TV programme

Dalken

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Dont you think thats a bit of a double standard?? You support strict gun laws but it was OK for your family members to break the law with you all conspiring in possesion of an illegal firearm???:p



Were we to apply that to the most common easily accessible killer in our society the motor vechicle .We should have zero road deaths and zero traffic accidents.But we dont, all a gun liscense or drivers liscense is,is a permit to show you are entitled to drive and use a gun after passing certain criteria,nothing else. You cant regulate stupidity or off kilter mental problems.
How far do you want to go with legislation There is plenty there on the law books,enforcing it would be a good start.

My point is about my family is that they didn't see keeping guns illeagily because they came out of the lawlessness of the war of independance, a gun was just something you kept in case you got a pot shot at a peeler. The gun just tended to be around after that. This meant that my dad and his brothers grew up not affording keeping a gun much respect and we regularly took dads guns out, he didnt give a toss. This was wrong.

The car comparison is daft, Im sorry it just is non runner for me. Cars are fundamental tool of modern society, guns to me and most people are weapons(neccessery in times of war) or Tools(neccessery for for certain sports). No you cant regulate for stupidity or acute mental health issues but you can, through strict enforcement of stringent regulations make sure that those that keep guns are like us keeping them for proper reasons and respect them for what they are.

The previous post from Sparks is interesting, The Swiss have a tradition of Militia, those that keep weapons are therefore trained and aware of the due respect they should be afforded. Im sure there are more sociological reasons but thats for another day.

This post is gone way off topic now...
To conclude, Im not anti gun, Im not anti shooting I am however pro regulation for the very reason that I dont want my sport or its reputation ruined by idiots that shouldnt have guns. More importantly I think it should be as difficult as possible for events like the ones that occur in the US to happen in our country.

Dalken.

Grizzly 45

My point is about my family is that they didn't see keeping guns illeagily because they came out of the lawlessness of the war of independance, a gun was just something you kept in case you got a pot shot at a peeler. The gun just tended to be around after that. This meant that my dad and his brothers grew up not affording keeping a gun much respect and we regularly took dads guns out, he didnt give a toss. This was wrong.

Kind of a hard one there,if your ol man trusted you with the guns not to be doing any mischeif,apart from possibly shooting at wayward Englishmen and Crown agents..:).What harm?? I assume he taught the basics of firearms safty,as even the old IRA taught that as well.
TBH , it must have been abit more pleasent as a society back then,as it seems no one went and lost the head and went and shot up their school??Somthing has changed globally in our societies that we just seem to have more dimwitts or mentally sub normal people out there

The car comparison is daft, Im sorry it just is non runner for me. Cars are fundamental tool of modern society, guns to me and most people are weapons(neccessery in times of war) or Tools(neccessery for for certain sports). No you cant regulate for stupidity or acute mental health issues but you can, through strict enforcement of stringent regulations make sure that those that keep guns are like us keeping them for proper reasons and respect them for what they are.

Not really,anywhere else if there is decent public transport in any major city,no one would technically need a car.This however being Ireland we all more or less need one as our public transport is a sick joke.Trouble is people do not see one and a half tons of metal and plastic as a leathl weapon,they associate it with transport and a extension of their living room.Yet it kills more people per annum than guns have in a decade here.The way some irresponsible people leave their vechicles if you were as irresponsible with your gun there would be hell to pay.The arguement that it is just a transport vechicle doesnt wash a baseball bat is designed to hit balls,but it is the most used item to kill in America way above guns.

The previous post from Sparks is interesting, The Swiss have a tradition of Militia, those that keep weapons are therefore trained and aware of the due respect they should be afforded. Im sure there are more sociological reasons but thats for another day.

It is,but then again you can in certain cantons go and buy and own a full auto machine gun on your permit or nationality ID..Somthing that has been impossible in the US since 1932 without massive Federal backround checks and much expense.

More importantly I think it should be as difficult as possible for events like the ones that occur in the US to happen in our country.

