Statement from NASRPC

BillyBoy13

Sparks wrote: »

As I've tried explaining a few times, Joe Public doesn't know that law-abiding, mentally stable, vetted and profiled citizens own handguns.

Im not singling you out when I say this, its something thats bothered me for a while. (You just happened to be the person that brought it up :P )

But I can think of quite a few instances where people with legally held firearms broke the law doing something that.... emmm, I hate to say it like this, but doing stuff a "normal" person wouldnt do.

I know its a slippery slope to go down, but I have seen a few people with firearms over the years that I have wondered about- obviously the super was privey to the medical files and Im not. So he probably knows something I dont.

But I personally would fully support stricter background checks- though given the AGS is stretched thin as it is Im not sure if we will ever see such a thing

Witcher

There's not really much more background detail the Gardai can ask for.

Background checks are of limited use anyway, they only tell the Gardai what you've done in the past not what you will do in the future. You can't predict somebody snapping down the line.

Sparks

Blay wrote: »

There's not really much more background detail the Gardai can ask for.

Not only that, there's not much more authority we could actually give the Super beyond what he has now - which is pretty much the legal authority to do anything he feels is necessary without actually rewriting the law itself.
He doesn't think someone should have a firearm - they don't get one, that's pretty much the current situation.

BillyBoy13

Blay wrote: »

There's not really much more background detail the Gardai can ask for.

Background checks are of limited use anyway, they only tell the Gardai what you've done in the past not what you will do in the future. You can't predict somebody snapping down the line.

I see what you are saying, I can understand if a lads wife leaves him and she takes the kids... then he gets depressed. Then he loses his job and then before you know it he goes and does something stupid. That's unpredictable.

Im talking about people, this is such a slippery slope and I really dont want to get into this as Im no way qualified to say whos "normal" and whos not. But I have met a few people over the years who just wouldnt be the full shillin and they were licence holders.

Because this person died a few years back I dont mind saying it, but there was an eccentric landowner who lived on his own, and he was known for walking around his fields at night with no clothes on. And he had an old rusty single barrel in the house. Obviously he had the gun for years and he never did anyone any harm... but I still wondered about it sometimes.

Sparks

BillyBoy13 wrote: »

I see what you are saying, I can understand if a lads wife leaves him and she takes the kids... then he gets depressed. Then he loses his job and then before you know it he goes and does something stupid. That's unpredictable.

And the Super has the authority under section 5(1)(b) to revoke the licence and take back the firearm before that something stupid happens. Shy of requiring you to be under constant medical supervision (don't laugh, it was suggested), there's not much more you can do about that other than giving the gardai the power to do something about it and hope that it gets noticed in time.
(Besides, you can be stupid with a lot more than just a firearm, so you wouldn't be fixing the real problem anyway).

Because this person died a few years back I dont mind saying it, but there was a landowner who was known for walking around his fields at night with no clothes on.

Yeah, but nudism is not actually mental instablity, you realise. It's not the usual thing in Ireland, but then, much of what's "usual" in Ireland is seen in most of the rest of the world as deeply wrong and crazy, and some ould fella being a nudist at night on his own property bothers me a damn sight less than things like Anglo, Irish Water, the religious orders, and a dozen and one other things that we all could list off in a dozen seconds if we thought about it.

Now, he goes down to the shops while nude and not realising he'd left the pants back at the house, that would be grounds to pull his licence.

BillyBoy13

Sparks wrote: »

Yeah, but nudism is not actually mental instablity, you realise.

Yes. I know what you are saying. And like I said he was a harmless enough chap, but he just wouldn't have being the full shillin. He had rats in the house, didn't clean himself, didn't shave, he wouldn't talk to anyone, walked about the fields in the nude. Like I said, obviously the super had access to medical files that I havent seen, and obviously Im not qualified in mental health to really say anything of value.

But if I was a super I would have had a hard time granting him the licence. I suppose in the end he did have it for all those years and there was never an issue.... but emm.... actually... I think I'll leave it there- I dont want to open a can of worms about what makes a person "normal".

Sparks

BillyBoy13 wrote: »

Yes. I know what you are saying. And like I said he was a harmless enough chap, but he just wouldn't have being the full shillin. He had rats in the house, didn't clean himself, didn't shave, he wouldn't talk to anyone, walked about the fields in the nude.

Ah, now, that's a bit more than you first said
But it does underscore the point - we don't always know all the facts involved and sometimes those facts are kindof central.

