P226 & pistol politics

Tackleberrywho

rrpc wrote: »

Just to add that my previous post should not be read as inciting anyone to break the law, but to point out that that's mostly how law is evaluated.

As Mr Bumble put it so well

"The law is an arse"

rrpc

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

As Mr Bumble put it so well

"The law is an arse"

I don't know what version of Dickens you read Tack, but the word used was ass which is another word for donkey.

Dickens would never have been so crude...

Tackleberrywho

rrpc wrote: »

I don't know what version of Dickens you read Tack, but the word used was ass which is another word for donkey.

Dickens would never have been so crude...

Well Ass or Arse

Then the law is an

Bananaman

I think Mr. Mole has made a particular point that merits further discussion.

While ye were arguing the semantics of law (bar exam results to presented at some point) a point was made that an implicit belief, a herd mentality if you will, in this case that IPSC is banned in Ireland, is always at play in shooting politics and invariably creates a self fulfilling prophecy.

True, as ye have said - it will most likely require a day in court for that particular inconsistency to be ironed out - true or not - the herd says it is verboten so it must be - but as it stands under law, semantically, IPSC is not banned in Ireland.

However, the 'herd mentality' believes it to be so.

Poiint in case the 30 day custody order of '72.

The same is true of many of the other untruths I have heard over the years where the 'herd' has agreed, in its wisdom, that such and such a thing is true or that such and such a person has horns, or that such and such a gun is useless to whatever.

Is there a reason why this is so prevalent in the shooting sports?

B'Man

Bananaman

And if deference to Sparks point.

There is doubt whatsoever, that the sitting Minister for Justice and his bedfellows believe IPSC is banned but the law simply does not state so.

B'Man

Grizzly 45

Simple really...
The more somthing is repeated in simple terms the more the herd will pick it up,swallow it ,belive it and spew it back when it is needed.

Like the Sheep in Orwells novel "Animal Farm." They couldnt grasp the intricies of the animal constitution,so it was simplified for them and they simply kept bleating "Four legs good.Two legs bad".:)

But dont worry,its not just the shooting pouplation,it is a malaise of society in general.We dont like to think alot for ourselves,or stand out from the herd,it is nicer to have a prepackaged opinion to insert into the slot where this opinion on a specific subject should fit.:(

Quite frankly,I dont think the nasty little man would know an IPSC match from a full blown combat training simulation.Or care either.He is anti gun and anything that gets the nasty things out of Irish society and civillian hands is good enough for him.
TBH with modern technology a "Irish" version of IPSC could be shot,without it being illegal.As one thing has to be present for it to be classified as "combat training" and that is the shooter is running,jumping or whatever between stages with a loaded firearm.IOW dynamic shooting.

Range Robotics is a marvellous invention..;):D

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Poiint in case the 30 day custody order of '72.
...
Is there a reason why this is so prevalent in the shooting sports?

Pragmatic realism.
Also, the point that in '72, when the cynicism in the TCO's timing was exposed, there was a meeting with the Minister, whereupon (as was reported to the '01 NARGC AGM) it was communicated in rather blunt and unimpressive language by the Minister himself that a legal challange could indeed be taken, and would stand a high probability of winning... and within a week, there'd be a new law on the books banning all firearms.

Given the complete lack of any public support for our sports outside of the shooting community, and the utter public revulsion at the troubles at the time, and the ability of the DoJ at the time to tie the two together with impunity because of the circumstances of the time, it was decided not to try a headbutting competition with a brick wall.

It wasn't until after the good friday agreement that any progress of any kind was ever made, don't forget.

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

And if deference to Sparks point.
There is doubt whatsoever, that the sitting Minister for Justice and his bedfellows believe IPSC is banned but the law simply does not state so.
B'Man

Agreed.
That stated, the opposition of the sitting Minister does mean that nothing should be done, for the medium-to-long-term good of the sport, until such time as a new Minister with a new agenda is appointed.
It's an easy thing to get a policy changed; compared, at least, to getting a law repealed.

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

I think Mr. Mole has made a particular point that merits further discussion.

While ye were arguing the semantics of law (bar exam results to presented at some point) a point was made that an implicit belief, a herd mentality if you will, in this case that IPSC is banned in Ireland, is always at play in shooting politics and invariably creates a self fulfilling prophecy.

Well I did actually study company law for three years, so you tend to get a teensy bit of insight from that . I think if your starting point is the law (Section 4C), you may well be right. However the Minister made a number of statements about practical shooting that if nothing else made clear his intentions in that regard, whether the law as it stands reflect those intentions is a matter for the courts to decide. To my mind, law is not unlike programming (possibly in the Microsoft mould :rolleyes:) where you get the variables declared at the beginning followed by a number of IF, THEN, ELSE statements and a few GOSUBs to SIs. It then gets Beta tested in court where usually a new library or two are tacked on and off if goes again for more bugs to be ironed out over time. Every so often, new bits are tacked on and a new version is released to the unsuspecting public and so it continues.

