Statement from NASRPC

Sparks

Dian Cecht wrote: »

Sparks you're source in DOJ is the Range Inspector, am I correct?

He's the guy I rang yesterday, I wouldn't call him a source 'cos I'm not a reporter and he doesn't work for me...

Not being funny or trying to undermine his position but maybe he is not privy to all the facts?

I couldn't tell you what he doesn't know (because well, who the hell could?), but he explicitly said that this was the official DoJ statement that was being given to everyone who was asking (six or seven groups were on to them from our little community yesterday) and it wasn't some private comment by him to me (which isn't a shock because civil servants who give out statements to the public for publication without the PO knowing about it and okaying it aren't long for the civil service).

That's not even mentioning that what he's describing is just how the DoJ does things. It was as surprising to hear as it was to hear that bakers make bread by mixing flour, yeast, water and salt and six tons of chemical stabilisers and flavour enhancers.

Dian Cecht

I asked a simple question & made a simple observation :rolleyes:

Thanks for the information BTW.

Sparks

Dian Cecht wrote: »

If these proposals are correct they will affect a lot more than ranges!

Dian, straight question okay, just answer this one:

Have you seen these proposals?

That's it, that's all I'd like to see.

• We have the NARGC/NASRPC saying there are proposals, but they've not actually said what they are, or what's in them, just what they think would happen if they were enacted into law without change.
• We have the AGS denying explicitly that they have put forward any proposals that would do what the NARGC/NASRPC say could happen.
• We have the DoJ saying that the Minister's seen nothing, and the review which was being conducted hasn't produced a report and won't till later this month and the Minister hasn't decided if anything should be done, and if he does, it then has to go through the full legislative process and we'll be consulted on it
• And we have the DoJ (and the reports in the NASRPC newsletter in december) saying that this was all laid out to the NARGC and NASRPC last October before the review began (and the DoJ has named specific people who were told this back then).

That's all we have. We don't know what the proposals actually are, and we won't for a while. Me, I could care less about the internecine stuff, I don't expect anything from a pig but a squeal. But I'd like to see the actual proposals before I write to my local TD (who happens to be Shatter) or start to panic.

That's it, that's all, that's my entire position on this -- "Show me", to borrow the Missouri slogan.

Grizzly 45

ace86 wrote: »

Here is the statement that the N.A.R.G.C made
https://www.facebook.com/pages/National-Association-of-Regional-Game-Councils-NARGC/190104431023958?ref=stream

Ah GAWD!!! This whole situation is now becoming like somthing the Monthy Python script writers wrote and dumped as it was too outlandish!!:mad:

bravestar

Oh man, talk about a lack of solidarity. Why don't, some people, just head out for a few shots and stop worrying...

meathstevie

Folks, situation as is; the NARGC is convinced something is brewing. Others aren't. Sparks hase gone to the horse's mouth as far as possible and there the word is: "There's nothing on the table at the moment and there won't be for a while yet and if there will be something at a future date we will come out and talk about it."

My tuppence, keep your powder dry and wait and see if anything remotely close to what is being thrown about comes out of it.

I for one would be quite surpised as the firearms situation has been reformed only recently and I can't see much happening so soon after a complete overhaul.

Of course it's a simple fact that there are people in AGS who'd love to do away with civilian legal firearms ownership in one move but there also are quite a few who do not deem this to be a problem at all and are quite in favour of shooting sports.

Long story short and proverbially speaking; a bird that isn't there or a target that isn't up can't be shot at so keep your powder dry and hit your send button or buy your stamps when something is on the table.

.270 remington

You never said a truer word stevie
I would love to know wtf people get out of sh** stirring like this

dc99

https://www.facebook.com/NASRPC

NASRPC have put something else on FB...

Sparks

dc99 wrote: »

https://www.facebook.com/NASRPC
NASRPC have put something else on FB...

That's just them quoting the NARGC statement mentioned above.

