History...

BillyBoy13

Im trying to read up on some history of our sport and Ive a few questions.

There is a woman from Boston who is anti-firearms. It seems she was a police officer in Boston and she did something not very legal/ethical(??) and fled to Ireland and now somehow got herself into a position to tell us what we can and cant have regards to firearms? Who is she? What position does she have?

The FCP was a panel of different groups (hunters/clays/targets etc) and was setup by shooters for shooters, to represent our sports at a government level. Correct? It worked out for a few years and then something happened and then it fell apart? What happened? Why cant we setup a new one?

What is happening with the NARGC? Apparently they have stabbed people in the back, they throw hissy fits whenever they dont get what they want and can use all their paying members as leverage against everyone else? What kind of mess is this? They are an insurance company not representatives to the government for those members. Why didnt the FCP put the NARGC in their place? Actually how did the NARGC even get a voice in regards new laws. I mean if the government were considering banning diesel cars because they are more dangerous emissions then petrol or something would they go and ask FBD for their opinion on the matter. Like hell they would.

There was a meeting of some description were the government were discussing pistols and someone in the room (a shooter no less) stood up and went on a rant about it and then a week later the law is completely revised because of what he said? Who is that guy? What group was he with? Was he intentionally trying to emm.... well to put it nicer was it a case of "Im ok Jack f- you"?

Sparks

BillyBoy13 wrote: »

Im trying to read up on some history of our sport and Ive a few questions.

There is a woman from Boston who is anti-firearms. It seems she was a police officer in Boston and she did something not very legal/ethical(??) and fled to Ireland and now somehow got herself into a position to tell us what we can and cant have regards to firearms? Who is she? What position does she have?

She's a superintendent in the Gardai last I heard and was a bit higher ranked than a patrol officer in Boston. I haven't heard anything about why she left, but accusing a garda super of illegal activity outside of a courtroom with a lot of evidence on your side is not only not wise, it's a fast way to get us sued, so stop if you wouldn't mind.

The FCP was a panel of different groups (hunters/clays/targets etc) and was setup by shooters for shooters, to represent our sports at a government level. Correct?

No. It was a panel of all stakeholders in the firearms act, including different shooting associations, but also including the DoJ, AGS, insurers, the Sports Council and so on; it was set up by the Minister and run by the DoJ. Basicly, it was a forum were all the interested parties could officially meet and discuss problems with the legislation, work out the best ways to implement the law so as to cause the least hassle for everyone involved, and it drafted and edited several SIs in the course of that. It was strongly hinted that it was going to be the means by which the next Act would be drafted, but it got nobbled before that could happen.

It worked out for a few years and then something happened and then it fell apart? What happened? Why cant we setup a new one?

The NARGC representative left, started saying nasty things about the people involved in the media, the NARGC became involved in a lot of High Court cases being taken against the AGS in licencing cases, and all of that sabotaged the entire thing because the other shooting associations couldn't proceed without them as the NARGC was the second-largest shooting association involved, and the others in FCP couldn't trust the NARGC to rejoin without personnel changes because they didn't believe good faith would have been involved. It could be restarted (technically it's not dissolved formally so far as I know) but not without getting past that impasse.

What is happening with the NARGC?

Beats me, I'm not on their board and I can't make sense of their actions.

They are an insurance company not representatives to the government for those members.

Incorrect, they're not an insurance company (they run a compensation fund which is not the same thing) and they are supposed to represent their members best interests to the government, same as every other shooting association.

Why didnt the FCP put the NARGC in their place?

How?

Actually how did the NARGC even get a voice in regards new laws.

Lobbying, same as every other association, though they do get to nominate a senator to the seanad so they have more advantages than most associations.

There was a meeting of some description were the government were discussing pistols and someone in the room (a shooter no less) stood up and went on a rant about it and then a week later the law is completely revised because of what he said?

The next day actually.

Who is that guy?

Just no. This isn't a witch-hunt and as far as I know he's not shooting anymore anyway.

What group was he with?

Wasn't with any group as far as I remember.

Was he intentionally trying to emm.... well to put it nicer was it a case of "Im ok Jack f- you"?

