NASRPC proposals on licencing centerfire pistols, as submitted to the DoJ

Cass

I have read and re-read this article a few times today to help let it sink in, and quite honestly i have never had such shock, disbelief, surprise, disgust, anger hit me as hard as it did when i read this document. I did not want to respond and speak from an annoyed or angry point of view so i refrained. Until now. I will not bore you all with rehashing the details of the proposal itself as you are all quite capable of understanding the ramifications had it been accepted. What i do want to discuss futher is the NASRPC response to this document.

To that extent i would ask the NASRPC to answer the following.
I read the statment bunnyshooter linked to from the NASRPC. It was not an apology. It was a denial of responsibility. "We do not believe this is a matter for the NASRPC". Why? Your name is all over it and signed off on by your committee members. Who would you suggest take responsibility for it. The VCRAI, NRAI, NARGC, ETC.

Where do you start to try and understand the "logic" those responsible employed to write this signing away of our sport, and make no mistake it is OUR sport irrespective of who stamps their brand on it. Without us the sport would not exist. 5 - 6 weeks before the full Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 was initiated they decided to submit a document that would limit, restrict the sport to such an extent that they and they alone would have sole control over it. Then insult us by saying that they had and still do have our sports best interest in mind. They say it was to prevent the outright banning of pistols which in their words "Was a possibility". 5 weeks before the Act was initiated is not the time to try and fight an Act. So even taking that as the reason in such a short time frame nothing would have been considered/achieved.

They claim they did not bypass the SSAI. So please explain something to the uninitiated. Was Joe Costello the Chairman of the SSAI in June 2009? If so was he the Chairman of the NASRPC in June 2009? If he was not the chairman of the NASRPC in June 2009 who was, ad was this person chairman of the SSAI at this time. I ask about June 2009 as the proposal is dated June 10th, 2009. How about the rest of the SSAI. By their own words it is an umbrella group of many NGBs and at the very least an informatitive e-mail/letter would have informed everyone so nobody could have been caught off guard. Also judging by the responses here no-one in the NASRPC (except those directly involved in the document/proposal) knew anything about the proposal itself. To say they did, would be something i find hard to believe. Their own members knew and agreed to limiting the amount of licenses, hence firearms, meaning that the loss of firearms would have been as severe if not worse than what is currently being felt, but with no chance of repeal? Also how could the members that own Glock pistols have voted for a document that sought to ban them outright?

shedd7 wrote: »

Old news and a lot of hooha about a PROPOSAL,.....

This brings me to my next point. The proposal was there for all to see. Yet no-one seems to know anything about it, again not counting those directly invoved in the proposal. So to the poster above and the NASRPC i ask, its old news to whom? Did the NASRPC put a copy on their website for members to view? Did they circulate the proposal to all affiliated clubs and at least look for member feedback/input? Did they issue copies to the other NGBs/members of the SSAi for input/help or even to notify them of their decision to propose such changes? If the poster above considers this "hooha" then i would not like to see what he would class a serious issue.

The document was "meant to be contentious". Why? Could a meeting not have been called for without provoking those sought, into it? Was it the other NGBs that refused to meet with you? You say the minister thought "some aspects of the document warranted further review". MY God you gave them ideas on how to restrict us. As the NGB for pistol shooting they would have seen your immediate willingness to surrender most aspects of the sport without a fight as the catalyst to invoke harsher restrictions. In case that is not clear enough allow me to paraphrase:

Minister - This is great. We haven't asked but look what they are willing to give up or lose. Lets initiate some more laws/rules that we thought we wouldn't get away with.

I know if i were minister and was handed that proposal i would be thinking just that. Then you further compound the issue by saying, they never were going to take it seriously so the whole issue is irrelevant. So in other words what you're basically saying is, it didn't work, get over it lads. I presume that is what is being refered to here:

.......... not even a firm commitment to implement any or all of the content.

