Gardai proposals to ban firearms

wexfordman2

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

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.

Well, one recefence in the comittee response spelled out that making the pursuit prohibitively expense was a method of reducing firearms ownership.

Gormley85

Just to be clear Grizzly. Me and you are on the same page in that we are both shooters and neither of us want to lose our guns. Im not trying to defend these proposals or defend ags. Im simply telling you how I imagine this whole thing will play out. It just so happens I think it will work out far different then you think it will.

---

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

that then gives everyone the excuse to say the ags are not doing their job of protecting and serving....... we are paying property tax these days and demand services irresoective of where our money is going.

We dont need an excuse to say AGS arent doing a good job. Everybody knows AGS are completely understaffed, overworked, not enough facilities (cars etc), closing down stations left and right. Now of course, last week we took on some new recruits for the first time in years which was a very welcome sign. But at the end of the day, AGS are in a dire state. You mention property tax etc.... why dont you, along with anyone else that feels under-served campaign to the government that you want more money put into AGS.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Doesnt that then also make a mockery of the AGS demanded statue enforced security requirements??
.
.
So you spent thousands on security.... had it checked by the local cpo and had it signed off and suddenly it isnt good enough?

Not really. It just means that within their capacity at that time, they didnt have the option to refuse based on crime statistics.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Its all well having all fancy security too but if ags response time is in hours if not days in some cases not minutes.

Again. This goes back to AGS been underfunded, understaffed and not enough resources and facilities. You need to get emailing your local TD and tell him you want AGS to be given kinder consideration at the next budget.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Either way [......] insurance companies will jump on any excuse to up permiums no matter what.

No it wont. If your insurance company wants to put your premium up they'll do it anyway. They dont need to go searching to find some vague excuse that Garda Siochana have mentioned there was a few burglaries in the area.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Either way this will affect [....] property values

It wont affect this at all. Its not an official designation. Its just a super giving an opinion "yeh there was a few robberies this year". You are not going to see advertisements on daft.ie for semi-detached in leafy urban estate in an area highly esteemed by local superintendent.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Either way this will affect [....] social standing

It wont affect this either. If we are looking at a housing estate with each house at €500,000 then you can be nearly sure that its a well-to-do estate with plenty of professionals with successful careers living there.

A super saying this area is at risk of being burgled doesn't make the homeowners criminals or lower their social standing in the slightest.

Gormley85

wexfordman2 wrote: »

Well, one recefence in the comittee response spelled out that making the pursuit prohibitively expense was a method of reducing firearms ownership.

I was very concerned about that myself.

I know they didnt say it, but my biggest fear is that NARGC (or whoever) will be put in charge of this licencing graduation system and that it will be treated as a cash cow by one or two lads.

hexosan

Gormley85 wrote: »

I was very concerned about that myself.

I know they didnt say it, but my biggest fear is that NARGC (or whoever) will be put in charge of this licencing graduation system and that it will be treated as a cash cow by one or two lads.

If something like that is approved you can guarantee it'll happen.

Grizzly 45

[

QUOTE=Gormley85;95053369]Just to be clear Grizzly. Me and you are on the same page in that we are both shooters and neither of us want to lose our guns. Im not trying to defend these proposals or defend ags. Im simply telling you how I imagine this whole thing will play out. It just so happens I think it will work out far different then you think it will.

True,and this is like now 95% of the debate here on this thread a "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin".We are dealing alot with whatifery and whataboutery.TBH I think at the moment we are panicing ourselves alot as well and we ALL need to start taking a few deep breaths and start thinkig a bit more calmly.NOTHING is written in law yet,NOTHING is secure,or decided yet by ANYONE and proably wont be until I'd say Autumn/Winter when the firest .22 renewals start kicking in and FG goes onto full election footing.
So lets ust consider this an academic debate.

We dont need an excuse to say AGS arent doing a good job. Everybody knows AGS are completely understaffed, overworked, not enough facilities (cars etc), closing down stations left and right. Now of course, last week we took on some new recruits for the first time in years which was a very welcome sign. But at the end of the day, AGS are in a dire state. You mention property tax etc.... why dont you, along with anyone else that feels under-served campaign to the government that you want more money put into AGS.

