Statement from NASRPC

Sparks

Tackleberry. wrote: »

Can you explain this just a little more?

Just search for "NRAI LRRAI" on boards and you'll haul up all the original threads.

Who are the few lads LRRAI or Midlands?

Some of the founders of the LRRAI.

And sure midlands are'nt they also the NRAI...surely a NGB.

The "midlands" is a geographical region MRC was the original rifle club out by blueball, the range there is its own limited company (which is normal practice for large ranges), the NRAI are an association.

civdef

Whilst dragging back through a decade of organisational squabbling which really only involves less than 20 people who keep changing titles might be satisfying - could we not just concentrate on the issue at hand?
Whether the original story is factual or not, thats the real issue here, not historical events, alphabet soup or personal disputes.

badaj0z

Sparks wrote: »

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


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


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!"????


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

This issue is bigger than anyone's wounded pride Sparks. It is true that some of the old antagonists(such as you) are still around but there are a lot of new people involved too. Maybe the reason the knife is in the wound still is because you like it there. If I recall correctly, you led the NTSA out of the NRPAI arguing that the organisations interests(NTSA) were best served in isolation and not by being part of a bigger whole. You were also able to approach the DOJ in your own interests as a by product of being independent. I understand that this has happened on two occasions, one recently. The main reason being expounded overtly, for doing a UDI was the one about not being allowed to be part of a national body which also included a group shooting any form of "Practical". This reason is now gone, along with the Practical Association so what is the good reason for staying independent? Why not lead by example, like Moses, and lead the NTSA back into the National body, pulling out that knife on the way.

Sparks

badaj0z wrote: »

This issue is bigger than anyone's wounded pride Sparks.

Wounded... are you taking the piss?

If I recall correctly, you led the NTSA out of the NRPAI

You don't.

I definitely wanted the NTSA out of the NRPAI because the NRPAI was at that point not a good place to be, and I wanted that for years. However, when the NTSA left the NRPAI, I wasn't on the NTSA committee (see post 10 in that thread) and the reason they left was that the IPSA wanted to join and the ISSF would derecognise the NTSA if they remained in the NRPAI when that happened (and yes, that was what the ISSF said, it wasn't just unsure opinion - the NTSA asked both informally and formally). Had that derecognition happened -- and it did happen in other countries -- the NTSA would not have been able to reform and get re-recognised; recognition would transfer to the ICPSA and we'd have to take over olympic shotgun from them to ever be able to send a team abroad ever again.

And all this was explained on this forum at length at the time. Go read the thread or use the search function.

You were also able to approach the DOJ in your own interests as a by product of being independent.

Yes, before the FCP was founded. It was groups like the NASRPC that did end runs around all the other shooting associations during the FCP and tried for the private cozy chats.

I don't know if the NTSA approached the DoJ since the FCP was burned by the people you're saying we should support without question or pause; I'd expect them to have done so though, because that's their job and we haven't got the option of standing together anymore thanks to the FCP being scuppered. It would be the right thing to have done, and you can be damn sure that everyone else is doing it - including the NARGC and NASRPC whose meetings with them have been listed above on this thread.

what is the good reason for staying independent?

You mean, apart from the fact that the NRPAI, which then became the SSAI, shut down? That there's noone left to join?

Well, apart from that fact, I'd say "because the FCP proved that one single organisation is not needed; we work better as a group of equals standing together; and the one organisation where there is always a fight over someone being in charge has proven time and again for forty years to not be workable".

But that's me, I just tend to remember stuff that happened and consider it to be lessons that should be learned and mistakes that shouldn't be repeated. I'm told that's my big problem.

Sponge25

I'm sooo sick and tired of this country when it comes to firearms. I can't wait to move to the Pennsylvania with my partner.

rowa

Sparks wrote: »

Wounded... are you taking the piss?


You don't.

I definitely wanted the NTSA out of the NRPAI because the NRPAI was at that point not a good place to be, and I wanted that for years. However, when the NTSA left the NRPAI, I wasn't on the NTSA committee (see post 10 in that thread) and the reason they left was that the IPSA wanted to join and the ISSF would derecognise the NTSA if they remained in the NRPAI when that happened (and yes, that was what the ISSF said, it wasn't just unsure opinion - the NTSA asked both informally and formally). Had that derecognition happened -- and it did happen in other countries -- the NTSA would not have been able to reform and get re-recognised; recognition would transfer to the ICPSA and we'd have to take over olympic shotgun from them to ever be able to send a team abroad ever again.

