New Minister for Justice

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Think you will find that it is already the case that the DC is now the be and end all of final say on this.Yes it can go to the HC for decisions on points of law of either parties. But the HC will refer it back to the DCJ to reconsider the decision on the revelant points.

Yes, but you'll also find that the Commissioner hasn't issued blanket preconditions to Supers yet either, even though technically the Dunne ruling that banned them doesn't apply anymore (and I don't mean guidelines, I mean mandatory preconditions above and beyond the Firearms Acts - and that's probably because if he did so, he'd still be doing the basic thing that the Court objected to - drafting de facto legislation without Oireachtas approval).

So as far as I can see any CS disobying a DC verdict is putting himself above the law or trying to pervert the course of justice.Not a very good career move.

Not if he's successfully charged and convicted of that, no. But I think you'd have to successfully charge and convict him of it first, at least for the first instance.

meathshooter1

Sparks wrote: »

Yes, but you'll also find that the Commissioner hasn't issued blanket preconditions to Supers yet either, even though technically the Dunne ruling that banned them doesn't apply anymore (and I don't mean guidelines, I mean mandatory preconditions above and beyond the Firearms Acts - and that's probably because if he did so, he'd still be doing the basic thing that the Court objected to - drafting de facto legislation without Oireachtas approval).

We don't know what the commissioner is doing but you can be well assured he knows whats going on. after all internal matters in AGS is in essence a secret organisation with there own garda code which we are not privy to.and it isn't the first time we have seen them making up there own rules policy as they go contary to law.

Sparks

meathshooter1 wrote: »

We don't know what the commissioner is doing but you can be well assured he knows whats going on. after all internal matters in AGS is in essence a secret organisation with there own garda code which we are not privy to.and it isn't the first time we have seen them making up there own rules policy as they go contary to law.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.
That the commissioner knows there are 200 DC cases coming up should be a truism - they're being taken against his officers.

That the commissioner knows the current state of the law is how things should be - though I'd bet that outside of the FPU there actually isn't any garda at any level that knows the Firearms Act correctly. That's not down to them being lazy - (a) it's not their job 99% of the time to know this; (b) precious few of us shooters know the Firearms Act any better than your average Garda and quite a few know it far less well than the Gardai do; and (c) there are maybe two dozen people in the entire country who could actually tell you what the current firearms legislation is in Ireland. The Law Reform Commission have even pointed this out for several years now - when you have 8 main Acts, parts in a handful of other Acts, two EU directives, over fifty Statutory Instruments, Regulations and Guidelines and Court Rules and so forth, all of which have to be read in conjunction with one another, some parts replacing other parts and some bits conflicting with other bits to leave gray areas, and so on, putting together a cohesive picture of the whole lot is a distinctly nontrivial task.

As to the AGS being secretive, yeah, that's a point.

BTW, when was the last time you saw minutes from an <NASRPC/NTSA/NSAI/SSAI/IPC/ITS/IBS/ICPSA/LCPSA/UCPSA/CCPSA/MCPSA/NARGC/IGS/LRRAI/WTSC/MNSCI/RRPC/DURC/UCDRC/EARC/NISSU/UCESSA/Insert Alphabet soup here> meeting? Your point cuts both ways, methinks.

And if they do go contrary to law, we can and have and sadly probably will again, take them to court.

Bananaman

Yet another whingefest

I have to admit that I have no real sense of the disposition of the new Minister towards our sports.

I have no idea of his disposition towards the mandarins in his Dept.

Truth be told I see some positives in that - as well as negatives.

He may well defer to the 'old hands' in his Dept. In which case we may as well all take up Handball or Tennis or some other target oriented sport. Coz those guys are in it for the species.

He may well take heed of the fact that his predecessor - and the department he inherited - and the structures they created - left him with one of the most challenged pieces of legislation in the history of the state - and may seek an objective review of it.
If that happens and there is proper consultation then they may get it right next time.*(I know, I know, plenty of people were consulted but not all the stakeholders were with some being explicitly excluded and loook where we are - we need to try something different)

He may decide to ask the Justice committee - of whose composition we are not yet aware - to look at how to move forward in a positive way. That opens yet more options.