Well ...heres a doozie of a thought...Maybe if they hadnt wasted 4.5 MILLION give or take on fighting unnecessary High court actions where two of their members were caught being very naughty in the witness box and tampering with evidence.As well as being utterly stubborn and fighting six cases of well established liscenses to the cost of 30 thousand euros out of the Limerick Henry street division,along with utter criminal wastage of resources,like refurbishing a dozen end of life death trap patrol cars with new engines up in Sligo/Donegal this month.Buying a much vaunted but already outdated hybrid radio cum cell phone system called TETRA.[Just google that to see what a mess that system is] and there as proper accountability of where money went instead of the typical Irish civil servant mentality of no ones fault no one to blame..They actually MIGHT have money for mundane things like biros for the station office ,paying overtime and what not. So I'm sorry untill there is proper accountability my attitude would be not a penny more...And say Garda,shouldnt you be asking of your superiors WHY you dont have proper equipment on you to do your job? Because your cheif wasted some of the division budget fighting unnecessary court actions,because he was orderd to do so from on high in Dublin??


Not really. It just means that within their capacity at that time, they didnt have the option to refuse based on crime statistics.

As Mark Twain said lies,dammed lies and statistics..I heard that kind of arguement too in 2009 with the first DC ccases about the inadvisaibility of going up against "expert Garda ballistics".... ..........Plus it wouldnt be now that Cheif Supers would say one thing and do another now is it?? Considering that in May 2013[abit dated I know,but lets use as an example] My local cheif super was trumpeting that in general Limerick guncrime was down 95% as was crime by 75%.So it will be difficult to have it both ways then offical statistics issued by aGS say crime is down in your area but the Super is saying otherwise???Should make for intresting moments in the court cases when the Super is in the witness box.As was mine and couldnt answer William Egans questions as to why if he belived the restricted firearms were such a risk he hadnt uses his already ample powers and rescinded the lisceses as he belived them to be too much of a risk to the public?

Again. This goes back to AGS been underfunded, understaffed and not enough resources and facilities. You need to get emailing your local TD and tell him you want AGS to be given kinder consideration at the next budget.

As above stop wasting money fighting us in court cases,which you will lose again in 95% of the time and proably cost the Irish taxpayer another 200 million in court cases,both high,supreme and European in compensation cases on a VERY dubious legal arguement from the UK .THEN I'll gladly consider your arguement

No it wont. If your insurance company wants to put your premium up they'll do it anyway. They dont need to go searching to find some vague excuse that Garda Siochana have mentioned there was a few burglaries in the area.

But do you need to give them an extra excuse???




It wont affect this at all. Its not an official designation. Its just a super giving an opinion "yeh there was a few robberies this year". You are not going to see advertisements on daft.ie for semi-detached in leafy urban estate in an area highly esteemed by local superintendent.

It wont affect this either. If we are looking at a housing estate with each house at €500,000 then you can be nearly sure that its a well-to-do estate with plenty of professionals with successful careers living there.

But still,its a potential high crime area.Same as Hollywood is belive it or not..Its a freaking DUMP... despite having Beverly Hills in the district.And if you are not in the 90210 zip code of Beverely Hills you are in Hollywood,oooppppsss,high crime area,pile on the restrictions and loadings.

And anyway what with "social and affordable" housing meaning the Mullarkey fammily could be moved into a 500k house that a council bought ,while the rest of you saps struggle to pay your 500k mortage,as its big enough for the three unmarried daughters with their 12 welfare babies,and two brothers with records as long as your arm.[This has happened]
THERE is your excuse for a Super to rescind every liscense in Havemore Ave.As well as overload your insurance when Junior Mullarkey III decides to go out and wreck everyones car in the neighbourhood with a crow bar because he was out of his head on drugs.As for his next trick his and his pale might fancy a spot of B&E in the neighbourhood.

A super saying this area is at risk of being burgled doesn't make the homeowners criminals or lower their social standing in the slightest

Actually it very much does! After all he is a professional involved in fightingcrime isnt he?? Remember too it isnt just an area,its the ADJOINING areas that can be taken into consideration too.So if you are living in Havemore Ave which is next door to Killingusmortage View which adjoins Scummerville and Killingusmortage View has a couple of break ins from the residents of Scummervile that also means both Killingusmortage view and Havemore Ave are now suspectible to being a high crime area.

Personally,I cant see it fly as the power is already there in the 1925[?] act to rescind every liscense in a county or division or district by the CS.So if an area is a crime risk,why not use this already availabe power?

Grizzly 45

Gormley85 wrote: »

I was very concerned about that myself.

I know they didnt say it, but my biggest fear is that NARGC (or whoever) will be put in charge of this licencing graduation system and that it will be treated as a cash cow by one or two lads.

And the way to break that is to demand that "qualified individuals" rather than an organisation can teach this. This how the Germans do this,otherwise it would be a monopoly of their organisations.The State lays down what the course must entail and for how long its taught in class work in hours and minutes , and practical.So long as that is coverd and the person teaching it is qualified to do so.Then it is open for anyone to teach the course and set their own price for the course.

yubabill1

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

And the way to break that is to demand that "qualified individuals" rather than an organisation can teach this. This how the Germans do this,otherwise it would be a monopoly of their organisations.The State lays down what the course must entail and for how long its taught in class work in hours and minutes , and practical.So long as that is coverd and the person teaching it is qualified to do so.Then it is open for anyone to teach the course and set their own price for the course.