And all this was explained on this forum at length at the time. Go read the thread or use the search function.



Yes, before the FCP was founded. It was groups like the NASRPC that did end runs around all the other shooting associations during the FCP and tried for the private cozy chats.

I don't know if the NTSA approached the DoJ since the FCP was burned by the people you're saying we should support without question or pause; I'd expect them to have done so though, because that's their job and we haven't got the option of standing together anymore thanks to the FCP being scuppered. It would be the right thing to have done, and you can be damn sure that everyone else is doing it - including the NARGC and NASRPC whose meetings with them have been listed above on this thread.


You mean, apart from the fact that the NRPAI, which then became the SSAI, shut down? That there's noone left to join?

Well, apart from that fact, I'd say "because the FCP proved that one single organisation is not needed; we work better as a group of equals standing together; and the one organisation where there is always a fight over someone being in charge has proven time and again for forty years to not be workable".

But that's me, I just tend to remember stuff that happened and consider it to be lessons that should be learned and mistakes that shouldn't be repeated. I'm told that's my big problem.

Is there a list somewhere of all these shooting organisations and what their brief is ? When these threads start , my head spins with amount of different orgs.

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

Is there a list somewhere of all these shooting organisations and what their brief is ? When these threads start , my head spins with amount of different orgs.

Your head won't feel any better after you see how they're laid out. This is a few years out of date, I keep meaning to update it but then lose the will to live when I try...

yubabill1

What I don't get is this:

- When the firearms legislation changed, they went down the consultation route to amend the Firearms Act after 30-odd years distortion/Garda interpretation caused by the 1972 temporary order, resulting in court cases which won centrefire handgun/long gun licensing on foot of the actual law not having been changed during the Troubles. Anyone remember the phrase "peace dividend?"

- Now we are told to write to the Minister for fear of a ban on foot of Garda proposals, whereby the Minister can change the SI at a whim.

These are mutually exclusive, IMHO and something like the FCP would have to be organised from on high, dragging shooting orgs in kicking, if necessary if the legislation were to be changed.

I don't see how the Minister can see fit to change the SI on foot of Garda proposals without consulting us, based on the recent court judgement dismissing Garda concerns about safe storage/firearms theft.

The judge raised a concern about the possibility of firearms being a danger to the public: That would require a complete ban of all firearms (including air weapons, if you read Minister Shatter's reply to a PQ posted in that thread), so a madman would be forced to conduct his killing spree with a kitchen knife or a car or a sex toy, if you follow the logic. And, of course he would have to be mad - in which case he would be shot.

Witcher

yubabill1 wrote: »

I don't see how the Minister can see fit to change the SI on foot of Garda proposals without consulting us, based on the recent court judgement dismissing Garda concerns about safe storage/firearms theft.

The judge raised a concern about the possibility of firearms being a danger to the public: That would require a complete ban of all firearms (including air weapons, if you read Minister Shatter's reply to a PQ posted in that thread), so a madman would be forced to conduct his killing spree with a kitchen knife or a car or a sex toy, if you follow the logic. And, of course he would have to be mad - in which case he would be shot.

Shatter doesn't need a reason to ban any or all firearms and he doesn't need to consult us at all. There doesn't have to be any logic behind it at all.

No matter what a court said, if Alan Shatter decided to sign an SI tomorrow banning CF s/a's, pistols..anything, all he would have to say is 'It's a matter of public safety' and the public would support him. They don't care that we're vetted, they don't care that we're safe and they don't care what a court said about it all.

In the eyes of the public the less firearms the better. Back when Ahern wrote the SI on CF pistols, there was no threat to public safety, they weren't being stolen or used in crimes but all he had to say was that he was avoiding the proliferation of firearms and a US style gun culture and they were gone. THere was no logic there and nobody gave a crap about facts.

yubabill1

I agree there is no place for logic in an emotive argument, Blay.

Realistically, I think Shatter would have a hard time banning everything.

