Statement from NASRPC

Sparks

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)

If a person says they won't do X in the future, how come they did Y in the past?

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)?

The Minister does not have to, but we've been told (and there's that written signed statement there) saying they will.

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

That's all up to Shatter.

Again, this is what the FCP was for...
...shame we pissed it away, innit?

Dian Cecht

Blay wrote: »

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.

Ya, that's what I thought.

Very true.

Dian Cecht

Sparks wrote: »

If a person says they won't do X in the future, how come they did Y in the past?


The Minister does not have to, but we've been told (and there's that written signed statement there) saying they will.



That's all up to Shatter.

Again, this is what the FCP was for...
...shame we pissed it away, innit?

TRUE ! Especially when it's a politician.

It's in writing, which is good, but refer to point above.

Sure if he's going to consult with "stakeholders" then that is FCP, more or less, which still excludes those who (a) aren't represented and (b) those who associations don't ask what the members actually want (think Crofton & reloading for a start!)

BattleCorp

Blay wrote: »

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. .

I see where you are coming from with this point but aren't the Chief Supers supposed to implement the law as it is right now and not as it "could possibly be or not be" in the near future.

If this is the case, then do the Chief Supers know more about any possible changes than they are letting on or possibly worse, just being pure malicious in refusing a licence on bogus grounds?

Sparks

Dian Cecht wrote: »

Sure if he's going to consult with "stakeholders" then that is FCP, more or less, which still excludes those who (a) aren't represented and (b) those who associations don't ask what the members actually want (think Crofton & reloading for a start!)

And (a) is actually nobody. Not everyone has direct representation in the FCP, yes, but that was by their own NGB's choices, not an unfair process.

Sparks

BattleCorp wrote: »

I see where you are coming from with this point but aren't the Chief Supers supposed to implement the law as it is right now and not as it "could possibly be or not be" in the near future.

Yes, and if that is the actual stated reason in a written refusal, then that wouldn't stand up in a DC hearing.

Mind you, the fact that we have to ask that question at all actually says a lot to me.

Dian Cecht

Sparks wrote: »

And (a) is actually nobody. Not everyone has direct representation in the FCP, yes, but that was by their own NGB's choices, not an unfair process.

Those in (a) are those who are not members of an association, they do exist, or those whose association may not be asked to submit to a consultation process (for whatever reason).

Dian Cecht

Sparks wrote: »

Yes, and if that is the actual stated reason in a written refusal, then that wouldn't stand up in a DC hearing.

Mind you, the fact that we have to ask that question at all actually says a lot to me.

Be interesting to know what was refused on these grounds. If it is a semi auto shotgun for instance it would validate NARGC & NASRPC's statement.

Sparks

Dian Cecht wrote: »

Those in (a) are those who are not members of an association, the do exist, or those whose association may not be asked to submit to a consultation process (for whatever reason).

If you signed up to no association at all, then yes; but you can't put 200,000 seats at one table, and we don't know how many people fell into that category for obvious reasons - you might as well argue that we didn't represent teapots in orbit around mars either.

There are't (or weren't, when the FCP was sitting) any unrepresented associations though.

Sparks

Dian Cecht wrote: »

Be interesting to know what was refused on these grounds. If it is a semi auto shotgun for instance it would validate NARGC & NASRPC's statement.

It would be far more interesting to know if those were the grounds at all.

And more interesting yet, to notice that we even have to ask...

Dian Cecht

Sparks wrote: »

If you signed up to no association at all, then yes; but you can't put 200,000 seats at one table, and we don't know how many people fell into that category for obvious reasons - you might as well argue that we didn't represent teapots in orbit around mars either.

There are't (or weren't, when the FCP was sitting) any unrepresented associations though.

Why does there have to be a the table? Only a certain type of people like sitting at tables.

A public consultation process with written submissions could be used. This would allow anyone, including organisations to submit proposals.

Dian Cecht

Sparks wrote: »

It would be far more interesting to know if those were the grounds at all.

And more interesting yet, to notice that we even have to ask...

Agreed, sometimes the devil is in the detail.

Fair point alright. I'd still be interested to know

Sparks

Dian Cecht wrote: »

Why does there have to be a the table?

