Parlimentary Questions - Pistols & license reviews.

tac foley

badaj0z wrote: »

We can think ourselves lucky that gun ownership and hunting in Ireland are considered to be more available to the general public than they are in the UK.

I wrote before that I wasn't going to make any comments on Irish shooting, so I won't. What I WILL do in the face of this accusation which, to me, is deeply erroneous and ill-informed, is to point out a few salient FACTS about gun ownership and 'hunting/stalking' in UK.

Of the three hundred+ members of the little gun club to which I belong - not a loosely connected group of people who meet up every now and then to go shooting without permission on somebody's land, but a four-day per week and three evenings per week honest to goodness club, part of the UK NRA, NSRA and Sporting UK foundation, almost half are also qualified BDS/BASC-trained deer stalkers for the fun of it, and many others are professional gamekeepers and game wardens.

We have just the one gun license, that covers ALL the guns you have in one document. I have eighteen - fifteen rifles ranging from .58cal, 2x.308, 2x 7.5, 6.5 and 2 x7mm, and seven .22s. I also have two black powder .44cal revolvers, and a .357Mag Long-barrelled revolver, and I'm considered fairly average in my club where many, in the HBSA for instance, have anything from 20 to 50 rifles, nitro and black powder. Anybody who takes the trouble to look at YouTube - tac's guns - will see a pretty average cross-section of the sorts of firearms that we are allowed to have. I'm not saying it's all rosey here, but we do not have 'restricted' calibre firearms of any kind, except where the limitations of the range construction imposes a limit - we can't shoot .50cal BMG on our range, for instance, nor any cartridge above 10,000 ft lbs m/e. However, that DOES include stuff like a .600NE double rifle. We can also shoot ANY black powder firearm - handgun or musket or rifle - up to and including .75cal, too.

Our club also has a practical shotgun section, where eight-shot pump or semi-auto shotguns are used in dynamic shooting at stationary targets.

In addition, we also have ordinary turning targets for .22, gallery rifle/carbine and long-barrelled pistol shooting.

Figures differ, depending on who you listen to, but the generally agreed figure of 6 million legally-held shotguns, and over one and a half millon legally-owned firearms of all kinds give the lie to the accusation that the UK's fastest growing and safest individual sport is more restricted in UK than it is in the RoI. Add to that the literally hundreds of air rifle and air pistol-shooting clubs - again, properly founded, funded and organised shooting clubs authorised by the NSRA/Sporting UK - not one of whom has, or needs, a license to own their target air rifle or pistol. Our children learn to shoot, too, not only air weapons [as they are called here without fear of upsetting anybody], but regular firearms, some as young as seven or eight, as family members. The young shotgunners in the UK, some as young as 11 or 12, are often international competitors at the highest levels by the time that they are in their mid-teens - with their own guns.

Anybody in the UK who has not been convicted and served a jail sentence of more than six months can apply for a shotgun license - one license covers one or a thousand shotguns. It is up to the police to give good reason why you should be refused such a license. The same goes for your fireams certificate - with most applicants asking for four or five guns of one kind or another on their first application. Just remember the wording on the document -

'Upon application, the Chief Constable [of the county in which the applicant resides] SHALL grant permission to the applicant to acquire and possess the firearms herein listed [and suitable ammunition]........unless he/she can provide good reason why this should not be the case.'

I assist in the processing of forty or fifty such applications a year, to at least three county police authorities [due to the map-sheet join location of our club] and I've NEVER seen an application turned down.

As I noted, it's not all rosey. On mainland UK most of us can't have cartridge-firing handguns of the modern kind - but then, it seems, nor can you. But I CAN have ANY calibre long-barrelled revolver or pistol up to and including .45-70 Govt. As yet there is no long-barrelled version of the Smith & Wesson .500, but you can bet you life that as soon as there is, we'll be buying them. The .454 Casull is already there, but it's costy. We can't have semi-auto centrefire rifles or carbines, but then, it seems, most of you can't either. In mitigation we CAN have any kind of military 'lookalike' that we fancy, albeit in straight-pull form for centerfires, but semi-auto .22 without any hassle. Our long-barrelled pistol .22 semi-autos have unlimited size magazines, too.

