Statement from NASRPC

Dian Cecht

I remember being told just before the full bore pistols were banned, sorry, "restricted which doesn't mean banned" that there was noting to worry about too :rolleyes:

I agree we've seen nothing in writing from NARGC or NASRPC but I've seen nothing in writing from DOJ or Garda Síochana either, unless I've missed something?

rowa

I'd just like to know where, and from which camp the smoke is coming from. A simple request, but one no one on either side is answering.

Sparks

Dian Cecht wrote: »

I remember being told just before the full bore pistols were banned, sorry, "restricted which doesn't mean banned" that there was noting to worry about too :rolleyes:

Really? You weren't reading here so, we were rather worried about it from day one...

I agree we've seen nothing in writing from NARGC or NASRPC but I've seen nothing in writing from DOJ or Garda Síochana either, unless I've missed something?

Dunno if the WDAI or the other associations have. I've got a voicemail with an official denial in it. Several individuals are chasing written denials, that could take a day or three.

I'm curious though, if you think they're lying to you, why do you think they'll suddenly tell the truth in a written statement?

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

I'd just like to know where, and from which camp the smoke is coming from. A simple request, but one no one on either side is answering.

My personal view is that the NARGC/NASRPC/ETC group said these proposals exist; the AGS/DoJ say they don't; and we're now in put up or shut up territory.

This is not where we should be. If these things exist and the NARGC/NASRPC/ETC found them, then publish them. Don't tell me it's a confidential source, you've published about the things already and frankly that horse is now long bolted. If you think groups like this don't have access control lists for documents...

And there's a general principle here. You find something that should worry the entire community? Publish what you found. Not just your opinion (hey, publish that too if you want) -- but the raw data. If that had been done on day one here, do you think we'd have 300+ posts arguing over whether or not this is a real thing? Or 300+ posts organising a grassroots protest? And which would be better if this was real?

rowa

Dian Cecht wrote: »

I remember being told just before the full bore pistols were banned, sorry, "restricted which doesn't mean banned" that there was noting to worry about too :rolleyes:

Ahern made absolutely no bones about the fact he was banning ALL pistols, the first i heard of it was a radio interview one evening. It was in very plain language, and cynical because it was just after a botched gangland murder in limerick, it was supposed to calm public concerns about gun crime :rolleyes:.

Dian Cecht

Sparks wrote: »

Really? You weren't reading here so, we were rather worried about it from day one...


Dunno if the WDAI or the other associations have. I've got a voicemail with an official denial in it. Several individuals are chasing written denials, that could take a day or three.

I'm curious though, if you think they're lying to you, why do you think they'll suddenly tell the truth in a written statement?

No I wasn't reading here then. TBH now I am I'm still getting better info elsewhere. But that's another story

If it's in writing it's a lot harder to deny it at a later date. I'm sure your au fait with that concept

Dian Cecht

rowa wrote: »

Ahern made absolutely no bones about the fact he was banning ALL pistols, the first i heard of it was a radio interview one evening. It was in very plain language, and cynical because it was just after a botched gangland murder in limerick, it was supposed to calm public concerns about gun crime :rolleyes:.

I know what he said. Then he changed his mind and this "restricted" if you already owned it scenario appeared and we were told if you met the criteria you'd be OK. If I remember correctly didn't you loose your fullbore pistol at this stage? Isn't this where the infamous 168 + cases stemmed from?

rowa

Sparks wrote: »

If these things exist and the NARGC/NASRPC/ETC found them, then publish them. Don't tell me it's a confidential source, you've published about the things already and frankly that horse is now long bolted. If you think groups like this don't have access control lists for documents...

This is the entire question, how do the nargc/nasrpc know there was a ban in the offing ? Did someone read it in their tea leaves ? If not they either have documentary proof (issue it), or someone in the know in the ags/doj told them (unlikely to tell the enemy whats about to go off).

Sparks

Dian Cecht wrote: »

I know what he said. Then he changed his mind

No, then the axe got nudged so that the restricted list was created. And that was by the DoJ, by the way, the shooting bodies didn't get involved until after that point, even if it was only hours after that point.