You continue with how times have changed. A new minister, a new Garda Commissioner, a new NASRPC. Lets just check that list again:

Minister for Justice in 2009 - Dermot Ahern, till Jan 2011 - Dermot Ahern.
Garda Commissioner in 2009 - Fachtna Murphy, till Dec 2010 - Fachtna Murphy.
Committee members of NASRPC in 2009 (as per letter) - Michael Tope, Declan Cahill, Declan Byrne, Kieran Barry.
Committee members of NASRPC in Jan 2011 - Declan Byrne, Michael Tope, Declan Keogh, Martin Hayes, Nigel Barrett, Mark Maguire.

With the exception/addition of these names (Declan Keogh, Martin Hayes, Nigel Barrett, Mark Maguire.) i see nothing different.

So your statment that "This document was produced a VERY long time ago, under a VERY different NASRPC" would again seem to hold no weight. It was 18 months ago, and the core elemant responsible for the proposal still holds committee level positions within the NASRPC.

Interesting timing,though:rolleyes: Just before the meeting in Portlaoise.Hmmmm. What's that I smell.....hardly a fishy smell, or is it?????

Ah, finally we are there. The last point. In keeping with the posters stament above and with the statement of the NASRPC yesterday i would like to ask the following. If this proposal is so "wide spread", and "easily accessible" then how is it so unknown and unheard of that it would pose any issues or problems to the NASRPC or any meetings. Surely when this was disclosed to the other SSAI member NGBs the debate was hammered out then and resolved. Or is it the case that people knew as little about it then as we do now?

Also this statment:

NASRPC Website wrote:

We are disappointed that this cynical attempt to use this old document to attempt to create division in the shooting community as opposed to the NASRPC policy of creating unity within the shooting sports

How can you seriously expect anyone in their right mind to even consider this statement as anything other than a deflection, and of the highest level of hypocracy considering the document itself and secretive nature of its existance. The attempt of the NASRPC in the very next line of your statement:

NASRPC Website wrote:

The SSAI is not run by any one NGB - It is meant to be run democratically on behalf of all the shooting sports by a committee of its member NGBs as per its contitution, rules and regulations.

We are all aware of its failings and hope that in the fulness of time these will be rectified

Ah, someone elses fault, AGAIN. This time the SSAI.


I will finish up by agreeing with the lads here and to reiterate my complete disgust at the proposal and the manner in which the entire fiasco was handled. You done wrong ,but instead of owning up and admitting your error, mistake, misjudgement, etc you sought to blame those that "came before you" even though they are stil among you, then resort to blaming other organisations. This only serves to reinforce the perspective that you care for only your own needs, and highlights your inability to listen to the ordinary shooter. An NGB with no connection or debate platform with its members is doomed.

Ez.

tonysopprano

Excerpts from NASRPC website

"The Document is on the public record and we have never requested any of it be redacted.
NASRPC are, and always have been, happy to give people a copy should they wish for it

- simply email

information@nasrpc.ie or indeed contact any representative or club of the

NASRPC."

"There was no need to request this document via the Freedom of Information Act - even though

many people may like to believe it - nothing about the shooting sports is classified."

"There are many mechanisms in place for you to either obtain information on the NASRPC or

indeed to contribute to the NASRPC.
NASRPC represents many clubs throughout Ireland, as well as many sports and disciplines, so
your own club, or one nearby, will most likely be a member.
The

NASRPC website contains a lot of information on the Association - we are continuously

updating it so be sure to check in occasionally to see what NASRPC has been doing.
We publish a newsletter on a regular basis, with emails in between, updating all those
subscribed, with what is happening and what the NASRPC is doing on your behalf. If you wish
to subscribe send an email to

newsletter@nasrpc.ie.

Of course, if you have any questions on this or any matters related to the NASRPC, there is a
form on our website where you can submit questions, you can email

information@nasrpc.ie or

indeed you can contact any of the representatives of the NASRPC."

What other proposals did NASRPC submit to DOJ between 2009 and now, or do we need FOI requests to get them"

Mr Mole

Only Fianna Fail could match the shooting sports political **** stirring that has been done here through the unnecessary publication of this OLD document. One person using a willing colleague to fight his battles, rather than doing his own fighting.

