Gardai proposals to ban firearms

hurlsey

Wadi14 wrote: »

I don't have a cf pistol I don't have a cf rifle I don't have a semi- auto shotgun, but I am fighting these proposals because I feel they are wrong and unjust, I believe it is our responsibility if we hear fellow shooters picking the bits out that don't affect them, that we say wow hold on we are all in this together.
Take your petition to them and make sure they sign it, then let them chat away if they like

I should also mention these people have sent submissions on the Policy Review to the DOJ:eek:

Grizzly 45

hurlsey wrote: »

I should also mention these people have sent submissions on the Policy Review to the DOJ:eek:

As they are entitled to do.However if they are a dissenting voice and are in the minority. ..
BTW I hope they realise their names will be made public as will their submissions in this case as times have moved on and we have FOIA and DPA acts covering public consultations this time round.
We will soon see who was trying to cut deals,back stab or sell out their fellow gun owners in no time this time round.

From someone sitting in the Dail who contacted me and was in Buswells.We made a very good and professional arguement that was taken on board and was easy to understand and compelling for the those who wouldn't be very up on this.
Talking amongst them selves afterwards ,the opinion is that the gov with the massive manure pile still before them would be mad to add anothet trailer load to it with this especially in election mode.

Deaf git

And let's not just be content in staving off the current proposals....the situation as it stands is not good. There is stupidity and illogical BS already applied to us and while we have no right to firearms we do have a right to a reasonable level of service from public servants.

Traumadoc

ya deaf git, we heard you the first time.

Deaf git

Traumadoc wrote: »

ya deaf git, we heard you the first time.

Whats that?
Jesus, I HATE Windows 8!

Cass

hurlsey wrote: »

On another more worrying note, we still have some people within out community who are prepared to forfeit or capitulate on some aspects I the review, from recent conversations cf pistols, cf semi-auto rifles and reloading! This need to stop we all new to sing from the same hymn sheet and IMHO this document is laughable for want of a better word!

hurlsey wrote: »

Im not reading it on here Zxthinger!! It has come up in conversations i have had with shooters about the new proposals!!

Please let's not let this turn into a witch hunt for real or imaginary "disenters". This sh*t was trampled out over the last few years and had no basis in fact. All it done was to split what little coalition remained among the shooting communities. The continued search or hunt for people that find they have no horse in this race or don't see the proposals as "all that much" is pointless and a waste of resources and energy.

hurlsey wrote: »

I should also mention these people have sent submissions on the Policy Review to the DOJ:eek:

As Grizzly45 pointed out they are quite entitled to their opinion.

Grizzly45 wrote:

As they are entitled to do.However if they are a dissenting voice and are in the minority. ..

I said it in my last post that some people won't be affected, some simply won't care and what level of support they lend to this is entirely their choice. However this (and i only use Grizz's post as he has said it outright)................

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

BTW I hope they realise their names will be made public as will their submissions in this case as times have moved on and we have FOIA and DPA acts covering public consultations this time round.
We will soon see who was trying to cut deals,back stab or sell out their fellow gun owners in no time this time round.

............. will not be tolerated on this forum, and shouldd not be tolerated anywhere. The thought of forcing, shaming or somehow publicly berating people for not giving as much in terms of effort or moral support is ridiculous, pointless and frankly a nasty tactic that i thought we as a community would bee well above. It's disheartening to see people so readily willing to attack those that do not share their view point, etc.

As was said a few posts back none of these proposals effect me and some others i shoot with. Yet we have quietly signed petitions, printed some out, and continued on a letter writing campaign to TDs, the submissions board, etc. I do so because i'm invested in the sport and were i in the unenviable position of not having a firearm (myself, and nothing to do with proposals or law) i firmly believe i would continue to work in the sport of shooting in some form. However i do not expect the same or even any level of the same from others. As such i don't criticise them for their choices.

Deaf git wrote: »

And let's not just be content in staving off the current proposals....the situation as it stands is not good.

True, but we need to focus on the current threat and not the entire system. One battle at a time.

Grizzly 45

I don't think for one minute anyone has got a problem here with anyone not liking or wanting to shoot or use any of the affected guns or ever reload a shell.
Or that they cant do as much as others or couldnt be as arsed as others to do anything if at all.Thats their choice.