On the other hand, sometimes the reasons given for refusals are just plain wrong, and in those cases either the decision was wrong or the refusal wasn't done properly, and neither of those is a good thing (there's a pretty strong argument that the latter was a contributing factor to Abbylara, for example).

BattleCorp

Cass wrote: »

Yup. As said in post 3 or 4:

Originally Posted by Cass
There are a lot of changes floating around about changes to the current legislation including .22lr pistols being further restricted, and even more rumors about them being done away with. Same with semi auto rimfires. One of the key rumors i've heard is they are afraid that an unrestricted pistol can be made restricted by simply putting in a larger capacity mag.

I know it has been said already but I think it's worth mentioning again because some shooters don't give a sh1te about a few lads with pistols if it doesn't affect them but from what I'm hearing, it mightn't stop at pistols, and that's something that should concern all shooters on here.

chem

Folks lets look at the bigger picture here! If any or all of the romours are right the following questions would come into play.

Will the DOJ balk at paying compensation for confiscating private property?

Do they have the stomach for hundreds of high court cases?

Will thousands of letters get the government & opposition mobilised?

What about Public opinion and wasting taxpayer's money?

How much unity is there among shooters and their organisations?

How much money will they commit to a legal and public relations campaign?

Are the guards bluffing and what is the minimum they would settle for?

Now, as to the second question, are the Garda payed overtime/millage etc to attend high court cases? I wonder!

Sparks

chem wrote: »

Folks lets look at the bigger picture here! If any or all of the romours are right the following questions would come into play.

Based on the last thirty years:

No, Yes, No, Public opinion isn't on our side, Does the FCP's demise not answer that, None, Why would they bluff or settle, and, they're paid to be there but I don't think it's overtime.

It wasn't me!

chem wrote: »

Folks lets look at the bigger picture here! If any or all of the romours are right the following questions would come into play.

Will the DOJ balk at paying compensation for confiscating private property?

They don't have to. Just make them illegal, then the current owners can no longer possess them. Absolutely no responsibility to compensate on the part of the state.

Do they have the stomach for hundreds of high court cases?

Yes, indubitably.

Will thousands of letters get the government & opposition mobilised?

Maybe, if the letters made it clear that there were a concrete advantage to paying attention, but that's not terribly likely. Nor is getting thousands of people writing letters, for that matter.

What about Public opinion and wasting taxpayer's money?

It would quickly be spun as nuisance gun nuts wasting taxpayers' money dragging the state to court over what they see as their given right. It would be made a farce faster than you can dream it.

How much unity is there among shooters and their organisations?

What is unity? People are fighting their corners. That's their responsibility. Unity in this context seems to have some nebulous attributed meaning along the lines of "why isn't everyone deeply sympathetic to my specific position and willing to throw their resources into a fight they don't see as their own?"

How much money will they commit to a legal and public relations campaign?

The imaginary "shooting community"? I doubt you'd get the coins out of all their pockets. So, er, *jinglejingle* none?

Are the guards bluffing and what is the minimum they would settle for?

Bluffing about what? They're a stakeholder in the process and are engaging with it I'm sure. As servants of the law, however, they'll deal with it as it emerges from the government, as will the rest of us.

rowa

What do you think ?

Grizzly 45

Or the "Well I should get the last parachute,because I'm great!" sentiment might also be applied too.:(

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Or the "Well I should get the last parachute,because I'm great!" sentiment might also be applied too.:(

I love how people think there's a parachute to be had. Or that it might be worth the scramble...

Dian Cecht

Ah sure worst case scenario we can all start shooting stuff that's in the Olympics, be it rifle, pistol or shotgun. They'll hardly ban any of that stuff.

Sparks

You mean like Olympic Pistol, which was banned along with everything else (unless you were in the army) until 2004?

Sparks

Or do you mean like ISSF 300m rifle, which was banned along with everything else until 2004?

Dian Cecht

Then they were banned by default not by design, which is what we're possibly looking at now though.

Sparks

Dian Cecht wrote: »

Then they were banned by default not by design, which is what we're possibly looking at now though.

Yeah, that's poop. The "design" was "ban everything other than shotguns, air rifles and .22lr rifles", and it was well known what that would do. And it was pointed out anyway back in the early 70s and ignored.