Cass

I have removed the last post by edd156.

Abusive language, name calling, and making legal threats against any member of Boards.ie or the site itself will not be tolerated.

Now for a lesson. This is a moderator acting. You know it is because when any mod makes a decision he writes in bold font, and titles the post as a "Moderator Note". A moderator's job to to enforce the site rules, and ensure the free flow of natural discussion.

We are as entitled to post in any thread or discussion we wish as much as the next poster. If you do not agree with any point in a post you attack the point/post and not the poster.

rowa

This whole thing is bizarre. Someone , somewhere is telling porky-pies, and to what ends ?

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

This whole thing is bizarre. Someone , somewhere is telling porky-pies, and to what ends ?

Or - let's be fair - has their wires crossed in an honest mistake.
(Yes, I know, but you have to at least allow for the possibility).

Cass

The NASRPC seem to be following the lead of the NARGC so i'll direct my comments there. They are attacking the validity of the WDAI's statement. - fair enough. However instead of ringing the DoJ and confirming that what they say (NARGC/NASRPC) is true they seem content enough to simply discredit the WDAI's statement without consultation.

Now that aside. If you did not believe the NARGC or the WDAI then consider this. We have an official statement from a member of the DoJ above. In it he outlines that NO change have been proposed, NO ONE can know the proposals as they have not been issued by AGS, and NO changes would come about with consultation and dialogue with the relevant bodies.

That is not hear say it's fact. Now no member of the DoJ/AGS would issue such a statement on behalf of either department without it being:

• True
• Accurate

Why?

Because it's their neck, job, etc. on the line.

rowa

And if what the nasrpc and nargc are saying is true and the sky is about to fall on us , they should tell us who their source is for this rumour/proposal.

Grizzly 45

One thing I would be a lot happier to see is a written statement of what was told to us as the offical DOJ/AGS position on this matter.....
with all due respects to everyone an oral contract/statement is not worth the paper it was written on.This is the thing that is worrying me,no one is comitting any of this on the opposite side to paper.If this is their offical policy then why not??

ace86

meathstevie wrote: »

Folks, situation as is; the NARGC is convinced something is brewing. Others aren't. Sparks hase gone to the horse's mouth as far as possible and there the word is: "There's nothing on the table at the moment and there won't be for a while yet and if there will be something at a future date we will come out and talk about it."

My tuppence, keep your powder dry and wait and see if anything remotely close to what is being thrown about comes out of it.

I for one would be quite surpised as the firearms situation has been reformed only recently and I can't see much happening so soon after a complete overhaul.

Of course it's a simple fact that there are people in AGS who'd love to do away with civilian legal firearms ownership in one move but there also are quite a few who do not deem this to be a problem at all and are quite in favour of shooting sports.

Long story short and proverbially speaking; a bird that isn't there or a target that isn't up can't be shot at so keep your powder dry and hit your send button or buy your stamps when something is on the table.

I'm stuck in the RDF myself and in the 13 yrs I have seen it reformed at least 3 times and everytime for the worst in my eyes. I don't trust the governement not to mind the civil servants working for them,especially people with positions of authority in certain departments make all these calls and decisions not the ordinary guy on the floor so to speak.They both say 1 thing and do the complete opposite they will always set the bar high but I feel a compromise will be made at which once again the minority of shooters i.e pistol owners and semi-auto rifles will bare the blunt of this reform if it comes to pass. I know guys are saying its all sh**t stirring and things but what if we wait and see is a good idea but how long should you wait?

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

with all due respects to everyone an oral contract/statement is not worth the paper it was written on.

I wouldn't disagree with that when it's a private contract, but when it's a verbal statement made officially on behalf of the department and it's recorded (and it's a voicemail, so this wasn't some hidden tape recorder kind of thing in case anyone's wondering), I think it's a slightly different kettle of fish.

Sparks

ace86 wrote: »

how long should you wait?