What should grind our gears would be the position that there are some out there who would or might according to Hurlsey's post be already planning to undermine our sector to the benefit of securing their own, or destroying ours, because they don't like it or see it as a "threat" to their existence.What Hurlsey seems to be suggesting is that these persons unknown have already put in submissions,beliving that they will be cloaked by privacy laws and that they wont be found out and can say "But we supported it and there is nothing you could do against the Govt,on one side of their face while saying "Good got rid of them pistols so my ...whatever ..is safe again.Shure no one will ever know."On the other side of their face..A rather nasty common national chacteristic of us.:(
That kind of two faced hyprocrisy, shouldn't be tolerated by anyone either,and the fact that there is now some "openess and transparency " in the submissions will allow us all to see who said what and when .Maybe if there had been this in the previous disaster of 2008/09 we wouldn't have had the poision and animosity amongst us on alot of issues?

If you dont want to sign the petition .Don't.If you dont like a certain gun,dont buy one or use one.
If you don't like a certain sports segment don't do it.But it does NOT give you a god given right to undermine it either ,by Hook or Crook.
Whether there is such a clique or not,and I hope there isnt...And what Hurlsey is reporting is just a few lone individuals.I will stick up for anyone who is a gun owner whether air softer Gucci ninja kitted out kid or hide bound traditional knicker bocker and tweed SXS man,and I would hope they would do likewise,but it seems some people still belive that the sinking ship wont affect them,and that there is a lifeboat available for 1st class passengers only that is unsinkable.They might be in for a rude shock too.

We are all the same.The same sun dries all our poor rags,so dont hang all of yours on the one nail. A Russian proverb that sums this up nicely.:)
Thats all from me on this topic.

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

What should grind our gears would be the position that there are some out there who would or might according to Hurlsey's post be already planning to undermine our sector to the benefit of securing their own, or destroying ours, because they don't like it or see it as a "threat" to their existence.What Hurlsey seems to be suggesting is that these persons unknown have already put in submissions,beliving that they will be cloaked by privacy laws and that they wont be found out and can say "But we supported it and there is nothing you could do against the Govt,on one side of their face while saying "Good got rid of them pistols so my ...whatever ..is safe again.Shure no one will ever know."On the other side of their face..A rather nasty common national chacteristic of us.:(

I understand what he is saying. My comment above is directed any sort of "outing" of individuals that will not be tolerated, but also that we should have more cop on than to listen to idle rumors and sh*t stirring (sorry Hurlsey, while it seems like that is directed at you it's not).

I heard all the same crap and even as recently as on this thread about how the NRAI/MNSCI done a dirty deal to get reloading. I know some of you are sick of hearing this, but i need to use it as it's the only example i can use with 100% certainty. I'll ask the same thing now about these proposals that i asked about the reloading.

What exactly does any shooting group have to "bargain with" that the DoJ cannot take away with the stroke of a pen?

Seriously. What can the NTSA use to sell out the NRAI? What has the NRAI to use to sell out the ITS/Pony Club/Bullseye, etc.? Nothing.

The funny part is the ones starting the rumors are usually guilty of some sort of sh*t themselves as has been proven in the last few years with other groups proposals on pistols, grants, etc. In the end it's usually bad mouthing to cast those not "towing the line" in a bad light. A real credit to the "unity" so many are calling for. :rolleyes:

There are no deals to be had, and no sell outs to be made. If the DoJ did not take on those proposals by the pistol crowd (or even a small part of them) when they were being offered them, why would they use another group with no ties to the other as leverage when they can, as said above, simply erase it with the stroke of a pen.


It hasn't been 2 weeks since this thread started the proposals were made public and within this thread in that time are accusations of capitulation, dividing smart arse remarks, snotty digs, and rumors that only serve to further widen the divide. It benefits no one and frankly will get more backs up then offers of help. IWO a lad or group will just say feck it, and not take a chance that what they do is not seen to be the right thing. The right thing by who's standards is the question.

I've said this about these proposals and i'll say it again about these rumors. If some group is found to have done something then i'd like to know, obviously, but right now is not the time, and when the time comes we'll address it. However the one thing i'd still like to know, and i'd ask the group involved, how did they do it? What did they use to bargain with? Because i'm at a loss as to how any group would manage it.

Heckler

All we all do is point a firearm, pull a trigger and depending on your discipline it hits something. When did it become so complicated ?

