NARGC director's report on the Firearms Act

daveob007

It wasn't me! wrote: »

The Troubles argument doesn't wash, frankly. How is it they managed to do alright in the north, with civilian firearms not contributing to trouble where the conflict actually took place? And now, as a result, the north has a sporting shooting tradition we don't. Most of our Olympic rifle shooters have come from the north, and I gather that clay shoots are predominated by northern shooters too. no real knowledge of pistol sports, but I'm betting they're kicking a lot of southern ass there too. There's no point trying to justify bad decisions out of respect for the guards and the solid job most of them do.

You are right/the troubles are no excuse for bad decisions,that was the excuse for banning handguns in the first place and it did nothing to stop the conflict.
Just the vibes i have got over the years from different garda who handle firearm certs and from ill informed members of the public who know nothing about shooting.
I was actually handed a copy of the good friday agreement by a old garda few years ago when i applied for a cert, maybe that one of my reasons for thinking this.

jwshooter

i shot competitive clays in the north during the troubles and shot with the northern lads for ireland at the time ,a finer bunch of men and women there is not in the land.

the sports men in the north used pistols shotguns and rifles right through the troubles with out any problems.

to use this as a excuse was so small minded at the time ,
just goes to show how small minded our excuse of a government are now .
are they still the same lot?.
in the 70s they had no hope of solving the problem so they wanted to be seen to do something, just like to day.
if they had any interest in leading from the top i would like them to take a pay cut or the boat .

9 weeks off i ask you ,we are a soft nation.time for another rebellion

daveob007

Where do you think all this stuff about restricted guns came from??
Black stocks/pistol grips/military style guns etc etc.
Its because you might look like a paramilitary going around dressed in camo gear and using a black gun,,,,,,and the rest of that horses***T
That attitude is still very strong among the gardai who in turn have influence over the minister.
Its no excuse but thats just part of the problem here.

rrpc

daveob007 wrote: »

Where do you think all this stuff about restricted guns came from??
Black stocks/pistol grips/military style guns etc etc.
Its because you might look like a paramilitary going around dressed in camo gear and using a black gun,,,,,,and the rest of that horses***T
That attitude is still very strong among the gardai who in turn have influence over the minister.
Its no excuse but thats just part of the problem here.

To be fair, it's also about what happens if something gets stolen and what use it would be to criminals.

A lot of stuff that's stolen is stolen in opportunistic situations in that the thief is in the house and finds a shotgun or whatever. Quite a lot of the time, after taking the gun, the thieves dump it as being difficult to conceal and not worth a lot. Shotguns usually find a ready market once they're sawn off, but a lot of rifles turn up after they've been stolen.

Some of the restricted stuff would be very saleable and I don't know about you, but if I thought that one of my guns had been used in a crime where someone was badly injured or killed.... Well I just think that asking me to adhere to some stricter security regimes is a small enough price.

Or do you think that the security for a .22 bolt action rifle should be the same as for a Les Baer 45 for example?

daveob007

Thats fair enough about the concealment bit and security for which i have no problem with.
But how is something like a ruger 10/22 with a pimped up stock and pistol grip more dangerous that a regular 10/22 ??
Or a pump action shotgun with pistol grip or black stock,they can be sawn off regardless of the type or color of the stock.
T restriced list should only be based on how dangerous or useable a gun is in the wrong hands and not the appearance of the gun.

dbar

I think I'll move to Switzerland,
failing that check this lot out,
http://www.britishalpinerifles.org.uk/index.php
Anyone up for opening an Irish Alpine Club

Grizzly 45

Or do you think that the security for a .22 bolt action rifle should be the same as for a Les Baer 45 for example?

[/QUOTE]
Yes indeed it should..Both if misused by criminals can kill or be used in crime,andin some cases a 22 BA would be more helpful than a 45.So we are either in this together or we are not.

rrpc

Grizzly45 wrote:

Yes indeed it should..Both if misused by criminals can kill or be used in crime,andin some cases a 22 BA would be more helpful than a 45.So we are either in this together or we are not.

Of course they are both dangerous, the question was about higher levels of security and was asked seriously.

