Funding legal action possibility

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

We have already seen what was done to the rimfire pistol sports with specific people, firearm makes, models, calibres and actions being put on a pedestal to the detriment of others.

That was done because there were competing voices, each lauding their own people, firearm makes, model, calibres and actions.
Look what happened. A Disgrace.

Actually B'man, that's precisely the opposite to what actually happened. There were no competing voices - there was only a single solitary voice, because only the NTSA was pushing their sport in all the media. We saw every other body keeping things quiet, and some even strongly suggesting that their members keep off boards.ie and keep schtum about the firearms they were using. We saw names being withheld in other disciplines, but the NTSA was pushing names and faces and photos and competitions and so forth. In other words, we did PR, others didn't (outside of the very small circulation of the shooting magazines). If everyone had done the same level of PR, we'd have been much better off in the rimfire sports. Instead all you saw was NTSA stuff - and that meant that NTSA stuff was more familiar territory to the Gardai so when people started drawing up guidelines in the Commissioner's office and started drawing lines between what they thought was safe and familiar and what wasn't, well, three guesses who wound up on what side of the line.

The truly depressing part is that this wasn't some dark art. It wasn't some secret cabal meeting every sabbath for unholy rites involving wierd robes, a rather surprised-looking chicken and an oddly-shaped piece of rhubarb. This was something we were screaming for every other body to do, and every other body decided it knew better and we were naive idiots. We threw away so much it's just depressing. And now whenever you mention this, it's assumed that the NTSA had some sort of under-the-counter deal going on, because that's easier to think than it is to think that other people made a choice and chose poorly.

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

I think many people are afraid to go to court for fear of the costs. The District Court is not like the High Court (which is where people had to go in the past - and only for judicial review) you can represent yourself there rather than get a barrister.

Yes, but you know what they say about the person who represents himself in court.

Also, while the DC is in theory more convienent, I honestly think it's more a step backwards than a step forwards. You can't set legal precedent in the DC, it's very hard to get a transcript of a decision, the judgements (compared to other courts) tend to be very summarial (a necessity given the caseload I know, but still), and if it's you versus the superintendent that the judge has seen every other day for years, your case is on the back foot from the get-go.

The odds are pretty good that you'd have to go to the circuit court anyway on appeal if there's any real argument over the licence, and then the barrister fees arrive.

Bananaman

What I find quite annoying (on top of everything else) is that I have never been inside a courthouse - I would have been quite happy to live out my days without ever having done so.

I don't know anyone who had been and is not in some way diminished from the experience.

Now it is looking more and more likely that I will have to - and all to argue that 'nothing has changed'.

B'Man

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

Yes, but you know what they say about the person who represents himself in court.

Also, while the DC is in theory more convienent, I honestly think it's more a step backwards than a step forwards. You can't set legal precedent in the DC, it's very hard to get a transcript of a decision, the judgements (compared to other courts) tend to be very summarial (a necessity given the caseload I know, but still), and if it's you versus the superintendent that the judge has seen every other day for years, your case is on the back foot from the get-go.

You can (and I did say this) have a solicitor represent you and it would be my advice that you do this. This evens up the 'familiar face' situation that you describe, with the judge knowing both.

The odds are pretty good that you'd have to go to the circuit court anyway on appeal if there's any real argument over the licence, and then the barrister fees arrive.

You only have to go if you agree to go. You can explain that you can't afford the cost of an appeal if you win and the judge may not grant leave to appeal on that basis.

And you can ask to have your case heard in camera B'man. You might not get it, but it is done regularly in the DC for family cases.

westwicklow

So, to get back to my OP, funding.......

Sparks

To get back to your OP, who do you suggest take charge of the fund? And be specific, because you're looking for money in a recession...

Greenacre

what if each NGB nominated one person to a commitee mandated to control the "fund"

rrpc

Greenacre wrote: »

what if each NGB nominated one person to a commitee mandated to control the "fund"

It was just 'resting' in my account Dougal

Sparks

Greenacre wrote: »

what if each NGB nominated one person to a commitee mandated to control the "fund"

Then you'd just see the same fight in one room with one person per side. You're not solving the problem that way, you're moving it -- and you're complicating things by having each person bound to represent the interests of a particular NGB rather than a single common interest. You're introducing several conflicts of interest right from the get-go that way.

e.g. There's only enough money to do one case - do we take on a refusal for a .308 rifle or for a 9mm pistol?

