What change to the firearms legislation would we all agree on??

Grizzly 45

Re do the FAC to a simple embbeded chip&pin card that entails your entire firearms related details.it should only have your pulse number nothing else.
Make it five years,andwith a pre grant system ala the UK.

Abolish the draconian and unfair pistol ban.It serves nothing except to reduce pistol ownership.Or at very least allow those that have to be able to sell or trade "like for like" in calibres. Allow ALL.22LR pistols to be unrestricted irrespective of looks or mag capacity.

Decide finally to accept international terminology,rather than Irish,as to what certain restricted firearms actually are.EG assault rifle,bullpup,etc.

Revise totally the Garda guidelines on firearms,prefably by somone who knows WTF they are talking about!

Allow IPSC in all its forms.It is not,has not and never has been "combat Shooting"It is pointless banning a sport when people can re create or conduct full military training with airsoft.Combat shooting is illegal anyway in most of the EU,so if they can define between IPSC and combatshooting,why cant we??

Abolish the "other" box on the Garda FAC application where Supers have a slip thru hole to refuse your FAC.If they tick the other box,there should be a" IF other box is ticked ,specify reasons in detail" clause.

Allow reloading in either BP or smokeless,after attendence at a basic saftey course or proof of attendence at one in the EU or US[NRA qualification]

Remove in any shape or form the "idoanlikdelookodat" policy on ANY firearms.If the person ticks the pre requsite boxes to own,is of good chacter ,and has proven a need,it is irrespective then as to what the firearm looks like,wether it is a high class walnut stocked BA or a black semi auto.

Remove the upper calibre ban of 338.If the applicant shows they are members of a range that can handle 20mm , with a back stop a mile and a hlf away let them to it.

Redefine "range" as to a place that is open for commercial gain.
Not the back silage clamp where people have been shooting safley for generations with a .22.As worst get a new definition for maybe "family range" IOW the DOJ inspects your silage clamp and if it isnt looking out on the neighbours or main road,and doesnt consist of flat rock etc,signs it off as a non commerical range up to a certain calibre.If you want to shoot stronger calibres,you have to possibly add better saftey features,if reasonably needed.

Remove the entire firearms liscensing process from AGS.It is too costly in Garda time and manpower,and open to the wiles of biased cheif superintendants and Supers..Any competant govt dept should be able to handle this from applications,to points of law to issuance of certs.

Allow deacts to be off ticket items along with crossbows.Crossbows do not in anyway fit a description of a firearm[IE at its most basic,a chemical propellant with a heat/spark ignition system that creates a spark to ignite a propellant in lose or contained form to drive a projectile.]

Automatic statute life sentence for any misuse of a firearm,be it real,airsoft,deact or model.Irrespective of ageof the perpertrator.
Later addition

Remove the restricted ammo clause on shotgun slugs..It is a complete oddity that makes no sense, and is unenforceable. What with knowledge on the internet on how to make slugs or purchase slug molds for those who want or need them.
It would be also in certain circumstances be more benefical and safer for liscensed deer hunters to have the option of using shotgun slugs for deer hunting,rather than a rifle.As well as allowing certain competitions of the BDS category to be held as well here.

Finally,

Any of you going to ask any of these hopefuls that will land on your door,for info from their doc that they are not suffering from anything that might prevent them from carrying out their duties as ministers or TDs to the detriment of this country??I most certainly will,as this govt can acess this info off my GP to see if I am a public danger if I own a gun.I think it is only fair to ask the same off any people who will repersent and make laws to govern us.After all, they can do more damage to us,and ruin lives with the stroke of a pen than any nutter with a gun ever can.;)

Sparks

Kryten wrote: »

First and foremost is to lift the ban on CF pistols ...
Olympic pistol references should be dropped

Those two are pragmatically opposed.
The fastest way to return the bulk of CF pistols is to modify the restricted list because that's an SI and can be changed much faster than you can get a Bill to modify the Firearms Act put together and pushed through the Dail. It's not perfect, it's not the last step in the process, and it won't fix everyone's situation, but it'll fix it for a lot of people very quickly and we can build on it rather than stopping there.

Maybe if folks stopped with this anti-Olympic bigotry long enough to actually look at the idea, they'd see that as a first step, it's not a bad one. It's not sexy, it's not dramatic and noone will pound their fist on the table during it, but at the end of the day, we'd have actual, measurable, positive, results. I kindof think that's important.

Remember, we're not talking here about the last thing that is ever done, ever, in changing firearms legislation. We're talking about a single step, the fastest quick-fix while we go on to try to fix the problem in a more substantial way. Don't forget, while CF pistol is important, there are 300 or so CF pistol owners and some 180,000 or so shooters in the country - I can understand why CF pistol owners would think (as was said in Portlaoise a few short weeks ago) that they were the most important of all shooters and should be put ahead of everyone else, but frankly, that's just plain unfair to everyone else.

There's a list of things that have to be fixed in primary legislation. That list isn't going to be abandoned and it will include CF pistol ownership. But it'd be nice to fix what we could, as fast as we could, with the smallest changes possible, as a first step while the Bill gets assembled.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Re do the FAC to a simple embbeded chip&pin card that entails your entire firearms related details.it should only have your pulse number nothing else.
Make it five years,andwith a pre grant system ala the UK.

Feck. After how long it took to change to a credit card sized system, how long will that change take and how badly will it be messed up?

