Gardai proposals to ban firearms

Cass

Tippjohn wrote: »

Shooting the messenger is not the answer.

What messenger? You haven't said squat.

I will leave you all alone and continue helping others who need help representing themselves.

Don't strain yourself with all the back patting.


Anyway it's been emotional, take care, and bye bye now.

bravestar

Tippjohn wrote: »

Appologies about generalisation concerning Civil servants, I should have said Government/Police.

Ah yeah because their all the same too, just like those damn immigrants... Dont let the door hit you...

garrettod

Tippjohn wrote: »

...Shooting the messenger is not the answer.

Thats very true.

However, not communicating the message, not disclosing who the message is from (at the outset, when you started posting on this thread) and worst of all, getting up the noses of some of your potential audience is not the answer either

If your genuine, back up a little of what you've said about yourself for example (you could drop a PM to one of the Moderators here & ask them to keep personal details confidential, if you don't want to disclose details to everyone) and also confirm if you have any connection with the Sports Coalition or any of the member groups of the Sports Coalition etc. Likewise, if you have any connection with the Department of Justice, Gardai or other body that attended recent discussions on 29th April.

Cass wrote: »

Anyone hitting this meeting tonight?

Be interested to see if their accounting is the same as the NTSA, WDAI, and CAI's. Might also be a chance to ask why they keep recommending an illegal cap on licenses, and some of their other proposals.

Sadly no can do.

I'd have loved to head along, but on the hook for something else and can't get away.

I'd say this could be a very interesting meeting so hopefully there will be a good turnout, with all voices heard.

If anyone is going along from here, please bring a dictaphone with you and record the session, then upload so we can all have a listen over the next couple of days

cw67irl

Any update from the Lucan meeting?

hurlsey

cw67irl wrote: »

Any update from the Lucan meeting?

Was just about to ask same?

Specifically
Cf semi autos
Cf pistols
Semi/Pump shotguns
National licencing Authority
Reloading

Anything else pertinent that may have come up!!!

knockon

Sports Coalition Update
By Des Crofton, National Director – NARGC and Spokesperson for the Sports Coalition

Meeting with Ms Francis Fitzgerald TD, Minister for Justice & Equality, and Ms Noreen O’Sullivan, Commissioner of An Garda Siochana, at 521 St Stephen’s Green, Dublin 2 at 10am on Wednesday, April 20th, 2015.
The Sports Coalition representatives were of Des Crofton (NARGC and Spokesperson for the Sports Coalition), Paul Walsh (Firearms Dealer), Victor Quirke, (Irish Bullseye Association), Mick Tope (NASRPC), Mark Maguire (Harbour House Range), Gerry McCarthy (WA1500 Association) and Sean Gilliland (Range Operator).

The Minister welcomed all and invited each party attending or representing an association at the meeting to introduce themselves
We could not let the occasion pass without remarking that the meeting had been a long time coming and indeed should have come long before the number of court challenges reached the levels they did. We outlined that it is set against a background of the goalposts having been unfairly moved by the Gardai over the past six years. We instanced the agreement on the Annex F list and the letters of encouragement from senior Garda Officers to apply for firearms which it is now being contended are restricted and therefore no longer licenceable. We pointed out it is an act of extreme bad faith for the Gardai to be issuing pre-populated forms inviting people to renew their firearms certificates while knowing that a blanket policy to refuse will be applied.
There have now been almost 700 court cases with every single one seeking no more than compliance with the legislation. It should be noted that none of the court challenges sought to widen the scope of availability of firearms or sought a reduction in the criteria to be met. By the end of 2009, following the consultations and eventual enactment of the new legislation, the Department of Justice and An Garda Siochana had a very valuable prize in their hands – the respect and confidence of all representative associations. But it is a matter of record that the respect and confidence achieved evaporated in the months and years following as a direct result of the actions of An Garda Siochana and inaction by the Department of justice.

