Gardai proposals to ban firearms

tac foley

knockon wrote: »

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

Probably so that the guy sitting in the control room with the ueber controller beside him can stop the feed if anything overly contentious is said.

Common broadcasting practice where government issues are being discussed live.

tac

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

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.

Biggest block is establishing trust and some sort of belif in the honesty of both parties,before,at or after sitting down at the table and thats even before we get to talking specifics.
Put another way,if you see someone walking down O Connell st booting evey dog he sees in the backside, its a pretty fair assumption that he has a problem with dogs..Now,if you were to meet him on a meeting regarding a policy on dogs in Dublin and he is saying "well no I'm actually a dog lover and I have really their best intrests at heart." He agrees that there should be a no dog kicking policy ,and promptly goes out the door of the meeting and kicks the next available mutt buttt in front of everyone...Creditability of their integrity....Much??
How do we trust an organisation that said "get rid of IPSC and your centre fire liscenses are ok if you shoot any other target sport,and if you dont ,everything is gone",and broke their words within four weeks? The American Indians had a great expression for this "Blue coats speak with forked tounge"

Gormley85

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Biggest block is establishing trust and some sort of belif in the honesty of both parties,before,at or after sitting down at the table and thats even before we get to talking specifics.
Put another way,if you see someone walking down O Connell st booting evey dog he sees in the backside, its a pretty fair assumption that he has a problem with dogs..Now,if you were to meet him on a meeting regarding a policy on dogs in Dublin and he is saying "well no I'm actually a dog lover and I have really their best intrests at heart." He agrees that there should be a no dog kicking policy ,and promptly goes out the door of the meeting and kicks the next available mutt buttt in front of everyone...Creditability of their integrity....Much??
How do we trust an organisation that said "get rid of IPSC and your centre fire liscenses are ok if you shoot any other target sport,and if you dont ,everything is gone",and broke their words within four weeks? The American Indians had a great expression for this "Blue coats speak with forked tounge"

Sorry to sidetrack from the current issue- but you could elaborate on this?

Grizzly 45

Certainly..In a nutshell .
Back in 2008 when the first total CF handgun ban was being planned by Dermot Ahern,The Irish Practical Shooting Assoc held its one and only EGM in Dec and were given the stark option from the DOJ of "disband and keep the remaining CF handguns and take up a different target shooting disipline.Or we lose everything inc .22".[I and a couple of other posters here were at that meeting,so they might fill in more details] Jump or be pushed IOW!
IPSA decided to throw themselves on their sword for the better good,and the fact was it was not going to at the time get support form the other organisations and wasn't recognised as a disipline by anyone either,as it had been around only two years.
Anyway, the consensus was that is giving the DOJ/AGS what they want as they were braying its a "combat training,merc training cover" and all sorts of other horror stories.Not helped by an utter Walt living up in Dermot Ahernes constituency in Louth,claiming to be a "Baron" and running all sorts of weekend warrior ninja bodygaurd courses up there too..
As well as not being able to discern between real police firearms training and a sport..Partially I will say NOT helped by the attitude of certain IPSA members and showing off stupid stunts to AGS/DOJ reps while on visit.

So IPSC sports ended in the ROI,with the idea firmly emplanted in ADS/DOJ,the judicary and the publics head that it was something sinister ,and we went our ways and around that time Oct31st was the time for the first renewals to be granted or refused,and then the first reports of refusals started coming in here on boards in Jan......The rest is history as they say.

knockon

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Put another way,if you see someone walking down O Connell st booting evey dog he sees in the backside, its a pretty fair assumption that he has a problem with dogs..Now,if you were to meet him on a meeting regarding a policy on dogs in Dublin and he is saying "well no I'm actually a dog lover and I have really their best intrests at heart." He agrees that there should be a no dog kicking policy ,and promptly goes out the door of the meeting and kicks the next available mutt buttt in front of everyone...Creditability of their integrity....Much??

and Grizz has nailed it......

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

How do we trust an organisation that said "get rid of IPSC and your centre fire liscenses are ok if you shoot any other target sport,and if you dont ,everything is gone",and broke their words within four weeks?