He may defer to the New Commissioner - of who we know some - but who also presents a lot of opportunity for change.

He may dug deeper into the foxhole and create a worse situation

He may do a lot of things but we can only hope that he does something different - because the status quo is not really a runner.*

We've had three years of the current Dept., the previous commissioner, the previous Minister - and the world is a darker place for all of us.

The last few times the Minister has changed, so has the policy - first we had McDowell and the 2006 act, then Lenihan and the FCP, then Ahern and the 2008 act.

Now we have a new Minister and a new Commissioner - There is at least the potential for change.

Chin up lads & ladies - it's been tails the last few times - it could be heads this time

B'Man

meathshooter1

Sparks wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're saying here.
I mean you wont publicly hear the commissioner place blanket preconditions two thirds of his chief supers allegedly have,what control has he over his men.we have even seen them refuse to carry out district court orders.

That the commissioner knows there are 200 DC cases coming up should be a truism - they're being taken against his officers.

which will also have unfortunately have a negative effect on there budget,the money would be better spent on fighting crime than fighting law abiding citizens
That the commissioner knows the current state of the law is how things should be - though I'd bet that outside of the FPU there actually isn't any garda at any level that knows the Firearms Act correctly. That's not down to them being lazy - (a) it's not their job 99% of the time to know this; (b) precious few of us shooters know the Firearms Act any better than your average Garda and quite a few know it far less well than the Gardai do; and (c) there are maybe two dozen people in the entire country who could actually tell you what the current firearms legislation is in Ireland. The Law Reform Commission have even pointed this out for several years now - when you have 8 main Acts, parts in a handful of other Acts, two EU directives, over fifty Statutory Instruments, Regulations and Guidelines and Court Rules and so forth, all of which have to be read in conjunction with one another, some parts replacing other parts and some bits conflicting with other bits to leave gray areas, and so on, putting together a cohesive picture of the whole lot is a distinctly nontrivial task.

a good reason for a more qualified civilian unit to take it over,
As to the AGS being secretive, yeah, that's a point.

BTW, when was the last time you saw minutes from an <NASRPC/NTSA/NSAI/SSAI/IPC/ITS/IBS/ICPSA/LCPSA/UCPSA/CCPSA/MCPSA/NARGC/IGS/LRRAI/WTSC/MNSCI/RRPC/DURC/UCDRC/EARC/NISSU/UCESSA/Insert Alphabet soup here> meeting? Your point cuts both ways, methinks.

Big difference in private and voluntary bodies to a state body funded by tax payers money
And if they do go contrary to law, we can and have and sadly probably will again, take them to court.

Sadly I found myself in this positition.the majority of garda that I have dealt with I dont have a bad word to say about,I have always found them helpful, they are doing a hard,and at times fustrating thankless job,and do deserve more praise than they get.I only want to enjoy my sport

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Yet another whingefest

First off, quit that.

He may well defer to the 'old hands' in his Dept. In which case we may as well all take up Handball or Tennis or some other target oriented sport. Coz those guys are in it for the species.

Second of all, that's factually wrong.

He may well take heed of the fact that his predecessor - and the department he inherited - and the structures they created - left him with one of the most challenged pieces of legislation in the history of the state - and may seek an objective review of it.
If that happens and there is proper consultation then they may get it right next time.*(I know, I know, plenty of people were consulted but not all the stakeholders were with some being explicitly excluded and loook where we are - we need to try something different)

Third, that's utter bull**** you're spreading. What actually happened is on here in black and white.

The last few times the Minister has changed, so has the policy - first we had McDowell and the 2006 act, then Lenihan and the FCP, then Ahern and the 2008 act.

Fourth, that's not accurate either. McDowell was both the 2006 act and the FCP, but the 2006 act started rolling under his predecessor. Second, Lenihan wasn't in the job long enough to do anything, and third, it was the 2009 act, not the 2008 act. And all that is up on here in black and white as well.