If I join a gunclub with a suitable range facility, I can spend a fortune buying and shooting ANY manually-operated .50cal long-range rifle - the UK is second only to the USA for the numbers in the .50cal Shooters Association and, of course, as with every other calibre ever to get fired out of a gun, with the exception of .22 rimfire, we can ALL make our own ammunition in the comfort of our own home.

Thank you for reading this.

tac

PS - Just a reminder of what young people can get up to in UK, if they have a mind to do it -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/shooting/24102032

Grizzly 45

badaj0z wrote: »

S
Amongst the ways to progress this, to the benefit of shooters, are to influence public opinion in our favor or to influence the politicians and administrative bodies in our favor. The latter supports Sparks argument about the FCP. The former cries out for the demagogues like Grizzly to stand for the Dail.[/QUOTE
]
Did you not notice the triple juxtaposition of your statements??;)

On one side you are saying politicans think they gain more votes by being "tough on gun laws" while the criminals run rampant shooting each other on our streets, proving that "tough new gunlaws" to use a media hack phrase are about as effective as draining the Shannon with a leaky bucket.

But we should appeal to their reason and favour that this isnt the way to go...

Then you suggest I try a career as a demagouge politican trying to convince the great unwashed of the polar opposite???

As for standing for the Dail...Y'know, I have actually looked at this,but TBH I think I'd have more chance of convincing my cheif super to liscense me for a full auto MAC10,a Barrett 50 cal and a " happy switch" for my Glock.:p
There is the cry out there "who will we vote for apart from the usual three political parties?" Ever wonder why??The political system in Ireland is a rigged closed shop that would make Tamney hall look honest and open.

Just hanging around a political party is an education in itself,and its no wonder civics is never taught in our schools as any ten year old would recognise the GYP that is foisted on the Irish people once every five years.

So for those who think it is a great ripose to say if you don't like the system change it and run for elections...you seriously need to see and learn how your local and national govt works,or doesn't TBVH.

rowa

[/QUOTE]

On one side you are saying politicans think they gain more votes by being "tough on gun laws" while the criminals run rampant shooting each other on our
There is the cry out there "who will we vote for apart from the usual three political parties?" Ever wonder why??The political system in Ireland is a rigged closed shop that would make Tamney hall look honest and open.

[/QUOTE]

Which is why i will not be arsed going out to vote again, its just a swap of one band of scummers for another band with a slightly different name. ethics and principles aren't on their radar. As for being tough on gun laws, i don't honestly think the public give a hoot one way or the other and won't unless there is a irish dunblane or hungerford, god forbid.

BattleCorp

As for being tough on gun laws, i don't honestly think the public give a hoot one way or the other and won't unless there is a irish dunblane or hungerford, god forbid.

You'd lead the Irish public with a silk thread. They'd believe anything that they are spun and that leaves the shooting community in a very vulnerable position.

If your average non-shooter (most of the general public) sees a headline in a newspaper saying that some drug dealer scumbag killed another drug dealer scumbag with a pistol, they'll easily go with the idea of banning pistols in the mistaken belief that banning all pistols will stop this kind of crime from happening.

If new legislation is in the pipeline, is there any chance it is being done to straighten out the mess that is the current situation (can't zero unless on a range, "Idon'tlikethelookofthat" etc.) and that we won't lose any firearms in the process?

Or is that wishful thinking on my part?

homerhop

Or is that wishful thinking on my part?




I think you hit the nail on the head.

After shatters attitude that the state had nothing to answer for when those who are supposed to be upholding the law altered paper work between the cases going from the circuit court to the high court . Just shows what he thinks of the shooting community,

Sparks

homerhop wrote: »

After shatters attitude that the state had nothing to answer for when those who are supposed to be upholding the law altered paper work between the cases going from the circuit court to the high court . Just shows what he thinks of the shooting community,

Again, we accepted a deal (well, I'm pretty heavily abusing the word "we" here a bit) that said that no wrongdoing had taken place.
If you want to be asking pointed questions about why what happened was not thought to be wrong, I think it'd only be fair for you to save a few for the other side of that court case.

homerhop

Sparks wrote: »

Again, we accepted a deal (well, I'm pretty heavily abusing the word "we" here a bit) that said that no wrongdoing had taken place.
If you want to be asking pointed questions about why what happened was not thought to be wrong, I think it'd only be fair for you to save a few for the other side of that court case.

