Firearms Course Query

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

Why you should be suggesting that club members reach into their pockets yet again, to prove something that's already self evident in the process they go through to become a functioning member of that club, is beyond me.

Well, actually, what I had in mind was more that that ISO 17024 accreditation is set up and that the club's beginners induction courses become recognised proofs of competence. Right now, it's down to the local Super because it's not properly specified, and sooner or later, someone's going to be burnt for a few quid by that.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

Well, actually, what I had in mind was more that that ISO 17024 accreditation is set up and that the club's beginners induction courses become recognised proofs of competence. Right now, it's down to the local Super because it's not properly specified, and sooner or later, someone's going to be burnt for a few quid by that.

I don't believe it's down to the local Super, it's down to us. If we keep telling lads to run off and do such and such a course, pretty soon the Gardai will start expecting it. We need to set the agenda here and in my opinion it's not our job to line the pockets of whatever group decides that this is a 'nice business' to be getting into.

It's well apparent to me that that little turf war has already started and it quite frankly, turns my stomach.

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

Actually, I'm just assuming that the process of qualifying on a particular weapon and the process of gaining a new rank are not one and the same thing in any armed force. The peter principle doesn't apply when your primary work tool is designed to be lethal...One or two of them are already training there
And there's a long history of RDF members showing up at local ranges to learn the basics on the unofficial orders of their NCOs.
But hey, fling monkey-poo if that's your thing Bunny.

I think those three words sums it up really. I am not. I know

Any military trained people should just need to be familiarised with civvy range rules as their basic safety should be beyond reproach and should IMO count as competence for a firearms certificate here.

If I or any other "experienced" shooter takes someone who's starting off and gives them instruction as we have all been doing for years the chances are the Super won't accept it and will require a piece of paper.

rrpc

bunny shooter wrote: »

If I or any other "experienced" shooter takes someone who's starting off and gives them instruction as we have all been doing for years the chances are the Super won't accept it and will require a piece of paper.

There's a system in place for that bunny and it's called a training licence. Your hypothetical friend can get one of those on the basis of you being named as instructor and a year later can produce that as evidence of his competence.

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

I don't believe it's down to the local Super, it's down to us.

Well, not really. 4(3)(b) says we have to provide proof of competence with the firearm we're applying for a licence for (yes, I know, if asked), and doesn't specify the nature of that proof. So (a) we're at the mercy of the local Super as to whether we have to provide proof at all (and the Commissioner's Guidelines aren't much help here; though they do point out that you can cite having joined a range to gain competence to satisfy that requirement, they really don't push the idea much). And FCA1 specifically asks for proof from new applicants, section 2.5 is marked C meaning that it's a mandatory box for anyone who's not held a licence for that firearm for a period of one year beforehand.
The way I read that is that 4(3)(b) demands proof if the Super asks for it; but that's effectively done by the FCA1 form making 2.5 a compulsory box to fill for all new applications.

If we keep telling lads to run off and do such and such a course, pretty soon the Gardai will start expecting it. We need to set the agenda here and in my opinion it's not our job to line the pockets of whatever group decides that this is a 'nice business' to be getting into.

I'm happily behind that sentiment, but if the local super requires that an applicant do something, the odds of successfully appealing it in court are rather low. So if he says "you have to do the XYZ course", I don't see a means of avoiding that that isn't going to require rolling the dice in the District Court, who I honestly can't see ruling that it's not necessary to do a course whose stated purpose is to teach safe practice with a firearm. We've already seen one supreme court appeal uphold the right of supers to issue conditions on licences like that in the last few months.

It's well apparent to me that that little turf war has already started and it quite frankly, turns my stomach.

Yup. It's already resulted in one court case that I know of (albiet indirectly) and seen quite a few people ripped off, though in that particular case it was more down to how the course was run than the necessity of the course itself. Truth is, we moan about the oppression of the powers that be all the time, and granted, there are real problems to solve and real unfair practices there; but bluntly, some of our worst problems are completely homegrown and happily sit on our side of the fence, usually in very prominent positions.

