Gardai proposals to ban firearms

turismo2142

OzCam wrote: »

Well said Turismo. You must be a good advocate.



Those will be the first arguments against paying compensation. There is at least a chance that the Supreme Court will require that argument to be backed up with facts, if it gets that far.

Am I correct in understanding that if the proposal goes through the only remaining shotguns in the country will be the old break-to-reload type? (sorry if terminology is wrong.)

In short, yes. single, double sxs or O/U. And that is a certainty!!!!

All pumps and all semi-autos will be gone. Without exception. Someone mentioned to me that Browning may have made a semi decades ago for trap which was a 2 + 1 but I doubt there's one in the country.

BoatMad

so anyone like to sum up where we think we are at the moment

tac foley

Re slugs in shotguns - 'So in the UK it becomes a Sect 1 firearm and is on a firearms cert, not a shotgun cert.'

I'd just like to point out that although the purchase and use of 12g slug ammuntion for IPSC comps requires a Section 1 Firearms license of the same kind as that required for any rifled, cartridge-firing firearm, there is one more VERY important restriction.

Only the person to whom that gun is registered is allowed to shoot it with a slug cartridge. He or she can demonstrate it to another person, but that person is prohibied by law from actually shooting it, no matter WHAT nature of cartridge is employed.

The same rule is applied to the so-called long-barrelled revolver/pistol. Only the person to whom this firearm is registered may shoot it.

tac

turismo2142

BoatMad wrote: »

so anyone like to sum up where we think we are at the moment

I for one was surprised at the level of news coverage to be frank. I didn't think the public would care too much. I still don't think they do. I've been ranting on about this for months at anyone who'd listen to me and most people accept that the Gardaí need to be questioned at every juncture and that their motivations are consistently paternalistic and opaque at best.

I'm slightly more optimistic than before. If you can drown out the clownish noises burped by the likes of McGrath TD it yesterday seems to have gained more traction that one might have thought.

Another secondary story about AGS "antics" in close proximity to the penalty points one and in circumstances where the DOJ and its officials were willing bedfellows cannot be seen by any rational observer as being anything less than toxic 14 months (at most) shy of a general election.

One well constrcuted informative conversation with a journo at a leading newspaper drawing attention to specific AGS information put before the justice committee and how empirically and undenyably misleading it was in the context of the overall critique of the Gardaí over the past year could well make it a larger issue than firearms licensing and could serve our purposes extremely effectively.

If that happened I think we'd be very confident.

BoatMad

One well constrcuted informative conversation with a journo at a leading newspaper drawing attention to specific AGS information put before the justice committee and how empirically and undenyably misleading it was in the context of the overall critique of the Gardaí over the past year could well make it a larger issue than firearms licensing and could serve our purposes extremely effectively.

would that be useful to arrange ?, but newspaper wont print a rant against the Gardai, it has to be cogently argued no " discredited police force stuff"

Witcher

turismo2142 wrote: »

I didn't think the public would care too much. I still don't think they do.

That's something I was thinking of the other day while watching the meeting.

They were going on about how there were serious concerns amongst the public about firearms, TBH I don't think the average Irish person even knows firearms are legal here and if they do they think they're only for farmers.

The amount of times I've read 'I'm glad guns are banned here' or 'Thank god we don't have handguns in Ireland' or 'Only farmers can get guns here' on After Hours, Facebook, TheJournal, or other news sites. I'm not saying those people represent a significant proportion of the population or anything but I've never once seen anyone raise concerns about Irish laws anywhere online in discussions.

Usually when they're informed of how the laws actually are here, they respond with 'Yeah, but you still need a licence so you're vetted, not like in the US etc.' I've never seen anyone go 'Jesus, handguns are legal here? Ban them!' or such. There are some staunch anti gunners here on Boards but I don't think they're the type to actually raise concerns with a local politician or the Gardai, they're just blowing hot air here about how bad firearms are in general not that they have a specific grievance with the laws here. So where are these 'serious concerns' amongst the public originating from?

tac foley

The question has to asked, so it's best that it comes from a foreigner, albeit one with a small axe to grind.

How is it that the 'expert persons' representing the ballistics/firearms department organisation are so appallingly ill-informed about almost anything to do with firearms?