If you're going to tell us what to do or think B'man, get your facts right first.

Sparks

meathshooter1 wrote: »

I mean you wont publicly hear the commissioner place blanket preconditions two thirds of his chief supers allegedly have,what control has he over his men.we have even seen them refuse to carry out district court orders.

(a) If we could prove that, we'd be able to stop it.
(b) No, you've not - you've seen them delay and prevaricate, but if you saw them actually refuse to carry out a DC judge's orders (after appeals and the usual due process), you'd be seeing a Garda committing career suicide because he'd be done on contempt of court.

which will also have unfortunately have a negative effect on there budget,the money would be better spent on fighting crime than fighting law abiding citizens

Agreed.
Unfortunately, that also raises the risks for us - if he thinks 200 cases is a financial problem, that raises the motivation to attack them all directly by (for example) claiming that PPC1500 is combat training. If they successfully did that, that's all 200 cases thrown out (you can't apply for a licence for something the Act prohibits) and most of the centerfire pistols in the country gone too (even those not in the DC right now) because they'd have WA/PPC1500 down as their 'good reason'.
That's what I mean by risky.

a good reason for a more qualified civilian unit to take it over,

No, it's not. My point was that the civilians wouldn't know the law any better than the gardai - not that the civilians know more. What it is a good reason for is a legal restatement of the Act (ie. all the acts, directives, SIs, etc, get all read together, one composite document gets produced, and that then becomes the new Firearms Act and all the other references are superseded - so now you have just the one document, in the one place, with all the law in it). And the Law Reform Commission has been saying that for years and there is even supposed to be one of these restatements on the list near the top - it's just not been done yet.

Big difference in private and voluntary bodies to a state body funded by tax payers money

Yes - and in our experience, the private voluntary bodies do a hell of a lot more damage to our sport.

Sadly I found myself in this positition.the majority of garda that I have dealt with I dont have a bad word to say about,I have always found them helpful, they are doing a hard,and at times fustrating thankless job,and do deserve more praise than they get.I only want to enjoy my sport

Amen to that.

meathshooter1

Hopefully everbody can put there past differences behind them and work together to bring about an agreement that everybody can work with.pistol shooters where singled out and giving a raw deal and a lot of false promises in the last few years,this has also lead to a domino effect in some areas.what has happened has happened its time to look to the future. what is needed is some type of positive framework that all partys can work with.

Sparks

meathshooter1 wrote: »

Hopefully everbody can put there past differences behind them and work together to bring about an agreement that everybody can work with.

I wish people would stop saying that.
Not because it's not a good idea - but because it has already happened.
Everyone put past differences aside (some took longer but that's the nature of life) and went to work together in a single forum - the FCP.
The hassles we've seen have been from people who refused to do that, and frankly, there aren't more than a dozen or so on the list of those who refused to do so and spent the last while causing trouble.

What we actually need is for people to go with the framework we have to achieve an actual end result, not picking fights they can't win for the sake of being in a fight because they don't know how to do the jobs that need doing outside of a fight.

We're a competitive sport that has a paucity of competitions. We don't see as much in the way of PR as we used to. We don't see our numbers going up in attendance. We're all feeling the financial pinch. And we have a perennial manpower shortage to do the scutwork.

In range terms, we've got everyone on the firing line and noone in the butts, so nobody really knows what they're hitting.

meathshooter1

What we actually need is for people to go with the framework we have to achieve an actual end result, not picking fights they can't win for the sake of being in a fight because they don't know how to do the jobs that need doing outside of a fight.

no one is fighting bullied I would say, we are only standing up for being in our eye unfairly treated,yet we see in court side of thing the state pulling every legal trick in the book,if the state is right what have they to hide



We're a competitive sport that has a paucity of competitions. We don't see as much in the way of PR as we used to. We don't see our numbers going up in attendance. We're all feeling the financial pinch. And we have a perennial manpower shortage to do the scutwork.

