Gardai proposals to ban firearms

Tippjohn

Okay, carry on having a go at me, one of the few people who have stood up for their sport.
I ask again, who is going to represent target shooters? Other field sports really don't care. Been there at meetings and witnessed it, one Gun club meeting, 200 members and only the writer taking on a Minister. The attitude was keep quiet and they will leave us alone.
As for licenced pistols without ranges to shoot on, I have seen it, because others have not does not mean it did not happen.
Insular attitudes will cause great harm, the garda don't want us having guns, they don't want to licence them.
I will rest it there and hope we all have a favourable result.

yubabill1

tac foley wrote: »

From personal experience, that is NOT what happens.
tac

I know what you mean by personal experience - it is very different to mine, which is civilian. I can see that we are talking about two very similar, but subtly different scenarios.

Agreed this is not the place to go into this any more.

Cass

Tippjohn wrote: »

Okay, carry on having a go at me, one of the few people who have stood up for their sport.

Says you.

We don't know who you are, what you've done or what you've claim to have done.

As for having a go well you really brought that on yourself with your claim that the SC had no hand in the current proposals from the review committee even though THEY have said it THEMSELVES that they did. So instead of trying to convince us they did not say what they did perhaps your time is better served trying to convince them they did not say what they said. See how you get on with that.

I ask again, who is going to represent target shooters?

Their NGBs.

As for licenced pistols without ranges to shoot on, I have seen it, because others have not does not mean it did not happen.

You were told above that making such accusations is more than simply making a bragging statement on a forum to bolster your reputation. It carries with it legal connotations both for those involved and you for making them.

If that is too complicated for you i'll simplify it. You are accusing people of fraudulently obtaining their firearms licenses and An Gardaí for failing to do their due diligence. Both violations of the firearms act.

Insular attitudes will cause great harm,

Tell that to the SC.

the garda don't want us having guns,

No sh*t Sherlock. This is not a secret or a new thing.

they don't want to licence them.

As above, no d'uh. However they must obey the law as they enforce it and don't legislate.


The only reason you are still getting responses, because i normally wouldn't waste this much time on a troll, is because i've seen people try to defend the indefensible, but to try and defend the SC by saying they did not say what they STILL take personal claim for is beyond laughable.

I'd ask what position you hold in the SC but it's probably a waste off time because even they would have more cop on than to try and claim that what is on their website and in their proposal is not actually their doing.


@ Yubabill1 & tac foley - No it's not lads so lets drop that topic please. Thanks.

Sparks

Report on the April 29 meeting from the WDAI, reproduced with permission:

Report on the consultation meeting on the firearm licensing system review;
hosted by Frances Fitzgerald, Minister for Justice and Equality.
10am April 29th 2015

Attendees:

Minister for Justice & Equality, Frances Fitzgerald,
Ministerial Advisors: William Lavelle, Marion Mannion
An Garda Síochána, Commissioner Nóirín O’Sullivan,
Assistant Commissioners John Twomey, John O’Mahoney,
Chief Superintendent Fergus Healy
Department of Justice & Equality, Acting Secretary General Noel Waters,
Deputy Sec. Ken O’Leary,
Director Marion Walsh,
Crime 4 Brendan O’Loughlin,
Crime 4 John Guinane,
Crime 4 Alan King

Damien Hannigan, Wild Deer Association of Ireland,
Patrick Scully, Wild Deer Association of Ireland
Kealan Symes, National Target Shooting Association,
Aisling Miller (NTSA),
Joe Costello, National Rifle Association of Ireland (NRAI,
Kaz Balinski,
Mark Maguire, Harbour House Shooting Club,
Lyall Plant,  Countryside Alliance Ireland,
Thomas Ryan, (IFA),
Seamus Butler, (IFA),
Des Crofton, Sports Coalition spokesperson and NARGC,
Michael Tope, National Association of Sporting Rifle & Pistol Clubs,
Gerry McCarthy, WA1500 Ireland,
Sean Gilliland, Firearms Dealer and Range Operator,
Paul Walsh, Firearms Dealer,
Victor Quirke, Bullseye target shooting


Summary
Minister Fitzgerald had given a commitment that she would not make any decision in relation to the recommendations in the Firearms Licensing Review Report until she met the key stakeholders, including the organisations who represent those who use firearms for sporting purposes.