It's a metaphorical table Dian, just to accomodate the awkward lads who harbour a deep resentment towards tables after the infamous Table Uprising of 1902.

A public consultation process with written submissions could be used. This would allow anyone, including organisations to submit proposals.

200,000 proposals.

Well, if you wanted to do something about clearing out those rain forests, that'd be a good start...

Amonisis

,

Blay wrote: »

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.

First you say that the Gardaí didn't lie to the WDAI, but follow on to prove they in fact did!?!? The Gardai stated to the WDAI that there are no proposals on the table, (intimating that the current review is just "business as usual" "Nothing to see here, move along, move along") Alan Shatters letter to the WDAI confirms that proposals are indeed on the table. Who's telling the porkies, AGS or DOJ? Which group has consistently tried to thwart the current legislation because it doesn't suit their particular agenda? Yes, agenda. From simple heel dragging all the way up to suspicions of tampering with evidence. Dogged perseverance by AGS to dictate what will be, to the law-abiding, trustworthy firearms owners of this country is despicable. We have been vetted and found to be of good character and deemed trustworthy people. How many porkies and scare stories will Minister Shatter be told by AGS during this review? The submitted proposals are being operated and in practice now, as if the review has already finished and that the AGS proposals were litigated in favour of. I speak from personal experience. Two incidents, the first being, a previously licensed unrestricted firearm suddenly coming up as restricted and the second being confirmation that the ballistics section is issuing dictates to FOs and Supers of what is and is not to get permits.
What everyone here needs to remember is that this bloody bickering and blame throwing is clouding the issue. More tyranny is afoot!

Dian Cecht

Sparks wrote: »

It's a metaphorical table Dian, just to accomodate the awkward lads who harbour a deep resentment towards tables after the infamous Table Uprising of 1902.


200,000 proposals.

Well, if you wanted to do something about clearing out those rain forests, that'd be a good start...

The 200,000 number would be fairly metaphorical too when push comes to shove and they could stipulate electronic submissions only just so Sting & you don't loose any sleep

Witcher

Amonisis wrote: »

,
First you say that the Gardaí didn't lie to the WDAI, but follow on to prove they in fact did!?!? The Gardai stated to the WDAI that there are no proposals on the table, (intimating that the current review is just "business as usual" "Nothing to see here, move along, move along") Alan Shatters letter to the WDAI confirms that proposals are indeed on the table.

Where did I say that? I said the Gardai denied making PROPOSALS, the NARGC confused that with them being involved in the review, the Gardai have always said they were involved in the DoJ's review. As the licencing authority, they would have to be.

Alan Shatter's letter states that there are NO proposals on the table atm. There is a review ongoing, if that review finds that changes need to be made then the Gardai will provide proposals which will be discussed in consultation with the shooting organisations. Again, no proposals are on the table right now.

Fallow01

Amonisis wrote: »

,

First you say that the Gardaí didn't lie to the WDAI, but follow on to prove they in fact did!?!? The Gardai stated to the WDAI that there are no proposals on the table, (intimating that the current review is just "business as usual" "Nothing to see here, move along, move along") Alan Shatters letter to the WDAI confirms that proposals are indeed on the table.

Alan Shatters letter states "no proposals have yet been finalised"

I think the NARGC and their co signatures have made a balls of this, they issued claims based on the perception rather than any fact, thinking nobody would actually pick up the phone and check

Why are the NARGC not providing any factual evidence but just trying to knock a fellow org for stating what they were told? why did they not speak to the main hunting/shooting organisations before issuing any statement?

Witcher

Fallow01 wrote: »

Alan Shatters letter states "no proposals have yet been finalised"

I think the NARGC and their co signatures have made a balls of this, they issued claims based on the perception rather than any fact, thinking nobody would actually pick up the phone and check

It's an utter fcuk up, even the information they do have they have failed to interpret correctly.

The Gardai issued a statement to the WDAI in which they said they had not put forward any proposals to date, the NASRPC read that and said 'oh so they're not involved in the review, they told us they were in an email'.

They're just taking their own meaning from Garda statements and disseminating it and those who aren't bothered looking up facts for themselves are swallowing it.

