Gardai proposals to ban firearms

Cass

toolazyforgolf wrote: »

So, are ye pissed because Coalition sent further submissions after the public meetings amd/or is it the actual content? Seriously trying to get my head around this

If that is for me, then obviously it's the content.

Deaf git wrote: »

My point is that there wouldn't be anything that unusual about a govt department handing over part of a role to a private company- the evidence of this will become self evident to you if you get clamped or towed away on your next trip to Dublin.
Other regulatory functions have already been given to private companies to deliver and that includes licence monitoring under environmental legislation.

We can draw analogies to other areas of Government control but the simple fact is they do not empower any company with the ability to alter, amend or write legislation. Also shooting is unique in many ways that is not applicable to other aspects.

It's quite common for entire functions of the state to be outsourced- within perameters set out by the relevant department and subject to kpi's.

No doubt, but my point above still stands. Plus with so many varied and different, plus intermingling aspects of shooting to have one body control a discipline that is practiced by many people both within and outside of the body that seeks to control it, it's not feasible to have one, non authorised, body writing and making up the law as they go.

As i have said before would you like to have to join the NRAI, shoot many different types of rimfire, centrefie, etc. shooting over a 3 year period, all the while being tested, needing their support and permission just to get a license for the type of rifle you initially wanted? And to pay for it every step of the way with no guarantee you'll get the license or rifle at the end of it?

In the case of the nct test, just remember that if the tester considers your car to be actually dangerous he is required not to give the keys back to you and must not allow you drive away- a heavy duty power by any standards.

A safety feature. Not nearly as restrictive as all i've outlined above, and as i said before he cannot scrap your car, revoke your license, and make you resit your driving test.

In the case of shooting sports I could see the commercial elements within our sports being very enthusiastic about adopting elements of the licensing process.

Of course they would. As a monopoly within that sport/discipline they could set the price and you either pay and jump through the hoops or you don't get.

Look at the current safety/competency course, meat handling, etc. All unregulated and everyone out to make money off it.

I could see a role for the private sector but it wouldn't be along the lines of that range operators suggestion from a few years back.

All shooting bodies must be involved in all aspects of proposed changes. No one group, even NGBs, have the right to make decisions for all shooters. It's ignorant, assumptive, and plain wrong.

Sparks

toolazyforgolf wrote: »

So, are ye pissed because Coalition sent further submissions after the public meetings amd/or is it the actual content? Seriously trying to get my head around this

The actual content mostly. The way it was done was underhanded, but mostly just damages the Coalition's image. The content itself is what's done the damage to everyone else.

Grizzly 45

http://www.ifacountryside.ie/firearms-submission.html
Compared to what they DID send into the comittee working group as debated much here around 3to 6th of March 2015.....

You all know this Sesamee Street song...One of these things is not
like the other,one of thsee things is kinda the same.......:rolleyes::rolleyes:
One statement for the public and one submission doing more damage to the comittee...

Grizzly 45

clawback07 wrote: »

I'm in total agreeance with you Grizzly45 and have also supported every form of shooting all my shooting life and will continue to do so, however I'm still very confused as to where all this going .My "rant" re the nargc concerns having your own house work done before doing someone else's !

Not implying you were ranting.I was saying some of NARGCs breifs in ISD coud be considerd such.

dc99

I don't want to distract from the main line of direction the thread is going, but earlier I saw the number of 800 as the 'proposed' limit to the amount of pistols.

What have they said to clarify how this is to be achieved? Isn't there about 1800 Pistol licences out there (and thats - or must be, including the people that have 2 or more pistols licenced. Would it not make more sence (if we are stupid enought to allow it) to set a limit at 2000 or even 2500? I mean lest look at history. From whay I heard - in the early 70's whent he temporary order was in place there were only about 1800 pistols licenced or in 'circulation' then. Now that we are 'allowed' to have them again it seems to be a similar number. surely this is consistant as pistols have beel licenced since 2004 and have they not only slowly increased back to the original pre-temp order quantity?
What are we gonna do draw straws to see who 'wins' one of the 800 licences?
Will some people that have two or more licences have to give up their second licences?
Where in Gods name did they come up with that number (800)?
I mean why bother being a mamber of a range to qualify for consideration (by the AGS as part of licence conditins) Why don't they just say join the NARGC instead (i'm being a bit tounge in cheek here as I don't see how this would work anyway - you need somewhere - like a range to shoot the bloody thing anyway).

