Possible New Law is an Insult to Irish Shooters

ivanthehunter

Having a few shoots at a few tin cans could soon land you in JAIL!!
i have never heard such bloody rubbish

It will soon be illegal to fire a gun on an unapproved range. I doubt that the doj intentions are to ban fun or is it.

If i want to shoot at a few can on my land i am not going to stopped (at the moment) but if new legislation is passed I'll be for the high jump.

Surely the doj are trying to stop mass gatherings and they should make this clear..
If two or three lads want to get together for a few shots then whats the harm..

Any views.....

tonysopprano

Are you only realising this now, 2.5 years after it was first pushed forward. What do you think that the rest of us have been shouting about for so long. (amongst other things)

ivanthehunter

Well I'm sorry but i didn't see you shouting about it before, and AFAIK its not a law yet.
I know that its easily circumvented by receptive Zeroing but ffs thats just rdiculious state of affairs to be found in.



I have taken the time to post this issue here in the hope that it might receive some valuable exposure..

Does anybody know the current law as it relates to the above..

Sparks-- do i remember correctly, that you told me that this law was only pending....

IRLConor

tonysopprano wrote: »

Are you only realising this now, 2.5 years after it was first pushed forward. What do you think that the rest of us have been shouting about for so long. (amongst other things)

ivanthehunter wrote: »

Well I'm sorry but i didn't see you shouting about it before

Calm down please, both of you.

ivanthehunter wrote: »

I know that its easily circumvented by receptive Zeroing but ffs thats just rdiculious state of affairs to be found in.

I don't know quite what you mean by "receptive Zeroing" but as far as I am aware that exception is only on the strength of what the minister said in the Dail. The law itself contains no such exception that I know of.

ivanthehunter wrote: »

Sparks-- do i remember correctly, that you told me that this law was only pending....

I think it's still not commenced. It was in the 2006 Criminal Justice Act (Section 33).

ivanthehunter

IRLConor wrote: »

Calm down please, both of you.
.

If you gently rub the back of my head in a slow circular motion i calm down quite quickly:)

IRLConor wrote: »

I don't know quite what you mean by "receptive Zeroing"

Sorry i meant to say "repetitive Zeroing"

IRLConor wrote: »

I think it's still not commenced. It was in the 2006 Criminal Justice Act (Section 33).

So in theory no one has been charge for shooting a tin cans yet but they could if the garda so wished.
"Not commenced"??? Why? could you explain how this is so. I get a little bit confused around the legal side of things! Ask anyone:rolleyes:
But seriously i'd appreciate it if you could spreed some more light on the issue for this "old timer"

Sikamick

Ivan I am not that well up on this myself, can you show me where it say's a person out rabbit shooting as an example could not check his/her sights by safely fireing i.e (with a safe back stop) at some tin cans.

Sikamick


Section 33 (New section 4A of Principal Act) — This section
inserts a new Section 4A (Authorisation of rifle or pistol clubs or
shooting ranges) into the Firearms Act 1925. The new Section 4A
provides for the ‘‘authorisation’’ of ‘‘rifle and pistol clubs’’ and
‘‘shooting ranges’’. Rifle or pistol clubs are defined as clubs established
for the purpose of promoting skill in the use of rifles and
pistols for target shooting. Any person wishing to obtain a firearms
certificate for the purpose of target shooting with a rifle or pistol
must be a member of an authorised club. The section sets out the
conditions which must be satisfied for the grant of an authorisation
and also provides that the Minister may make regulations specifying
minimum standards for rifle and pistol clubs and shooting ranges

rrpc

Mick is quite right. The law specifically refers to target shooting clubs and not people zeroing their rifles.

However, as you have specifically used the word 'circumvented' in your second post, I would like to point out that the purpose of the law is to ensure that any target shooting is carried out safely.

A chap was shot dead in the Limerick area a couple of years ago by his friend whilst doing exactly what you describe. It is in nobody's interest that such a situation occurs again, so if you are intent on target shooting, do so on an approved range under controlled conditions.

Anything else is highly irresponsible.

ivanthehunter

rrpc wrote: »

if you are intent on target shooting, do so on an approved range under controlled conditions.

Anything else is highly irresponsible.

So i go down to the bottom of my own land with a box of 50 rounds and 10 paper targets, is this the highly irresponsible action you ref to in the above

rrpc

ivanthehunter wrote: »

So i go down to the bottom of my own land with a box of 50 rounds and 10 paper targets, is this the highly irresponsible action you ref to in the above

If you're going to do it on a regular basis for the purposes of target shooting only, yes it is.