Its only now that these new proposals have been mooted that I can see the fractious nature of the shooting community.

Can we not just put aside the petty ****e and agree to come together and fight these new proposals ? Then we can all go back to the bickering etc......

Sparks

Heckler wrote: »

When did it become so complicated ?

The day we first had three people involved in shooting.

hurlsey

With regards the last few posts, I think I should clarify as what I said seems to have been taken out of context


What I was trying to highlight was that some people I've talked to about the new proposals feel we as a group are going to have to capitulate on certain aspects of the new proposals as AGS arnt going to walk away from this doc with egg on their face and their d!cks in their hands so to speak.....

I'm only catching up on the "politics" of shooting sports, the alleged infractions etc and personally I don't really care

Shooting is shooting is shooting

Be it a .22lr pistol, 6.5 rifle, 12ga shotgun, semi auto, ba, ss..... I don't care what you want or why you want it as long as your a stand up individual who wants to pursue their chosen sport/discipline either competitively or as a hobby

I don't see why, for example, I can't reload at home for hunting, ammunition becomes cheaper, it's another aspect of shooting I'd enjoy, and practically every other European country allows it(I do agree it should be regulated but not to a point where I've a bomb shelter dug into my back garden)

Heckler

hurlsey wrote: »

With regards the last few posts, I think I should clarify as what I said seems to have been taken out of context


What I was trying to highlight was that some people I've talked to about the new proposals feel we as a group are going to have to capitulate on certain aspects of the new proposals as AGS arnt going to walk away from this doc with egg on their face and their d!cks in their hands so to speak.....

I'm only catching up on the "politics" of shooting sports, the alleged infractions etc and personally I don't really care

Shooting is shooting is shooting

Be it a .22lr pistol, 6.5 rifle, 12ga shotgun, semi auto, ba, ss..... I don't care what you want or why you want it as long as your a stand up individual who wants to pursue their chosen sport/discipline either competitively or as a hobby

I don't see why, for example, I can't reload at home for hunting, ammunition becomes cheaper, it's another aspect of shooting I'd enjoy, and practically every other European country allows it(I do agree it should be regulated but not to a point where I've a bomb shelter dug into my back garden)

I agree. Its the usual tactic of hit them hard and then be seen to capitulate a bit to make it more acceptable. Just as an example they may ban all handguns but allow the 3 round shotguns with the mag restrictors and some may take this as a successfu outcome.

Its a time honoured sleazy ruse used by all political parties over the years. Propose something way OTT , lash back, revert to what what they actually wanted in the first place. Voters think they have a victory and agree.

BAN ALL FIREARMS ! Noooooo ! Ok just ban all pistols and CF rifles !! Yay !!! And a year later noone has a firearm.

BattleCorp

Cass wrote: »

As was said a few posts back none of these proposals effect me

Actually there is one section in the new proposals that affects you. It affects everybody who wants to license a firearm.

These proposals, if passed, give the Super the power to refuse your licence based on 'public safety' or 'proliferation of firearms in the district'.

That means the Super can decide that there's enough guns in my district so I won't licence any more and there'd be fcukall you could do if you are refused a licence for your bolt action .22 or .308.

So it will be a postcode lottery when applying for firearms licences.

gunhappy_ie

BattleCorp wrote: »

Actually there is one section in the new proposals that affects you. It affects everybody who wants to license a firearm.

These proposals, if passed, give the Super the power to refuse your licence based on 'public safety' or 'proliferation of firearms in the district'.

That means the Super can decide that there's enough guns in my district so I won't licence any more and there'd be fcukall you could do if you are refused a licence for your bolt action .22 or .308.

So it will be a postcode lottery when applying for firearms licences.

Agree 100%

But think it will go further than that.....

I think that if "the proliferation of firearms" is brought in then AGS will use it as an excuse to limit the amount of firearms and eventually strangle every gun out of licence holders hands. This year if there are 500 guns licensed in your district but next year there will be a limit of 450.... next year there will be a limit 400... Now because of the 3 year licence system you happen to be application no 401...., "Sorry buddy, despite your shooting the last 10 years its the policy of the Super or Chief Super not to issue more than 400.... But no hard feelings .... if you want you can appeal it in court" !

Eventually .... there will be a few professional deer hunters with .270 Win (unable to get .308 because its deemed a military calibre) and perhaps a few members of the upper class well in the know with a S/S or U/O Shotgun.