Bananaman

You, we, they

Fight for all handguns - centrefire, rimfire & air - revolvers, semis, spud guns - end of story.

Under no circumstances allow there to be any acceptancewhatsoever that any of them are any more or less of a sport. They are all firearms, they are all used in sport.

We will not tolerate any order of merit among sports.

This legislation, from the get go - has been to get rid of centrefire handguns - outright - first by destroying the sports in which they are used and then by criminalising those that own them. Rimfire handguns will be next. Do not doubt it for a moment. Air Pistols might be left alone in the long run but I doubt it.

Many of us have been saying this since summer 2008 - many of us have been fighting it since summer 2008 - many of us have had the rug pulled out from under us by petty people who thought they were saving their own arses - the same arses that are now in the wind.

Anyone who shoots deer can get a .308 - refusals for a license for a .308 are individual cases - they can be fought on their own merits.

Refusals for centrefire handguns are part of a campaign .... which must be fought ..... by each and every one of us ..... or they are gone forever.

Fear that some people may have horns or tails and rumours to that effect are a major part of this campaign .... for you to suggest that the focus be put on someone losing a .308 license or to suggest that it shoulkd not happen unless you like who is involved, are yet more examples of trying to take the focus off the actual problem.

I do not care who manages the fund, or the fight - well bar the gombeens who got us here ('Keep your head down lads, you'll get to keep what you have' - have to get that etched on some national tiddlywinks trophy)- we have one shot at this - it needs to be done. The people who have the best skills should be in the positions - if they happen to be a complete ignorant bollix, so what.

A Few ignorant bollixes are exactly what is required now. The lads with the nivea hand ceam can stand aside. We're done patting arses.

Either support the initiative, start the initiative or quit with the naysaying and whinging. It's been a fantastic help so far.

B'Man

Greenacre

Sparks,

while i'm not convinced personally that a legal fund is the way to go, it would be nice just for a change if you tried to offer some kind of positive comment or suggestion instead of always clinging to the negative or telling people where they are wrong.

your points are valid but please offer something positive, a change is as good as a rest!

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Fight for all handguns - centrefire, rimfire & air - revolvers, semis, spud guns - end of story.

And if there's only enough money to do one thing, who's more important, the .223 rifle owners? the .308 rifle owners? the sound moderator owners? the 9mm owners? the .40 cal owners? the glock owners?
No surrender! is a lovely idea, but doesn't survive contact with the real world all that well.

refusals for a license for a .308 are individual cases - they can be fought on their own merits.

Handguns first, feck the rifle owners? Why not rifles first and feck the handgun owners as there's so few of them? Or shotguns first as they're the most successful in the sport? Or moderators first as they're so necessary to the health of shooters? Is your personal preference enough to decide what's prioritised?

I do not care who manages the fund, or the fight - well bar the gombeens who got us here

And how did they get to get us here? Because noone cared who managed the fund or the fight. You want to do something like this, get the unsexy crap right first. It's like getting in a boxing ring - first off, tie your shoelaces.

The people who have the best skills should be in the positions - if they happen to be a complete ignorant bollix, so what.

Complete ignorant bollixes who are also highly competent at doing this job do not exist, because the two characteristics are mutually exclusive. That's so what.

A Few ignorant bollixes are exactly what is required now. The lads with the nivea hand ceam can stand aside. We're done patting arses.

Ah yes, the school of thought that says when you're hanging on by a fingernail, that is when you should start waving your arms about. Brilliant, just brilliant. Tell me, did you ever read the Criminal Justice Bill 2004? Lovely commentary on the effectiveness of "a few ignorant bollixes", that Bill.

Either support the initiative, start the initiative or quit with the naysaying and whinging. It's been a fantastic help so far.

