Report from the FPU, passed on from the Department of Justice...

Sparks

Sent to us by email for publication here, also sent to all NGBs:

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 We have moved from a completely outdated system based on legislation drafted as far back as 1925, to a system that introduced new 3 year firearm certificates based on 2006 and 2009 legislation and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.

clivej

almost 40,000 old 1 year certificates have been cancelled with the firearms destroyed or sold

Sparks

Can't speak as to the ones sold, but I've seen a few of the ones destroyed and some of them I wouldn't even pick up without a tetanus jab, let alone ever fire. So not all of those 40,000 would be tragic losses to the shooting world!

pedroeibar1

The letter purports to be from the DoJ, it then describes itself as being from the FPU but it is written by ‘I’ e.g. “I would like to thank”... ....“I have always recognised”...etc. So, it is from the Minister? Is it the head of the FPU? Why is there no signature? The letter itself contains a load of waffle and is a pitiable heap of self-serving PR.

It is the function of any civil service department to administer the laws efficiently... it is their job, they are well paid to do it and I see no reason for self-congratulation. Nor do I accept their need to shove in my face the bags they made of the changeover . Contrary to that press release, the job was not well done; the CS’s took the easy option and refused licences for pistols, which is why there is a logjam in the courts. To say “We have moved from a completely outdated system based on legislation drafted as far back as 1925” is totally irrelevant – there is a substantial body of law on the books that that predates that date and lots of departments still use ledgers.

“.........has helped remove many damaged and downright dangerous firearms that otherwise would have remained in homes throughout the country” is more BS. No doubt a few damaged guns were destroyed, but it really is clutching at straws to try that one. Those guns never left the nook by the range and that is why they were scrapped.

“.... would again like to thank all of the genuine people within the shooting fraternity.” Who are the non-genuine people in the shooting fraternity? Are they the one that have criticized official stupidity and stood up to the BS of the bureaucrats? Or, shame on them, those who were stupid enough to request a licence for a 9mm?

The introduction of the new licence was a mess, it was badly handled (e.g. An Post only found out after the event that they would be processing the fees) and it was badly prepared for (An GS staff had no training in the FCA1s).



Anybody could steal my wallet with my licences in it and as a result, buy ammo or, worse, call to my house and demand my guns. Why the address? Why no photo ID? What century are these idiots living in?


If any commercial company launched a new product in a similar fashion heads would have rolled, and justifiably, IMO. So, spare me the crap and let’s call a spade a spade instead of agreeing with this rubbish.
When, oh when, will we have representatives brave enough to stand up and SCREAM at these ba$tard$???
Disgustedly,
P.

Sparks

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

The letter purports to be from the DoJ

As the guy who got the email, it's not purporting to be from the DoJ, it is from the DoJ. It's passing on a report from the FPU - I'll edit the title of the thread to make that clearer.

The letter itself contains a load of waffle and is a pitiable heap of self-serving PR.

Or it's them actually saying thanks in a civil fashion in order to be seen to be civil and polite. I mean, I'd agree with you if it was going to the media, but since it was sent to the NGBs for them and their members, it reads more like a polite formal email so that their members would see from an outside source that their committees weren't just sitting around twiddling their thumbs.

Contrary to that press release, the job was not well done; the CS’s took the easy option and refused licences for pistols

The CS's aren't actually in the FPU though, or under their command...

Who are the non-genuine people in the shooting fraternity?

Seriously, I so want to give you a list of names right now
That reference isn't PR (if I'm reading it the way I think it was meant to be read), there really are people on our side of the fence who frankly we'd be better off without, and both sides of the fence know it, and both sides know who they are; but as I've said before, shooters are litigious and if you just name them directly they sue and you have to go to court to prove your case and that costs money noone wants to waste paying for a barrister's merc or a solicitor's BMW. The good news is that they're a really really tiny minority and there are far more genuine people around.

The introduction of the new licence was a mess, it was badly handled (e.g. An Post only found out after the event that they would be processing the fees) and it was badly prepared for (An GS staff had no training in the FCA1s).

Yup. I remember. Mind you, I blame people for that who are a pay grade or two above the FPU and who are looking to retire rather than get spanked at the next general election.

If any commercial company launched a new product in a similar fashion heads would have rolled, and justifiably, IMO.

Well, yeah, but speaking from the point of view of having launched a few things like that in commercial companies, the person managing the launch in a commercial company usually doesn't have his hands tied by his boss's boss's boss's boss's boss.
I'm not saying that we should forget it went sideways and I'm not trying to make up excuses; I'm just saying, let's remember that the Minister is where the buck is meant to stop. It's like with Anglo Irish Bank - I don't want to see some 19-year-old bank teller strung up by the fingernails, I want to see the Financial Regulator, the Anglo Board of Directors and the Finance Minister hanging up there.