Dian Cecht

I must not be explaining it properly or you simply took offence as I mention Olympic shooting possibly being treated differently or as has already been pointed out, my posts are/may be condescending. My point is that surely for them now to possibly ban some Olympic discipline by design or even default there would/could be a good argument made to keep these options open, surely.

Sparks

If (and it's still a big if) the rumour mill is correct, then I get the feeling we're past the point where good arguments are heard, let alone where they have an impact...

Dian Cecht

The rumour mill, if we're to believe what's been said, means that every facet of the shooting sports could/will be affected, even down to a game shooter with a currently unrestricted semi-auto or a pump action shotgun.

So, from a small minority of target shooters pursuing a small minority of Chief Supers through various courts and in the process they've made a Garda ballistics "expert" look "silly" (apparently this has happened in a lot of these cases if anecdotal evidence can be believed) now nearly every shooting enthusiast is looking at further restrictions at the behest of the Gardaí. If our little country has deteriorated to this then I think it reflects badly on our society as a whole. What group will be next for "special" treatment? It looks like those who stand up the Gardaí, for whatever reason, should fear being targeted afterwards for special treatment. A country where the populace is policed through fear of recrimination and/or sanctions against them in whatever form that takes makes me wonder what's next !

Grizzly 45

Dian Cecht wrote: »

My point is that surely for them now to possibly ban some Olympic discipline by design or even default there would/could be a good argument made to keep these options open, surely.

Ask the UK Olympic pistol team about that one post Dunblane when they are back from their monthly week of training in Geneva.

So, from a small minority of target shooters pursuing a small minority of Chief Supers through various courts and in the process they've made a Garda ballistics "expert" look "silly" (apparently this has happened in a lot of these cases if anecdotal evidence can be believed

Well nothing very ancedotal about that point.... Its now confirmed in a DC judgement!:P

Mississippi.

Hello all
I dont want to be coming at this with a totally defeatest attitude but say for example you did have a .308 and it was on the totally restricted list what are your options?

1. Could you take it in to the north and sell it on if you knew your license was going to be rejected or if you waited till it was rejected would your paper work being out of date leave you not able to export it?

2. If the Guards were lifting it would you be able to screw the scope and bipod off?

3. How should you go about oiling or greasing it if you thought it was going away for 20 years? would even gun oil go to glar? would a light grease be better? any particular kind of grease?

Just some thoughts. Thanks Guys

Witcher

Mississippi. wrote: »

Hello all
I dont want to be coming at this with a totally defeatest attitude but say for example you did have a .308 and it was on the totally restricted list what are your options?

1. Could you take it in to the north and sell it on if you knew your license was going to be rejected or if you waited till it was rejected would your paper work being out of date leave you not able to export it?

2. If the Guards were lifting it would you be able to screw the scope and bipod off?

3. How should you go about oiling or greasing it if you thought it was going away for 20 years? would even gun oil go to glar? would a light grease be better? any particular kind of grease?

Just some thoughts. Thanks Guys

1. You could hand it into a dealer who could sell it abroad for you.

2. Yes.

3. Pack it in grease and wrap it in grease proof paper, that's the army did with the firearms taken in 1972. Know a lad that got one back a few years ago and it was as good as when it was handed in.

Mississippi.

Blay wrote: »

3. Pack it in grease and wrap it in grease proof paper, that's the army did with the firearms taken in 1972. Know a lad that got one back a few years ago and it was as good as when it was handed in.

Just ordinary lithium based grease and baking type kitchen paper?
I suspose you would put some on a patch and put a good layer on the inside of the barrel as well.

Witcher

Mississippi. wrote: »

Just ordinary lithium based grease and baking type kitchen paper?
I suspose you would put some on a patch and put a good layer on the inside of the barrel as well.

I've no idea what type but I think I've read somewhere that it should be brown, stops bleaching of the stock or something. Dunno how true that is, it would probably be in a crate or something anyway out of sunlight so bleaching wouldn't be an issue.

Cass

Mississippi. wrote: »

.......... say for example you did have a .308 and it was on the totally restricted list what are your options?

Restricted does not mean banned or cannot be licensed. It means it requires a higher level of scrutiny, via a Chief Super rather than a Super, to decide on the application.

1. Could you take it in to the north and sell it on if you knew your license was going to be rejected or if you waited till it was rejected would your paper work being out of date leave you not able to export it?

You can store it in a gun dealers (RFD), and leave there while you sell it here. If you were rejected, and only if, (never sell anything based on what might happen) it does not mean someone else may not get licensed for it.