Firstly, there are some general matters in the Justice Committee’s Interim Report we commented on. The Joint Report of the Department of Justice and An Garda Siochana is predicated on the notion that a great many firearms are stolen from the homes of licence holders and end up in the hands of criminals in the commission of crimes and the Gardai have provided statistical data which they claim backs up that assertion. However, the figures as presented give anything but a true reflection of what firearms have been stolen from the homes of licence holders and quite frankly, the statistics published lack credibility and there is no other way to put that. At the meeting on the 29th, the Garda Commissioner, in the face of our comments on the credibility of the Garda statistics on stolen firearms, clarified that the correct figure for firearms stolen from homes over the relevant four year period was 1,100 firearms and not 1,710 as previously published. This is of course more than a 50% margin of error!!! But more importantly and worrying is the fact that the figures have been presented in a way which demonises firearms owners in the eyes of the public. Others have published an analysis already of the statistics and both the Department and the Gardai are well aware of that. If the statistics show anything at all it is that the security arrangements where they are implemented are working very well. Set against the background of how the figures have been presented, we welcome the acknowledgement of the Oireachtas Committee of the responsibility and professionalism of firearms owners and we particularly welcome their caution against comparing licenced firearms owners with criminal activity and we urge everyone to kindly take note of that.

On behalf of the Sports Coalition we welcomed of the Interim Report of the Oireachtas Justice Committee as the first unbiased and objective consideration of the issues and difficulties around firearms ownership in this country. That is not to say we can agree with everything in the Interim Report - we do not, but there is much we can agree with and we do believe the general direction and approach of the Justice Committee is the correct one and we welcome the Report for those reasons.
Turning to the specific recommendations in the Justice Committee’s Report:

1. The Committee strongly recommends that the Minister requests that the Garda Inspectorate carry out an independent review of the current firearms licensing regime;
It seems to us that this is just the beginning, or at least it should be. The Justice Committee has confirmed it is continuing with its work and we believe intends, when finished, to issue a final report. The Committee has also strongly recommended that the administration of the licensing system be referred to the Garda Inspectorate. There is much to recommend this course. If we are to attempt to fix whatever problems are in the system, it seems to us to be sensible that we know what problems we should fix from an objective assessment by an independent body. The Sports Coalition had been calling for the Inspectorate to examine these issues for some time. The Minister said she wished to first examine some matters concerning the terms of reference of the Inspectorate.

2. The Minister should establish a national firearms control and advisory licensing authority with an associated central database also accessible by an Garda Síochána;
We agree with this recommendation in principle, especially the concept of a centralised licensing system which will undoubtedly deliver consistency of approach and much needed knowledge over time, not to mention increased efficiency. We are on record as calling for this previously. However, we are totally opposed to any idea that the administration of a centralised system would rest within and under the control of An Garda Siochana and we made that clear at the meeting. We agree that the Gardai should be the sole body in charge of character vetting - arguably the most important and critical aspect of assessment for suitability for a firearms certificate. As such, an applicant for a firearms certificate should first be required to obtain a “character clearance certificate” from the Gardai before applying for a firearms certificate. This model has huge benefits. No records of any nature which might be regarded as confidential or of operational nature are required to be passed to anyone outside the Gardai. The clearance certificate, if refused is a matter between the would-be applicant and the Gardai exclusively and would not involve the licensing authority. This system would reduce the scope for argument and litigation substantially without compromising public safety.
We agree in principle with the other proposed functions of a National Licensing Authority albeit that much of how they would work needs to be discussed and given greater definition and relevance in the Irish context.

3. A ballistics record of all licensed firearms should be created and maintained;
While we accept the sentiment behind this recommendation, we believe it is not possible, practical or proportionate for all firearms and I believe there was general agreement on this. The focus here should be on those firearms which appear to be of concern i.e. short firearms.