Abolish the draconian and unfair pistol ban.

Yup, as fast as possible (even if that happens in multiple stages).

Decide finally to accept international terminology,rather than Irish,as to what certain restricted firearms actually are.EG assault rifle,bullpup,etc.

Much as that sounds sensible, I don't think there actually are hard, agreed-upon-by-more-than-one-country definitions for those terms Grizzly. But we could at least tidy up the definitions in the SIs pretty quickly to something more sane, like dropping the "looks like an assault rifle" clause in the definition of what an "assault rifle" is

Revise totally the Garda guidelines on firearms,prefably by somone who knows WTF they are talking about!

I think that's more down to the new Garda Commissioner rather than the new Minister...

Remove in any shape or form the "idoanlikdelookodat" policy on ANY firearms.

I don't think that's an official policy Grizzly, you couldn't abolish it by altering the firearms acts, you'd have to fund proper training for all Garda Supers. Which, with the IMF in town, is a hard sell...

Remove the upper calibre ban of 338.

The what now? Is this like the "idontlikedelookodat" policy? I don't recall ever seeing legislation of any kind setting an upper calibre limit...

IOW the DOJ inspects your silage clamp and if it isnt looking out on the neighbours or main road,and doesnt consist of flat rock etc,signs it off as a non commerical range up to a certain calibre.If you want to shoot stronger calibres,you have to possibly add better saftey features,if reasonably needed.

I'm reasonably sure that that's pretty close to what happens right now Grizzly. I know that WTSC, for example, isn't signed off on for anything larger than .177 airguns in the airgun range; it's not like you have to be safe for everything up to 20mm to get a signoff, just safe for what you'll be shooting.

Remove the entire firearms liscensing process from AGS.It is too costly in Garda time and manpower,and open to the wiles of biased cheif superintendants and Supers.

Nice idea, but not likely to happen soon - few state bodies like to surrender areas of competency to other bodies. The Supers would take decades to try delegating the yay/nay call on a licence to anyone who wasn't a Garda.

Automatic statute life sentence for any misuse of a firearm,be it real,airsoft,deact or model.Irrespective of ageof the perpertrator.

An 8-year-old who plays with daddy's air pistol and hits a passing car with one of the pellets causing an accident by distracting the driver at the worst possible moment?
Automatic life sentences don't always work the way they should...

Any of you going to ask any of these hopefuls that will land on your door,for info from their doc that they are not suffering from anything that might prevent them from carrying out their duties as ministers or TDs to the detriment of this country?

Oh yes I'm asking for character references and access to their medical information if they're FF or GP as well

(What? I can't be small and petty too? )

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

Feck. After how long it took to change to a credit card sized system, how long will that change take and how badly will it be messed up?

Very true,but maybe in these recessionary times an enterprising ,bright IT crowd could make an offer??:D;)

I think that's more down to the new Garda Commissioner rather than the new Minister...I don't think that's an official policy Grizzly, you couldn't abolish it by altering the firearms acts, you'd have to fund proper training for all Garda Supers. Which, with the IMF in town, is a hard sell...
And here is where you have the DOJ/AGS game of ping pong."No thats the Ministers responsibility..No thats the Cheifs responsibility." etc etc.You would wonder WHO is in charge of what in there.:rolleyes:

The what now? Is this like the "idontlikedelookodat" policy? I don't
recall ever seeing legislation of any kind setting an upper calibre limit...

More than likely the" Idonlikedelookodat"situation.
another one of these"policy" type situations..The arguement being sure,you can do with a .338 what a 50 cal does and where will you shoot a 50 cal??No ranges are approved for it here[Possibly Midlands could handle it ,but is it signed off for it?].Or it will be like the big game rifles,with stupid conditions[,like only being able to shoot it outside the ROI],you couldnt take it to a range to shoot it without God knows what conditions attached.
Another thing,it would be impossible to add vexatious preconditions to ownership and use of a firearm of a restricted type that prevents its normal usage in day to day life.

I'm reasonably sure that that's pretty close to what happens right now Grizzly. I know that WTSC, for example, isn't signed off on for anything larger than .177 airguns in the airgun range; it's not like you have to be safe for everything up to 20mm to get a signoff, just safe for what you'll be shooting.

Hmmmmmmmm.I dunno Sparks,say I wanted to use as said my old disused silage clamp,where I had been shooting .22 and12 Ga, up to recently safley and happily for the last two decades,with no accidents or injury.I wonder if I invited the range inspector from the DOJ down,would he sign it off straight away as a private range,or find some fault that needs to be corrected immediately??
Simply put,[and grossly simplyifing abit]I'm saying there have been and are sites around this land that are inherently safe and have been for ages,but are now unusable as to shoot on them would be an unauthorised range.
So,using the most uncommon of sense,common sense,it should be within the ken of the RI to come down take one look and say this site is safe for XYZ calibres.Heres a chit for your personal use,go to it,see you in 5 years[?] Want to make a few quid on it?Ah!Thats a different bucket of cod now!You need ABCD.Logical as it isnow a commercial enterprise with members of the public coming onto it.

Nice idea, but not likely to happen soon - few state bodies like to surrender areas of competency to other bodies. The Supers would take decades to try delegating the yay/nay call on a licence to anyone who wasn't a Garda.

True,but we can live in hope,as Bob Dylan said "The times,they are a changin."

