Invitation to NASRPC members...

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

- such as the contentious aspects of the Draft Range S.I.

What contentious aspects are these?

Sparks

There's a bit in draft #29 that doesn't allow ranges to have club .22 pistols. Thing is, noone knows if it's still in there, because the SI's gone back to the AG's office and even the DoJ hasn't seen the latest draft yet. That was the only contentious bit (there was contention over how the early SI demanded that there be large overhead baffles at some ranges... until it turned out that that had never been in the Ranges SI, but had been recommended by the then-SSAI development officer).

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

There's a bit in draft #29 that doesn't allow ranges to have club .22 pistols.

Draft 28 (I don't believe there's a later draft, but I can find out) said that persons without a licence could use only air pistols or unrestricted rifles. Nothing about not allowing clubs have them which would require a change to the firearms act anyway.

A club authorisation IS a licence. So a club member could use a .22 pistol providing the club authorisation allowed it.

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

There's a bit in draft #29 that doesn't allow ranges to have club .22 pistols. Thing is, noone knows if it's still in there, because the SI's gone back to the AG's office and even the DoJ hasn't seen the latest draft yet. That was the only contentious bit

Correct - but what a clanger!!!! :eek:

It also prevents people from undergoing training prior to seeking a license for a .22 pistol.

It also prevents you from competing with another members firearm.

Sparks wrote: »

(there was contention over how the early SI demanded that there be large overhead baffles at some ranges... until it turned out that that had never been in the Ranges SI, but had been recommended by the then-SSAI development officer).

Incorrect - I believe that Garda Ballistics had requested those baffles.
Considering the massive costs involved - I doubt they would have been built without their input.

The point that was made was that after people had incurred these huge costs - now there is a whole new 'reality' in which people are incurring new new massive costs and then we get a look, quite late, at a Draft Ranges S.I. which contains none of these details, indeed at no point defines what a range is, but seeks to alter the firearms licensing legislation.

However, earlier drafts of the Ranges SI used to define what a range is.
It no longer does that but refers to yet more guidelines - and we know how well that has turned out before.

B'Man

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

It also prevents people from undergoing training prior to seeking a license for a .22 pistol.

It also prevents you from competing with another members firearm.

Not according to the wording I've read and the facts I've pointed out above.

The point that was made was that after people had incurred these huge costs - now there is a whole new 'reality' in which people are incurring new new massive costs and then we get a look, quite late, at a Draft Ranges S.I. which contains none of these details, indeed at no point defines what a range is, but seeks to alter the firearms licensing legislation.

It doesn't and can't change the firearms legislation and it does define a range.

Bananaman

rrpc wrote: »

Not according to the wording I've read and the facts I've pointed out above.

It doesn't and can't change the firearms legislation and it does define a range.

Interesting read on it - must investigate.

Can still see problems with training unless all the trainees are members of the club where the course is being held - which is bit unlikely.

B'Man

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

Interesting read on it - must investigate.

B'Man

I'll break it down for you, but it's not that complicated. The draft I have says the folowing:

where a person intends to use a firearm on a shooting range for which they do not hold a firearm certificate, such firearm shall be an air operated pistol or non-restricted long firearm only.

An authorisation under 2(4)(d) or 4A of the firearms act can allow a club to own non-restricted firearms and by extension allow its members to use them. Section 2(4)(d) is one of the exceptions to the requirement to hold a firearms certificate, so an authorisation under that section (or 4A) has the same status as a firearms certificate.

2(4)(d) the possession, use or carriage of a firearm or ammunition during a competition or target practice at a club, shooting range or any other place that stands authorised under this section or section 4A of this Act.

Sparks said that it meant that clubs couldn't have club .22 pistols. It doesn't say that for a start and secondly it's in the primary legislation as to what exactly a club can have on its authorisation:

2(6) In subsections (3)(g) and (4) (other than paragraphs (i) and (k), references to a firearm or ammunition do not include references to a restricted firearm or restricted ammunition.