Why is it that any of us, who are gun-owners, presumably with the same level of access to international magazines and other firearms-related documentation as the rest of the world, seem to have more knowledge about firearms in general in our little fingers than the official rep who stands up and spouts errant tripe?

All I know from my many days in court as an expert witness on firearms-related criminal activity caught on camera is that I had better have an equal or better grasp of the subject matter in evidence than the person opposing my case.

tac

BoatMad

One well constrcuted informative conversation with a journo at a leading newspaper drawing attention to specific AGS information put before the justice committee and how empirically and undenyably misleading it was in the context of the overall critique of the Gardaí over the past year could well make it a larger issue than firearms licensing and could serve our purposes extremely effectively.

just to be clear , I could arrange that , if the basis of your argument holds up and can be demonstrated to hold up.

mind you I'm sure the various bodies opposing this legislation have access to journos, so why hasn't it been done if its that clearcut

turismo2142

BoatMad wrote: »

would that be useful to arrange ?, but newspaper wont print a rant against the Gardai, it has to be cogently argued no " discredited police force stuff"

It's not a matter of arranging it as an interview as such. The sort of thing that's needed is an editorial piece on the Gardaí and their fall from grace and trust in the eyes of the Irish public which will no doubt be happening in some shape or form over the next few days in light of the penalty point report. In any such editorial a secondary "by the way" example of the misleading of an Oireachtais Committee by a senior member (also in the news this week, or at least the response to it) could make an interesting bolster. That's all I'm saying.

That's how agenda's are set in this country.

What I imagine an astute PR pro would do is to identify a journalist with an editorial track record on the issue and make an informal approach "for his/her information".

But look, I'm just talking aloud. I dunno really. :-)

Grizzly 45

@tac
Simply because Ballistics has never been challanged and that it is a position gained by promotion not actual knowledge and academic ability.Even the term "ballistics" is wrong,we are dealing with" firearms recognition,ballistics and tool marking",saying ballistics itself is like saying "car" and what we have is a forensic ballistican giving evidence on a wholly different topic to his qualification.Anywhere else as you know in any PD dept you are addressing the head as Professor or Doctor,not "Inspector".Here its a police position anywhere else you have a civillian with academic qualifications running the dept.
Nor am I aware of any defence in a criminal case challanging the firearm forensic evidence either,as there are few and damn all independat expert witnesses who would or could without finding life difficult for themselves.Reason we proably have statements in court cases of deer rifles becoming "high class sniper rifles ,accurate up to three miles."
Finally,35 years of enforced suspended animation of shooting and the revelant technology in Ireland being suddenly rudely awakened in the 21st century to discover technology had moved on abit from 1972,when bolt actions and handguns in the shape of Webley revolvers and Lee Enfield rifles were the norm and "Armalites" were the sole peserve of the "RA". I always wonder what boogey men could the Irish state and AGS have used to justify a whole slew of draconian legislation had NI never happened??

Grizzly 45

turismo2142 wrote: »

In short, yes. single, double sxs or O/U. And that is a certainty!!!!

All pumps and all semi-autos will be gone. Without exception. Someone mentioned to me that Browning may have made a semi decades ago for trap which was a 2 + 1 but I doubt there's one in the country.

Until you get one of these.:D
http://www.chiappafirearms.com/products/135.

or one of these:eek:
http://www.cosmi.net/uk/ukhome.htm

or this I dunno WHY

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/02/19/break-barrel-semi-auto-shotgun-the-new-beretta-ugb25-xcel

hurlsey

In light of the public sessions Wednesday and the clear misinformation provided by AGS for the proposals, is there anyway a TD could ask Ms Fitzgerald some rather difficult questions of AGS/DOJ?

Grizzly 45

She could find herself in front of the comittee along with Cheif Noreen in the hot seat answering some embarrassing questions on her dept and her police force..Which they are obliged to answer aprently under law.

These comittees have some pretty strong legal powers here in the Statel.Only thing they cant do is conduct judical enquiries,hence the reason no one is sworn in before giving evidence.ironically thats because of the Abbylara incident.

Sparks

hurlsey wrote: »

In light of the public sessions Wednesday and the clear misinformation provided by AGS for the proposals, is there anyway a TD could ask Ms Fitzgerald some rather difficult questions of AGS/DOJ?

