 — 1,339
2008 — 1,835

Click here for irishexaminer.com stories before this date

Sparks

Well, at least he mentioned the FCP, though he didn't mention it's been around for years. And he mentioned the super's persona designata status as well. Not stellar, but it could have been worse.

Bananaman

The main Garda association, and senior Garda sources, said .....

The concern I would have is that we still have such disparate views among those that make the rules.

The FCP was formed to ensure that everyone was singing from the same hymn sheet - yet "Senior Garda Sources" are of the opinion that a .22 target pistol, is less dangerous than and can not be fired as fast as, a 9mm target pistol. Rubbish.

We, above anyone, know how dangerous any type of firearm is if not dealt with properly and we all take every precaution, doubled up by the range we are using and tripled by the range officer on the range we are using to ensure that nothing untoward has ever or will ever happen with a licensed firearm.

To suggest that the increase in the number of privately held handguns in Ireland to numbers which I can only guess are less than the number of privately held Helicopters in Ireland is in some way increasing the risk to the Gardai on the street, when they are the very body who sanction those licenses in absurd.

For those reasons I seriously doubt that the "sources" mentioned had any relationship to the gardai at all. This is just another case of a newspaper reporter trying to drum up a panic among the public.

As an owner of one those dreaded Glock 9mm pistols that are mentioned - which I legally licensed for sporting purposes - for which I have represented Ireland on a number of occasions - I hate to see it highlighted again and again. It smacks of "you can get rid of this and leave us alone".

Any suggestion that I or indeed any other legal owner of a handgun in Ireland , has anything but sporting purposes in mind is dancing very close to the fire

B'Man

Sparks

Yeah, guys... last I checked it was the Gardai (as in the official body) that was on the FCP, not the Garda Representative Association. Sort of a GAA/GPA thing there (edit: by which I mean, the GRA and the superintendents do not make the rules, as B'man said above). And from what I heard from the reporter during the phone chat, he'd gotten statements from the GRA and one superintendent (unidentified), but not the actual Gardai Siochana. And though he was told where the IPSA was, he doesn't seem to have gone and talked to them, and it doesn't look like he waited for the DoJ to get back to him either. So I get the feeling that deadline pressure was rather a large factor in this story.

Which, to look at that for a moment, is not a great thing from the point of view of our interests, we'd love for folks to take weeks to fully research our sport and write fully informed articles; but the reality is that it is never going to happen in the mainstream press. Deadlines are a fact of life there. So one way to cope with this would be ready-made press packs and PROs who keep up to date on what's happening and what the shooting bodies' positions on various topics are for these sort of things. I've not been the NTSA's PRO for a few years now, so when I got the phone call (they had my number from a few years ago) I was caught on the hop - there isn't an NTSA PRO right now so I don't have someone to bounce the call to, and I don't have position papers to hand. That's something that could be easily fixed by all the shooting bodies and clubs though, and once again it points out that a dedicated PRO isn't a luxury for our clubs and our sports in general, it's a vital necessity up there with the chairman, secretary and treasurer.

Here's the upside - because deadlines are a major pressure, if you have a press pack with quotable text and facts and figures and usable graphics and photos in them, they get used. There's no time to do otherwise. You see what I mean? Deadlines can be our friend as well as our problem. Just depends on your level of prior preperation.

Mr Mole

Gents.
I have an observation about the statement above from the FCP. When I looked at the DOJ&LR website, I saw that the members of the FCP are listed. I would be surprised if some of those members would agree to the publication of this statement.
http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/Minister%20establishes%20Firearms%20Consultative%20Panel
Are we of the belief that only those invited bodies or persons from the shooting community are members of the FCP?
Did the DOJ&LR and Garda member/s, for example subscribe to the sentiments expressed or agree to the publication of the statement?

I agree with B/Man about the media. I have written to Michael O Boyce , GRA, for some clarification, and to see if he was misquoted, if the quote was taken out of context, or indeed if the quote reflects his opinion.