We all know he would raise a firestorm among shooters by amending the SI unilaterally - I think that's what NARGC, NASRPC are seeking to remind him of with all this.

Some say shooting has no support among the general public, but we are members of the general public, too. And I don't believe we have no support - ask any Joe what they think of the biathlon in Sochi, or shooting a duck for supper. I don't think you will get a unanimous response.

I'm not saying anything about your personal view on public support, btw, just a general point.

Sparks

yubabill1 wrote: »

What I don't get is this:
- When the firearms legislation changed, they went down the consultation route to amend the Firearms Act after 30-odd years distortion/Garda interpretation caused by the 1972 temporary order, resulting in court cases which won centrefire handgun/long gun licensing on foot of the actual law not having been changed during the Troubles. Anyone remember the phrase "peace dividend?"

That's not actually quite how it happened.
The 1972 TCO comes in, then the licencing policy changes while the guns are in custody, then the TCO ends (in 1972) and the AGS won't release the firearms without licences, but oh, we can't licence anything but air, .22 and shotguns, that's policy, sorry about that.

In the 1990s, the nonshouty approach sees up to .270Winchester come back for deer hunting, while the shouty approach doesn't take up an offer of pistols so we don't see them come back until the Brophy case.

In 2002, the Dunne case is taken through the High and Supreme courts and is won and prevents the Commissioner from issuing a blanket precondition on licences (the precondition in the case was that you had to have a gun safe, but the principle's the important bit).

In the 2004 Criminal Justice Bill, buried in a throwaway paragraph deep in the Miscellaneous section, is a one-line paragraph giving the Commissioner the power to issue conditions and "guidance" to the Superintendents, and that's the law changed on a wednesday, metaphorically speaking.

After the Bill is passed as the 2006 act, the Minister changes, and the new Minister brings in the idea of the FCP to help with implementing the new law as smoothly as possible and it's very strongly suggested all the way through that the FCP would become a more permanent panel to be consulted on matters of new law (and that's the case partially with the 2009 act, though that landed from on high like a ton of manure shoved out the back of a 747 in flight so hands were pretty badly tied -- and yet, it was still more influence over incoming law than shooters had ever had in the last forty years or so). Every shooting association signs up because this is everything we've wanted for decades (the NASRPC are annoyed because their rules say that the SSAI will represent them rather than them sitting at the table themselves -- though from what I remember from the time, this annoyance only showed up after the vote to nominate an SSAI rep to the FCP picked someone from the NRAI instead of the NASRPC). But by the time the kinks shake loose, the FCP is representing every shooting association and damn near every shooter. And it works quite well, better than any attempt we've ever seen before to forge unity from the entire community. Hunters, farmers, target shooters, rifle, pistol, shotgun - everyone was in the same room, talking away.

Honestly, I thought I'd accidentally gotten drunk or high the first time I saw it working, it was such a shock...

These are mutually exclusive, IMHO and something like the FCP would have to be organised from on high, dragging shooting orgs in kicking, if necessary if the legislation were to be changed.

The FCP was organised by the DoJ. The NARGC basicly walked out of it and started badmouthing the DoJ/AGS in the media, thus scuppering the entire thing because how could the other stakeholders (DoJ/AGS/DoAST/etc) be expected to believe we wouldn't (and by we I mean any shooting association) do that if we didn't like something in the future, and who wants to give someone ammunition to do that to them?

But the important point is, the FCP is the DoJ's baby. They were under no obligation legally or otherwise to create it, nor to restart it.

I don't see how the Minister can see fit to change the SI on foot of Garda proposals without consulting us, based on the recent court judgement dismissing Garda concerns about safe storage/firearms theft.

Because (a) he has the statutory authority to do so; (b) we've been trying to use court cases to embarrass him and the AGS and you embarrass a sitting Minister in Ireland at your peril; and (c) it was a shooting body that sank the FCP, not the Minister, AGS or DoJ, so he won't feel it's his responsibility to take steps to restore it. We had it, we threw it away, so obviously we didn't want it.

The judge raised a concern about the possibility of firearms being a danger to the public: That would require a complete ban of all firearms (including air weapons, if you read Minister Shatter's reply to a PQ posted in that thread), so a madman would be forced to conduct his killing spree with a kitchen knife or a car or a sex toy, if you follow the logic.

