Gardai proposals to ban firearms

BattleCorp

There won't be a surge in new pistol applications. It will be the same as we have now. A few new people will sign up to the sport each year, a few will drop out.

It's not like the miniscule change in the law will open the floodgates.

The new SI just removes some of the stupid reasons that a few Gardai were using to refuse to licence certain makes and models of .22 pistol.

yubabill1

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

And I cant fault anything you said there Sparks,its all true.

BUT what I am trying to point out is that as it stands we do know one potential problem that is blatantly obvious and pressing ,and that is this "dramatic rise in .22 pistol applications or import liscense requests." Im no mathametican,but I dont see any numbers mentioned in there.So how do we handle this?
Obvious first step is to find out exactly what does DOJ have in mind.5 ,10 ,50 ,500, 50,000?? We wont find that out until either of three things happen.

My 2c on this FWIW is that the Minister had to address AGS concerns about proliferation, so in the honourable tradition of politics, she kicked the can down the road (and hopefully into someone else's lap) - much the same as she did with shooter's concerns.

Me? I'm going with the herd - wait to see what the next Minister makes of this, while keeping my powder dry, of course.

Sparks

lakesider wrote: »

well in fairness your the guy making all the speeches about standing together and us not throwing each other to the wolves when in fact your the first man to suggest kicking the door shut in future participants faces in case it affects you

Whatever else you might think, he can't be the first since that line got crossed when the Sports Coalition decided to propose a cap on all centerfire semiauto rifles when that wasn't even being sought...

Grizzly 45

lakesider wrote: »

well in fairness your the guy making all the speeches about standing together and us not throwing each other to the wolves when in fact your the first man to suggest kicking the door shut in future participants faces in case it affects you:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Either you are hard of comprehension in English 101 or are just argueing the toss at this stage.
I have never suggested kicking the door closed in anyones face.If I have show me where in my post i stated such .I said we night have to consider such a move of regulating ourselves to keep the sport going because if there is a mass apllication in a given time frame that breaches an unknown number of apllications in the DOJ.It locks the future apllications down under this temp cap.Capis?What would you rather have?
Locking the sport down entirely with no new liscenses being granted under a temp cap because of short sightnedess and mass panic or stupid childish idiots out there saying "wanna .22 because everyone else has one an if they cant have no fair an ill wreck it for everyone by encouraging everyone to aplly and blow the cap.That will show them"I have had that sort of stupidity stated as well.
Or until we know whats what and have some figures to be able to know wtf is going on and where we are going post election to simply explain the situation to newbies that we cant support a mass aplication system on these grounds or because simply we dont have the facilities to deal with a mass apllication of pistol shooters in our clubs.And this the reason we are go slowing it.
I want this sport to grow too and I learned from the CF pistol debacle which some obviously wont o rcant and whatdestroyed it was partially by it going too quick too fast and scaring the sht out of the PTB.
Going softly softly has alot of merits over bull in a china shop tactics in this case.
And if you think just because I have my stuff which I fought for and paid for in money and court time I want to pull up the ladder you are sadly mistaken.

lakesider

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Either you are hard of comprehension in English 101 or are just argueing the toss at this stage.
I have never suggested kicking the door closed in anyones face.If I have show me where in my post i stated such .I said we night have to consider such a move of regulating ourselves to keep the sport going because if there is a mass apllication in a given time frame that breaches an unknown number of apllications in the DOJ.It locks the future apllications down under this temp cap.Capis?What would you rather have?
Locking the sport down entirely with no new liscenses being granted under a temp cap because of short sightnedess and mass panic or stupid childish idiots out there saying "wanna .22 because everyone else has one an if they cant have no fair an ill wreck it for everyone by encouraging everyone to aplly and blow the cap.That will show them"I have had that sort of stupidity stated as well.
Or until we know whats what and have some figures to be able to know wtf is going on and where we are going post election to simply explain the situation to newbies that we cant support a mass aplication system on these grounds or because simply we dont have the facilities to deal with a mass apllication of pistol shooters in our clubs.And this the reason we are go slowing it.
I want this sport to grow too and I learned from the CF pistol debacle which some obviously wont o rcant and whatdestroyed it was partially by it going too quick too fast and scaring the sht out of the PTB.
Going softly softly has alot of merits over bull in a china shop tactics in this case.
And if you think just because I have my stuff which I fought for and paid for in money and court time I want to pull up the ladder you are sadly mistaken.

Big Bangstick

Grizzly, you suggested we limit the amount of new people clubs should accept & that clubs should limit who can get access to a .22 pistol in case there's a rush of applications (if I get a chance to find the relevant posts I'll post 'em here. Unless you've already edited them of course). I suppose it's easy for you though to suggest closing the proverbial doors seen as your .22 application is in a while & will probably be granted now and I can't find that post at the moment either.