No, just didn't know enough about what was being done, what had been said, what was coming up and who he was standing up in front of, to know what he was doing. At least, that's what I choose to believe, if he'd done it deliberately knowing the damage it'd do, that'd be a really really new low for shooting in Ireland.

Witcher

NARGC aren't an insurance company, they represent regional game councils made up of local gun clubs- National Association of Regional Game Councils(NARGC).

BillyBoy13

Sparks wrote: »

She's a superintendent in the Gardai last I heard and was a bit higher ranked than a patrol officer in Boston. I haven't heard anything about why she left, but accusing a garda super of illegal activity outside of a courtroom with a lot of evidence on your side is not only not wise, it's a fast way to get us sued, so stop if you wouldn't mind.

Im not accusing her of anything. Im just repeating what Ive heard/read and asking is it true. Thats all. But your quite right. Lets leave it at that.

Sparks wrote: »

No. It was a panel of all stakeholders in the firearms act, including different shooting associations, but also including the DoJ, AGS, insurers, the Sports Council and so on; it was set up by the Minister and run by the DoJ. Basicly, it was a forum were all the interested parties could officially meet and discuss problems with the legislation, work out the best ways to implement the law so as to cause the least hassle for everyone involved, and it drafted and edited several SIs in the course of that. It was strongly hinted that it was going to be the means by which the next Act would be drafted, but it got nobbled before that could happen.

OK, now see this sounds like a good idea where we all get together sit down and work things out in a calm controlled manner. Based on what you have said we cant move forward because the NARGC went behind our backs etc. If they are the second biggest group and we cant move without them could we at least just grit our teeth and have another go at it. Better to have a broken FCP having some kind of input to the government than no FCP and an ill educated government making decisions blindly. Would you agree with me?

Sparks wrote: »

The NARGC representative left, started saying nasty things about the people involved in the media

May I ask what was said? And was he saying this stuff on behalf of the NARGC, or was it just an NARGC member giving his own opinion on the matter? So long as it wasn't official party views there shouldn't be too much damage done.

Sparks wrote: »

No, just didn't know enough about what was being done, what had been said, what was coming up and who he was standing up in front of, to know what he was doing. At least, that's what I choose to believe, if he'd done it deliberately knowing the damage it'd do, that'd be a really really new low for shooting in Ireland.

Can I just ask, that whole story reads to me that the AGS/government were going to sign the dotted line but this chap let the cat out of the bag so to speak.

I really dont know how to say this without sounding like Im trying to get a rise, but:

1) Were the government unbeknownst to them about to the give the nod for centerfires?
2) If that's the case, then surely the talks with the FCP weren't working out so well, otherwise the government would have known exactly the kind of deal they were getting into.
3) And if that was the case, Im not the surprised the government doesn't trust us. We were on the verge of selling them a donkey and they only just twigged it at the last minute because someone in the room couldn't keep his mouth closed. I wouldnt trust us either.

shoot to kill

Really looking forward to this one. The licensing system in the republic is a shambles. Last licence I got cost me a thousand and 80 euro. Local gaurd thought he could keep it from me. Not sure who had the last laugh, but ive the licence anyway.

Sparks

BillyBoy13 wrote: »

Im just repeating what Ive heard/read and asking is it true. Thats all.

Best guess? No. For a start, I don't think you can call taking a promotion and pay raise "fleeing"...

OK, now see this sounds like a good idea

It was

Based on what you have said we cant move forward because the NARGC went behind our backs etc.

I wouldn't use that language because it's hard to go behind backs when you're out in the media, it was pretty overt. But yes, they are the sticking point.

If they are the second biggest group and we cant move without them could we at least just grit our teeth and have another go at it.

You'd be sabotaging your chances from the get go. The shooters would accuse you of cutting deals and stabbing people inthe back; the other parties couldn't trust that you wouldn't "pull an NARGC".

Better to have a broken FCP having some kind of input to the government than no FCP and an ill educated government making decisions blindly. Would you agree with me?

If it was possible to make it work, maybe; but I'd be happer if the NARGC took a vote from all its members first as to whether they should or shouldn't go into the FCP and quit the grandstanding.

May I ask what was said?

It's all in the Digest and some of it's up here; basicly saying you couldn't trust the DoJ, calling for people to be fired and so on.