Anything non-restricted in other words.
The wording of the authorisation will usually state that the firearms may be used by members (there's no other reason for holding them) at the club or at competitions (hence the removal orders DURC always have to get). It has always been accepted practice that members can use each other's firearms under the same authorisation, but if it got sticky, these could all be added to the authorisation as well or a clause inserted to allow it.

The definition of a range is at the start:

"shooting range" means a place at which the discharge of firearms takes place for the purpose of target practice or target shooting but excludes a location where only clay pigeon shooting or only paintball games take place;

Bananaman wrote:

Can still see problems with training unless all the trainees are members of the club where the course is being held - which is bit unlikely.

For training people for the purposes of gaining a licence there is either a training licence or an authorisation. As for it being unlikely for people to be trained in the clubs they join... What?

bunny shooter

Bananaman wrote: »

........Incorrect - I believe that Garda Ballistics had requested those baffles.............

Is this the same ballistics dept that reckon 9mm is more dangerous than .40 in a pistol?

Did this advice come from members of the same department whose expert evidence is so controversial in so many "pistol" court cases?

So how come they know what they're talking about when it comes to baffling ranges but they don't when it comes to pistols

Where have these ballistic experts acquired this expertise on ranges, considering the Gardai afaik now only use military ranges and none of those I have been on, and I've been on a few, have any baffles either ground or raised

rrpc

bunny shooter wrote: »

Where have these ballistic experts acquired this expertise on ranges, considering the Gardai afaik now only use military ranges and none of those I have been on, and I've been on a few, have any baffles either ground or raised

They used the British MoD document called JSP403 which was for many years the 'bible' of range design.

bunny shooter

So does that specify overhead baffles as some clubs have been advised to do?

And if it does why now are ranges, such as MNSCI putting in ground baffles?

rrpc

bunny shooter wrote: »

So does that specify overhead baffles as some clubs have been advised to do?

Not specifically. You have to realise that range design is usually a case of providing particular safety features to decrease the risk. There are different ways of doing this, but the goal is always the same.

When the ballistics guys came to Rathdrum, their suggestion was for us to sheet the entire back wall, 4m of the ceiling and side walls with steel. I proposed we use baffles instead and they accepted that. (our walls are cavity blocks, so not much good against sustained bullet impact).

And if it does why now are ranges, such as MNSCI putting in ground baffles?

To prevent ricochets leaving the range area.

bunny shooter

So B'man what I think you're saying is .........Garda Ballistics Dept. have previously 'advised' overhead baffles.

But Sparks reckons it was an officer of the SSAI?

Have some clubs who erected these overhead baffles now been told to install ground ones (I assume by the new range inspector)?

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Incorrect - I believe that Garda Ballistics had requested those baffles.
Considering the massive costs involved - I doubt they would have been built without their input.

I do have the recording of that particular question and a very good memory of it B'man as it was such a clanger of a question to ask given the answer. The point was very clearly made that it was not the Ballistics unit, nor the Policy unit, nor the DoJ Firearms unit, nor the JSP standard that said the baffles were necessary, but the then-national developmental officer.

The point that was made was that after people had incurred these huge costs - now there is a whole new 'reality' in which people are incurring new new massive costs and then we get a look, quite late, at a Draft Ranges S.I. which contains none of these details, indeed at no point defines what a range is, but seeks to alter the firearms licensing legislation.

First ironic point, initially made when it happened; the FCP held a public meeting to discuss the Ranges SI and not only was it under-attended, but a large proportion of those who did turn up, did so to hijack the meeting and turn it into a shouting match over the Minister's conduct. So not only did they not achieve anything (bar driving in the last nail in the box for centerfires when one comment pretty much sealed the deal on 9mm, .32 and .38 pistols by highlighting to those who wanted all pistols gone that those pistols were going to remain unrestricted because of how the restricted list was at that time defined); but they also managed to waste precious time that could have been used to dig into topics that hadn't been addressed sufficiently by the drafters at that point (and indeed, some of those topics, like the point of non-shooting club members, were made only to be shouted down in the melee that followed).
Given that some of the worst offenders at that meeting were also there on Sunday, I suppose the irony shouldn't be so unexpected, but it did beg the question of what they're going to turn around and ask in two years that was answered in full on Sunday.