I think that is the VERY least of your, or our worries..250k worth of firearms and four million people compared to 350 million plus Americans with 300 million known firearms and a right to keep and bear arms as a constitutional right compared to a privlidge........Its not a very good comparision .:)

Sparks

Dalken wrote: »

The car comparison is daft, Im sorry it just is non runner for me. Cars are fundamental tool of modern society

What they're intended for is, to my way of thinking, utterly and completely irrelevant when compared to how many people it's killing. The reason I mentioned the swiss is that they did the same calculus and say the numbers very, very clearly - motor vehicles kill more people than guns.

That isn't some theoretical concept - that is a plain and simple fact of life in Ireland and Switzerland and most other nations. And if something is killing a lot of your people, you try to fix it. This nonsense that we can accept large numbers of deaths because an object isn't designed to cause them is both nonsense and callous to boot, and why people think that cars ought to get a free pass because they mean you don't have to walk to the shops like your parents did when they were your age, I don't know. It's not like they're a social necessity. We have trains, trams and buses, we could ban the private car in a month's time (and spend that month buying in new buses and improving timetables) and we'd cope. Leave lorries to do deliveries (but demand things like proximity sensors as they've been shown in London to prevent that whole front-left-tyre-kills-95%-of-cyclists thing) with professional drivers, and get the amateurs off the roads, and you'd save hundreds of lives a year.

Ban guns in Ireland and you'd save, well, maybe one life every few years from accidental deaths, but that's about it really.

Yet call for the former and you get no support, but TDs trip over themselves to do the latter anytime anyone looks at the idea while holding an RTE microphone.

It's not a very rational approach to running a society....

Savage93

LB6 wrote: »

Tonight - Armed and Dangerous - 9pm TV3

http://entertainment.ie/TV_Listing/1...013/84/TV3.htm

complete and utter load of ****e!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dalken

Can anyone acknowledge here that I am being reasonable?

Why is it when someone calls for(and Im not saying I am) strict gun controls it gets so many hackles up amongst gun owners?

I personally have never had any problem as a shooter with the firearms legislation in Ireland, I do think the fees are a bit high, but I've no problem with the content of the forms.

Grizzly 45

Dalken wrote: »

Can anyone acknowledge here that I am being reasonable?

Why is it when someone calls for(and Im not saying I am) strict gun controls it gets so many hackles up amongst gun owners?

I personally have never had any problem as a shooter with the firearms legislation in Ireland, I do think the fees are a bit high, but I've no problem with the content of the forms.

You are being reasonable ,up to a point.
As it stands we have plenty of law regarding firearms ownership here,some good ,some downright ridicilious if not discriminitory.
What gets I think everyones collective goat is when some looper who didnt take his medication and tried to get help and was refused or ignored goes off with his UZI for a Mc Donalds. Gun owners get blamed worldwide and then some smart ass tries to make capital by comparing Ireland to the USA,or any other country for that matter. Dermott Aherne stated that he didnt want a "US style gun culture in Ireland":rolleyes: comparing a mouse to a blue whale springs to mind.Off baaa the sheep then about more stricter liscensing,to the point now that we have some of them ore stupid gun laws around.We have even banned a international sport because of the uniformed and fearful thinking it was "Combat training" and admittedly some stupidity on the sports own side didnt help matters..But it was nothing that couldnt have been regulated.

So where does reasonable stop??I have a problem with providing photographs for these forms and I have no idea where they go or who uses them for what purpose.How stricter do you want to go??Do you want it like Norway or Germany that you have to be cleared by a head shrinker that you are sane,who may or may not be neutral on the subject of gun ownership??It really worked well with Brevick in Norway and with that little bollix in Germany in Weneden.
The simple fact is I think gunowners western world wide are getting fed up with being made a collective scapegoat and being collectively punished for the sins of the very few in their ranks.

extremetaz

Dalken wrote: »

Can anyone acknowledge here that I am being reasonable?

Why is it when someone calls for(and Im not saying I am) strict gun controls it gets so many hackles up amongst gun owners?