Not asking any questions Sparks it's just my personal feelings in the man.

yubabill1

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

If shooters paid generous donation (min 1,500) to gov't Tweedle Gael or Tweedle Fail every year and asked nothing in return, as other lobbies apparently do then all we need is a good speaker to create gov't policy on the airwaves.

Not being cynical. Practical.

Sparks

yubabill1 wrote: »

Practical.

Has a better chance of working than most of the ideas I've heard over the last decade or so.

wexfordman2

Sparks wrote: »

Has a better chance of working than most of the ideas I've heard over the last decade or so.

That's my gun club fees rising so :-)

Grizzly 45

homerhop wrote: »

Or is that wishful thinking on my part?




I think you hit the nail on the head.

After shatters attitude that the state had nothing to answer for when those who are supposed to be upholding the law altered paper work between the cases going from the circuit court to the high court . Just shows what he thinks of the shooting community,

He was pretty quick to cut a deal when the states case went to the wire.
The fact that a "deal " was cut and no one was embarrassed in the State ,means that he and they can say no one was to blame and it is busisness as normal,and the state has no case to answer..

Sparks

I don't think that the deal was all one-way Grizz. 180-odd cases. You're really able to guarantee we'd have won them all, when our record in the supreme court and high court isn't 100%? (In the SC it's only at 50%...)

So we win 180 cases. The five or six left over? Well, one was all it took to overturn three years of precedent set in district court cases that said you had to consider the applicant instead of the firearm. And that was one loss. What damage would five or six have done?

The whole idea of using those cases as a political football was stupid from start to ignominious finish. It sucked in manhours, money, any and all goodwill we'd built up and destroyed the FCP, and what did it get in return? A deal everyone thinks let the Gardai who were altering forms off some hook we could have had them on (yeah, that was going to happen), and everyone got to reapply for their licences - which was something they had before going into all of this and which couldn't have been taken off them.

But hey, 0.1% of us got to wave our fist at the man, didn't we! Hooray! Who cares if three years from now we're back to .22lrs and air rifles like in 1973 but also now have enormous new piles of crap on our shoulders from the legal changes in '06 and '09. Wouldn't the Ministers be having the last laugh at that point?

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

I don't think that the deal was all one-way Grizz. 180-odd cases. You're really able to guarantee we'd have won them all, when our record in the supreme court and high court isn't 100%? (In the SC it's only at 50%...)

Thats why it was shrunk down to 9 test cases of the 180. Good article in the ISD on it this month ,once you get past the NARGC slant of things.
Thing is we won them all,and all were granted in the Dublin Scs over the last week or so I belive.

So we win 180 cases. The five or six left over? Well, one was all it took to overturn three years of precedent set in district court cases that said you had to consider the applicant instead of the firearm. And that was one loss. What damage would five or six have done?

Actually it seems now that they are considering the gun rather than the applicant these days in the DC.

The whole idea of using those cases as a political football was stupid from start to ignominious finish. It sucked in manhours, money, any and all goodwill we'd built up and destroyed the FCP

,

Sparks,would you ever cry us a river,build a bridge and get over the demise of the FCP..???;) I think we have all got the point by now that the FCP was the greatest loss to us all. You'd swear you were looking for a job with it..:P
It's been and done...what would be more helpful would be some ideas on how to re invorgorate it or start afresh with those who do want to talk and get someplace..:)

and what did it get in return? A deal everyone thinks let the Gardai who were altering forms off some hook we could have had them on (yeah, that was going to happen),

So borderline sedition,tampering with offical documentation and conspircy to pervert the law of the land and over exceeding their authorithy arent very serious crimes??? Suppose not if you are talking about Ireland,where banksters and crooked politicans roam the streets at will. Yeah...you are proably right.:rolleyes:



!

Who cares if three years from now we're back to .22lrs and air rifles like in 1973

As you said yourself many times, there is nothing we can do about it anyway ,as the minister can ban all and any types,so the point being???

Sikamick

yubabill1 wrote: »

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

If shooters paid generous donation (min 1,500) to gov't Tweedle Gael or Tweedle Fail every year and asked nothing in return, as other lobbies apparently do then all we need is a good speaker to create gov't policy on the airwaves.

Not being cynical. Practical.

Leaving aside all of the other what might be deemed to be unfair and undemocratic treatment of Irish Rifle and Pistol Target Shooters, can someone answer this. What other sport of all of the various sports including Game and Clay Pigeon Shooting here in Ireland has to pay 1000 Euro to form a club.

