Statement from NASRPC

Witcher

There seems to be some serious confusion between the review of restricted firearms licencing which we know Shatter is undertaking this month and some mythical proposals from AGS.

This review is nothing new, it's been on the cards for months. People are hearing review and are jumping to the conclusion that bans are on the way and we're all fcuked.

Tackleberry.

Sparks wrote: »

So your local TD's secretary knows what's on a Ministers desk (sorry, but I think that's bullshine), but not what's actually on the Ministers desk (which seems terribly convenient to me - every single Minister has dozens of reports in the air at once, so if you find out they're shining your bull later on, they can just say "whoops, sorry, out bad, wrong report, we thought you meant this one") , so we all need to write off to our local TDs and tell them we want something stopped but don't know what it is or what exactly is wrong with it and they have to go up against a sitting Minister with that (yeah, I can't see too many TDs being happy about that notion).

Tack, if you want to do that, you're your own man/woman, but I'll pass until I actually see the proposals thanks. I don't think that's too much to ask for, is it?

You might never see any proposal, and wake up some morning only to see a new SI in place with all our fears come tru...the Minister has that power, what then boo hoo...
Correct I am my own man and I will continue down the road I'm on, I don't believe that asking our local TDs to ask the Minister what the truth is on a rumour that is causing a ****e loads of letters of concern in to each and every TDs mailbox across the country.
Even if this is all bull, today's meeting with my TD ain't a waste as it highlighted the Garda lack of interest in complying with the current SI.

Sparks

Tackleberry. wrote: »

You might never see any proposal, and wake up some morning only to see a new SI in place with all our fears come tru...the Minister has that power, what then boo hoo...

Yes, and if he chose to do that, there would be nothing we could do to stop that. Like I said, it's the nuclear option.
And panicing and going to the TDs now on the threat that he might do that, would be the exact opposite of keeping your powder dry (to borrow a phrase).

Correct I am my own man and I will continue down the road I'm on, I don't believe that asking our local TDs to ask the Minister what the truth is on a rumour that is causing a ****e loads of letters of concern in to each and every TDs mailbox across the country.

Nope, and that specific question's not too harmful....
...unless our reps made a mistake and 160-odd TDs all ask and find out it's nothing and now we're all branded as Chicken Little in their eyes and then when we do need to go lobby, they all dismiss us as panicy eejits to be placated and soothed and sent home without actually bothering a Minister over and potentially making life more awkward for their careers.

That's the risk, that's why it's a question of needing to choose the right time, instead of just spamming them continually.

Even if this is all bull, today's meeting with my TD ain't a waste as it highlighted the Garda lack of interest in complying with the current SI.

Tack, if you had to meet with your local TD to learn that there are elements in the AGS (eg. Ballistics and the Commissioner) who don't think private firearms ownership is a good thing, then maybe you have been asleep. In a cave. Behind a rock. On mars. For the last fifty years. Wearing earplugs. And ear defenders. And a blindfold. :pac:

Tackleberry.

Sparks wrote: »

Tack, if you had to meet with your local TD to learn that there are elements in the AGS (eg. Ballistics and the Commissioner) who don't think private firearms ownership is a good thing, then maybe you have been asleep. In a cave. Behind a rock. On mars. For the last fifty years. Wearing earplugs. And ear defenders. And a blindfold. :pac:

I think you misread the post I'm well up to speed on the goings on, I posted the full extent of this rumour here first, but to put you straight it's my TD that needed the wake up call, and Sparks if ever need anything spelled out again just ask, no need for sarcasm.

Amonisis

Hey, how about sending this to Minister Shatter:


[SIZE=-1]"The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of practicing sport, without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play." –Olympic Charter[/SIZE]

Sparks

Amonisis wrote: »

Hey, how about sending this to Minister Shatter:


[SIZE=-1]"The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of practicing sport, without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play." –Olympic Charter[/SIZE]

I think you'd get back the exact same thing the DoJ has been telling us for years - "Our job is not to grow your sport, that's your job. Our responsibility is to the entire public."

Well, that, or you'd get the phone number of the Minister for Sport, depending on how annoyed his secretary was feeling.

Also, funny thing - the Olympic Charter doesn't actually define human rights, so while it's nice, we couldn't base a legal case on that quote. And the press would eat us alive for trying to tie ourselves to state-sponsored gay-bashing in Russia...

Amonisis

Good points, but I don't see that stating that guote from the Olympic charter in any way aligns us with "state sponsored gay bashing" in any way shape or form!?

Grizzly 45

While a very lofty aspiration that Olympic quote..In reality is is like the Molon Labe an utter heap of old manure.:(Sport and especially the Olympics has been an utter political tool for various countries for generations now.

rowa

Apparently michael healy-rae td will be raising this issue in the dail next week, and asking shatter what is happening. The ags proposals that is , not the russian gay bashing.

Amonisis

rowa wrote: »

Apparently michael healy-rae td will be raising this issue in the dail next week, and asking shatter what is happening. The ags proposals that is , not the russian gay bashing.