The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality and Defence has issued an interim report on the Review Report prepared by the Department / An Garda Síochána Working Group.  Interest groups, who made a submission in response to the public consultation on the joint Department / Garda Síochána report, were invited to the meeting at the Department's offices at 51 Stephen's Green. The main purpose of the meeting was to hear firsthand the range of views and to discuss the way forward. Representatives of An Garda Síochána and Department of Justice & Quality officials were also in attendance.

Interim Report Recommendations by the Oireachtas Justice and Equality Committee

The Wild Deer Association of Ireland gave evidence to the Committee on January 21st 2015, along with other shooting organisations and individuals. The Committee stated, “It was very impressed with the professionalism and dedication and responsibility of the owners of legally held firearms who presented at the Committee”. The Committee acknowledges the wish of representatives of the various shooting organisations and clubs to engage in meaningful discussions and to progress matters further. The Committee cautions against comparing, in any way, the owners of legally held firearms with those engaged in criminal activity. The Committee is also cognisant of the concerns of An Garda Síochána and makes a number of recommendations in this interim report.

The Committee made the following interim recommendations to Minister Fitzgerald:
1. The Committee strongly recommends that the Minister request that the Garda Inspectorate carry out an independent review of the current firearms licensing regime;
2. The Minister should establish a national firearms control and advisory licensing authority with an associated central database also accessible by an Garda Síochána;
3. A ballistics record of all license firearms should be created and maintained.
4. The Committee recommends that the licensing of point 22 calibre short firearms and centre fire semi-automatic rifles be temporarily restricted;
5. The Committee recommends that all firearms be stored in a gun safe;
6. It is recommended that holders of restricted firearms are required to have time control locks fitted to their gun safes only allowing access at pre-determined times;
7. The Committee recommends the establishment of a structured and graduated licensing scheme.

Wild Deer Association of Ireland position on the Oireachtas Justice and Equality Committee interim recommendations

The Wild Deer Association of Ireland represents the interests of those involved in deer management in Ireland. Our interest goes far beyond this as many of our members also take part in other forms of licensed shooting sports. There are currently 4,600 licensed deer stalkers in Ireland. Our average support base is 120,000 people, the largest of any hunting or organisation in Ireland. Having sought the views of our members and supporters, we made our position known to Minister Fitzgerald, as follows:
1. We support and have called for an independent review of the current firearms licensing regime. The Minister informed us that she will need to seek the advice of the Attorney General on whether the Garda Inspectorate can carry out an independent review.
2. We support and have called for the establishment of a national firearms control and advisory licensing authority with an associated central database also accessible by an Garda Síochána.
3. We support a ballistics record of all licensed short firearms with the cost borne by An Garda Síochána. This would mirror best practice as currently operated in Northern Ireland.
4. We strongly opposed any restriction to any firearm category currently licensed. We informed the Minister, Ireland already has the most stringent firearm licensing laws in Europe and any restriction would have no impact on criminal activity or public safety.
5. Other than special provisions that may be required by the farming community, we supported the recommendation that all firearms be stored in a gun safe.
6. We informed the Minister that a requirement for holders of restricted short firearms to have time control locks fitted to their gun safes, only allowing access at pre-determined times, would not be practical or realistic. Those involved in deer management are often called upon to humanely dispatch wounded animals, if the required firearm was stored with a restricted short firearm; this would result in animal welfare issues as the firearm could not be accessed. The Minister also acknowledged the cost of such safes (€10,000-€15,000) would be an issue.
7. We informed the Minister the establishment of a structured and graduated licensing scheme, would only work for short firearms. Such a structure currently exists in Northern Ireland, where an individual must complete a probationary period on an approved range before a short firearm of a low calibre is licensed. In terms of deer management, we informed the Minister that due to local deer species, often a large calibre is required from the outset, otherwise a low calibre would create animal welfare issues.