When, oh when, will we have representatives brave enough to stand up and SCREAM at these ba$tard$???

Brave isn't the word I'd use. We had representatives who spent 2001-2003 standing up and screaming at the powers that be allright.

End result? The Criminal Justice Bill 2004 and our entire sport getting a monumental kick in the hole.

Can we not do that again? I kindof like this sport...

pedroeibar1

Sparks wrote: »

As the guy who got the email, it's not purporting to be from the DoJ, it is from the DoJ. It's passing on a report from the FPU - I'll edit the title of the thread to make that clearer.

Thanks for the edit, it is clearer now

Sparks wrote: »

Or it's them actually saying thanks in a civil fashion in order to be seen to be civil and polite. I mean, I'd agree with you if it was going to the media, but since it was sent to the NGBs for them and their members, it reads more like a polite formal email so that their members would see from an outside source that their committees weren't just sitting around twiddling their thumbs.

The email is a Press release...........no personal offense meant, :P;) but the header clearly states that you got it only because a gun mag could not take it due to space limitations and they wanted to get it into the shooting community.

Sparks wrote: »

The CS's aren't actually in the FPU though, or under their command...

No, but you bet your bottom $ that they have big input. After all, they say on their own blurb “To ensure Commissioner’s Policies on Firearms Licensing are clearly understood & standardised throughout the Force.”

Sparks wrote: »

Seriously, I so want to give you a list of names right now

Yeah, we could swap notes..:D

Sparks wrote: »

That reference isn't PR (if I'm reading it the way I think it was meant to be read), there really are people on our side of the fence who frankly we'd be better off without, and both sides of the fence know it, and both sides know who they are; but as I've said before, shooters are litigious and if you just name them directly they sue and you have to go to court to prove your case and that costs money noone wants to waste paying for a barrister's merc or a solicitor's BMW. The good news is that they're a really really tiny minority and there are far more genuine people around.

The barristers I know drive Rangerovers and the solicitors have Mercs. BMW’s are sooo common, and the small ones are for hairdressers.;) Amazing the number of lawyers that have taken up shooting in recent years, every gob****e with a few quid and social aspirations is out in breeks:o

Sparks wrote: »

Yup. I remember. Mind you, I blame people for that who are a pay grade or two above the FPU and who are looking to retire rather than get spanked at the next general election.

So, why not call it? A minister retires on full pension, who, years after the event, has done nothing to bring white collar bank criminals to book and who has whitewashed the facts on gun crime... If Aer Lingus rolled over for Ryanair, they know what would happen. O’Leary is careful on what he says about Aer Fungus because he knows what will happen in return. Shooting bodies are on the back foot because they are AFRAID and do not have the wit either to fight Ministerial spin with facts or the nous to hit back with a professional PR campaign. That is why they (i.e. us) lose every time. They purport to represent us, all they do is waffle and fill a space that could be more effectively filled by others.

Sparks wrote: »

Well, yeah, but speaking from the point of view of having launched a few things like that in commercial companies, the person managing the launch in a commercial company usually doesn't have his hands tied by his boss's boss's boss's boss's boss.
I'm not saying that we should forget it went sideways and I'm not trying to make up excuses; I'm just saying, let's remember that the Minister is where the buck is meant to stop. It's like with Anglo Irish Bank - I don't want to see some 19-year-old bank teller strung up by the fingernails, I want to see the Financial Regulator, the Anglo Board of Directors and the Finance Minister hanging up there.

I don’t care – the local FOs arevthe guys that represents that ‘organization’ Why did they /GRA not stand up and state that what Aherne proposed was cobblers?

Nearly in full agreement with you on stringing people up. However, there were few juniors in Anglo – it recruited from other banks, average age of recruit was mid 20's. The top 4-5 layers of Anglo should have been fired /given statutory redundancy and that nothing like that has been done is an indictment of the DoJ, the ODCE and the Dept, of Finance. Don’t get me going.......

Sparks wrote: »

Brave isn't the word I'd use. We had representatives who spent 2001-2003 standing up and screaming at the powers that be allright.
End result? The Criminal Justice Bill 2004 and our entire sport getting a monumental kick in the hole.
Can we not do that again? I kindof like this sport...

Defeatism.
End 2001 I arrived back from a period of forced emigration, so it went over my head. A proper, result-driven media campaign should be orchestrated by the shooting associations. It needs a strong guy to manage it, somebody who will ‘nail’ anybody who starts the internal politics s#1te . Somebody who is paid minimum wage and an incremental bonus on defined success results.Personally, I believe that anyone in a job for more than 5 years becomes complacent and should move (or be moved) on. How long are the shooting association guys in their cushy numbers?