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

Any military trained people should just need to be familiarised with civvy range rules as their basic safety should be beyond reproach and should IMO count as competence for a firearms certificate here.

I agree. This should be true.
However, a decade of training ex-FCA (this was pre-RDF) people in DURC taught me that while it should be true, and in some cases it was true, assuming that it is true is a good way for a bad accident to happen.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

Well, not really. 4(3)(b) says we have to provide proof of competence with the firearm we're applying for a licence for, and doesn't specify the nature of that proof. So (a) we're at the mercy of the local Super as to whether we have to provide proof at all (and the Commissioner's Guidelines aren't much help here; though they do point out that you can cite having joined a range to gain competence to satisfy that requirement, they really don't push the idea much). And FCA1 specifically asks for proof from new applicants, section 2.5 is marked C meaning that it's a mandatory box for anyone who's not held a licence for that firearm for a period of one year beforehand.

See my post above. And I'd certainly be very happy to meet any Super that required any of our members to do a totally unnecessary and probably inadequate course purely on the basis that he'd 'heard about it'. Because quite frankly I doubt very much if his knowledge would go any farther.

We've already seen one supreme court appeal uphold the right of supers to issue conditions on licences like that in the last few months.

That's my point. We don't need to be making a de jure case by creating a de facto situation,.

some of our worst problems are completely homegrown and happily sit on our side of the fence, usually in very prominent positions.

Which is what I'm trying to avoid by giving the advice I gave. And I'll continue to give it in such cases because this is not a road we want to travel down.

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

See my post above. And I'd certainly be very happy to meet any Super that required any of our members to do a totally unnecessary and probably inadequate course purely on the basis that he'd 'heard about it'. Because quite frankly I doubt very much if his knowledge would go any further.

Well, if a super's asking for that from someone who's already held a licence before, that's a different kettle of fish; he'll be going counter to the Commissioner's Guidelines right there, and that's a DC case that you'd be likely to win, if it came to that.
But what do you do when a new rathdrum member, who's starting shooting ab initio, puts down "I'm joining rathdrum to become competent" and the local super says they need to do some sort of formal training above that statement of intent?

Which is what I'm trying to avoid by giving the advice I gave. And I'll continue to give it in such cases because this is not a road we want to travel down.

You, me and I think everyone else (bar some unscrupulous folk who aren't posting here as far as I know) are in complete agreement that we don't want to go down that road; we're just disagreeing on how we avoid it. You're saying avoid getting beaten with a stick on this point; I personally think that the beating isn't avoidable and so the idea of giving someone a stick to beat you with is a good one; because that way, you get to choose the stick, which is preferable to them choosing it!

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

Well, if a super's asking for that from someone who's already held a licence before, that's a different kettle of fish; he'll be going counter to the Commissioner's Guidelines right there, and that's a DC case that you'd be likely to win, if it came to that.
But what do you do when a new rathdrum member, who's starting shooting ab initio, puts down "I'm joining rathdrum to become competent" and the local super says they need to do some sort of formal training above that statement of intent?

Generally people who join, do so to start target shooting or have been shooting in college. In both cases, they start with club rifles until they've got an idea of what they want and then apply for the licence on the basis of having been a member for a period of time, usually about a year. Now we've the training licence and I'll be filling in the form for one of those for No. 2 son who's mad keen to take up target rifle. Another member's eldest is also joining, so I'll be in a better position to explain the hoops when we've been through them.

But we're attempting to redesign the wheel here. For decades, clubs like Rathdrum, Fassaroe, Fermoy, BRC, DRC etc. have done this without any problem. To my mind the purpose of the proof of competence is to make sure that those people who don't have the safety net of a club also attain some degree of competence before getting a licence. The training licence is a formal method of fixing that for them, so a course should be the last resort, not the first.

You, me and I think everyone else (bar some unscrupulous folk who aren't posting here as far as I know) are in complete agreement that we don't want to go down that road; we're just disagreeing on how we avoid it. You're saying avoid getting beaten with a stick on this point; I personally think that the beating isn't avoidable and so the idea of giving someone a stick to beat you with is a good one; because that way, you get to choose the stick, which is preferable to them choosing it!