Sparks

Mr Mole wrote: »

Only Fianna Fail could match the shooting sports political **** stirring that has been done here through the unnecessary publication of this OLD document. One person using a willing colleague to fight his battles, rather than doing his own fighting.

If **** stirring was the point, why wouldn't this thread have gone up just before the NASRPC AGM a fortnight or so ago? The document was sent to me before christmas. It's taken time to do the legwork that's been done (and there's more legwork still underway).

Mole, the document is real. It was written and submitted by the people currently running the NASRPC, and who recently spent six hours of a public meeting saying that the SSAI was representing them incorrectly to the PTB and that they wanted changes. This document shows the kind of changes they would want when given a blank canvas. If they took over the SSAI seat in the FCP, this is what we'd get.

Bluntly, that would be bad for absolutely everyone, not only in NASRPC sports, but in every other shooting sport in Ireland too. If they want to run their own sport, that's their shout. But them talking to the PTB would be bad for everyone else and it shouldn't be permitted.

rowa

Mr Mole wrote: »

Only Fianna Fail could match the shooting sports political **** stirring that has been done here through the unnecessary publication of this OLD document. One person using a willing colleague to fight his battles, rather than doing his own fighting.

the submission also shows the true c/f pistol shooting enthusiasts versus a clique looking to basically make money from us with bs tests , safety courses , and attending their shoots at THEIR CLUBS. i spent 4k in security etc to get passed by the garda home security officer before i got my (horror) glock pistol licenced and that was enough. to think this shower were in with ahern cutting our throats is a stomacher ,

Hondata92

Mr Mole wrote: »

Only Fianna Fail could match the shooting sports political **** stirring that has been done here through the unnecessary publication of this OLD document. One person using a willing colleague to fight his battles, rather than doing his own fighting.

By your post im under the impression that you are a high ranking or long standing member within the NASRPC trying to make this document out to be nothing, if i wrong well then i dont really care.


S!!t stirring?? Are you for real or just to far up the NASRPC @rse to realise that this is a document that wasnt made public yet persecutes alot of irish shooters (pistols shooters).

You say this document is "OLD" 18months isnt that long ago yet alone "OLD" especially when it was the time where the CJB and new firearms lisencing system was being introduced.

One person using a willing colleague to fight his battles, rather than doing his own fighting.

If that statement alone doesnt make it clear that you are out to defend the NASRPC and discredit those who have made it public knowledge then i dont know what would:rolleyes:

As i have said im NOT a pistol shooter but would like to personally thank Sparks and all those who have made this document public knowledge and have put the time and effort into making sure it was genuine.

Im sure that the NASRPC are watching this thread closely as proved by their sorry excuse of a statement released less than two days ago, i personnaly would like to call on Nigel Barrett who released the statement to come on here (as he has an account) and answer the questions regarding this document that were put forward by the members on here

daveob007

going to have a read of this document and the statment from the narspc in the coming week,,but those proposals seem to be very harsh indeed.

daveob007

just looking at one piece of that proposal and the bit about banning glock pistols????why??? how can you ban a brand of firearm.
i was an owner of a glock 17 and if i had the money to appeal and kept my gun i then found this out where would i be now??
i was never advised to get rid of the glock or informed as to the position held by the narspc regarding use of glocks.

Grizzly 45

What pees me off now even further is if they were so hot against Glocks,they were quick enough to jump on the bandwagon of one owner winning in the Limerick DC and two other lads with black combat style police /military EVIL pistols:rolleyes:.[Dunno, maybe Sigs and Walthers are more acceptable to them than Glocks?]
NASRPC newsletter June /July?2010

dog tag

Just wondering Does anyone here compete in national competitions with pistols an or revolvers?

Sparks

Yes, several posters here do.

knockon

dog tag wrote: »

Just wondering Does anyone here compete in national competitions with pistols an or revolvers?

Yes - sig pro 9mm.