Sparks

dc99 wrote: »

I don't want to distract from the main line of direction the thread is going, but earlier I saw the number of 800 as the 'proposed' limit to the amount of pistols.
What have they said to clarify how this is to be achieved?

The 800 figure is from the first time these proposals popped up a few years ago. The idea's been put forward again, but the number wasn't included this time.
But the answer remains the same anyway - you cannot place a numerical limit on the number of licences granted for firearms (either for all firearms or for any particular class of firearm) under the Act as it stands today. There is no legal mechanism to do so and several Supreme Court rulings that say you can't.

BTW, while that number was 800, the actual proposals would have meant that you could only ever have 266 actually licenced at any one time:

It creates the role of Club Armourer, who would be given possession of a component part of every pistol owned by a member of that club upon their leaving the range, and who would be responsible for the secure storage of that component part until that shooter returned to the range... ...also ... a Deputy Club Armourer ... glosses over the legal requirement for a licence to be held by each Club Armourer and Deputy Club Armourer for each pistol ... which means that despite there being an NASRPC Cap of 800 licences, there could only be 266 actual pistols in the country at any one time.

From whay I heard - in the early 70's whent he temporary order was in place there were only about 1800 pistols licenced or in 'circulation' then. Now that we are 'allowed' to have them again it seems to be a similar number. surely this is consistant as pistols have beel licenced since 2004 and have they not only slowly increased back to the original pre-temp order quantity?

In fact, because our population has increased since '72, the 1800 or so pistols out there today represent a 30% drop in the number of pistols per capita...

toolazyforgolf

So after multplie bans because i had multiple accounts and trolled the site i decided to leave it long enough and try again.

Thing is the Mods knew who i was from the start and hoped i would act right and fly straight. I didn't. As a result of trolling and re-registering to get around my previous bans i've been banned again.

Not exactly the behaviour you'd expect from someone in a similar position/title elsewhere, but hey.

turismo2142

Sorry guys, I've been looking and I cannot seem to find an example of the working groups "white list" relating to the .22 short firearms which will survive the ban as sought.

I understand that the working group propose that this list will be generated by way of S.I. every now and again in consultation with the Commissioner but from the discussions here I gather that such a list exists already.

Can someone point me to it? I say this because I'm thinking of applying for a target pistol licence (was thinking of Hammerli x-esse long with 150mm barrel) and I'd like to see (worst case scenario) what I might be able to justify.

I've been trying to compile a list of .22 lr pistols that would survive the Coalition suggested restrictions...it's short...

hexosan

Does a Buckmark pistol survive under these new proposals

turismo2142

Depends upon the barrel length insofar as the Coalition suggestion is concerned. Most Buckmarks have more that 5 inch barrel length so they'd be safe in that regard.

As for the "white list"...I don't know. I get the impression that Sparks does but I'm not sure what info he's drawing upon...ergo my question.

Wadi14

turismo2142 wrote: »

Sorry guys, I've been looking and I cannot seem to find an example of the working groups "white list" relating to the .22 short firearms which will survive the ban as sought.

I understand that the working group propose that this list will be generated by way of S.I. every now and again in consultation with the Commissioner but from the discussions here I gather that such a list exists already.

Can someone point me to it? I say this because I'm thinking of applying for a target pistol licence (was thinking of Hammerli x-esse long with 150mm barrel) and I'd like to see (worst case scenario) what I might be able to justify.

I've been trying to compile a list of .22 lr pistols that would survive the Coalition suggested restrictions...it's short...

X-esse should be grand I licenced one myself right at the end of last year, and from my experience the Hammerli would be a more accurate pistol than the Buckmark

jaysblades

And a ruger single six with 5.5 inch barel ? Anyone know ?

turismo2142

Grand for now Wadi but ultimately?

How much did you spend and where'd you buy...PM me if you'd rather not say publicly.

Witcher

These are only proposals atm, things could go several ways atm. They could stay the same as they are now, the minister could go with the SC proposals or she could ban all pistols outright.