That was almost incomprehensible

Almost , but if you read what I said in the preceding paragraph, you'll get some idea of the avoidance procedure.

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

That was almost incomprehensible

A lot of the time, whenever I try to be clear and direct, someone takes offence and screams solicitor

Almost , but if you read what I said in the preceding paragraph, you'll get some idea of the avoidance procedure.

I see what you're saying, and if every club had club kit for newbies, we'd be sorted (didn't we have this same discussion a decade ago? ). For now though, and especially with restricted firearms which you can't get a training cert for, we're a bit stuck in that regard.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

A lot of the time, whenever I try to be clear and direct, someone takes offence and screams solicitor

It's alright, I understood... eventually

I see what you're saying, and if every club had club kit for newbies, we'd be sorted (didn't we have this same discussion a decade ago? ). For now though, and especially with restricted firearms which you can't get a training cert for, we're a bit stuck in that regard.

Well it doesn't have to be club kit. A parent, other member etc. can provide if necessary, don't forget somebody has to sign off the application as instructor. As for restricted, well it's not generally where newbies start (though there are always going to be exceptions) so not a major problem by any stretch. And in that regard, I can't see a course being of sufficient weight to carry a Chief Super into signing off on a restricted firearm for a newbie where they haven't previously held a licence of any sort.

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

And in that regard, I can't see a course being of sufficient weight to carry a Chief Super into signing off on a restricted firearm for a newbie where they haven't previously held a licence of any sort.

There are exceptions to this though. People starting into crossbow shooting, for an obvious one. People starting into target shooting with a firearm either inherited or given as a gift and which has a design feature that renders it restricted but isn't readily alterable (for example, a bullpup design of rifle like in the buckmark). Hoping that the case won't ever arise, well, it's a suboptimal plan. (Though granted, there aren't any optimal ones because it's a crappy situation).

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

There are exceptions to this though. People starting into crossbow shooting, for an obvious one. People starting into target shooting with a firearm either inherited or given as a gift and which has a design feature that renders it restricted but isn't readily alterable (for example, a bullpup design of rifle like in the buckmark). Hoping that the case won't ever arise, well, it's a suboptimal plan. (Though granted, there aren't any optimal ones because it's a crappy situation).

I don't think I expressed it as a hope, more as being unlikely and even if you did get there, I suspect 'good reason' would be uppermost in the CS' mind rather than proof of competence. The salient point was whether doing some random course would satisfy him in that regard.

I know very little about formal crossbow shooting, so I'm afraid I can't asnwer that, but most of the other situations would still be well served by the club and/or the training licence. We're still talking about newbies here, so taking some time on another unrestricted firearm would be time well spent.

We have got to the stage of discussing the 90th percentile of angels dancing on the head of a pin, which only serves to illustrate my point that there are plenty of avenues open for the club shooter to prove his competence without resource to costly and quite possibly inappropriate competency courses.

Our first piece of advice to newcomers should always be to start with the club and work from there. Don't forget clubs now have to liaise with their local Super and vice versa on a regular basis, so the lines of communication on these issues should be open at all times.

Sparks

Sparks wrote: »

Actually, I'm just assuming that the process of qualifying on a particular weapon and the process of gaining a new rank are not one and the same thing in any armed force.

Just on that point, I asked over on the military forum and the answer is that that assumption is incorrect; promotion to NCO and officer ranks requires that the instructor classes have been passed in the Irish army. You learn something new every day...

cavan shooter

Sparks wrote: »

Just on that point, I asked over on the military forum and the answer is that that assumption is incorrect; promotion to NCO and officer ranks requires that the instructor classes have been passed in the Irish army. You learn something new every day...

And to what specification is the instructor............ example: I can work damn hard for an MBA from say Smurfit Buisness School or I can buy it in the states from a university of xxxx for €2000 and an essay of my choice.