Grizzly 45

Yes, "Evil black" modded Glock17.

daveob007

after reading the statment issued by the narspc today it looks like that document is now dead and was issued in the leadup to the cjb in 2009.
only worry is that these things tend to hang in the air for a long time and might be looked at by the new minister in the future and as i said before there are others like John Deasy who want a total ban on centrefire handguns.

Tackleberrywho

Where does it say that if you shoot Targets that you have to compete?
Surely the greatest competition is against oneself?

I go to the range with one or two mates, we shoot a few targets and we go home.

Why should I have to bow down to some Self-appointed group?

What is stopping ,myself forming the National Glock owners of Ireland Club in the Morning??
Or perhaps the Irish National Association of Self loading Pistols

Nobody could say

1. I'm not Irish
2. I'm not representing Self Loading Pistol owners
3. If I have more than the specified group size (3 or so) That we are an association.

I would not, but it just shows how easy a splinter group can form

Sparks

The document was pretty much dead on arrival dave - its proposals were, as one official desribed them, "illegal and untenable". The problem is that the document was created from whole cloth by the NASRPC committee (and not some old committee - the current chairman and the current secretary compiled and approved the document). It wasn't created in consulatation with anyone - which means that this is their natural point of aim when drafting rules, regulations or legislation.

dog tag

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Yes, "Evil black" modded Glock17.

Nice kit,

fired a few in my time. Browning, Colt, Sig, Glock, and S&W's.

cant apply for one in Ireland at the moment. Hope this changes.

Tackleberrywho

dog tag wrote: »

Nice kit,

fired a few in my time. Browning, Colt, Sig, Glock, and S&W's.

cant apply for one in Ireland at the moment. Hope this changes.

I've a Glock 22, and by Fcuk am I letting some bunch of **** try and get it taken off me as I don't pay them any money or genuflect when I see them.:mad:

Sparks

For clarification:

The NASRPC:Nigel account is a verified representative account (which have certain rules attached) - and the rules mean that whatever is posted there comes from the NASRPC committee as a whole.

In other words, Nigel's doing the typing, but he's just taking dictation - the content comes direct from the NASRPC.

So asking him to respond personally from that account is asking him to break the rules of the forum. He can respond personally from his personal account, by all means; and the NASRPC can respond through the NASRPC account as well; but what we don't want to see is him posting something under the NASRPC account and then boards.ie getting sued for defamation because it wasn't officially sanctioned by the NASRPC.

And to be fair, there may have been a delay in seeing the NASRPC post here because we've been discussing that clarification by PM. With that all cleared up, they should feel no obstacle remains to their posting here now.

dCorbus

Right, I've been reading this thread for the last couple of days since sparks posted up the initial post.

I've also read and re-read, and then re-read, both the contentious (understatement of the decade) "proposals" from the NASRPC.

Furthermore, I've read and re-read the statement posted by the NASRPC on their website regarding the publication of this document.

To say that I'm annoyed would be the understatement of the century.

To have submitted such an ill-considered and ill-advised document, albeit one masquerading as "just a proposal", to the DoJ and then, to compound matters, to proudly say that this was also provided to the Deparment of Sport etc., beggars belief. Whilst this document was done under the auspices of a previous chairman, the current committee should take stronger measures toward dissassociating themselves from these wholly crazy proposals. Those who actually authored the document should be ashamed of themselves.

I was planning to write a well-reasoned and well-considered response to your unadulterated nonsense that is the "proposal", but frankly (and for once) I struck dumb and am speechless!

I can only hope that the members of the NASRPC request and recieve an explanation from their current committee as to why this nonsense was ever submitted in the first place.

xesse

It looks to me that you people on here are stirring up a whirlwind in a teacup over this.
I remember being told sure as **** sticks to a bears arse that we were all loosing our CF pistols and that was from other NGBs.
Now some of the ideas on the document in question are a bit OTT but if it was comply with some of the suggestions or loose my pistols outright ,i know what i would pick.
And the goverment didn't give a fcuk about the opinions of the FCP so what makes you all think they looked upon this doc. any other way?:D:D

Sparks

xesse wrote: »

a bit OTT

That's pushing the boundaries of the definition of understatement right there xesse.