And was he saying this stuff on behalf of the NARGC, or was it just an NARGC member giving his own opinion on the matter? So long as it wasn't official party views there shouldn't be too much damage done.

Well, it's the main NARGC representative so I'd guess it was pretty official.

Can I just ask, that whole story reads to me that the AGS/government were going to sign the dotted line but this chap let the cat out of the bag so to speak.

Pretty much. We'd have lost .45s and .40s for a time, but .38s, 9mms and .32s would have been kept. It was a pretty ****ty situation - the Minister had talked himself into a corner in the press so he had to ban something or just forget being a Minister. The best way out we could see was to use the ISSF regulation handbook as a guide for the SI as it permitted at least some fullbores and it had some weight, and hope to roll it back later.

1) Were the government unbeknownst to them about to the give the nod for centerfires?

No, there were different factions, some opposed, some for, and some neutral, but there was no unbeknownst about it, we'd been talking about fullbore ISSF for years, every time someone suggested we didn't really need fullbores. The FCP gave us the contacts needed for all this to happen with both sides knowing the score. Nobody would have liked it, but everyone would have been able to live with it and the Minister would have saved face so we wouldn't see a backlash. (Your points 2 and 3 therefore don't apply).

bravestar

Sparks wrote: »

She's a superintendent in the Gardai last I heard and was a bit higher ranked than a patrol officer in Boston.

If you are talking about who I think you are, she is not a member of An Garda Siochana and never was, she was aslo the police commissioner for the Boston PD.

Sparks

bravestar wrote: »

If you are talking about who I think you are, she is not a member of An Garda Siochana and never was, she was aslo the police commissioner for the Boston PD.

I'm happy to be corrected on that I had heard she was given the rank of superintendent in a consultation gig - but the AGS don't send me their personnel details.

ace86

As shoot to kill said the licencing system in Ireland is a shambles and the amount of money the cases the N.A.R.G.C cost the taxpayer by people in a position of authourity deciding to make their own decisions and opinions instead of following guidelines and rules they were sworn to uphold. I have no problems with what the N.A.R.G.C and other Sporting bodys and people taking cases against these people to go to court to get back what was rightfuly and lawfully theirs in the 1st place,but it shouldnt have happened if they were following the law. I would like to see some of these people sacked from their jobs and disciplined properly and never to be left contribute in any shape or form towards firearms and legislation in anyway. I would like all the sporting bodys to get back around the table and discuss again the firearms and its licencing and include ordinary people that use these firearms and that can contribute a bit of common sense to the whole thing.I also think the media along with journalist have alot to answer in their portraying of storys and things they say and write misinforming people and telling their views and ideas only.

BillyBoy13

Sparks wrote: »

You'd be sabotaging your chances from the get go. The shooters would accuse you of cutting deals and stabbing people inthe back; the other parties couldn't trust that you wouldn't "pull an NARGC".

Maybe I explained that badly. I mean all the parties getting back together including the NARGC.

Basically we had a good thing (or so it seems to me) the NARGC stepped out of line and now out of principle we wont do business with them again. Would it not be in everyone's best interest (including the NARGC and government) to say right, we made mistakes, lets not be stubborn about this, lets try and go back to where we finished and carry on. Im not saying forgive them, go play golf together. At least just realise there is strength in numbers and we can scratch each others backs... if you catch my drift.

Sparks wrote: »

Well, it's the main NARGC representative so I'd guess it was pretty official.

OK Im going to disagree with you here. It doesn't matter if hes a representative or the bathroom cleaner- unless its official party policy/views it doesnt matter. It was one guy spouting out of him it doesnt matter if he was an NARGC member. If I have a disagreement with you here tonight Im not going to blame boards.ie just because your a mod here.

Sparks wrote: »

No, there were different factions, some opposed, some for, and some neutral, but there was no unbeknownst about it, we'd been talking about fullbore ISSF for years, every time someone suggested we didn't really need fullbores. The FCP gave us the contacts needed for all this to happen with both sides knowing the score. Nobody would have liked it, but everyone would have been able to live with it and the Minister would have saved face so we wouldn't see a backlash. (Your points 2 and 3 therefore don't apply).

OK maybe because its late Im not getting this... but can you re-explain this to me.