4. The Committee recommends that the licencing of .22 calibre short firearms and centre fire semi-automatic rifles be temporarily restricted;
This is currently the most contentious and urgent issue as those firearms affected are currently commencing renewal and renewals will intensify in the second half of the year. We do not accept that any justifiable case has been made to restrict or ban .22 calibre short firearms. The simple test is amply illustrated by (a) the number of such firearms as have been stolen from the homes of licence holders since 2009 when the new security arrangements came into force and (b) of the tiny number stolen, the number which have been established as having been used in the subsequent commission of a crime. We reminded the Minister that we have called for an independent risk assessment where the banning and/or restriction of any firearm is being contemplated and we outlined how this assessment could take place. We said that the issue of the status of currently licensed .22 calibre short firearms and the future licensing of these firearms is of the utmost importance to the Sports Coalition. We made clear there are no circumstances in which the Sports Coalition will accept a ban or cap in any form, whether through the front door, the back door or any other door, of .22 calibre handguns or any existing firearms for sporting purposes. If there is a ban or cap, while we must obey the law, there will be very significant political consequences.
We had already made a submission to the Justice Committee as to how the current impasse involving .22 calibre short firearms can be resolved i.e. that .22 calibre firearms with barrel lengths of not less than 5 inches, suitable for competition under ISSF rules and with a magazine capacity of not more than 10 rounds be licenced. We also suggested that this criteria should be regarded as also including existing Olympic short firearms (including where the barrel length is shorter as the Gardai have stated they do not have a problem with these). The criteria suggested is prescriptive and will remove the adversarial system which has developed resulting in so many court cases. There is absolutely no case to be made for restricting these firearms and we pointed to the relatively small number licensed nationally over the past 11 years since short firearms became licenceable again. In addition, the notion that so-called Olympic style short firearms are somehow less lethal than any or all those currently licensed is an absolute fiction and has no basis in fact. Anything which can be done with any of the .22 short firearms currently licensed can also be done with any of the so-called Olympic style guns without exception.

5. The Committee recommends that all firearms be stored in a gun safe;
The IFA made a strong case that farmers with just one shotgun who have to defend their stock from predators and roaming dogs, particularly at night, need to have quick access to their firearms and this was accepted and supported by all of the shooting associations.

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;
While on the face of it, this appears a worthwhile move, we suggest it is neither practical nor in fact workable and the costs for licence holders would be prohibitive. There was a general acceptance of this.

7. The Committee recommends the establishment of a structured and graduated licensing scheme.
We suggested that this has merit and the details and structure should be worked out with the relevant shooting associations in due course but with exceptions in specific circumstances i.e. rifles, shotguns etc..
We also addressed some matters on which the Justice Committee had made no comment. Head 2 of the Joint Report of the Garda Siochana and Department of Justice seeks to amend Section 4 of the Firearms Act 1925 by the granting of new powers of refusal of a firearms licence application based on: Proliferation, Calibre, Velocity of ammunition, Size and shape (appearance) of the firearm and Lethality of the firearm. We vehemently opposed this amendment as being grossly disproportionate and wide open to abuse. In fact we would regard this recommendation as a charter for refusing reasonable applications and in coming to this conclusion we are conscious of the many occasions these reasons have been attempted by licensing officers already but which have been struck down by the courts as being unreasonable. We suggest there are sufficient powers within the legislation currently to address any concerns.
A further matter we raised is the issue of penalties. We are at a loss to understand the absence of any mention of amendment to penalties in the Report of the Joint Working Group and the Justice Committee’s Interim Report. We have made a submission on this to the Committee. We do suggested there is a glaring omission and it is the absence of a special offence of “Theft of Firearm”. The creation of such an offence would be a meaningful contribution to public safety and send out the right message. This was supported by other associations and the IFA in particular.
We asked the Minister if it is intended that the meeting constitutes the entirety of the promised consultation in view of the complexity of the issues to be addressed. She said that she intended to take all the views and contributions into consideration before deciding what next to do.

Finally, we invited the Minister to visit Harbour House Target Shooting Range to see first-hand how organised sports shooting is managed and conducted and the safety procedures which apply. We noted that the Chairman and members of the Justice Committee had acknowledged how helpful and enlightening they found their visit to Harbour House and we had no doubt a visit would be of great benefit to the Minister’s considerations also. We thanked her for the opportunity to put forward our initial views and we look forward to the next steps.
Briefing:

A briefing meeting for members of the Sports Coalition associations on what was discussed at the meeting with the Minister and related matters was held on May 6th in the Spa Hotel, Lucan which was well attended. Also in attendance were Senator Paschal Mooney (FF), Senator Pat O’Neill (FG) and Councillor James Lawless (FF), all of whom addressed the meeting and affirmed their support for the Coalition. The briefing was followed by a question and answers session with the meeting unanimously registering its support for the Coalition.