Sparks

Amonisis wrote: »

First you say that the Gardaí didn't lie to the WDAI, but follow on to prove they in fact did!?!? The Gardai stated to the WDAI that there are no proposals on the table

Actually, they didn't - they said they hadn't put forward proposals to the Minister that would do what the NARGC/NASPRC were saying they would.
And now the Minister has released a signed statement backing that up.

Alan Shatters letter to the WDAI confirms that proposals are indeed on the table.

No, it doesn't - there no mention in there at all of what these proposals are, and there couldn't be according to the DoJ because they've not been finalised yet.

Who's telling the porkies, AGS or DOJ?

You really can't limit that question's possible answers to just those two bodies.

How many porkies and scare stories will Minister Shatter be told by AGS during this review?

We don't know because we're on the outside looking in.
We used to be on the inside, but we decided we liked being out here and Fighting Da Powa better...

The submitted proposals are being operated and in practice now, as if the review has already finished and that the AGS proposals were litigated in favour of. I speak from personal experience. Two incidents, the first being, a previously licensed unrestricted firearm suddenly coming up as restricted and the second being confirmation that the ballistics section is issuing dictates to FOs and Supers of what is and is not to get permits.

Ballistics has been giving daft advice to Supers (they don't give it to FOs, FOs don't get to make licencing decisions) for as long as I've been shooting.
As to the two incidents, are you saying you've had two written refusals sent to you about them?
Or are you saying you heard from someone who knows someone that someone told them down the pub that this had happened?

What everyone here needs to remember is that this bloody bickering and blame throwing is clouding the issue. More tyranny is afoot!

Sparks

Dian Cecht wrote: »

The 200,000 number would be fairly metaphorical too when push comes to shove and they could stipulate electronic submissions only just so Sting & you don't loose any sleep

Sting's too busy tantraing and I'm too busy with a toddler to sleep.
And electronic only? Do you think we're in the 20th century or something, this is the Irish government you're talking about, and the Irish shooting community. Mobile phones still scare off half of us...

Witcher

I find it amusing that those who support the NARGC's coalition are playing the 'Let's stick together' card despite the fact that the NARGC alienated a shooting association in the course of this debate; the Wild Deer Association of Ireland.

WDAI actually bothered to go to the source, get the info and interpret it as given to them...apparently that makes them the enemy.

ace86

So there's a review going on and the AGS made no proposals to the Minister or DOJ,they probably won't tell us the truth anyway especially after the latest revelations with GSOC and the whistle blower thing. We all know we can have all them sitting in a room and a fellow pipes up and says maybe we should ban this or put these on a restricted list and pulls a bunch of papers out of his bag to back it up and the rest will nodd their heads and thats that. When their reviewing I take it the N.A.R.G.C,NARSPC,WDAI won't even be there but will be consulted afterwards once their finished. I know guys are blaming different Orginsations for jumping the and gun and making statements and scare mongering out of rumours and taking swipes at other ones but I believe all everyone was looking for clarity and something definite as to what was going to be discussed/proposed.

Amonisis

Sparks wrote: »

Actually, they didn't - they said they hadn't put forward proposals to the Minister that would do what the NARGC/NASPRC were saying they would.
And now the Minister has released a signed statement backing that up.


No, it doesn't - there no mention in there at all of what these proposals are, and there couldn't be according to the DoJ because they've not been finalised yet.


You really can't limit that question's possible answers to just those two bodies.


We don't know because we're on the outside looking in.
We used to be on the inside, but we decided we liked being out here and Fighting Da Powa better...


Ballistics has been giving daft advice to Supers (they don't give it to FOs, FOs don't get to make licencing decisions) for as long as I've been shooting.
As to the two incidents, are you saying you've had two written refusals sent to you about them?
Or are you saying you heard from someone who knows someone that someone told them down the pub that this had happened?

As to the incidents, I choose not to go into detail on a public forum. I will however explain by PM, should you wish.

rowa

Blay wrote: »

Where did I say that? I said the Gardai denied making PROPOSALS, the NARGC confused that with them being involved in the review, the Gardai have always said they were involved in the DoJ's review. As the licencing authority, they would have to be.