Actually, if the worst were to happen (I'm ringing my local TD's office tomorrow, BTW) that would be about the best way to administer it.

I'm totally cynical, though.

Gov't are trying to introduce a fishing rod licence and the fishing orgs are 100% behind the idea.....but they are set to administer the portion of the licence earmarked "development"

Anyone remember the 1986 rod licence? The minister had to resign, Brendan Daly, I think. Everyone stuck together that time. Things are different here - we will just have to point out the flaws in Sports Coalition/IFA proposals to Justice Committee and plough on from there IMHO.

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

And the way to break that is to demand that "qualified individuals" rather than an organisation can teach this.

The way to "break it" is to rubbish the travesty that is the idea of a graduated licensing system. It will, and there is no doubt in my mind, turn into a cash cow like the safety courses and meat handling courses did.

An Gardaí will not certify or endorse any safety course yet they accept the certificates from anyone that issues one regardless of ability. The laws about meat handling/selling game was introduced with no forethought or planning on the implementation of the courses needed. Almost immediately a rush began of courses with prices ranging from €50 to €400. Each person and group claiming their one was "the one" to have/do.

All this is secondary to the fact that despite the protests of one person here and the "coalition" it will destroy certain sports. After taking some time to think about it over the last few days it dawned on me that not only will it affect most people going for a license and do away with the "good reason" part of the Firearms Act, but it also targets (excuse the pun) target ranges. The "Range operators Association" within the "coalition" do NOT represent all the ranges however i'm curious as to how they cannot see the harm this will do to their membership numbers, revenue and in the end their sport. I'm left wondering are they following blindly or are they as much in the dark as the rest of us as to the agenda going on within the "coalition" against target orientated sports.

I'm making a prediction that there is something else, don't ask me what, going on in the background that no one but a few (or one) knows about. IOW what is the end goal?

yubabill1

yubabill1 wrote: »

Gov't are trying to introduce a fishing rod licence and the fishing orgs are 100% behind the idea.....but they are set to administer the portion of the licence earmarked "development"

Anyone remember the 1986 rod licence? The minister had to resign, Brendan Daly, I think. Everyone stuck together that time. Things are different here -

Cass wrote: »

I'm making a prediction that there is something else, don't ask me what, going on in the background that no one but a few (or one) knows about. IOW what is the end goal?

Everyone can see who benefits from the Justice Committee interim report proposals

- benefits from shooter's money and at the expense of shooter's sports that is.

Remember Gabreille McFadden's PQ about firearm export licences just before this interim report?

Cass

yubabill1 wrote: »

Everyone can see who benefits from the Justice Committee interim report proposals

My apologies i should have been clearer. What is the end goal of the "coalition"? We all know what An Gardaí want, have a fair idea how the Minister will go, and because of the letter sent to them and the resulting interim report, know how the review committee are/were heading.

I don't understand their tactics in terms of where do they see this going, and can the other members of this "coalition" not see what is coming down the line for their own interests as a result of what is being proposed. Harming their own sports, harming target sports more than fieldsports, harming firearm sales, harming range attendance and compromising the viability of ranges (to stay open). Seeing as how the "coalition" is compromised of range operators, firearm dealers, etc.

- benefits from shooter's money and at the expense of shooter's sports that is.

Agreed

Remember Gabreille McFadden's PQ about firearm export licences just before this interim report?

I remember her asking about the length of time and criteria needed for both import and export. I also remember her, from earlier in March, asking about proofing.

yubabill1

Cass wrote: »

I don't understand their tactics in terms of where do they see this going, and can the other members of this "coalition" not see what is coming down the line for their own interests as a result of what is being proposed. Harming their own sports, harming target sports more than fieldsports, harming firearm sales, harming range attendance and compromising the viability of ranges (to stay open). Seeing as how the "coalition" is compromised of range operators, firearm dealers, etc.

The cynic in me asks - sacrificed for a recurring income stream?

And I found McFadden's PQ chilling (in the old fashioned use of the word).

BoatMad

can I ask under what basis did Des Crofton and the NARGC issue that " communiqué ". In my view we need to disenfranchise NARGC at this stage , they have done more damage to this sport then the AGS and every else combined.

