Shooting Ban

It wasn't me!

bunny shooter wrote: »

The important parts are "representing shooters" and "certs in their own name" :rolleyes: Now how does that incluse DOJ reps etc?

I have my own firearms and certs for them. Therefore, I stand to loose a very significant amount of my own money.

Then go to your organisations and ask their representative to put your proposals to the FCP, or better yet, ask whether you might be given audience to do it. It's not good to give out to others doing work you're not prepared to do yourself.

bunny shooter

The proposed "restricted list" was sold to us shooters by telling us that nothing would be banned but that some stuff would be restricted, as in maybe more security and an authorised range would be needed to get a licence.

Now we have the government telling us either the practical boys disband or else all pistols will be banned.

Seems to me the goal posts have moved. Only problem I have is how much and how often will they be moved in the future?

The FCP have no power. They are there to advise the DOJ, Minister etc. Therefore, did shooting participants on FCP advise DOJ to disband practical shooting? If they didn't did they object? If they did object looks like they weren't listened to.

It looks like it is a bargaining process between DOJ and shooting members of FCP. Shooters give a bit, DOJ give a bit. But who decides what the shooters give/offer?

Seems to me practical boys were given an ultimatum. What next? All pistols surrenders to save 308 rifles? Great if your a long range rifle shooter. Not good if your a pistol shooter though.

It wasn't me!

I agree with you on the point that there's no "power" as such vested in the FCP, and there never has been, but it's still a body made up of representatives of all those shooting groups of whom we represent the primary body and representatives from the legislature and the law enforcement theatre. Of course, only the minister and department of justice have any legislative authority there, and that means that, at the whim of the minister, we can get shut down on the spot. I dislike the direction the government is taking with regard to firearms at the moment. It looks bleak and ominous, but the simple fact is, we still have a voice at the same table as the department making the legislation, and that's a lot better than not having a voice at the table, because if they ignore half of what you say, that's still half they take on board that there was no mechanism to communicate so effectively beforehand. Do you agree, bunny?

IRLConor

bunny shooter wrote: »

Seems to me the goal posts have moved. Only problem I have is how much and how often will they be moved in the future?

The goalposts will be moved over and over and over again according to how politically valuable it is to move them. It's just the way the system works here. We have no rights and the politicians exploit that fact for their own opportunistic ends.

bunny shooter wrote: »

The FCP have no power.

No shooter or shooting body has (or had or will ever have) any power over and above their vote in an election. That's not a significant power either; there are so few shooters in the country that we'd barely make a dent one way or another. And that's if you could persuade all of us to vote in a particular way.

bunny shooter

IWM I agree with you BUT when the shooters are fighting between themselves it's easier for DOJ to play one faction off against another. Do you agree?

Connor, if they were united and all shooters were asked to vote a certain way to save their own sport then i reckon they would do it. It might not topple or vote in a government but it might make 'em sit up and take notice.

It wasn't me!

bunny shooter wrote: »

IWM I agree with you BUT when the shooters are fighting between themselves it's easier for DOJ to play one faction off against another. Do you agree?

I would, but I just don't see the fighting you seem to see. Where is this massive infighting you see?

IRLConor

bunny shooter wrote: »

Connor, if they were united and all shooters were asked to vote a certain way to save their own sport then i reckon they would do it. It might not topple or vote in a government but it might make 'em sit up and take notice.

Maybe, maybe not. It's exceptionally difficult to get people to coordinate to vote for any one party. Then there's the question of who to vote for, everyone will have their own "I'll never vote them" party. For example, I'd rather give up shooting than vote Sinn Fein and I'm sure plenty of people feel that way about every other party.

Then there's the issue of whether or not there are people worth voting for. Last election, the 3 seats I was voting for ended up getting filled by the only 3 even half-competent politicians on the ballot paper. The thought of any of the other muppets getting a seat was not a pleasant one. When the status quo is bad but the alternative is worse, how do you bring about change?

rrpc

bunny shooter wrote: »

The important parts are "representing shooters" and "certs in their own name" and I will add don't even own a firearm. Now how does that include DOJ, Garda reps etc?

And yet again I say, so what?

Would appear to the casual observer that such people haven't as much to loose financially as people who have spent considerable amounts of their own money on firearms, security etc.

And you forget bunny that there are many ways of investing in shooting other than spending money on firearms and certs. Or do you think investing your time has no value? You're a very casual observer if you think a couple of firearms gives you an 'invested in shooting' name tag.

especially when the same casual observers own firearms are under threat of being banned and having a licence for same refused after spending considerable amounts of their own money with little hope of being re-imbursed by the government.