Poiint in case the 30 day custody order of '72.

The herd mentality on the 72 order is viewing it with hindsight and incorrectly believing that what happened in 2004 could have happened earlier. This is not true. It required a Minister who felt that the issue was no longer a problem for the state in the light of political change in Northern Ireland and who in fact drafted new legislation to reflect that change in mindset. Had challenges been mounted earlier, either a new order would have been made or worse still, a legislative change made that would have closed the door permanently. During the 1990s a gradual 'softening' of approach; most obvious in the relaxation on licensing of fullbore rifles, was apparent and there was an expectation that this would extend to pistols. It did take a court action to return them, but the fact that the subsequent legislation (drafted in the same year) actually accepted that licensing of pistols would continue proved that the mindset was there to allow them again.

The same is true of many of the other untruths I have heard over the years where the 'herd' has agreed, in its wisdom, that such and such a thing is true or that such and such a person has horns, or that such and such a gun is useless to whatever.

Is there a reason why this is so prevalent in the shooting sports?

B'Man

For myself, I usually look for reasons why such and such a thing is true or not. Given the reasons, it is then much easier to assess the truth or otherwise of such statements. If reasons are not forthcoming, such statements are consigned to the BS file unless and until direct experience or evidence is encountered.

People believing BS without enagaging their critical faculties is present in all aspects of life. :rolleyes:

Bananaman

Whereas we can do the rounds on this topic ad infinitum - the Minister has been quite vocal in his opposition to 'practical shooting' - in whatever guise it was explained to him - however, the fact remains that when it came to the drafting of the legislation - 'practical or dynamic shooting' was defined as 'combat training or simulation with firearms' - it did not mention the sport of IPSC, nor does the sport of IPSC involve 'combat training or simulation' - therefore IPSC is not prohibited, however, it will most likely require someone less egomaniacal in his position before the point can be reasonably argued

B'Man

dCorbus

Some very interesting points made - have been watching this thread unfold over the last couple of days.

Acknowledging, as sparks puts it, the apparent de facto "dis-allowance" (that's the word i'd prefer to use rather than the b-word, as the legal prohibition in the relevant section is something very specific.) of IPSC target shooting, and rrpc's suggestion (not recommendation, mind!;)) that there may be one way of testing the law, albeit a very risky one - and the very good points raised by messr.'s b'man, grizzly, & mole et al:

I have one question - whilst us armchair lawyers sit here thrashing this out amongst ourselves - Has there been a Legal Opinion sought from a SC Barrister, specialising in firearms law, to clarify whether or not (from a strictly legal sense) IPSC target shooting and its variants are in fact prohibited under the legislation?

Surely, some of those involved in the organisations must have already obtained such a legal opinion?

Whilst this is not the same as having the whole area tested in the courts, it is a far less riskier way that an educated and informed legal opinion and defensible interpretation of the law may be obtained - and certainly removes any risk that any laws may be broken in order to test a particular section, which would be either brave, insane, and possibly both!

Bananaman

I think it needs to be pointed out that, to the best of our knowledge, nobody is and we are not advocating that, anybody break the law, in order to 'test' it. the Judiciary is there to do that testing.

As you have so succinctly put it a legal opinion is actually required to ascertain the correctness of our interpretations and I am sure that in the fullness of time that will happen although i have no visibility on any such moves.

I would also point out that we have been discussing the sport of IPSC which is one of the primary international shooting disciplines.

You have referred to "it's variants". If you mean the sports contained in the IPSC rulebook, namely rifle, shotgun, handgun and action air then they are all governed, internationally, by the rulebook.

But if you are referring to other sports then I cannot speak towards those as I have no experience of them.

B'Man

Sparks

dCorbus wrote: »

I have one question - whilst us armchair lawyers sit here thrashing this out amongst ourselves - Has there been a Legal Opinion sought from a SC Barrister, specialising in firearms law, to clarify whether or not (from a strictly legal sense) IPSC target shooting and its variants are in fact prohibited under the legislation?

There'd be no point.

A legal opinion from senior counsel, or even from the attorney general, is exactly that - their opinion. A professional opinion, it's true; and therefore if it's egregiously wrong there are grounds to sue them for damages if they were your barrister/solicitor; but that's the only real difference between their opinion and the opinion of a layman. It's a good difference mind, in that it causes their opinions to be researched and considered before being given. But it doesn't always mean that they're correct - for example, the piece produced by the NARGC on the recent supreme court case losses, which didn't even make sense at first glance, let alone after consideration.