Other items discussed:
Both Minister Fitzgerald and Commissioner O’Sullivan stated “there was no question about the behaviour and integrity of licensed sporting firearm owners”.

Other than public safety and criminal activity, Commissioner O’Sullivan stated regarding the current firearm licensing system “our concern is over handguns”

Patrick Scully, WDAI, Lyall Plant, CAI and others stated “inconsistency in the application of the current firearm licensing system was an issue”. This was acknowledged by both the Commissioner and Minister as an issue.

Commissioner O’Sullivan, agreed that the establishment of establish a national firearms control and advisory licensing authority with an associated central database also accessible by an Garda Síochána, would be preferable.

Minister Fitzgerald and Commissioner O’Sullivan acknowledged that 1,100 licensed firearms had been stolen since 2010 and not 1,700 as previously stated by the Minister. It was stated the majority of the firearms were shotguns and there was no evidence to show any short or long firearms were used in criminal activity.

Hungerford and other shooting incidents were raised by the Minister as a concern. After some discussion it was highlighted that while Hungerford and other such incidents were avoidable, it is impossible to legislate against a “lone wolf”.

The Sports Coalition (an umbrella organisation) stated they were there to do business and were willing to accept some temporary and permanent restrictions regarding the licensing of semi automatic centre fire rifles and short firearms.

Damien Hannigan, WDAI stated, he strongly opposed any restriction to any firearm category currently licensed. Ireland already has some of the most restrictive firearm licensing laws in Europe. He also spoke about our near neighbours in Northern Ireland, where over 15,000 handguns are currently licensed without incident.

The IFA raised issue that the requirement of a gun safe for all firearms, would not work for the farming community as often landowners required immediate and prolonged access to firearms used for vermin control.

Lyall Plant, CAI raised concerns over the proposals contained in amendment to section 4 of the Firearms Act 1925 Conditions of grant of firearm certificate. An issuing person shall not grant a firearm certificate or the renewal of a firearm certificate for a firearm, if in the opinion of the issuing person, granting the certificate could prejudice public safety or the peace. In forming an opinion, an issuing person may have regard to any or all of the following: a) the proliferation of firearms and the nature and extent of crime resulting from firearms in the issuing person’s division or district as the case may be; b) the calibre of the firearm; c) the velocity of the ammunition d) the size and shape (appearance) of the firearm e) the lethality of the firearm. Minister Fitzgerald did not appear to be aware of this proposal and was shown the text by Dept of Justice official.

Kealan Symes, NTSA, the removal of licensed sporting firearms would have no impact on criminal activity.

The Minister was asked by the Sports Coalition would there be further meetings to discuss the proposals, the Minister gave no commitment.

The Minister was invited to attend Harbour House, Sporting Club, Co Kildare to speak with members and see the facilities, the Minister stated if her diary allowed she would have no issue accepting the offer.

Mark Maguire, Harbour House Shooting Club, stated that he had already received his firearm renewal for a .22 calibre short firearm; a calibre and firearm recommended to him by An Garda Síochána but he was now unsure if he could renew this firearm, if he would have to give up his sport, which he competes in internationally.

Conclusion

Those who attended were well received by the Minister, Commissioner and representatives of the Department of Justice & Equality and An Garda Síochána. While not confirmed by Minister Fitzgerald or Commissioner O’Sullivan, it would appear the focus of the review is now on the seven recommendations contained in the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality and Defence interim report. Again while not confirmed, it would appear the immediate priority of the review process is recommendation no. 4 regarding the licensing of point 22 calibre short firearms and centre fire semi-automatic rifles be temporarily restricted. A large number of renewals for short firearms are due in September/October and it would appear this is the Ministers immediate focus of attention.

It is likely the remaining items may form the agenda for round table discussions as part of a firearms consultative panel, similar to what we saw in 2009.

Both the Minister and Commissioner, were understanding and supportive of the unique requirements for deer stalkers, along with the unintended consequences any amendments to the firearm licensing system would have on the important role deer stalkers undertake in managing deer numbers. Our Association were the sole representatives for deer stalking at the meeting.