If everyone knew the situation and some people agreed/neutral/opposed then what did he say that caused the sudden change of heart the very next day?

My understanding was that they were going to sign in a law for a certain discipline (not sure which) but the government didnt quite realise it would inadvertently let us have centerfires until that person stood up and told them and then there was a panic?

Sparks

BillyBoy13 wrote: »

Basically we had a good thing (or so it seems to me) the NARGC stepped out of line and now out of principle we wont do business with them again.

Er, no. The other shooting bodies, last I heard, would be quite happy to restart the FCP. What I was referring to was that if we ditched the NARGC and went back in, it would not only fracture the shooting community, but the other parties (the AGS, etc) would just be sitting there wondering who was going to throw the toys out of the pram this time and go to the media and say nasty things about them in public. You can't just say "Oh, we'll forget it" because it's not just the shooting bodies who'd have to forget. Without some act of good faith from us, and particularly from the NARGC, you'd be asking a lot from the non-shooting parties to restart the FCP at this stage, and they just don't have any real reason to go along with it.

At least just realise there is strength in numbers and we can scratch each others backs... if you catch my drift.

There's a predicate you're missing in your logic - which is that we have no strength, by law. Not because of disunity, not because of some ideological claptrap, but because the law gives the Minister total authority over firearms in Ireland. That's a fait accompli, it is the law of the land, and it sucks but ignore it and you just screw everyone else over even more. It dictates how you lobby and sets limits to what you can do. You can challange people not adhering to the law, you can lobby to shape the law better, you can tweak and you can polish, but you can't - for example - haul up the Minister and veto him on something, which many have called for but which just can't be legally done in Ireland.

unless its official party policy/views it doesnt matter.

True, but go google "NARGC" and "Gardai" and read a few of the results. This wasn't some random joe spouting off after a bad day.

OK maybe because its late Im not getting this... but can you re-explain this to me.

More explicitly without doing harm? Not really
The gist is, there was no way after the Minster went to the front page of the press saying he'd ban handguns that some sort of ban wasn't going to be avoided; but hard work and people on our side gave us a ban he could live with and kept at least some of our fullbore stuff around. There were enough people going with it to make it work, in all camps; but it wasn't a brick outhouse, and someone put his boot into the wrong place the wrong way and scuppered it.

BillyBoy13

Sparks wrote: »

Er, no. The other shooting bodies, last I heard, would be quite happy to restart the FCP. What I was referring to was that if we ditched the NARGC and went back in, it would not only fracture the shooting community, but the other parties (the AGS, etc) would just be sitting there wondering who was going to throw the toys out of the pram this time and go to the media and say nasty things about them in public. You can't just say "Oh, we'll forget it" because it's not just the shooting bodies who'd have to forget. Without some act of good faith from us, and particularly from the NARGC, you'd be asking a lot from the non-shooting parties to restart the FCP at this stage, and they just don't have any real reason to go along with it.

OK I see where you are coming from now. The only way around this is for a reform in the NARGC. Get rid whoever was in charge back then and get fresh faces in. (And of course, the old stooges wont mind giving up their positions if it means a chance of progress for their sport of choice and finally get out of this stalemate)

Or can you think of a different way around it?

Sparks wrote: »

There's a predicate you're missing in your logic - which is that we have no strength, by law. Not because of disunity, not because of some ideological claptrap, but because the law gives the Minister total authority over firearms in Ireland.

Not exactly. I'll grant you that the minister is the only person who can sign the dotted line.... but we can put pressure on him through votes. And I dont mean that in a threatening way. I mean that in a positive way. If shooters were to get ourselves together we can offer how many votes again to a potential party/minister that promises to make some kind of effort to work with us.

Sparks wrote: »

More explicitly without doing harm? Not really

Well if that's how it is Im not going to push you. Obviously you know something I dont know, but I do however think we need to get all this nasty history out in the open, learn from it, figure out where we went wrong and then move on. I think hiding our mistakes just means future generations will fall into the same trap- but I'll leave it at that for tonight- its getting very late.

All the best

Sparks

BillyBoy13 wrote: »

Or can you think of a different way around it?