Yup.

Do you think that he'd be very much bothered by that, given that from his point of view, we won't sit down at the table like professionals, badmouth and try to embarrass him in the media and take the AGS or himself to court all the time and have awkward PQs asked in the Dail?

If you see a wasp on your picnic table, do you get up and run away leaving the jam for it, or do you roll up a newspaper? Hint: we're not the guy with the newspaper in this analogy...

Sparks

yubabill1 wrote: »

Realistically, I think Shatter would have a hard time banning everything.

Realistically, to quote McGarr Solicitors,

Here’s Ms. Justice Irvine quite recently on the state’s willingness to deny the obvious: http://t.co/7IrbDcQgxg In that case a child was catastrophically injured at birth, requiring critical care for the rest of its life. The State fought for 5 years.

When a government will agree at cabinet level to devote funds to fighting in the high and supreme courts for years to avoid admitting liability in a medical negligence case that left a perfectly healthy baby requiring constant critical medical care for the rest of its life, and takes the media hit that goes with that, do you honestly think they'd even blink at changing an SI that they have statutory authority to alter on a whim when most of the public are so blinded by worry over drug gangs and their gun crime that they don't even see us, the legitimate sporting shooters and hunters and farmers?

You rest your hopes on a government's reluctance to take on a minority at your peril I think...

yubabill1

Whatever about the details of we got to the present firearms legislation ecosystem (which you explained better than I could), the Minister knows the NARGC/NASRPC etc. are not the FCP - and I think that is the root of all this.

On an amusing note - "Because (a) he has the statutory authority to do so; (b) we've been trying to use court cases to embarrass him and the AGS and you embarrass a sitting Minister in Ireland at your peril"

I think the Garda Representative Organisation did a good job of embarrassing Dermot Aherne the time he refused to attend their AGM. The Gardaí know why he wouldn't attend.

Sparks

yubabill1 wrote: »

Whatever about the details of we got to the present firearms legislation ecosystem (which you explained better than I could), the Minister knows the NARGC/NASRPC etc. are not the FCP - and I think that is the root of all this.

How so?

On an amusing note - "Because (a) he has the statutory authority to do so; (b) we've been trying to use court cases to embarrass him and the AGS and you embarrass a sitting Minister in Ireland at your peril"

I think the Garda Representative Organisation did a good job of embarrassing Dermot Aherne the time he refused to attend their AGM. The Gardaí know why he wouldn't attend.

So did the rest of the nation, since Michael O'Boyce's speech was circulated all over the place. But that didn't stop the cuts to the AGS's budgets or fix any of the other things they were worried about at the time.

yubabill1

Sparks wrote: »

You rest your hopes on a government's reluctance to take on a minority at your peril I think...

Well, you see the State is taking on individuals in medical negligence cases. While I agree this is beneath contempt, the State knows individuals have limited resources and limited influence.

I agree we shooters are a minority and we have limited resources and we are in a passive aggressive hostile EU/State/UN ecosystem, as are alcohol and tobacco.

I don't think the government are in a position to swat the proverbial wasp you mention, but I don't doubt they are unaware of this. Especially from the comfort of D4.

yubabill1

Sparks wrote: »

How so?

What I mean is there are other bodies which also represent shooters.



So did the rest of the nation, since Michael O'Boyce's speech was circulated all over the place. But that didn't stop the cuts to the AGS's budgets or fix any of the other things they were worried about at the time.

I don't think the price was high on that occasion.

Sikamick

OH JESUS TO BE ABLE TO BANG HEADS TOGETHER, DOJ/SENIOR GARDA AND THE LEADERS OF OUR SHOOTING SPORTS.

Grow up and stop acting like kids in the school yard. Question ? how many ordinary members of these Organisation where consulted about forming a new group to represent US, who the Fu*k does any Organisation think they are to dictate to any other Organisation.

Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity and a say in what happens, ===== Ireland shout up, mind your own business and do what you told.

Sikamick

BattleCorp

I guess only time will tell if the rumours are true.

I would love for them to be false because I am happy as a pig in sh1t when I'm plinking away at the range.