You know what? If you'd listened five years ago, we wouldn't be here now. But no, five years ago, it was all "we'll kick their arses in court boys, by jingo, hurrah!". And now look where we are. And you want to start that all over again, with even less forethought and with far more difficult obstacles to get past? Not only will it do no good to go charging in like that, but you'll scupper everyone else with you. Take your damn time, do it properly. You're not talking about arguing with amateurs, you're talking about taking on professionals who get to write the rules of the game and you think bullheadedness will see you through? :rolleyes:

Greenacre wrote: »

your points are valid but please offer something positive, a change is as good as a rest!

I agree. A change would be nice. We've been seeing this same stupid idea from the first month the forum opened. A single fund or a single governing body for all the sports -- ignore the details -- it'll all be grand lads, trust me. I've actually lost count of how often that's been posted here as though it was a completely new idea that noone else was ever smart enough to have, and with which the poster will save the entire target shooting community.

Well, you know what? Just once I'd like to see someone actually answer the question of "how do we do this without it all going to hell in a handbasket like it has every single time it's been tried before?". Just once.

PJ Hunter

i suppose, sent to hell in handbaskets and getting a roundthe table, i'd be thinking quick:rolleyes:

Grizzly 45

For what it is worth...Seeing that this is first about money and second about who is controlling the money,and thirdly the controllers of the money are not influenced by any sector of the shooting community intrest here.
May I suggest an offshore trust foundation administerd by a totally indifferent board of trustees to the plight of individual Irish shooting organisations.But NOT to the plight as a whole??
I am no financial whizzkid,but this is a legal entity recognised by the Revenue and Govts.It would have the following advantages
[1] it is offshore so it isnt likely that a chat in the local pub or the ol pals network or whatever skullduggery would upset the cart
[2] Anyone who did try and influence the trustees,could be reported in the annual report to the members.
[3]It can be set up for profit or non profit making.IOW what is put in may make more money for the cause of funding a challange.After taxes of course.
[4] It would require satisfaction of the board to release the funds for whatever legal challange would be mounted,in the fact the legal party would have to present a strong arguement that this case could win or the other is hopeless.IOW cases what gave us the Charlton decision wouldnt have a prayer.
Thinking Switzerland,pro gun,tough financial laws and astute with money.
Not the total masterplan,but "back of the envelope"idea sofar.But could we work with this???

Bananaman

Sparks,

Maybe not all your dogs are barking - either that or you do not get the same message from reading something that other epople do.


I said that Handguns must be fought for because there is a campaign to see their total removal from Irish Sport - altogether.

I do not see a difference between make, model, calibre or action on handguns - they are ALL handguns. They should all be fought for. To make any form of distinction is to simply ensure their removal.

Rifles are not under such threat - if and when they are we will all weigh in there.

B'Man

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

You, we, they

Fight for all handguns - centrefire, rimfire & air - revolvers, semis, spud guns - end of story.

Under no circumstances allow there to be any acceptancewhatsoever that any of them are any more or less of a sport. They are all firearms, they are all used in sport.

We will not tolerate any order of merit among sports.

Laudable sentiments Bananaman until...

This legislation, from the get go - has been to get rid of centrefire handguns - outright - first by destroying the sports in which they are used and then by criminalising those that own them.

IPSC was not the only centrefire handgun sport in this country or anywhere else for that matter. If you don't want to emphasise differences, please don't dismiss the other centre fire pistol sports that many people take part in. I know it was yours, but it wasn't the only one.

bunny shooter

Sparks you are entrenched in your sport as others are in theirs please do not assume everyone is like that.

Maybe, and it's a big maybe, there are people out there who can be impartial :eek:

It wasn't me!

bunny shooter wrote: »

Sparks you are entrenched in your sport as others are in theirs please do not assume everyone is like that.

Maybe, and it's a big maybe, there are people out there who can be impartial :eek:

That's to assume it's possible to objectively assess the value to the sport of shooting as a whole of pursuing a particular course of action. It's not.

Bananaman

IPSC was only one of the handgun sports that I took part in here - I still take part in all the others here and travel abroad to take part in IPSC.

Be under no illusions that they are ALL now under threat (and always have been)

A few heads have been pulled out of the sand - only to see a bulldozer getting very close.