Regards,

Sparks

Mr.Mole, that's an official statement from the FCP. We've never seen stuff come out of there from official channels without everyone agreeing to it beforehand; why would you think this is different?

(and I wouldn't be surprised at the Gardai saying something other than 100% supportive of the status quo within the Gardai - we've seen that before as a result of the FCP).

BornToKill

It says 'We as shooters and sportsmen and women'. Apart from the sentiments, that alone makes it look like it came from the shooting interests on the FCP and not the FCP as a whole. Are you sure it's an official statement?

Rovi

We've been asked to post the following in relation to the original statement:

Clarification:
The above statement was issued by the representatives of the shooting bodies on the Firearms Consultative Panel.


I'll stitch this into the original post too.

BryanL

Looking at the figures whats amazing to me is that the number of
handguns has increased by 1,800
but rifles increased by 12,000 for the same period:eek:

and no one bats an eyelid or makes a headline from it? they must be safer than .22 handguns i guess?
Bryan

bunny shooter

"Clarification:
The above statement was issued by the representatives of the shooting bodies on the Firearms Consultative Panel."

Well that makes more sense !

"....by which I mean, the GRA and the superintendents do not make the rules......" Really, cause my local super definately don't realise that. His latest escapade regarding my pistol licence beggars belief :mad: If any of the "shooting" members of the FCP are interested they can PM me for details

Grizzly 45

I too would like to speak to the FCP on certain matters,which I am not going to go into here.But in person with a repersentative.Is this possible?

Mr Mole

I believe that the clarification from Rovi answers my concerns about the statement by "the FCP". We must remember that this body encompasses more than just members of the shooting fraternity.

I would consider that any statement should issue through the FCP representative, to the membership of the body he/she represents, rather than on Boards or similar.

Regards,

BornToKill

Perhaps the thread title could also be edited to reflect the fact that this statement came from 'some' members of the panel rather than from the FCP as a whole.

Incidentally, does anyone know if this statement was agreed with all the members before it was issued?

bunny shooter

Or is it an attempt to force certain members to toe the line

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

"....by which I mean, the GRA and the superintendents do not make the rules......" Really, cause my local super definately don't realise that.

He might not, but that doesn't affect the state of affairs

Mr Mole wrote: »

I believe that the clarification from Rovi answers my concerns about the statement by "the FCP". We must remember that this body encompasses more than just members of the shooting fraternity.

I think the day we forget that is the day we forget what the FCP actually is for. Ie, to bring the shooting community (we've got some excellent lady shooters too y'know) into direct, explicit contact with the DoJ and Gardai at the policy level.

I would consider that any statement should issue through the FCP representative, to the membership of the body he/she represents, rather than on Boards or similar.

I'd strongly disagree. We've a far better record than any shooting body when it comes to the dissemination of information. On top of which, I know most of the bodies involved in the FCP and frankly, the idea that the information would actually flow from their representatives to those they represent is laughable in some cases.

And mainly, I just think that if someone wants to push information out there, then the more avenues there are for that, the better for actual shooters on the ground.

bunny shooter

Sparks,

Please explain to me why is the FCP is attempting to ensure that all Supers adhere to the agreed guidelines when there are some who are definately not and by the look of it have no intention of adhering to them and as has been stated here before as the law stands they can not be made to adhere to them either. Or is it a case of if you have a 'nice' Super you're lucky and if you don't well tough.

Would a better idea be to change the legislation so that the requirements are laid out in stone as in you do x,y,x, and you can have a,b,c ?

Cause otherwise my not so nice and from what I can see totally anti-shooting Super could be transferred to your area next

"............I'd strongly disagree. We've a far better record than any shooting body when it comes to the dissemination of information. On top of which, I know most of the bodies involved in the FCP and frankly, the idea that the information would actually flow from their representatives to those they represent is laughable in some cases......."