I personally have never had any problem as a shooter with the firearms legislation in Ireland, I do think the fees are a bit high, but I've no problem with the content of the forms.

There's very little that's actually reasonable in Irish firearms law.

Security requirements - sure, fair enough
Handling course - absolutely
Justification for ownership - no problem with that
Vetting of applicant - perfectly sensible

No CF pistols - insulting! - amounts to blaming law abiding shooters for the actions of thieves and drug dealers who can get them without any hassle anyway.

Licensing the firearm and not the owner - nonesense - you're either safe and equipped to own firearms or you're not. Registration, certainly. Individual firearm licencing is nothing but a joke.

Pistol grips on rifles/shotguns - come off it would you!

Moderators requiring a seperate application/justification - rediculous.

Scopes incorperating Rangefinder and NV technology requiring seperate application/justification - unnecessary given vetting processes.

Superintendents discretion on any of the above - farcical.

Superintendents discretion wrt security requirements - farcical.

Automatic classification of bullpup as restricted - nonesense.

...to that point... the whole notion of the "restricted" classification in the first place (refer to licencing the individual rather than the firearm).



....so at this point I'm curious - how is it exactly that you find all of the above to be reasonable and in the interest of public safety when it is the *intent* of criminal elements in society (who don't pay any heed to ANY of the above) that is the primary factor leading to public endangerment?

This, as opposed to the actions of legitimate, licenced, owners who simply want the firearm(s) of their choosing, in the caliber and "wrapper" that they prefer, for use in their safe and legal chosen hobby?

Excepting the four initial points which I quoted, there is near nothing which could be described as reasonable in Irish firearms law.

mister gullible

Dalken wrote: »

It's a TV3 "documentary" I don't envisage that many will be talking about it around the watercooler tomorrow.

Exactly right.

Dalken wrote: »

I however am glad, evan as a long time gun owner, that we have the types of controls here around firearms. The reason we have very responsible gun owners(mostly) is because we have responsible gun controls, most people take owning a gun seriously unlike in other countries where it is akin to owning a hurley. Lets just try and keep it that way and stop pretending that we're victims because the tools of our sport happen to be dangerous - they are thats just a fact of life we have to live with.

Right again, issue of gun licences is much more liberal particularly for deer calibres than it was say 25 years ago. Licencing rimfires or shotgun does not seem to be a problem for young enthusiasts let alone older shooters.

bravestar

I watched 5 minutes of this crap then turned it off. Documentary my ass, the smurfs was more realistic.

Dalken

extremetaz wrote: »

There's very little that's actually reasonable in Irish firearms law.

There is so long as you don't feel the need to be tooled up like a ranger...
(Thats a joke by the way)

Well Dermot Ahearne said he didnt want an American style gun culture and he's made right sure we won't have one.

I guess it's just a reflection of the wishes of the greater population, they want as few high power weapons(this is gonna bite me) in the country as is possible so the legislation just sets out to make Ireland a particularly 'cold house' for those who wish to acquire them by legal means.

I going to keep playing devils advocate with this one cos I think it's an interest debate at the moment...

BattleCorp

extremetaz wrote: »

There's very little that's actually reasonable in Irish firearms law.

Security requirements - sure, fair enough
Handling course - absolutely
Justification for ownership - no problem with that
Vetting of applicant - perfectly sensible

No CF pistols - insulting! - amounts to blaming law abiding shooters for the actions of thieves and drug dealers who can get them without any hassle anyway.

Licensing the firearm and not the owner - nonesense - you're either safe and equipped to own firearms or you're not. Registration, certainly. Individual firearm licencing is nothing but a joke.

Pistol grips on rifles/shotguns - come off it would you!

Moderators requiring a seperate application/justification - rediculous.

Scopes incorperating Rangefinder and NV technology requiring seperate application/justification - unnecessary given vetting processes.

Superintendents discretion on any of the above - farcical.

Superintendents discretion wrt security requirements - farcical.

