Meeting for all firearms owners

rrpc

chem wrote: »

No it was a direct email shown to me from DoJ to all supers in the country.

The content of which went something like this?

Whats the ISSF?

The International Shooting Sports Federation.

Just my little joke that the SSFI is the bass ackwards ISSF

dresden8

Sparks wrote: »

It was four years ago dresden
And while competitions aren't needed, you will have to go shoot at some point on the range (doesn't need to be a weekend, doesn't need to be formal, but if you've a target shooting licence, you'll be expected to do some target shooting at some point).

I do shoot, but I don't want to be expected to shoot at pre-defined times that don't suit me, and have it linked to my licence.

But that's diverting the thread.

Sparks

Sikamick wrote:

Re the post I put up to day, I am affiliated to more groups in this country than I care to mention, I found those details by accident that I posted. I have never seen or received them in the format which I posted.

Er, Sika, it was up on boards.ie in the main forum as a sticky back in October. It was a fairly active thread, with 56 posts on it. You posted in the thread in fact, post 46.

In answer to Chem re the meeting/new group, I think there are enough leaders and not enough answers without putting more into the captains quarters and confusing it more.

Amen to that.

chem wrote: »

No it was a direct email shown to me from DoJ to all supers in the country. Whats the ISSF?

The DoJ doesn't and didn't send anything to superintendents. I know because I asked them. I'll bet a dollar to a doughnut that you're thinking of the recent letter sent to all Superintendents to remind them of an earlier letter which said that they were not to give out a pistol licence to any applicant without reminding them of the Minister's comments in November. We've already seen that reported by two people here as being a directive from the Minister to the Supers to not issue any pistol licences, which it isn't (and which wouldn't be legal).

So either post it or it didn't happen.


(BTW, if you seriously don't know what the ISSF is, I think perhaps you're at risk to being lied to by less scrupulous types who tend to wander about claiming more status and importance than they actually have and who depend on folks who don't know better for their continued toleration).

Sparks

dresden8 wrote: »

I do shoot, but I don't want to be expected to shoot at pre-defined times that don't suit me, and have it linked to my licence.

It won't be pre-defined times; the idea is you go to the range as you normally do and sign the book to say you were there (and maybe leave your shot target or something) and that's it. That's all they're looking for.

But that's diverting the thread.

In this case the diversion is welcome...

chem

rrpc wrote: »

The content of which went something like this?


The International Shooting Sports Federation.

Just my little joke that the SSFI is the bass ackwards ISSF

Thats the one rrpc in not so many words. No laws to back it up but the minister has told supers not to process pistol licences from the time of his statement. I seen it in black and white today. So am i back in the inner circle:p:D

I just dont do politics:D

chem

Sparks wrote: »

Er, Sika, it was up on boards.ie in the main forum as a sticky back in October. It was a fairly active thread, with 56 posts on it. You posted in the thread in fact, post 46.
Amen to that.The DoJ doesn't and didn't send anything to superintendents. I know because I asked them. I'll bet a dollar to a doughnut that you're thinking of the recent letter sent to all Superintendents to remind them of an earlier letter which said that they were not to give out a pistol licence to any applicant without reminding them of the Minister's comments in November. We've already seen that reported by two people here as being a directive from the Minister to the Supers to not issue any pistol licences, which it isn't (and which wouldn't be legal).

So either post it or it didn't happen.


(BTW, if you seriously don't know what the ISSF is, I think perhaps you're at risk to being lied to by less scrupulous types who tend to wander about claiming more status and importance than they actually have and who depend on folks who don't know better for their continued toleration).

Sorry sparks I seen the memo with my two eyes. Sorry for not asking the super for a printout:rolleyes: NO PISTOLS TO BE LICENCED ORDERS FROM DoJ MINISTER AHERN OFFICE

Sparks

See chem, I don't believe you have that right.
The Minister cannot issue orders to the Superintendents for a start.
And noone can issue orders to the Superintendents when it comes to licencing firearms. Persona Designata is the term you're looking for.
So I call shenanigans. Post it or it never happened.

rrpc

chem wrote: »

Sorry sparks I seen the memo with my two eyes. Sorry for not asking the super for a printout:rolleyes: NO PISTOLS TO BE LICENCED ORDERS FROM DoJ MINISTER AHERN OFFICE

Chem

Did you read the Minister's statement in November?

The only reason I ask and why nobody's getting excited about your revelation is that's exactly what he said back then.

Exactly.

All this has been covered here and elsewhere at great length, depth and width.

Sikamick

Quote Sparks:Er, Sika, it was up on boards.ie in the main forum as a sticky back in October. It was a fairly active thread, with 56 posts on it. You posted in the thread in fact, post 46.

_________________________________________________________________

Sparks no disrespect, I have looked back and there is nothing that matches the format and wording of what I posted today. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Sikamick

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

See chem, I don't believe you have that right.
The Minister cannot issue orders to the Superintendents for a start.
And noone can issue orders to the Superintendents when it comes to licencing firearms. Persona Designata is the term you're looking for.
So I call shenanigans. Post it or it never happened.