But supposing that they are true, what then?

What would be the best plan of action if the NARGC and the NASRPC are correct and wholesale changes are in the pipeline?

cerastes

Sparks wrote: »

Wounded... are you taking the piss?


You don't.

I definitely wanted the NTSA out of the NRPAI because the NRPAI was at that point not a good place to be, and I wanted that for years. However, when the NTSA left the NRPAI, I wasn't on the NTSA committee (see post 10 in that thread) and the reason they left was that the IPSA wanted to join and the ISSF would derecognise the NTSA if they remained in the NRPAI when that happened (and yes, that was what the ISSF said, it wasn't just unsure opinion - the NTSA asked both informally and formally). Had that derecognition happened -- and it did happen in other countries -- the NTSA would not have been able to reform and get re-recognised; recognition would transfer to the ICPSA and we'd have to take over olympic shotgun from them to ever be able to send a team abroad ever again.

And all this was explained on this forum at length at the time. Go read the thread or use the search function.



Yes, before the FCP was founded. It was groups like the NASRPC that did end runs around all the other shooting associations during the FCP and tried for the private cozy chats.

I don't know if the NTSA approached the DoJ since the FCP was burned by the people you're saying we should support without question or pause; I'd expect them to have done so though, because that's their job and we haven't got the option of standing together anymore thanks to the FCP being scuppered. It would be the right thing to have done, and you can be damn sure that everyone else is doing it - including the NARGC and NASRPC whose meetings with them have been listed above on this thread.


But that's me, I just tend to remember stuff that happened and consider it to be lessons that should be learned and mistakes that shouldn't be repeated. I'm told that's my big problem.

Ok, I just want be sure, are we with or against the peoples judean front?

I'm sorry in advance, I dont want a ban, just trying to lighten the mood.

Sparks wrote: »

Your head won't feel any better after you see how they're laid out. This is a few years out of date, I keep meaning to update it but then lose the will to live when I try...

Ok, well thanks for clearing it up
:eek:??
:pac:
again, no ban please.

Amonisis

Peoples Judean Front!!! Splitters! We're the Peoples Front of Judea.

Grizzly 45

Thought we were the Pouplar Peoples Front of Judea??

badaj0z

Sparks wrote: »

I definitely wanted the NTSA out of the NRPAI because the NRPAI was at that point not a good place to be, and I wanted that for years. However, when the NTSA left the NRPAI, I wasn't on the NTSA committee (see post 10 in that thread) and the reason they left was that the IPSA wanted to join and the ISSF would derecognise the NTSA if they remained in the NRPAI when that happened (and yes, that was what the ISSF said, it wasn't just unsure opinion - the NTSA asked both informally and formally). Had that derecognition happened -- and it did happen in other countries -- the NTSA would not have been able to reform and get re-recognised; recognition would transfer to the ICPSA and we'd have to take over olympic shotgun from them to ever be able to send a team abroad ever again.

And all this was explained on this forum at length at the time. Go read the thread or use the search function.

I know this Sparks, but you have still not answered the question, the reason for departing is gone.

Sparks wrote: »

I don't know if the NTSA approached the DoJ since the FCP was burned by the people you're saying we should support without question or pause;

I did not say that, I said let us start a new organisation

As regards the NTSA approaching the DOJ ,I think you do know what has happened. You may or may not be on the committee but you surely know what is going on. You are also aware that the whole Olympic/ISU type pistol/ 5 shot magazine/ issue which has again surfaced as part of the current debacle allegedly dates back to a meeting between the NTSA and the DOJ which you were at which preceded the last set of Firearms legislation.

Sparks wrote: »

Well, apart from that fact, I'd say "because the FCP proved that one single organisation is not needed; we work better as a group of equals standing together; and the one organisation where there is always a fight over someone being in charge has proven time and again for forty years to not be workable".

You could say that about any one organisation. Why do you need the NTSA? Why not have a group of target shooters without an umbrella organisation.

The reality is that groups coalesce because the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. That applies at NTSA level and it also applies at the level above that and so on. We have a national shooting issue. It needs a nationally organised response . This response needs to be under our control, the shooters of Ireland. What you keep proposing, the FCP, is not under our control. As you keep pointing out, it is under the control of our antagonists in this debate, the DOJ.