Sparks

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Thanks for the edit, it is clearer now

No worries.

The email is a Press release...........no personal offense meant, :P;) but the header clearly states that you got it only because a gun mag could not take it due to space limitations and they wanted to get it into the shooting community.

Er, no, that's not what it says They wanted it in the Digest as well, we're not some poor second cousin (which is a yay, I'll admit it, but there are positives to that for everyone, not just boards).

No, but you bet your bottom $ that they have big input.

I wish
Lets just say there are still some communications issues to be resolved arising from the persona designata status...

Yeah, we could swap notes..:D

I'd lay euros to croissants, we'd have the same list

The barristers I know drive Rangerovers and the solicitors have Mercs. BMW’s are sooo common, and the small ones are for hairdressers.;)

I must be getting out of touch

So, why not call it? A minister retires on full pension, who, years after the event, has done nothing to bring white collar bank criminals to book and who has whitewashed the facts on gun crime...

Well, we won't call it because a Minister who's announced his retirement hasn't anything left to lose; and the DoJ won't because they're bound by law not to; and as to why the FPU won't, well, remember what happened to the last Garda who was going to criticise a sitting Minister openly? And I've never heard of one doing so for a sitting Commissioner.
Folk have mortgages to pay, and frankly, most people think firearms licencing isn't worth seeing your kids go hungry for.

Shooting bodies are on the back foot because they are AFRAID and do not have the wit either to fight Ministerial spin with facts or the nous to hit back with a professional PR campaign.

We keep hearing about how we should fight the Minister. I'd love to, but I can't think of any way to win against an opponent who can rewrite the rules at any moment and can enforce them and who can't be bribed with anything we have to offer.

That is why they (i.e. us) lose every time.

No, that's because we as citizens have no veto over the acts of a sitting Minister or Oireachtas.
We either work with the powers that be or we just don't work. This 'fighting back' stuff is basicly emotional rhetoric and I can't help but notice that every time someone calls a meeting and stands up and trots it out, that at that same meeting, a hat is passed round for funds which somehow never quite seem to be used for their originally stated purpose.
And to date, I've never seen us win anything by fighting the Minister which we could keep longer than it took him to decide he wanted it back.

Take the best example, Dunne -v- Donohue (aka the Gun Safes Case even though it was about far more than that). High Court case, then an appeal to the Supreme Court and we won. Lots of time, lots of money put into it, all of which profited the legal team (because this is how they pay their mortgages) instead of being put into the sport. And the Minister lost. And then the Minister write a single paragraph in a miscellaneous section stuck in the back of a fairly standard Bill a while later and overturned the entire thing with about four or five manhours of work.

I keep saying it - you cannot use the judicial system as a stick to beat the executive branch with. If you want to win, you have to have public opinion on our side, and that means you have to be the darlings of the press. And we're not, for various reasons.

Why did they /GRA not stand up and state that what Aherne proposed was cobblers?

In public? As above. In private? I get the feeling that what applies in public applies doubly in private since folk won't know what's happening!

there were few juniors in Anglo

Well, yes, but you do see my point?

Defeatism.

Experience. And it's not so much that I think that we can't get what we want (I'm actually very optimistic that we will get all of what we need, most of what we really want and a lot of what we'd like, just on a longer timetable than the shouty chaps want); it's that I think that we can't do it by demanding it and pounding the table - and I happen to have very, very low opinions of those who did that in the past because I spent (waay too much) time working with them or at least trying to.

[qoute]It needs a strong guy to manage it, somebody who will ‘nail’ anybody who starts the internal politics s#1te[/quote]The thing is, all our "strong men" cause the internal politics.

How long are the shooting association guys in their cushy numbers?

For as long as they're elected for. Most of the NGBs are elected on an annual basis, some have longer terms but we don't have any Presidents For Life, so to speak.

rrpc

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

How long are the shooting association guys in their cushy numbers?

You've got to be fupping joking...

Mr Mole

What is required is the annual report from the Garda Commissioner as per legislation, not this drivel.

This statement is about what An GS percieve they have accomplished for themselves, not for the shooting community or range owners.

There is no specific information on the number of centrefire pistols or revolvers licenced, that fact is camoflaged. Neither is there mention of the Millions of Euro being expended in unnecessary High Court Cases.

I look forward to viewing the Statutory Report, unless An GS and the Minister claim privelege on it as well.

Sparks

Mr Mole wrote: »

There is no specific information on the number of centrefire pistols or revolvers licenced, that fact is camoflaged.