Sparks, no offence to Chem, but reading something on the fly does not give you a handle on the nuances of language used. For that you need to study it and re-read it a couple of times to get the full gist.

On top of which you need to have full grasp of the legislation to help inform your reading.

People reading stuff on here have walked away with completely different views of what they've just read. You don't have to be a moderator to know that

chem

Sparks wrote: »

See chem, I don't believe you have that right.
The Minister cannot issue orders to the Superintendents for a start.
And noone can issue orders to the Superintendents when it comes to licencing firearms. Persona Designata is the term you're looking for.
So I call shenanigans. Post it or it never happened.

Ya well its a funny little country we live in:p Just look at the temp order issued in the 70s for rifles over .22 and all pistols. How long was that ment to last? was it a month or 35 years

God bless your faith in the government;)

chem

rrpc wrote: »

Chem

Did you read the Minister's statement in November?

The only reason I ask and why nobody's getting excited about your revelation is that's exactly what he said back then.

Exactly.

All this has been covered here and elsewhere at great length, depth and width.

Eh no rrpc he didnt. he said that any pistols licenced might not be renewed after the next september. Not that no pistols will be licenced from then on.;)

rrpc

Sikamick wrote: »

Sparks no disrespect, I have looked back and there is nothing that matches the format and wording of what I posted today. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Sikamick

Here it is Sikamick: Firearms Consultative Panel Thread

Here it is on the NTSA website.

And that's enough running around I'm doing tonight, night night.

rrpc

chem wrote: »

Eh no rrpc he didnt. he said that any pistols licenced might not be renewed after the next september. Not that no pistols will be licenced from then on.;)

Chem, did you actually read the statement?

His proposals for radical reform in this area include
• no new licences will be issued for handguns.
• existing licenses will not be renewed unless applications fully meet the requirements of a radically tightened licensing procedure where the safety of the community will be paramount
• the Minister will keep under annual review, in consultation with the Garda Commissioner, the outcome of the licensing procedure and, if the outcome of that procedure leaves a situation which still poses an unacceptable risk to the community, will use new powers, which the Bill will contain, to ban outright any type of firearm.

So next time you read stuff, will you actually read it? or will you think it and leave the reading for some other time when you're not as busy.

:rolleyes:

chem

Sparks wrote:

The DoJ doesn't and didn't send anything to superintendents. I know because I asked them. I'll bet a dollar to a doughnut that you're thinking of the recent letter sent to all Superintendents to remind them of an earlier letter which said that they were not to give out a pistol licence to any applicant without reminding them of the Minister's comments in November. We've already seen that reported by two people here as being a directive from the Minister to the Supers to not issue any pistol licences, which it isn't (and which wouldn't be legal).

So me and him have read the statment incorrectly? I will scan in the letter I got from the minister tomorrow. Bed time now work in the morning:(

chem

rrpc wrote: »

Chem, did you actually read the statement?



So next time you read stuff, will you actually read it? or will you think it and leave the reading for some other time when you're not as busy.

:rolleyes:

Oh wise up rrpc! I seen a memo from DoJ to supers to say not to issue or process pistols here. End off. Tell you what. You apply for a pistol now and see if you get it:D

Sikamick

rrpc wrote: »

Here it is Sikamick: Firearms Consultative Panel Thread

_________________________________________________________________

Thanks for that rrpc: I have searched to see did I post in it and I cant find Sikamick anywhere.

rrpc Your are correct, that it was posted before and as I stated when I started the thread, I apologised if it was up before. But it does no harm to remind people of what is there and ahead of us.

Sikamick

Sparks

Sikamick wrote: »

Sparks wrote:

Er, Sika, it was up on boards.ie in the main forum as a sticky back in October. It was a fairly active thread, with 56 posts on it. You posted in the thread in fact, post 46.

Sparks no disrespect, I have looked back and there is nothing that matches the format and wording of what I posted today. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Sorry Sikamick, that was the wrong thread I linked to.
The thread where the post was actually put up was the one on the Firearms Consultative Panel, it was put up in there by me as post 108 and you replied congratulating the FCP on their communication in post 133.

rrpc

chem wrote: »

So me and him have read the statment incorrectly? I will scan in the letter I got from the minister tomorrow. Bed time now work in the morning:(

I'm not quoting Sparks, I'm quoting the Minister. Sparks can make his own mind up on things, I like to go on what I've read from the horse's mouth.

In any case Sparks' comments are about letters that were never posted here and therefore can't be given much credence. As he likes to say himself: 'if it's not posted here it didn't happen'.

Your letter sounds like the statement from the DoJ website that I quoted, but the devil is in the detail, so if you're willing to post it here, by all means do.

rrpc

chem wrote: »

Oh wise up rrpc! I seen a memo from DoJ to supers to say not to issue or process pistols here. End off. Tell you what. You apply for a pistol now and see if you get it:D

Not sure what way to phrase this without incurring the wrath of the mods. I'll just try plain speech.