Excellent point, shooting organisations take note

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

Sparks,
Please explain to me why is the FCP is attempting to ensure that all Supers adhere to the agreed guidelines

Sure. They're not. The Garda Commissioner and the Minister for Justice are ensuring that (and the guidelines haven't been issued yet, so the Supers have nothing to abide by yet).

when there are some who are definately not and by the look of it have no intention of adhering to them and as has been stated here before as the law stands they can not be made to adhere to them either.

They cannot be made to adhere to them by the Commissioner or the Minister - that's the persona designata status for you, and don't forget that it was us shooters who brought the case that enforced that in the law so this is a problem caused by sticking with an adversarial relationship between us and the powers that be. Which is another reason to not go back to that setup because even when we "win", we learn that it's not a win because it's not a game and the rest of society - who outnumber us about 19 to 1 - don't think it's a game and refuse to accept it as such and don't share our sentiments about it.

However, while the Superintendents cannot be forced to adhere to guidelines because of the persona designata status, the simple facts are that the reason you have a very small minority (and it's important to remember we're talking about less than one or two percent here) of "problem superintendents" is that those people have been put into the impossible position of being made personally responsible for the issuing of firearms licences without being given training or guidance or technical support; but have been given liability (at least in theory) for errors made. The natural reaction in that situation (and you're not in it yourself, so you really ought to throttle back on the whole rush to judgement thing, becuase if you were in it, I'd lay odds you'd do the same) is to become very conservative; and then that brings down criticism from our side, which in turn elicits a defensive mindset in the superintendent in question.

The problem here, basicly, is that the supers are pushed out on a creaking limb and we're annoyed because they don't want to bounce up and down on it while we watch. The solution isn't to get annoyed - it's to work with them so they get the support and training they need to feel secure enough to grant us permission for what we want to do. Which is the entire reason for the FCP in the first place.

And yes, it is working. Look at what the "problem supers" have been saying of late - that they have no problem with .22 pistols. Or with fullbore rifles.

Seriously, stop looking at what they're saying they have a problem with, just for a minute, and think.

Think back to ten years ago. Believe me, back then, nobody - not at any level of the shooting community from the firing lines to the top table - thought we would ever get fullbore stuff or pistols back. Certainly noone thought the Gardai on the ground would be happy with them if we did get them. But here we are, ten years later, we have them and even the most restrictive legislation out there (the restricted list) is only concerned with a small subset of them. That's not to say that we should throw away the subset, by the way - my point is look at how far we've come by working with people instead of vilifying them.

Now think forward to ten years from today. And imagine how much better things could be after ten more years of working closely with the DoJ and Gardai, if we've come this far on not even two years of working closely with the DoJ and Gardai (and, yes, ten years of PR work).

Would a better idea be to change the legislation so that the requirements are laid out in stone as in you do x,y,x, and you can have a,b,c ?

No. If there's one thing we've learnt, it's that it is not possible to draft legislation that can cope with all situations. Too many firearms fall into cracks in the system already - the sako quad, combination rifle/shotguns, longarm pistols, and so on. You just can't legislate for everything in detail, the law would become too fragile and fiddly. We've known that since, well, pretty much Mesopotamia.

Sparks

BornToKill wrote: »

Perhaps the thread title could also be edited to reflect the fact that this statement came from 'some' members of the panel rather than from the FCP as a whole.

Been done.

Incidentally, does anyone know if this statement was agreed with all the members before it was issued?

Yes, it was circulated and alterations were made before it was released. Anyone saying they don't agree with it - well, they're basicly stating that they weren't doing their job.

BornToKill

Sparks wrote: »

Yes, it was circulated and alterations were made before it was released.

Thanks. I'm still not clear, though. What I meant is was it circulated in advance to the members of the FCP? Did the Gardaí and DoJ agree to this statement going out even if they didn't contribute to it?

bunny shooter

Sparks, I see your points but ...................