Alan Shatter's letter states that there are NO proposals on the table atm. There is a review ongoing, if that review finds that changes need to be made then the Gardai will provide proposals which will be discussed in consultation with the shooting organisations. Again, no proposals are on the table right now.

When i see shatter, the ags , the doj being refered to here and then look at the national news at the moment, it doesn't inspire confidence in anything they say. But to be fair the nargc etc don't either. The whole lot are a nest of vipers, and we are on the menu.

Cass

ace86 wrote: »

I know guys are blaming different Orginsations for jumping the and gun and making statements and scare mongering out of rumours and taking swipes at other ones...........

Have you read this thread? Don't blame you if you haven't, it's fairly long. However we are not taking swipes for "jumping the gun", we are annoyed that two organisations that knew full well what was going on in some aspects and knew nothing in others from nearly 5 months ago would, in the last 2-3weeks, start releasing statements to the "masses" without the necessary information to back up what they said would happen, and worse again speculate on what they did not know would happen.

Then there is the allegations off groups already working with the DoJ on these proposals which never happened as the DoJ had not received them. So either the NARGC/NASRPC are psychic or they done all this on a guess in which case it was reckless, and for two NGBs supposedly representing the needs and concerns of the shooters they should know better as it was their actions that caused panic in shooters.

............... but I believe all everyone was looking for clarity and something definite as to what was going to be discussed/proposed.

As said above (by Rowa i think) why did they not release a statement sayingg something like:

"Lads we know there are proposals coming. We don't know what these proposals are going to be. However we want to get a head start on this and are inviting all shooters to follow this and participate should it be necessary".

Instead we get:

"Dear God won't someone think of the children, sell your guns, keep writing annoying letters for ABSOLUTELY no reason, this other crowd don't know what they're saying, even if the DoJ tell us we cannot trust them, etc, etc."

civdef

Have you considered they got their information from a source they don't want to make public?
My own gut feeling on this is that the Garda proposals are real. Everyone acknowledges a review is underway.

The Dept says a consultation will be carried out, which is fair enough, but anyone with experience of the civil service will be able to explain that a consultation is exactly that, not a negotiation.

The Minister issued that letter yesterday because he was clearly getting lots of enquiries on the matter on this from TD's. I fail to see how it is a bad thing that they are at least aware this is a matter of concern to lots of ordinary decent law abiding citizens and that they are willing to contact their representatives about it.

This thread has become far far to involved in the past. The FCP is gone. Most of the organisations are rubbish and most of them did stupid stuff over the years. Ye need to get over it and move on because the sport will be going the same way if we don't cop on collectively.

Tackleberry.

I just got this reply to my inquiry


Reply on firearms licensing
F
firearms INBOX
to firearms_inbox
5 minutes agoDetails

Dear Sir / Madam.

This is a general notice to inform you of recent developments in relation
to the licensing of firearms in the context of a recent communication
received from you in relation to this matter.

The current position is that the Department of Justice and Equality is
currently examining key issues relating to firearms licensing, in
conjunction with An Garda Síochána.

No proposals have yet been finalised and it is expected recommendations as
a result of this process will be made in due course. No decisions will be
made in advance of consideration of these recommendations.

Opportunities for consultation with relevant stakeholders will be explored
when work on the proposals is further advanced.

Regards,

Crime 4 Division

12 February 2014


********************************************************************************

Sparks

civdef wrote: »

Have you considered they got their information from a source they don't want to make public?

Yes. But apart from the point that I don't actually believe that they have some secret squirrel who's talking to them to help shooters (to the same organisation that's been attacking the Gardai for years now?), there's the point that if I'm wrong and they did have a source and they cared more about protecting them than protecting our interests, then they shouldn't have made this public.

Seriously, the idea that their actions haven't compromised some secret source if that was what they had is just downright wrong.

This thread has become far far to involved in the past. The FCP is gone. Most of the organisations are rubbish and most of them did stupid stuff over the years. Ye need to get over it and move on because the sport will be going the same way if we don't cop on collectively.

(a) Santayana.
(b) I would regard not trusting groups and people who burned or tried to burn us in the recent past (as opposed to 50 years ago) as "copping on".