That's okay, it's over here from a fortnight or so ago. B'man could have told you that though, he spent several posts talking about it.

Neither is there mention of the Millions of Euro being expended in unnecessary High Court Cases.

Yup. Given that the FPU doesn't cause those cases to be taken and has no legal right to stop them, and has actually acted to try to prevent them to the best of their ability (which basicly requires the super/CS to call them about specific cases first or to listen to generic memos otherwise - which is fallout from the persona designata ruling of the Supreme Court when shooters won the Dunne case...), I think that's fair enough. Especially since this isn't the statutory report that the Commissioner must produce, but an email from the FPU to the NGBs.

I look forward to viewing the Statutory Report, unless An GS and the Minister claim privelege on it as well.

As do I, when a completely different part of AGS about six pay grades above the FPU writes it up and submits it; which has already been asked about (edit: I thought I'd posted that up here before, but it seems I didn't; I've corrected that now and it's up here).

Look, seriously, I get where you're coming from Mole, but ffs, if we can't tell the difference between the Commissioner and the Firearms Policy Unit, or at least know the different jobs they're responsible for, then we're going to look like idiots if we complain about them in public. And that's not good for us as a community, because there have been failures and there have been things that seem almost deliberately malicious, (and we've pointed them all out on here at one point or another, right up to pointing out what we thought was sedition by the Garda Commissioner); but if you blame the wrong people for those acts and errors, you give a free pass to those who'd hurt us and make us new enemies in the process.

And that burns us all.

Mr Mole

Sparks, when you have been burned like me, you might change your opinions.
Please don't be smart on referring me to a previous post that DOES not account got the number of centrefore pistols licences. Neither assume that Bananaman lives in my house.

Sparks

Mr Mole wrote: »

Sparks, when you have been burned like me, you might change your opinions.

I was. By shooters. Repeatedly. And it did. It convinced me that this isn't as simple as us-v-them. And that getting details right is important.

Please don't be smart on referring me to a previous post that DOES not account got the number of centrefore pistols licences.

True, it just says 389 restricted pistols. Which could be centerfire, or smallbore with a >5 magazine or .22 calibre air pistols; but between you and me, I don't think that there are many of either of those. I think 389 is a pretty accurate estimate of how many centerfire pistols there are in Ireland right now (and about another hundred or so tied up in court will hopefully join them later).

Neither assume that Bananaman lives in my house.

He doesn't live in your house, but he did thank your post there before I replied. So he'd read it, and could have pointed out the information but chose not to.

Mr Mole

Sparks, NOBODY could refer me to information in a previous oat that does not exist. Your estimate of licences centreboard does not make it so, and why did you mention anything about peole leaving work in snow in a reply to me?
for once , please acknowledge that you are wrong wrong wrong. You don't have to think you are right all the time. As for being burned, you still have a licence to partake of your sport, I don't. That's being burned.

rrpc

Mr Mole wrote: »

number of centrefore pistols licences.

Mr Mole wrote:

Your estimate of licences centreboard does not make it so

I thought I'd strayed into the Sailing forum by mistake

Sparks

Mr Mole wrote: »

Sparks, NOBODY could refer me to information in a previous oat that does not exist. Your estimate of licences centreboard does not make it so

No, but it does give an upper bound, and I leave it to you to decide how many fewer centerfire pistols than 389 there are in the country - I was willing to accept 389 as the actual figure, because I was being generous. You cannot have a centerfire pistol on an unrestricted licence at the moment; therefore if there are 389 restricted handgun licences out there, then there is a maximum of 389 centerfire pistols. You follow my reasoning?

(and btw, that 389 figure may have gone up since the PQ was asked two weeks ago, but that's just the nature of the game - you can't ask for new census figures a week after the last census is completed, even though the numbers they were measuring may have changed).

, and why did you mention anything about peole leaving work in snow in a reply to me?

Because you were busy jumping down the throat of people who do not hate us to try to accuse them of things done by people who do not like us very much at all - and frankly, that's just plain wrong, whether it's the Minister doing it or a shooter.

for once , please acknowledge that you are wrong wrong wrong. You don't have to think you are right all the time. As for being burned, you still have a licence to partake of your sport, I don't. That's being burned.

I didn't say I was the only one on my lonesome in the burns ward Mole - I said that not all of us were put in here by the powers that be, some of us were the ungrateful recipients of "friendly" fire.

And no, I don't have to be right on everything, and between you, me and the wall, I'm not right on everything and make mistakes all the time; but there's a difference between being falliable and knowing the difference between the commissioner and the firearms policy unit after spending several years hip-deep in all of this. You don't need to be the pope to be able to point out the difference between your left hand and your right hand when someone asks!