Sparks

We could not let the occasion pass...

Oh ffs...

This is of course more than a 50% margin of error!

1710-1100=610. 610 = 35% of 1710.
I suppose you could claim that this means you need a 70% margin of error in case the figure had turned out to be 2320 firearms, but honestly, you'd be just showing yourself up more for doing so because that's not how the phrase "margin of error" works.
Lads, if we're going to point out that the DoJ statistics of how many firearms are owned per capita is wrong by pointing at the math, it would behove us to get our own math right...

As such, an applicant for a firearms certificate should first be required to obtain a “character clearance certificate” from the Gardai before applying for a firearms certificate.

Oh for ****s sakes. Did anyone pay attention when vetting for those working with minors was being pushed through? AGS wanted to be as far away from it as was humanly possible because it's a legal minefield. Doing it for someone's general character when you have a constitutional right to the government defending your good name? I wouldn't touch that with yours and I doubt the Gardai feel any different.

The focus here should be on those firearms which appear to be of concern i.e. short firearms.

You mean, we should apply the impossible, impractical, disproportionate measure to pistols, when the experience in Maryland and the scientific testing from California both said it was utter nonsense?

We made clear there are no circumstances in which the Sports Coalition will accept a ban or cap in any form

That's a rather interesting statement to make, when the Sports Coalition was proposing such a ban, in fact a more onerous ban than the Gardai were proposing.
I mean, the gombeens in the SC do know we can all read, don't they?
And their very next sentence describes a ban on .22 pistols for crying out loud...

We do suggested there is a glaring omission and it is the absence of a special offence of “Theft of Firearm”.

Wow, original thinking, that's incredi... oh, wait. But they don't read here, do they?
(arf...)


Short summary: What everyone else has already said. Only with more table-thumping and less effect.

bravestar

I notice there is feck all mention of semi auto center fires???

Sparks

bravestar wrote: »

I notice there is feck all mention of semi auto center fires???

Ah here lad, did you think they wanted to represent everyone? If they did that, who could they throw under the bus?

tac foley

Sparks, don't overlook that included in those stolen 'firearms' there are possibly a number of items which are, anywhere else, simply items of furniture, that is to say, gun safes. Or toys - Airsoft 'guns'. Or crossbows. And we ALL know that the crossbow is THE 'weapon of choice' by the vast majority of those who carry out bank robberies and hold-ups. And blank-firers/water-guns that look like guns...

tac

SVI40

Sparks wrote: »

1710-1100=610. 610 = 35% of 1710.

Another way of looking at is, if the true figure is 1100, then 50% is 550 for 1650, so it figure of over 50% is correct

tac foley

?

tac

Sparks

SVI40 wrote: »

Another way of looking at is, if the true figure is 1100, then 50% is 550 for 1650, so it figure of over 50% is correct

Except that it's not, because the margin of error applies to the estimate (1710), not to the ground truth value (1100). Ground truth, by definition, has no margin of error, it's just the actual number.

In this case, mind you, I'd bet that 1100 isn't the real number either

Deaf git

Farmers and safes;
The majority of stolen guns are shotguns and in the eyes of the public a gun is a gun. These stolen shotguns draw the wrong type of attention to private gun ownership.

My gunsafe takes about 5-6 seconds to open, how quick do you have to be in controlling vermin? Oh I forgot, I do a fair bit of vermin control- the safe never slowed me down.

SVI40

Sparks wrote: »

Except that it's not, because the margin of error applies to the estimate (1710), not to the ground truth value (1100). Ground truth, by definition, has no margin of error, it's just the actual number.

In this case, mind you, I'd bet that 1100 isn't the real number either

Ah ha, but sure we cannot believe any of the numbers anyway.

Sparks

I get the feeling people are agreeing because it's better to have the IFA standing beside the others than to have the IFA standing with the PTB. And the IFA have the clout needed to take either position.

hurlsey

Didn't touch on CF semi autos, CF pistols, reloading or semi/pump action shotguns.....

I think the recommendation from the IFA that they shouldn't be required to have safes is a joke!!

garrettod

Deaf git wrote: »

Farmers and safes;

The majority of stolen guns are shotguns and in the eyes of the public a gun is a gun. These stolen shotguns draw the wrong type of attention to private gun ownership..