Secondly, the point was very clearly made that there had been many, many drafts (I think RRPC has the number right at 28), not all of which had been seen outside of the DoJ, and none of which are presented in user-friendly format with a list of changes; instead someone has to manually compare documents to find differences and have a full knowledge of the Acts in their head at the time to properly read these drafts, with the end result that when they were sent round, it was to a resounding and deafening silence. Noone bothered reading them, they just filed it as Someone Else's Problem. And there's no end in sight to the drafts yet, and the specific point giving heart attacks to operators according to the attendees, has been slated to be removed from the next public draft for some weeks now. As was made clear on Sunday.

I mean, all you had to do was listen on Sunday B'man, I'm not divulging super-secret-squirrel stuff here, I'm just repeating what was said.

bunny shooter

Since seen Sparks post................someone is 'confused' :eek:

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

Sparks said that it meant that clubs couldn't have club .22 pistols.

I think that was me being unclear, sorry - you'd asked what the points of contention were, and that was what was put forward on the day as the point of contention. I didn't say it was right, in fact, I think it wasn't even close to being right, since that part of the draft is supposed to be in the shredder by now anyway.

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

So B'man what I think you're saying is .........Garda Ballistics Dept. have previously 'advised' overhead baffles.

That's what B'man is saying, but he was talking about a specific range (Lough Bo if I remember right) - and he's wrong, because it wasn't Ballistics who did that. Ballistics did give recommendations to other ranges like Rathdrum (rrpc isn't incorrect in his posts above), and those were based off the JSP standard originally; but in the case being discussed on Sunday, the baffles were the idea of the then-National Developmental Officer of the SSAI.

bunny shooter

Me starting to think dcorbus had right idea

Sparks

Writing this stuff up is taking a while, but here's the first part of the report at least.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

That's what B'man is saying, but he was talking about a specific range (Lough Bo if I remember right) - and he's wrong, because it wasn't Ballistics who did that. Ballistics did give recommendations to other ranges like Rathdrum (rrpc isn't incorrect in his posts above), and those were based off the JSP standard originally; but in the case being discussed on Sunday, the baffles were the idea of the then-National Developmental Officer of the SSAI.

Why would overhead baffles on a range be such a problem? The alternative is a much higher backstop especially on a 100yard/metre range.

rrpc

bunny shooter wrote: »

So B'man what I think you're saying is .........Garda Ballistics Dept. have previously 'advised' overhead baffles.

But Sparks reckons it was an officer of the SSAI?

Have some clubs who erected these overhead baffles now been told to install ground ones (I assume by the new range inspector)?

Overhead baffles and ground baffles have almost completely different purposes. Some of these purposes cross over, but they are not interchangeable safety measures.

The alternatives to ground baffles are: a lower range floor or a danger area behind the butts.

The alternatives to overhead baffles are: higher backstops or more limited shooting positions/firearm types/calibres.

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

Why would overhead baffles on a range be such a problem? The alternative is a much higher backstop especially on a 100yard/metre range.

The protest at the time was that they were expensive.
There's a word for protests like that, but it's impolite in mixed company I believe...

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

The protest at the time was that they were expensive.
There's a word for protests like that, but it's impolite in mixed company I believe...

Well there's always the choice of building a higher backstop. For 100 yards, if memory serves me correctly, the backstop must be almost 10 metres high. Most people prefer a baffle because it's cheaper and easier to maintain.

Sparks

I think the real objection from the floor wasn't so much that they had to build the less expensive option as that they had to build anything at all - hence my thought that the word used to describe such a complaint might be impolite. And for the record, I don't think it was an official complaint from the Lough Bo operators either.