An 8-year-old who plays with daddy's air pistol and hits a passing car with one of the pellets causing an accident by distracting the driver at the worst possible moment?
Automatic life sentences don't always work the way they should...

Indeed,however in your mentioned case Dad would be looking at loss of liscense at the very least,and some heavy trouble letting a unathorised minor loose at his "firearm".All a question of the actual case and circumstances.

Oh yes I'm asking for character references and access to their medical information if they're FF or GP as well

(What? I can't be small and petty too? )

Maybe if we all become small and petty,we wont be ruled by total gob****es in the future.:D

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Very true,but maybe in these recessionary times an enterprising ,bright IT crowd could make an offer??:D;)

I think all the enterprising bright IT crowds are already emigrating!

And here is where you have the DOJ/AGS game of ping pong."No thats the Ministers responsibility..No thats the Cheifs responsibility." etc etc.You would wonder WHO is in charge of what in there.:rolleyes:

Well, not really. It's reasonably well laid out.

Hmmmmmmmm.I dunno Sparks,say I wanted to use as said my old disused silage clamp,where I had been shooting .22 and12 Ga, up to recently safley and happily for the last two decades,with no accidents or injury.I wonder if I invited the range inspector from the DOJ down,would he sign it off straight away as a private range,or find some fault that needs to be corrected immediately?

Not sure, but it's hard to argue against building safer ranges to the general public...

Indeed,however in your mentioned case Dad would be looking at loss of liscense at the very least,and some heavy trouble letting a unathorised minor loose at his "firearm".All a question of the actual case and circumstances.

Well, yeah, but that's not an automatic sentence is my point.

Maybe if we all become small and petty,we wont be ruled by total gob****es in the future.:D

I wish.

recipio

A lot of great ideas folks.
Looks like Alan Shatter may be the next minister for justice ?
Not a shooting enthusiast to my knowledge but perhaps the economic benefits to lifting the present legislation might appeal. ?

FISMA

Lift the ban on reloading.

Kryten

Sparks wrote: »

Those two are pragmatically opposed.
The fastest way to return the bulk of CF pistols is to modify the restricted list because that's an SI and can be changed much faster than you can get a Bill to modify the Firearms Act put together and pushed through the Dail.

Yes but how would you modify it? Centerfire pistols for PPC1500 will stay restricted, and we will still have the Chief Supers whims. Maybe .32 centerfires could be unrestricted, but I only know of one of these in the country, outside of DF.

Sparks wrote: »

Maybe if folks stopped with this anti-Olympic bigotry long enough to actually look at the idea, they'd see that as a first step, it's not a bad one.

No bigotry intended. ISSF pistol is my most favourite discipline, and would like to get involved in ISSF Centerfire. It pains me to see that not that many people shoot the ISSF pistol stuff. Rifle is different, as it is well established and not under any curtailment or restictions due to Firearms policy changes. The Olympic tag in the Restricted list should be changed to " Designed for Precision Target shooting" . This would be much fairer. It would instantly allow .22 target pistols, not on the Restricted list, to be unrestricted. Because lets face it, the list of unrestricted pistols is not exhaustive, officially, but is being used as gospel by some Supers.

Sparks wrote: »

Don't forget, while CF pistol is important, there are 300 or so CF pistol owners and some 180,000 or so shooters in the country - I can understand why CF pistol owners would think (as was said in Portlaoise a few short weeks ago) that they were the most important of all shooters and should be put ahead of everyone else, but frankly, that's just plain unfair to everyone else.

Firstly I have never seen even 100 CF pistol shooters in any competition. So who has the other 200 and what do they want them for? Secondly, out of the 2008 CF Pistol shooting competitors, only a fraction of these have been renewed and the rest of the guys who have been involved and want to be involved in CF pistol shooting (and I not even including IPSC shooters) have taken up Gallery rifle in the meantime.

As for the not fair to anyone else. No other group of shooters out there have had their firearms taken from them so to speak.

Apologies if I sound adversarial, maybe the snow is getting me down

marlin vs

FISMA wrote: »

Lift the ban on reloading.

+1.

Sparks

Kryten wrote: »

Yes but how would you modify it? Centerfire pistols for PPC1500 will stay restricted, and we will still have the Chief Supers whims. Maybe .32 centerfires could be unrestricted, but I only know of one of these in the country, outside of DF.

Does PPC1500 have a "must be larger than .38 calibre" rule or something? Why would an ISSF centerfire pistol not be usable for PPC1500?

The Olympic tag in the Restricted list should be changed to " Designed for Precision Target shooting"

There are two problems with that approach:

1. The word "designed" which means that any pistol designed for plinking is now out;
2. "Precision Target Shooting" isn't defined in a hard-and-fast way by anyone anywhere and carries no weight with the AGS or anyone else outside our community.

Firstly I have never seen even 100 CF pistol shooters in any competition. So who has the other 200 and what do they want them for?

Well, (a) is that pool of 100 constant, or is it that you never see more than 100 at any one competition, but the 100 change from match to match? And (b) not every target shooter feels any great desire to compete against anyone but themselves. Some just go to the range once a week and shoot at paper targets and never take it further. I know when I shoot pistol, I don't really feel any great desire to go to competitions, the way I do with rifle.

As for the not fair to anyone else. No other group of shooters out there have had their firearms taken from them so to speak.