Sparks

badaj0z wrote: »

I know this Sparks, but you have still not answered the question, the reason for departing is gone.

Yes I did, you just didn't read what I posted.

I did not say that, I said let us start a new organisation

By my count, that'd be the fifth attempt to do that in forty years (not counting the FCP), and every attempt before failed for the same reasons and since those reasons aren't going to be addressed this time either, it'd fail for the same reasons as before (namely, people's egos).

As regards the NTSA approaching the DOJ ,I think you do know what has happened. You may or may not be on the committee but you surely know what is going on.

I have a two-year-old toddler. I haven't been on the scene properly since he was born (that's young kids and old parents for you). I've made it to a few pistol matches and that's about it. I haven't spoken to the NTSA committee people at all outside of those matches, and only there for five minutes and not about politics.

Don't believe me?
I couldn't give a ****.
I did my time on committees and all I saw for it was every good thing we built get burned to serve other people's egos, and to watch everyone's name dragged through the mud by a group of men I wouldn't trust around the remote control for the telly lest they form a committee to decide who should get to push the buttons.

You are also aware that the whole Olympic/ISU type pistol/ 5 shot magazine/ issue which has again surfaced as part of the current debacle allegedly dates back to a meeting between the NTSA and the DOJ which you were at which preceded the last set of Firearms legislation.

I am very aware that it does not. I know where it comes from, and it's not a shooting organisation at all.

But as I've pointed out before, we'll take people who we call liars and blackguards all week long and we'll hold them up as paragons of truth and virtue for six minutes if it means that we can use what they say in those six minutes to throw rocks at each other...

You could say that about any one organisation. Why do you need the NTSA?

Can't go to the Olympic Games without them.
That's a good enough reason for me. There are others, but they all pertain to protecting ISSF shooters from the various bad things that a small group of people tried to do to the sport over the years.

The reality is that groups coalesce because the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

And a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. If you want to throw out stupid sayings all night, I can match you line for line.
Try an actual argument that doesn't shaft every ISSF rifle and pistol shooter in the country (and in Northern Ireland too btw) and we might actually have a discussion instead of a stupid waste of screen space.

We have a national shooting issue.

You're not listening to one word thats being said here, are you?
The whole point of this 300+ post thread is that we don't know if we have an issue or not. We have people who we have solid reasons to have trust issues with, telling us that they're in the know, nod nod, wink wink, and we should now panic in exactly the way they tell us to and trust them to fix everything.
I don't buy it.
People who remember what they've done in the past don't buy it.

You want us to move?
Show us some fupping evidence for once and treat shooters like grownups who can actually make up their own mind on what to do.

badaj0z

My my Sparks, what a vitriolic response. I must have hit some targets to spark off a reply like that. to keep it simple, and not waste screen space, I will not quote and requote. I will only say three things:
1.Whether the current uproar is valid or not, we still have the same issue. We do not speak with one voice. Now, or later, we will need it. It is you who have missed the point.
2. Why no response to my last point about the FCP?
3. I have often seen you on here criticizing ad hominem arguments, how then can you post the stream or personalized vitriol above?

Amonisis

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Thought we were the Pouplar Peoples Front of Judea??[/QUOTE

Oh, just go eat your wolf nipple chips. They're lovely.

Sparks

badaj0z wrote: »

My my Sparks, what a vitriolic response.

Damn right. Sick and tired of seeing us do the same mistakes over and over and over again and to see so much time and effort and money pissed away and to be made look fools to everyone outside our sport time and again.

1.Whether the current uproar is valid or not, we still have the same issue. We do not speak with one voice. Now, or later, we will need it. It is you who have missed the point.

Yes, and that was what the FCP was for.
That's why it's scuppering was such a bad idea.
And it's why we're screwed in the long term until we restore it.

2. Why no response to my last point about the FCP?

About how it's a DoJ setup?
Yes, you're right, so lets not use it.

Oh, and since the firearms act isn't something we control either, let's not bother with that either.

And since we don't control the roads, let's not use them to drive to work.

And if we get ill, well, we don't control doctors or nurses or hospitals either, do we?