The answer is none, only Pistol and Rifle Target Shooting Clubs have to pay this money to the PTB just to form a club.

I would like to know who agreed to this and how can this charge be democratically fair or just.

This question is one of the white elephants in the room that I never can get an answer to, oh I forgot that this is Ireland and you should never question authority.

The Coat of Arms is completed by the Dublin city’s motto in Latin which reads: “Obedientia Civium Urbis Felicitas” which can be translated as “Happy the city where citizens obey”

Dian Cecht

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

I dont care about being a hero.I care about shooting the firearms I like and have paid enough for to own and keep.

Contradicts this so

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Sometimes you just have to swim against the stream ...To keep what you have and that others keep theirs too in the long run.

And you ask me who made me the shooting spokesperson .........................I posted opinions I have heard many times from other shooters.....................

Then you stoop to this :rolleyes:

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Where,what and when??? Easy to say on the net...:rolleyes:

So now I'm a liar.....................:rolleyes:

Dian Cecht

badaj0z wrote: »

Sparks is right. The NRPAI sought legal advice after the 1972 one month custody order which took in the pistols and any rifles above .22LR. The advice given was that it was likely that a legal challenge under the existing laws would win, but then the laws would be changed to reestablish the staus quo or some thing worse. So, a while passed, then the challenges were mounted and won. Then the laws changed again , becoming more restrictive, were challenged and more challenges were won and here we are now. So the law may change again. Laws change to reflect the sitting government's view on public opinion. If they think that more votes can be obtained by appearing to be harder on gun ownership, then that is what will happen. We can think ourselves lucky that gun ownership and hunting in Ireland are considered to be more available to the general public than they are in the UK. All of the bluster and hard ass attitude about "taking them on" will only win a short term victory.
Amongst the ways to progress this, to the benefit of shooters, are to influence public opinion in our favor or to influence the politicians and administrative bodies in our favor. The latter supports Sparks argument about the FCP. The former cries out for the demagogues like Grizzly to stand for the Dail.

Best post in this thread and I reckon no more needs to be "said" (**suggestion only** )

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Thats why it was shrunk down to 9 test cases of the 180.

No, it's not. The test cases were the first to be taken - you're a fool if you think the other 180-odd wouldn't have been taken until a precendent that didn't favour the plaintiff was achieved.

Good article in the ISD

Not so much.

Thing is we won them all

No, you won none of them. They were settled out of court. That's not a win; there's no precendent set (which in this case was us escaping by the skin of our teeth if we're honest with ourselves for ten seconds).

Actually it seems now that they are considering the gun rather than the applicant these days in the DC.

That's the whole fecking point. Up until we lost that one case in the HC, the precedent was the other way round and the applicant was the thing considered, and if the applicant was judged safe for one firearm, the DC took the view that the Super couldn't say they'd be dangerous with another firearm. All that went out the window with one HC loss on a case that shouldn't have been taken in the first place.
That's what a loss in the HC costs you. Not to mention the manhours, the money and the effort that could have gone into shooting instead of the mortgages of those in the legal profession. And you think flipping that coin 180 times, paying through the nose every time, and hoping for 180 heads was a good idea? Or a sure thing?

what would be more helpful would be some ideas on how to re invorgorate it or start afresh with those who do want to talk and get someplace..:)

Wow, maybe we should have a thread on that. Or two. Or twenty...

So borderline sedition,tampering with offical documentation and conspircy to pervert the law of the land and over exceeding their authorithy arent very serious crimes?

Not according to shooters they're not, because shooters accepted that as a part of the out-of-court settlement. If you have a problem with that Grizz, your issue's not with me, the call was not mine to make.
In the meantime, accusing them of that when there's a deal in place saying it was grand, is a pretty solid set of grounds for them to sue you for defamation.

As you said yourself many times, there is nothing we can do about it anyway ,as the minister can ban all and any types,so the point being???

That's not what I've been saying, but it seems you're not listening anyway so who cares.

Sparks

Sikamick wrote: »

I would like to know who agreed to this and how can this charge be democratically fair or just.

Sure, here are the people who agreed to it. Elected by the the population and empowered to do what they did by the constitution. It was all legal and above board, nobody had to bother trying to be underhanded (why cheat when the game's rules say you must always win?).