In every jurisdiction that sets levels of security for firearms ownership, pistols are always at a higher level than rimfire rifles.

If you set the top level of security for the bottom level of firearms ownership, you will immediately lose a considerable number of people from the shooting sports who won't feel it's worth the trouble.

Is that what you mean by being in it together?

Grizzly 45

If you set the top level of security for the bottom level of firearms ownership, you will immediately lose a considerable number of people from the shooting sports who won't feel it's worth the trouble.

Is that what you mean by being in it together?

[/QUOTE]
Put it like this;we are being pushed not by our own choosing but by law into becoming a very elitist and select "club" in Ireland,that of a gunowner .I and proably 4/500 other sare in a now exclusive section of that by being big calibre pistol owners.So if this is the way things are going to go,it is proably best we only have members who are dedicated to this,are willing to go thru all the BS and hoops and loops to get a FAC,are going to be only the most dedicated,and are also going to be proably also people who will actually stand up and fight to prevent any further loss to their sport. Having a "as shure ,if they ban pistols no harm ,Ill still have the oul rifle and shotgun,feck themI]insert your fav derisory shooting sport[/I] [I]here[/I attitude or "ah well, I'm paying my membership dues to whomever ..let them fight it ou for me,I couldnt be arsed writing emailing,etc." Does us no good either.So maybe we should look at ourselves and start getting rid of alot of deadwood out of our own organisations and clubs.It wont get any easier in the future with legislation and we need to fight and respond,and be somwhat singing off the same hyme sheet.
I would rather have 50% less gunowners in Ireland nowadays,but those 50% fight hard and long and incessantly,not necessarily supporting each other in organisations,but not going out and backstabbing one to keep their own patches or gain favours with those in power.
Than 100%more gunowners and 25% are doing the work for 75% of owners who got a gun too easily and really didnt have to go thru the serious BS of security and whatnot to get a big calibre rifle or handgun.You want a rifle?Fine these are the preconditions for a .22.If you went thru all this hassle just to get a .22 are you going to fight abit more to enjoy this and to keep it?Than just a lassiezfaire attitude,oh well I got it,shure no problem if I lose it?

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

it is proably best we only have members who ... are also going to be proably also people who will actually stand up and fight to prevent any further loss to their sport.

do you think that putting enormous entry barriers on the sport is going to prevent or cause further losses to the sport in the form of actual shooters?

Seriously Grizzly, that's up there in the ranks of the most anti-shooting-sports posts I've read on here in quite a long while.

tonysopprano

Sparks wrote: »

do you think that putting enormous entry barriers on the sport is going to prevent or cause further losses to the sport in the form of actual shooters?

Seriously Grizzly, that's up there in the ranks of the most anti-shooting-sports posts I've read on here in quite a long while.

Correct me if i am wrong, but NTSA increaed membership fees from €50 to €250 per year, when it was announced that ISSF (Style) pistol had an exemption. Way to go, to try to increase membership (or jump on the band wagon, wth captive audience)

Grizzly 45

No Sparks ,you are reading this wrong.I am saying in alot of things it is too easy and unfair.You have a single shotgun and you dont need a gunsafe alarm or whatever.If you have have a handgun..because of it's "precived more deadliness" by the powers that be ,it must be stored with more security than is necessary in some EU countries than for a gunshop!
Yet,we have less handguns stolen going by our own stats than shotguns or rifles .Now the attirude seems to be,well,if I cant get this type of a gun due to high costs or barriers,ill get the lower class and I'll be grand no bother.
However if say you had to go thru the procedures just to get near a real gun to target shoot andhunt like say Germany.I can tell you Sparks,99.9% of us here in Ireland would take up somthing else as a sport.

However OTOH because German gunowners have to go thru all this effort and work,they defend aggressively and thoroughly any Govt infringement or laws on the sport.And in pouplation ratios,there are the same amount of German gunowners of all types than irish gunowners.