True, though several CF rifle folk haven't gotten their licences (but there aren't so many of them as there are CF pistol people), and there's the problem of the juniors coming in who were banned from coming in until they hit 14 by new legislation (no more Derek Burnetts starting at 11 or 12), and there's 180,000 or so who have had to give up medical confidentiality, had their character questioned by the new licencing conditions despite years of having high-ranking Gardai sign off on them, and so on.
What I'm saying is that yes, it's important, but it's not the only problem in the shooting community in Ireland, and it'd be nice to see us all remember all of the issues instead of just focussing on one and burning others in our pursuit of a solution to that one.

Apologies if I sound adversarial, maybe the snow is getting me down

What, weather-enforced house arrest isn't fun?

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

Does PPC1500 have a "must be larger than .38 calibre" rule or something? Why would an ISSF centerfire pistol not be usable for PPC1500?

:eek:
i would have thought anyone seeking to come up with a solution to the further licensing of CF Pistols would be cognisant of the details of one of the main International CF Pistol Sports in Ireland.

Otherwise you get something like the first draft of the RF Pistol list in the Comm. Guidelines which did not include any of the pistols people use in RF Pistols sports in Ireland. Thankfully NASRPC and others were finally consulted on that and most of the pistols people actually use were added to the list.

What people want is not the ability to get large calibre firearms - what they want is their sport back and that requires specific tools.

Whether those tools would fit in the ISSF Box is questionable. Whether they would be any use in ISSF competition may not be relevant.
Whether a tool that is of use in ISSF competition would be of any use in a WA1500 competition would also be questionable.
Would you play hurling with a hockey stick?

Hence my earlier comment that those that actually take part in the sport MUST be part of any process that alters the landscape for that sport.

To date they have not been.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

:eek:
i would have thought anyone seeking to come up with a solution to the further licensing of CF Pistols would be cognisant of the details of one of the main International CF Pistol Sports in Ireland.

Well, it's just that when I go to look for the PPC1500 rules, I find this:

This side is not a substitute for a rulebook.
A draft of a Rulebook WA 1500 will be coming up soon.

And I'd hate to get it wrong because I didn't have a copy of the rulebook that had a new rule I didn't know about :rolleyes:
BTW, that was impressive B'man - 205 words and not one of them was the yes/no answer we needed...


Anyway, in the draft rules, there's no rule that says a pistol suitable for ISSF centerfire matches wouldn't be usable for PPC1500 (or WA1500), and in the non-draft ISSF rules, there's no rule saying that a PPC1500/WA1500 pistol up to (and including) .38 calibre wouldn't be suitable.

Do you see what I mean yet?

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

Well, it's just that when I go to look for the PPC1500 rules, I find this:

And I'd hate to get it wrong because I didn't have a copy of the rulebook that had a new rule I didn't know about :rolleyes:
BTW, that was impressive B'man - 205 words and not one of them was the yes/no answer we needed...


Anyway, in the draft rules, there's no rule that says a pistol suitable for ISSF centerfire matches wouldn't be usable for PPC1500 (or WA1500), and in the non-draft ISSF rules, there's no rule saying that a PPC1500/WA1500 pistol up to (and including) .38 calibre wouldn't be suitable.

Do you see what I mean yet?

Like I said - if a proposal is being put together by a group to be presented to the DOJ/FPU/AGS/etc. on the future licensing of CF Pistols then that group should include experts on the CF Pistol disciplines that are actually shot in Ireland - that would be the NASRPC - and the CF disciplines that are shot by Irish People abroad - that would be the ITS and NTSA.

Those experts would also need to be making the presentation in order to be able to answer any questions etc. authoritatively.

Trying to have people who are not an expert in the sport collate information form those that are and then field questions on it - simply leads to chinese whispers and overall confusion and a poor outcome - as we have seen numerous times over the last couple of years.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Like I said - if a proposal is being put together by a group to be presented to the DOJ/FPU/AGS/etc. on the future licensing of CF Pistols then that group should include experts on the CF Pistol disciplines that are actually shot in Ireland - that would be the NASRPC - and the CF disciplines that are shot by Irish People abroad - that would be the ITS and NTSA.

And the Bullseye pistol folk as well, and also just about every other group out there since you're talking about firearms legislation - there's no Centerfire Pistol Act.

And Wow. We'd need some sort of, I don't know, panel for that. So we could consult with the Department about firearms legislative matters. A Firearms Legislation Consultation Panel, if you will.
Shame we don't have one of those...

Trying to have people who are not an expert in the sport collate information form those that are and then field questions on it

First off, I'm going to assume you're not telling people on boards what they can and cannot talk about, and that you've just phrased that wongly and your next post will be stressing that you weren't back-seat modding the forum.

- simply leads to chinese whispers and overall confusion and a poor outcome - as we have seen numerous times over the last couple of years.

And second off, I'm biting back the laughter there; the last decade has been spent - and in many people's views, wasted - cleaning up after a bunch of so-called "experts" who were anything but went off and represented us - usually without bothering us with any salient details - to the Minister, usually by yelling and demanding their "rights" and pounding on the table, resulting in (ultimately) the Criminal Justice Bill 2004, the single greatest kick in the crotch our sporting community ever received in the history of its existence.
And after that, you want us to not discuss stuff in public.
This, only a few weeks after the SSAI meeting in Portlaoise, where you and everyone present from the NASRPC committee stood up and demanded openness and transparancy and better communications from the SSAI (despite the communications problem being admitted to having been the fault of the NASRPC people on the SSAI committee and despite having called for the proceedings to be banned from being put up on boards.ie less than an hour earlier).
I really am finding that hard not to laugh at B'man...