Sparks, I'd love to be run over by people getting new pistol licences for fullbore pistols. At least I could then get one then seen as I wasn't quick enough the last time. I don't think it's gonna happen though and if it does I'll eats as much humble pie as you can get me!

Big Bangstick

yubabill1 wrote: »

My 2c on this FWIW is that the Minister had to address AGS concerns about proliferation, so in the honourable tradition of politics, she kicked the can down the road (and hopefully into someone else's lap) - much the same as she did with shooter's concerns.

They're fair points.

Big Bangstick

Sparks you said the original SI was going to allow fullbore in ISSF. Why didn't that happen? That would have been a great way to build fullbore pistol side of the sport surely.

Sparks

Big Bangstick wrote: »

Sparks you said the original SI was going to allow fullbore in ISSF. Why didn't that happen? That would have been a great way to build fullbore pistol side of the sport surely.

As pointed out here,

...someone stood up in front of the people in the AGS who were most opposed to firearms and stated that his 9mm would fit in the ISSF measuring box and followed the ISSF rules so why couldn't he have it. At that point, the Restricted List draft effectively (though I'm paraphrasing) said "any pistol governed by ISSF rules" -- which meant that all of the .32, .38 and 9mm pistols would have remained unrestricted. The next day, those lovely folks in the AGS sent inquiries in and within a few hours, we'd lost those centerfires too, because someone opened his mouth without engaging his brain in front of the wrong people when the topic of the meeting was a completely seperate and equally serious matter (yes, equally serious. You think taking away the pistol is the only way to kill pistol shooting? You need a range too...)

Grizzly 45

Big Bangstick wrote: »

Grizzly, you suggested we limit the amount of new people clubs should accept & that clubs should limit who can get access to a .22 pistol in case there's a rush of applications (if I get a chance to find the relevant posts I'll post 'em here. Unless you've already edited them of course). I suppose it's easy for you though to suggest closing the proverbial doors seen as your .22 application is in a while & will probably be granted now and I can't find that post at the moment either.
/quote]

I dont edit my posts or need to post silly childish memes because I cant argue my points like some here when they know they are owned and are hurting.

Oh its soo easy for me isnt it 5 thousand euros in three DC courts and a HC case to fight to keep my stuff....What was your dog in the fight?
Oh I shouldnt have done that either no doubt as I proably triggered the whole thing too.So blame me for that too and six others..But you know what?Im not surprised of this artitude ....And guess what?I dont care either .I guess alot of people dont want to deal with potential problems and want to stick their heads in the sand(and leave their asses exposed for kicking)
Or have a serious case of the ol green eyed monster jealousy...well cry us a river build us a bridge and get the fk over it.

So go find a smart meme for all this or try to actually see this is a hypothecial discussion of what might or might not happen and not a command to deny anyone anything.

Big Bangstick

Ah Grizzly you'll hurt your back with all that self back slapping there.

How many times have you told us how much you spent now?

And when you look at it all you achieved is you get to keep you're stuff.

The Sports Coalition, namely NARGC, mobilised the "ordinary" gun club shooters who far outnumber the "target" shooters who were probably going to be the only ones affected by the Gardais proposed changes. That's what made the difference!

Now just because you have what you have don't tell the powers that be by posting on the internet that nobody else should have the same in case it endangers your stuff. We've had enough of that carry on up to this!

Big Bangstick

Sparks wrote: »

As pointed out

Please tell me the same people won't be involved this time !!!!!!!!!

Sparks

Big Bangstick wrote: »

Please tell me the same people won't be involved this time !!!!!!!!!

You tell me BB, you seem to know more about the Sports Coalition...

Cass

Big Bangstick wrote: »

The Sports Coalition, namely NARGC, mobilised the "ordinary" gun club shooters who far outnumber the "target" shooters who were probably going to be the only ones affected by the Gardais proposed changes. That's what made the difference!

Jesus, i threw up in my mouth a little there. The "Sports Coalition" have :

• Done an RTE segment that EVERYONE else knew enough to stay away from.
• Relied on "ordinary" shooters to start and maintain a letter campaign to counter the truly awful and destructive nature of the interview.
• Suggested a graduated licensing system
• Suggested a cap on 22 pistols
• Suggested a cap on semi auto rifles (nailed that one)
• Pulled out of the original FCP leaving us on the outside when we could have been at the table from the off
• Alienated the people (in both the shooting community and authorities) that we HAVE TO work with to resolve these issues
• Allowed rumors and innuendo to spread wildly and released no statement to clarify matters

That is only off the top of my head so please don't tell me they are this all powerful saviour of our sport.