You do of course have the option to sell abroad, but it's messy and the prices would not be near what were paid for them here. So take the hit and cut your losses or try sell it here.

2. If the Guards were lifting it would you be able to screw the scope and bipod off?

Yes. Only the firearm is licensed.

Secondly it would require an outright ban, and for you to still be in possession of the gun for the Gardaí to come and remove it from you. The smart thing to do is to store it in a gun dealers if your license has expired, and then you are not in possession of it, and can move forward with another plan.

Lastly if the Gardaí did seize the gun, it's still your property. You paid for it, and as such are entitled to the monies from any sale of it.

3. How should you go about oiling or greasing it if you thought it was going away for 20 years? would even gun oil go to glar? would a light grease be better? any particular kind of grease?

Would not even come into my thought process. I'll store it, and sell for a Euro before i allow it to sit for years in some barracks. We need to learn from the mistakes of the past (The Firearms (Temporary Custody) Order 1972). Hundreds/thousands of guns taken, and never returned to rightful owners. Disgrace.


All this is moot. They will not outright ban .308 rifles. They are not military firearms regardless of the spouting of some TDs and most media sources. To make them restricted, along with all the other rumors i've heard, would increase the workload of Chief Supers by over 25-40%. Given that Supers (of which there are more) cannot keep up with the current workload what are the chances of making all pistols restricted along with semi auto rimfires, semi auto shotuguns (all of them), anything over .243, etc, and increasing the workload of Chief Supers and by doing so relegating them to the level of Super and FO?


Apologies if i come across as gruff, it's not directed at any one here. Just we are all in a tizzy about all these proposed changes, even though no one knows what they are, and we have rubbish being spouted about deals being done on non existent legislation, rumors about banning and restrictions by people in positions of "authority" that should know better, etc. It boils my blood that we are so easily scared into a flurry of panic.

This legislation change will occur regardless. We all have something to loose, myself included, but it will happen with or without our panicking. I'm not saying there is no cause for concern, but lets wait and see what comes. We cannot challenge or stop any possible law changes before they become law. We also have no more input via a group like the FCP. For better or worse we pissed that away, so now we sit and wait.

Mississippi.

Apologies if i come across as gruff, it's not directed at any one here. Just we are all in a tizzy about all these proposed changes, even though no one knows what they are, and we have rubbish being spouted about deals being done on non existent legislation, rumors about banning and restrictions by people in positions of "authority" that should know better, etc. It boils my blood that we are so easily scared into a flurry of panic.

This legislation change will occur regardless. We all have something to loose, myself included, but it will happen with or without our panicking. I'm not saying there is no cause for concern, but lets wait and see what comes. We cannot challenge or stop any possible law changes before they become law. We also have no more input via a group like the FCP. For better or worse we pissed that away, so now we sit and wait.

No you did not come across as being too gruff or anything I was just thinking outloud some of the options going round my head.

Cass

Just wanted to make it clear that none of what i said, other than the direct responses to your questions, was directed at you or any one else.

Grizzly 45

Lads.
Technology HAS moved on a tad in deep storage of firearms since 1972.
Where that to happen,I cant see how,the army is kicking up Hell about having to store the now unreturnable amount of guns stuck in barracks armouries across the land,so I dioubt they want a fresh supply of arms to baby sit for another fourty years plus.

But knowing that dumber things have happened...:rolleyes:
There is a rake of systems that should deep store your gun for decades if not centuries. Everything from chemically treated "socks" or sleeping bags,to actually storing in customised nitrogen filled cases.
Even bog standard vaccum sealers in Lidil can be used along with these kind of bags

http://www.brownells.com/gunsmith-tools-supplies/shop-accessories-supplies/gun-storage-materials/gun-storage-bags/vacuum-seal-storage-bags-prod42749.aspx

https://www.zcorrproducts.com/

Just ordinary lithium based grease and baking type kitchen paper?
I suspose you would put some on a patch and put a good layer on the inside of the barrel as well.