Looking for his GSG back.

rowa

Amonisis wrote: »

Looking for his GSG back.

Two birds, one stone.

.270 remington

This is not good news for me as i have just re submitted my applications for re consideration by the chief super :mad::mad:

Amonisis

I have two applications in, and if the proposals (as speculated) go through, will lose two of the three guns I currently own as well. Very, very peed off. :mad:

Cass

I'm not worried. I am pissed off, but not because of some imaginary proposals, but at the scare tactics used to panic people unnecessarily. Look at what we have so far:

• A notice of proposals that the minister is considering regarding te banning of a lot of firearms.
• No specifics on details.
• A lot of "we believe", "best guess".
• Then we find out no one has seen the proposals so everything that is being "banned" is pure guess work and speculation.
• We find out that this all started 5 months ago, but only now have these groups decided to release "what they know".
• When direct word from an official DoJ representative was posted some people were still skeptical.
• When we posted how the Garda commissioner MUST, by law, submit reviews and proposals as his predecessors have done people still are dubious.
• Then the rebuttals came from the original people responsible for this situation were they said "Get the DoJ/AGS to show us these proposals, but even if they do we won't believe them because they lie/are untrustworthy". Alienating the very people they must deal with.
• Despite everything to the contrary these groups continue to urge people to e-mail/write to TDs & Ministers.
• We are then told this is counter productive as nothing has been issued and nothing confirmed.

My point is some people are so up for the fight that they have come out swinging before the bell has rung.

So as has been said numerous times by all means fight your corner, but for God's sake do it armed with good and accurate information, and at the right time.

Sparks

Amonisis wrote: »

Good points, but I don't see that stating that guote from the Olympic charter in any way aligns us with "state sponsored gay bashing" in any way shape or form!?

That Google Doodle was in direct response to complaints of homophobia from Russia in the runup to the winter olympics this year (yes, the same place whose president can't keep his shirt on when a camera's pointed his way). So if we used it, we'd look bad.

cerastes

Cass wrote: »

My point is some people are so up for the fight that they have come out swinging before the bell has rung.

So as has been said numerous times by all means fight your corner, but for God's sake do it armed with good and accurate information, and at the right time.

ok so nothing wrong with people having to get the facts right, but at least some people are prepared to stand up and have a bit of fight in them.

Some seem prepared to just roll over and say there's nothing that can be done.
I think the facts not being able to be gotten right may have something to do with the way information is disseminated, ie in a way that is piecemeal and maybe ambiguous, making suggestions on what might or might not come to pass? is that to test the response of licence holders? It seems the gardai have the upper hand as they are coming from a unified position and are in possession of the facts.

Would it not be better to have a unified front of individuals with equal say to represent all from all shooting disciplines. And take the stance that no one will be left hung out to dry to save someone else's license.

Sparks

cerastes wrote: »

ok so nothing wrong with people having to get the facts right, but at least some people are prepared to stand up and have a bit of fight in them.

Some seem prepared to just roll over and say there's nothing that can be done.

You need to stop thinking of the popular stereotype of Chamberlain (oh, could the history people give you an education if you believed that stereotype...) and starting thinking of Don Quixote. You don't win at lobbying by going off half-cocked with no idea of the facts of what you're arguing about - you just do more harm than good that way.

Would it not be better to have a unified front of individuals with equal say to represent all from all shooting disciplines. And take the stance that no one will be left hung out to dry to save someone else's license.

We had that. And the very people asking you now to storm the barricades are the ones who either burned down that unified front; or ignored it and tried to go have a private cozy chat with the powers that be to get to run everything.

We really do have very short memories, don't we?

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

Apparently michael healy-rae td will be raising this issue in the dail next week, and asking shatter what is happening.

...and we're fecked.

Anyone else remember the last time TDs started badgering the Minister for Justice about something firearms related?

I do. It was Jim Deasy -v- Dermot Aherne, and we got the Misc.Provisions Act 2009 and the de facto ban on centerfire pistols as a result. And now we have that slope-cap wearing excuse for an extra from Darby O'Gill and the Little People doing it just after he breaks the firearms acts on national tv and gets his gun confiscated?

Ah feck it lads, I give up, I need a pint. Just call me when everything's been banned... which should be ten minutes after that fecking eejit gets done with stuttering in the Dail...

Cass

It seems the call to arms continues.

More talk of "impeccable sources" yet unlike the earlier post where we name the source of our information they seem unwilling to name their source. If it so impeccable then name them. Tell us what position they hold and how they have such information.

cerastes wrote: »

ok so nothing wrong with people having to get the facts right, but at least some people are prepared to stand up and have a bit of fight in them.

Some seem prepared to just roll over and say there's nothing that can be done.

First off excuse my gruff response. It's not directed at you personally but i've heard this attitude for so long now that is sickens me.

There is a difference between fighting for what you believe in, an fighting for the sake of fighting. Secondly do you honestly believe that everyone in the country with firearms sings from the same hymn sheet? They don't. To label those that do not have the same interest or commitment to keeping their firearms as gutless, cowards, weak, useless, etc, etc. is completely unfair and totally inaccurate.