My Super won't even allow me to have a .22lr revolver and wanted me to return to a .40 s/a but I have since gotten a 9mm s/a and as it's smaller than a .40 s/a that's ok :rolleyes:

And his attitudes include: you don't need any guns and if you do I will not licence more than 4 to any individual, if you have a shotgun you don't need a rifle and vice versa, you couldn't possibly need different calibres for different disciplines/types of shooting, first chance I get I'll revoke every licence you have (which a previous Super told me includes being burgaled, even if the firearms aren't stolen btw) ..............................................

And this is progress ?

My area is on record as having one of the highest per capita firearms ownership rates in the state as far as I know. Wonder why the Supers have these attitudes ? I wonder if during their promotion interview they are advised that the sucessful applicant would be well advised to reduce firearms ownership in this area?

You'll have to forgive me for being cynical

Sparks

BornToKill wrote: »

Thanks. I'm still not clear, though. What I meant is was it circulated in advance to the members of the FCP? Did the Gardaí and DoJ agree to this statement going out even if they didn't contribute to it?

The shooting members all saw it and had a chance to alter/contribute to it, and several did so. I don't know if the Gardai saw it ahead of time, but ask your FCP rep to find out, or just ask the DoJ/Gardai directly. They're just people, they'll answer polite questions. In fact, it's part of their job (at least in certain areas).

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

Sparks, I see your points but ...................
My Super won't even allow me to have a .22lr revolver and wanted me to return to a .40 s/a but I have since gotten a 9mm s/a and as it's smaller than a .40 s/a that's ok :rolleyes:

If he's happy for you to have a .40 and happy for you to have a 9mm, isn't that a good thing?

And his attitudes include:

Attitudes or actual answers?

you don't need any guns and if you do I will not licence more than 4 to any individual, if you have a shotgun you don't need a rifle and vice versa, you couldn't possibly need different calibres for different disciplines/types of shooting, first chance I get I'll revoke every licence you have (which a previous Super told me includes being burgaled, even if the firearms aren't stolen btw)

Any of that on paper from the Super? Have you applied anyway and been refused on those grounds and taken it to the DC for a ruling?

And this is progress ?

...asks the man whose super is happy for him to have a .40 calibre pistol or a 9mm calibre pistol and knows which is the larger calibre.
Yes, it's progress. It's significant, welcome, progress that many prayed for for years and more believed was simply never going to happen, ever. Enjoy it while you shoot your .40 cal on the range...

My area is on record as having one of the highest per capita firearms ownership rates in the state as far as I know. Wonder why the Supers have these attitudes ? I wonder if during their promotion interview they are advised that the sucessful applicant would be well advised to reduce firearms ownership in this area?
You'll have to forgive me for being cynical

If we're to be cynical BS, let's do it right and also ask - is it the firearm he has a problem with, or is it you?

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

If he's happy for you to have a .40 and happy for you to have a 9mm, isn't that a good thing??

Yes, but why then not a .22lr revolver ? Where is the sense in that ?

Sparks wrote: »

Any of that on paper from the Super?

No, has never given anything in writing, he's not that silly:)

Sparks wrote: »

Have you applied anyway and been refused on those grounds and taken it to the DC for a ruling

No, would take a minimum of 5 months, going on previous applications to even find out there is a problem. I believe there are two cases outstanding against him already relating to pistol applications. This way I get to have a 9mm rather than maybe have to go through a drawn out process only to maybe have a judge decide I can't have it as the tide seems to be turning on pistol applications and they aren't getting a good press at the moment either.

Sparks wrote: »

If we're to be cynical BS, let's do it right and also ask - is it the firearm he has a problem with, or is it you?

Ya because a .22lr revolver is definately more dangerous than a .40 or a 9mm s/a. If he has a problem with me I'd love to know what it is :eek:

And just for the record all of my shooting friends who live in this area and who have to deal with him, and that is a sizeable amount of people, have encountered exactly the same kind of attitude as me so therefore he must have the same kind of problem/s with an awful lot of people

Sparks

So you've not applied for a cert for a .22lr pistol, you've just mentioned it to him verbally whereupon he's dissuaded you verbally, and you've never put pen to paper or gotten an official refusal or gone to the DC.