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

B'man could have told you that though, he spent several posts talking about it.

Since when did I become the oracle of delphi?

Such praise from one so young. (when you say it above you are referring to a post. I - as with everyone else - await the actual report which will give the stats, not the usual dog and pony show in the Dail where the truth and full disclosure is not mandatory or common.

Only reason I'm looking in this forum with any regularity of late is that I can't get to a range where I could be actually shooting and I'm giving the Pheasants a break for the week (coz I'm a nice guy).

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Since when did I become the oracle of delphi?

You didn't. You just didn't start suffering from amnesia in the last month (unless you've not told us, and if you are in fact suffering from it, please accept my apologies).

I - as with everyone else - await the actual report which will give the stats, not the usual dog and pony show in the Dail where the truth and full disclosure is not mandatory or common.

Hang on. You won't trust a written answer with the Minister's name on it, but you will trust a written answer with the Commissioner's name on it, even though (a) he can't be held accountable for any errors or omissions in it, (b) he's quitting, the guy he'll issue the report to is quitting, and their replacements won't care much either way to audit the report, and (c) he's a long-standing member of the group of people who don't really like us very much and has already issued written guidelines that advocate ignoring High Court majority rulings to deny licences and a few other things that have earned him a lot of ire from our community?

Come on B'man, I don't criticise people for cynicism, I think it's a healthy trait; but you have to apply it evenly or it's just silly.

Only reason I'm looking in this forum with any regularity of late is...

...that you really, really like us? C'mon B'man, VALIDATE US! We crave your approval!

Bananaman

So he'd read it, and could have pointed out the information but chose not to.

Seeing as I was directed to respond to an earlier post of yours I will respond to the last one.

Mole you are on the road to perdition trying to have an honest debate with Sparks. To the best of my knowledge it has never happened.

Unless you were at the fabled 1982 AGM of the AASDKASJDLKJJKLJD and were forced to buy two rounds in the pub afterwards because someone - whose name can't be mentioned or Sparks will get sued - didn't buy their round - you have no idea what getting screwed over is - remember it eas punts back then - a whole different ballgame.

(I may be incorrect in that it could have been the 1983 AGM of the QWEYIUQWYEIY but who cares)

B'Man

(Brace yourself Maureen)

Sparks

Ah, I see. Now I'm not just verbose, I'm a liar. And you've said that on a public forum on the internet.

B'man, you do know what the Defamation Acts were originally supposed to protect people from, right?

Sparks

Y'know, it probably bears saying the obvious here. I mean, I didn't think it did, I thought this was obvious and I'd be insulting people by saying it, but I can be wrong too y'know. So here it is:

The original post isn't some great revelation from the Gardai. It's not an apology, it's not a rollback on policy, it's not a promise of future benefits, it contains nothing in there that we haven't seen before. Information-wise, it's pretty sparse. It's basicly a message being sent at christmas with some nice formal words expressed within it. You may have encountered this form of communications before:

Now, granted, christmas cards don't really represent enormously important forms of communications, and they rarely convey news of great import or bestow boons on their recipients. When sent from an organisation, they're usually just a small gesture to indicate a cordial relationship. But the point here, and it seems it needs to be made explicitly is this:

Ten years ago, the AGS wouldn't formally talk to any NGB at all except in the form of "do X and we'll take you to court". Today, they're sending personally prepared christmas cards to the shooting community.

pedroeibar1

rrpc wrote: »

You've got to be fupping joking...

No, I’m not joking. Nor did I mean to start the s#1tstorm that followed.
I have posted before that the ordinary Garda has to do a job, has to implement a daft set of regulations and the CS has to play God because a cutehoor politico has not the courage to take a decision. Should something ‘go wrong’ a la Dunblane, the Minister can do a Pontius Pilate and blame the relevant CS. It is no wonder the CSs are saying 'NO' almost every time. That is why representative bodies are so badly needed, to speak up. (Vitners and RSA come to mind.)

Both you and Sparks have been inside the tent for a long time, looking out, and I do not doubt your combined wealth of experience. However, I’m outside the tent, and only recently started looking – before that I just went shooting - so I have a different perspective. I look at it very simply because I have no historical baggage and neither politics nor loyalties to one particular discipline.

Shooters are in a very difficult position with regard to PR or defending their status. For example, nobody would write a letter to the editor supporting any firearms topic as it immediately identifies a place of gun ownership - no name/address, no publication. A lone positive voice, like the guys in the Donegal club on the mink issue is lost in the wilderness.