Nope,you want to use COSMOLINE.Its a Vaseline type gel,but much thicker and is specifically designed for guns.Anyone who has handled an older military firearm will tell you how hard it is to get off properly,they were virtually submerged in this stuff before being crated up the brown wrapping paper is just to keep this goop from running all over the place if there was a temp change on the hotter side of things. As the military isnt too worried bout how "pretty " your rifle looks when issued to you they arent too worried about what colour the stock is when you get it. So it might not be prudent not to go slopping it straight off on your fancy wood walnut burl stock straight off.
Indeed you can put this stuff in the barrel,but make damn sure you can clean it out again in a few decades maybe,this stuff is a mega pain to clean off guns as anyone who has been issued a new gun in the army "out of the box " will tell you.:P

Mississippi.

Thanks Grizzly,
Thats the kind of bits of info I was looking for.

2011

I'm not concerned.
Storm in a teacup I reckon.

BattleCorp

2011 wrote: »

I'm not concerned.
Storm in a teacup I reckon.

I hope you are right.

clivej

2011 wrote: »

I'm not concerned.
Storm in a teacup I reckon.

Well here's my 2 cents worth and all from reliable sources

1. Cap on the total number of firearms you can have.
2. All handguns to be banned.
3. All semi-auto, pump action shotguns to be banned.
4. All semi-auto centerfire rifles to be banned.

This is only some of what the commissioners want. That's not to say they will get all or any .

Sparks

I think I could have a really bad accident with fireworks and still count on the fingers of one hand how many reliable sources there are. There's the Minister and the Minister. And after a while the Principal Officer, but generally just the Minister.

There are lots of folks who reckon they're reliable sources. There are also lots of diets that say they can get you to lose a hundred pounds while eating all the chocolate you want. I think there's a similar degree of connection with reality between those two groups

I would be unsurprised if the commissioner wanted all of the above - he's the commissioner, if all private firearms were banned tonight, he'd be a happy man.

rowa

Everytime the minister/doj etc fanny around with the the firearms laws , its comes back to bite them in the arse, there has been no huge amount of crime committed with legally held firearms recently, no immediate reason to start banning anything, apart from some hurt feelings after the pistols court cases. Add to that callinan isn't flavour of the month with shatter after the points scandal. Maybe shatter will let the hare sit.

2011

clivej wrote: »

Well here's my 2 cents worth and all from reliable sources

1. Cap on the total number of firearms you can have.
2. All handguns to be banned.
3. All semi-auto, pump action shotguns to be banned.
4. All semi-auto centerfire rifles to be banned.

All of my "reliable sources" said that things will stay the same.

Over the years I have come across so many "reliable sources" I have lost count. Inevitably some of them have to be correct some of the time, but I would take most of what they say with a large pinch of salt.

Either way in a few weeks we will know who is correct

Cass

I have said from the start of this thread that i don't believe in what i'm told till i see it. There is far too much speculation, "wink wink, nudge, nudge" and other hype going on.

There has been nothing from the DoJ about any changes. Either rumor or events that would lead to them changing anything. Like so many other rumors that have circulated over the years the majority of them come from people with active imaginations letting the smallest amount of information (correct or otherwise) turn it into something it's not.

The second point, that i have made numerous times, is the information we are being fed which includes:

• Unnamed groups ceding to these changes even though no changes have been announced.
• The fact that no organisations have come out with anything inkling of what these supposed changes may be (bar one).
• The severe range of "changes" from banning everything to anything over .243, semi auto everything, etc, etc. IOW no specifics. Just speculation.
• Lastly if these changes are going to be so severe why have no other NGBs been notified. No heads up, etc. Regardless of the fact the DoJ don't need to give courtesy notifications, it's ran by people, and secrets have a way of being leaked to friends, etc. Yet nothing from anyone to the NGBs or from the NGBs to members.

I'm not saying that there 100% will be no changes. I am, however, very, dubious about the level of changes some are saying will come, the sources they claim (yet never name) to have gotten this from, and the sheer silence/lack of factual information from any other reliable (& verifiable) source.

As Sparks, and others have said above (any in hundreds of previous threads) An Gardaí do not want firearms in the hands of citizens (that's a generalisation and not directed at all members of An Gardaí) so their opposition to firearms or any recommendations to the minister are nothing to be surprised about. Until the DoJ do something, everything else is simply white noise.

I truly hope i'm right, and will be disappointed, annoyed and angry if i'm wrong. However i'll wait to see what happens rather than panic of nothing which at this point it is.

BillyBoy13

Sparks wrote: »

He's the commissioner, if all private firearms were banned tonight, he'd be a happy man.