Bananaman

There is no such thing as the ''bullseye folk' - unless you mean the cousins of the fairy folk

are these the people that you were talking about earlier thave taken part in no competition or club practice but are pretending to have done so in. Order to get a license- bless them

NASRPC have held 15 competitions nationwide in 2010 , 8 of which included CF Pistol events in which there were over 20 clubs taking part and I have never heard of this club

you mentioned the CF pistol owners who have not taken part in anything earlier - is this who you mentioned?

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

There is no such thing as the ''bullseye folk' - unless you mean the cousins of the fairy folk

No, I mean the new NGB in the SSAI that was admitted at the last SSAI meeting (or the one before that, I've lost track).

are these the people that you were talking about earlier thave taken part in no competition or club practice but are pretending to have done so in. Order to get a license- bless them

No, I'm talking about people who go to their club regularly and shoot regularly, who are perfectly legitimate and responsible shooters, but who just don't compete, whether due to time pressure or lack of inclination to compete. They're perfectly legitimate shooters B'man and in fact make up the majority of the target shooting community - denigrating them is not something someone with the best interests of all shooters at heart should be doing.

Mr Mole

To me, the key words in the original post are "would we all agree on".

It has become very apparent that most shooting "personalities" will never agree on anything, mainly because of status, power and belief in their own self importance.

One of the reasons we have such idiotic law and regulation is because groups have sold out others to achieve what "they" thought was best for everyone. They had little belief in tolerance, or understanding of others requirements, no time for discussion or consensus, and dealt with issues in their own little mini cabinets, believeing perhaps, that they actually represented the whole shooting community. They didn't.

Fianna Fail dont represent me, although they seemingly still think they do. Likewise some members of the FCP (and outside it) have the same belief.

Am I wrong in saying that the responsibility of the SSAI is a central representative panel for funding and nothing else? Am I right in saying that there is no one on the FCP from NASRPC, the group that does represent most Rifle and Pistol Shooters, and am I right in saying that therefore, most pistol shooters have no representation in respect of their sports?

So, "what we all agree on" is not achieveable until there is balanced representation. The makeup of the Government / Ministerial appointed FCP will make sure we will never agree on anything. Hopefully that will change under new government.

Until the in fighting and corner holding in shooting sports ceases, no progress will ever be made. Those who say that progress HAS been made are living in another world. (Like FF).:(

The politics in sport and the politics we have suffered from Government are equally damaging.

Sparks

Mr Mole wrote: »

To me, the key words in the original post are "would we all agree on".

+1
So long as any one group of shooters believes that they are the most important group out of all shooters, we're going to hit the problem that there's not much we all agree on that's positive

They had little belief in tolerance, or understanding of others requirements, no time for discussion or consensus, and dealt with issues in their own little mini cabinets, believeing perhaps, that they actually represented the whole shooting community. They didn't.
Fianna Fail dont represent me, although they seemingly still think they do. Likewise some members of the FCP (and outside it) have the same belief.

And yet, the FCP (at least, the shooting panel) is precisely what you're calling for there Mole - it gets pretty much all of the shooting bodies in the one place at the one table.

Am I wrong in saying that the responsibility of the SSAI is a central representative panel for funding and nothing else?

Yes, someone has misinformed you there. That was the original point of the old NRPAI, but when that was changed (and I recall some shouting about the change at the time ) into the SSAI, those who did the changing claimed far more responsibility and authority for the SSAI (and are now some of the loudest people complaining about the SSAI having that responsibility and authority - the irony that they were the loudest people saying on here that I was being a difficult prat for pointing out the NRPAI-SSAI transition was unfair and wrong is not lost on me, it's giving me a lot of amusement).

Am I right in saying that there is no one on the FCP from NASRPC

You would be wrong, there's the SSAI rep who represents the NASRPC officially, and there's also Declan Cahill, who's NASRPC and who also sits on the FCP, so the NASRPC has effectively two people on the FCP. That's one more than most groups.

the group that does represent most Rifle and Pistol Shooters

Hmmmm. I think you'd have a fun time proving that one.

and am I right in saying that therefore, most pistol shooters have no representation in respect of their sports?

No, that's incorrect. I think someone's misled you there.

Until the in fighting and corner holding in shooting sports ceases, no progress will ever be made. Those who say that progress HAS been made are living in another world. (Like FF).:(

Well, (a) I can name the people saying there is skullduggery afoot in the SSAI right now, and frankly, it's not an impressive list; and (b) we have air and smallbore pistols being licenced and an official way to licence centerfire pistols that we just need an SI tweak to avail of. That is progress from where we were when I started shooting (yes, it's of the two-steps-forward-one-step-back variety, but that still leaves you a step forward from where you were). I was laughed out of it by highly experienced people at several meetings for suggesting we work towards various things because there was no way we'd ever get them - things like licenced air and .22 pistols and a way to build up to CF pistols; things like a panel where all the shooting bodies could meet formally with the AGS and DoJ to discuss firearms legislation; things like centerfire rifles being licenced the same way as any other rifle; and so on. We have all those things now; we didn't have them a decade ago; and while we wanted more, it is still progress.

The politics in sport and the politics we have suffered from Government are equally damaging.

Yup, and if half the underhanded stuff that our lot have done to one another ever gets out the way it has for the Government's shenanigans, there are going to be a good twenty or thirty people banned from ever setting foot on another range out of anger from the other 180,000 shooters. :mad:

Mr Mole

If the FCP were elected by their shooting bodies rather than being Government appointed, it would offer real representation.

I am not interested in the prior histories of the various bodies, thats the root of many problems. At least the old SSAI website outlined their function, which I recall before the website change, was funding, and nothing else. If the SSAI are now performing another function, perhaps they should see it fit to have the now year or more overdue AGM and also clarify to people what its function is.

I feel that this also requires clarification. To the best of my knowledge Mr Cahill was a Government appointment to the FCP and does not now in any way represent NASRPC. He is no longer on the NASRPC Committee and as such, how can he represent them? Its my understanding that all FCP members were notified in writing of this fact, so he is neither an official or "unofficial " member of the FCP.

I didnt mention any scullduggery in the SSAI. Can you elaborate?

Progress is where the wishes of the majority of people are represented and where obstacles are taken out of the way, and not put in the way. EG, five shot restrictions etc. If we went down the road that you suggested earlier regarding Olympic fullbore, we would end up with an Olympic Restricted List! This problem occurrs when one body makes suggestions that affect others without consultation, and is what has us where we are today.

Underhandedness is understated. Thats the core problem.

Bananaman

To be 100% crystal clear.

Declan Cahill does not represent the NASRPC.

B'Man

Sparks

Mr Mole wrote: »

Thats the problem I outlined.

And I agree with it - I just think that the problem is more widespread, with more groups holding that opinion, than most people seem to think it is, possibly because I wind up talking with people from more groups than the norm. For some reason, most shooters seem not to have too much contact with shooters in other groups, which doesn't seem to be the norm outside of Ireland - we appear to be a fairly insular bunch.

If they were elected by their shooting bodies rather than being Government appointed, it would offer real representation.

But they are; or to be more accurate, they are elected, insofar as the individual NGB constitutions allow them to be. For example, is there any measure in the NASRPC constitution that allows ordinary non-committee NASRPC club members to elect directly a representative to sit on the SSAI committee? As far as I remember, along with most other NGBs, ordinary members get to vote on who takes an NGB committee role at best; and at worst, the club members get to vote for who's on the club committee, the club committee decides on who represents them to the NGB's AGM, and there those representatives vote on who gets to be on the NGB committee, and then the NGB committee gets to decide on who takes what role. Which is how it worked under the old NRPAI system, by the way.

We've never actually had a system in Ireland where every ordinary shooter got to vote directly on who represented them. Some had it (the NTSA AGM allows for voting for specific roles on the committee...) to one degree or another (...but the NRPAI rep wasn't voted for, it was decided on by the committee; usually the chairman). So if it's a problem, it's been one we've lived with for the last century or so.

I am not interested in the prior histories of the various bodies

I hear that a lot and it disappoints me every time. The point of remembering what happened before is not to get the boot in again; the point is to remember what broke, and why, so we don't repeat mistakes ad nauseum.

If the SSAI are now performing another function, perhaps they should see it to have the now year or more overdue AGM and also clarify to people what its function is.

That point, by the way, was raised at the Q&A meeting in portlaois and it was pointed out to the NASRPC chap who asked that the SSAI AGM had been called for three times already and deferred each time because of scheduling conflicts (with the NASRPC schedule twice IIRC), and that it was now rescheduled for the fourth time and the SSAI secretary had all the details (and the SSAI secretary is the NASRPC secretary). If there's a communications problem here, I don't think it's on the SSAI's end to be fair.

I feel that this also requires clarification. To the best of my knowledge Mr Cahill was a Government appointment to the FCP and does not now in any way represent NASRPC. He is no longer on the NASRPC Committee and as such, how can he represent them?

Declan Cahill ("Mister" is so formal and cold for a shooter to use on another shooter in this kind of forum) was appointed by the DoJ to represent the NASRPC on the FCP if I remember right, and the appointment wasn't rescinded by the DoJ. If the NASRPC don't want to use a resource that's there, then... well, that's not really someone else's problem. I mean, Declan's not attached to any other shooting group, is he?

Progress is where the wishes of the majority of people are represented and where obstacles are taken out of the way, and not put in the way. EG, five shot restrictions etc.

No, progress is where we move forward from where we were. I'm not saying we've made fantastic progress, or fast progress, and I'm not saying we've gotten all we wanted to, and I am damn sure not saying we should now stop trying; but it's not right to look at what we've gotten and all the work people have put in and say that it's all worthless because we only got 80-90% of what we wanted. I mean, we have things now that were dismissed as naive wishful thinking when mooted as possible goals a decade ago. That's not nothing Mole, even if we're not finished yet. (BTW, "wishes of the majority" would mean we wouldn't bother with pistol shooters at all as there are only a few hundred pistol shooters at best out of (roughly) 180,000 shooters. And I think we both agree that would be deeply unfair and wrong).

Underhandedness is understated. Thats the core problem.

But if we explicitly stated what people have done deliberately against fellow shooters (or what they did through cack-handed incompetence), we'd have two problems - first off, shooters are highly litigious people (or at least the shouty ones are) and will sue their own community as fast as look at them funny (regardless of the merits of any such case, and I've been the subject of and an observer of such stupid badminded efforts); and secondly, and to my mind far more importantly, we would harm our efforts to achieve more for our community. And therein lies the rub - the good people doing this work ask themselves the question Progress or Getting The Boot Into Other Shooters? and always pick Progress; the people we really really don't need within an ass's roar of the process never pick Progress and will burn all of us so long as they get to look good.