Sports target shooters, people with multiple firearms, and those with restricted firearms have more to loose. If you ask the majority of single firearm owners, farmers or those that have a single gun as a "tool" more than a hobby, recreational or sporting use will not give a rats ass about further restrictions/banning of certain firearms. Call them gutless if you like, but the simple fact is they don't concern themselves with such issues, never have, and never will.

Lastly while all this talk of a "unified front" is all well and good the other FACT is only 2% of people actually get involved in the running, promoting, and survival of their sport. Everyone else sits back, whinges and moans about what has happened or may happen.

I think the facts not being able to be gotten right may have something to do with the way information is disseminated, ie in a way that is piecemeal and maybe ambiguous, making suggestions on what might or might not come to pass? is that to test the response of licence holders?

In this scenario it's simple, and contrary to what was said in the link at the start of this post it is not the DoJ, but An Gardaí. They submit reviews, and where they see fit proposals to the minister. This is a regular and standard occurrence. Once the Minister gets them he reviews them, and then either chooses to implement them or not.

At the moment NO ONE knows what they proposals are. Only AGS and by now or the end of the month the DoJ/Minister's office. Ye for weeks we have been scared with talk of the majority of guns being banned when NO ONE was/is in a position to make such comments. If they are, which has already been established, guess work then they should have kept it to themselves (the groups mentioned) and waited for definite confirmation that these proposals are real, what they entail, and that they are actually being considered before scaring the rest of us with the hype of them. As NGBs it is they who are going to liaise with the DoJ/AGS on any ACTUAL changes. It is at this point that they should start to and keep us informed.

It seems the gardai have the upper hand as they are coming from a unified position and are in possession of the facts.

As the Commissioner is the Author of any proposals of course he'll/they'll be in a position of having the "upper hand". He knows what they are before even the DoJ, and definitiely before us.

There is no other option than a "united front" from AGS. It's the commissioner making these proposals. The rank and file, and higher ranking officers do not get a vote here. IOW it's a chain of command and not a sporting NGB/association that must rely on the votes of it's members before acting. Although that is not done by some of the NGBs either.

Would it not be better to have a unified front of individuals with equal say to represent all from all shooting disciplines. And take the stance that no one will be left hung out to dry to save someone else's license.

As Sparks said we had this. The FCP. The coalition of shooting organisations that represented us up till a few years ago. The same FCP that these groups walked away from, and now seek to set up again yet without the other major NGBs such as the NTSA, NRAI, IPC, and without other associations that were previously involved.

cerastes

Sparks wrote: »

You need to stop thinking of the popular stereotype of Chamberlain (oh, could the history people give you an education if you believed that stereotype...) and starting thinking of Don Quixote. You don't win at lobbying by going off half-cocked with no idea of the facts of what you're arguing about - you just do more harm than good that way.



We had that. And the very people asking you now to storm the barricades are the ones who either burned down that unified front; or ignored it and tried to go have a private cozy chat with the powers that be to get to run everything.

We really do have very short memories, don't we?

im not being critical, but you seem like you're jumping down my throat.
I wasnt some part of burning that previous unified front down, I admit Im hardly aware of what goes on at that level. I dont even know how long ago that occured? so my memory isnt an issue, I didnt even know about it and may not even have been involved in shooting then.
But is there any reason that cant be fixed?
If it cant be, then it looks like a the same situation that you can see at a club level, with people complaining about what others do or dont do, no matter what they do and then suprised when people dont make an effort, if thats the case then we are in a bit of a problem.

edit, I just read Cass reply after I posted mine, well
dont know what to say, Id be happy to know more about what went on at the FCP and the bodies that are not involved anymore, it seems information at the club level is guarded and there doesnt seem to be much for a person that is a member of a club to get the facts straight as to who said what and when. I may be in the wrong association and I dont know when these people were given the go ahead to lead the organisation, not even sure how they get into these positions.

cerastes

Cass wrote: »

I'm not worried. I am pissed off, but not because of some imaginary proposals, but at the scare tactics used to panic people unnecessarily. Look at what we have so far:
My point is some people are so up for the fight that they have come out swinging before the bell has rung.

So as has been said numerous times by all means fight your corner, but for God's sake do it armed with good and accurate information, and at the right time.

Sparks wrote: »

we'd look bad.

If i came across like I was attacking you, then thats not what I intended. I have read comments without replying in the past, I dont really know what went on at this FCP as Ive heard mentioned, in my opinion its bad enough at club level staying away from the negativity and Ive never really heard an informed discussion in complete about what has been going on and not long enough involved to know who everyone involved is.

Im wary of responding to calls to do something and not know what its all about or what direction people should go in, I think I rely on the associations (one anyway) to tell me whats going on and it seems it is the one that has been the cause of problems or the undoing of this FCP? which I have never heard being even mentioned anywhere except here.

I'd like to think people are willing to stand up and do something and Im sure its not all that clear cut. Its probably no wonder people just throw the towel in.