At the end of the day, you have only two options. Either you put a case to a judge to get a binding legal ruling one way or the other - and you'd want to choose that case carefully and invest heavily in bringing it; and even then, one bad case can lead to it being overturned, or worse, the law can be rewritten, rendering the judgement void; or else you convince the PTB that there's nothing wrong with what we want to do, and start doing it, and start showing everyone how it's safe and harmless and build up positive public opinion on it.

Personally, I've always thought that you can't use the judiciary as a stick to beat the legislative branch with, and that trying was usually counter-productive in the medium-to-long-term; far better to simply not take a confrontational approach wherever possible.

dCorbus

but that's the only real difference between their opinion and the opinion of a layman

Trust me on this one - There's a world of difference, on a number of levels! Legally and actually between a professional opinion and the opinion of a layman.

A legal or professional opinion is something other than "just an opinion". Some experience in this area and I do know how the courts view a legal professional opinion vis a vis a layman opinion - They're two very different animals entirely and the courts treat them as such.

Personally, I've always thought that you can't use the judiciary as a stick to beat the legislative branch with, and that trying was usually counter-productive in the medium-to-long-term; far better to simply not take a confrontational approach wherever possible.

Interesting turn of phrase;) I've always thought one of the roles of the courts was to vindicate the rights of the citizens and to test legislation against the constitution, precedent, and mores. My mistake, the Executive and Legislature are the ones running the country - and the courts and the citizens must do as they're told. Missed that bit of the lectures!;):rolleyes::D

But, yes, I do agree that it can be counter-productive and timing is everything. But to state that:

There'd be no point.

in obtaining a qualified and defensible Legal Opinion (very much not the same as a laymans "opinion"), would seem a bit "defeatist" to me - If IPSC was my sport I'd be pretty much getting one of them opinions one way or the other!

far better to simply not take a confrontational approach wherever possible

Nothing confrontational in seeking and obtaining qualified legal advise.

Sparks

dCorbus wrote: »

A legal or professional opinion is something other than "just an opinion".

Not when compared with a judge's ruling...

Interesting turn of phrase;) I've always thought one of the roles of the courts was to vindicate the rights of the citizens and to test legislation against the constitution, precedent, and mores. My mistake, the Executive and Legislature are the ones running the country - and the courts and the citizens must do as they're told. Missed that bit of the lectures!;):rolleyes::D

I think you heard it wrong. The Executive does the running, the Legislature decides on the rules, and the Judiciary makes sure everyone follows the rules; or at least, that's how it's supposed to work. Ireland seems to have decided all that is all well and good for civilised folks, but we're not going to get all that serious about it unless you skip your taxes...

If IPSC was my sport I'd be pretty much getting one of them opinions one way or the other!

There'd be no point dC, not when the sitting Minister has a specific bee in his bonnet over this and doesn't want to lose votes by appearing to be backtracking. Better to wait for the opening later on, than waste the shot now.

Nothing confrontational in seeking and obtaining qualified legal advise.

I was being more general there - we've seen a lot of unnecessary confrontation in the last few months, and it's doing harm to the efforts of those involved in necessary confrontations.

Grizzly 45

dCorbus wrote: »

this out amongst ourselves - Has there been a Legal Opinion sought from a SC Barrister, specialising in firearms law, to clarify whether or not (from a strictly legal sense) IPSC target shooting and its variants are in fact prohibited under the legislation?

Surely, some of those involved in the organisations must have already obtained such a legal opinion?

The whole IPSC thing is abit of a mess since the EGM and windup in Dec 08 of IPSA.Where the practical shooters and big calibre handgunners of Ireland were sold a pup by forked tounge words of the DOJ and Dermott Aherne:mad::mad:.
AS IPSA wound up and there has ASFIK been no other organisation set up to repersent those few "Wild geese" who go over into Free Ulster to shoot IPSC,and NI comes under the UK governing body of IPSC..There is no organisation to mount this challange here.
It would have to be a solo run by somone with 100%proof legal team behind him,alot of handy money,and a rhino hide to deal with the pressure.

Other option ,run a match,get arrested,go to court and prove that this isnt combat training,involving much publicity,expert witnesses from home and abroad,lotsa legal eagles of all ranks,big bills,and possibly some serious loss of shooting time [7years plus] if proven wrong.

Will this or these champion please stand up,please stand up??:rolleyes:

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

AS IPSA wound up and there has ASFIK been no other organisation set up to repersent those few "Wild geese" who go over into Free Ulster to shoot IPSC,and NI comes under the UK governing body of IPSC..There is no organisation to mount this challange here.

That's not actually correct, there is an NGB that handles those who go abroad to shoot IPSC.

Grizzly 45

They certainly are keeping pretty quiet and low profile these days.Proably for obvious reasons.:rolleyes:
A Non Govt Body?? or a shooting organisation??

Sparks

National Governing Body Grizzly, a non-governmental body is usually called an NGO, not an NGB. And they're IPSC-recognised from what I'm told.