Associations are there to fulfil a function – part of that function is to comment appropriately on BS and to issue professional, worthwhile PR that will be used. My point is that is not happening now and I have not seen it happen at association level for a long time. What I have seen – too often - is the type of BS given to a reporter as indicated by the Irish Time article at the head of the deer shooting/poaching thread.

As for a response to the FPU letter, well, thanks, I know they have a s#1tty job to do, but they should also know that I believe that note to be a mutually self-serving load of crap. And a happy Christmas to them too.

That’s all.
Rs
P.

rrpc

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

No, I’m not joking. Nor did I mean to start the s#1tstorm that followed.

My comment was directed solely at the quote I posted above it. There are no 'cushy numbers' in shooting sports representations; 99% of representatives are purely voluntary and do it generally at a net cost to themselves, their families and their time. That you feel qualified to make derogatory comments about these volunteers without knowing the first thing about what their input entails, leaves you somewhat unqualified to make any other comments based on an assumed equal level of knowledge.

I have posted before that the ordinary Garda has to do a job, has to implement a daft set of regulations and the CS has to play God because a cutehoor politico has not the courage to take a decision. Should something ‘go wrong’ a la Dunblane, the Minister can do a Pontius Pilate and blame the relevant CS. It is no wonder the CSs are saying 'NO' almost every time. That is why representative bodies are so badly needed, to speak up. (Vitners and RSA come to mind.)

This situation has pertained since 1925 and the only difference between then and now is that some decisions were moved up the food chain to Chief Superintendents. Top of every shooting bodies' wish list was a centralised licensing system but so far this wish has been denied variously because of the required restructuring of the Garda system, the heavy rewrite of the firearms acts and the lack of political will. It still remains a top priority and will remain so until it has been implemented.

Both you and Sparks have been inside the tent for a long time, looking out, and I do not doubt your combined wealth of experience. However, I’m outside the tent, and only recently started looking – before that I just went shooting - so I have a different perspective. I look at it very simply because I have no historical baggage and neither politics nor loyalties to one particular discipline.

You make an assumption that I am a unidisciplinary shooter, which is not true. I have been shooting over thirty years and a little over half that time target shooting and less than a third of that time as a representative. The problems that beset us now are not very different from those that beset us thirty years ago, but one positive thing that has emerged in recent years is the above mentioned FPU.

Their job is not to make decisions on firearms applications or to advise deciding officers on what decisions to make, but to explain the law and the application system and to assist their colleagues and the shooting bodies in clearing up confusion and misconceptions. Nothing glamorous; just the usual problems of guys being told thye're too young or can't have two rifles or they live too close to a road.

Associations are there to fulfil a function – part of that function is to comment appropriately on BS and to issue professional, worthwhile PR that will be used. My point is that is not happening now and I have not seen it happen at association level for a long time. What I have seen – too often - is the type of BS given to a reporter as indicated by the Irish Time article at the head of the deer shooting/poaching thread.

Shooting Associations are NOT political bodies, but primarily sporting bodies. Too often we get reporters contacting us about criminal matters and not about sport. Mostly, nobody gets a heads up about what's going to appear in the national newspapers and at best get a letter printed correcting the usual misapprehensions. A lot of the time, it doesn't get printed at all whether it is a letter or an interview.

But the biggest problem of all is the lack of volunteers to take up the jobs that would allow a more focussed and proactive PR function. There are plenty of hurlers on the ditch it would seem, but very few willing to get togged out and join the fray.

As for a response to the FPU letter, well, thanks, I know they have a s#1tty job to do, but they should also know that I believe that note to be a mutually self-serving load of crap. And a happy Christmas to them too.

And I know each of the individuals that make up that unit, know the amount of time and energy they have put into it, know the willingness they have shown to sort out problems quickly and efficiently wherever they occur and whatever time and input it takes and I find your response to their report both ignorant and insulting.

Sparks

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Nor did I mean to start the s#1tstorm that followed.

I think that one isn't on you pedro

I have posted before that the ordinary Garda has to do a job, has to implement a daft set of regulations and the CS has to play God because a cutehoor politico has not the courage to take a decision.

Not that I particularly want to defend politicos, because all of our problems seem to stem from them in the final analysis; but the reason the local supers and the chief supers make the decision comes from the whole persona designata status, which came from the Supreme Court ruling in the Dunne case; and that's something that shooters brought about.
It's not our fault; but it is one of the better examples of why the whole mess is so much less clean-cut than anyone would like (bar the politicos).

Should something ‘go wrong’ a la Dunblane, the Minister can do a Pontius Pilate and blame the relevant CS.