The meeting concluded at 12.20pm

Sparks

The Sports Coalition (an umbrella organisation) stated they were there to do business and were willing to accept some temporary and permanent restrictions regarding the licensing of semi automatic centre fire rifles and short firearms.

/puts head on desk quietly and wishes some people would just stop and go home and leave the grownups talk for a while...

IRLConor

Tippjohn wrote: »

taking on a Minister

*sigh*

That's akin to entering an ass kicking contest against an eight legged beast with no ass. You literally can't win.

You persuade a minister. Anything adversarial – whether it's described as "taking on" or "negotiation" – is foolish in the extreme.

Sparks

Tippjohn wrote: »

I ask again, who is going to represent target shooters?

Their NGBs. Who have been representing them for decades. And whose job is just being made more complicated by the antics of the coalition of the willing-to-give-up-other-peoples-sports-equipment.

Witcher

Sparks wrote: »

/puts head on desk quietly and wishes some people would just stop and go home and leave the grownups talk for a while...

Who in the fcuk gave them permission to be accepting anything?

Shower of hooors should be horsewhipped.

grassroot1

Its amazing only Lyall Plant mentioned the major issue for me (the grounds for a refusal due to a proliferation of firearms in the area) and fair play to WDAI for its report.

Deaf git

Rows over the SC aside, everyone at the meeting represented one group or another- except for the Polish sounding chap. Who does he represent? I can live with differing points of view but having someone with no known 'previous' in the sport or business and not representative of a group attending a meeting at this level baffles me tbh.

yubabill1

Thanks WDAI for the update.

Two things strike me

1. "Both Minister Fitzgerald and Commissioner O’Sullivan stated “there was no question about the behaviour and integrity of licensed sporting firearm owners”.

Other than public safety and criminal activity, Commissioner O’Sullivan stated regarding the current firearm licensing system “our concern is over handguns”

Minister Fitzgerald and Commissioner O’Sullivan acknowledged that 1,100 licensed firearms had been stolen since 2010 and not 1,700 as previously stated by the Minister. It was stated the majority of the firearms were shotguns and there was no evidence to show any short or long firearms were used in criminal activity.

Hungerford and other shooting incidents were raised by the Minister as a concern. After some discussion it was highlighted that while Hungerford and other such incidents were avoidable, it is impossible to legislate against a “lone wolf”."

Yet they still want handguns taken from the shooters they claim to have no concerns about, while admitting there is no evidence that firearms are being stolen for use in crime.

2. Why did the SC capitulate? I mean, the NARGC backed over 600 court cases surrounding the licensing of S/A rifles and of handguns, now they advocate a cap on licensing and restrictions on specifications?
Is someone using leverage on them?

Cass

First off (and a little late for the NTSA post) well done NTSA & WDAI for posting what we have been asking for since the night of the meeting. Both have seen how important it is to get the information out there quickly. Discussions and dissecting the contents can happen at a later date.

Some positive things seemed to have come from the meeting. Seems also that some truths were finally admitted, facts accepted (which also indicates mis-truths from the other side), and some not so "proposal relevant" things, but personal issues such as no criminality to be mentioned as it's not germane to us.

The issue about ballistic testing cropped up but i'd settle for such a scheme if, as said above, it were financed by the Gardaí/DoJ and not lumped onto the shooter. IOW if they want to piss away money on a useless system that has been shown to be faulty then let them piss away their own money and not mine. My only resistance to ballistic testing was the money aspect as none of my firearms will be involve din criminality as long as i own them. So i've no problem with An Gardaí/DoJ having test rounds from any of my guns.

Cannot believe the SC still want to push this licensing cap thing even though everyone and their granny has said it's illegal and cannot happen.

IRLConor

Cass wrote: »

if they want to piss away money [...] then let them piss away their own money and not mine.

It's your money in either case, it's just a question of amounts really.

Cass

I know, but you get what i mean.