I base that on the fact that you have not said (a) if you have a proper backstop, (b) if you have made sure that nobody will be in range of any misdirected shots and (c) if you are competent enough to properly assess (a) or (b).

Vegeta

rrpc wrote: »

If you're going to do it on a regular basis for the purposes of target shooting only, yes it is.

I base that on the fact that you have not said (a) if you have a proper backstop, (b) if you have made sure that nobody will be in range of any misdirected shots and (c) if you are competent enough to properly assess (a) or (b).

rrpc, that view point will not make you a very popular guy.

ivanthehunter

Well if i cant judge a safe backstop then you better issue me with the plastic knives and forks in case i hurt someone while i'm having my dinner..

If you have access to suitable safe land where you may shoot safely then theres no issue in my mind. Yes some shots might deflect but with a good homemade timber backstop this is avoided.

ffs if people use some commen sense.

Look people die al the time when involved in sports.
GAA stars drop dead, canoe's sink and people drowned, rock climbers fall into the sea, light aircraft fall from the sky, cable car ropes snap, bick riders got knocked down and killed.

With all the scare tactics been brought to bear on this issue put to the side for a moment you might find that satisticly shooting is quite safe.

Its like the CJD scare of the late 90's, people had more of a chance of slipping while exiting the bath and breaking their necks yet they ran around like fools.

rrpc

Vegeta wrote: »

rrpc, that view point will not make you a very popular guy.

I'd be losing sleep only it's daytime

And what's wrong with trying to make sure sh*t doesn't happen? We're so often in the position of viewing things with hindsight that we forget to apply the rules we've learnt.

That there has never been an accident in a target shooting context in this country is not because the shooters are safer per se, but because they are shooting in a controlled environment.

Read Traumadoc's post on the gunshot injuries he treated a while back or some of the posts on the 'I learnt about shooting from that' thread.

Maybe it's not popular to suggest that we can make mistakes, but it's certainly better to be unpopular now rather than 'told you so' righteous later.

Half-cocked

Hi folks, my first post so be nice to me;)

I actually discussed this issue with some one on the FCP (please don't ask who - it was off the record). Apparently there will have to be some discretion by the local Gardai as to wether you are just zeroing prior to bunny shooting etc or taking part in organized target shooting. I was told more or less that one shooter occasionaly (and safely) plugging a few tin cans on land where he had permission to shoot should be Ok. A group of shooters turning up regularly in the same place to shoot targets would be considered to be using an unauthorised range.

Like many aspects of firearms legislation there is a huge grey area with a little bit of black and white at each end!

rrpc

ivanthehunter wrote: »

Well if i cant judge a safe backstop then you better issue me with the plastic knives and forks in case i hurt someone while i'm having my dinner..

I don't know if you can or can't. You haven't at any point stated what your backstop is, the distance you are from it when shooting or its exact dimensions.

ffs if people use some commen sense.

Which unfortunately is not that common.

Look people die al the time when involved in sports.
GAA stars drop dead, canoe's sink and people drowned, rock climbers fall into the sea, light aircraft fall from the sky, cable car ropes snap, bick riders got knocked down and killed.

Yes they do. But they generally don't kill other people whilst doing so. That's the diference with our sport; the possibility of causing harm to others.

Vegeta

rrpc wrote: »

I'd be losing sleep only it's daytime

And what's wrong with trying to make sure sh*t doesn't happen? We're so often in the position of viewing things with hindsight that we forget to apply the rules we've learnt.

That there has never been an accident in a target shooting context in this country is not because the shooters are safer per se, but because they are shooting in a controlled environment.

Read Traumadoc's post on the gunshot injuries he treated a while back or some of the posts on the 'I learnt about shooting from that' thread.

Maybe it's not popular to suggest that we can make mistakes, but it's certainly better to be unpopular now rather than 'told you so' righteous later.

I am not going to argue with another shooter in a different discipline over levels of safety, especially in public, as its a stupid thing to do.

But you have just branded a lot of plinkers and informal target shooters as irresponsible.

Lets say there is a complete ban on it. You may be seen (rightly or wrongly) to be in favour of it by your comments.

Doesn't bunny shooter give you enough stick already

rrpc

Vegeta wrote: »

I am not going to argue with another shooter in a different discipline over levels of safety, especially in public, as its a stupid thing to do.