I agree.

The IFA are something else, they way they are going on with this nonsense of farmers not being able to have a safe... I'd say the truth is, they just don't want to have to spend the cash (even if they would probably subsequently claim it was farm equipment and get some form of grant to pay for it, or tax break on the expenditure :rolleyes:)

It's not that long ago, that the IFA made their submission on the overall licence review and made unhelpful suggestions about changes to the pistol licencing arrangements, a topic I'd say they knew little or nothing about. Where they were going with that one, I'll never know, but it sure as hell was both unhelpful and unnecessary, particularly coming from an organisation with no vested interest in pistol shooting. To have simply stayed "neutral" and quiet, would have been just fine (IFA) lads !

I know those of us who hunt, are very appreciative of the permissions we have and on a personal level, many of us have excellent relationships with the farming community which no one wants spoilt, but I can't bring myself to agree with the IFA on the matter of farmers not using safes. As Deaf git correctly points out, the theft of a shotgun ultimately reflects on us all, not just the farmers....

garrettod

Oh, by the way...

Did anyone go to the meeting last night and if so, how did it go (please) ?

... I couldn't help but smile, when I saw mention down at the bottom of the NARGC update and their briefing notes, about the local FF & FG lads all coming out in support (the start of a coalition between FF & FG me thinks ).

Thanks.

Nekarsulm

hurlsey wrote: »

Didn't touch on CF semi autos, CF pistols, reloading or semi/pump action shotguns.....

I think the recommendation from the IFA that they shouldn't be required to have safes is a joke!!

It is a joke, and it's political cowardice as well.

Rather than risk antagonising a section of their members, they took the easy way out.
If they had put forward a recommendation to their members that having a gun safe was a vital aspect of farm safety, and an ideal place to keep passports and other valuables, Cattle ID cards etc., I rather think they would have sold the idea to their members. (I am a member)

Tea drinker

Nekarsulm wrote: »

It is a joke, and it's political cowardice as well.

Rather than risk antagonising a section of their members, they took the easy way out.
If they had put forward a recommendation to their members that having a gun safe was a vital aspect of farm safety, and an ideal place to keep passports and other valuables, Cattle ID cards etc., I rather think they would have sold the idea to their members. (I am a member)

Interesting points, also what the other person said about grants.

Nekarsulm

Tea drinker wrote: »

Interesting points, also what the other person said about grants.

Pity the Dept. Ag. didn't include gun safes in the recent Farm Safety grant scheme.
Only problem with that scheme was, you had to spend €2400 minimum to get a 40% grant.

Anyway, purchase of the safe would definitely be allowable as a farming expense. Especially when purchased from a Co-Op store, or hardware store.

amadangorm

IFA horsecrap!

If only one shotgun is owned then it has to be stored broken down in separate places with a trigger lock on it. Surely it would be faster to open the gun cabinet & get out the gun than to collect all the bits & take off the trigger lock? Is this an admission that they don't do this and do actually leave it behind the back door?

hexosan

amadangorm wrote: »

IFA horsecrap!

If only one shotgun is owned then it has to be stored broken down in separate places with a trigger lock on it. Surely it would be faster to open the gun cabinet & get out the gun than to collect all the bits & take off the trigger lock? Is this an admission that they don't do this and do actually leave it behind the back door?

you just hit the glaring nail on the head there.

Cass

knockon wrote: »

Coalition Statement wrote:

We made clear there are no circumstances in which the Sports Coalition will accept a ban or cap in any form, whether through the front door, the back door or any other door, of .22 calibre handguns or any existing firearms for sporting purposes.

Seriously??????? :eek:
Then what in the name of F**k is this noise:

Coalition proposals to review committee February 20 th wrote:

We could accept a temporary cap on licensing centrefire semi-automatic rifles with the exception of classic (old – pre 1950) models pending the outcome of a wider firearms licensing review. In other words, with immediate effect, no new licenses would be issued for this category until a full review is complete

Not to mention from the WDAI report on the meeting of the 29th April:

WDAI Report on Meeting of April 29th wrote:

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.