Grizzly 45

Sort of like your defence lawyer helping the state to try, convict and condem you to death,but the state showed clemency,and your defence saying,"See it doesnt really matter,you werent hung...you ARE alive arent you??My defence stratgey worked prefectly! "

dog tag

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

I've a Glock 22, and by Fcuk am I letting some bunch of **** try and get it taken off me as I don't pay them any money or genuflect when I see them.:mad:

Sorry I new to this forum and am interested in shooting again. Are you referring to the SSAI?

Tackleberrywho

dog tag wrote: »

Sorry I new to this forum and am interested in shooting again. Are you referring to the SSAI?

No

And a Birdie Tells me you are not that new to this forum;)

Sikamick

NASRPC list of disciplines from their website:

Contents

1 Sporting Rifle
2 Benchrest Rifle
3 Gallery Rifle
4 Precision Pistol & Revolver
5 Target Shotgun
6 Classic Rifle
7 Black Powder Shooting

Classic Rifle And Black Powder is only new on their list, what competitions have they held, these were never on their list of disciplines before.

Is this another grab at control.

Sikamick
VCRAI.

gunhappy_ie

dog tag wrote: »

Just wondering Does anyone here compete in national competitions with pistols an or revolvers?

knockon wrote: »

Yes - sig pro 9mm.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Yes, "Evil black" modded Glock17.

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

I've a Glock 22, and by Fcuk am I letting some bunch of **** try and get it taken off me as I don't pay them any money or genuflect when I see them.:mad:

Modified H&k USP. Black but not Evil like them Glocks :P

gunhappy_ie

Sikamick wrote: »

NASRPC list of disciplines from their website:

Contents

1 Sporting Rifle
2 Benchrest Rifle
3 Gallery Rifle
4 Precision Pistol & Revolver
5 Target Shotgun
6 Classic Rifle
7 Black Powder Shooting

Classic Rifle And Black Powder is only new on their list, what competitions have they held, these were never on their list of disciplines before.

Is this another grab at control.

Sikamick
VCRAI.

Has the VCRAI got authorisiation yet ??

Tackleberrywho

gunhappy_ie wrote: »

Modified H&k USP. Black but not Evil like them Glocks :P

I blame the glock Evil on Paul Williams, same with Uzi's.

Yet they post a picture of a Beretta and an MP5

So sick of this Elitism towards Glock's.
And this stupid crud of HAVING to shoot comp's

Competitions with an NASRPCQRSTUVWXYZ entry fee,

<or those group of ten or less guys what ever they call themselves these days>

gunhappy_ie

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

I blame the glock Evil on Paul Williams, same with Uzi's.

Yet they post a picture of a Beretta and an MP5

So sick of this Elitism towards Glock's.
And this stupid crud of HAVING to shoot comp's

Competitions with an NASRPCQRSTUVWXYZ entry fee,

<or those group of ten or less guys what ever they call themselves these days>

Its unfortunate but true that (in ireland) legally held pistols are always going to be under the light of media attention. Glocks being dubbed "the favorite weapon of choice for gangland killings" (or words to that effect) makes for great reading especailly if an innocent life is taken by the hands of scum.

What most readers in the public domain dont get is that criminals will use whatever is freely available to them. Glock just happens to be european made and is widely available throughout europe where as an island criminal gangs are importing tons of drugs from.

I remember 1 particular incident (before restricted list) in limerick where a wrong place wrong time got an innocent person killed (also thinking that this is going to have a bad effect for legally held pistols) and a few days afterward seeing the news about a seized shipment of drugs, coming in from europe. Also included in the rather large shipment was a machine pistol either a B&T MP9 or the origional version.

Criminals obviously arent getting them off the pistol owners here as there would be articles in the paper every other day as well as the gardai and DOJ down our necks but the general public dont know or IMO dont care. They just want killings to stop and for the government who want votes all year around, they will do whatever they think will look as if there doing something.