I am not slagging off the PDF or RDF here at all so dont pick it up that way:o
or try to imply I am. I am only trying to say, what you learn is only as good as what and who teaches you, and the content thought. Is that not the elephant in the room in this case and in the education system (and no im not taking a pot shot at teachers either:(

Manic Moran

As an aside, my military ID exempts me from the requirement of having a Handgun Safety Certificate before purchasing a pistol here in California as it is assumed that anyone who is in the military is fairly up to speed on the basics of firearm use and safety. After all, firearms are the tool of the trade.

It would seem logical that a Super could accept military service as evidence of training. It's not all just marching up and down the square, after all!

NTM

kildare.17hmr

rrpc wrote: »

Well to be honest, I don't think it should be and really all you're doing by ringing them and asking, is putting them in the position of advising on which course to do.

Which was not the intention, because if it was there'd already be an accredited course. I don't even believe there should be a course per se, because you're asked to prove your competence, not produce some certificate or other.

If you join a club and do whatever induction course they run, you can ask for a letter from the club secretary stating that they deem you competent on the basis of your induction course and experience to own the firearm you'll use in their club and for which you're applying.

That's what the FCA1 form is actually asking for. All this stuff about courses seems to have grown up out of nothing. :rolleyes:

I agree with everything you said but the fact is it is up to the super what he will or wont accept as proof of compatence, at least if you ask him you will know for sure and wont waist money on something he wont accept

rrpc

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

I agree with everything you said but the fact is it is up to the super what he will or wont accept as proof of compatence, at least if you ask him you will know for sure and wont waist money on something he wont accept

Well then you're not agreeing with everything I said

1. I don't believe money should be involved
2. There's a perfectly good training licence system in place to establish competence for beginners.
3. There's an excellent clubs record in training people up to and beyond competence.
4. You're asking the Super to take on the role of expert on what determines competence instead of demonstrating what it should be.

This is something like the 'nature abhors a vacuum' principle. By asking the Super what he wants, you're giving him the right to dictate what it should be. However if you go to him with comprehensive proof of your competence; be it a length of time on a training licence, a letter from your club detailing your training and accomplishments or some other record of your experience, you're the one defining the criteria.

Until the law actually specifies a course or other form of training, it's up to us to decide the standard. And that shouldn't be one that panders to some business interest whose goal it is to make money from the situation.

This is what the Commissioner's guidelines say:

Proof of competence in the use of the firearm or ammunition which is subject of the application - depending on the circumstances of each case, an individual who has already possessed a certificate (without any convictions under the Firearms Act, 1925-2009) for a period of a minimum of 1 year may be considered to have fulfilled the proof of competency. First time applicants for firearms certificates may demonstrate that they have acquired a degree of competency in the use of firearms by satisfying the issuing person of having attended a firearms training course, or of having joined an authorised rifle or pistol club or range for the purpose of gaining competency in firearms use, or having previously been granted a firearms training certificate.

An issuing person tasked with considering whether or not to grant a firearms certificate to an individual, must be satisfied that public safety is never compromised when making these decisions. Issuing persons should however bear in mind that the Act only requires proof of competency. Proof of proficiency in using a firearm, such as expertise in target shooting etc, is not necessary when considering proof of competence.

A course is only one of a number of options, including a training certificate.

kildare.17hmr

rrpc, again, i agree with you, i know people involved in shooting for the most part have alot more knolege than the people giving out the licences, your point that we should set the standard and tell them what it is i totally agree with, all i was saying is that a super is well within his rights to refuse something as compatence for a first time application. i was told my rank in the RDF along with a letter from my CO about my many years of membership and training on different firearms was not suficient as proof i was compatent, i did a 2 hr coursr that lasted 1.45 hrs and that was accepted!

Again i agree with you:D

BigDuffman

cavan shooter wrote: »

And to what specification is the instructor............ example: I can work damn hard for an MBA from say Smurfit Buisness School or I can buy it in the states from a university of xxxx for €2000 and an essay of my choice.