To be honest, I don't want to touch this with a ten foot pole, so I'm not saying what I think might fix it (if it's even fixable, this is pretty much the worst of the worst case scenarios that I could think of happening to the FCP before it started off). I put ten years into this and it was pissed away, why would I put ten more minutes into it, especially now that I have a family who I'd be taking those ten minutes from?

Not exactly. I'll grant you that the minister is the only person who can sign the dotted line.... but we can put pressure on him through votes. And I dont mean that in a threatening way. I mean that in a positive way. If shooters were to get ourselves together we can offer how many votes again to a potential party/minister that promises to make some kind of effort to work with us.

We could try, and pre-election we can actually do some good, but it isn't a case of going to the Minister and saying "here are 200,000 votes", because we're not all in his area.You have to go to an entire party. And with FG, we went, they were enthusiastic, and it then all kindof fell flat after the election. Which you'd expect. And as Jim Deasy showed, when they think they can get more votes by saying they're tough on crime and using us as soft targets, they can't throw us under the bus fast enough.

I do however think we need to get all this nasty history out in the open, learn from it, figure out where we went wrong and then move on. I think hiding our mistakes just means future generations will fall into the same trap- but I'll leave it at that for tonight- its getting very late.

I agree with the principle wholeheartedly, but I know a little about the Defamation Act - enough to know that this isn't us having a chat over a pint in the local at the end of a long week, but a public conversation that requires a bit more care. And practically, the lessons are the thing to learn, the witchhunt isn't as useful.

Witcher

BillyBoy13 wrote: »

Not exactly. I'll grant you that the minister is the only person who can sign the dotted line.... but we can put pressure on him through votes. And I dont mean that in a threatening way. I mean that in a positive way. If shooters were to get ourselves together we can offer how many votes again to a potential party/minister that promises to make some kind of effort to work with us.

A negligible amount really. Most firearms owners in Ireland are farmers, the majority of whom who have no interest in shooting as a sport. So you've lost all their votes.

Then there are the shooters who are happy with their 12 gauges etc. and don't believe anyone should have access to pistols etc. We saw two of these on this very forum a short while ago. They'll throw anyone under the bus to save themselves. They won't vote to help other shooters out.

Subtract the guys are only casual shooters and won't use their votes to press firearms issues.

Also subtract those who just couldn't be bothered voting at all.

Also subtract those who didn't get the voting memo.

You've probably lost 80% of firearms owners there. No point threatening votes..the gov. know it's bullsh1t and so do shooters.

They'd probably lose more votes from people thinking they're 'soft on guns' if they gave anything away.

Sparks

Blay wrote: »

A negligible amount really.

And yet, the last time we tried it (the licence fee hike) saw McDowell rolling things back. It can work, but it took hitting people's pockets to work last time :pac:

Witcher

Sparks wrote: »

And yet, the last time we tried it (the licence fee hike) saw McDowell rolling things back. It can work, but it took hitting people's pockets to work last time :pac:

Money always wins out, it worked then because neither farmers nor hunters nor target shooters want money taken out of their pockets.

But you can't rely on them to rally around the same way to help each because they share a kinship as shooters.

yubabill1

Sparks wrote: »

And yet, the last time we tried it (the licence fee hike) saw McDowell rolling things back. It can work, but it took hitting people's pockets to work last time :pac:

I haven't been following Irish news lately - out of choice, because of economic propaganda - so I missed this. I presume this debacle emerged around the time of the 180 court cases.

In another thread I posted an email I sent to Charlie Flanagan, whom I have never voted for, saying my vote for my local FG councillor depended on no changes to the SI talked about here.

I got a Christmas text from same councillor, out of the blue.

This kind of thing works and even 20% of shooter's votes could have a big impact in the local elections, where candidates are often eliminated by 9 or 10 votes.

yubabill1

Blay wrote: »

.



They'd probably lose more votes from people thinking they're 'soft on guns' if they gave anything away.

Just a thought on this one point: Almost everyone here has been vetted to the highest degree possible and Gardaí have inspected our homes etc.

FG prides itself on being the self-styled party of law and order.

People like us should be within the main target demographic of voters that FG aim at, so by hitting us the shoot themselves in the foot, in a small way, admittedly, but we all have family who would be within the same demographic.

Don't think they don't go down to this level of detail when looking for votes - Barack Obama pioneered targeting voters within tiny demographics and using online resources.