Put it like this in march of this year,Germany would have lost practical shooting,paintball,and airsoft courtsey of the Winniden massacre.By today they have beat the Govt on those three,[paintball being the smallest sport that could have been hung out to dry by the other organisations]are fighting hard with the police about the central gunownership database.The police think it awaste of time ,taxpayers money,and resources[Ever hear that from the Gardai??]
Have shown that the biometric locks demanded by the Greens on firearms isnt workable at the moment.Not that it is over for them either,but they are making it so difficult and hard,and are not backstabbing each other to curry favour with the Govt parties,to secure a paticular sport section.IE German hunters migth be critical of practical pistol,but they dont go off saying "support us hunters,because WE are the only ones entitled to use pistols for humane dispatch."Rather it is we might have issues with PP,but as they are gunowners as well,we will mot pass judgement on their paticular sport."

In Ireland we have IMO lost more than we have gained with this rammed thru law .[BTW this would never have been allowed in Germany either under Federal laws,or the fact that German politicans cant gulitoine bills thru a week before they go on the 3week State mandated holiday]

What I am saying is Sparks the majority of us we dont fight hard enough here to keep what we have,and in the future do we really have the time ,the effort,or the need to carry "slackers" in this sport?It will get harder to defend shooting and harder to get liscenses.But will people put in the effort to defend what they got or just go "ah shure thats just the way it is.I'l roll over and hand it in or try and sell it,"like some people have done here.If you had to spend over a thousand for an alarm system for your .22 rifle,and for a gunsafe,had to do a years minimum theory and practise a written and oral and psychological test before you were even considerd for a clay piegon shotgun,and pay a stupid amount for a club membership.Or for a hunting consortium.Do you think most people here would have the same attiude to losing or not being able to get a certain type firearm??I think it would be more "fcuK them!!I went to alll this BS and now they want to ban my kind of shooting ??No WAY!! I'm off to lobby my TD 24/7 until this is resolved."
You and I remember how many people botherd to push the Prime Time affair last year?
So honestly ask yourself,how many claim to have done somthing and actually did do somthing??

Clash

tonysopprano wrote: »

Correct me if i am wrong, but NTSA increaed membership fees from €50 to €250 per year, when it was announced that ISSF (Style) pistol had an exemption. Way to go, to try to increase membership (or jump on the band wagon, wth captive audience)

Amazing how the wrong conclusion can be reached from something that was the exact opposite.

From what I understand, the NTSA had to leave the SSAI when the practical lads joined for reasons beaten to death elsewhere and as a result lost their sports council funding. (seemingly the sports council will only give money to big groups of sports and not individual sports - go figure :mad:).

So they had to put up their membership fees to make up the balance or not be able to send people abroad for competitions. And since they have a lot of juniors, they have to subsidise the kids whio don't have any income themselves.

Sparks

tonysopprano wrote: »

Correct me if i am wrong, but NTSA increaed membership fees from €50 to €250 per year, when it was announced that ISSF (Style) pistol had an exemption. Way to go, to try to increase membership (or jump on the band wagon, wth captive audience)

Correcting you, the NTSA increased club membership from €50 to €250, when it left the SSAI and temporarily lost its sports council funding. The NTSA has overhead costs; it has to meet them or it's got no purpose existing; ergo we put our hands in our pockets... which is ironically, what Bananaman was advocating over on the thread in Target Shooting on the ISC funding being slashed...

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

the attirude seems to be,well,if I cant get this type of a gun due to high costs or barriers,ill get the lower class and I'll be grand no bother.

You're assuming there that everyone wants a pistol. Which isn't true.

However if say you had to go thru the procedures just to get near a real gun

/facepalm

However OTOH because German gunowners have to go thru all this effort and work,they defend aggressively and thoroughly any Govt infringement or laws on the sport.

Or maybe it's because they're German and have a completely different psychological character to the Irish and have a longer history of firearms being privately owned and so forth?

Put it like this in march of this year,Germany would have lost practical shooting,paintball,and airsoft courtsey of the Winniden massacre.

Sure, if newspapers drafted national policy...

The police think it awaste of time ,taxpayers money,and resources[Ever hear that from the Gardai?

No, because the Gardai are prohibited from speaking their mind like that.

What I am saying is Sparks the majority of us we dont fight hard enough here to keep what we have

But over on the CJ(MP)B thread, you're committing acts of libel against any shooting organisation that actually does do that because they do their job and not yours for you as well!
Feck's sake Grizzly, at least make it possible for the right thing to do to even exist!!!

and in the future do we really have the time ,the effort,or the need to carry "slackers" in this sport?