3. I have often seen you on here criticizing ad hominem arguments, how then can you post the stream or personalized vitriol above?

Because it's not an ad hominem argument.
An ad hominem argument is where you're arguing over some facts and you resort to personal comments because the facts don't support your position.

Here's where we are right now:

• A group of people say the AGS have put in proposals to ban everything.
• The AGS and DoJ both deny that this is the case.
• The group of people say "no, they have, trust us".

We say "show us the proposals". The original group don't, the AGS and DoJ say there are no proposals like the ones this new group is saying exists. The original group maintains that there's a threat. Now either this new group has seen these proposals themselves and won't show them to us; or they haven't seen them themselves but are winding us all up in a tizzy anyway.

In either case, there are no facts for us to discuss and all the group has is to say "trust us" in the face of official AGS and DoJ denials, even though that group has a history of doing things that left all of us sitting there in disbelief that shooters would act so directly against other shooters' interests.

I'd make an analogy with witness testimony in a court, but this isn't even at that level. It would barely qualify as hearsay.

badaj0z

You have again missed the point Sparks. You keep coming back to the debate on whether the current uproar has a valid basis or not. Whether it does or not we still need to be better organised and if this is a false alarm, then we should be grateful that we have been given an opportunity to better organize ourselves before a real issue arises. Your constant protestations about how you have been so hurt by what has gone by and your negative wailing about how the past will prevent any positive change in the future is depressing to see.There are many readers on here who could be mobilised to assist but who could be put off by your negative approach. This is an ad hominem comment but it is so necessary when you are such a visible influence on the shooting community and you seem unable to set your own bias aside.

Amonisis

I may have missed something here but, are the DoJ and AGS stated denials official, or just more hearsay? If the denials are official, why has there been nothing in writing to confirm this? If you intend to reply that there was an email sent to someone in the WDAI, that doesn't sit well with me, as I haven't been given any opportunity to see the email, and have no idea if the sender did so as an actual "official" response to the WDAIs query about the matter, or if indeed the responder has any binding official authority to have issued a denial on behalf of the DoJ in the first place. I for one, would greatly appreciate clarification of this.

Sparks

badaj0z wrote: »

You have again missed the point Sparks. You keep coming back to the debate on whether the current uproar has a valid basis or not.

That is the entire point of this thread.

The question of "should we have one national organisation" has been comprehensively answered for forty years by the word "no".

The problem is that people keep thinking that we can't stand together without us all being in one large organisation -- but that's confusing unity with hierarchy. All the idea of a national organisation is about is who gets to be in charge of whom.

And to all stand together, we need to stop trying to figure out who gets to stand on whom. They're very different things. That's why the FCP worked (because we were all equals in it) and I personally believe that that might have also been why it got scuppered (because we were all equals in it).

This is an ad hominem comment but it is so necessary when you are such a visible influence on the shooting community and you seem unable to set your own bias aside.

Influence?
The closest I get to influence is influenza.
I just know what bull**** smells like because I got raised in the country, that's all...

Sparks

Amonisis wrote: »

I may have missed something here but, are the DoJ and AGS denials official or hearsay? If the denials are official, why has there been nothing in writing to confirm this? I for one, would be greatly relieved.

That got covered about a hundred posts back. There's a box up at the top there marked search this thread...

Dian Cecht

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

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

rowa

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

Sparks

Dian Cecht wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

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

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

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

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

rowa

Dian Cecht wrote: »

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

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

Dian Cecht

Sparks wrote: »

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


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

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

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

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

Dian Cecht

rowa wrote: »

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

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

rowa

Sparks wrote: »

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

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

Sparks

Dian Cecht wrote: »

I know what he said. Then he changed his mind

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grizzly 45

rowa wrote: »

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

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

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

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

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

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

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

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

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

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

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

Cass

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

Keep on topic and leave the snippy comments out.

ace86

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

Witcher

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

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

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

Roundpack

Blay wrote: »

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

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

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

Sparks

ace86 wrote: »

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

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

Witcher

Roundpack wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Roundpack

Blay wrote: »

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

The NASRPC chairperson mentioned the review in the December newsletter.

Witcher

Roundpack wrote: »

The NASRPC chairperson mentioned the review in their December newsletter.

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

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

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