B'Man

bunny shooter

It wasn't me! wrote: »

That's to assume it's possible to objectively assess the value to the sport of shooting as a whole of pursuing a particular course of action. It's not.

Why ? Shooting is shooting ? It is to me

To Joe public guns are guns

It wasn't me!

bunny shooter wrote: »

Why ? Shooting is shooting ? It is to me

To Joe public guns are guns

Yep, and to me. I don't think any sport or branch of any sport has any more right than any other to funding or support or legal protection. So how do you decide who gets the money and what causes are worth pursuing? At that level, shooting is no longer just shooting, it's some kind of crusade, and I'd rather be at the range, working towards Rio 2016, than shovelling through that particular squabbling pile of dog mess.

Bananaman

It wasn't me! wrote: »

I'd rather be at the range, working towards Rio 2016

If what is currenty in the works comes to pass I hope your range has somewhere for you to practice beach volleyball.

B'Man

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

If what is currenty in the works comes to pass I hope your range has somewhere for you to practice beach volleyball.

B'Man

Funny you should say that

And badminton as well

westwicklow

And still we get picked off.... one by one by one....

We wouldn't stick together in a barrel of TAR!!!!!!!

rrpc

westwicklow wrote: »

And still we get picked off.... one by one by one....

We wouldn't stick together in a barrel of TAR!!!!!!!

You're very fond of that phrase WW :rolleyes:

Let's look at the reality shall we?

You set up a fund to help people fight cases. The first question is who manages the fund and the second and much more controversial one is who decides how it's to be spent, because everyone who puts money in will sure as hell want to benefit when their case comes around.

You could work on a first come first served basis, but inevitably those who put money into the fund will look to the fund to help their case whether the money is there or not. One case going to the High Court and that's the end.

There was an operation called FLAG up to a couple of years ago and although it had a fund, there was never enough in it to do much more than get a taxi to the High Court and stand on the steps.

Here's a sobering thought: the estimated cost of a lost judicial review case in the High Court is between €100,000 and €150,000.

The District Court will be cheaper but there's no guarantee that your case will stop there.

So when you complain about people not sticking together, what do you really mean? Right now, many of the associastions are talking to their members and trying to come up with a way forward. Perhaps you should be talking to yours rather than regurgitating cliches on an internet forum.

westwicklow

rrpc, perhaps I'm not a member on any shooting organisation? There's another group eh? Ignoring this, perhaps there's help from a European source?

rrpc

westwicklow wrote: »

rrpc, perhaps I'm not a member on any shooting organisation? There's another group eh? Ignoring this, perhaps there's help from a European source?

I see, and that qualifies you to make statements like this:

So we all sit here and wait, let down by supposedly representative organisations, societies, associations and clubs.....

You wouldn't be a farmer by any chance? :rolleyes:

westwicklow

Farmer? Now there's a thought...... Goodness me, a farmer with a gun!!

My point is that not everyone who shoots is a member of a club, association etc etc and that such individuals need to be considered in this debate also....

"United we stand, divided we..." well, we all know now!!!

:mad:

rrpc

westwicklow wrote: »

Farmer? Now there's a thought...... Goodness me, a farmer with a gun!!

My point is that not everyone who shoots is a member of a club, association etc etc and that such individuals need to be considered in this debate also....

You won't find me arguing with that. You will find me asking why you should start bad mouthing clubs, associations or others when you've no membership of them and no experience either.

"United we stand, divided we..." well, we all know now!!!

:mad:

Way to foster unity by having a go at everybody. :rolleyes:

westwicklow

rrpc wrote: »

You won't find me arguing with that. You will find me asking why you should start bad mouthing clubs, associations or others when you've no membership of them and no experience either.


Way to foster unity by having a go at everybody. :rolleyes:

Read my post again please rrpc.... Perhaps I am a member and perhaps not, that's not my point rrpc, as I did actually say though, not everyone with a gun may be represented by a club, association etc etc.

How do you define my "no experience" of clubs etc please? This "nit picking" is unhealthy methinks, shouldn't we stick together? :rolleyes: