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

Sparks

I don't (I said so), but I asked on B'man's behalf (I said so as well, up above there), but not till after 1700 on friday (as the timestamp on my post up there shows), so I got the only information I could find for B'man and clearly labelled it as out of date (as you can see up there), and posted it. Maybe I should have said I was waiting for further data, but maybe Mole should have taken a deep breath before going down the "we were DECEIVED" tangent. Especially since he's being fairly generic with that statement. Were we deceived by the Minister (well, I'd say abused as I don't think the Minister cared enough to invest energy in deceiving us, we're not that important to him), or by the Department (which, to be fair, we weren't), or by the AGS (well, that's a curate's egg right there, some were on the side of the Minister and some were more open-minded), or by the shooting panel (oh, there's a can of worms to be opening on a saturday morning...)?

Personally, I say let's just file this under "waiting for further data".
But then again, I think the original question was ill-formed (to use a mathematics term) in the first place.

FISMA

First, the idea that a bow/arrow is a firearm is just silly, So change the laws to differentiate between firearms and bows.

Second, and not part of this particular legislation would be to allow hunting with bows. Albeit a different thread and perhaps, forum. I still maintain that overall the bow and arrow is a much safer humane kill.

Actually, I am kind of surprised that the anti crowd in Ireland isn't moving to ban sporting firearms in lieu of bows.

Hmmm, maybe I shouldn't even bring this to their attention.

bunny shooter

Mr Mole wrote: »

................This problem occurrs when one body makes suggestions that affect others without consultation, and is what has us where we are today..............

Guess what I'm gonna bring up again, that never happened

Sparks

/facepalm

That never happened, that couldn't actually have happened when you say it happened, and that even the IPSA themselves said never happened.

At some point Bunny, you have to let logic in.
Go on.
You know you want to.
You know you'll be happier.
Join us. We have cookies.

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

/facepalm.

Sparks wrote: »

That never happened, that couldn't actually have happened when you say it happened, and that even the IPSA themselves said never happened..

Do explain how this proves it didn't happen as they were outside the FCP/SSAI for most of their short lifespan

Sparks wrote: »

At some point Bunny, you have to let logic in..

Logic does not replace the truth

Sparks wrote: »

Go on..

erm.............. no !

Sparks wrote: »

You know you want to. .

erm............. no !

Sparks wrote: »

You know you'll be happier..

Don't want to be

Sparks wrote: »

Join us.

I have, have you forgotten

Sparks wrote: »

We have cookies.

Choc chip and I'm yours

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

Do explain how this proves it didn't happen as they were outside the FCP/SSAI for most of their short lifespan

Because they saw all the docs and when they were submitted, and they worked with all parties during their short lifespan.

Logic does not replace the truth

It doesn't try.
The point is that the story isn't true and isn't logically possible because it's not possible to go behind the back of a group that doesn't exist to submit documents that don't exist.
If it had happened, it would have happened after the FCP was founded, and the document would be in the DoJ archives.
Thing is, the document isn't there; and the one you keep pointing to dates from two years or more before the FCP was founded, and isn't what you say it is at any rate.

Choc chip and I'm yours

Pffft. We have triple chocolate chip.

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

..........Thing is, the document isn't there; and the one you keep pointing to dates from two years or more before the FCP was founded, and isn't what you say it is at any rate.......

But I thought it never existed (have some time must read some old threads) :eek:

Mr Mole

Originally Posted by Mr Mole
................This problem occurrs when one body makes suggestions that affect others without consultation, and is what has us where we are today..............
Bunnyshooter, you have selected a part of a prior post by me, and have managed with Sparks, to associate the comment I made with IPSA.
The comment has absolutely nothing to do with IPSA. I ask you to consider removing my comment from your post in the interest of clarity and fairness.

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

But I thought it never existed (have some time must read some old threads) :eek:

Your imaginary document never existed.
A different document, containing different things, existed for a different purpose, several years before your imaginary document was supposed to be written, and was never used for any other purpose. As proven by the restricted firearms list, by the way.


Seriously BS, this is starting to sound like the Louvre Curator's statement about the Da Vinci Code...

Sparks

Mr Mole wrote: »

Bunnyshooter, you have selected a part of a prior post by me, and have managed with Sparks, to associate the comment I made with IPSA.

No, he hasn't. He's managed to take a part of a prior post by you and use it to dredge up a conspiracy theory from years back, that the IPSA had denounced as rubbish.

bunny shooter

Mr Mole wrote: »

Bunnyshooter, you have selected a part of a prior post by me, and have managed with Sparks, to associate the comment I made with IPSA.

I never mentioned IPSA

Mr Mole wrote: »

The comment has absolutely nothing to do with IPSA.

OK duly noted & I am not saying otherwise FTR

Mr Mole wrote: »

I ask you to consider removing my comment from your post in the interest of clarity and fairness.

I will definately consider removing it if you would consider explaining the background & context of your statement "in the interest of clarity and fairness" if it does not refer to my "list" theory?

dCorbus

Yawn!;):D

TBH I've not a fecking clue what any of you have been talking about for the last 27 posts.



So I again must use my love of the visual to express my feelings on what started off as a very interesting thread and then devolved into the usual "debate" (I use that term in its loosest possible sense) between one or two posters:



I'm sure it's all very interesting and all - I love a history debate as much as the next man!:rolleyes:

***

Now, where were we? Oh yeah, discussing a topic!

So, back on topic:

My suggestions for changes in the legislations are:

1. Bring back executions
2. Introduce public flogging
3. Charge the family of the "Accused" for the price of the execution bullet
4. Introduce conscription
5. Re-build and extend the Armed Forces
6. Invade Scotland and seize the North Sea Oil
7. Invade Wales to provide addition "Living Space" (as I like to call it)
8. Introduce Rule-by-Dictat
9. Appoint me as "The Leader", or in Irish if you prefer "An Taoiseach" - now, what was that mitteleuropaeisch wort i was looking for.........

Ooops, that's one of my other special lists, sorry, CTRL V'd the wrong document!



OK, but seriously now:

1. Allowing for the licencing of CF Pistols for anyone who can show good reason (i.e. for target shooting in all its forms)
2. Remove ban on IPSC in all its forms
3. Reduce the age that a training licence may be held to 12 years.
4. Remove Air Rifles for target purposes from the firearms legislation entirely.
5. Introduce a simple register for Air Rifles and their ownership.
6. Allow shooters to have rifles and calibres to be pre-approved on their "book".
7. Allow a shooter to licence as many firearms as they would like (subject to reasonable storage security requirements).
8. Allow shooters with an existing licence to use a fast-track/simplified second-tier system of licencing to add additional firearms to their licence, without having to resubmit the information each and every time.
9. Centralise the licencing system to a body such as the FPU and remove the burden from local F/O's.
10. Remove CS and Supers from the role of Persona Designata - the country is well small enough for this to be centralised. After all, no AGS district has an input into how many drivers are licenced in their area for example.
11. Treat the Firearms Licencing system more like the Driving Licence system - A difficult (but not impossible) set of tests to pass initially, but once "approved" one may drive what one likes.
12. Remove the bit that makes the appearance of the firearm have any bearing on it's licenceability.
13. Remove any differentiation between Restricted and Non Restricted. Make all "licenceable" firearms "non-restricted" and prohibit anything else, i.e. full automatics, rpg's, sam's, grenade-launchers, flame-throwers, mortars, and that sort of thing. Everything else should be licenceable assuming you've met the requirements set down in Item 11.
14. Remove name and address from the actual licence card - Photo only needed.
15. Make the FAC card a credit card type card - imbed info on mag strip if needed.
16. Remove an Post from the loop - no reason they should be processing or have access to any FA information.
17. Make the licences five-year licences (three years is arbitrary IMO) or better still lifetime licences.


I've a few more.......

But I'll save these for the pub;)

Sparks

Might be handier if folk organised their lists by pointing out what had to be changed - that way it'd be easier to see what changes need what actions and how long they'd take and how much support they'd need...

dCorbus

Would you like me to start drafting the amendments, additions, and omissions to the legislation?

Might be handier if folk organised their lists by pointing out what had to be changed

Well, the simplest thing to do would be to implement Item 9 of my First list and then "We" can sort out Items 1 - 17 inclusive of the Second List rather handily. :D

Let's call it.....D.I. 1 of Year 1 (D.I.: Dictatorial Instruction), and Year 1 coz that's what I'm going to call the First Great and Glorious Year of my Rising to Power.:rolleyes:

Sparks

dCorbus wrote: »

Would you like me to start drafting the amendments, additions, and omissions to the legislation?

That does tend to be the kind of thing we need to submit, is my point.

For example, here's what you said and what I said:

Sparks wrote:

Change section one of the Firearms Act so the definition of a firearm, section B goes from "one joule" to "eight joules"

dCorbus wrote:

Remove Air Rifles for target purposes from the firearms legislation entirely.

We're saying the same thing, but by pointing out how to do it, you make it easier to do because now someone else in the DoJ doesn't have to figure out a way of doing something someone else wants done

dCorbus

Who said anything about submitting this to anyone?:eek:

If this is for submission to the DoJ or anyone else for that matter, we should be told, no?

There was me thinking that I was merely posting on an internet forum, but if I'm expected to phrase my submissions to allow for legalities and to avoid any prospect of misinterpretation and thus do someone elses job for them, please advise?

Of course, when the DoJ have a read of this in the morning, please note that my suggestions are just that: suggestions and not firm proposals or submissions as to the variations and alterations which I would like incorporated tomorrow afternoon into the F/A legislation. Thanks

(If you would like a formal submission, please let me know via Sparks, and I'm sure I can oblige;)).

Regards,

dC

:rolleyes::rolleyes::D

Sparks

To the best of my knowledge dC, noone's submitting anything and this is just a nattering session; but a good idea thrown up by even the silliest of nattering sessions is still a good idea...

...and if you put forward an actual legislation-level change rather than a high-level aspiration, you're closer to "good idea" than you'd otherwise be.

emptyshed

Compulsary safety training,
1 licence for all firearms.
Strict club regulations, with regular checks of same.
(I know people will say thats already in place...but some ranges are frighteningly badly run)
Ban anyone convicted of an arrestable offfence from holding licence ever.

Specialised training for specific Gardai who should be the only point of contact re.firearms.

And find out what idiot shoots the road signs and ban them from leaving their homes..stupid to be let out.

dCorbus

Correct me if I'm wrong here:

What you're saying is that it's not a good idea, nor do any of the lists really have any value or validity, unless they are more specific, carefully-worded, precise, unequivocal, and honed in such a way as to be useful to somebody undefined and unidentified at some undefined and unidentified date in the future?

...and if you put forward an actual legislation-level change rather than a high-level aspiration, you're closer to "good idea" than you'd otherwise be.

I'm not here TBH to put forward actual legislation-level changes (as you so condenscendingly have put it).

If I had an "actual legislation-level change" to suggest, I wouldn't be doing it via Boards TBH, I'd be utilising far more effective, democratic, and legimate routes toward such a change to the legislation. But then again, I don't!

If I was to put time, money, effort, and politicking into play, I'd probably put more effort into my abovementioned List One rather than List Two!:rolleyes::D

And what, pray tell, is wrong with "high level aspirations"?

Some feckin' high level aspirations are where you start and only then get into the nitty gritty of legislative legalese.

And I'm sure, given a couple of hours and some brainpower to spare, I could fairly handily go through the legislation and quote chapter and verse on which paragraph or subsection or definition needs to be altered, omitted, or added, but I'm not spending my time doing that - and IMO Boards.ie is not the place where that work should be given it's first airring , so even if I did do it (which I'm not going to, I might hasten to add), I wouldn't be posting my detailed work and research up here first.

And to be honest, most of the points which I have suggested are very much aspirational and would involve a substantial re-draft, if not scrapping, of the current legislation along with a successful court case or two.

dCorbus

Compulsary safety training,

Already dealt with and contained in the current legislation

1 licence for all firearms

100% Agree

Strict club regulations, with regular checks of same.
(I know people will say thats already in place...but some ranges are frighteningly badly run)

Which ranges would these be? (Don't answer that!)
Not one of the ranges I've been to could be described as "frighteningly badly run".

There's also already the Clubs SI and shortly we should have the long awaited Ranges SI, so what you're talking about has already been dealt with in the new legislation.

And anyway, that's an enforcement issue for the DoJ and AGS, and they have been around many of the ranges to make sure everything is well above board and that the rules are complied with.

Ban anyone convicted of an arrestable offfence from holding licence ever

Pretty much the case already too.

Although, I can be arrested for not paying my TV licence, but please explain to me how this would / should have any bearing my holding of a FAC?

I can also be arrested, upon judgement, of underpaying my taxes, and again please explain to me how this would / should have any bearing my holding of a FAC?

I can also be arrested for not paying a Luas or Bus ticket and refusing to do so when requested and again please explain to me how this would / should have any bearing my holding of a FAC?

One could also have been arrested in Ireland over the previous 30-40 Years for many other things, which are neither "criminal", "violent", or "anti-social", please explain to me how these would / should have any bearing my holding of a FAC?

Specialised training for specific Gardai who should be the only point of contact re.firearms.

100% Agreed - although it may not need to be a member of the Gardai who deals with this.

Sparks

dCorbus wrote: »

Pretty much the case already too.

Actually, it's not - there's a shortlist of offences where conviction leads to your being ineligible to hold a firearms licence for five years after any custodial sentence ends....

Although, I can be arrested for not paying my TV licence, but please explain to me how this would / should have any bearing my holding of a FAC?
I can also be arrested, upon judgement, of underpaying my taxes, and again please explain to me how this would / should have any bearing my holding of a FAC?
I can also be arrested for not paying a Luas or Bus ticket and refusing to do so when requested and again please explain to me how this would / should have any bearing my holding of a FAC?
One could also have been arrested in Ireland over the previous 30-40 Years for many other things, which are neither "criminal", "violent", or "anti-social", please explain to me how these would / should have any bearing my holding of a FAC?

...and that's why it's a shortlist and not just 'everything'.

dCorbus

This is beginning to get very tedious, sparks!:mad:

Hey, pedantic pat, re-read my post above and read what I actually said, not what you think I said! (or wrote, or posted, or stated....or whatever pedantry you'd like to come back with)

there's a shortlist of offences where conviction leads to your being ineligible to hold a firearms licence for five years after any custodial sentence ends....

Where's this shortlist?

The information I can find on who is "disentitled" to hold a firearms cert is this bit below, which is the only place I can find a mention of the "5-Year Rule", and that only refers to the expiration of a sentence for an offence committed in another State (but if there's a shortlist elsewhere, please post it):

Those disentitled, by section 8 of the Firearms Act 1925 as amended by section 37 of the Criminal Justice Act, 2006 to hold a firearm certificate include the following:

(d) Any person who has been sentenced to imprisonment for –

(i) An offence under the Firearms Acts, 1925 to 2009, the Offences Against the State Acts, 1939 to 1998 or the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act, 2005,

or

(ii) An offence under the law of another State involving the production or use of a firearm and the sentence has not expired or it expired within the previous five years

And TBH, if they don't get you on something on the above fairly "short" list, there's always this bit the Gardai can rely on:

(b) Any person of intemperate habits

.....which isn't exactly a short list either....

And just to clarify the Guidelines go on to state that:

this is not to rule out a one-off incident which may bring into question the fitness of somebody to possess firearms. Of assistance may be the English case of Lubbock v Chief Constable of Lothian and Borders (2001) wherein the sheriff ruled that the revocation of a firearms and shotgun certificate following one isolated drink driving incident was justified given the individual’s general attitude towards the offence.

Other factors which may aid a decision on persons of intemperate habits may include evidence of aggressive or anti-social behavior which may include domestic disputes or any evidence of hostility likely to lead to violence. Again, an assessment will need to be made of each case, particularly as regards the seriousness of individual incidents.

And now please read my above post again.

If we're going to get all pedantic this early in the morning, can I ask you what meaning you apply to the words "pretty much" in this next sentence?

Pretty much the case already too.

It's not the case - it's pretty much the case though.

There's a slight but distinct difference to that which you seem to have missed or chosen to miss, because what I was saying isn't in 100% Unequivocal Agreement with your own opinions.

emptyshed

threads all over the place...whats new!!

Arrestable offence is a legal term.... offence carrying sentence of 5 years or more...apologies should have mentioned same.

Was at one club range where pistols were being pointed up range while targets were being changed. Being a guest I asked who do I talk to about this...and was told that the main man was the one doin the pointing!!!

Know another in the west which is on flat bogland yet rifles are used..totally not suitable (trainline on the horizon)

I'm a club member, and have a few firearms including pistol... so I'm in no way anti-gun. But I really struggle when I see some of the ejits out there with licences. The camo shooters who dont hunt but dress like rambo, the mupits with drop leg holsters... one gent with ankle holster. The farm gun rusting with wire holding it together, left loaded behind the door, etc. etc.

I know these people are a tiny minority, but thats what we are all judged on.


Then when you look at shooting websites...including here theres so much my association is better than yours, he said she said at this meeting. Childish stuff...I'm just hoping these people really dont have access to firearms.

Sparks

dCorbus wrote: »

This is beginning to get very tedious, sparks!:mad:

Welcome to the last seven years of my life, and the lives of half the NTSA committee, the current SSAI and NRAI committee and the ICPSA committee and most of the FCP members for that matter

Firearms legislation is tedious, odious, nitpicking stuff. Wish it wasn't. It shouldn't be - but we're stuck with at last count ten Acts, two EU directives, and four pages of a list of SIs, all of which have to be composited to see what the current law looks like.

So when someone says "what changes would you make", I'd like folks to see just what it is that they're looking to change so they don't get quite so annoyed when it takes time to do things and when things aren't gone at quite so directly as they think they could be.

Getting ticked off, by the way, is what everyone does when they start looking to modify any of this stuff for the first time. It's the normal reaction. Next up after that is often either demoralisation or apathy

Where's this shortlist?

Section 8(1)(d) (and you could add in Section 8(1)(e) as well):

(d) any person who has been sentenced to imprisonment for—
(i) an offence under the Firearms Acts 1925 to 2006, the Offences Against the State Acts 1939 to 1998 or the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005, or
(ii) an offence under the law of another state involving the production or use of a firearm,
and the sentence has not expired or it expired within the previous 5 years,

(e) any person who is bound by a recognisance to keep the peace or be of good behaviour, a condition of which is that the person shall not possess, use or carry any firearm or ammunition,

It is rather a short list (and I don't think the Misc.Provisions Act added to it, but I might have missed something) - most people think there'd be a lot more things on it than those, but there aren't. Your local super might refuse you because of a conviction not on that list, but he'd put it down to something more generic like 'public safety' or whatever instead of saying 'he did time for X, I don't want him to have a firearm' (because he's not legally allowed to say that, not officially anyway).

can I ask you what meaning you apply to the words "pretty much" in this next sentence?

That there are a list of offences where if you're convicted, you can't get a licence; but the list isn't huge, and the ban isn't permanent (it expires five years after the sentence ends), and the Gardai may well react to offences not on that list as if they were on that list (though we'd obviously prefer to see knuckles rapped if they do so).

Sparks

emptyshed wrote: »

Know another in the west which is on flat bogland yet rifles are used..totally not suitable (trainline on the horizon)

Won't be open after the Ranges SI in that case. Probably shouldn't be open now - no range in the East would be after the Garda inspections a few years ago if they had that setup, and safer setups than that were shut down.

Then when you look at shooting websites...including here theres so much my association is better than yours, he said she said at this meeting. Childish stuff...I'm just hoping these people really dont have access to firearms.

That "childish stuff" didn't happen before '04 or so, not outside of whispers down the pub after a match anyway.

End result of that dignified silence from the majority leaving anyone who'd stand up to go be the 2% who ran things, is the Criminal Justice Act 2006, the biggest kick in the testes our sport ever got. If we'd actually sorted out our own house a few years earlier and told a few folks to feck off, we wouldn't have some of the less appealing things we have to cope with today.

So frankly, as bored as some are with it, I'd rather see it out there so that people know what other people are doing. Because while we have a lot of good people doing the best they can and achieving the best that can be achieved, we also have a (thankfully small and shrinking) minority of people who are out there shafting the rest of us for their own gain, whether it be petty politics that motivates them, financial greed or just plain badmindedness. I'd rather their acts come to light than that they get to continue them while the rest of us don't know about what they're doing until we suddenly have a metric ton of ****e land on us again. So far, we've seen their numbers dwindle quite a lot because of this approach; I think continuing with it is therefore a Good Idea (TM).

dCorbus

Ah, I think I see now: I thought you meant a "good idea" rather than a "Good Idea (TM)":p:D

Don't get me wrong, sparks, I am semi-aware of a lot of the work being done by many of the people you've mentioned and kudos to them for doing the work on all our behalfs TBH.

So when someone says "what changes would you make", I'd like folks to see just what it is that they're looking to change so they don't get quite so annoyed when it takes time to do things and when things aren't gone at quite so directly as they think they could be.

I'm not one of the impatient ones (as you know) and I do have some experience in watching the legislative wheels turn.....oh....so......slowly, most usually in a direction one never intended them to go.

Section 8(1)(d) (and you could add in Section 8(1)(e) as well):

Yep, that's the bit I was talking about.

Although, the "5 Year Rule" (As far as I'm reading it) only applies to sentences served for firearms offences in another state, but does not refer to sentences served or convictions for offences in this country. I may be wrong on that - but that's my reading of that Section 8(1)d(ii)

My previously-posted "pretty much" bit was the catch-all to include for the Gardai using the equally catch-all other parts of Section 8(1) to refuse or revoke an FAC, if you were either arrested, charged, convicted, or just mere suspected of violent, anti-social, intemperate, or any other behaviour which might deem one (in the Super's or CS's eyes at least) to be the kind of chap who shouldn't possess a firearm. And if those parts of the legislation are used, it's far from a "short" list!:rolleyes::D

But we're disagreeing to agree again! We're singing from the same hymn-sheet, but in a different key! etc etc

Know another in the west which is on flat bogland yet rifles are used..totally not suitable (trainline on the horizon)

Are you sure this was an authorised range you were on?

I cannot for the life of me think of any authorised rifle range, in the west or elsewhere in Ireland, which fits the description you've given.

But anyway, if it is an authorised range, I can only presume that the Range Inspector has already visited and allowed the use of the range for rifles (He or his team have already visited, at least once over the past few years, all the rifle ranges I'm aware of AFAIK). So if that is the case and the Range Inspector has approved the range, then it's neither your role or mine to say whether the range is "totally not suitable" or not.

If, however, the range you are talking about is not an authorised range and has not been approved as such by the P'sTB, that's an entirely different kettle of fish.

Then when you look at shooting websites...including here theres so much my association is better than yours, he said she said at this meeting. Childish stuff...I'm just hoping these people really dont have access to firearms.

Not sure about that statement either TBH.

Whilst the rampant in-fighting and he-said-they-said stuff gives me a right royal pain-in-the-arse (and as I've often said here and elsewhere: it frankly bores the living sh1te out of me), this fact has nothing to do with whether or not the lads involved in the to-and-fro of shooting-politics should have access to firearms - In fact some of the Usual Suspects are in fact very good, if not excellent shooters, and having shot alongside many of the chaps involved in said hand-bags, I can honestly say that (regardless of what I think of their sn1ping at each other) they are all sound- and safe-shooters and I have no difficulties shooting alongside any one of them (the ones I know, that is).

daveob007

another gripe of mine is the training certificate,,,the person given the training cert should be certified for a class of firearm ie .22 rimfire or shotgun etc and not just a particular gun.
i am going to be sending some emails soon to the various candidates with my issues,i hope ye will all be doing the same.