And we will eventually see centerfire pistols die out because of the grandfather clause

In range terms, we've got everyone on the firing line and noone in the butts, so nobody really knows what they're hitting.[/QUOTE]

Sparks

meathshooter1 wrote: »

no one is fighting

Unfortunately, I could list off a few right now that are.

bullied I would say, we are only standing up for being in our eye unfairly treated,yet we see in court side of thing the state pulling every legal trick in the book,if the state is right what have they to hide

The state doesn't see that they have to justify themselves to us. And yes, that is a problem. But from the pragmatic side of things, us getting into a fight with them at all is a bigger problem because it doesn't get us what we need, it just risks us losing even more. We do have to do something - I'm just saying that when you get to 200 cases in court and all pistols being at risk if we lose one of those cases, and only the status quo being maintained if we win all 200, then we need a different approach that sees us standing to come out of putting in effort into it better off than we were before.

Until now, with the Ahern in the Minister's seat, that wasn't possible. Now, with a new Minister, it might be. So that's potentially good news.

And we will eventually see centerfire pistols die out because of the grandfather clause

Centerfire pistols could be brought back in by the Minister inside of a fortnight without going to the Dail, just by signing an SI. The grandfather clause was a kick to the crotch for the sport alright, but it wasn't fatal or permanent or unfixable.

meathshooter1

I don't think anybody who was refused there pre Nov pistols took there appeals lightly and in no way wished any harm to pistol shooters who where lucky to be granted there's.personally it was the only recourse available after exhausting all other avenues and the 30 day time limit looming sadly left to a lot of people.we have seen some positive and negative results come from the district court cases.I'm sure that the majority of the centerfire pistol shooters who have been issued certs would stand by there fallow shooters who have cases pending after all the survival of the sport depends on it and the IM alright jack doesn't come into it.and I believe the only damage that will be caused will be to chief supers egos and If I lose my case I will sadly except the verdict at least Ive tried.no one wanted to go to court we had no choice if you wanted to try and keep you firearm

Sparks

meathshooter1 wrote: »

I don't think anybody who was refused there pre Nov pistols took there appeals lightly and in no way wished any harm to pistol shooters who where lucky to be granted there's.

Nor do I - but at the moment, the problem is getting way past the point where it should be handled at DC level. 200+ cases is ridiculous. But it's also ridiculously risky, expensive, and really, pointless in the long term (because you could be back in court again next time you want to renew the cert).

And while the people actually taking the cases didn't have much choice in the matter, there are those who are rabble-rousing outside the courts, despite not having any dog in the hunt. They need to knock that on the head yesterday. And we need to find another way to sort out this whole mess before someone somewhere gets a judge for their case who bears too much resemblance to Charleton and we find we're laden with yet another horrific precedent that cripples everyone.

Bananaman

I wish you would stop denigrating people for following the law

they were refused - unlawfully in their view - the law only allows two avenue safter that - appeal through the courts or accepting the refusal.

individuals didn't accept
their refusals and sought the only recourse allowed - it's not their fault that they happen to be one of the hundreds that were so treated - and all followed the letter of the law.

It was because hundreds were badly treated that there are so many before the courts - no other reason.

B'Man

Sparks

I wish you would stop denigrating people for following the law

Bull****. I said it above as clear as day, you're just choosing not to read it so that you can sling mud.

sparks wrote:

And while the people actually taking the cases didn't have much choice in the matter, there are those who are rabble-rousing outside the courts, despite not having any dog in the hunt. They need to knock that on the head yesterday. And we need to find another way to sort out this whole mess before someone somewhere gets a judge for their case who bears too much resemblance to Charleton and we find we're laden with yet another horrific precedent that cripples everyone.

Grizzly 45

[

QUOTE=Sparks;71127708](a) If we could prove that, we'd be able to stop it.
(b) No, you've not - you've seen them delay and prevaricate, but if you saw them actually refuse to carry out a DC judge's orders (after appeals and the usual due process), you'd be seeing a Garda committing career suicide because he'd be done on contempt of court.

AHEM......Cough....Ahem!;):rolleyes::D

This song must have been written for this situation.