Frankly BS, I'm not really of the opinion that you have a problem at all. You're happily shooting away with a 9mm pistol which ten years ago you couldn't have hoped to own. Seems to me that you're just moaning because when you mentioned to your local lad that you were thinking of getting another pistol, he didn't grant you the cert on the spot.

Just fill out the form and put in for the licence if you're that eager. If you're not eager enough to fill out a form, he's probably just of the opinion that you've no real reason for it (and supers are not supposed to grant a cert to someone who wants a firearm on a whim, it's the law - you must have a genuine reason for wanting one).

bunny shooter

:rolleyes:

I sold a 40 cal s/a and bought a .22lr revolver and my FO amended existing cert. Super sent it back to FO saying either I go back to 40 cal or reapply as a revolver is a different type of licence. Advice from my FO, go back as you know what will happen (nod to the wise from FO), which I do. Asked FO if I could get a 9mm s/a and FO said ya he'll go with that as it's smaller than a 40 cal.

For the record at one stage I had a licence for a .22lr s/a AND a 40 s/a. I have previously surrendered the .22lr licence as I didn't need two pistols.

As for genuine reason I have and he has it all on record from my previous applications.

Now tell me that the FCP is doing a worthwhile job :rolleyes:

Sparks

Bunny, pistols and revolvers are different types of licences - the super had to tell you to reapply. Your FO should never have amended that cert in the first place. And from what you say, he's not given you one bit of good advice so far. And from what was stated in public by the Gardai at the FCP conference, you should have gone straight to the Super the moment anything went sideways on you there.

You didn't. Instead, you've just moaned and complained despite not having even tried the very first step - applying for the licence. Feck's sake man, it doesn't even cost you a red cent to fill out the feckin' form! Do you want someone to hand it to you on a silver tray or something? Go down to the station today, fill out the form for a new .22lr licence and submit it. If the FO says he doesn't think it'll happen, ignore that and ask him politely to forward it on to the Super anyway. Then we'll see what the real situation is.

Bananaman

Are you eejits seriously sitting up at half six in the morning talking about this rubbish.

BS - apply for your license if you want it - don't be taking winks and nods from your FO - once you create the paperwork they have to deal with it. If in the end they refuse you it cannot be for a reason such as "I don't allow .22 recolvers in my district". It will more likely because you cannot demonstrate a use for it. I assume you have a proposed use for it. As Sparks said - you cannot have one simply because you want one.

Sparks - saying that he should be happy as he has a 9mm is bollox - sure - he can enter bullseye comps, PP comps, 1500 comps, IPSC comps (having attended the correct courses) but if he wanted to go to a NTSA comp he couldn't do it as you only support .22 or lower (and no shoes with rounded toes as they are an advantage - but i digress)

I'd recommend that the pair of ye got some shotgun licenses and went out and shot some duck - a far more sensible pursuit at that hour of the morning.

B'Man

PS: Feckin eejits.

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Are you eejits seriously sitting up at half six in the morning talking about this rubbish.

Actually I was working at the time.

BS - apply for your license if you want it - don't be taking winks and nods from your FO - once you create the paperwork they have to deal with it.

Precisely.

Sparks - saying that he should be happy as he has a 9mm is bollox

Really? Ten years ago, having a 9mm would have made a lot of folks happy. Which was rather the point...

sure - he can enter bullseye comps, PP comps, 1500 comps, IPSC comps (having attended the correct courses) but if he wanted to go to a NTSA comp he couldn't do it as you only support .22 or lower (and no shoes with rounded toes as they are an advantage - but i digress)

First off, there's an ISSF fullbore competition which allows up to .38, so he could use his 9mm - it's just that most 9mm pistols are nowhere near competitive at international standards so it'd be more frustrating than rewarding. Secondly, he's no idea if he can have a .22 or not, because he's not applied for one yet.

PS: Feckin eejits.

Ye lazy muppet