Sparks,

Thats something I was hinting at in the history thread. We have so many people that would love to see firearms gone. Joe soap wouldnt give a damn. The minister could wipe them out tomorrow with one pen stroke and nobody would bat an eyelid.... as a matter of fact he might even gain a few votes from the "look at American school shootings we dont want that over here" crowd.

But for whatever reasons it hasn't been done.

Now you could argue the farmers would kick up.... but we both know it wouldnt be hard to work around that. I mean just of the top of my head he could put an outright ban on target shooting including clays. Farmers can still apply for licenses or can nominate 5 lads to look after his land. Only shotguns and 22lrs, hummers for fox, 243 for deer and everything else banned.

What Im getting at is that we always think of them as... well Im sure you know what some people on here call them. But it always turns into an us against them and you know for the most part I dont think they are "out to get us" like I said- if they wanted us gone we'd be gone in the morning. That's why Im still convinced we can work with them, despite all the nonsense that happened the last time around. I know you're skeptical (or just generally sick of having your time wasted) but I still think we can do it.

Sparks

You misread me there BB - the Commissioner would prefer to see all firearms confiscated, but that doesn't mean all the powers that be feel that way. The Minister, for example, takes one look at the IFA reaction and shotguns are safe (the Minister isn't our friend necessarily, but it's a case of the path of least votes lost...). But there's a fine line between too much hassle to ban and too much hassle full stop...

BattleCorp

I wonder is it a case of "let them think we are going to try to ban everything and then they will be relieved if we only ban pistols" or something along those lines.

That's what they do when they are coming up to a difficult budget, leak info and then don't make as many cuts as was leaked. Then joe public thinks that the budget wasn't as bad as it could have been.

BillyBoy13

Sparks wrote: »

You misread me there BB

No I wasnt replying exclusively to what I quoted you on about the commissioner. (I probably should have made that more clear, sorry).

I meant that generally speaking there would be a lot of people in government, AGS etc that are dreaming of the day that firearms are taking away and as I said it would be a handy way to garner support from Joe Public with a simple spin- 'Im going to ban firearms before its too late and before we have a school shooting'.

What Im saying is he has all these incentives to come down hard on us and no real reason to support us. But thus far the various ministers tend to leave us be.

One obvious example is they gave us the reloading in midlands when there was zero obligation to do it. That there for me speaks volumes. I see that as we might not be the ministers favourite group in society but that he doesnt hate us and that he will work with us if he can.

Sparks wrote: »

But there's a fine line between too much hassle to ban and too much hassle full stop...

What hassle? The farmers? As I said it wouldn't be hard to put a general firearm ban out for me and you but leave an exemption for farmers.

50cal

They have lost a few court cases and that left some egg on their faces but most of these supers have seen murderers and rapists walk free! We don't really pose any great worry for them on a day to day basis with our legally held firearms.
My own feeling is that there may be something in the pipeline for owners of restricted firearms - but that said,
We are a dwindling minority and most supers only have a handful in their juristiction to keep an eye on !? The Gardai have more important issues on their plates and they know that they have wasted enough time in courtrooms fighting us lately.
Restricted firearms owners are already subject to extremely tough conditions on their use and storage.
I'm optimistic!

Cass

Before i start this is not a "Bash the NASRPC" exercise. I cite them simply as it's their statement that caused the creation of this thread, and they are the only NGB to have mentioned anything about supposed changes.

• They, as said above, are the only NGB to speak of this. Not one other has even mentioned it. The NARGC, which is by far the largest and most vocal of the NGBs has made no mention of it. So where are they getting their info from?
• The lack of specifics, and the frequent use of the words "believe", "Likely to be", coupled with "No details given", "Nothing specified" all says to me - nothing. IOW they simply don't know if there will be changes, what they are, and more to the point when they will be inacted.

Surely the legislation coming under review does not guarantee changes? I mean the Gardaí must sumit dozens if not hundreds of reviews to the Minister's office yearly about firearms and other matters. How many are acted on?


Also i'd like to know what submissions have been handed in by the NASRPC and any other NGB for that matter. If i am a member or more to the point, and regardless of membership status, if it affects me and my firearms i want to know what OTHER PEOPLE are doing on my behalf or that will have ramifications on me. That was tired before and was a disaster and i want no one working behind the scenes on something that will effect me without my knowing about it.