You and bunny and a lot of other people make a fundamental mistake in assuming that because I primarily take part in one form of shooting that I don't take part or pursue any others. This is not true.

But you have just branded a lot of plinkers and informal target shooters as irresponsible.

I haven't, if you read my post correctly I suggested that there was no information from the OP for anyone to make an objective decision as to whether it was safe or not. Remember that he used the word 'circumvent' in relation to the law and that is hardly a responsible attitude to start with.

Lets say there is a complete ban on it. You may be seen (rightly or wrongly) to be in favour of it by your comments.

Lets say there is a complete ban on it because of irresponsible behaviour or actions. Would my being in favour or not make any difference?

Doesn't bunny shooter give you enough stick already

He does, from a previously prepared nuclear shelter five miles away

tonysopprano

ivanthehunter wrote: »

Having a few shoots at a few tin cans could soon land you in JAIL!!
i have never heard such bloody rubbish

It will soon be illegal to fire a gun on an unapproved range. I doubt that the doj intentions are to ban fun or is it.

If i want to shoot at a few can on my land i am not going to stopped (at the moment) but if new legislation is passed I'll be for the high jump.

Surely the doj are trying to stop mass gatherings and they should make this clear..
If two or three lads want to get together for a few shots then whats the harm..

Any views.....

Legislation HAS been passed, section 33 + 34 were commenced in December and the parts dealing with ranges and range inspectors are due to be implemented in or around the 9th Feb.

See post 69 here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054971048&page=5 for full legislation

Sparks

ivanthehunter wrote: »

ffs if people use some commen sense.

Common sense isn't, and if it was, this thread wouldn't have been started. But more on that in a second.

Look people die al the time when involved in sports.
GAA stars drop dead, canoe's sink and people drowned, rock climbers fall into the sea, light aircraft fall from the sky, cable car ropes snap, bick riders got knocked down and killed.

Indeed. And in every single one of those cases, the death or injury is seen as being so utterly devastating that the sport involved institutes safety measures to prevent those things from happening, whether through training or regulations or outright bans on some practices. In cases where they don't, the government tends to step in and legislate to achieve the same end. Now maybe you don't give a darn Ivan, but don't presume to include the rest of us in your depraved indifference if you please.

Simply put, having a few shots at a tin can might be utterly safe if you'd put a backstop behind it and flags or fences up to keep out wandering idiots (and I'm choosing that word deliberately - as anyone in any activity or sport can tell you, those not in that activity or sport will merrily do things that would get them killed without ever knowing it - regardless of whether that activity is shooting, archery, driving, cycling, cooking, cleaning or anything else). Thing is, by that point, you've built a range. And if you're going to build a range, you might as well do it right. And the new standards for ranges are not all that daft. They're certainly far more practical than the JSP ones the Gardai were looking at for the last few years!


As to the honesty of this thread Ivan, I don't buy it for a second. We went over this topic in detail some time ago, at your request:
target shooting at home on farms

Not to mention the discussion of it in the CJB thread and in the FCP conference earlier this year:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51261237&postcount=308
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51661650&postcount=644
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=55889022&postcount=169

So I'm thinking 'troll', not 'thread' here. Care to explain to me why I'm incorrect?

bunny shooter

rrpc wrote: »

You and bunny and a lot of other people make a fundamental mistake in assuming that because I primarily take part in one form of shooting that I don't take part or pursue any others. This is not true.:)

I don't make assumptions I make accusations

rrpc wrote: »

He does, from a previously prepared nuclear shelter five miles away

That sounds very much like you is calling me yellow pilgrim

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

That sounds very much like you is calling me yellow pilgrim

Hey, if you folks actually want to be banned, I've no problem with it.

bunny shooter

:eek:

Not even friendly banter allowed And to think Vegeta started it all

For the record I have taken NO offence from what has been said:)

Vegeta

Sorry had to break for lunch. I will condition the post with

A) none of this is personal
these are just observations, (again not my personal feelings, read them as if I were a political adviser perhaps) my tone is one of total civility

rrpc wrote: »

You and bunny and a lot of other people make a fundamental mistake in assuming that because I primarily take part in one form of shooting that I don't take part or pursue any others. This is not true.

And?