Except that that's not what was said. What was said was the IPSA had to close down or all pistols would be gone in a very short space of time.

There is never any "do this for us and we'll do this for you" kind of conversation between anyone in the shooting community and anyone in the Gardai, ever, at any date, on any subject, because there is literally nothing the community can give the Gardai that the Gardai do not have the legal power to take for themselves, and they know it.

Honestly Grizz, if people ever had the ability to have a conversation like that, half of us wouldn't have a sport anymore because if you actually could get something from that kind of deal, there'd be a queue of our "greatest defenders" lining up to throw the "less important" things under a bus.

SVI40

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

How do we trust an organisation that said "get rid of IPSC and your centre fire liscenses are ok if you shoot any other target sport,and if you dont ,everything is gone",and broke their words within four weeks?

From what I heard at the time, and I was one of the people who was at the EGM, and lost my firearms for three years, what Grizzly says, came from reliable sources.

There in lies the problem of agreements taking place in "smoky back rooms and behind closed doors", as it typical in Irish politics.

If any future discussions are to take place, they need to be totally open, transparent, and documented. Any agreements made, need to be published by all parties involved. No more nods and winks.

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

Except that that's not what was said. What was said was the IPSA had to close down or all pistols would be gone in a very short space of time.

As I said in so many words.

Sparks wrote:

There is never any "do this for us and we'll do this for you" kind of conversation between anyone in the shooting community and anyone in the Gardai, ever, at any date, on any subject, because there is literally nothing the community can give the Gardai that the Gardai do not have the legal power to take for themselves, and they know it.

Exactly.It wasn't a conversation. .It was a demand with a promise Or solution Or whatever. .

Honestly Grizz, if people ever had the ability to have a conversation like that, half of us wouldn't have a sport anymore because if you actually could get something from that kind of deal, there'd be a queue of our "greatest defenders" lining up to throw the "less important" things under a bus.

Well as you know yourself back then there was a rush indeed to throw others under the bus post 08.All ancient history anyway.Ovr riding point is our opponents are not to be trusted to keep a deal for a day once its made.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

As I said in so many words.
...
Exactly.It wasn't a conversation. .It was a demand with a promise Or solution Or whatever. .

No, not exactly and this - the bit in bold above - is the part I'm pointing out.
The AGS don't bother promising stuff and if someone in the AGS ever did, no experienced person would even bother taking notes. The AGS don't have to promise things and - and this is a bit most people forget - they also don't have the legal authority to make such promises. They can't just say "lads, we'll look the other way if you do X, Y and Z". That was the point of the Judge's decision in Dunne, that's the point of the penalty point scandal, that's the point of a lot of things coming out in the press at the moment.

"Close down X or we'll close down X, Y and Z" is what gets said. Not "Close down X, and Y and Z are safe". In that situation, if you close down X, then Y and Z have a chance, but they do not have the support of the AGS.

I know, I know, I'm going on about a small point again, and I'm sorry it sounds so picky, but these small things count, they matter. They are things you have to keep in mind going forward if you want stuff to change. This is why, for example, the FCP was a good idea - not because the AGS were finally talking to us, but because the FCP was chaired by the Minister and unlike the AGS, Ministers can make and keep promises (note the difference between can and will though )

Well as you know yourself back then there was a rush indeed to throw others under the bus post 08

Just "Post"?
Pre, during and post more like...

Ovr riding point is our opponents are not to be trusted to keep a deal for a day once its made.

And my point is that you want to be very sure of who you label an opponent in all of this, and you want to know who has and who does not have the legal authority to actually make a deal.

Frankly, I have this very minimal set of things I think count in all this and it's like this:

• Don't bring in more restrictions to statute law where they will in effect be permanent
• Restate the law so you don't need ten years study to read the basic law you're supposed to be following if you have a firearms cert
• Make sure lots of people in the Oireachtas and the general public know there are silly, basic flaws in a broken law so there's a motive to fix them

Nowhere in there is there a requirement for heads on a platter or promises from the AGS or deals or anything else. A piece of paper with clear, readable, boringly consistent law. That's something every party in this can agree to. Add more to your wish list and you just get people's backs up and reduce the odds of getting what you need.