We'll take it to the limit, oh yeah,take it to the limit...One more time.
[The Eagles.Hotel California]:)

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

We'll take it to the limit, oh yeah,take it to the limit...One more time.

Sadly true
You can, after a while, take them to court for contempt because even the courts have a limit to their patience; but the DC justices do tend to give Gardai a bit of leeway. Possibly because the DC justices see the absolute worst side of humanity every working day, usually on the opposite side of the courtroom to the Gardai and innocent victims. Cases of firearms licences being appealed are a bit of an uncommon sight even now in DCs compared to their normal workload.

But my point was that while on an individual basis, there's not much choice in the matter, as a community we desperately need to find another way to address the problem before the current cure winds up making things far, far worse. Going around saying we'll take the fight all the way to the Minister isn't solving the problem, it's creating a whole new problem because some people prefer a fight to a sport

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

Sadly true
You can, after a while, take them to court for contempt because even the courts have a limit to their patience; but the DC justices do tend to give Gardai a bit of leeway. Possibly because the DC justices see the absolute worst side of humanity every working day, usually on the opposite side of the courtroom to the Gardai and innocent victims. Cases of firearms licences being appealed are a bit of an uncommon sight even now in DCs compared to their normal workload.

True,but alot of judges must be wondring now,WTF are people doing in court,who really shouldnt be there in the first place,who were checked out by AGS as being ligitimate law abiding citizens,being suddenly refused certs for .....???? After all,it cant be for crime with a gun as they would be in the dock with the other criminals. So we are not coming in as being accused of anything as 99.9% of cases are in a DC.
Not to mind that they are taking on the responsibility[or so it seems now in law??] to vouchsafe that you are not going to let your dog off the leash and go mad in the nearest burger joint.Or is this going to be the new CS tactic in 2013?Treat all these applications like renewal of the liscensing laws for pubs??Refuse and let the poor local DJ carry the can?? This could be intresting then.

But my point was that while on an individual basis, there's not much choice in the matter, as a community we desperately need to find another way to address the problem before the current cure winds up making things far, far worse. Going around saying we'll take the fight all the way to the Minister isn't solving the problem, it's creating a whole new problem because some people prefer a fight to a sport

True enough,but it doesnt look like there is any other cure on the horizion.:( We can talk,we can recommend to the minister directly.He will nod sagely,and promptly forget everything he was told as other "experts" in AGS and the dOJ will no doubt tell him that we are all a shower of idiots,not fit to own anything more leathl than feather dusters,who want full auto AK47s freely available and want to train up in combat shooting,we can outgun the elite ERU with a simple handgun.[As in civvie hands there are a 1000% more deadlier],and consider Minister where the bucket of brown stuff would fall IF this were to go wrong??

Which minister for Justice wont say "not on my bloddy watch it wont!"
And that is the problem now for the last near on 40 years.Ministers not willing to take a chance on trusting the Irish shooting public after listening to their in house experts.:(
Wonder would it make any difference if the FCP was a NGB??

chem

I was talking to a local history man the other day. He told me a story of how the Ulster GAA wanted to play a match in Louth, to mark the 90th anniversary of the 1st Monaghan/Cavan final back in the 20s.

The game had to be played outside Monaghan and Cavan because the local Bishops of the area had banned the playing of GAA in the parish as it was seen as a recruiting ground for the IRA. So they looked around and seen that Louth had no church laws banning the game. The Cavan team traveled down by train to the pitch, but the monaghan team traveled by horse and cart.

Monaghans horse went lame in Ardee on the way to the match, which ment they were late for the kick off. The ref at the game blew his whistle to start the game without the other team and Cavan scored a winning goal! The match was viewed by over 100 RIC officers at the time. And once the goal had been scored the RIC driffeted off down the road. In the mean time Cavan were drinking to there victory, when the Monoghan team arrived up the other road and challanged them to a match to prove themself as the real winners.

One RIC man who stayed on, got a smack to the mouth and was told not to go anywhere till the game was played, in case he informed his station.

The game was played and it was a 2 point tie at the end of the game.