Run a match yet? Started a new sport yet? Posters here have. You gone and shot internationally for your country (thus giving us good PR) yet? Posters here have. From where I'm sitting Grizzly, you're acting a lot like one of the "slackers".

Mind you, the rest of those "slackers" pay match entry fees and buy ammunition and targets and pay club dues and basicly enable the rest of us to have a sport.

And that's what this is about, by the way - sport. Just to remind y'all. Because as important as the legislation is, waaaaaay too many of ye are making the scrapping the important thing and omitting the actual sport bit...

tonysopprano

How many members did ther NTSA before leaving SSAI?

How many members after leaving SSAI?

How much was SSAI funding to NTSA per year?

Did IPSA say that they wanted no funding from SSAI (thereby leaving existig funding to be spread as before)?

Did NTSA think that they would ge more by going on their own to ISC?

tonysopprano

I know it has only been 27 minutes before reply, but NTSA/SSAI/ISSF/Sparks etc, have usually been so fast in reply.

Questioning ?

Sparks

tonysopprano wrote: »

I know it has only been 27 minutes before reply, but NTSA/SSAI/ISSF/Sparks etc, have usually been so fast in reply.
Questioning ?

Yeah, it's called Dinner tony, you might have heard of it.

Sparks

tonysopprano wrote: »

How many members did ther NTSA before leaving SSAI?

What?

How many members after leaving SSAI?

Same as before leaving it. SSAI membership has nothing to do with NTSA membership.

How much was SSAI funding to NTSA per year?

Zero. Irish Sports Council funding used to be between €5000 and €7000 per annum; it had been cut down to €2000 by the time the NTSA left because of how the SSAI was diverting the money. Since one of the bills was auditing the accounts and that alone was eating nearly half that €2000, the funding wasn't great to start with.

Did IPSA say that they wanted no funding from SSAI (thereby leaving existig funding to be spread as before)?

Yes, but that was irrelevant.

Did NTSA think that they would ge more by going on their own to ISC?

That's not why the NTSA left.

NTSA

tonysopprano wrote: »

How many members did ther NTSA before leaving SSAI?

How many members after leaving SSAI?

About the same. No major changes in any way, although in early 2007 two clubs that weren't members for a while rejoined. That was Comber and BRC

How much was SSAI funding to NTSA per year?

The SSAI don't fund the NTSA, they just disburse the funds from the ISC which is based on a claim made the preceding October. The last payment the NTSA received in this way was €4,300 for the October 2007 grant claim. All this is in the NTSA accounts which are published in the companies office as the NTSA is a limited company.

Did IPSA say that they wanted no funding from SSAI (thereby leaving existig funding to be spread as before)?

as soon as the NTSA left the SSAI, they were no longer eligible for core funding from the ISC. In fact two of our coaches were also prevented from completing their NCTC coaches accreditation which cost €2,000.

By the way, the membership fee you are referring to is the club affiliation fee. This fee is exactly the same as the NASRPC club affiliation fee.

Did NTSA think that they would ge more by going on their own to ISC?

The NTSA knew that they would get nothing from the ISC and have been told that on a number of occasions since leaving. There was a vague hope that this would not be the case, but the decision was not of our making and we had to pull out.

On a personal note Tony, what other body would come on and answer you officially with official information within half an hour of you asking it? Especially as you appear not to be a member and have no real right to that information.

As a limited company we have statutory obligations, as a national governing body of an olympic sport we have very onerous and considerable governance obligations. Quite frankly after that we have no other obligation that wouldn't have been met by one of the first two.

tonysopprano

Clash wrote: »

Amazing how the wrong conclusion can be reached from something that was the exact opposite.

From what I understand, the NTSA had to leave the SSAI when the practical lads joined for reasons beaten to death elsewhere and as a result lost their sports council funding. (seemingly the sports council will only give money to big groups of sports and not individual sports - go figure :mad:).