Sparks

On a seperate note, I'd like to point out that nobody in that room in the Afternoon session had read the Independent that day... and if you've watched it, you'll know why I think these two stories were a bit coincidental!

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/man-allegedly-trespassing-at-home-of-u2s-larry-mullen-armed-with-golf-club-30926508.html

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/man-accused-of-attempting-to-rob-post-office-with-fake-gun-30925620.html

It's a small freaky world sometimes...

Sparks

Just for those who don't have three hours to spare and want to see the Opening Statements on their own...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz9abBuPPOo

(Now you just need one hour!)

Broadstr8

Amazing! I only joined boards yestarday for news on the Garda firearm saga and was delighted to see an appearance by Kaz Balinski who was in Liberia when I was working with the UNMIL. He and his business partner brought in Mittal Steel to develop the largest iron ore mine in sub-Saharan Africa which resulted in the employment of thousands for which he received national award for development.
The was a near riot of 1500 during the end of the national disarmament process which he dispelled singlehanded in 30 minutes, literally walking out into the combatants crowd while UN were behind fences. I only got to speak to him once and asked him how & he said “I asked them to lunch to talk about it – all of them!”
Not as vocal as he used to be, however raises good underlying points. It’ll be interesting to know what he really thinks (whats’ he doing in Ireland?). there’s hope yet!
JPS

Grizzly 45

WOW!! THATS a turn up for the books alright..I'd never heard of this gent before last week.Sounds like an intresting and well versed in the world gent.

Deaf git

I got a letter last week refusing a like for like sub on a Buckmark stating it's designed for 2 handed shooting and can hold a mag with capacity greater than 5 rounds.
Looks like the WG report is already enacted as far as some are concerned....

Grizzly 45

Deaf git wrote: »

I got a letter last week refusing a like for like sub on a Buckmark stating it's designed for 2 handed shooting and can hold a mag with capacity greater than 5 rounds.
Looks like the WG report is already enacted as far as some are concerned....

Two handed shooting....Well I never....
Send it to the NARGC sports collation and then a good solicitor.

Deaf git

I suspect 'ambidextrous' was too difficult to spell.....

SVI40

Deaf git wrote: »

I got a letter last week refusing a like for like sub on a Buckmark stating it's designed for 2 handed shooting and can hold a mag with capacity greater than 5 rounds.
Looks like the WG report is already enacted as far as some are concerned....

What is the single handed firearm you are changing from? This is just getting more and more ridiculous, with some of the decisions being made by AGS. You would nearly wonder if it was being done to try and wear us out.

Deaf git

SVI40 wrote: »

What is the single handed firearm you are changing from? This is just getting more and more ridiculous, with some of the decisions being made by AGS. You would nearly wonder if it was being done to try and wear us out.

A beretta 87t. Essentially the same as a browning, ruger mk and the usual run of the mill standard target guns.

SVI40

Deaf git wrote: »

A beretta 87t. Essentially the same as a browning, ruger mk and the usual run of the mill standard target guns.

Ah, but the the Beretta87T is incapable of being fired two handed, and if loaded with a magazine of over 5 rounds will automatically self destruct. Unlike the two handed pistols.

Broadstr8

there's much talk of a new policy or licensing central system in the footage. Are ther any moves to push this forward? It sounds like its needed!

clivej

Deaf git wrote: »

I got a letter last week refusing a like for like sub on a Buckmark stating it's designed for 2 handed shooting and can hold a mag with capacity greater than 5 rounds.
Looks like the WG report is already enacted as far as some are concerned....

Some sh!te this is.

I got a sub, within a week, only last week from a Ruger hunter to a Hammerli xesse sport.

Deaf git

clivej wrote: »

Some sh!te this is.

I got a sub, within a week, only last week from a Ruger hunter to a Hammerli xesse sport.

some shoiyt indeed.
give the hammeli a good airing at the bullseye comp in midlands next saturday. Good luck with it.

ps did you shift that aw93 after?

SVI40

clivej wrote: »

Some sh!te this is.