Automatic classification of bullpup as restricted - nonesense.

...to that point... the whole notion of the "restricted" classification in the first place (refer to licencing the individual rather than the firearm).



....so at this point I'm curious - how is it exactly that you find all of the above to be reasonable and in the interest of public safety when it is the *intent* of criminal elements in society (who don't pay any heed to ANY of the above) that is the primary factor leading to public endangerment?

This, as opposed to the actions of legitimate, licenced, owners who simply want the firearm(s) of their choosing, in the caliber and "wrapper" that they prefer, for use in their safe and legal chosen hobby?

Excepting the four initial points which I quoted, there is near nothing which could be described as reasonable in Irish firearms law.

Don't forget the 5 round rule for an unrestricted pistol. Especially dumb since most of the smallbore pistol competitions have shooting strings of 6(multi target and T&P) . Especially since nearly all revolvers in the world are made to take 6. If a rifle is considered safe with 10 rounds in the mag, why isn't a pistol considered the same?

And also making target shooting illegal outside of a range but not actually saying what target shooting is. Technically it's illegal to set your sight outside of a licenced range. That's one law that if it was being followed 100%, would actually made it more dangerous to shoot.

meathstevie

BattleCorp wrote: »

Don't forget the 5 round rule for an unrestricted pistol. Especially dumb since most of the smallbore pistol competitions have shooting strings of 6(multi target and T&P) . Especially since nearly all revolvers in the world are made to take 6. If a rifle is considered safe with 10 rounds in the mag, why isn't a pistol considered the same?

And also making target shooting illegal outside of a range but not actually saying what target shooting is. Technically it's illegal to set your sight outside of a licenced range. That's one law that if it was being followed 100%, would actually made it more dangerous to shoot.

The range and target shooting versus zeroing is especially daft. When I'm hypothetically shooting five or six rounds from my .308 in the bog at a piece of cardboard 100m away with about 2 million ton of wet turf as a backstop I'm not target shooting. I'm calibrating an optical aiming device with the functionality of my rifle by means of firing a number of shots at a static object in order to verify and adjust accuracy.

Up to the courts to determine if that's correct or not and only because nobody has seen fit of introducing a definition of target shooting in the legislation.

juice1304

Dalken wrote: »

I guess it's just a reflection of the wishes of the greater population,

Only because they are told to think that, When have you ever read anything positive about shooting. Alot of people don't like to have an opinion for themselves they like to read the local rag and regurgitate the drivel they have read, Instead of looking at it from both prospectives. Just like the lawmakers like to make laws based around james bond fantasy instead of reality.

Dalken

juice1304 wrote: »

Only because they are told to think that, When have you ever read anything positive about shooting. Alot of people don't like to have an opinion for themselves they like to read the local rag and regurgitate the drivel they have read, Instead of looking at it from both prospectives. Just like the lawmakers like to make laws based around james bond fantasy instead of reality.

To be fair I dont think that shooting (and I am referring to game and deer shooting here) has got a hard time in the media in Ireland of late. I have read a number of features on shooting in national newspapers over the past few years which definitley highlighted the positive aspects of the sport.
I also read one piece in the Times over Christmas which was critical of game shooting, which is fair enough people are entitled to different view points.

I take exception to the fact that you assume just because people dont agree with your sport that they are ignorant and being manipulated. 27 people shot dead in a school is not fantasy, nothing that horrific was ever written into a James Bond movie.

It seems that if your preferred form of shooting is target, particularly where the use of certain firearms is required then you are at a distinct disadvantage given the regulations that exist. Which is unfair. Where as if you are a game or clays man(or woman) then you can easily access the tools you require provided you show good reason and are deemed to be of good character which is fair enough.

Sparks

Dalken wrote: »

To be fair I dont think that shooting (and I am referring to game and deer shooting here) has got a hard time in the media in Ireland of late.