Viscerally satisfying as that might be, remember that all this started under the current Minister's predecessor and the current Commissioner's predecessor and neither would be terribly enthusiastic supporters of the idea that you crucify a sitting official for a predecessor's policies. If you think that the Minister won't know about this unless it's asked about in the Dail, you're forgetting that she's a professional politician, not a professional Minister, and this is their bread and butter.

In other words, looking for heads isn't helpful here lads. We want changes in the law; not heads on a platter. And even if what we actually needed was the latter, we would be out of luck, because no government would ever do that.

Seriously, focus on the changes in the law that we need and we'll be a lot more successful than if we just sit about making lists of heads we'd like to see rolling. We're going to have to work with these people in the future, don't forget.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

These comittees have some pretty strong legal powers here in the Statel.Only thing they cant do is conduct judical enquiries,hence the reason no one is sworn in before giving evidence.ironically thats because of the Abbylara incident.

I thought it was because they had a referendum asking if they should have that power and we all said no, but hey...

turismo2142

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

She could find herself in front of the comittee along with Cheif Noreen in the hot seat answering some embarrassing questions on her dept and her police force..Which they are obliged to answer aprently under law.

These comittees have some pretty strong legal powers here in the Statel.Only thing they cant do is conduct judical enquiries,hence the reason no one is sworn in before giving evidence.ironically thats because of the Abbylara incident.

Cannot make adverse findings of fact against an individual. To be frank the Public Accounts Committee oversteps its remit frequently these days thanks to Sinners et al. Justice seems far more measured though I suppose.

Gormley85

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Until you get one of these.:D
http://www.chiappafirearms.com/products/135.

Can just imagine the look on my supers face trying to explain "yeh Im looking for that 'Chiappa Triple the Threat' shotgun... yes 3 barrels thats right"

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

I thought it was because they had a referendum asking if they should have that power and we all said no, but hey...

Yes ,but the referendum came about because the Abblylara enquiry needed powers of judical enquiry to delve further than it did,and the only way this could be done was by referendum in which we said no,and its then reasons a Ex Taosieach could say he handn't a bank account,won money on the ponies and couldn't remember who gave him a dig out.

Also why the cheif super could tell utter porkies to the comittee in Dec.There is really no sanction not to.

turismo2142

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Yes ,but the referendum came about because the Abblylara enquiry needed powers of judical enquiry to delve further than it did,and the only way this could be done was by referendum in which we said no,and its then reasons a Ex Taosieach could say he handn't a bank account,won money on the ponies and couldn't remember who gave him a dig out.

Also why the cheif super could tell utter porkies to the comittee in Dec.There is really no sanction not to.

Correct


All started with Re Haughy... got to love this country.

Sparks

*hehe*
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/01/23/shooting-down-the-chimney

bpb101

Just got to catch up on Wednesday proccedings

Have to say I think real progress was made .
I think everybody aggreed from the start that safey was the top proierty
And I think the committe realised that shooters wanted saftey in their sports as well

I think the second part address more issues that needed to be changed and I think they will reccommended an indepedent risk assements to be carried out
I say a universal licencing system will be reccommended with an in department Appel being put in plae before everybody having to go through the courts
Afaik If a licence is refused and it was a misunderstanding. That's it too bad . Off to the district court.

I think an apprenticeship may be a very viable solution.
Espcially in the case of pistols and particularly cf's

Hopefully that look like assault rifle will be removed and after sparks remarks on paintball stag party's . Hopefully they will class a firearms of anything over 16 joules or at least 7.5


I think things will be changed, but down the line, and maybe as a result we will have a easier and more fairer firearms licences
But id say a few years from now until its even drafted.

yubabill1

I'm still waiting for the public outcry following the Irish Examiner front page and IT articles.

OzCam

OT for a second, sorry.

bpb101 wrote: »

Hopefully they will class a firearms of anything over 16 joules or at least 7.5

Most airsofters would hope any reclassification is done very carefully. I would not like to see the 1J limit disappear as an unintended consquence of some other change.

It would be handy to be allowed to use the airsoft guns made for everywhere else in the world at about 1.2 joules (instead of having to downgrade them to 1J). We all moan and bitch about the cost and inconvenience of downgrading - but we can prove 1J is eye-safe. Even at 1.5J we'll all have to change our eyepro, as the consequences of any failure become much more serious.

I'm sure the paintballers would like some of their more onerous regulations to be relaxed a bit, but the levels of 1J and 16J are about right as they are now for those calibres.