Tippjohn

A few weeks ago I was not happy with the apparent actions of the coalition. I have since looked into it further and am differently informed.
If anyone thinks I am going to post proof of inapropriate actions on a public forum then they are naive.
As for actions, I made an absolute Monkey out of the State ballistics "expert" in court. I cannot give details as it is still ongoing.
You don't know who I am, well I don't actually know anyone here either and will keep it that way.
As for the panic over time lock safes, the animal and infra structure does not exist to the general public so that is a red herring.
Sticking together, helping others and lobbying TDs etc will do more good than sniping.
Individuals will say they did not sanction the coalition to represent them, fine, neither did I, but I am pleased that they could see further than themselves and did something.

Sparks

Tippjohn wrote: »

Sticking together, helping others and lobbying TDs etc will do more good than sniping.

It would.
But that's not what the coalition has done.
They've badmouthed other groups to the Joint Committee, they've proposed bans which were more restrictive than those the Gardai proposed, they've damaged the collective position of every NGB out there and done more for the Gardai proposals than they have to support our collective sports.
If you think you've been informed otherwise, then I'm sorry, but you've done a poor job of evaluating your sources and would be well served by spending more time talking to a wider range of people.

I am pleased that they could see further than themselves and did something.

Except that they didn't see further than themselves, they happily threw others under the bus. That's not doing something, that's doing someone, and it's something we'd be better off without.

Cass

Tippjohn wrote: »

A few weeks ago I was not happy with the apparent actions of the coalition. I have since looked into it further and am differently informed.

Seeing as how you won't accept that the coalition saying that they put forward the proposals the committee has suggested i doubt i'll get an answer, but enlighten us. What exactly did you find out or discover that made you change your mind?

Tippjohn wrote:

If anyone thinks I am going to post proof of inapropriate actions on a public forum then they are naive.

That is the usual excuse trotted out when someone makes a baseless statement and either can't or won't prove it. So i'll repeat what was said above. Don't make possible defamatory remarks about supposedly illegal acts. Even if they did occur and you could prove it.

As for actions, I made an absolute Monkey out of the State ballistics "expert" in court. I cannot give details as it is still ongoing.

Yyyyeeeaaahhhhhhhhhh.

You don't know who I am, well I don't actually know anyone here either and will keep it that way.

With the above in mind should be easy enough to find out so.

Sticking together, helping others and lobbying TDs etc will do more good than sniping.

Already done. Read back through the thread and the others threads and you'll see there has been a constant and continued e-mail/letter campaign since this started.

............ but I am pleased that they could see further than themselves and did something.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha................. oh Jesus, stop. You're killing me. :D:D:D:D


Wait, you're serious?

Wow. The fact you believe this scares me. Given everything that they have done, everything they have said themselves (seriously read their site), their sacrificing of other sports, speaking for those they don't represent, and the fact that in a meeting with the Minister could only put forward the ridiculous notion of an illegal cap on licensing, again, after being told numerous times it cannot happen. Well speaks volumes really. Although i suppose now that they have hitched their wagon to this illegal proposal they cannot very well say they were wrong, can they?

Nekarsulm

If ballistic testing is introduced I suppose in all cases the shotgun shells/brass would be catalogued and cross referenced.
Then by golly you would want to be picking up all your shells and spent cartridge cases when out hunting/on the range.
Because it would be SO easy for a criminal to leave a spent shell at a crime scene, that they had picked up somewhere else.

Cass

Nekarsulm wrote: »

If ballistic testing is introduced I suppose in all cases the shotgun shells/brass would be catalogued and cross referenced..

Apologies for going somewhat off topic, but it's relevant to the overall theme of the thread and the proposals in it.

I done some reading over the last few weeks. Reports and investigations into ballistic testing schemes being ran in other countries (not the actual reports, but reviews on them). The first thing i learned, and quickly, was CSI is full of crap. Seriously. I mean i knew some of the stuff was far fetched (like DNA tests in one hour), but the whole testing bullets has been around for years so i thought it had credibility. Not so.