End result, instead of a statutory ban, we have 500-odd restricted firearms still licenced, licencing decisions can be arbitrated in court and the ban can be lifted without needing a new firearms act if we ever got our act together and stopped acting like stereotypes at the organisational level.

we were told if you met the criteria you'd be OK

We were never ever told that. We were told that if you met the criteria, you could apply for a licence. Everyone seems to forget that bit (even if we were saying it here at the time, it seems nobody was reading the full sentences).

The legislation does not say -- and never has said, not once, not since the founding of the state -- that if you meet the criteria you'll be okay - it says if you do not meet the criteria, the super MAY NOT grant your application.

Nowhere in law does it direct the super to grant anyone anything.

Grizzly 45

rowa wrote: »

Ahern made absolutely no bones about the fact he was banning ALL pistols, the first i heard of it was a radio interview one evening. It was in very plain language, and cynical because it was just after a botched gangland murder in limerick, it was supposed to calm public concerns about gun crime :rolleyes:.

There were portents of that happening in MAY of that year in the Assoc of Garda Sgts and inspectors AGM. Ahern said he was going see to curb the numbers of firearms liscenses. He used the Greghan murder to cynically hang his agenda on it. Along with "I'll smoke in wherever I please,it's my RIGHT!" Deasy mouthing off about gun liscenses and crying to the media about being "bullied by gunowners" writing him nasty letters,somthing was going to give.

The best thing that happened there was the AGS thought he was "their man" and Aherne then went and stabbed the AGS in the back as well on their pay rises and recruitement.:rolleyes:

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

The legislation does not say -- and never has said, not once, not since the founding of the state -- that if you meet the criteria you'll be okay - it says if you do not meet the criteria, the super MAY NOT grant your application.

Nowhere in law does it direct the super to grant anyone anything.

Hmmm Pity they never defined what "the criteria" actually is.Like Karl Marx never actually defined what "property" is either.Kind of leaves everything a tad open to be abused.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Hmmm Pity they never defined what "the criteria" actually is.Like Karl Marx never actually defined what "property" is either.Kind of leaves everything a tad open to be abused.

The problem there is that the base criteria that apply to everyone are in the Act - but individual supers (and chief supers) can impose individual criteria on individual cases (something that was laid down in Dunne) and those aren't documented anywhere obviously.

And yes, there's potential for abuse there, as you know (and I think folks were pointing that out a decade or so ago).

Cass

Enough of the back and forth comments that only serve to drag the thread down, and lower the tone.

Keep on topic and leave the snippy comments out.

ace86

just seen this I think we have an answer to alot of questions.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/National-Association-of-Regional-Game-Councils-NARGC/190104431023958?ref=stream&hc_location=timeline

Witcher

As I said already we've known about this review for months now. There was always a chance a review would result in future changes, that's the nature of a review.

What the NARGC and the NASRPC have been saying is that these proposals have already been made, approved and will soon be enforced all without consultation or without the review even being finalised.

All they've confirmed with that is what we already knew. They're releasing that in a 'Oi oi, see what we told ya..they're working together' way..we already knew they would be..any firearms review will involve the Gardai..the NARGC/NASRPC made it seem like they had insider info that the Gardai were in cahoots with the DoJ.

Roundpack

Blay wrote: »

these proposals have already been made, approved and will soon be enforced all without consultation or without the review even being finalised.
QUOTE]

correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought they only said that proposals had been put forward by AGS??

Can you direct me to where they said the proposals had been approved and would be enforced without the review being finalised?

Sparks

ace86 wrote: »

just seen this I think we have an answer to alot of questions.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/National-Association-of-Regional-Game-Councils-NARGC/190104431023958?ref=stream&hc_location=timeline

That's the written form of the statement made by the DoJ that we were talking about a few posts back. With a Minister's signature, not just the DoJ's.

Witcher

Roundpack wrote: »

correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought they only said that proposals had been put forward by AGS??

Can you direct me to where they said the proposals had been approved and would be enforced without the review being finalised?

They didn't say it had been signed and sealed, it's incorrect to say that but a number of weeks ago they said proposals had been put forward on specific firearms and calibres, they didn't even mention the review..just that proposals were being made.