In the mean time the bishop over Louth, out lawed GAA and so the rematch had to be played in meath. Who had a GAA friendly bishop

My point is the GAA was banned here for years. And looked at as a IRA recruitment ground. Look at it today. Its our national sport.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

True,but alot of judges must be wondring now,WTF are people doing in court,who really shouldnt be there in the first place,who were checked out by AGS as being ligitimate law abiding citizens,being suddenly refused certs for .....???? After all,it cant be for crime with a gun as they would be in the dock with the other criminals. So we are not coming in as being accused of anything as 99.9% of cases are in a DC.

It's a nice thought, but if we're only 0.1% of cases in a DC (and honestly, I'd say it's closer to 0.01%), and we're spread out over all the DCs, I don't think that any individual judge is seeing enough cases to spot a trend
It's only when you step back and look at all the shooting cases together that how ridiculous the situation is becomes clear.

Or is this going to be the new CS tactic in 2013?Treat all these applications like renewal of the liscensing laws for pubs??Refuse and let the poor local DJ carry the can?? This could be intresting then.

I think we were saying on here that that was a risk somewhere back around 2004 when the heads of the CJB2004 first showed up - if it's taken till 2013 for CSs to take that approach, then we might be being over-cyncical! :pac:

True enough,but it doesnt look like there is any other cure on the horizion.:( We can talk,we can recommend to the minister directly.He will nod sagely,and promptly forget everything he was told as other "experts" in AGS and the dOJ will no doubt tell him that we are all a shower of idiots,not fit to own anything more leathl than feather dusters,who want full auto AK47s freely available and want to train up in combat shooting,we can outgun the elite ERU with a simple handgun.[As in civvie hands there are a 1000% more deadlier],and consider Minister where the bucket of brown stuff would fall IF this were to go wrong??

The old Commissioner, I can see doing that. The new one, I don't know well enough to judge, and the current DoJ firearms section are very unlikely to do so.
I wouldn't be giving up target shooting just yet, y'know?

Wonder would it make any difference if the FCP was a NGB??

The FCP and NGBs are chalk and cheese Grizzly, you might as well ask what would happen if your left kidney was given a polling card for the election...

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

It's a nice thought, but if we're only 0.1% of cases in a DC (and honestly, I'd say it's closer to 0.01%), and we're spread out over all the DCs, I don't think that any individual judge is seeing enough cases to spot a trend
It's only when you step back and look at all the shooting cases together that how ridiculous the situation is becomes clear.

Hmmm,I'm sure the right Hon DJ[if that is the correct form of address here?] do have a look in our national papers betimes,or maybe talk shop at the annual DJ nite out for beers,or whatever and surely talk shop about various cases?Certainly they must notice a trend in the SE where the most of us gun owners are concentrated??

The old Commissioner, I can see doing that. The new one, I don't know well enough to judge, and the current DoJ firearms section are very unlikely to do so.
I wouldn't be giving up target shooting just yet, y'know?

We'll have to wait and see I guess on that one.
Maybe I've been just around too long here in the Irish shooting scene to be nothing but cynical of both sides making a hames of things without the assistance of the other. Or that there is some barbed hook hidden in the slice of cake we get everytime.:(

The FCP and NGBs are chalk and cheese Grizzly, you might as well ask what would happen if your left kidney was given a polling card for the election...

More hypothising on my part,as it just seems that NGBs are taken,or were more seriously than anything else in previous Govt "thinking"

Sparks

Grizz, the NGBs are all represented on the FCP, so that one doesn't make much sense.

As to the DCJs, I'm not sure. I don't think we're the talk around the water cooler

Rosahane

Sparks wrote: »

... The FCP and NGBs are chalk and cheese Grizzly, you might as well ask what would happen if your left kidney was given a polling card for the election...

As far as I can see the FCP has been nothing bit a waste of time. A group that have been driven and manipulated by the DOJ and used to ferment disagreement amongst the shooting community.