Without getting overly personal, you may participate in lots of shooting sports but you are known for and heavily involved in a certain type. To think people wont associate you with that type (due to committee positions, user name etc) is being naive. But that is off the main point I am making

I haven't, if you read my post correctly I suggested that there was no information from the OP for anyone to make an objective decision as to whether it was safe or not. Remember that he used the word 'circumvent' in relation to the law and that is hardly a responsible attitude to start with.

rrpc wrote: »

so if you are intent on target shooting, do so on an approved range under controlled conditions.

Anything else is highly irresponsible.

That's pretty clear rrpc, its hard to misread it. Anything (your choice of word) bar an approved range under controlled conditions is highly irresponsible. That doesn't give much wiggle room, 'anything' is a pretty collective word.

Lets say there is a complete ban on it because of irresponsible behaviour or actions. Would my being in favour or not make any difference?

Would it make a difference to me? No

Would it make a difference if you were in favour of the ban? I'd say most definitely yes. I'd say you could expect a lot more hassle over it. You may be accused of being in favour of it all along, other shooters would resent this and anyone associated with you. Seen as selling them out (you've heard it all before)

Its a broad sweeping generalisation (I thought we hated those when used against shooters) which takes a dump on people not shooting on an authorised range. Hell, hunting is more dynamic than plinking or informal target shooting. Do you hold the same stance on that, is that highly irresponsible?

Can you see why folk might think them 'Olympic' shooters are selling other shooters out.

Yes I am jumping to a lot of conclusions but so do other shooters and so do Ministers.

"A ranking member of a governing body thinks plinking and informal target shooting is highly irresponsible"

That reads pretty badly if you are fond of plinking or informal target shooting and are an extremely safe firearms owner.

Now you can got on the defensive and say "What about baffles and backstop heights and composition, dead zones. A lot of these so called safe shooters are not qualified to make these calls" That will just confirm you are against plinking and informal target shooting, which as I said will not make you or your association very popular.
OR
We can all agree, plinking and informal target shooting while not as safe as an authorised range (100% safety record) injuries are extremely rare and banning it is similar to banning legally licensed handguns because of the tiny % which are stolen. That is, very very unfair and unreasonable.

Vegeta

bunny shooter wrote: »

:eek:

Not even friendly banter allowed And to think Vegeta started it all

For the record I have taken NO offence from what has been said:)

I apologise anyway bunny I shouldn't have brought you into it.

rrpc

Vegeta, it's very easy to snip part of my post and parse and analyse that to mean anything you wish it to mean. If you already have a prediposition to jump to conclusions on my stance then such conclusions are easily drawn if you so wish to.

If you fully read the post that you snipped from, then I don't think you should have any doubt as to what I meant. To use your own yardstick of reading the post as if you were a political adviser, you wouldn't have preconceived ideas of my motivations beyond those which prompted me to post in the first instance.

The fact that you do have preconceived ideas on my stance is obvious from this:

Would it make a difference if you were in favour of the ban? I'd say most definitely yes. I'd say you could expect a lot more hassle over it. You may be accused of being in favour of it all along, other shooters would resent this and anyone associated with you. Seen as selling them out (you've heard it all before)

Because I said "whether I was in favour or not". However, you appear to have stopped reading after the word 'favour', because the other two words didn't support your preconceived notions and therefore didn't exist.

To put everything back in context, I was referring to Ivan's post where he discussed shooting on an 'unapproved' range and 'two or three lads together'.

I then went on to describe a tragic accident that happened with such a scenario and finally stated that if you want to do target shooting you should do so on an approved range and that anything else in the context of target shooting was highly irresponsible.

Why is it highly irresponsible? Because (a) it will be against the law (b) it could be unsafe and (c) if something were to happen in such a scenario, it could have a knock on effect on the rest of the shooting sports.

So it's a bit rich accusing me of 'selling out', when my purpose is not to give further excuse to those who want to stop shooting sports in this country.

And btw, hunting has no place in this discussion which is about target shooting only. Hunting and zeroing have been specifically excluded from this part of the act so why bring it up?

Finally, as a moderator on this forum, I would have expected you to show some leadership here. Quite obviously (and according to one of your fellow mods) Ivan was trolling. I made my post in order to prevent anybody reading this thread to assume that we as a body are interested in circumventing the law where it exists for our safety and the security of the public.

Sparks

Okay, I'm closing this down, at least for now. It's not serving any purpose that wasn't covered in depth years ago when this all came up first.
Ivan, I'm expecting a PM from you explaining how this wasn't an attempt at trolling please.