The DoJ say the report goes to the Minister later this month; he then decides if it warrants the full Bill->Oireachtas->Act routine or not; if he thinks it does, then the consultations start: I would think that that would be the time to be showing support on a wide scale for our side of things.

Before that point, we don't know what is being proposed so we couldn't really say what we have a problem with or what's unnecessary or what we'd like to see addressed.

loftypheasant

There's no smoke without fire lads. I'm a game shooter with 20 years, a few clay pigeons and a target shooter of late. The Dept. of Justice and the Guards have screwed us before and are more than capable of doing so again. They have been licking their wounds after all the court defeats and could well strike back. Any off-the-cuff statements from either group are not to be trusted. It is they who need to make official statements and come clean. It's a time for vigilance but to keep cool heads. Past differences and opinions between different shooting disciplines need to be put aside and we need to pull together. We are enduring discrimination which would cause uproar if similar was inflicted on some other minority. PS I have been a long time visitor to boards, and it's nice to chat to ye for a change.

rowa

Sparks wrote: »

I wouldn't disagree with that when it's a private contract, but when it's a verbal statement made officially on behalf of the department and it's recorded (and it's a voicemail, so this wasn't some hidden tape recorder kind of thing in case anyone's wondering), I think it's a slightly different kettle of fish.

Even still sparks , a quick one page letter confirming what they said over the phone wouldn't hurt.

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

I wouldn't disagree with that when it's a private contract, but when it's a verbal statement made officially on behalf of the department and it's recorded (and it's a voicemail, so this wasn't some hidden tape recorder kind of thing in case anyone's wondering), I think it's a slightly different kettle of fish.

DoJ possible response?? "Oh did mr Guinane say that??The silly fellow,he got that completely wrong!! A minor functionary,we must tell him off about that."Likewise the Gaurds..Shure that wasnt what was meant at all."
I'm sure that wont be the case..

But if it is their offical line what harm in putting out a breif statement on paper of their position??
I'm sure eventually our lot will do the same too?

Sparks

rowa wrote: »

Even still sparks , a quick one page letter confirming what they said over the phone wouldn't hurt.

I suppose, but I think you'd meet resistance if you suggested that because the guy who's been calling them foul names in the media for a few years now said they couldn't be trusted, that they had to issue a written statement after having spent two days talking to everyone in the community anyway.

Maybe they will have responded to someone by email or letter, but saying they have to issue a written statement because the NARGC demands it would probably not be a line I'd try with them if I was talking to them (which I'm not btw).

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

DoJ possible response?? "Oh did mr Guinane say that??The silly fellow,he got that completely wrong!! A minor functionary

:pac:

The firearms range inspector, a fairly senior member of staff whose job is laid down by statute, is not exactly what you'd call a minor functionary. And while he's the guy I rang, others have been talking to them as well, and they'll have been talking to the Principal Officer. I don't think you can call her a minor functionary either. Because when you say "DoJ possible response", she is the DoJ (at least on this subject).

Cass

I have removed yet more posts from people that cannot seem to hold a civil tongue.

Let me very clear. Any, and i mean any, abuse, name calling, insults, etc. will be met with infraction and/or ban. If you want to argue your point do so with some civility. If you cannot then either refrain from posting or expect an infraction/ban.

There are accusations of childish behaviour by some people against the majority that are discussing a serious matter. Odd that the only way they can highlight this childish behaviour is to resort to name calling, and using foul language.

Now whether you believe one side or the other is not important to me or any of the Mods. You are free to discuss the topic for or against any side you wish. But you will do it while abiding by forum etiquette and with the use good manners.

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

:pac:

The firearms range inspector, a fairly senior member of staff whose job is laid down by statute, is not exactly what you'd call a minor functionary. And while he's the guy I rang, others have been talking to them as well, and they'll have been talking to the Principal Officer. I don't think you can call her a minor functionary either. Because when you say "DoJ possible response", she is the DoJ (at least on this subject).