I am not slagging off the PDF or RDF here at all so dont pick it up that way:o
or try to imply I am. I am only trying to say, what you learn is only as good as what and who teaches you, and the content thought. Is that not the elephant in the room in this case and in the education system (and no im not taking a pot shot at teachers either:(

Man up and make your point;)

To what specification is the instructor...in answer to what I assume is your question.

The specification is; that it is one of the few jobs / occupations where by it is part of your professional duty / requirement to be proficient in both handling and use of fire-arms as a bare minimum.

At an instructional level you have passed a grueling course on back of many years experience with fire-arms, where you have been instructed on how to teach firearms handling and safety to an untrained civilian, then tested under stress, then tested in front of a board of superiors. Where they then make a decision if you are worthy of being called an instructor.

You also are required to take a test every year, overseen by an officer to determine if your skills and handling of the weapon is at a satisfactory level in order for you to teach.

Should that qualify or would an military instructor then need to go to a club and pay for a course to make sure he understands the fundamentals of carriage, handling, range procedures and safety SOPs?

IMO, what could be suggested is familiarisation on range ettiquete on civilian ranges. As anyone in that position will be more than happy to take advice on how things are done.

rrpc

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

rrpc, again, i agree with you, i know people involved in shooting for the most part have alot more knolege than the people giving out the licences, your point that we should set the standard and tell them what it is i totally agree with, all i was saying is that a super is well within his rights to refuse something as compatence for a first time application. i was told my rank in the RDF along with a letter from my CO about my many years of membership and training on different firearms was not suficient as proof i was compatent, i did a 2 hr coursr that lasted 1.45 hrs and that was accepted!

Again i agree with you:D

I hear you

I also agree that a Super has the right to accept or refuse your proofs, but I don't believe that he should be directing you to do a particular course, should he require that one be done.

Bananaman

rrpc wrote: »

...... I don't believe that he should be directing you to do a particular course, should he require that one be done.

Agree 100%. That is how it is now and how it should be - this is Ireland - it would only lead to a financially motivated monopoly.

Then you have a choice of what you wish to do. Should you wish to do a course then there are courses available for you to do.

B'Man

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

I don't believe that he should be directing you to do a particular course, should he require that one be done.

Bananaman wrote: »

Agree 100%.

Should he say "You should go do the course run by X"? Obviously not, and it's a bit of a strawman guys. But should he give no guidance at all? Feck it, then you wind up in the situation where you could be doing course after course only to hear "Nope, that won't be acceptable" afterwards until finally you hit on one he'll accept. We all know we have "problem" superintendents out there (even if they only cause problems in 0.03% of cases or thereabouts); in those cases, I want the super to specific where the hoops are before I start jumping. It's like the Commissioner's Guidelines' list of pistols (ignoring the point that they conflict with the law); you want some clear-cut examples to handle 99% of cases, and then the actual rules to figure out how to address the last 1% of cases. So for 99% of cases, we have a list of ten or twelve courses which are deemed acceptable proof; and for the remaining 1% of cases, we have a list of what is actually required as a bare minimum to see if what we're proposing can satisfy requirements.

And to be clear; we really are just taking about that 0.03-0.04% of cases where something is going wrong; but it was only 0.03-0.04% of cases prior to 2004 as well. Just because it's only a small percentage doesn't mean it's not an problem to address

Bananaman

Percentages my ar$e

There is no mandated course - thankfully - therefore they should not be mandating that you do a course.

They require proof of competence - as RRPC said, a letter from your club should suffice for that.

If you have attended a course that the club either run or have faith in - then that will be mentioned and will be of benefit.

However, it should not be mandatory - unless provided for free.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Percentages my ar$e

I know you don't like it B'man, but well over 99% of licence applications just don't have the problems that 99% of our efforts are directed towards alleviating. That's the fact of the matter.

However, it should not be mandatory - unless provided for free.

Well, 70% of people here disagreed with you two years ago, including you (you thought the clubs should be the ones to decide what was mandatory and what wasn't, which (a) is far more open to unscrupulous gougery, and (b) wouldn't ever be accepted by the PTB.