Nobody can say categorically that X pistol will be fine because, for instance, if the SC '5 inch barrel' proposal goes through there may be a whitelist of approved pistols issued alongside it and we don't know what would be on it. Your pistol could have 5 inch+ barrel but if it's not on the list..tough sh1t.

turismo2142

Yes. I know that. All short firearms are in jeapordy but if one was in the market for a .22 and wanted to hedge ones bets as best as one could given the "not set in stone" proposals then one would no doubt be asking the question as I already have. The talk here over the past few days has been to the effect that the SC suggestions are more restrictive than those of the Working Group. If that's the case then there must be some psuedo white list knocking about. If there is not then I wonder how anyone can tell that one would be worse than the other. No doubt we'll be set straight shortly.

Sparks

turismo2142 wrote: »

Sorry guys, I've been looking and I cannot seem to find an example of the working groups "white list" relating to the .22 short firearms which will survive the ban as sought.

There isn't one. I'd expect it to look a bit like the list the Commissioner just deleted from the guidelines though, because that's the path of least effort; and the statements from the Gardai tally with that. Basically what's out there at the moment, though some things like short-barrelled P22s would probably have to fight their corner to get onto the whitelist.

Sparks

Strider wrote: »

if the SC '5 inch barrel' proposal goes through there may be a whitelist of approved pistols issued alongside it

Yup. The worst of both worlds, which is one of the reasons you don't want to submit competing proposals for a ban in these kind of things.

Witcher

Sparks wrote: »

Yup. The worst of both worlds, which is one of the reasons you don't want to submit competing proposals for a ban in these kind of things.

+1

You think you're looking the hangman in the face only to have one of your own put the noose around your neck. I said it months ago..the Gardai knew what they were doing drawing these proposals up..they knew the shooting community would drive its own wedges and divide itself with no help from them. It would make you sick, the very people that were roaring and shouting for years at the Gardai and the DoJ are the ones to capitulate the fastest.

Sparks

Strider wrote: »

It would make you sick, the very people that were roaring and shouting for years at the Gardai and the DoJ are the ones to capitulate the fastest.

Worse yet, we would have been okay if they hadn't. Not perfect, no, but okay. The proposals would have been kicked to touch in a committee and we would have had an opportunity to actually fix things there. It would not have been fast, but it would have been far less risky.

garrettod

turismo2142 wrote: »

.... I say this because I'm thinking of applying for a target pistol licence (was thinking of Hammerli x-esse long with 150mm barrel) and I'd like to see (worst case scenario) what I might be able to justify.

I've been trying to compile a list of .22 lr pistols that would survive the Coalition suggested restrictions...it's short...

If it were me, I'd be applying immediately.

At the end of the process, there's no doubt in my mind that pistol licences will be more difficult to secure, despite the excellent safety record pistol and infact all firearms licence holders have (obviously, I'm thinking of unrestricted .22 pistols here, I wouldn't dare even comment on anything else).

While there is a genuine risk that new criteria may be introduced, with regards to minimum barrel length etc. which could impact individual licence holders, this can be factored into ones thinking when selecting the pistol they purchase now.

turismo2142

Agreed garrettod.

Agree with you too strider. Throwing in the ban against the 8000 odd shotties was very well calculated. It had the desired divide and conquer effect.

bpb101

turismo2142 wrote: »

Agreed garrettod.

Agree with you too strider. Throwing in the ban against the 8000 odd shotties was very well calculated. It had the desired divide and conquer effect.

Nothing has been really said by anybody on the semi shotguns (In committee hearings and interim report) It was really forgotten about
I fear that it will be put in as everybody has disagreed with it , but pistols and character of owner and criminals attack on firearms holders has dominated the discussions

BattleCorp

Another thing that hasn't been mentioned lately is the banning of firearms if the Chief Super designates his area a 'high crime' area.

That has the power to be misused to devastating effect against all firearms owners.

Is that proposal dead in the water or does anybody know?

garrettod

Good point BattleCorp.

What really bothers me is that if that rule was enacted, the legally abiding licence holders or want to be legally abiding licence holders would suffer, due to crime in their area which ironically would have been committed by people who don't abide by the law.

There's no way anyone can say thats just and fair but yet, someone somewhere thought it was a good idea...

turismo2142

BattleCorp wrote: »

Another thing that hasn't been mentioned lately is the banning of firearms if the Chief Super designates his area a 'high crime' area.

That has the power to be misused to devastating effect against all firearms owners.

Is that proposal dead in the water or does anybody know?

That is by far the most dangerous proposal. Opinion is the foundation of refusal and it is completely un reviewable and dc judges can be swayed by it without reproach.