If you want to ask about democracy and fairness, you're asking a broken question because the two are not directly related in the same way that not all dogs are poodles. And if you want to talk about the law and fairness, Oliver Wendell Holmes already summed the entire conversation up in one laconic sentence that everyone can understand:

Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote:

This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice.

If you want a long rambling discussion of metaphysics, ethics, civics, heraldry and political theory, on the other hand: (a) I'll need hard liquor; and (b) you'll be in the wrong forum anyway. Go ask over in Legal Discussion -- if nothing else, it'll be an interesting thread.

rowa

So could you please tell me sparks in nice simple non-legalise language, what you would have done if you were refused a renewal for your 3,000 euro centrefire pistol or centrefire semi-auto rifle, like all the other people who went to court ? I organised a meeting with the chief super when my renewal was refused ,as i foolishly thought i could negotiate it with him. He sat at the desk laughing at me and making it quite clear i was wasting his time as well as mine, his behaviour was so appalling his sergeant apologised outside the office.

I agree that jaw jaw is better than war war, but it was as clear as a bell from my own experiences as well as those of other people i talked to we were wasting our breath. Were we supposed to just hand in our pistols and slink off in case we endangered the issf brigade ?

Sparks

Rowa, when did you take the Minister to court?

Grizzly 45

And you ask me who made me the shooting spokesperson .........................I posted opinions I have heard many times from other shooters.....................

Such as whom...??


If you want to call yourself one go ahead! I didnt.I asked WHERE you fought your court cases and WHEN.Pretty simple really..

rowa

Sparks wrote: »

Rowa, when did you take the Minister to court?

I couldn't afford to take anyone to court sparks, as the business i worked closed thanks to the same scum government that banned anymore centrefire pistols. Had i been working i would have taken up willie egans offer in a heartbeat. I wasn't attacking you btw, you say court wasn't the way to go, i simply ask what was the alternative ?

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

I wasn't attacking you btw, you say court wasn't the way to go, i simply ask what was the alternative ?

That wasn't what I was trying to point out rowa - I was pointing out that, to use an analogy, you don't get on a pulpit and decry the Minister and call for new laws when what you want is to contest a speeding ticket, you go to the DC and argue your case there. If you want a speed limit changed, you go and make your case to the council and if you want to change speed limits fundamentally you go to the Minister.

What happened with those 180 cases is the equivalent of people getting speeding tickets wrongly, and instead of arguing them in the DC, they went to the Minister to say he was an asshat because he had speed limits on straight roads, when they should only apply to bends. It was the wrong approach, to the wrong people, made the wrong way, with the wrong end result.

What should have happened is to have resolved it using the FPU, or the DCs in cases where that failed. That's not what was done, it was turned into a political football, bypassing the DCs and going straight to the HC for judicial reviews, which not only gets the back up of the AGS, but also the Minister and the courts for ignoring the route laid down in the Firearms Act.

Grizzly 45

[

QUOTE=Sparks;88039149]No, it's not. The test cases were the first to be taken - you're a fool if you think the other 180-odd wouldn't have been taken until a precendent that didn't favour the plaintiff was achieved.

And your point is???Apart from 180 people going back to the DC and having to reapply or have their decisions reconsiderd as the HC doesnt grant liscenses as it is only the DC as laid down in the law.
And no one has of course noticed the other get out of jail free card there for any CS to use?????

Not so much.

Did You read it???

No, you won none of them. They were settled out of court. That's not a win; there's no precendent set (which in this case was us escaping by the skin of our teeth if we're honest with ourselves for ten seconds).

Sorry you are VERY WRONG!!! These cases were NOT settled last out of court!! They were fought still by the State [yet again] in the DC court in Dublin.

That's the whole fecking point. Up until we lost that one case in the HC, the precedent was the other way round and the applicant was the thing considered, and if the applicant was judged safe for one firearm, the DC took the view that the Super couldn't say they'd be dangerous with another firearm.

And you Honestly belive that???Oh dear...
Weak on evidence,argue the law,weak on law argue the evidence,weak on both attack the witness chacter! Old law school axiom and one I have seen in action on a personal level here.

All that went out the window with one HC loss on a case that shouldn't have been taken in the first place

.

Proably not I agree,but then again if we are talking about the Charlton decision on that particular case[??] It does look like from the plantiffs shoes that he was being discriminated against.Again only an outside opinion on whatever public facts were available to us all.