If they want our help, they should treat us like adults and divulge what information they have and let us all act on it if it's real; but that's not what we're seeing called for here, we're seeing one person or group wanting to be in charge of everyone and to have everyone jumps on their word without any no supporting evidence.

Dunno 'bout you, but I got a firearms licence to do target shooting, not to join an unofficial army, and I'm married and have a job so I already have two bosses, I'm not looking for another.

If these proposals are real and they've landed on a Minister's desk instead of not making it past the first reading in a DoJ office with a civil servant who spent the time facepalming at the content - which frankly, I don't believe - then yes, we should act, and will.

And yes, we are handicapped by not being in the process earlier. But (a) the people calling for action are the people who put us in that position so if they say they're the solution I'm not really inclined to believe them; and (b) charging about like headless chickens complaining about things nobody will ever get to see is a fast way to get yourself ignored and to waste your efforts.

Cass

civdef wrote: »

Have you considered they got their information from a source they don't want to make public?

Why?

We named our source earlier in the thread. If the source is giving correct information then they should stand by it. If the source does not want to be named or quoted then you need to question the validity of the information they are providing.

Seeing as how the NARGC/NASRPC are picking apart the statement from the WDAI for inaccuracies you'd think they would name their source to put the issue to bed. Also nothing has been mentioned about the source we used.

My own gut feeling on this is that the Garda proposals are real. Everyone acknowledges a review is underway.

The proposals being real are not an issue. Not for me. The content of them is. We were told weeks ago what these proposals were meant to be yet other than the Gardaí that issued them no one seems to know what they are and then the letter from Shatter's office states they still have not been finalised.

The Dept says a consultation will be carried out, which is fair enough, but anyone with experience of the civil service will be able to explain that a consultation is exactly that, not a negotiation.

You don't need to be a civil servant or experience with them. Every gun owner knows that we have no rights, and hence no negotiation stance.

The Minister issued that letter yesterday because he was clearly getting lots of enquiries on the matter on this from TD's. I fail to see how it is a bad thing that they are at least aware this is a matter of concern to lots of ordinary decent law abiding citizens and that they are willing to contact their representatives about it.

From the start it was said by the NARGC/NASRPC to write to the TD/Minister to object to the proposals announced by them. They WERE NOT announced by AGS/DoJ, but only by the NARGC/NASRPC.

I don't know how many times this needs said, but as the DoJ had not received finalised proposals so how could they either address the concerns about any pending proposals or write a reply when they were not aware of what the proposals were.

This thread has become far far to involved in the past. The FCP is gone. Most of the organisations are rubbish and most of them did stupid stuff over the years. Ye need to get over it and move on because the sport will be going the same way if we don't cop on collectively.

That attitude sickens me, and is short sighted/naive. You are saying to forget the past when the very group(s) that have caused trouble in the VERY RECENT PAST are once again at it. Not only the same group, but the same people.

The past!!!!!!!. It's only been a couple of years. Not 10, 15 or 20. But we should just sit back and let them at it. See what damage they can do this time. Evident in their renewed call for people to continue their letter writing campaign only 4 days ago. A fact addressed by Shatter's office as being annoying, and less than useful at this point. (and before it's pointed out that that was not said, read between the lines)

How many chances are people going to give for them to do this sort of thing? Wait till the time they really mess things up and then the question will be why did people not do more to stop them.

wexfordman2

Tackleberry. wrote: »

I just got this reply to my inquiry


Reply on firearms licensing
F
firearms INBOX
to firearms_inbox
5 minutes agoDetails

Dear Sir / Madam.

This is a general notice to inform you of recent developments in relation
to the licensing of firearms in the context of a recent communication
received from you in relation to this matter.

The current position is that the Department of Justice and Equality is
currently examining key issues relating to firearms licensing, in
conjunction with An Garda Síochána.

No proposals have yet been finalised and it is expected recommendations as
a result of this process will be made in due course. No decisions will be
made in advance of consideration of these recommendations.

Opportunities for consultation with relevant stakeholders will be explored
when work on the proposals is further advanced.

Regards,

Crime 4 Division

12 February 2014


********************************************************************************

Only thing that I can say about that, is perhaps they could outline what the 'key issues' are, at least that would be transparent.

Also, opportunities will be explored!!