Then last week the WDAI posted a statement from the DoJ saying that a review was going ahead as planned(which we already knew)..then NASRPC etc. then picked this statement apart and issued their own statement saying 'oh see this, the Gardai are trying to hide their involvement'. The Gardai never tried to hide their involvement..this review has been known about since last year. It shouldn't be a suprise to a shooting org. that the licensing authority is involved in a firearms review but it clearly was.

The NASRPC etc. were obviously a bit behind getting the news, they never even mentioned the review until the WDAI did and then tried to make out that it was some sort of coverup for these 'proposals'..that they still haven't provided evidence for.

They moved on this story arse about face..issuing statement about imaginary proposals on specific firearms and calibres telling people to write letters and annoy their TD's, then making out that it was news that a review was in progress when everyone knew that already.

They should have come out and said 'A review on firearms is in the works, changes may come, we'll keep you informed' and if and when concrete proposals were made spearheaded the objections but no...let's roar and shout about proposals which don't even exist yet. Nothing was known, the review wasn't complete, we didn't know what the proposals for change were or even if there would be any but they encouraged people to go stamping their feet with absolutely no info bar what they learned from a 'source'.

Roundpack

Blay wrote: »

The NASRPC etc. were obviously a bit behind getting the news, they never even mentioned the review until the WDAI did

The NASRPC chairperson mentioned the review in the December newsletter.

Witcher

Roundpack wrote: »

The NASRPC chairperson mentioned the review in their December newsletter.

Then you would expect both the NASRPC and the NARGC to know the Gardai were involved as the state's firearm licensing authority. Instead they launched into the DoJ statement to the WDAI saying that the Gardai were trying to deny their involvement in the review..which they never did. In that letter the Gardai denied that proposals had been made by them, they didn't try to deny their involvement in the review.

The NASRPC then quoted a section from an email the Gardai previously sent them confirming their involvement the review and tried to make it look like the Gardai were lying to the WDAI, which is clearly bs. They denied proposals were in the table not that they were involved with the Doj's review. The NASRPC threw out that email like some sort of secret info that the Gardai were involved.

Again, they went about this all wrong. Shouting about non-existent proposals and encouraging uninformed people to go mouthing off to TD's/Shatter/DoJ/Gardai. If I was Alan Shatter I would take a dim view of that..I'd think 'Fcuk me these people can't even get their info right before shouting and roaring...won't bother myself talking to them in future'. They've done themselves no favours here and now we know that Shatter himself knows about what has been going on, he'll remember that if and when proposals are being talked about with these bodies.

BattleCorp

I know this thread is pretty much a "who do you believe" scenario but the NARGC have put a commentary about the "review" on their website and I've quoted the following few lines:

that unrestricted firearms mentioned in our original brief are already being refused – 3 more reported today. One of these cited the reason as “pending legislation”.

If it's true, that "pending legislation" part has me fairly worried.

Witcher

I can see where the Super is coming from there to an extent, no point issuing someone a licence if things may change in a month or two and they're ordered to turn them in and they've lost their money. If that happened he'd probably have the lad down roaring 'if you knew you should have told me' etc.

Lose lose for the super either way, he either gives it and if the lads loses it down the road it looks like he fcuked him over and if he refuses it to avoid that he has the NARGC etc. going 'oh look they're banning them already'.

civdef

At this stage is there any doubt that what the NARGC et al have described probably fairly accurately described what the gardai are proposing for this review process?

Witcher

civdef wrote: »

At this stage is there any doubt that what the NARGC et al have described probably fairly accurately described what the gardai are proposing for this review process?

The Gardai are anti firearms..we don't need the NARGC to tell us that. They'd rather no firearms were in public hands but it's not up to them. They'll only get what the DoJ allow them.

civdef

So you think shooters don't need to be getting their opinions heard clearly in relation to this review?
You're happy for the "anti-firearm" AGS (as you put it) to be the only ones talking to the DoJ secure in the knowledge they'll stand up for our interests?

Cass

BattleCorp wrote: »

I know this thread is pretty much a "who do you believe" scenario but the NARGC have put a commentary about the "review" on their website .............