Dian Cecht

Cass wrote: »

Also i'd like to know what submissions have been handed in by the NASRPC and any other NGB for that matter. If i am a member or more to the point, and regardless of membership status, if it affects me and my firearms i want to know what OTHER PEOPLE are doing on my behalf or that will have ramifications on me. That was tired before and was a disaster and i want no one working behind the scenes on something that will effect me without my knowing about it.

+1

bpb101

so ... any idea on what these new restrictions will be.
Stepping away from the shooting side, i wouldnt be supprised that airsofts must require a orange tag on the mussel or go as far as to say that they have to be more than half a bright reflective colour

Also wouldn't be surprised to see shooter must have insurances.
As cass i think said say .22 pistols will become harder to get. and or limit the mags

cw67irl

Mags are already limited to five rounds, Fingers crossed we will at least be able to keep the pistols we have now, I wouldnt fancy being a new applicant for one from now on though!

Grizzly 45

BillyBoy13 wrote: »

No I wasnt replying exclusively to what I quoted you on about the commissioner. (I probably should have made that more clear, sorry).

I meant that generally speaking there would be a lot of people in government, AGS etc that are dreaming of the day that firearms are taking away and as I said it would be a handy way to garner support from Joe Public with a simple spin- 'Im going to ban firearms before its too late and before we have a school shooting'.

Its also called a broad supposition,[ in the sense of that all males are potential rapists because they have penises,so its best we castrate them at birth,kind of logic]and a very slippery slope to go down politically. TBH most European countries bar the UK that have had mass shootings havent run off and banned any particular type of firearm as they realise it isnt the gun at fault rather the person and worked on that POV.
Not one of them has ever worked on the supposition like Ireland, we do a lot of supposition in our law,would,could,might is not good law or good societial structuring either. Prime example the TCO 1972...Logic...The IRA "might" arm them selves off civillians and gunshops..Logic take the potential threat out of the harms way..Effect...the IRA arm themselves from sympathisers abroad in the US/Canada and finally politically with 300 tonnes of war material from a lunatic despot which is still unaccounted for to today. Who suffered the most...The law abiding Irish gun owner. IOW Having to think outside the box with no "quick fixes" is not a job Paddy the Politican is good at or really wants to get involved in and rather keeps status quo.

What Im saying is he has all these incentives to come down hard on us and no real reason to support us. But thus far the various ministers tend to leave us be.

See above TCO example.. Now because of much can kicking of various govts and ministers.The State is now obligated to sit on virtually forever various bits of personal civillian property and keep it under army gaurd.Same like the dormant accounts in banks. No forward thinking to the day of "If and when" the NI conflict would be sorted ,what then??

One obvious example is they gave us the reloading in midlands when there was zero obligation to do it. That there for me speaks volumes. I see that as we might not be the ministers favourite group in society but that he doesnt hate us and that he will work with us if he can.

Looking at it on the surface that is... There is a whole untold story of the Midlands reloading that would make a very intresting book.

TBH bar Messers OMalley and Aherne who did have a serious bug in their bonnets about guns.Most of them considerd us a irrevelance nicely piegon holed and bundled away from the 1970s to the late 90s.Nowadays,well unless you are a minister that knows a butt from a barrel you wouldnt have a clue about a complex subject like this on your breif. Remember one thing these people are human and like all of us falaible. Just because you become finance minister doesnt make you a second Keyes straight off,when in a previous life you couldnt balance your cheque book.
So thats where the danger lies,they rely on their advisors,spin doctors and Sir Humphry types of their revelant depts to explain and simplify the matters for them,and thats where the danger lies of the permanent govt of beuraccy gets their spin in on things.
Politicans come and go mostly every four years,the beuracrat regins in his dept forever.:rolleyes:
Who will they belive?Their "trusted advisors" or some group espousing the exact opposite??Of course they will "listen" to us...But thats being a politican,being intrested in your plight and making soothing noises is bread and butter to them.
In short look deeper at motives and reasoning or simply think "what would I do if I was the minister at this current time?"

What hassle? The farmers? As I said it wouldn't be hard to put a general firearm ban out for me and you but leave an exemption for farmers

Is there a grant in it?:)

Sparks

bpb101 wrote: »

As cass i think said say .22 pistols will become harder to get. and or limit the mags

That's actually not what he said y'know...

The timing of the rumours and the recent DC judgements is scary allright, but without the FCP in place we've no way to know if this is real or not. There's been scarier rumours in earlier years that were total horse biscuits, and they all came from "reliable sources" as well.

Me, I'm waiting to see something real before I panic, thanks.