I'd have to say you were incorrect, just going on my own personal experiences in the past week or three; but more than that, it's pretty irrelevant how we've been treated in the past month when we're operating under laws that basicly came in after a few months of thrashing in the press some years ago. The press might have gone - the laws haven't.

I have read a number of features on shooting in national newspapers over the past few years which definitley highlighted the positive aspects of the sport.

Almost always because we pushed for them. We basicly don't get any positive coverage that we don't chase after; but we'll get negative coverage without even trying - and most of the time, even if we do try...

I also read one piece in the Times over Christmas which was critical of game shooting, which is fair enough people are entitled to different view points.

Fair? There was a countering viewpoint given equal space and coverage, you mean?
"Fair" means something slightly different when talking about media outlets like RTE and the press...

I take exception to the fact that you assume just because people dont agree with your sport that they are ignorant and being manipulated. 27 people shot dead in a school is not fantasy, nothing that horrific was ever written into a James Bond movie.

I take exception to you thinking we don't love our kids.
Or do you think shooters saw Sandy Hook and the small body bags and didn't blink, didn't hug their kids?
Sod that noise.

What we don't like is everyone then turning on us, who are signed off on personally by the Gardai as not being a risk to the public safety or the peace (and that's the phrase from the firearms act, this isn't opinion, it's actual law) which is not something many others can say -- and saying we're the problem. And yes, that has happened. I know it's happened to me personally after Sandy Hook, from other Irish people, and after several other such atrocities. And more generally, we've been defamed by TDs, Senators, media people and the general public (and the lovely animal rights folks on a regular basis - go look a the thread in Hunting at the top of the forum).

There's a clause in the Defamation Act that says that if the group is so large no individual could be identifed from the identification of the group, that it's not actionable. And that's just about the only reason that most of this defamation isn't dragged in front of a court, even if only once, just to make the point that dammit, We. Are. Not. The. Problem.

Grizzly 45

Dalken wrote: »

Well Dermot Ahearne said he didnt want an American style gun culture and he's made right sure we won't have one.

Not that a slight bit of realism in comparisons between like and like ever hurt anyone either!:rolleyes::rolleyes:

I guess it's just a reflection of the wishes of the greater population, they want as few high power weapons(this is gonna bite me) in the country as is possible so the legislation just sets out to make Ireland a particularly 'cold house' for those who wish to acquire them by legal means.

Rubbish!!! Most people cant even differiante between a assault rifle and a semi automatic shotgun.Or know that a sniper rifle[read a deer rifle with a decent scope] cannot shoot five miles as assured by one Govt firearms expert in a cout of law in Limerick about three years ago. They just Baaa what opinions on "Weapons" the press and media tells them to have. Or what they know from Tour of Duty or Vice City, " Mutha fka killah in da Hood " game.

Just look at The Sun[who else!:rolleyes:] a couple of weeks ago they were trying to scare the uninformed that the "Sandy Hook weapons " were on sale in the UK.Full cal semi auto rifles havent been available since 1988 post Hungerford,of which the Murdochian press inc The Sun were cheerleading .
In fact what they had pics of were .22lr Ruger and AR lookalikes made by GSG. Of course the usual suspects started like GCN about the "need" to ban these,etc,etc. In short;most out there are fed an opinion on guns and that is formed by the media and Hollywood.Bad enough if people think that's reality,worse if they start making political policy with it.

I going to keep playing devils advocate with this one cos I think it's an interest debate at the moment...

Just remember what the fate was of that Scottish lawyer after the trial of Humanity Vs Lucifer
:D:D:D:D:D

Dalken

My comment on Sandyhook was referring to Juice1304's claim that public opinion was based on 'fantasy'. I am in no way trying to imply that anyone wasnt upset by those events.

I think it's established that the opinion of the general public is staunchly anti gun for one reason or another, and that rag media will try and sensationalise or shock the public which only makes things worse and that politicians will jump on the band wagon and do what they do.