Yup, so they tend to operate very very conservatively even when they aren't averse to the idea of target shooting as a sport. Which makes advising them difficult at best, and arguing with them a tricky proposition, and why pounding your fist on the table is a really bad idea when dealing with them.

That is why representative bodies are so badly needed, to speak up. (Vitners and RSA come to mind.)

They do, at the FCP. This isn't the sort of problem that shouting can fix (which is a shame - we seem to have a huge array of people who are very good at shouting, if not so hot on other things).

Both you and Sparks have been inside the tent for a long time, looking out, and I do not doubt your combined wealth of experience. However, I’m outside the tent, and only recently started looking – before that I just went shooting - so I have a different perspective. I look at it very simply because I have no historical baggage and neither politics nor loyalties to one particular discipline.

Perspective is not really the issue though Pedro, there are reps from every discipline in the mix. And it's not like only those who've worked in the admin side get told what the problem is; we've written on boards about just about everything that's gone on (insofar as defamation law and trying not to hurt our own efforts will allow us to, at any rate). Communications still aren't good enough, but they're a damn sight better today than they were a decade ago, when everything was hidden away unless you were actually at the top table.

For example, we outlined our main problems with fighting the Criminal Justice Bill back in 2004 when it first started to rear its head:

Sparks wrote:

we aren't willing to seriously prepare to negotiate, we don't have enough voices behind us to demand anything, we don't have enough money to make sufficently serious contributions to political parties to "buy" support, we're a small part of a big issue, we don't have a coherent and rational PR presence in the media, and we're not all talking to one another. It's not a simple task, in other words

Which isn't, mind you, to say it couldn't be done - just that there would have to be a serious change in mindsets to do it effectively and get a permanent, positive result; and we can't approach that change without a brutally honest and straightforward statement of the problem.

And as to the whole "lets get tougher with the PTB" stance, the last time we laid out the problem with that was the last time it was raised and sadly, the problems have not changed much:

Sparks wrote:

when someone suggests getting tougher in stance, I keep flashing back to things like the 2001 NRPAI AGM, the recent meeting in Abbeyleix, all the court cases taken prior to 2004 and the ones afterwards, and then immediately afterwards, I remember how all that got stomped on with a single line tucked away in a miscellaneous section of the 2004 Criminal Justice Bill as an afterthought - and then someone thought some more and turned around and gave our sports the biggest kicking they'd gotten since the founding of the state.

"Getting tougher" is a risky proposition when
(a) no-one ever bothers to check who's running things on our side;
(b) very few outside the rooms ever know what's happening in meetings with the powers that be;
(c) the powers that be have enormous legal powers and resources compared to Joe Public;
(d) Joe Public never seems to actually acquaint him- or herself with what the actual laws, regulations, procedures, groups and people are before looking to stage official protests. People who know what the story is are sadly few and far between.

Shooters are in a very difficult position with regard to PR or defending their status. For example, nobody would write a letter to the editor supporting any firearms topic as it immediately identifies a place of gun ownership - no name/address, no publication.

Yup, and that fear has kept us very unrepresented in the media over the years - with few exceptions, we only ever get the extremists speaking up. Which only gets us into more trouble, most of the time

Associations are there to fulfil a function – part of that function is to comment appropriately on BS and to issue professional, worthwhile PR that will be used.

I'd agree with that wholeheartedly and spent a few years trying to do just that while on the NTSA committee. The problem is, all the crap that's landed on us from the legislative front in the past seven years or so has sucked every volunteer-hour going, and everything else has suffered as a result. It's the 2% rule again - those who could be of great use just do't want to get involved, they just want to shoot, and so it falls to a very small labour pool to get the job done; and not all of that pool are people that are suitable (which has caused a good half of all the hassle we've had in the last decade, and that's a conservative estimate).

It isn't helped when the Minister uses the media himself, and can use our tax money to pay for professional full-time media people to do the legwork, while every single person in every single rifle/pistol association is an unpaid volunteer with a day job (bar Des Crofton, who's not a target shooter and is more focussed - as he should be - on hunting). And not for nothing, but doing good, professional PR isn't exactly easy either. The FIS (which is a federation of all the sports NGBs in the country from GAA to baton-twirling) runs PR courses for NGB PROs and we used those, and there are a lot of 'how-to' books we availed of and so on; but even so, there is a reason that people can earn a good living doing this stuff full-time...

In fact, with all this focus on the legislative side of things in the last few years, few people seem to be noticing the fun we've had with the Department of Sport and the Irish Sports Council, who are a very, very, very long way from being free of responsibility for a lot of the crap we have to wade through in our sport.

My point is that is not happening now and I have not seen it happen at association level for a long time.

About six to seven years or so?