I got a sub, within a week, only last week from a Ruger hunter to a Hammerli xesse sport.

Yep, another example of post code decisions.

BattleCorp

Deaf git wrote: »

I got a letter last week refusing a like for like sub on a Buckmark stating it's designed for 2 handed shooting and can hold a mag with capacity greater than 5 rounds.
Looks like the WG report is already enacted as far as some are concerned....

Sounds to me like you are in possession of a letter that the committee might be interested to see a copy of.

tac foley

The Browning Buckmark PISTOL is a pistol, and needs to comply with the laws in the RoI. However, IF the Browning buckmark that YOU have looks like THIS,

www.shootinguk.co.uk/reviews/rifle/browning-buckmark-22-semi-auto-rifle-review#zLK1zsRbpbuejAgu.99

then it's a rifle/carbine is manufactured in such a way that holding it with two hands is part of the design. Crafty, that, eh? Means that you can't pick your nose or scratch your butt whilst in charge of a firearm, thus giving it your full attention.

Sounds like a good idea to me, although that point seems to have sailed by your PTB without registering.

The business about the 'greater than five rounds' capacity is a local matter closely connected to firearms of the handgun variety in the RoI. I was of the perhaps erroneous belief that rifles were permitted to have a ten round capacity magazine, and anything MORE than that makes it restricted.

It's a rifle, so a ten-round magazine is legal - isn't it?

tac

clivej

Deaf git wrote: »

some shoiyt indeed.
give the hammeli a good airing at the bullseye comp in midlands next saturday. Good luck with it.

ps did you shift that aw93 after ?

Yeah gone a year or more now.

I should have kept it the best Handgun by far and nothing I've had come near to it. :mad:

clivej

Deaf git wrote: »

some shoiyt indeed.
give the hammeli a good airing at the bullseye comp in midlands next saturday. Good luck with it.

ps did you shift that aw93 after

Yeah the AW93 is gone a year or more now.

I should have kept it the best Handgun by far and nothing I've had come near to it. :mad:

Grizzly 45

tac foley wrote: »

The Browning Buckmark PISTOL is a pistol, and needs to comply with the laws in the RoI. However, IF the Browning buckmark that YOU have looks like THIS,

www.shootinguk.co.uk/reviews/rifle/browning-buckmark-22-semi-auto-rifle-review#zLK1zsRbpbuejAgu.99

then it's a rifle/carbine is manufactured in such a way that holding it with two hands is part of the design. Crafty, that, eh? Means that you can't pick your nose or scratch your butt whilst in charge of a firearm, thus giving it your full attention.

Sounds like a good idea to me, although that point seems to have sailed by your PTB without registering.

The business about the 'greater than five rounds' capacity is a local matter closely connected to firearms of the handgun variety in the RoI. I was of the perhaps erroneous belief that rifles were permitted to have a ten round capacity magazine, and anything MORE than that makes it restricted.

It's a rifle, so a ten-round magazine is legal - isn't it?

tac

Ah but now Tac our betters define this carbine here as a.......BULLPUP RIFLE!!! Because the magazine is behind the trigger!!!Thus making it a restricted firearm again. Makey up law in extremis. .

Sparks

clivej wrote: »

Yeah the AW93 is gone a year or more now.
I should have kept it the best Handgun by far and nothing I've had come near to it. :mad:

It was, for many many years, the absolute rolls-royce of pistols even in the ISSF world (these days for my money, that'd be the Walther SSP, but others would disagree).

BattleCorp wrote: »

Sounds to me like you are in possession of a letter that the committee might be interested to see a copy of.

And the committee is still accepting additional information at the moment. A photocopier and an envelope might well be of use, though I'd redact your personal details from the photocopy (the law says that anyone FOI-ing the document would require your permission for it to be released because of the personal data, but the whole point of submission would be for everyone to see the state of play).

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Makey up law in extremis.

Well, yes, but in this case it's accidental. I'm pretty sure nobody even thought about pistol-rifle conversion kits when drafting that definition because the drafters didn't know about them.

Wadi14

Deaf git, just so you know, my friend sub'd his old pistol for a Buckmark sub took awhile but he had it for Christmas last