If I can take this thread further then I'd like to ask people what regulations they would see as fair and workable in Ireland?? Ive stated that I am a shooter, I have shotguns, I had a center fire rifle until 6 years ago when I sold it, I do believe in regulation but I've put my hands up and say that the strict and sometimes daft regulations that Ive read about here dont neccessarily apply to me.
So what would be a sensible level of regulation?

bravestar

Dalken wrote: »

My comment on Sandyhook was referring to Juice1304's claim that public opinion was based on 'fantasy'. I am in no way trying to imply that anyone wasnt upset by those events.

I think it's established that the opinion of the general public is staunchly anti gun for one reason or another, and that rag media will try and sensationalise or shock the public which only makes things worse and that politicians will jump on the band wagon and do what they do.

If I can take this thread further then I'd like to ask people what regulations they would see as fair and workable in Ireland?? Ive stated that I am a shooter, I have shotguns, I had a center fire rifle until 6 years ago when I sold it, I do believe in regulation but I've put my hands up and say that the strict and sometimes daft regulations that Ive read about here dont neccessarily apply to me.
So what would be a sensible level of regulation?

Picture on licence.

Licence person not firearm.

Centralised licencing department not part of AGS. AGS only function to conduct background check, suitability of character.

Amendment to allow zeroing of firearm on private land.

Bring back center fire pistol.

Removal of 5 round limit for rimfire pistol.

Those are the main ones I would like to see off the top of my head.

juice1304

I said the laws are based on fantasy and the public opinion is skewed by bias stories in the media.
It's terrible what happened there but it could'nt have been prevented you are'nt allowed within 1000ft of a school with a firearm and the theater where the other shooting took place happened in the only theater in the town that did'nt allow ccw's out of a possible eight.They knew they had atleast 10mins before anyone with a firearm would show up.
America is a mute point anyway they have a population of more than 345 million people and cities with twice the population of this entire country, they have the right to defend themselves, they have the right to bear arms and there are hundreds of millions of firearms there. We live on a tiny island with a tiny population where this kind of thing has'nt happened. And we don't have any of those rights.Why would we base our law on another society's problems?
Maybe if they stopped policing the world spending hundreds of millions/billions of dollars on war and killing people most of which are innocent civilians with their drone attacks, Some of which are disgusting and disturbing shooting families at funerals, shooting people helping the injured etc.. If they spent that money on education and their health care system they would'nt have any problems. Anyway the fatcats would'nt make their money first destroying the country to rebuild it again after they have robbed all their oil/lithium or whatever they are after at them time.

I think there should be a separate licenceing body that deals with licences once the gardai vet you. I also would'nt mind if there was a simple test with regards firearms saftey and basic ballistics there are alot of idiots with centerfire rifles that i have met who are reckless and ignorant,
If you need to do a test for a car licence then why not a firearm.
There are quite a few places's that'll just give you a safety cert to satisfy the gardai and others that take money off you and tell you not to point it at yourself or others and sure your grand. I think that is wrong. There should be proper courses run and not by some plank looking to make a load of money charging trough the roof. I would also like to be able to reload. And have a firearm that looks whatever way i want it to.
And if they want you to own a .22 pistol for a year before being granted a centerfire i thank that would be ok too. I think sports should be looked upon as sports and not some make believe rubbish that criminals are training for combat. I also don't like being looked upon as some kind of threat or danger and lumped in with loonies and criminals whenever the gardai or politition fells fit. It dose'nt really matter anyway we can all argue about what is right and fair but it's not going to change anything, The system stinks as it is and is unfair and unconstitutional. Unless you have a bottomless bucket of cash it won't change. I also think it is stupid that i can drive an hour north from my house and do all these things legally in northern ireland.
I think if they can roll out these new drivers licences on the plastic cards with chips in them they should be able to do the same for us. There is roughly what 250,000 firearms licence and eighty euro paid for each one that is alot of money. I don't like having a licence with no picture and my address with what i have and how much ammunition i can keep it is so stupid it is unreal. Just give us one card that says firearms licence on it, your name and a picture and with different categories on it which they can tick the box for and have all your details on a computer system with a reference number and have the reference number on the card so if someone dose rob it or copies the info all they get is a number and not your address etc... They could setup a databse/webiste that dealers could access and once you or ok for a category they could add or amend, sub guns for you. So you could walk into johnjoes shop you want to trade in one rife and get another one he sees you are ok to have rifles on the system, so he gets on his computer and enters that he has taken your old rifle and then enters the details of the new rifle job done and you walk out happy or he adds the new rifle based on how many you can have due to the type of shooting you do and your security. You are either safe to have a firearm or your not. I also think if you are fit to have in your possession, use and carry a firearm you can manage to have a pocket knife/ multitool without the possibility of someone making trouble for you. It could all be made very easy and safe, It would free up gardai so they can get on with what they are ment to do.