[qoute]What I have seen – too often - is the type of BS given to a reporter as indicated by the Irish Time article at the head of the deer shooting/poaching thread.[/quote]
I have to admit, I was rather surprised by that one, I would have thought Des would have been in there fairly fast, but maybe he's just calling them privately first.

As for a response to the FPU letter, well, thanks, I know they have a s#1tty job to do, but they should also know that I believe that note to be a mutually self-serving load of crap. And a happy Christmas to them too.

That seems fairly unfair to me to be honest - these guys do not get to express their personal opinions in their professional jobs if they want to keep making their mortgage payments. Their job is done where most of us never see it, and it's a fairly tricky line they have to walk - imagine trying to tell your boss he has to do something he doesn't want to do; now imagine that the law clearly said that noone is allowed tell him what to do; and now imagine that if he does that something, he's acting against the private wishes of his boss. That's the FPU's job in a nutshell.

And even if it's fairly content-free, I'd still rather be getting letters like that every christmas than have the AGS refuse to meet NGB representatives to talk about firearms licencing because "we do not comment on operational Garda matters".

Suffering Jbox

"Take the best example, Dunne -v- Donohue (aka the Gun Safes Case even though it was about far more than that). High Court case, then an appeal to the Supreme Court and we won. Lots of time, lots of money put into it, all of which profited the legal team (because this is how they pay their mortgages) instead of being put into the sport. And the Minister lost. And then the Minister write a single paragraph in a miscellaneous section stuck in the back of a fairly standard Bill a while later and overturned the entire thing with about four or five manhours of work."

Sparks,
What section in what Act are you referring to?

Sparks

Section 30 of the original Criminal Justice Bill 2004 Jbox, before all the amendments made in committee stage by McDowell.

Suffering Jbox

Now I get it. Thanks

bunny shooter

All I will say is................"self praise, is no praise!"

Mr Byrne has diligently carried out Minister Ahern's orders and has ensured that 40,000 legally held firearms are now "off the streets" and they will become illegally held by the time the media get hold of it

My Super apparently is totally ignoring the FPU's "advice" to him and he is not legally obliged to listen to their "advice" either.

rowa

bunny shooter wrote: »

All I will say is................"self praise, is no praise!"

Mr Byrne has diligently carried out Minister Ahern's orders and has ensured that 40,000 legally held firearms are now "off the streets" and they will become illegally held by the time the media get hold of it

My Super apparently is totally ignoring the FPU's "advice" to him and he is not legally obliged to listen to their "advice" either.

this is correct bunny , the fpu are a toothless department , i got an opinion off them when trying to licence my revolver , they told me to tell the chief super it met the unrestricted criterion and the chief super completely ignored it.

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

this is correct bunny , the fpu are a toothless department , i got an opinion off them when trying to licence my revolver , they told me to tell the chief super it met the unrestricted criterion and the chief super completely ignored it.

At which point, if you had wished to pursue it, you had the testimony of the FPU to present in the DC to the judge saying that the local CS had made a factual error in the licencing process and that your application should go to the local Super.
Since the head of the FPU is himself a CS, that would mean the Judge would have seen one CS point out a factual error made by another CS, instead of seeing a CS state that a "civilian" wasn't reading the law properly.

Granted, you could still win without that (the restricted list is in black and white, for the most part - ignoring stupid assault rifle definitions); but surely having a CS on your side to counter another CS's argument would be a good thing?

It might be faster if the FPU could override local CS/S's but:

1. The Act isn't written that way and that's hardly the FPU's fault, it's down to the Minister and Commissioner;
2. It would mean greater consistency, but that would be good for us only so long as those in the FPU were not removed and replaced with people more sympathetic to the Commissioner's mindset and less sympathetic to ours - after that point, it'd make our lives worse than they are now;
3. As bad as the DC route is, it's not an internal AGS inquiry, which have had a rather cynicism-inducing track record in modern Irish history...

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

...... (the restricted list is in black and white, for the most part - ignoring stupid assault rifle definitions); .....

And Silly arbitrary 5 shot limit of Unrestricted rimfire pistols
(Why is a 6 shot revolver restricted but with one chamber plugged it is not?)

And Silly arbitrary Calibre restrictions on rifles
(Why is a .308 not restricted but a .38spl is?)

And Silly Bullpup Definitions on rifles
(Simply wrong)

And ....

And ......

but you're right it is 'black and white'

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

but you're right it is 'black and white'

I said it was black and white; I didn't say it wasn't silly. Or even that I agreed with it's existence at all. But until it's changed, we have to work with it; and while we have to work with it, I'll be glad of even small mercies, like it being black and white (for the most part).