Sparks

cerastes wrote: »

Ive never really heard an informed discussion in complete about what has been going on

This isn't everything (we'd need a series of books for that) but it's not a horrible start.

I'd like to think people are willing to stand up and do something and Im sure its not all that clear cut. Its probably no wonder people just throw the towel in.

Yup.
You just get weary when you see years of work thrown away for nothing.

Amonisis

"We had that. And the very people asking you now to storm the barricades are the ones who either burned down that unified front; or ignored it and tried to go have a private cozy chat with the powers that be to get to run everything.

We really do have very short memories, don't we?"

Then there are those of us who don't have a clue what you're talking about. I for one, don't know how the FCP was sabotaged or by whom or for what purpose. What I have gleaned from being on here is that our shooting community is badly fractured and that self interest seems to be the name of the game. Can someone please tell me how many gun owners in this country are members of associations or governing bodies? Is there any way to get these people to display a combined front in an effort to show the DoJ that more restrictions or bans will not be tolerated? Over 100,000 voters seen to be raising the same shout would certainly carry a lot of weight when the minister responsible is making his deliberations. As has been stated in a previous post, the Gardaí are a focused opposition and even if there are some dissenters within their ranks, they will toe the line when their superiors tell them to. Solidarity within our community is the only way forward. Enough of the backbiting, backstabbing, political wrangling and self aggrandisement. Why, do you think, the NRA in the States is so powerful? They speak with one voice and are seen to be proactive not reactive in most circumstances. They don't hesitate to tell the "powers that be" what the consequences at the polling booths will be, if they are not mollified. I do understand that it's a huge organisation with millions of members and backed by the second amendment of the constitution. For our small country there are enough license holders to have quite a bit of clout, if it's done properly. Don't forget the saying "Those who give up a little freedom for security, deserve neither". I would add that those who would selfishly give up anothers freedoms, deserve nothing. If this crap comes down the line, we have to act en masse to curtail it. That, or we'll be looking at 1972 again.

Dian Cecht

I could loose my 2 firearms that I've scrimped & saved HARD for.

What could/would you loose Sparks & Cass?

Cass

Amonisis wrote: »

Why, do you think, the NRA in the States is so powerful?

Because they have a constitutional RIGHT to guns. They have a basis/platform to fight from. They have this for over 200+ years.

Dian Cecht wrote: »

I could loose my 2 firearms that I've scrimped & saved HARD for.

What could/would you loose Sparks & Cass?

Ah, right. So we have nothing to loose so that is why i'm so "calm" about the whole thing. Well if these rumors are true i'll loose 2 shotguns, 2 rifles, and not be able to get the one i just paid for. So 5 in total.

More if i had all the guns i did 2 years ago. Back then i would have lost 6 of the 11 guns i had.

Amonisis

Cass wrote: »

Because they have a constitutional RIGHT to guns. They have a basis/platform to fight from. They have this for over 200+ years.

Ah, right. So we have nothing to loose so that is why i'm so "calm" about the whole thing. Well if these rumors are true i'll loose 2 shotguns, 2 rifles, and not be able to get the one i just paid for. So 5 in total.

More if i had all the guns i did 2 years ago. Back then i would have lost 6 of the 11 guns i had.

I'm painfully aware that they have a RIGHT as laid down in their constitution and that here it's deemed a PRIVILEGE to be allowed to own firearms. My point, which you seem either not to get or to be ignoring, is this: If the Minister responsible values his career or his parties chances at the next general election, he will take into account the views and wishes of a block of over 100,000 voters. Most, if not all, general elections in this country have been won with a smaller margin. In his position, would you piss off that many determined voters? It would be political suicide and you can be assured that he's aware of that. For it to have weight and merit doesn't depend on having an inherent RIGHT to possess guns.

Cass

Amonisis wrote: »

My point, which you seem either not to get or to be ignoring, is this: If the Minister responsible values his career or his parties chances at the next general election, he will take into account the views and wishes of a block of over 100,000 voters.

I get what you're saying but it has no merit.

Out of some 100,000 voters that are firearm holders then majority will vote the same way every election regardless of what the Minister for justice does to firearms.

Secondly even if you got 25% to vote against Fine Gael/Labour that's only 25,000 votes and as all the shooters are from the 26 counties that would mean an even distribution of 1,000 votes per county which in fact would be much more skewed due to the different constituencies. So you could have 2,000 in Dublin, Galway, Cork, Limerick, etc. Then as little as 100 in the smaller constituencies.

You are of course still assuming that people will not vote for them. It has been shown that throughout all the crap over the years with the financial meltdown, etc. that people still revert back to what they know. Look at Sean Quinn. Hero worshipped in his home town. Same with Bertie Ahern, Brian Cowan, etc. Re-elcted year after year.

So this thing of Vote them out simply does not work. We do not possess enough of a threat to them, whether united or not, to force a change. Plus compared to the other 2.2 million people that don't own firearms we are a minority.

Most, if not all, general elections in this country have been won with a smaller margin. In his position, would you piss off that many determined voters? It would be political suicide and you can be assured that he's aware of that. For it to have weight and merit doesn't depend on having an inherent RIGHT to possess guns.