In one test they had 790 pistols that fired a total of 2,000 rounds. When they tried to compare the test/control bullets to various ones from the test range the automated system failed to match the bullet in 38% of cases. This failure rate rose to 65% when the gun used was from the same manufacturer. Not the same model, but just from the same company.

They then tried to do this with 17,000 guns and the system continuously failed to match. With more and more guns added to the system daily it essentially crashed. IOW it became so useless that it ended up as a time and money sinkhole.

Then came the kicker in the report. All the bullets fired were pristine. IOW they were in as good a condition when fired as they were when loaded. The rate of matches fell by nearly double when they tried to match a test fired bullet to one they shot into substance, and in some cases whole batches were classes as failures. IOW 100% failure rate as the bullet was so damaged. To recreate a bullet hitting a person/object. Only matches done manually were classed as close, but not one was ever said to be 100% match.

Lastly the issue of differences between a bullet fired from a gun when new, and a bullet fired from the same gun after "X" amount of rounds was so vast as to not be able to be matched. Even knowing that the gun and bullet fired were the same they could not "legally" be classed as having been from the same firearm. Differences in striations, etc. In most cases the cartridge actually gave a slightly higher rate of match than the bullet.

Nekarsulm

Thanks Cass. Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue when every gun owner was requested to turn up and fire a shot out of each barrel, and have each cartridge and or projectile correctly collected, collated and catalogued. Where would this all take place?

Cass

As i said before, and above, i'm not objecting to ballistic testing on the principle of just saying no. I'm objecting because it's a waste and if we got landed with the cost of having to have our guns tested then it's an expense that is unjust. However if the Gardaí or Doj want to piss away "their" money on such testing i've no problem with it. It saddens and sickens me that they will have to spend millions to find out it doesn't work, but that is their call.

I suppose, and just guessing, that it would take place on designated ranges as An Gardaí don't have the facilities to test most of the firearms we have/use. The logistical issue would be having a Garda present during testing. They could not farm it out (might call into question the "sanctity" of the bullets and brass collected) so a Garda would have to be there to witness the firing and phsyically collect the bullets/brass. This also raises the question of health and safety. Not from out point of view, but the Gardaí. hey would want a competent and trained Garda there. One that knows what he is looking for and at. Now as there is no position of Firearms Officer (it's justa title we use) i wonder if they will create a ballistics officer?

Lastly if it takes place on a range where does the range stand? Hundreds if not thousands of non members turning up to shoot various guns, etc. To do so on a range with no insurance is not allowed, and as day membership is illegal where do people with no insurance turn to to have their gun tested. I mean shooting outside an authorised range at ANY target is also illegal.

I'm only spit balling here so some things might be an issue others not so much. Only thinking of this as i type. However it will make for some interesting times.

garrettod

Hi,

I can see the DOJ & the Gardai getting tied up in knots for years, if they try to go ahead with this, given some of the points both of you have raised in the last few posts.

Apart from what it might end up costing the State (us )...

The worrying thing would be that they might then use the inability to test individual firearms, as the excuse to suspend (on a temporary basis :rolleyes:) the issue of licences, once the rule had been brought in.

Nekarsulm

Agree wholeheartedly. There would be years of work just testing what's in shooters possession at the moment, without another gun ever being bought or sold. Also, giving the widespread experiences of current shooters, regarding the systems failure to accurately keep track of licenced firearms and owners, could a ballistic records system function at all ?

Cass

garrettod wrote: »

The worrying thing would be that they might then use the inability to test individual firearms, as the excuse to suspend (on a temporary basis :rolleyes:) the issue of licences, once the rule had been brought in.

I doubt it, but of course always stand to be corrected.

My reason is this. We have our firearms and licenses so we satisfy section 4(2) of the principle act. If they introduce a means to test our ammo and the system for testing is at fault then we are not responsible for the failures in technology. As it is we have no such system and we get and keep our firearms. I fail to see how the introduction and possible failure of a system would jeopardise that.

Of course i always wait to be amazed.

Nekarsulm wrote: »

There would be years of work just testing what's in shooters possession at the moment, without another gun ever being bought or sold.