That's what a loss in the HC costs you. Not to mention the manhours, the money and the effort that could have gone into shooting instead of the mortgages of those in the legal profession. And you think flipping that coin 180 times, paying through the nose every time, and hoping for 180 heads was a good idea? Or a sure thing?

Wow, maybe we should have a thread on that. Or two. Or twenty.

..

Exactly,AND????????? You keep wailing and gnashing your teeth about this but has there been any physical effort been made to advacnce this into the real world or not??

Not according to shooters they're not, because shooters accepted that as a part of the out-of-court settlement. If you have a problem with that Grizz, your issue's not with me, the call was not mine to make.

Please show me the post where I said you Sparks were part of the problem..??

I ,personally wouldnt have accepted that deal,but as I wasnt involved in that situation or was party to the legal counsels deliberations or whatever else I cant comment on the legal ins and outs.But then again,those who would have advocated such,and there were a few I belive,would proably be accused of table thumping, and causing more problems and proably the cause for bad weather as well here...Dammed if you do and dammed if you dont ..

In the meantime, accusing them of that when there's a deal in place saying it was grand, is a pretty solid set of grounds for them to sue you for defamation.

Yeah,yeah...Let them, They can add it all to my file too in the DOJ and AGS HQ...
I'll catch up on it in my next FOIA request to the DOJ and the AGS,who now BTW are under FOIA rules.
[ Form is the Data protectiion access request form F20 for those who want a copy of their records ]

Be an intresting case to see how a group unnamed persons could bring a group action for defamation..Which I belive we have discussed here many times how it is impossible to do so under Irish law...:rolleyes:
Especially on matters discussed in public,online and in the national press.

That's not what I've been saying, but it seems you're not listening anyway so who cares.

I am listening,but beg to have a different opinion on the matter that is not 100% in agreement with yours doesnt mean I'm not listening or reading,better said,your opinions.Which I might add are getting somwhat personal for whatever reason.

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

.

What should have happened is to have resolved it using the FPU, or the DCs in cases where that failed. That's not what was done, it was turned into a political football, bypassing the DCs and going straight to the HC for judicial reviews, which not only gets the back up of the AGS, but also the Minister and the courts for ignoring the route laid down in the Firearms Act.

Sorry....Just explain to me one thing here.
HOW do you bypass the DC to get to the HC in anything here in the Irish legal system???
The HC is the decider for decisions from the lower courts of DC,CC, Central Criminal Court [?]
IOW these people would have to have been refused in the DC ,before they even got to consider a HC action...IF that is the case they were following the law exactly as it is laid out and they had recourse to it like anyone else.

MacsuibhneR

Obviously any change in the proposed legislation is something which any active hunter and target shooter (especially) should be interested in. Despite what some people think we do live in a democracy and our problem is we are involved in a minority sport that the general public and indeed Gardaí and Government think is highly dangerous and therefore needs to be highly regulated.

I may not be a cynical as some on here but do realise that we can all have an input, not only through any representative bodies (and there has been plenty of discussion about those here) but also on a personal level. Look at how they fought the proposed restrictions in the US and they at least give a guide which we can follow in an Irish context.

I for one am going to go to the hassle of going to my local TD's clinic and explain my concerns to them and do the usual Irish thing of asking what they can do for me and other target shooters. Nothing may come of it but if some of the other club members do the same thing then it slowly but surely puts it there in their minds that this is an issue. As stated above until there is some kind of disaster here most people really don't give it that much thought and are glad we do not have a US style system. This seems apparent even from listening to some of the comments on Newstalk's Moncrieff programme yesterday where they talked about the Sandyhook incident and the fact that sales of the type of fire-arm used increased 36% (they didn't appear to know that this was on the back of panic buying in advance of a threatened ban).

It may sound simple but if a local TD thinks that he/she can score the votes of another 10, 20 or 30 families they tend to make an effort, especially as it won't cost them any votes.

There is also nothing stopping any of us joining whatever political party that we feel best serves our interest (selfish I know but that is the way it is) and when you are out campaigning for someone you do get to know them. This gives you a bit more clout when you ask for something.

I know the above is all hassle that most of us could be doing without but that is the way it works in our little democracy. If you are not involved you get nothing and there is no point in hoping someone else will do it for you. It is also a lot less hassle than going to court.