The other point here is the minister himself. Before the last election i spoke with my local TD. I asked him questions, and spent nearly an hour on the phone with him about shooting, etc. He gave all the right answers, and i gave him my vote. He won, and is a TD. Problem is no matter how supportive he is he is no the Minister for Justice. Therefore he is essentially useless other than to raise a question here and there in the Dail which it's his job to do anyway.

So even if we got a man to lobby for and support the shooting community, got him voted in, there is a little to no chance of him/her becoming the Minister for justice and having any effect on firearms or firearms licensing.

Dian Cecht

Cass wrote: »

Because they have a constitutional RIGHT to guns. They have a basis/platform to fight from. They have this for over 200+ years.

Ah, right. So we have nothing to loose so that is why i'm so "calm" about the whole thing. Well if these rumors are true i'll loose 2 shotguns, 2 rifles, and not be able to get the one i just paid for. So 5 in total.

More if i had all the guns i did 2 years ago. Back then i would have lost 6 of the 11 guns i had.

I asked as I don't know.

I bet you check under your bed before you get in just in case there are monsters there

For someone with so much to loose you're very calm

dc99

Ok I got this.
Sorry Amonsis...but no individual minister or even TD has every single voter a gun enthusist. There are not 100,000 constituents voting for one person, therefore there are no real worries for the incumbent.

There is most likely a very small majority from each and every constituant that will worry a cannidate at election time.
If there are 200k gun licences in the country (and thats guns not persons) and if each person has between 1 and 5 on adverage - well how many actual voters is that?
So do you think that political partys do polls on each and every issue that affects our socioity? yes they do and they know excactly what the mood is (except I will say the ecnomy and banks - that really fecked them up).

But I digress. we think we are a democracy right? no we are a republic.....I couldn't tell you the differances...but in our case we vote for the person or party we like locally - after much shouting roaring and PROMISES...our TD then happly toddles off up to Dublin and then votes exactly how he is told to by his masters...and no that is not you me or the next door neighbour...its the party leaders and the whip.....
As others say here if they want to f**k us over there is very little that we can do to stop them. the Army is taking orders from the titular head of the state (the President.... and he is under proticalls to be non political....so thats not him giving the orders).....The AGS are employed by the state on our behalf and are sworn to uphold the government of the land .....which is the political party that is in control at the time.......

So when others say that an SI can be signed off in a night then thats it....this happened in the very recent past (I think it was an SI -corrections?) but didn't the monster (my little joke) of Finance of the day gaurentee the banks......

I reckon the only thing that will pause the - unsubstantiated rumours- will be the collapse of the firearms industry - the dealers, the tourest attractions etc.....in other words the money....

Now you tell me is that being cynical or what....

Cass

Dian Cecht wrote: »

I bet you check under your bed before you get in just in case there are monsters there

Feck ya. Now i've to check that too.

For someone with so much to loose you're very calm

I'm not without concern. However i know some of the history of previous goings on and dealings so i know now to never panic without verification.

As i said above we quoted a source we got direct information from. So far the same has not been forthcoming from the people claiming to know the opposite.

I also know where to direct my correspondence and at what time it is best done. I know better than to e-mail people randomly, and before any "proposals" have been announced.


I'll put it like this. If the Minister for Transport got a proposal from the RSA, and other motoring groups saying only cars of 1.2lt should be allowed on Irish roads to reduce speed, accidents, etc. I'm not going to sell my jeep based on the ramblings of a lad at a dealers forecourt, pub, or speculation from "someone that knows someone, that knows someone".

Buggs

Another statement from NASRPC

http://www.nasrpc.ie/hot-news-1/movestobanfirearms-furtherinformation

Amonisis

Cass wrote: »

I get what you're saying but it has no merit.

Out of some 100,000 voters that are firearm holders then majority will vote the same way every election regardless of what the Minister for justice does to firearms.

Secondly even if you got 25% to vote against Fine Gael/Labour that's only 25,000 votes and as all the shooters are from the 26 counties that would mean an even distribution of 1,000 votes per county which in fact would be much more skewed due to the different constituencies. So you could have 2,000 in Dublin, Galway, Cork, Limerick, etc. Then as little as 100 in the smaller constituencies.

You are of course still assuming that people will not vote for them. It has been shown that throughout all the crap over the years with the financial meltdown, etc. that people still revert back to what they know. Look at Sean Quinn. Hero worshipped in his home town. Same with Bertie Ahern, Brian Cowan, etc. Re-elcted year after year.

So this thing of Vote them out simply does not work. We do not possess enough of a threat to them, whether united or not, to force a change. Plus compared to the other 2.2 million people that don't own firearms we are a minority.


The other point here is the minister himself. Before the last election i spoke with my local TD. I asked him questions, and spent nearly an hour on the phone with him about shooting, etc. He gave all the right answers, and i gave him my vote. He won, and is a TD. Problem is no matter how supportive he is he is no the Minister for Justice. Therefore he is essentially useless other than to raise a question here and there in the Dail which it's his job to do anyway.