Firstly, you have no 'right' to get a licence, whatever you might believe. Secondly the government can make any decision it pleases without reference to anyone but the electorate and as Conor pointed out, there's always the ballot box to redress that balance. Thirdly didn't Des Crofton help you with a licence application?

I'm sure he's pleased with the thanks he's getting here and elsewhere.

rrpc

bunny shooter wrote: »

IWM I agree with you BUT when the shooters are fighting between themselves it's easier for DOJ to play one faction off against another. Do you agree?

That's two assumptions you're making bunny. Firstly, what evidence do you have that the organisations are fighting each other around the FCP table? (perhaps you should ask your 'reliable source' for details) and secondly what makes you think that the DoJ want or would take advantage of that situation?

For the record, there's far more co-operation between the shooting organisations than you obviously think is possible. Strangely, having us all squashed into an artificial set up was much more conducive to infighting than having us separate and independent.

Bananaman

Sweet Christ - is this still going on??

What in all that is holy has this to do with the proposed ban on firearms and
the abolition of the target shooting sports??

Mods, can you not shut down this rubbish? - it detracts from the topic at hand (possibly the intent?), has nothing to do with shooting - must at some stage have involved an attack on an individual (from both of them) - will be read by the department and others who may make a little wee they will be laughing so much.

I do NOT come to the shooting forums to read this.

B'Man

cavan shooter

To try put it back on topic.... shooting is a minority sport and be it target or game etc, in this day and age we are fighting our corner. I was in a toy shop recently and listened to a kid trying to get a toy foam dart gun off his mother (cool looking side by side type) and her reply was: "No, your not getting that guns are dangerous", or my own sister in law that wont let her kids play bb guns with my kids because its teaching them to be violent.

We are also in the middle of a crime wave second to none and the politicians/gardai need scape goats. If they were to lift every firearm in the country they will still be on the loosing end, because be it subversive or scummy criminals they will always be better armed than the gardai and thats a fact all over the world

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

Would appear to the casual observer that such people haven't as much to loose financially as people who have spent considerable amounts of their own money on firearms, security etc. especially when the same casual observers own firearms are under threat of being banned and having a licence for same refused after spending considerable amounts of their own money with little hope of being re-imbursed by the government.

The key word there Bunny is "casual observer". If you want to complain, stop being a casual observer and actually get up off your arse and do something.

bunny shooter wrote: »

The proposed "restricted list" was sold to us shooters

No, it wasn't. The in place restricted list was signed into law by the Minister. Whether shooters agreed to it or not, it was going in. That's the nature of the Irish political system bunny. We may not like it, but we don't have any legal way to change it.

Seems to me the goal posts have moved. Only problem I have is how much and how often will they be moved in the future?

That's not a problem with the FCP you've got, it's with the Minister and the Irish political process.

The FCP ... If they did object looks like they weren't listened to.

And if that's what happened, what do you suggest as a solution?

bunny shooter wrote: »

IWM I agree with you BUT when the shooters are fighting between themselves it's easier for DOJ to play one faction off against another. Do you agree?

IWM might, I don't. Make up your mind bunny, either the FCP has no power (in which case the Minister can just dictate terms to shooters and doesn't need to worry about tactics); or the FCP has power (in which case the Irish constitution has been thrown out, but the Minister does have to worry about tactics).

Connor, if they were united and all shooters were asked to vote a certain way to save their own sport then i reckon they would do it. It might not topple or vote in a government but it might make 'em sit up and take notice.

If all shooters protested, yes, they'd notice. It's happened before with the licence fee hike. The problem is the 2% rule. Most shooters just don't care enough to do anything but complain (which seems to include you from all I've seen in this thread). The only time they complained was when they were about to be charged more money. If they reacted now as they reacted then, the handgun ban would never happen. But they aren't all going to protest. That's the 2% rule in action.


B'man, I know what you're saying, but (a) the forums aren't run exclusively for you or me, if someone wants to discuss this we don't really have a mandate to tell them to feck off (unless they're breaking the charter) and (b) it is rather important to have at least one place where people can find out what the story actually is with regard to who the FCP are and what they do and what their limits are and so forth.

Sparks

On the other hand, this thread really shouldn't be in Target Shooting as we've waded right into politics, so I'm kicking it out to the main forum and might merge it if necessary...