So they had to put up their membership fees to make up the balance or not be able to send people abroad for competitions. And since they have a lot of juniors, they have to subsidise the kids whio don't have any income themselves.

Sparks, please qualify the statements of clash above.

NTSA

tonysopprano wrote: »

Sparks, please qualify the statements of clash above.

I'll do it as I don't think Clash is a member of the NTSA either

If I read them correctly, NTSA could not afford to send people overseas after withdrawing from SSAI (funding < €2000 divide into 6 organisations)

Total funding to the SSAI in 2008 was in the region of €35,000 of which the NTSA received €4,300. There were 5 Associations in the SSAI at that time: NTSA, NASRPC, NSAI, NRAI and IPC.

compared to to IPSA (NO FUNDING) who in 2007/2008 had people in Euro C/Ship in France-7, Australasian C/Ship-1, STI Open , Germany-8, Nordic Rirle- 3, Lithunia Open - 12, Austria Open -5, World Champiosip Indonesa-5 etc.

If you are trying to make a comparison between self funded well paid individuals going on trips around the world and juniors in full time education trying to attend international competition with support staff, childrens officers etc. well then you won't succeed.

And your manners are deplorable Tony, the least I would expect for my prompt reply is a simple thank you.

Is it only me, or do the figures not compute?

At least I still have my sense of humour.

Sparks

It's just you tony. NTSA paid a percentage of their shooters costs; IPSC paid nothing, their shooters were fully self-funding (oddly, adults with good jobs are better able to do that than 19-year-old secondary school students...)

tonysopprano

NTSA wrote:

The NTSA knew that they would get nothing from the ISC and have been told that on a number of occasions since leaving. There was a vague hope that this would not be the case, but the decision was not of our making and we had to pull out.

On a personal note Tony, what other body would come on and answer you officially with official information within half an hour of you asking it? Especially as you appear not to be a member and have no real right to that information.

As a limited company we have statutory obligations, as a national governing body of an olympic sport we have very onerous and considerable governance obligations. Quite frankly after that we have no other obligation that wouldn't have been met by one of the first two.

On all other ocassions, when NTSA/ISSF were questioned/accused etc, at least 1 representive (not you in particular), were very happy to reply post haste.

I apoligise, if my questions needed needed more time to formulate an answer, due to checking of facts.

NTSA

tonysopprano wrote: »

On all other ocassions, when NTSA/ISSF were questioned/accused etc, at least 1 representive (not you in particular), were very happy to reply post haste.

I apoligise, if my questions needed needed more time to formulate an answer, due to checking of facts.

No need to apologise Tony, just amend your post so that what I said isn't confused with what you said.

We aim to please as far as replying goes, but unfortunately tonight I was tied up with some family matters and didn't see your post until just before I replied.

I hope I've answered everything to your satisfaction, just remember that I'm not often on boards as you can see by my post count, but you can always email secretary@targetshootingireland.org if you need a question answered quickly.

Good night

maglite

Lads dont take this as a personal attack. Its not personal it is however a childish attack.


Will ye shut up moaning about your darn associations. Most people could not care less. It makes this thread near impossible to read. I DONT CARE if ye have probelms. Was DeVore not concerned about this sort of stuff.


Break the thread if ye want to squable.

tonysopprano

Is this not a forum, that those of us with no voice at the table, can make our voices known.

Sorry if I got that wrong, but I make no apologies for stating my point.

tonysopprano

Sorry, but I will not be able to post as freely as before.

Somehow, I got infracted. for quoting items that are available here on Boards, in history, but to bring them up, together, in the one post, displease those that rule.

Sparks, (or should that be CENSORIS MAXIMUS), please feel free to tell all and sundry, what struck the note?

Grizzly 45

You're assuming there that everyone wants a pistol. Which isn't true./

Err No Sparks,I am not ASSuming anything,I am stating that we have an unfair security situation,and where there isnt a "use it or lose itafter a load of BS to get it".We have people who are happy with an FK youJack I'm all right attitude.But if these people maybe had to work harder to keep their lowly .22 or whatever,or even get them in the first place,we might have a more active community fighting any legislation.Is that such a bad thing???

facepalmOr maybe it's because they're German and have a completely different psychological character to the Irish and have a longer history of firearms being privately owned and so forth?