On topic again, sorry...

Sparks

OzCam wrote: »

OT for a second, sorry.

That's not OT, it's specifically to do with the Firearms Act...

I'm sure the paintballers would like some of their more onerous regulations to be relaxed a bit, but the levels of 1J and 16J are about right as they are now for those calibres.

Just for context, those onerous regulations are that all paintball markers in Ireland that did not have a licence before November 2008 cannot be licenced at all by law, and that anyone who has one without a licence is in possession of a restricted short firearm (seven years in prison and twenty thousand euro in fines is the maximum penalty), and that any company running a paintball field with these on an authorisation is also breaking the law as they can't be held on an authorisation and - well, basically, paintball's been highly illegal in Ireland since 2009, strictly speaking.

Honestly, compared to that, maybe having to buy a pair of goggles isn't the more onerous thing to have to handle?

knockon

Sparks wrote: »

Viscerally satisfying as that might be, remember that all this started under the current Minister's predecessor and the current Commissioner's predecessor and neither would be terribly enthusiastic supporters of the idea that you crucify a sitting official for a predecessor's policies. If you think that the Minister won't know about this unless it's asked about in the Dail, you're forgetting that she's a professional politician, not a professional Minister, and this is their bread and butter.

In other words, looking for heads isn't helpful here lads. We want changes in the law; not heads on a platter. And even if what we actually needed was the latter, we would be out of luck, because no government would ever do that.

Seriously, focus on the changes in the law that we need and we'll be a lot more successful than if we just sit about making lists of heads we'd like to see rolling. We're going to have to work with these people in the future, don't forget.

You don't need the Government to have heads on a plate. The last thing the new Commissioner needs in another story to be written by a hack claiming one of her officers (Healy assisted by Greene) has provided misleading information which is wholly inaccurate to the Dail Justice Committee. Chair Staunton has made it know that he will not be impressed if he has been provided with misleading information by AGS.

"We're going to have to work with these people in the future, don't forget".
- It is unacceptable and unpalatable for our community based Force to be spearheading a campaign of misinformation against law abiding people such as ourselves. Work with them in the future? Sure we will, just get their focking house in order first.

What the probable out will be? - Death by committee, no change to the firearms laws and continuing persecution by Chiefs and Superintendents for all applicants and renewals? Loads more DC and HC cases?. Who knows?

Remember Healy, Scanlon an another CS with DOJ staff have invented these recommendations under the guise of the old guard. If AGS directed by Norin O Sullivan start playing ball, then we can start meaningful and constructive work. If it takes a story or 2 in the media to progress that then I'am all for it.

Sparks

knockon wrote: »

If AGS directed by Norin O Sullivan start playing ball, then we can start meaningful and constructive work.

You know that's never going to happen so long as the AGS feel they have to sit at the same table as people who are throwing rocks at them outside of the room.
What's important here is that the law is secured. AGS making bad decisions that have to be challanged in court, that's one thing, and that's down to internal Garda policy and so forth, which is infinitely malleable.

Statute law banning us from even applying for licences for things like hammerli's on the other hand, would finish us forever and we wouldn't be able to recover because no politician in this country would lead a bill to loosen firearms laws. Ever.

Eye on the ball.

OzCam

Sorry I meant that airsoft was off topic.

As for the paintballers, Ho Lee Sh!t, I didn't know it was that bad. I though they just had to keep their markers locked up. Wow. I wonder how they manage to survive at all.

Anyway, I still don't want 1J increased to 7.5J by accident.

Back to the afternoon sessions...

bpb101

There nothing to stop their being in the act a particular section for airsoft and its regulations. Myself and I presume other dont want to **** up another sport
My suggestion would be to declare anything over 16 joules a firearm, however it could still be said that it would be illegal to shoot plastic or other Bbs at people where the middle energy is over 1 joule. With another declearation for paintball at its 15 joules and head gear must be worn or whatever it is.

I know they have to write these law espcially very carefully
But a section that clearly and undeniable refers to airsoft and paintball would be do-able

knockon

Anyone know why the clips are out of sync. Voice is about 15 seconds behind visual?

tac foley

Sparks wrote: »

... no politician in this country would lead a bill to loosen firearms laws. Ever.

Exactly like the UK.:(

tac