Firearms Course Query

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

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.

As in all walks of life there are those who are not up to standard. However, all should not be judged on the inability of a few.

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...

You doubted me :eek:

rrpc wrote: »

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.

Can the hypothetical individual hold a firearm of their own for this period?

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:(

From your answer I assume, :eek:, that you have no military training. Why do you assume that military instructors are not capable as instructors? 3-4 years in college are not required to make an instructor

rrpc

bunny shooter wrote: »

Can the hypothetical individual hold a firearm of their own for this period?

No, the training licence is for 'use' only on a designated firearm under the supervision of any one of two named firearms cert holders.

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

As in all walks of life there are those who are not up to standard. However, all should not be judged on the inability of a few.

Well, yes, but I might be biased - one of those poorly trained FCA chaps gave me a very bad safety-related shock a decade or so ago. I know training methods and standards improve all the time, but some lessons are hard to unlearn

You doubted me :eek:

Well, yes. On the other hand, you were right so I held my hands up. Such is life.

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

Well, yes, but I might be biased - one of those poorly trained FCA chaps gave me a very bad safety-related shock a decade or so ago.

When I run into you I'll tell ya a few of my yarns & 'war stories' :eek:;)

Sparks wrote: »

Well, yes. On the other hand, you were right so I held my hands up. Such is life.

Honesty.............admission..........admission again............regret...........

all in one short sentence

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

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.

Well. It's definitely hinted rrpc, and even you have said so here in the past.
And we've had cases where Supers have, overtly and explicitly, directed applicants to specific courses (and you said at the time it was a good thing that they were customer-oriented).
And we've heard of the Firearms Policy Unit and the DoJ saying that competency courses are the desired approach here, and certainly all the times I've spoken to people in there, that's been the way they've been thinking; not because it's some overarching plan, just by assumption as that's how they're used to doing it; and you've agreed in the past yourself that that's a good way to do competency (though to be fair, you've always felt the clubs should run the courses).
Not trying to dump a search engine run on your head here, I'm just saying that with the exceptions of a few bad eggs, who you and I both know are on a ****list with the PTB, there's not been some sort of push to take on unnecessary courses for this, it's just how everyone's been thinking as an unstated assumption from the top on down.

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.

Well, as I've said, we've seen cases where that was short-circuited by the Super. However, when this question started to be asked, we did say "ask the super what proof of competence he wants" which is slightly different to what we've said a few times in recent months.
If there's an upcoming change of official direction to get away from the risk of allegations of nefarious behaviour, that's something that probably ought to be said a bit more loudly!

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 close to what he asked, but not exactly what he asked, and the difference between the two is why we've had this protracted discussion on whether or not courses are required for proof of competence under 4(3)(d).

it is virtually impossible to run a course for free

B'man, paying for a course isn't really up for debate. Noone expects someone else to take a hit in the pocket for their benefit except perhaps the current government. The reason people get bent out of shape when money's involved is because we have had courses run in the past that were, not to put too fine a point on something that was proven in court, run on a fraudulent basis (not, I want to point out, by anyone here). That's something noone wants to see repeated, hence the concern over ensuring it's not recurring.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

Well. It's definitely hinted rrpc, and even you have said so here in the past.

It's not hinted anywhere . I quoted the entire section of the guidelines and the legislation just says that the applicant must provide proof of competence. What I've said n the past is that someone not a member of a club, and who's a new applicant, can be advised on the availability of a course, not that they should be told what course to do.

And we've had cases where Supers have, overtly and explicitly, directed applicants to specific courses (and you said at the time it was a good thing that they were customer-oriented).

That particular case was apparently (to me anyway) a matter of advice rather than direction. There was no evidence that had the applicant suggested another similar course they would have been refused.

And we've heard of the Firearms Policy Unit and the DoJ saying that competency courses are the desired approach here, and certainly all the times I've spoken to people in there, that's been the way they've been thinking; not because it's some overarching plan, just by assumption as that's how they're used to doing it; and you've agreed in the past yourself that that's a good way to do competency (though to be fair, you've always felt the clubs should run the courses).

I have indeed and in addition, there's an assumption in both those bodies that clubs run their own courses for members (which they do) and that external courses are useful for those who are not members of clubs and don't want (or can't get) a training licence.

Well, as I've said, we've seen cases where that was short-circuited by the Super. However, when this question started to be asked, we did say "ask the super what proof of competence he wants" which is slightly different to what we've said a few times in recent months.

I don't agree that asking a person who would have a very vague notion of what proves competence, to specify what would satisfy them. Certainly they have the right to challenge your proofs and have you explain them or back them up, but as there are many different ways of acquiring competence, they should all be given equal weight in the process. Most people who came into contact with the new system would have acquired competence through having held a licence for over a year (one of the requirements listed in the guidelines). Why would such a person have to do a course when most of them would probably be qualified to run one themselves?

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

It's not hinted anywhere . I quoted the entire section of the guidelines and the legislation just says that the applicant must provide proof of competence. What I've said n the past is that someone not a member of a club, and who's a new applicant, can be advised on the availability of a course, not that they should be told what course to do.

RRPC, if we've been wrong on this point, that's no sin, but it's an inclusive we, you did it too...

That particular case was apparently (to me anyway) a matter of advice rather than direction.

I didn't read it that way:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62979712&postcount=55
Or in other cases we've heard of:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=55825346&postcount=1
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61029967&postcount=6
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61030041&postcount=7

I don't agree that asking a person who would have a very vague notion of what proves competence, to specify what would satisfy them.

That's a pretty decent summation of the current problem; if the Super can't evaluate proof of competence, asking for it is just makework for us and them.

as there are many different ways of acquiring competence, they should all be given equal weight in the process.

I don't disagree.

Why would such a person have to do a course when most of them would probably be qualified to run one themselves?

They wouldn't, and I've never argued that they should; the issue only arises for new applicants under the new system.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

RRPC, if we've been wrong on this point, that's no sin, but it's an inclusive we, you did it too...

Eh... No I didn't , I quoted the firearms act on the subject of competence, and I came into that thread on a narrower point: that of clubs training their members. I also said what I said here: that those without resource to formal training in clubs would need something. And all this was almost a year and a half before the latest legislative changes and the guidelines were issued and the mechanism for the training licence was established. All of which clarify the situation enormously.

I didn't read it that way:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62979712&postcount=55
Or in other cases we've heard of:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=55825346&postcount=1
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61029967&postcount=6
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61030041&postcount=7

How I read that was the young guy hadn't a clue and left it to the Garda to decide, which is my point really. If the chap had some other form of training there's no indication that the Garda would have rejected it, and in fact had initially asked for some such proof before suggesting the NARGC course.

That's a pretty decent summation of the current problem; if the Super can't evaluate proof of competence, asking for it is just makework for us and them.

Everything on the FCA1 could be characterised as such. The point is that people should be clear in their own minds what proof they will obtain before submitting their application and not be trotting in with that space left blank. Unfortunately that's not a given with regard to any of the items on the form.