Cass

BattleCorp wrote: »

Actually there is one section in the new proposals that affects you. It affects everybody who wants to license a firearm.

My apologies, and you are correct. That will effect me & everyone, but what i was referring to (and probably could have made much clearer) was the actual firearms, in that i don't own any on the "gonna try and ban em" list.

I spent the day on the range and met a few Boardsies. Had a good chat with a few and short chat with most. The topic on everyone's lips are the proposals. We all got our opinions across and the prevailing attitude was to support the fight to keep our guns. We had some differing ideas and opinions on how, who and what way, but not one person said "i don't care".

gunhappy_ie

Cass wrote: »

My apologies, and you are correct. That will effect me & everyone, but what i was referring to (and probably could have made much clearer) was the actual firearms, in that i don't own any on the "gonna try and ban em" list.

I spent the day on the range and met a few Boardsies. Had a good chat with a few and short chat with most. The topic on everyone's lips are the proposals. We all got our opinions across and the prevailing attitude was to support the fight to keep our guns. We had some differing ideas and opinions on how, who and what way, but not one person said "i don't care".

No .22 pistol, pump or semi shotgun, or S/A centerfire rifle ..... :eek: :P

Cass

I have none of those?????????

bpb101

People are saying i dont have this so it dosent effect me, you may not have a pistol or s/a centre fire or s/a shotgun, but it means you will never be allowed to
Beside that , If they do get this through with no problems , that is only the first things to go . Next semi auto 22, then all semi auto and pump shotguns
Then things will get even more stricter.

All in all , if the gardai could get rid of everything , without any problems They would. DOJ and gs dont want firearms. They dont care about shooting sports or hunters.

Cass

You do know that the DoJ can just get rid off firearms if they want? They don't need to do it bit by bit. They could get rid off it all, and just weather the poo storm that would follow. Give it 6 months and it's all be background noise.

bpb101

Cass wrote: »

You do know that the DoJ can just get rid off firearms if they want? They don't need to do it bit by bit. They could get rid off it all, and just weather the poo storm that would follow. Give it 6 months and it's all be background noise.

you think?

Cass

bpb101 wrote: »

you think?

You don't??????

This bit:

bpb101 wrote: »

DOJ and gs dont want firearms.

Do you think we have any control if they really wanted them gone, at ANY cost?

bpb101

Cass wrote: »

You don't??????

This bit:

Do you think we have any control if they really wanted them gone, at ANY cost?

good point. yes they can get rid of them , but the appeals and to be blunt bitching is probable why they don't

Do you really think they allow them because the care for the sport and so ireland is represented at Olympics and other competitions?

It would be political suicide if they took shotguns off farmers because thats where fg and ff get most of their votes , Not saying city people dont vote for them, but farmers generally vote ff and when ff fúck up fg.

Cass

bpb101 wrote: »

good point. yes they can get rid of them , but the appeals and to be blunt bitching is probable why they don't

What appeals?

If they outright banned all firearms (worse case scenario) then there is nothing to appeal. The law now says you cannot own a firearm at all, for any reason. You cannot appeal a negative.

The appeals we see today are because the Gardaí are not fairly implementing the law as it is.

Do you really think they allow them because the care for the sport and so ireland is represented at Olympics and other competitions?

I doubt it. I also doubt we register on their radar accept when we make too much noise to be ignored.

It would be political suicide if they took shotguns off farmers because thats where fg and ff get most of their votes , Not saying city people dont vote for them, but farmers generally vote ff and when ff fúck up fg.

How so? Not being smart or facetious.

Take the total number of licensed PEOPLE (not licenses). Very rough guess, 110,000 to a max of 120,000. Take the amount that are farmers. Take the amount of them that have one shotgun and are not really that pushed about it (IOW don't care if it's lost/taken from them). Then take the ones that will vote FG/FF no matter what they do.

I'm not trying to make this a numbers game, but i only say this to show that the numbers we think we have are not that high. Even with a full strength voting pool (some 3 - 3.5% of the total voting numbers), we've already established it counts for nothing with such a wide spread distribution of numbers around each district.

The numbers game comes into it when any TD has someone look at this and tell them if it'll effect them. When they find out it may not to most definitely won't then they pay us lip service and go with the party's policy/want which usually falls inline with whatever the greater public vote want.