So even if we got a man to lobby for and support the shooting community, got him voted in, there is a little to no chance of him/her becoming the Minister for justice and having any effect on firearms or firearms licensing.

I can assure you that I could personally persuade most of my family and friends to vote whichever way I want them to. That would be at least six and more likely to be around twelve people. They would do this because they generally feel that there's no difference between what party gets in anyway and therefore don't hold any strong preference. Their only preference would be to me. If every shooter made a concerted effort to influence their immediate family and friends in the same way, the figures jump through the roof. Instead of 100,000 votes, we're then talking about somewhere between 500,000 and 1,200,000. No party or minister is going to shrug that off as insignificant. It may sound like pie in the sky and idealism but, I'm talking about coming together and making a determined effort to change the balance of power in respect to our sport. The Gardaí have had things their own way for far too long and have become contemptuous of us. We are law abiding citizens and their machinations are evidence that we indeed live in a "police state". How many votes could you personally influence (ballpark guess)? Getting a sympathetic sitting minister doesn't have to occur for us to have a more than significant influence on whichever party controls the person in office. Determination is all it takes for these changes to be put in place. I honestly believe that if one was to be able to assure any political party that one could get them the aforementioned amount of votes, we'd get all the firearms we want.

Witcher

Buggs wrote: »

Another statement from NASRPC

http://www.nasrpc.ie/hot-news-1/movestobanfirearms-furtherinformation

NASRPC seem a bit confused..the Gardai denied making proposals on restrictions but of course they have to participate in the DOJ's review..they are the licencing authority. Again, we knew this was happening.

Grizzly 45

dc99 wrote: »

up).

But I digress. we think we are a democracy right? no we are a republic.....I couldn't tell you the differances.

Here y'go ...Civics 101.Somthing NOT taught anymore in Irish schools.You'd wonder why..

Democratic Form of Government: An environmental organization proposes a bill for the ballot that every individual should reduce his water household usage by 25%. To assure that this goal is met, the government, or private sector, will monitor every individual's household water consumption rate. If an individual does not meet the goal, his first offense is $500 fine. Second offense is $750 fine and 30 days community service. Third offense is $1,500 fine and 30 days imprisonment. Fourth offense is $1,750 fine and 90 days imprisonment. Fifth offense is a felony (1-year imprisonment) and $2,000 fine.

The people argue this environmental issue back and forth. They argue the pros and cons of the issue. This great debate is held at town hall meetings. Strong opinions are on both sides of the matter. One side preaches, "It is for the common good!" The other side rebuttals, "This is control and not freedom, and lost of choice!" Election day occurs. The people go to the ballot box to settle the problem. The majority won by a vote of 51% whereas the minority lost with a vote of 49%. The minority is ignored. The majority celebrates while the minority jeers in disappointment. Since the majority won, the bill goes in effect. As a result of the majority winning, every individual must reduce his household water usage by 25%. For the reason that the majority has mandatory powers in a democracy. Those who wish to go against the collective (whole body politic) will be punished accordingly. The minority has neither voice nor rights to refuse to accept the dictatorial majority. Everything is mandatory in a democracy. This brings dictatorship and lividity to the realm.



Republican Form of Government: An environmental organization proposes a bill for the ballot that every individual should reduce his water household usage by 25%. To assure that this goal is met, the government, or private sector, will monitor every individual's household water consumption rate. If an individual does not meet the goal, his first offense is $500 fine. Second offense is $750 fine and 30 days community service. Third offense is $1,500 fine and 30 days imprisonment. Fourth offense is $1,750 fine and 90 days imprisonment. Fifth offense is a felony (1-year imprisonment) and $2,000 fine.

The people argue this environmental issue back and forth. They argue the pros and cons of the issue. This great debate is held at town hall meetings. Strong opinions are on both sides of the matter. One side preaches, "It is for the common good!" The other side rebuttals, "This is control and not freedom, and lost of choice!" Election day occurs. The people go to the ballot box to settle the problem. The majority won by a vote of 51% whereas the minority lost with a vote of 49%. The minority may have lost, but not all is gone. The majority celebrates while the minority jeers in disappointment. Since the majority won, the bill goes in effect. As a result of the majority winning, it is advisory that every individual reduce his household water usage by 25%. For the reason that the majority has advisory powers in a republic. Bearing in mind that each individual is equally sovereign in a republic, he is free to reject the majority. He may choose to follow the majority and subject himself to the rule, or he may choose not to follow the majority and not subject himself to the rule. The minority has a voice and rights to refuse to accept the majority. Everything is advisory in a republic. This brings liberty and peace to the realm.

Going by those two examples we in Ireland are a total mixup of the two of them.:rolleyes:

So when others say that an SI can be signed off in a night then thats it....this happened in the very recent past (I think it was an SI -corrections?) but didn't the monster (my little joke) of Finance of the day gaurentee the banks......

Which was also very questionable under the constitution,as financial matters affecting the nation are to be discussed in the Dail in an open manner,going by some part of our constitution.Not by ministers in shady midnite deals pressuring fellow greviously ill fellow ministers with terminal cancer.:mad:

Cass

Amonisis wrote: »

The Gardaí have had things their own way for far too long and have become contemptuous of us.