Other that the relatively unimportant bits like the three year licence things have actually got worse for shooters with the de facto ban on centrefire pistols and lots of daft leglisation; for example where a .22 Browning Buckmark is restricted and a Ruger 10/22 is not, purely due to the position of the mag.

When it came down to it the FCP were used to endorse the bits that the DOJ liked and ignored for the rest. We now have a situation where at least one of the people on the FCP represent nobody!

The whole thing reminds me of the story of Parnell and the Irish National Party :mad:

Sparks

Rosahane wrote: »

As far as I can see the FCP has been nothing bit a waste of time. A group that have been driven and manipulated by the DOJ and used to ferment disagreement amongst the shooting community.

I don't agree - I think that a few people who had a serious case of sour grapes at not being the ones chosen to go to the FCP table spent a few years trying their best to sabotage and bad-mouth it for their own ends. Some tried it on here openly - it's still there if you want to hit the search function above.

When it came down to it the FCP were used to endorse the bits that the DOJ liked and ignored for the rest. We now have a situation where at least one of the people on the FCP represent nobody!

To be accurate, that situation was at the choosing of one of the NGBs claiming a lack of representation on the FCP. A case of cutting off their nose to spite their face, plain and simple.

Bananaman

You don't have to agree - it's not required.

regardless of what may have been written on here it does not make it the record of what actually happened in the real world

peoples personal experiences do

it is well documented on here that certain personalities hate each other - bugger knows why - nor does anyone care - but it tends to 'colour' the record on here - especially when it is so one sided - people have made assumptions that they will never climb down from - that then inform their decision making processes - in some cases making them get the wrong end of the stick

but will they let go of it - wrong end or not - not a chance!

B'Man

Rosahane

Sparks wrote: »

I don't agree - I think that a few people who had a serious case of sour grapes at not being the ones chosen to go to the FCP table spent a few years trying their best to sabotage and bad-mouth it for their own ends. Some tried it on here openly - it's still there if you want to hit the search function above.


To be accurate, that situation was at the choosing of one of the NGBs claiming a lack of representation on the FCP. A case of cutting off their nose to spite their face, plain and simple.

Whatever about the sour grapes and, I agree, the whole procedure did generate a lot of airtime, you have to agree that the FCP basically achived nothing except to give some legitimicy to the "Sir Humphrey" manouvering of the DOJ.

WRT the NGB bit, You've lost me! My understanding is that there is at least one rep on the FCP who no longer has a constituency :eek:

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

regardless of what may have been written on here it does not make it the record of what actually happened in the real world

It's a damn sight more accurate than half the guff I've heard from some out there. Statements made in public meetings over the last few years have shown that someone is out there telling anyone who'll listen a fair few porkies about what the FCP is, does, wants, can do or is responsible for, and as is often the case, the lie's half-way round the world before the truth has its boots on.

it is well documented on here that certain personalities hate each other - bugger knows why

Why is well documented here too!

- nor does anyone care - but it tends to 'colour' the record on here - especially when it is so one sided - people have made assumptions that they will never climb down from - that then inform their decision making processes - in some cases making them get the wrong end of the stick
but will they let go of it - wrong end or not - not a chance!

So if you have documented proof that one side of an argument is right, you're still at fault for not choosing the other side, is that what you're saying there B'man?

Or is it just that if I say one thing you'll say the opposite on general principle?

Sparks

Rosahane wrote: »

Whatever about the sour grapes and, I agree, the whole procedure did generate a lot of airtime, you have to agree that the FCP basically achived nothing except to give some legitimicy to the "Sir Humphrey" manouvering of the DOJ.

And save the few pistols we have and make it possible to return the ones we lost after Ahern threw his wobbly fit because of Deasy's slandering us in the press.

If it wasn't for the FCP, we wouldn't be seen in the Department as being anything other than marginal buffoons whose concerns weren't worth thinking about (and yes, that is the image they had of us because of the contact they had with our community prior to the FCP and because of our publications and because of other things relating to our community). Because of the FCP, they've been meeting us for several years now. They've built up a relationship with all the NGBs, and they know that we have some serious sportsmen, that we contribute massively to conservation and the economy - and they know that on a visceral, personal level.