Which is a major factor in why we've not gotten more than we have in the past decade, as well as the main reason that those shouty people always seem to have something to shout about - because if they never take the unsexy pragmatic get-****-done road. Probably because it's harder and longer and they don't care about the point that the rewards are better and longer-lived.

I'll give you a safe (as in, won't harm future efforts) example - we had major fights in the NTSA a few years ago over high performance shooting. And I mean major fights. It walked up to the solicitor's door far more than once (but thankfully never crossed it). We had EGMs, we had screaming matches, we had the works. We tried resolving it privately, we tried resolving it publicly, and it looked hopeless. We lost good shooters, we lost a lot of time to this. And then the (current) NTSA chairman took a fairly ballsy decision, turned round and said that maybe there was a point to what the opposing side was saying and offered to work with them. And the head of the opposing side recognised that as a ballsy decision and made one of his own and said well, we'll take that offer in good faith and we'll try to make it work. The resulting process was as rough as a sandpaper condom, and took nearly three years to work, and frankly it burnt one or two of us out completely, but it worked, and it worked because both sides were focussed on the results. In other such conflicts we've seen in our community, where the focus was on "winning the fight", the outcome was horribly, horribly different. Enormous amounts of money wasted in court fees, the reintroduction of pistols delayed by a decade, huge numbers of volunteers (people we don't exactly have enough of to start with) lost, and worst.

Maybe if we were more results-oriented (and honestly measured those results), we'd all be better off in the medium-to-long term in return for some short-term patience?

Sparks

A timely email from the DoJ today:

Please see attached update from the FPU. It was hoped to include it in the current issue of Shooter's Digest but alas lack of space meant it won't appear until the next edition when we hope to have even more progress to report.

Feel free to circulate to members or put on your websites

We are almost at the end of the first full year of processing firearm certificate applications under the new legislation. Firstly, I would like to thank all of the various shooting bodies for their help and assistance over the past number of months. Since its establishment in 2008, the Firearms Policy Unit has built some solid and lasting relationships with many shooting bodies and their representatives based on mutual trust and cooperation and we continue to try and improve the service to you the shooting public.

Of course there have been difficulties along the way and I have always recognised and acknowledged that our service as an organisation to the shooting public can be improved. But I have always stressed that this is a period of enormous transition and change in the way firearms are now licensed in this country. We have moved from a completely outdated system based on legislation drafted as far back as 1925, to a system that introduced new 3 year firearm certificates based on 2006 and 2009 legislation and outsourcing the collection of fees to An Post. A new database now exists with up to date information on firearms and their owners. While the old system served its purpose in dealing with the old processes, we simply had to move on and improve the system for the benefit of all shooters. While again acknowledging that some people have suffered delays and frustrations with their applications, this transition period has been an enormous challenge for An Garda Síochána as an organisation. Processing over 200,000 new applications under the new regulations has placed huge demands on Garda resources in every District in the country with the added requirements of additional minimum security standards, referees, medical, inspections of firearms etc. Additionally, we now have many rifle and pistol clubs up and running and authorised for 5 years under the new legislation and we hope that the Statutory Instrument giving effect to the new certification and subsequent authorisation of shooting ranges will be available shortly. I know that our colleagues in the Dept. of Justice and Law Reform are working on this issue. On 16th June we also organised our ‘National Firearms Awareness Day’. Assistance on filling out the application form, firearms safety and general crime prevention advice was available in every District throughout the country and feedback suggests that this was a very worthwhile exercise.

We now have well in excess of 200,000 applications on the new system with the vast majority of these fully processed and paid and new 3 year certificates issued. Additionally, almost 40,000 old 1 year certificates have been cancelled with the firearms destroyed or sold. Procedures were put in place for firearms owners who did not wish to apply for a new 3 year certificate, whereby they could have their firearm destroyed by An Garda Síochána free of charge. I have personally viewed many of the firearms handed in for destruction and can honestly say that this process has helped remove many damaged and downright dangerous firearms that otherwise would have remained in homes throughout the country. We also have approx 1,000 handgun certificates (including restricted certificates) granted throughout the country but we also have ongoing District Court Appeals and some High Court cases in relation to refusals.

A complete audit of all firearms in every Garda District throughout the country is almost concluded and by the end of the year we will be in a position to offer an overall report on the entire process following the first full year of the operation of the new licensing system. It is anticipated that a complete review of the processes will then take place between An Garda Síochána and Dept. of Justice and Law Reform and the views of the various representative shooting groups will be sought in an effort to improve the system and overall service to the shooting public. In early 2011 planning will also commence for the first renewal phase due in August 2012.

In conclusion, I would again like to thank all of the genuine people within the shooting fraternity for working with us here at the Firearms Policy Unit over the past number of months. I have travelled the country and seen first hand the fantastic work being done for the benefit of all of the shooting public. In a relatively short period of time I think that working together; we have all come a long way. Of course we can improve the system and we will do all that we can to ensure that these improvements will happen, but I genuinely feel that the long term benefits of the new processes will only be fully realised in the months and years ahead.