The vast majority of the Interim report will be seen as unworkable and unimplmentable, but this NARGC stuff, just is unbelievable

Why does this sport keep shooting itself in the foot.

garrettod

BoatMad wrote: »

can I ask under what basis did Des Crofton and the NARGC issue that " communiqué ". .....

Where is it on the NARGC website please, I can't find it - only copy of the interim report and previous items ?

yubabill1

garrettod wrote: »

Where is it on the NARGC website please, I can't find it - only copy of the interim report and previous items ?

It's on sports Coalition web updates here

Scroll down the page a bit.

hexosan

Has anyone from the NARGC contacted Des Crofton and asked for a reply on this. Surely he has to answer to the members.

Grizzly 45

Woukld it not be a good idea to start leaving some comments on the sports colation website reply boxes as to what this is all about?

yubabill1

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Woukld it not be a good idea to start leaving some comments on the sports colation website reply boxes as to what this is all about?

Worth a try, although a (supportive ) comment I made quite some time ago never got aired.

Not a NARGC member, BTW.

BoatMad

I just cant believe ( we) provided support for that interim communiqué . to think I pay my insurance premium to these clownes

garrettod

BoatMad wrote: »

I just cant believe ( we) provided support for that interim communiqué . to think I pay my insurance premium to these clownes

I think the insurance must be considered entirely independent to be honest. I have the insurance and while I pray I never need it, would rather rely on it than one particular other provider I could name - just my personal opinion mind you

Nekarsulm

RTE radio 1 coming up next. The Central Statics office, and their problems with Garda crime stats.

Cass

Cass wrote: »

As if we did not know so already, and in keeping with their policy over the last 18 months to two years, it seems the CSO still has no faith in An Gardaí statistics and as such will continue to refuse to publish crime stats.

Seen an article about it a couple of weeks ago which lead me to ask:

So if the main body that covers/governs statistics does not trust An Gardaí how can the review committee take their bastardised figures on guns at face value?

Makes you wonder, cringe and then cry.

It's why i refuse to further spread bullsh*t by referring to the made up number of 150,000 illegal guns, 1,700 stolen firearms, etc, etc. It's all makey-uppy so not point in helping to spread false info.

clawback07

Aaah Cass ! Don't despair , did you read the communique from the sports coalition and Mr Croftons' letter ? It's all sweetness and light - a temporary suspension here ,the supposed support of the minor shooting associations there , it's all good ! And so what if the nargc get the lucrative training and vetting contracts sure it's a small price to pay for having such a steady hand at the helm ! It's a bit like Mr Chamberlain proclaiming peace in our time and then.......!

tac foley

All this talk about actual numbers of illegal firearms reminds me about the MP here in UK who actually stood up in the HoP and declared how useful it would be to have a registration and record of all the illegally-held firearms in the UK, and wouldn't it save the police a whale of trouble if they knew who actually had them...

sigh.......................

tac

garrettod

tac foley wrote: »

All this talk about actual numbers of illegal firearms reminds me about the MP here in UK who actually stood up in the HoP and declared how useful it would be to have a registration and record of all the illegally-held firearms in the UK.......

sigh.......................

tac

His first name wasn't finian by any chance ?

Sparks

A quick summary of where we are now and how we got here.

tac foley

Now THAT was REALLY needed - what a great and useful post that is. It is to be hoped that a good few people read it who may not have bothered to do so so far, and that some others, who are a part of this whole tissue of shenanagins, read it, digest what they seem to have done so far, and then make the necessary adjustments to THEIR version of reality.

tac

SilentD

Fantastic document Sparks, that took some work to draft and post but it should be read in full by even those who think they have a grasp on what is happening.

yubabill1

Have we had a conversation about defamation around these proposals?
So much has happened, as synopsised so well by Sparks, I can't remember?
Surely our good name, as licensed firearms owners, has been damaged by "public safety concerns" Hungerford, Dunblane, Utoya references given our track record of not massacring children and Left-wing politicians?

clawback07

A great document Sparks ,thank you very much

yubabill1

http://www.lawyer.ie/defamation

" Qualified privilege attaches to communications where the informant has a legal, moral or social duty to communicate the information and the recipient has a similar duty to receive it. For example, a person may write to an employer making allegations of dishonesty or incompetence against an employee. If the allegations are made in good faith, even if they are factually wrong, the communication is not actionable. This privilege is defeated by proof of malice."

So AGS/DoJE or whomever would have to prove they did not have malice aforethought before accusing shooters of potentially behaving like rampage murderers -defamation law requires defendants to prove their motives - so presumably they would have to proffer relevant supporting statistics, the former Commissioner's forward-looking risk assessment, Irish licensing requirements/ firearms ownership prevalence and whatever else motivated their concerns about threats to public safety posed by Irish licensed firearm owners?