That won't change lad.

As the department responsible for enforcing the law and the issuing of licenses they will always have it "their way".

How many votes could you personally influence (ballpark guess)?

Me personally. None. not for the want of trying, but other than me and my Father none of my family, none that vote, are into shooting. So out of say 26-30 voting adults i'd have myself, the Father and possibly a cousin. The three o us already vote in a similar fashion so no change there.

Getting a sympathetic sitting minister doesn't have to occur for us to have a more than significant influence on whichever party controls the person in office. Determination is all it takes for these changes to be put in place.

Whatever Minister in in office is going to follow both the party leader, and the party line.

I honestly believe that if one was to be able to assure any political party that one could get them the aforementioned amount of votes, we'd get all the firearms we want.

If it could be done, but as said no matter how well intended the way the voting system works, and with the spread of votes that'd next to impossible.

If you have a suggestion (not be patronising) i'd love to hear it.

Grizzly 45

WHAT is this evidence and WHO are the impeccable source of this statement??

This sounds like Sen Mc Carthy at the inquiry into un American activities in the late 1940s
."Ive all the evidence of Communist activity in America right here in my pocket."

pastense

I have a feeling that theres a new Quango coming on and theres a few things to tidy up first

Sparks

Amonisis wrote: »

Then there are those of us who don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Yup.
That's why we keep seeing the same people get away with things we'd call for Gardai or DoJ people to be fired for. And that happens over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. 20 years I've been shooting, and it's not changed, and the minutes I've read while secretary in various clubs and associations show it still going on years before I ever saw a gun.

Look at now. The worst, most draconian ideas on pistol licencing I've ever seen were put into the DoJ behind the backs of every other shooting association going by the NASRPC. Everyone condemned them for it when it came out - for five minutes. Now they're doing this - and it is the same people, check the names if you don't believe me - and not only are they saying that we should trust them to represent us despite their history, but they cut the vast majority of shooting associations out of the loop with this little group of theirs, and the vast majority of shooters (who are represented by other groups like the IFA).

But we're the eejits for not jumping on board with both feet and our eyes closed up tight? Feck that noise. Show me the evidence, then I'll jump. Until then, you know the saying - fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

Is there any way to get these people to display a combined front

THERE WAS. THE PEOPLE YOU'RE LISTENING TO DESTROYED IT.
If the FCP was still going, do you think we'd all be panicing like this? We'd be included in the review from the get-go because that'd be the route it'd be done by, because that'd be the easiest course of action for the Minister. We'd be in there right at the point where the least amount of effort was needed to avoid bad outcomes. Instead, we're out here in the cold looking in and panicing over rumours.

Does that strike anyone as being a better scenario?

Why, do you think, the NRA in the States is so powerful?

Money. Lots of it. And no other reason.
Solidarity? Lad, there are more shooting representative groups in the US than there are in here, and they're all at each other's throats. The only reason the NRA gets so much airtime and lobbying power is money. But we bitch and moan if you put annual range fees up and we positively riot if you hike the licence fee. And you'll notice that EVERY time this sort of thing happens, everyone starts talking about what should be done, but damn few reach into their pockets...

Dian Cecht wrote: »

I could loose my 2 firearms that I've scrimped & saved HARD for.
What could/would you loose Sparks & Cass?

/unzips

Just my pistol. And the ability to shoot other interesting sports in the future, like every other shooter on here. And ranges to shoot them on. And people to shoot with. And a healthy sport that kept the stuff I can still shoot afterwards from going under as well.

I'd probably keep the two rifles, but who knows? My air rifle damn near wound up on the restricted list a few years back (collapsible stock, don't you know).

Amonisis

Is the situation as currently exists within the community such, that there's no hope or indeed wish to form another FCP or similar body? Is there an avenue still open within government that such a body could avail of, or is the door firmly shut from that end? Is there now no attempt to form a FCP because nobody trusts each other? Does anyone have any information/suggestions on how to or what would it take to get the ball rolling?

Sparks

Amonisis wrote: »

Is the situation as currently exists within the community such, that there's no hope or indeed wish to form another FCP or similar body?

The only two bodies I knew of who didn't want to start the FCP up again are the two now calling for action.

Is there an avenue still open within government that such a body could avail of

The DoJ could start up the FCP again.
The problem is, how would they know the NARGC wouldn't storm out the door again and start calling for the sacking of the new principal officer or the commissioner or someone else at the table? There's a lot of bad faith there that needs to be addressed, and until that happens, there's no cause for the DoJ to want to start the FCP over again.

badaj0z

Why don't we go back to the beginning? Let us suppose that we set up a new National Organisation, or adapt an existing one. Let us call it the NRPAI for the sake of debate. We can add in an "S" for shotgun into that if things go well. Let us start by getting the people who first split off to return, namely the NTSA and then the NRAI. The NRAI was never a member of the NRPAI but the people who set it up were, through the clubs they belonged to. The members of the committees of both organisations had their reasons for splintering and I will not second guess what they were but are they still valid? Surely in the face of the problems we are facing can we all not let bygones be bygone?