We must come from a position of willingness to negotiate, preparedness to listen and talk. Any attempt of forcing them, making them, or "threats" of voting against them simply will not hold the fear factor we think it will.

Cass

This all sounds doom and gloom, and i don't mean for it to be so. We've gotten a little sidetracked here but i think this warrants a little discussion.

bpb101

Cass wrote: »

What appeals?

If they outright banned all firearms (worse case scenario) then there is nothing to appeal. The law now says you cannot own a firearm at all, for any reason. You cannot appeal a negative.

The appeals we see today are because the Gardaí are not fairly implementing the law as it is.

I doubt it. I also doubt we register on their radar accept when we make too much noise to be ignored.

How so? Not being smart or facetious.

Take the total number of licensed PEOPLE (not licenses). Very rough guess, 110,000 to a max of 120,000. Take the amount that are farmers. Take the amount of them that have one shotgun and are not really that pushed about it (IOW don't care if it's lost/taken from them). Then take the ones that will vote FG/FF no matter what they do.

I'm not trying to make this a numbers game, but i only say this to show that the numbers we think we have are not that high. Even with a full strength voting pool (some 3 - 3.5% of the total voting numbers), we've already established it counts for nothing with such a wide spread distribution of numbers around each district.

The numbers game comes into it when any TD has someone look at this and tell them if it'll effect them. When they find out it may not to most definitely won't then they pay us lip service and go with the party's policy/want which usually falls inline with whatever the greater public vote want.

We must come from a position of willingness to negotiate, preparedness to listen and talk. Any attempt of forcing them, making them, or "threats" of voting against them simply will not hold the fear factor we think it will.

Cass wrote: »

This all sounds doom and gloom, and i don't mean for it to be so. We've gotten a little sidetracked here but i think this warrants a little discussion.

Fair points and i see where your coming from , i do . So what do we negotiate on. . What is the middle ground.

also as a side note only allowing only Olympics pistols i found particularly stupid. People dont just say , Jesus , i think ill become an Olympics shooter. (same way as people dont just wake up and say i want to be an Olympics skier)
I think one thing in the report if i remember correctly says that section 4d i think that allows the exclusion of not having a firearms cert for target shooting at a range should exclude pistols which would mean , you couldnt borrow a pistol so if you wanted to shoot a pistol you need to buy a Olympic pistol and your probable wont get one , because well ,your wouldn't be an Olympics shooter . So effectfully pistols would die out

Deaf git

Cass; You are correct, we don't have a huge voting lever to force the issue. However, the current political climate is dicey for the coalition, particularly Labour. Have a look at the last local election counts and see the collapse. With the complete clusterf%*ks of more recent times I doubt if the coalition can afford the luxury of alienating any further groups- even a minority group like us. Seats can be won or lost by tiny margins in some constituencies so losing even 50% of potential votes from local gun club members is something TD's will not want.
From a tactical perspective, the Dept timed this move badly and should have waited until after the next election.

bpb101

Deaf git wrote: »

Cass; You are correct, we don't have a huge voting lever to force the issue. However, the current political climate is dicey for the coalition, particularly Labour. Have a look at the last local election counts and see the collapse. With the complete clusterf%*ks of more recent times I doubt if the coalition can afford the luxury of alienating any further groups- even a minority group like us. Seats can be won or lost by tiny margins in some constituencies so losing even 50% of potential votes from local gun club members is something TD's will not want.
From a tactical perspective, the Dept timed this move badly and should have waited until after the next election.

I cant see labour in the media for much longer. there gone comply after this election. which will prob be sooner rather than later.
Not to get into the politics of the government too much here, but id say the next government will be ff and the sinners.
I dont see sinners changing gun law at all because well ... it dosent look good. If i was in sinn feinn hq ,i would completely ignore gun law

Cass

bpb101 wrote: »

Fair points and i see where your coming from , i do . So what do we negotiate on. . What is the middle ground.

We need level headed, civil and reasoned discussion. We need to rid ourselves of this "All or nothing" attitude as we'll end up with nothing. This idea some have that any sort of appeasement or preparedness to meet, as you put it, in the middle ground is a sign of capitulation or selling out has to end. The simple fact is we are coming with cap in hand (to a degree) and no one likes that idea, myself included, but if we drop the notion that we have some sort of imaginary power then perhaps we can get on with the issue of saving our sport/firearms and stop fooling ourselves with ideas that have been tried (and failed) years ago.