All the political parties have online resources, probably unpaid, crying from the rooftops all over the Irish online space.

Grizzly 45

BillyBoy13 wrote: »

Im trying to read up on some history of our

There is a woman from Boston who is anti-firearms. It seems she was a police officer in Boston and she did something not very legal/ethical(??) and fled to Ireland and now somehow got herself into a position to tell us what we can and cant have regards to firearms? Who is she? What position does she have?

Google is your friend on this.. Google Snelgrove controversy,Kathleen O Toole,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_O'Toole#Snelgrove_Controversy

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/GARDA+WATCHDOG+COP+QUITS+BLOODY+BOSTON.-a0145740899

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/05/09/otoole_stepping_down_as_boston_police_commissioner/

http://www.lmpd.com/news/story.php?sid=444


http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/former-garda-chief-inspector-saddened-by-smithwick-findings-of-collusion-1.1648813

[SHE's the one to talk about this!!:rolleyes:]


Should be enough to get you started.
I'd hate to draw comparisons between the Catholic church and how it handled its problems here in Ireland......:(:(
Anyway,she has supposedly retired and out of the force since 2012.

Dian Cecht

One important thing you've forgotten Sparks.................................

It was agreed in the FCP and Des was told, that fullbore pistols would be "grandfathered" if you held one prior to Nov. 2008, for the people who continued to satisfy the conditions necessary eg range membership & secure storage etc if the practical pistol lads gave it up, which they did.

The promised "grandfathering" didn't happen though in the MAJORITY of cases!

So, is it any wonder NARGC left the FCP?

BillyBoy13

Dian Cecht wrote: »

One important thing you've forgotten Sparks.................................

It was agreed in the FCP and Des was told, that fullbore pistols would be "grandfathered" if you held one prior to Nov. 2008, for the people who continued to satisfy the conditions necessary eg range membership & secure storage etc if the practical pistol lads gave it up, which they did.

The promised "grandfathering" didn't happen though in the MAJORITY of cases!

So, is it any wonder NARGC left the FCP?

Was that not a bit short sighted? I mean does that kind of deal not do more harm than good? Obviously the lads could keep the grandfathered firearms, but it completely closes off one of your 'good reasons' for further negotiations later down the line?

BTW... thats another question. What was so bad about practical shooting? The reason I was told was because apparently you could be training up an IRA cell under the guise of sport..... but sure when you think about it the airsoft lads would probably know more clearing out rooms- securing positions, taking hostages etc etc than practical shooters? Or was it a different reason altogether?

Dian Cecht

It's simple really, there are those in DOJ & An Garda Síochana who don't want private citizens to have firearms.

Once these people get a Minister who can be convinced they are right they get what they want as what he/she says goes, at the storke of his/her pen at this stage.

The whip system in the Dáil means that whatever a Minister wants, a Minister gets in the way of new legislation.

Shooters refuse to stand together.

DOJ has cosy chats with those they "like".

Those who are not seen as too much of a "problem" and/or have decent political clout get what they want.

The rest get screwed.

Quod est demonstrandum !

Sparks

Dian Cecht wrote: »

One important thing you've forgotten Sparks.................................

It was agreed in the FCP and Des was told, that fullbore pistols would be "grandfathered" if you held one prior to Nov. 2008, for the people who continued to satisfy the conditions necessary eg range membership & secure storage etc if the practical pistol lads gave it up, which they did.

No, it wasn't. The grandfathering of pistols and the shutting down of practical pistol were two seperate things, done months apart. And the shutting down of practical was not "shut down and you keep your pistols", it was "shut down or you lose everything now". Not the same thing.

So, is it any wonder NARGC left the FCP?

To me, yes.

Sparks

Dian Cecht wrote: »

Shooters refuse to stand together.

Actually, they all happily stood together in the FCP for quite a while, and it worked quite well.

DOJ has cosy chats with those they "like".
Those who are not seen as too much of a "problem" and/or have decent political clout get what they want.
The rest get screwed.
Quod est demonstrandum !

That's where we are now, because we had an official forum where everyone could get heard, but now that's hosed, and every shooting NGB out there - all of whom have a duty to their members to talk to the powers that be - are left to fend for themselves. It's not what anyone wanted, and not wanting it was sufficient to motivate everyone to try the FCP - but it's where we've been stuck by the shutting down of the FCP.