Sparks

badaj0z wrote: »

Why don't we go back to the beginning? Let us suppose that we set up a new National Organisation, or adapt an existing one. Let us call it the NRPAI for the sake of debate. We can add in an "S" for shotgun into that if things go well. Let us start by getting the people who first split off to return, namely the NTSA and then the NRAI. The NRAI was never a member of the NRPAI but the people who set it up were, through the clubs they belonged to. The members of the committees of both organisations had their reasons for splintering and I will not second guess what they were but are they still valid? Surely in the face of the problems we are facing can we all not let bygones be bygone?

Look, you can't just say "lets ignore history and pretend that people will trust people again without just cause". Well. You can, because you just did, but that doesn't mean people will do it.

For a start, we never have had and never can have a single organisation. We're not a single sport, any more than golf, tennis and basketball are because they all use balls. And several of our organisations cannot merge for damn good reasons. And the NRAI tried to be a member of the NRPAI back in the day - I was at the AGM where they asked to start up as a part of the NRPAI - and the NRPAI slammed the door in their face, the NRAI got formed externally, then the LRRAI was set up in competition with them and years of rows started and finally the NRPAI was changed into the SSAI and the NRAI became a member.

You're not talking here about letting bygones be bygones, you're asking people to trust people who've shafted them and their sport and cost them tens of thousands of euros and thousands of manhours -- and for what, an idea we've tried repeatedly for forty years?

Nobody will do it. We have a model that worked in the FCP. It's not sexy, there's no tablepounding, and it takes time, but it worked. Concentrate on restoring that, if you want a crusade...

badaj0z

Your ball analogy is not relevant Sparks. The ball players do not have a common objective to pursue like the shooters. They do not have a reason to get together like we do. There has never been a better time than now as we have a problem we all share. You have raked over old coals in your response and it is true that many of the people involved are still opinion formers, like yourself, but all wounds heal in time and there are many new people involved. Perhaps some new thinking on your part would not go amiss. Either that or remain neutral and do not pour cold water on new ways of looking at the problem.

Sparks

badaj0z wrote: »

You have raked over old coals

They're not old!
They've not had a chance to get old.

all wounds heal in time

Not without some sort of change they don't. You have to at least pull out the knife before a wound heals.

and there are many new people involved.

IT'S THE SAME NAMES ON THE EMAIL AS IN THAT SUBMISSION TO THE DOJ!!!

For feck's sakes.
If someone mugs you every day for a month, do you think on the second day of the next month "Oh, he didn't mug me yesterday, so that's all in the past, let's forgive and forget and he won't mug me today!"????

Perhaps some new thinking on your part would not go amiss. Either that or remain neutral and do not pour cold water on new ways of looking at the problem.

I'm too ****ing sober to read ****e like that and stay polite. Where's my beer?

dc99

God. My head hearts.....by the way. I've been bugged to hell trying to figure out what FCP stands for...please????

Witcher

Firearms Consultative Panel.

Grizzly 45

[

QUOTE=badaj0z;88891051]Why don't we go back to the beginning? Let us suppose that we set up a new National Organisation, or adapt an existing one. Let us call it the NRPAI for the sake of debate.

STOP RIGHT THERE!! Please,please,please call it somthing that consists of THREE or less letters???? Have you seen the alphabet soup of shooting organisations out there in Ireland already? Sparks once drew a pictogram of it.
A diagram of micro circurty for the Mars lander would be less head wrecking.:eek:
It confuses the fk out of everyone having mutiple abbreviations of organisations mostly starting with N:(

OllieNorth

the NRAI got formed externally, then the LRRAI was set up in competition with them and years of rows started
It was the other way around the LRRAI was formed first.

Sparks

OllieNorth wrote: »

the NRAI got formed externally, then the LRRAI was set up in competition with them and years of rows started
It was the other way around the LRRAI was formed first.

The LRRAI was formed May 12 2005.
By that stage, the NRAI had already sent two teams abroad (they sent their third in November 2005) and had been recognised internationally by the ICFRA, making them the Irish NGB for fullbore shooting -- and the people who set up the NRAI had been pushing to form the NRAI as far back as the NRPAI AGM in 2001 (but were slapped down and told the NRPAI didn't want more NGBs - I know because I was sitting there in the room at the time). So no, the LRRAI wasn't the first on the scene. Some of their members had been shooting fullbore before their formation, yes; but the organisation wasn't there, and a few lads who go shooting for fun holidays don't count as an NGB. If you want to get the full story, talk with the lads out in the midlands.

Tackleberry.

Sparks wrote: »

. So no, the LRRAI wasn't the first on the scene. Some of their members had been shooting fullbore before their formation, yes; but the organisation wasn't there, and a few lads who go shooting for fun holidays don't count as an NGB.

Can you explain this just a little more? Who are the few lads LRRAI or Midlands?
And sure midlands are'nt they also the NRAI...surely a NGB.