We need to realise we cannot, nor should we, try and change the legislation that is in place. There, hopefully, will be time for that down the road. We need to concentrate on the Garda proposals, counter their points with sensible and non table banging logic. Ignore the talk of mass shooting, and gangland crime because it does not apply to us. By discussing it we validate their argument. IOW by trying to argue that we are not associated to these elements we are keeping the topic alive. You know that old saying about the harder someone argues that they are not something, it usually means they are?

We need to show we are not a danger to public safety. We need to highlight the accomplishments of our respective sports, our track record of safety, the flaws in the Garda statistics about lost/stolen guns, their mistake on the persona designata issue, the cost of court cases (both time and money), refusals that have no basis in law, the use of personal agendas and feelings in issuing unfair/illegal refusals/revocations, etc.

I said before i won't pretend to have all or any of the answers. I support the need to fight our corner, but have my own thoughts on how it should be done. The above being some of them. It's not glamorous or worthy of an article in any media, but it might just be a step forward which is what we want.

also as a side note only allowing only Olympics pistols i found particularly stupid.

More so than you think as, i believe, the Olympics don't even give a description of what an Olympic pistol should look like. they only give specs on mag capacity, barrel length, and then you can use anything. Lads being refused or having their Hammerli Xesse's revoked (example only) can use these in the Olympics. They might not win with one, but it meets the criteris for an Olympic pistol.

This is yet another example to use in a rebuttal of the AGS proposals. Incorrect/inaccurate information used to sensationalize a non issue.

So effectfully pistols would die out

The sad truth is they are already dying out. Centrefire pistols are gone. Whomever has one is the last of their kind. It would take an Act of God (or minister Fitzgerald) to bring them back to life.

Rimfires are the only way left, and they are now being targeted. Again an opportunity to address how the Gardaí are revoking licenses and refusing to issue new licenses based on what a person might do (changing the unrestricted 5 shot mag to a 10 shot, restricted mag). In essence they are saying you are not worthy enough to be given an unrestricted gun and trusted not to try and turn it into a restricted one. IOW they want/are trying to circumvent the legislation by predicting possible criminal activity of a person that they previously deemed of high enough stature to hold a firearms(s) license. If we are so untrustworthy we issue the license to us at all?

These are the points we need to argue.

Deaf git wrote: »

However, the current political climate is dicey for the coalition, particularly Labour.

I agree. Any "weakness" can, and should be used, but as long as we realise it's not a big stick to beat the opposition into doing what we want, but more of a poking device to guide them in the direction we want. Metaphors (however poor) aside it's a tool. No more. not the magic wand some think it is that will solve our problem.

Even if we had a serious voting pool, how well does anyone think threats would go down?

bpb101 wrote: »

Not to get into the politics of the government too much here, but id say the next government will be ff and the sinners.

Sweet baby Jesus, i hope not.

I dont see sinners changing gun law at all because well ... it dosent look good. If i was in sinn feinn hq ,i would completely ignore gun law

I don't see them doing it because some time ago, and i'm still trying to find the article, they publicly condemned private gun ownership and supported proposed bans on most/certain types of guns. If/When i find the article i'll go into that in further detail.

223foxcaller

I honistly think that aneyone with a gun and has a firearms licence for it did not go through that much trouble to do harm with it. aneyone who is going to do any type of harm with a gun is not going to give their name to the garda to have it on their system they are going to get it ileagily. I think firearm laws in this countrie are a joke it's too strict guns are perfectly fine if you are using them for the right reason. I personally think this is all comming from people who never shot a gun neverlone seen one in person are making these decisions because of tv programs like love hate that are giving firearms a bad name and because let's face it the gards don't want the hassle of all the paperwork.

bpb101

Cass wrote: »

We need level headed, civil and reasoned discussion. We need to rid ourselves of this "All or nothing" attitude as we'll end up with nothing. This idea some have that any sort of appeasement or preparedness to meet, as you put it, in the middle ground is a sign of capitulation or selling out has to end. The simple fact is we are coming with cap in hand (to a degree) and no one likes that idea, myself included, but if we drop the notion that we have some sort of imaginary power then perhaps we can get on with the issue of saving our sport/firearms and stop fooling ourselves with ideas that have been tried (and failed) years ago.