Sparks

BillyBoy13 wrote: »

BTW... thats another question. What was so bad about practical shooting?

Nothing other than horrible PR. But in this country, that's sufficient to sink you.

BillyBoy13

Dian Cecht wrote: »

DOJ has cosy chats with those they "like".

Right well thats a good sign. Giving my very limited understanding of what went on, I cant say I blame them for having "cosy chats" seen as they got burned the last time they tried talking to us as a whole. Matter of fact, Im surprised they're given any of the us the time of day.

BTW... which groups is it that are having these little chats?

Dian Cecht wrote: »

It's simple really, there are those in DOJ & An Garda Síochana who don't want private citizens to have firearms.

Once these people get a Minister who can be convinced they are right they get what they want as what he/she says goes, at the storke of his/her pen at this stage.

Well that works both ways. These ministers tend do follow where ever the majority of voters lie. We can easily outnumber the AGS anti's. I have no official figures but at a guess Id say you are looking at a few hundred anti supers. The membership in Tullamore alone should eclipse that.

BillyBoy13

Sparks wrote: »

No, it wasn't. The grandfathering of pistols and the shutting down of practical pistol were two seperate things, done months apart. And the shutting down of practical was not "shut down and you keep your pistols", it was "shut down or you lose everything now". Not the same thing.

To me, yes.

Sparks, if it wouldn't be too much to ask. Could you give us all a brief history lesson on what happened with these and how it played through?

Dian Cecht

Sparks wrote: »

No, it wasn't. The grandfathering of pistols and the shutting down of practical pistol were two seperate things, done months apart. And the shutting down of practical was not "shut down and you keep your pistols", it was "shut down or you lose everything now". Not the same thing.

The whole thing was interlinked.

No matter what way you gloss it up we were promised "grandfathering" and it was reneged on !

Sparks wrote: »

To me, yes.

Are you a member of NARGC?

Dian Cecht

Sparks wrote: »

Actually, they all happily stood together in the FCP for quite a while, and it worked quite well.

"stood"..........................which is the same as what I said.

Sparks wrote: »

That's where we are now, because we had an official forum where everyone could get heard, but now that's hosed, and every shooting NGB out there - all of whom have a duty to their members to talk to the powers that be - are left to fend for themselves. It's not what anyone wanted, and not wanting it was sufficient to motivate everyone to try the FCP - but it's where we've been stuck by the shutting down of the FCP.

I've no problem with shooting organisations talking to DOJ. It's what they are talking about that concerns me.

Maybe DOJ don't want an FCP type setup. Divide & conquer suits them a lot more I reckon

Grizzly 45

BillyBoy13 wrote: »

Was that not a bit short sighted? I mean does that kind of deal not do more harm than good? Obviously the lads could keep the grandfathered firearms, but it completely closes off one of your 'good reasons' for further negotiations later down the line?

Nothing is obvious in Irish shooting,bar that AGS/DOJ do not want you to own anything at all if they had it their way. So no,we can hold onto our handguns IF you dont mind fighting over the same ground and stupid palaver every three years in the DC about as to why you should own it and that you might own a gun used "by police forces or criminals."[Who'd have thunk it??:rolleyes:] Hence the reason it has droppeb below 700 CF handguns in the ROI,as about 700 others decided the game isnt worth the candle and gave ,moved to the more civillised part of this island with sensible gun laws in the 6 counties,or left altogether.

BTW... thats another question. What was so bad about practical shooting?

ABSOLUTELY Nothing!!! It is a shooting sport thats recognised internationally[bar Ireland]

The reason I was told was because apparently you could be training up an IRA cell under the guise of sport..... but sure when you think about it the airsoft lads would probably know more clearing out rooms- securing positions, taking hostages etc etc than practical shooters? Or was it a different reason altogether?

The first bit is the usual kneejerk reaction from AGS about anything regarding shooting in this country.I remember that excuse with paintball,airsoft when it first came out, anything slightly odd looking in firearms and everything else related,and I have been shooting in Ireland over 30 years now.

TBH the demise of practical shooting was a multi facted affair here,and in all fairness NOT 100% totally the work of AGS/DOJ.