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

Declan Cahill ("Mister" is so formal and cold for a shooter to use on another shooter in this kind of forum) was appointed by the DoJ to represent the NASRPC on the FCP if I remember right, and the appointment wasn't rescinded by the DoJ. If the NASRPC don't want to use a resource that's there, then... well, that's not really someone else's problem. I mean, Declan's not attached to any other shooting group, is he?

I have no idea what Declan is attached to - I can assume that he is a member of a club affiliated to the NASRPC - most people are - I just don't know what club he is a member of so I cannot confirm that.

However, he does not represent the NASRPC on the FCP or in any other context so is not relevant to the point.

As Mr. Mole pointed out earlier, Decln along with everyone else was chosen to be on the FCP.
If they all packed in shooting, were replaced in whatever roles they hold, left whatever role they hold or left the country in the morning to take up extreme frisbee in patagonia - the logic would dictate that they remain on the FCP rather than the association/club/body/church group/knitting circle/whatever they represent, replacing them and being actually consulted.


NASRPC have repeatedly asked to be represented on the FCP in order to ensure the Sports, Clubs and Ranges of the NASRPC are represented, which it is quite obvious, they are not.

Sparks wrote:

things like a panel where all the shooting bodies could meet formally with the AGS and DoJ to discuss firearms legislation

I think you're smoking too much of your own product there.

You can list the names of each individual who was selected to be on the FCP and state that they could, should or would represent the Sports, Clubs and Ranges of the NASRPC but you would be wrong - because it does not happen.

To clarify:
How many times have the Gardai or DOJ formally met with the FCP (as a group)?
What was the purpose of those meetings?

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

However, he does not represent the NASRPC on the FCP or in any other context so is not relevant to the point.

The actual point was that you have an NASRPC member sitting on the FCP who doesn't represent any other shooting interest. If you don't want to talk to him, that's not anyone else's problem; and asking for a third NASRPC person at the table is a bit much.

NASRPC have repeatedly asked to be represented on the FCP in order to ensure the Sports, Clubs and Ranges of the NASRPC are represented, which it is quite obvious, they are not.

Again, it's blindingly obvious that they are because those who run the NASRPC set things up so the NASRPC was represented to the FCP via the SSAI. At the time they had no issues with these rules even though others (me included) were pointing out that there could be serious problems (and were being dismissed as troublemaking cranks at the time). They now have to live within the rules they drafted and are finding that it chafes. I have little sympathy for that. They have far more effective representation to the DoJ via the SSAI rep today than they have ever had in the past - and frankly, if their current 'spokesperson' were to be put forward for FCP rep status, he wouldn't be let in the door because of his past history with the relevant people anyway.

it does not happen.

Prove it.
I say it does and I can point to things avoided and advances made and secured to back up that point. Not as many as we'd all like, and not as far as we'd all like, but frankly, there's a nice slice of the blame pie for shooters (including NASRPC members) to nibble on if we want to go down that road (I don't think we should, but I'm just saying).

How many times have the Gardai or DOJ formally met with the FCP (as a group)?
What was the purpose of those meetings?

/facepalm
B'man, once again, the DoJ chairs the FCP. So the answer to your question is that every time the FCP meets, that is a formal meeting with the DoJ and Gardai and the shooting panel, by definition.
It's misunderstandings like that which cause the grief here; you appear to think the FCP is some independent mechanism that can veto the DoJ or Minister or AGS or Dail; it's not; it's a formal forum for the various stakeholders in Irish Firearms Legislation to meet and discuss that legislation, chaired by and run by the DoJ.

Bananaman

I never sai anything about what the FCP does

I simply asked how many times the FCP have met (as a group) with the Gardai and DOJ and what the purpose of those meetings was

you seem to have the inside track so I assumed you would know

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

I never sai anything about what the FCP does
I simply asked how many times the FCP have met (as a group) with the Gardai and DOJ and what the purpose of those meetings was

B'man, the answer is "ALL the times they met".
If you want a number of times, I don't have it to hand, I'll ask if you're that curious - but if you think there's going to be some number of meetings of the FCP where the DoJ wasn't there, you don't understand how the FCP is structured or how it works; it cannot meet without the DoJ being present and so far as I know, it's very rare for it to meet without the AGS.

you seem to have the inside track so I assumed you would know

No, I just read what folk write and listen to what folk say and remember it.

Sparks

Sparks wrote: »

B'man, the answer is "ALL the times they met".
If you want a number of times, I don't have it to hand, I'll ask if you're that curious

From a PQ in December 2008 which is the most recent PQ on this that I can find, they'd already had six full meetings of the FCP by then and nine sub-panel meetings. Plus the two conferences, and a few more since.

Mr Mole

Data from late 2008?
What about SINCE we were decieved?

Sparks

Mr Mole wrote: »

Data from late 2008?
What about SINCE we were decieved?

I asked. After 1700 on friday in several inches of snow. Oddly, folk in the Department were already headed home. Personally, I'm willing to not class going home at five in the worst weather for 25 years as being a political ploy to hide the truth for us questers for righteous justice, eh Mole?

(let's give them a working day or two before we scream conspiracy)

Mr.Flibble

Sparks wrote: »

Personally, I'm willing to not class going home at five in the worst weather for 25 years as being a political ploy to hide the truth for us questers for righteous justice, eh Mole?

That's not fair. He never implied anything of the sort.

He just wanted to know if you or the Department had any relevant information that was less than two years out of date.