Did you read this bit in particular:

no new licences will be issued for handguns.

IRLConor

Calm down. Be nice. All of you.

Sparks

chem wrote: »

Ya well its a funny little country we live in:p Just look at the temp order issued in the 70s for rifles over .22 and all pistols. How long was that ment to last? was it a month or 35 years
God bless your faith in the government;)

It was in 1972, it was SI 187 and it reads:

S.I. No. 187/1972:
FIREARMS (TEMPORARY CUSTODY) ORDER, 1972.

I, DESMOND O'MALLEY, Minister for Justice, being satisfied that it is necessary to do so in the interests of the public safety, hereby, in exercise of the powers conferred on me by section 4 (1) of the Firearms Act, 1964 (No. 1 of 1964), order as follows:

1. This Order may be cited as the Firearms (Temporary Custody) Order, 1972.

2. This Order shall remain in force for a period of one month.

3. Every person residing in the State and having possession of a firearm or ammunition of any of the classes specified in the Schedule to this Order shall surrender it to the Garda Síochána on or before the 5th day of August, 1972.

Schedule.
1. Pistols and revolvers and ammunition therefor.
2. Rifled firearms of a calibre exceeding .22 inches and ammunition therefor.

GIVEN under my Official Seal this 2nd day of August, 1972.
DESMOND O'MALLEY,
Minister for Justice.

EXPLANATORY NOTE.
This Order requires every person residing in the State to surrender to the Garda Síochána on or before 5th August, 1972, any revolver or pistol or any rifled firearm of a calibre in excess of .22 inches in his possession, together with any ammunition therefor. The Order will remain in force for one month.

And it ran out on September 5, 1972

Emphasis added because I'm sick of folks complaining about this apparently without a basic understanding as to how it worked. The TCO was not extended, it was not illegally ignored when it ran out. It was timed so when you went for your firearm back, your licence had expired and you needed a new one; which would not be granted by DoJ and Garda policy. Hence, you had no licence and couldn't be given the firearm as you can't hold a firearm without a licence.

If I had a euro for every time someone made a great big fuss over going up to the Minister of the day and demanding that the TCO be ended and firearms returned, only to have the Minister point out that they didn't know which end of the hat they were talking out of, and then applying that same brush to the rest of the shooting community.... well, I wouldn't be worrying about the price of a pint, I'll tell you that much.

Sikamick

Sparks wrote: »

Sorry Sikamick, that was the wrong thread I linked to.
The thread where the post was actually put up was the one on the Firearms Consultative Panel, it was put up in there by me as post 108 and you replied congratulating the FCP on their communication in post 133.

________________________________________________________________

You are right Sparks it was up and I did post in it, but as I stated above, it does no harm to remind people of it contents.

Sikamick

Sparks

chem wrote: »

So me and him have read the statment incorrectly? I will scan in the letter I got from the minister tomorrow. Bed time now work in the morning:(

Is this the letter you got from the Minister, or the email sent to the Superintendent?
Either way, I look forward to the scan.

chem

Sparks wrote: »

It was in 1972, it was SI 187 and it reads:

And it ran out on September 5, 1972

Emphasis added because I'm sick of folks complaining about this apparently without a basic understanding as to how it worked. The TCO was not extended, it was not illegally ignored when it ran out. It was timed so when you went for your firearm back, your licence had expired and you needed a new one; which would not be granted by DoJ and Garda policy. Hence, you had no licence and couldn't be given the firearm as you can't hold a firearm without a licence.

If I had a euro for every time someone made a great big fuss over going up to the Minister of the day and demanding that the TCO be ended and firearms returned, only to have the Minister point out that they didn't know which end of the hat they were talking out of, and then applying that same brush to the rest of the shooting community.... well, I wouldn't be worrying about the price of a pint, I'll tell you that much.

So it cant be done again?

Sparks

Of course it can be done again, the section of the Act that empowers the Minister to issue a TCO for up to 3 months has never been repealed.
The point is that a TCO can't last for 32 years, and going about saying that it can does no favours to the community, it just paints us as not understanding the legislation we have to operate under.

rrpc

chem wrote: »

So it cant be done again?

Not if the three year licences are renewal date staggered as is proposed.

Sparks

But until then he has that option.

Mind you, it's splitting hairs - if the Minister really wanted to, he could pretty much ban everything in the space of a few hours with a single page, a typewriter and a pen.
The kind of head-banging aggro that the last few paragraphs in the original post here seems to be advocating a return to will only see us all damaged.

chem

Hi sparks can you post a poll here asking who applied for a pistol after the ministers statment. And see who got them licenced and who didnt?

It might clear things up.

rrpc

chem wrote: »

Hi sparks can you post a poll here asking who applied for a pistol after the ministers statment. And see who got them licenced and who didnt?

It might clear things up.

Chem, maybe if you answered this question, it might clear things up for everyone.

What's the difference between the Minister's statement in November and what you say you saw yesterday or whenever?