Er NO WRONG again Sparks,that wont wash anymore in the EU family of nations...Unless the Irish want special treatment as usual, again????:rolleyes:Maybe they have a longer tradition of privately owned firearms,BUT they have had a more stringent legislation slammed on them than the Irish or UK ever had,since the 1960s.Anyway whats so wrong in trying to emulate,adapt or imitate a sucessful system.Considering the Irish seem to look up to the Germans over the last century??:p

Sure, if newspapers drafted national policy...

Try more the SPD,Reds and Green parties in the Bundestag.They are elected parties not newspapers.

No, because the Gardai are prohibited from speaking their mind like that.

I see like CC Murphys comments on liscensing Glocks and taking them off the streets as well??
considering that if they could.Do you think anyone here would refuse more money and power??Or they would say "no thanks actually irish gunowners have a point on this??"

But over on the CJ(MP)B thread, you're committing acts of libel against any shooting organisation that actually does do that because they do their job and not yours for you as well!
Feck's sake Grizzly, at least make it possible for the right thing to do to even exist!!!

Everything that is possibly out of order or controversial is libellous with you isnt it??:rolleyes:
I've simply stated and categorised the FACTS and STATEMENTS from those organisations as they have appered in public and questioned the motives or reasoning behind itand SPECULATED if that is now libel,this country is in a worse off position than we thought!And if the truth hurts....WHERE were all the rest of the organisations when the court cases for handguns and rifles were up???I only remember NARGC being mentioned...Maybe We all missed the target shooting organisations legal breifs???

Run a match yet? Started a new sport yet? Posters here have. You gone and shot internationally for your country (thus giving us good PR) yet? Posters here have. From where I'm sitting Grizzly, you're acting a lot like one of the "slackers".

WELL BELOW THE BELT SPARKS!!!AND YOU KNOW IT!!!!!!!!!!:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:.Sorry if I cant dedicate the rest of my life now to setting up training sessions and going off competing and the rest.
.All I'm doing is writing letters,bothering TDs and ministers while trying to set up a gun range in the West of Ireland which is sorely needed,and getting FA with it,apart from trying to arrange the monies for this as well.a [Only about 60k of my own moneyor bank loans or foreign investment to do this properly]So sorry if I am lacking in your almighty and superior view!I havent been exactly overwhelmed with physical help on it either..

Mind you, the rest of those "slackers" pay match entry fees and buy ammunition and targets and pay club dues and basicly enable the rest of us to have a sport.

Yeah???And if so we should have blocked solid ranges every weekend,if everyone is soooo supportive and sure that they want to enjoy every last minute of their firearms.

And that's what this is about, by the way - sport. Just to remind y'all. Because as important as the legislation is, waaaaaay too many of ye are making the scrapping the important thing and omitting the actual sport bit...

Unfortunatly to have some sort of sport nowadays,you have to get involved in the scrapping on all levels.

jwshooter

im reading all this crap now for the last year or more like so many .

iv came to a conclusion the sooner the better all pistols are taken up the better .

this small group and i include myself as i have and pistol over 4 years now .
have brought sport shooting and hunting to far into the public domain its been so negative on our sport as a hole .

time to cop on

Sparks

tonysopprano wrote: »

Sorry, but I will not be able to post as freely as before.

Actually, you will. You weren't allowed attack other posters personally before, and you're still not. So it's the same situation as it was yesterday.

Somehow, I got infracted. for quoting items that are available here on Boards, in history, but to bring them up, together, in the one post, displease those that rule.
Sparks, (or should that be CENSORIS MAXIMUS), please feel free to tell all and sundry, what struck the note?

You were infracted for a personal attack on another poster (or being a muppet as we colloquially refer to it). Not for quoting past items, nor for any actual point you made or actual question you asked (as opposed to mud you slung). You're required to follow the charter here, same as everyone else; you decided not to; you were infracted and your post was deleted. In short, you broke the rules, got slapped, didn't like it, and are now complaining in the thread instead of following the documented procedure for taking issue with a mod's decision (read your charter).
And by the way, several other posters found your post to be daft mudslinging as well.