There is the key point. Other than guns currently in possession of people what about new buys, and say something "simplier such a subs. When ever agun is subbed to another then the gun on record must be taken off that person's name, the new gun (not bought new, but new to the person) must be put on to that person's name and if it is a second hand gun then taken from one person's name to another.

All this while also dealing with the regular day to day stuff of normal subs, new applications, etc. Something which at present seems to overwhelm certain districts.

Also, giving the widespread experiences of current shooters, regarding the systems failure to accurately keep track of licenced firearms and owners, could a ballistic records system function at all ?

Two for two lad.

The Minister in her meeting with the interested parties (and according to the WDAI statement above) admitted that the figure of 1,700 firearms was wrong and it is infact 1,100. Considering the central statistics office still have no confidence in stats from An Gardai and with the review committee calling for the Garda inspectorate to carefully and fully evaluate the entire PULSE system how can it be trusted to be both accurate and maintained properly.

Nekarsulm

Wasn't even thinking about the stats on stolen " guns ", but the fact that I had applications get lost in the local Station, then 3 year old licences all being reissued with only weeks of life being left on them, then finally having three licences issue for each gun I have, arriving over the period of a month. Also the fact that when you sub a gun, no one ensures that the licence for the one replaced is surrendered. So you could purchase ammunition with an apparently legitimate licence for a gun you no longer own. A clear breach of the Act. It is hard to have any confidence in the system. Only the good nature and lawabiding status of sporting and target shooters allows the system to operate at present.

Grizzly 45

Deaf git wrote: »

Rows over the SC aside, everyone at the meeting represented one group or another- except for the Polish sounding chap. Who does he represent? I can live with differing points of view but having someone with no known 'previous' in the sport or business and not representative of a group attending a meeting at this level baffles me tbh.

Intresting lad our Polish friend.Playboy lifestyle moves in intresting circles .Reckon he has either put together one heck of a repersentation to the comittee or he is repersenting commercial shoots and those who put big money into the commercial side of things.One of our friends had a good chat with him up at the dail and he seems to be in favour of making shooting an elite sport costing thousands to keep the hoi poli and peasents out of it

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

Report on the April 29 meeting from the WDAI, reproduced with permission:

No mention that DOJ are most eager to avoid any more court cases....Intresting....No mention on the large capacity mag shotguns from anyone.
No explanation how this temp Cf semi rifle restriction or banwill last andwill it apply to new liscenses or all evenest lisenses?? Maybe SC might abswer thatbefore they chuck my guns under the bus for me??
LATER
Intresting too to note not ONE person who spoke bar Kajinzky, in favour of SA CF rifles was asked to attend that meeting....

Tippjohn

So, can anyone tell me who, apart from the coalition has done anything about the attack on our sport?
Plenty of bog talk on forums and on ranges but who else has actually had the backup and organisation to engage with the government.
If anyone wants to consider some of my information fantasy or lies that is up to them.
If anyone can suggest another way of opposing this anti target shooting government then tell me, I will be with them 100%.
My FG TD sat in my garden in 2011 and told me that they would not touch shooting, in fact that they would make it easier. He no longer gets my support.
Note the government commitee are not trying to restrict shooting they are trying to stop it. Nothing to do with improvements or making it safe, just back to the 70s.
All because a few CS's got away with frightening a few people who were not up to representing themselves, Just remember without the NRGGC and some helpfull lawyers we would now be gone, along with all centre fire pistols.
The past is gone it is lost, the future is up to everyone to keep up the pressure.

It wasn't me!

You do know that the Sports Coalition weren't the only people invited to that meeting right? All those other groups were able to engage with the government on exactly the same level and same basis as the sports coalition.

clawback07

It wasn't me! wrote: »

You do know that the Sports Coalition weren't the only people invited to that meeting right? All those other groups were able to engage with the government on exactly the same level and same basis as the sports coalition.

Who exactly are all those other groups you are referring to ? At least the wdai appears to be giving a,factual account of what transpired at the meeting and as I said here before the minister and commissioner seem to be relatively receptive to positive input and the wdai haven't backed permanently temporary bans .