So 8 weeks ago they (SC) reiterated their acceptance of a cap on semi autos and pistols, and according to the WDAI they done the same not 6 days ago directly to the Minister's face. Now all of a sudden they are ardently opposed.

Who in the f**k are they trying to cod? I said it 5 days that they would hold off till last to post their version of events:

Cass wrote: »

I'll tell you why, for dramatic effect. One week to spin whatever was said into a positive. One week to see if the ridiculous proposals he, and his "coalition", put forward are to be implemented in any shape or form. One week to come up with excuses to the ridiculous proposals that have gone unanswered here, and everywhere else since they were released (albeit some 6 weeks late).

I also heard the rate of praise for the SC's actions was pretty high. Answer me this anyone who attended. Did they know what they were attending? Did they read ANYTHING the SC published or proposed? Are they happy to loose their guns? FFS, it's a disgrace. :mad:

garrettod wrote: »

It's not that long ago, that the IFA made their submission on the overall licence review and made unhelpful suggestions about changes to the pistol licencing arrangements,.

Yeah i remember those. The 167 "fully auto" rifles they claim are out there in civilian hands. When they were bombarded with e-mails and letters saying they were wrong that full auto are class A, prohibited firearms they still refused to admit they were wrong.

Deaf git

The conflict between the WDAI and the SC accounts of the meeting on the 29th in relation to pistols and sa cf rifles is fuppin unbelievable. SOMEONE is telling lies or was too thick to interpret what was said.
A further restriction on pistols will obviously be to shooter's detriment but range operators will lose out too. Will anyone shell out 300 euro come July for membership on a range if we are prevented from licensing the gun itself? I know I won't.
So if the SC are willing to accept temporary or permanent bans were the range owners fuppin well asleep? They are part of the SC afterall.
So someone from the WDAI and SC need to clarify what was reported from the meeting of the 29th.

Cass

Deaf git wrote: »

The conflict between the WDAI and the SC accounts of the meeting on the 29th in relation to pistols and sa cf rifles is fuppin unbelievable. SOMEONE is telling lies or was too thick to interpret what was said.

Thats what has me so annoyed.

We already know the SC have called for, propoased and supported a restriction and CAP on the number of semi auto rifles and pistols. They proposed it on February 20th, and supported it when it was announced in the interim report on April 2nd. Hell, it's still on their own website.

According to the WDAI's report of events they also reiterated their proposal and support for it at the Ministerial meeting on April 29th. Then at last nights meeting they say they are opposed to such a cap in any form or by any means.

So if you take the WDAI's reporting of events out of the equation it still remians that they have at least twice previously proposed and supported such a cap. Kinda lends credence to the WDAI's report.

If there is an error in the WDAI's report it makes you wonder why in the fup they are saying now that they don't support such a CAP. It begs the question why f**king propose it in the first place.

I'm seriously annoyed and confused in equal measures.

Deaf git

So if someone from the WDAI and SC would please clarify exactly wtf was said I'd be much obliged.....

Grizzly 45

Deaf git wrote: »

Farmers and safes;
The majority of stolen guns are shotguns and in the eyes of the public a gun is a gun. These stolen shotguns draw the wrong type of attention to private gun ownership.

My gunsafe takes about 5-6 seconds to open, how quick do you have to be in controlling vermin? Oh I forgot, I do a fair bit of vermin control- the safe never slowed me down.

However,I cant see the problem of removing said firearm from a lock box and keeping it close to hand during hours of darkness when "vermin" of all kinds is most active,and returning it under lock and key during normal working farm hours or abscense from the farm?Or is it just sheer bloody mindedness on the part of the IFA and its members to not no matter what will not be told anythingEven that storing a loaded gun out in the haggard is not safe and it will be grand there?Even if you never see it from one renewal to the next?

And the rest of us wonder why farming is classified as the most dangerous and accident prone profession in ireland??:(

garrettod

Deaf git wrote: »

....So someone from the WDAI and SC need to clarify what was reported from the meeting of the 29th.

Hasn't Sparks requested a copy of the DOJ's minutes ? Comparing what he gets (assuming he shares ) with the versions from other sources already doing the rounds, will certainly make for some interesting reading.