It certainly was not helped by some of the scenarios set up to demonstrate the sport to the AGS when they showed up.Things like a guy swing off a manhole cover suspended by chains on a tri pod shooting at targets single
handed with a pistol being supposedly one of them.
While yes they are ligit scenarios in an IPSC match,they were too "full on" for our ultra conservative lot so of course they slammed it.

Nor was it helped by our ultra conservative lot here in the Irish shooting word who immediately slammed it too.If you can use the search function here on boards ,go back around 2006/2007 to see some of the reactions and commentary and downright WARS fought on the net about this here.

Also, shooting and guns ,do attract no matter what a good few "Walts" [Walter Mitty] to them.The guys who have been there ,seen it ,done it,bought the T shirt and personally had Bin Ladin in their cross hairs but just never for X reason got to pull the trigger..
IPSC was no exception..:( We had rumours of bodygaurds being trained in secret ranges for missions out in foriegn lands using "IPSC tactics":P:rolleyes::rolleyes:

We did have a Uber Walt residing up in Co Louth claiming to be a baron and clan leader of some order of Galowglasses,who was running a international bodygaurd company,and WAS running some very intresting courses up there at the time,and was pictured with a bunch of HK toting Ninjas and Irish wolfhound at the baronial pile.[Which was the hotel used in the TV seris Failte Towers.] as well as much intresting hardware [for Ireland that is]in The Phoenix magazine..

Anyway,we digress if you want to read about a sad case of Munchhausen syndrome and how it can fool the best go to army rumour service .co .uk or [url]www.arrse.co.uk:P[/url] and look for the page of " World famous Walts"

Thing was this happened just around the IPSC controversy,and it was in the then minister for justice Dermot Ahernes consitituency of Louth. Where we have Baron shortt arse training up lads from the East parts of Europe in all sorts of things that go Bang,Boom,and Splat,and even uses it on part of his advertising video for the course on youtube!! A total co incidence????

Then we had the deliberate confusion between IPSC and IDPA.
IDPA is a seriously more orientated combat sport than IPSC ever was and will be. But then again never let the truth of fine nuances ever confuse an issue relating definitions in relation to firearms in Ireland.I ,mean its consusing that both abbreviations start with the letter "I" and have four letters in them and shure that makes them the same in some peoples eyes in power.:rolleyes:

So that is pretty much WHY the Irish PTB are so paranoid about "combat training" They were even making noise about letting people travel to the US or to East Europe to attend shooting stag weekends once.:eek:The kind of place you can blow off 400 +euros worth of ammo in 10 mins on full auto was been seen as a "possible training ground for criminals"by one senior member of AGS around that time in a Pat Kenny[?] radio interview.

Didnt do one Limerick criminal much good.He went to Florida on an ostensible "bodygaurd course" according to the Irish media.IOW he went off and shot a lot of ammo down range with different guns for a week in Florida and not much else. He was shot dead a month later outside his house in Limerick.:p
Lot more required to personal protection than knowing to do off hand pistol shots at 50 meters.:p:p

So we even now have the total bizarre situation that the airsofters can cammo up,have all the latest Gucci kit in airsoft lookalike,do all the room clearing,leap frogging,vechicle defence or whatever.Even I reckon they could mock up Lensteir house and storm it.And all it will be is thought of as "grown ups playing as soilders."

YET even they cant shoot or organise a airsoft IPSC match!!! IPSC specifically created a segment for this for countries like Ireland and China,Korea and Japan with their totally anal gun laws,but are allowed air soft guns to shoot an IPSC competition. This just shows how paranoid the Irish Govt and AGS is over IPSC and their mistaken belif it is combat training.

Dian Cecht

BillyBoy13 wrote: »

Well that works both ways. These ministers tend do follow where ever the majority of voters lie. We can easily outnumber the AGS anti's. I have no official figures but at a guess Id say you are looking at a few hundred anti supers. The membership in Tullamore alone should eclipse that.

You don't understand yet, do you?

Read this post again................................

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88419792&postcount=22

What you're saying won't make a damn bit of difference. The "management" in Tullamore won't rock the boat as they've too much to loose

The majority of voters would probably agree to us having NO firearms. How do you think we're being screwed so easily?