• They also said that four different types of firearms were going to be banned or made restricted.
• That they had this from a solid source, yet remains to this moment unnamed/unverified.
• That a group has already "given in" to these proposals when none (proposals) either exist/have been made public (not even to them).
• That this is all new, when they knew/should have expected it for over 5 months.
• Only three days ago they renewed their call to continue e-mailing, writing letters, and maintain the pressure on TDs, Shatter's office, etc. against better advice and now to the point where not only is it assumed to be an annoyance, but even got a mention in the letter from Shatter's office.

So to recap the only thing they have gotten right is the very thing they knew. That a review was coming. Everything else is/was speculation and as said many times in this thread could have been handled MUCH MUCH better and with more tack.

I'm not a member of the WDAI so lets clear that chest nut before i go on. The WDAI may have gotten some specifics wrong, but did not do close to the damage the others have done, yet the only "out" they seem to have is to attack the WDAI and ignore how badly wrong they got everything else.

Also as i said many posts back who are they to meet without the rest of the NGBs/groups and have any consultation with the DoJ/AGS on issues that effect not only their members but every firearm holder out there.

If it's true, that "pending legislation" part has me fairly worried.

It's not a legitimate reason, but being a refusal means you have to take it to court to get it. The Supers know this and assumes (i assume) if it comes to that then it's better a judge orders him to review the application, or orders the license granted, than him grant a license for a firearm that MAY fall under the remit of the reviewed firearms/legislation.

civdef wrote:

At this stage is there any doubt that what the NARGC et al have described probably fairly accurately described what the gardai are proposing for this review process

Which was what?

That a review be had/held? - They knew this was coming.
The types of firearms? - None have been mentioned, named or published.

What exactly have they done accurately?

So you think shooters don't need to be getting their opinions heard clearly in relation to this review?
You're happy for the "anti-firearm" AGS (as you put it) to be the only ones talking to the DoJ secure in the knowledge they'll stand up for our interests?

And you think that the actions of the NARGC/NASRPC are to be commended and applauded for all the crap above?


I've said from the start. If changes are coming lets wait and see what comes and then attack it with well armed information, and ALL groups involved. Not just the ones that take it upon themselves.

What i find most annoying about all this, and it's the reason for my anger, is the manner this was handled, and misinformation that was issued as fact.

Witcher

civdef wrote: »

So you think shooters don't need to be getting their opinions heard clearly in relation to this review?
You're happy for the "anti-firearm" AGS (as you put it) to be the only ones talking to the DoJ secure in the knowledge they'll stand up for our interests?

That's not what I said, I said we know the Gardai are against firearms, don't need the NARGC to tell us that. It's probably the no.1 fact a shooter has to learn here.

Again that's not what I said, you're putting words in my mouth.

Sparks

civdef wrote: »

You're happy for the "anti-firearm" AGS (as you put it) to be the only ones talking to the DoJ secure in the knowledge they'll stand up for our interests?

Personally, I'm not.
But [broken record] that was the entire point of the FCP and the people shouting about the AGS talking to the DoJ now are the same ones who burned the only effective method we had of getting in on those talks early enough to do something about them [/broken record].

So basicly, we're now at the stage where we were in post #1. One side says there's a planned ban, the other side says there isn't, and the side saying there isn't just gave a written signed statement to that effect from the Minister.

This whole thing's just an example in how the shooting community should not do things relating to the PTB and how we tend to treat our own community worse than the PTB do.

Dian Cecht

If the DOJ and the Minister are saying that they won't push changes through without consolation how come Ahearne was going to do it by banning all pistols? (I know in the end that didn't happen)

Will Shatter or the DOJ have to consult those involved (us through the various shooting groups I assume) or can they make changes without a consultation process (to the best of my knowledge Shatter can under previous legislation)?

Could individuals be asked for or even make submissions as well as the organisations or is that up to Shatter and the DOJ?

Witcher

Dian Cecht wrote: »

If the DOJ and the Minister are saying that they won't push changes through without consolation how come Ahearne was going to do it by banning all pistols? (I know in the end that didn't happen)

Will Shatter or the DOJ have to consult those involved (us through the various shooting groups I assume) or can they make changes without a consultation process (to the best of my knowledge Shatter can under previous legislation)?

Could individuals be asked for or even make submissions as well as the organisations or is that up to Shatter and the DOJ?

They don't have to consult us at all, all he has to do is sign an SI.

I'm sure you could make submission to the DoJ but whether they would be read by the right people is a different story.