We have never had that before. And it has saved our collective backsides more than once. I know what's said about the FCP; it's wrong.

Yes, it can't veto a Minister. Show me a mechanism that can, short of a coup?

Yes, we don't run it. That's how it works, that's never been a secret and we said so here before it was ever founded.

But no, it's not useless. We have avoided some truly daft stuff over the years because of it. It hasn't stopped everything, and it hasn't given us all we want - but here's the ugly truth. We're never going to get all we want. World don't work that way, and we all know it. But it has worked a damn sight better than anything else we've ever tried. And yes, I mean anything. Dunne-v-Donohue? Set a precedent that lasted until the Minister drafted a one-line comment in the misc. section of a nondescript bill. Winning all those cases in court? We lost one and got a handgun ban. And the new Act came in letting the Minister do damn near whatever he wanted. Every step forward came at enormous cost in time and money and manpower and didn't last, and was inevitably followed by many steps backward.

WRT the NGB bit, You've lost me! My understanding is that there is at least one rep on the FCP who no longer has a constituency :eek:

That's correct - but it's at the choice of that 'constituency', who already have representation at the FCP through the SSAI (and before they complain, remember that those people now complaining about the SSAI representing them are the people who wrote the rules that said the SSAI would represent them).

Rosahane

Sparks wrote: »

And save the few pistols we have and make it possible to return the ones we lost after Ahern threw his wobbly fit because of Deasy's slandering us in the press.

If it wasn't for the FCP, we wouldn't be seen in the Department as being anything other than marginal buffoons whose concerns weren't worth thinking about (and yes, that is the image they had of us because of the contact they had with our community prior to the FCP and because of our publications and because of other things relating to our community). Because of the FCP, they've been meeting us for several years now. They've built up a relationship with all the NGBs, and they know that we have some serious sportsmen, that we contribute massively to conservation and the economy - and they know that on a visceral, personal level.

We have never had that before. And it has saved our collective backsides more than once. I know what's said about the FCP; it's wrong.

Yes, it can't veto a Minister. Show me a mechanism that can, short of a coup?

Yes, we don't run it. That's how it works, that's never been a secret and we said so here before it was ever founded.

But no, it's not useless. We have avoided some truly daft stuff over the years because of it. It hasn't stopped everything, and it hasn't given us all we want - but here's the ugly truth. We're never going to get all we want. World don't work that way, and we all know it. But it has worked a damn sight better than anything else we've ever tried. And yes, I mean anything. Dunne-v-Donohue? Set a precedent that lasted until the Minister drafted a one-line comment in the misc. section of a nondescript bill. Winning all those cases in court? We lost one and got a handgun ban. And the new Act came in letting the Minister do damn near whatever he wanted. Every step forward came at enormous cost in time and money and manpower and didn't last, and was inevitably followed by many steps backward.



That's correct - but it's at the choice of that 'constituency', who already have representation at the FCP through the SSAI (and before they complain, remember that those people now complaining about the SSAI representing them are the people who wrote the rules that said the SSAI would represent them).

It may well be that the FCP has served to enlighten the mandarins in the DOJ. However it could equally be interpeted as the FCP being nothing more that a sop to the involvement and participitation of the shooting community in the decision making process while whatever agenda the DOJ has carries on regardless.

Regettably, on the evidence I am inclined to the second view.

However having been involved in the whole IPSA debacle and aftermath I would have to agree with your "marginal buffoons" comment :rolleyes:

MortgageMan

Sparks I didn't see you sitting in Dail when the debate was going on about pistol licencing, I didn't see you lobby any ministers when the axe was falling.

I didn't hear of you contact the FCP reps about written correspondance that was read into the record at the Dail debate that put the nail into the pistol shooting communities coffin ?

I didn't see you sit beside me in the Dail and watch as Garrett Byrne turned up to gallery and smiled in satisfaction as the justice minister ended IPSC shooting ?

What did you do to safe guard pistol shooting perhaps you might enlighten us all ? just what did you do ?