We need to realise we cannot, nor should we, try and change the legislation that is in place. There, hopefully, will be time for that down the road. We need to concentrate on the Garda proposals, counter their points with sensible and non table banging logic. Ignore the talk of mass shooting, and gangland crime because it does not apply to us. By discussing it we validate their argument. IOW by trying to argue that we are not associated to these elements we are keeping the topic alive. You know that old saying about the harder someone argues that they are not something, it usually means they are?

We need to show we are not a danger to public safety. We need to highlight the accomplishments of our respective sports, our track record of safety, the flaws in the Garda statistics about lost/stolen guns, their mistake on the persona designata issue, the cost of court cases (both time and money), refusals that have no basis in law, the use of personal agendas and feelings in issuing unfair/illegal refusals/revocations, etc.

I said before i won't pretend to have all or any of the answers. I support the need to fight our corner, but have my own thoughts on how it should be done. The above being some of them. It's not glamorous or worthy of an article in any media, but it might just be a step forward which is what we want.


More so than you think as, i believe, the Olympics don't even give a description of what an Olympic pistol should look like. they only give specs on mag capacity, barrel length, and then you can use anything. Lads being refused or having their Hammerli Xesse's revoked (example only) can use these in the Olympics. They might not win with one, but it meets the criteris for an Olympic pistol.

This is yet another example to use in a rebuttal of the AGS proposals. Incorrect/inaccurate information used to sensationalize a non issue.

The sad truth is they are already dying out. Centrefire pistols are gone. Whomever has one is the last of their kind. It would take an Act of God (or minister Fitzgerald) to bring them back to life.

Rimfires are the only way left, and they are now being targeted. Again an opportunity to address how the Gardaí are revoking licenses and refusing to issue new licenses based on what a person might do (changing the unrestricted 5 shot mag to a 10 shot, restricted mag). In essence they are saying you are not worthy enough to be given an unrestricted gun and trusted not to try and turn it into a restricted one. IOW they want/are trying to circumvent the legislation by predicting possible criminal activity of a person that they previously deemed of high enough stature to hold a firearms(s) license. If we are so untrustworthy we issue the license to us at all?

These are the points we need to argue.

I agree. Any "weakness" can, and should be used, but as long as we realise it's not a big stick to beat the opposition into doing what we want, but more of a poking device to guide them in the direction we want. Metaphors (however poor) aside it's a tool. No more. not the magic wand some think it is that will solve our problem.

Even if we had a serious voting pool, how well does anyone think threats would go down?

Sweet baby Jesus, i hope not.

I don't see them doing it because some time ago, and i'm still trying to find the article, they publicly condemned private gun ownership and supported proposed bans on most/certain types of guns. If/When i find the article i'll go into that in further detail.

Very good post, and you are right, we will be begging for something at the table. And brushing off the criminal side is the best way to go,

I dont supporting the sinners just in case people think in a card carrying member but tbh I can see them getting in. I think like all that aren't in power , they claim have all the answers.
I remember a while ago fg caused a big row over ff introduced a 50 cent levy on prescriptions for penionees and fg said this was unjust and all the rest of the bull they all came out with. First budget fg did, they put it up to 1.50

Sinners are only saying that want all guns banned because they can't say anything else on the matter.

In general though the notion of gun laws in ireland to the adverage joy soap is just for want of a better word completly stupid.
I'm a big lover of American tv shows, but it relays to the world that anybody can just go into a 7/11 and buy a fully auto machine gun and whenever they please shoot up a school.

I remember about a year ago a range was trying to be set up in the old army range in templmore. Plans were lovely nice 300 meter. The owner(well guy renting the land) was going to put in toilets for walkers and first aid equiment. And a load of bull**** surface by some fg local councillor saying a school was only 1 km away( which was like 3km away)
And there was a debate on tipp fm and the level of absolute shît people came up with was beyond belief . The range was on between 2 mountains( so a bullet couldn't escape) and local people were worried and I quote about their kids getting shot going to schhol and also criminals with their glock could use the range to train. [Edit the radio presenter sugested about the Glocks ] Podcast is long dead but the level of utter tripe people come out with is baffling

I just really wonder are people just so uneducated in general, or am I just as similarly clueless about curling or something,