Grizzly 45

MacsuibhneR wrote: »

Obviously any change in the proposed legislation is something which any active hunter and target shooter (especially) should be interested in. Despite what some people think we do live in a democracy and our problem is we are involved in a minority sport that the general public and indeed Gardaí and Government think is highly dangerous and therefore needs to be highly regulated.

I may not be a cynical as some on here but do realise that we can all have an input, not only through any representative bodies (and there has been plenty of discussion about those here) but also on a personal level. Look at how they fought the proposed restrictions in the US and they at least give a guide which we can follow in an Irish context.

I for one am going to go to the hassle of going to my local TD's clinic and explain my concerns to them and do the usual Irish thing of asking what they can do for me and other target shooters. Nothing may come of it but if some of the other club members do the same thing then it slowly but surely puts it there in their minds that this is an issue. As stated above until there is some kind of disaster here most people really don't give it that much thought and are glad we do not have a US style system. This seems apparent even from listening to some of the comments on Newstalk's Moncrieff programme yesterday where they talked about the Sandyhook incident and the fact that sales of the type of fire-arm used increased 36% (they didn't appear to know that this was on the back of panic buying in advance of a threatened ban).

It may sound simple but if a local TD thinks that he/she can score the votes of another 10, 20 or 30 families they tend to make an effort, especially as it won't cost them any votes.

There is also nothing stopping any of us joining whatever political party that we feel best serves our interest (selfish I know but that is the way it is) and when you are out campaigning for someone you do get to know them. This gives you a bit more clout when you ask for something.

I know the above is all hassle that most of us could be doing without but that is the way it works in our little democracy. If you are not involved you get nothing and there is no point in hoping someone else will do it for you. It is also a lot less hassle than going to court.

Not trying to be degenerative or cynical here Mac ,but dont you think this has all been tried before??

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

And your point is?

That treating those cases like a stick to beat a Minister with was a bad idea and shouldn't have been done.

Did You read it?

Yes, it got posted up on the net.

These cases were NOT settled last out of court!

Grizz, if that's true then the statements issued by the NARGC on the matter would have been false.

And you Honestly belive that???Oh dear...

Hard not to believe that when you've seen it stated by High Court Justices in written judgements. DC judges might not accept the argument from the get-go, but DCs are a different kind of courtroom. HC precedents however, still hold weight there.

if we are talking about the Charlton decision on that particular case[??] It does look like from the plantiffs shoes that he was being discriminated against.

We've talked about this case before, you and me Grizz, more than once. What it looks like is that he had a row with the Super about what firearm he could and couldn't have and "my mates have one" was his "good reason", based on the summary of facts that's in the judgement. From the statements of the Super that are recorded in the judgement, the Super held his cool, went to court, and eviscerated the applicant's case. If your case starts off like that, it shouldn't ever end up in front of a judge, because you're going to lose and everyone else pays the price for that as well as you. And taking it to the Supreme Court... there's a point where you should cut your losses and it was long before the SC in this case.

You keep wailing and gnashing your teeth about this but has there been any physical effort been made to advacnce this into the real world or not?

Have I made attempts to get the NARGC ousted out of the loop in favour of the other NGBs? No, they've been doing that themselves. Am I going to go sacrifice another decade working on this when the last decade was pissed away for no good reason? Am I ****.

Be an intresting case to see how a group unnamed persons could bring a group action for defamation

They're not unnamed, they're well known to everyone here and anyone who read the newspapers at the time and are a very small number indeed.

BattleCorp

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Not trying to be degenerative or cynical here Mac ,but dont you think this has all been tried before??

I'm going to wear the ear off my local politician and tell him of my concerns...........and of how many votes there are in my extended family. The club I'm in has approximately 300 members. That's 300 extended families. That gets a TD's attention.

Yes, it might have been done before but what's the harm in doing it again.

It might be no harm for some of the clubs to get their local politicians down for a look. Show the sport in a good light.

Show the TD's that we aren't a pack of Rambos engaging in warfare.

And to be fair, how do the TD's know what we do unless we show them.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Not trying to be degenerative or cynical here Mac ,but dont you think this has all been tried before??

Actually, it was and it's the only thing that's worked in the past when it comes to overturning policy (remember the licence fee hike?)

That said, it works better when there's an election looming and everyone does it.