:D
I indeed know Mr Guinane personally and as to what his positions is.But you could imagine somone actually saying that if it was required to do so.:rolleyes:

Dav

I don't get it. I just don't get it. Here you are with a 200+ post thread and losing your minds over something that is completely without basis in reality and no one thought to make contact with the DoJ or AGS on it as a first reaction?

Stop worrying about things posted on Facebook or anywhere else and start worrying about why your various sports and hobbies aren't able to speak with one voice when they need to. You'd do well to start working together.

This forum has already cost me a lot of time and the company a lot of money. We're approaching the point of diminishing returns and to be perfectly honest, that makes me furious. I've gone clay and target shooting a few times in my live and I've loved it, but beyond that, I've got no vested interest in this, but as someone who runs a website for communities, it's the absolute antithesis of what it is I want to spend my day working on. So get it together. The relevant departments within the DoJ and AGS respects the reach and methods Boards.ie has within the greater gun-owning community. This clearly makes some people who think our rules don't apply to them unhappy, but it makes me bloody well proud of what's been accomplished here. Don't let that change.

And for what it's worth, how's about you leave the definitions of what a Moderator is and isn't supposed to be and how they're supposed to behave to me, the person who's job it is to decide on it.

BillyBoy13

Dav wrote: »

I don't get it. I just don't get it. Here you are with a 200+ post thread and losing your minds over something that is completely without basis in reality and no one thought to make contact with the DoJ or AGS on it as a first reaction?

Stop worrying about things posted on Facebook or anywhere else and start worrying about why your various sports and hobbies aren't able to speak with one voice when they need to. You'd do well to start working together.

This forum has already cost me a lot of time and the company a lot of money. We're approaching the point of diminishing returns and to be perfectly honest, that makes me furious. I've gone clay and target shooting a few times in my live and I've loved it, but beyond that, I've got no vested interest in this, but as someone who runs a website for communities, it's the absolute antithesis of what it is I want to spend my day working on. So get it together. The relevant departments within the DoJ and AGS respects the reach and methods Boards.ie has within the greater gun-owning community. This clearly makes some people who think our rules don't apply to them unhappy, but it makes me bloody well proud of what's been accomplished here. Don't let that change.

And for what it's worth, how's about you leave the definitions of what a Moderator is and isn't supposed to be and how they're supposed to behave to me, the person who's job it is to decide on it.

Genuinely curious here.... but how has the shooting board cost the company (boards.ie) a lot of money? The mods are voluntary so Im guessing a court case or something..??

Dian Cecht

DOJ have said that nothing will be changed without a change to the law & consultation.

Currently the Minister, without needing Dáil approval, legislation or consultation can make changes

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2006/en/act/pub/0026/sec0029.html

Sparks

Yes, but the DoJ have specifically stated that's not the route that would be taken, and they've seen the proposals and we haven't.

If the Minister planned to just dump all over the DoJ by signing an SI tonight, nothing anyone could do would stop it anyway - it's the nuclear option, to borrow a US phrase. Call whomever you want, you wouldn't be able to stop him, because that's a power granted his office by statute law.

That's why so many people get wary of legislative changes - because really bad stuff can, legally, happen overnight.

But (a) everyone's denying that's the case here and if it was the case, nobody would bother; and (b) we haven't seen a single proposal yet.

Look, you show me a proposal that went to the Minister saying "ban everything" and I'll be sitting in Shatter's constituency clinic the next time the doors open with my shoebox of medals and a press photographer, but until I see that, I don't see the point in panicing.

Dav

BillyBoy13 wrote: »

Genuinely curious here.... but how has the shooting board cost the company (boards.ie) a lot of money? The mods are voluntary so Im guessing a court case or something..??

Solicitors to defend against legal action are not cheap and every minute I spend on it is time I'm not spending on better things.