I keep coming back in my mind to the restricted list on this point - as in, it's a bad idea to have it at all; but if you have no choice but to have it, then defining minimum requirements by criteria in statute law or SI, and providing a non-statutory list of examples, is about as good an imperfect solution as you're going to get.

Simply put, for a new shooter applying for his/her first licence, the FCA1 form purports to ask for proof of competence under section 4(3)(d) of the Act. Some answer has to be given. Asking what the Super wants at this point is the fastest route I can think of to a definitive answer, because his decision on this is, while no longer binding and definitive, is definitely going to hold more weight than anyone else outside of a District Court Judge.

And I suspect that most of the time they're not likely to demand much anyway. Someone comes up to them after a year's probation in a club they know about? It's just more work for the Super to demand a course. And if he specifies a particular course and the applicant feels it's overly expensive or slightly suspect, then there's an appeals mechanism.

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

I keep coming back in my mind to the restricted list on this point - as in, it's a bad idea to have it at all; but if you have no choice but to have it, then defining minimum requirements by criteria in statute law or SI, and providing a non-statutory list of examples, is about as good an imperfect solution as you're going to get.

Surprising example - since it is a unmitigated disaster.:eek:

Can't believe anyone involved in shooting sports would try to claim that feckin thing is a good example of anything

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Surprising example - since it is a unmitigated disaster.:eek:
Can't believe anyone involved in shooting sports would try to claim that feckin thing is a good example of anything
B'Man

*ahem*

Sparks wrote:

I keep coming back in my mind to the restricted list on this point - as in, it's a bad idea to have it at all; but if you have no choice but to have it, then defining minimum requirements by criteria in statute law or SI, and providing a non-statutory list of examples, is about as good an imperfect solution as you're going to get.

rrpc

Sparks, nowhere in the legislation or the commissioner's guidelines does it even hint that the Super gets to choose what sort of proof of competence you must provide. It's implied that he gets to decide whether the proof you provide is adequate for his purposes or not and the guidelines specify a number of possible choices you can have and he could accept.

The legislation and guidelines steer well clear of specifying any course or even solely requiring a course be done for obvious reasons (accusations of corruption), so a Super doing so is stepping straight into that same minefield the legislation was so keen to avoid.

There are non-course options for pretty much every class of shooter: length of experience for an existing shooter, club membership or length of experience or the training licence for a new target shooter and the training licence for everyone else. Obviously if you do a course, that's your choice, but asking the Super what course to do is putting him in the position that the legislation sought to avoid and creating a de facto market for the first one that comes into his head.

Those who are not club members have less options and that's what the legislation is trying to achieve; a degree of competence in the use of their firearm by all new applicants.

Bananaman

A prime example - I am a software engineer for over 20 years - a lot of that as a project manager

about 10 years in I did the project management courses in the IMI - I didn't need to do them, nobody required me to do them - I was up to my eyeballs in experience - I wanted to do them - did I learn from it? Of course I did

I never went to college but If I decided to do a degree now - with over 20 years experience - would I learn anything? Of course I would

the OP wanted to know what courses there were and where he could do one - then he could decide whether or not he wanted to do one -

whether the Gardai have the right to mandate one or whether it is ISO certified or whether the instructor is the second coming himself is largely irrelevant to that decision

it is virtually impossible to run a course for free - well you might do it once - but if you are regularly running courses - as many clubs now do - you need to cover your costs or you will end up not being able to do it anymore - it's up to the OP if he is willing to pay for a course

B'Man

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

the OP wanted to know what courses there were and where he could do one - then he could decide whether or not he wanted to do one -

That's not what he asked. He asked was it mandatory to do a course and he also stated that he was interested in rifle target shooting and clays.

Both of those disciplines are run in clubs who will train their own members, generally free of charge.

The guidelines (and we've nothing else to go by) state that membership of a club can be considered proof of competence, I quoted the extract here.

So the OPs first port of call is the club or clubs where he intends to take up his chosen pursuits.