Grizzly 45

Make liscense a five year affair rather than a three year.
Re design it so that if a picture is included it should be ONE pic only not multiple pics for each and every renewal and reapplication,as in its current form with a picture it could be mistaken as offical Garda identification.
In fact this whole thing could be reduced to a anymonous smart card.
Obviously liscense man not the gun.

Remove the ridicilious ban on IPSC shooting.. It is a sport ,not combat training.
Remove or at least modify the current pistol ban,that at least even in the community ,you could trade like for like. IE have a Glock9mm and want a SIG9mm,find somone who has a SIG and wants to trade a for a Glock,simple substitution liscense.

Remove stupid restrictions on awkward and uncomfortable folding,telescoping and detachable stocks,or other silly "military features".They are cosmetic features that most people ,once they have got over the "tacticool bug" :pfind them not very comfortable to shoot on a regular basis.Nor do they really work well with our lengthy minimum barrel laws. I'd defy anyone to hide a 28in pump shotgun with a folding stock under their coat and not be very conspicious.:p

Make it law that Supers and CS unless there is serious doubts on a chacters safty,or they have been involved in serious crime,including driving under the influence,comsumed illegal drugs,even have comitted fraud or tax evasion or are a serious danger to the public have to issue a renewal within 30 days.90 days is an outrageous waste of time and taxpayers expense.
As it stands the first crops of the 3 year renewals are coming in and already there are rumblings of people having to do the DC dance again.:mad:
If this is the case the policy seems to be from DOJ/AGS to try and bleed you dry every 3 years and treat the firearms laws like the pub liscensing laws.:mad:

As said,remove AGS in its entirity from the liscensing procedure bar backround and criminal checks. the whole system is inefficent,costly and using up now valueable police resources,not to mind wholly untransparent.

Remove the restricted/unrestricted classes,and this especially dangerous class.A gun is a gun is a gun wether you are shot by a single shot .22 target pistol or a semi auto rifle with a 90 round drum is irrevelant.
Features or mag capacity makes the gun no more or no less dangerous.

Get on with simplifying the reloading laws and legislation.
As it stands and I have this from the DOJ,it is NOT illegal here to reload ammo in the ROI. HOWEVER the logistics of importing powder and primers,not to mind their storage for retail here and the total unfammilarity and procedure of importing,transport and storage of all concerned with the legislation is the biggest stumbling block.The laws are set up to deal with storing massive amounts of dynamite,explosive chemicals,fireworks ,black powder etc.And if applied to Joe reloader would be ridicilous.

Removing "special good reason" for silencers, nite vision scopes etc.
Had a chat once with one of the authors of the offensive weapons act about this,and even he agrees now that it was over the top and badly thought out legislation and was a catch all bin dealing with street weapons not items that have a ligimate use,.Again Hollywood got in the way of common sense.:mad:

Merch

Sparks wrote: »

I have to stop watching the programmes you lot recommend, it'll give me an ulcer.
I wonder what that "criminologist" (is that to "legal expert" what "toothiologist" is to "dentist"?) would say if we passed on a link to the big red sticky at the top of this forum to him, or any of the guides on what you have to do to get a licence?

I believe thats what tooth fairy is to dentist