Your super will effectively have a completely unanswerable veto on your licence. If that part goes through And none of the bans do it won't matter a ****e. You will not be able to appeal a decision. On appeal to the dc no expert witness that you might call will be able to counter the evidence of a Garda witness. The most draconian section of firearms legislation ever conceived. And it'll come in shrouded in a complete veil of silence!!!

Guys... I tell you all this much...this is by far the part that you shoul all be most worried about.

Grizzly 45

Its also one that any politican I have talked to in the Limerick region are most opposed to themselves.Gun restrictions well,that can be discussed ,but this an outright NO!Possibly as it could affect their own market property prices and it wouldnt do that well heeled constituents ad their neighbourhoods are suddenly classed as high crime areas with all the ills that befall such an area.Thats the way to kill that one when you talk to anyone tell them the knock on and unintended conseqences will affect even non gun owning people,in raising their insurance premimiums,dropping their property value,and make it even more difficult for them and their kids to get jobs if their address is in a Garda designated high crime area.After all who would employ some possible criminal from Mespil road in Dublin j?

tac foley

By inference, the AGS are calling everybody in that area criminals. As Grizzly 45 notes, the follow-on from THAT little bit of 'hearts and minds in the community' will have an instant backfire to the Minister, who will no doubt ask the local boss-cop 'WHY are you not catching criminals and LOWERING the crime-rate there, instead of admitting that it's out of control?'

It's not just the firearms owners how live there who will be affected, but everybody else who is a law-abiding citizen, well-off or not.

One has to ask the inevitable question - just WHO on earth thought of that one? Sounds to me like something from Father Ted - 'Well, Dougal, it's like this. Since we don't know exactly WHO the bad people in the parish are, we'll assume that they're ALL bad, and take it from there'.

tac

OzCam

tac foley wrote: »

'WHY are you not catching criminals and LOWERING the crime-rate there, instead of admitting that it's out of control?'

"Because my budget's been cut, sir. Please, sir, can I have some more? And can I tell the local politicians and Neighbourhood Watch and the local policing committee to get off my back about the drug pushers and muggers and their bloody local priorities so I can chase Deadly Black Olympic Pistol Glocks (whatever they are)?"

:cool:

Gormley85

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

if their address is in a Garda designated high crime area.

No the Gardai arent looking to make any official designations. That kind of project would be an enormous, terribly complicated, and a pretty much pointless undertaking.

The way it will most likely fare out is the super will say "I know thats usually a very nice area, but I see there have been one or two burglaries in the past 6 months, yada yada yada why dont you re-apply next year"

tac foley wrote: »

By inference, the AGS are calling everybody in that area criminals.

Not really. They are just saying 'you live in an area that gets targeted by criminals'.

I mean, if you and your criminal gang buddies are planning on robbing a house. Do you rob someone from a nice affluent area that probably has a house full of paintings/antiques/nice cars etc.... or an unemployed person in a council house estate?

tac foley wrote: »

the Minister, who will no doubt ask the local boss-cop 'WHY are you not catching criminals and LOWERING the crime-rate there

This wont be happening. If there was an official designation rate, yes maybe. But not with the current proposals.

Grizzly 45

Gormley85 wrote: »

No the Gardai arent looking to make any official designations. That kind of project would be an enormous, terribly complicated, and a pretty much pointless undertaking.

The way it will most likely fare out is the super will say "I know thats usually a very nice area, but I see there have been one or two burglaries in the past 6 months, yada yada yada why dont you re-apply next year"



Not really. They are just saying 'you live in an area that gets targeted by criminals'.

I mean, if you and your criminal gang buddies are planning on robbing a house. Do you rob someone from a nice affluent area that probably has a house full of paintings/antiques/nice cars etc.... or an unemployed person in a council house estate?




This wont be happening. If there was an official designation rate, yes maybe. But not with the current proposals.

Otoh that then gives everyone the excuse to say the ags are not doing their job of protecting and serving.Especially if it is in a well heeled area.We are paying property tax these days and demand services irresoective of where our money is going.

Doesnt that then also make a mockery of the AGS demanded statue enforced security requirements??So you spent thousands on security over the last years had it checked by the local cpo and had it signed off and suddenly it isnt good enough?What happenes to the option of the cheif saying Up grade the security on points abc?Its all well having all fancy security too but if ags response time is in hours if not days in some cases not minutes.Whats the point?Either way this will affect insurance ratings property values and social standing as insurance companies will jump on any excuse to up permiums no matter what.