Lastly, any anger people have towards the way things turned out (both the SI and the statement form the Minister regarding the cap on semi autos and the potential cap on pistols) should look very carefully at the proposals of the "sports Coalition" and the statement they released after the SI was signed off on rejoicing at the contents of both claiming it was exactly what they wanted.

Funny how everyone has some sort of issue with how things turned out, yet support they very group that called for them.

Sweet merciful Jesus.

Grizzly 45

Big Bangstick wrote: »

Ah Grizzly you'll hurt your back with all that self back slapping there.

How many times have you told us how much you spent now?

And when you look at it all you achieved is you get to keep you're stuff.

The Sports Coalition, namely NARGC, mobilised the "ordinary" gun club shooters who far outnumber the "target" shooters who were probably going to be the only ones affected by the Gardais proposed changes. That's what made the difference!

Now just because you have what you have don't tell the powers that be by posting on the internet that nobody else should have the same in case it endangers your stuff. We've had enough of that carry on up

Oh dear!!!And everyone got to keep their stuff too didnt they??And yeah I will mention it because there were a few who decided to go the whole way while all the rest were crying "whats the use?The courts will decide against us and you are wasting money".Then when it was successful everyone wanted in o n the action and the 4th accusation Ive had was that the organisations paid for my cases......I wish they had and thats the funniest of them all...
But not to worry...Its mind over matter.I dont mind and my opinion along with yours and everyones elses on this subject DOESN'T MATTER to the ptb
Now if you think I have some magical say with the ptb on our side or the DOJ you are giving much more credit to me than I deserve...
Honestly if you think this utter hypothecial discussion is nasty and hard to deal with in your little world of sunshine and lollipops and unicorns I hate to tell you a lot more nasty things are going to come down the pipeline and it wont be solved by throwing yor teddy out of the pram or posting smart assed memes or accusing others of treason because they brought it up and hope to discuss it in a mature adult fashion.
DEAL with it however you want!

wexfordman2

Just reading an article on rural crime in the sindo, and they pointed to the that the number of firearms licences had risen along with the rise in rural crime :-(

178,000 in 2013 to 205,000 now!!

Was going to post a comment in reply to the article, but didn't want to register.

Gobdaws

hexosan

They also state that they (rural people) are getting them for protection. I'd like to see that printed as the good reason on the FCA1 form, I'd expect a large number of refusals to follow.

BattleCorp

wexfordman2 wrote: »

Just reading an article on rural crime in the sindo, and they pointed to the that the number of firearms licences had risen along with the rise in rural crime :-(

178,000 in 2013 to 205,000 now!!

I wonder how accurate that figure is?

Sparks

It's the Sindo. Accuracy isn't exactly what they're known for...

Grizzly 45

Same rubbish yesterday in the other Dennis O Brien paper.The Herald."Give us guns"headline.
Good refutation and explaining the procedure by a spokesman from NARSPC and AGS for obtaining a liscense here and that self defence isnt an option.

Big Bangstick

I know nothing more about the sports coalition than whats online.

What I was trying to say is the only thing that got us where we are is the huge number who signed the petition & emailed & contacted their politicans and made them realise theres a lot of votes to be had or lost in this. Granted they made a few cock ups at least they publically posted what they submitted unlike others.

Anyway time will tell us if were better off or will have to bend over again.

Cass

Big Bangstick wrote: »

I know nothing more about the sports coalition than whats online.

Then how can you make such statements of support for them? Have you even read or skimmed this thread?

What I was trying to say is the only thing that got us where we are is the huge number who signed the petition & emailed & contacted their politicans

None of that shows it was the "sports coalition" that spearheaded this. Roughly 25% of the shooting community are members of the "sports coalition". Also within that 25% there is significant crossover between other organisations and disciplines.

Granted they made a few cock ups at least they publically posted what they submitted unlike others.

So it's okay that they tried to do all the above as long as they were upfront about their calamities? Are you for real? That is right up there with "we cannot dwell on the past" and then watch the same people make the same f**king mistakes time and again.

If they were so upfront why did they not publish the details of their proposals until AFTER the review committee had released it's interim report? It was ONLY then we realised just how badly we would be shafted if the review committee listen to the dangerous proposals issued by this self proclaimed "coalition".

They never included other shooting groups in their plans, never kept their members up to date BEFORE acting, never held meetings to gauge the feedback from their members, and more importanttly never fixed their mistakes. It took the hard work and writing campaign of ordinary members of the shooting community (as outlined in the Prime Time thread) to do damage control.

Anyway time will tell us if were better off or will have to bend over again.

Well if they stayed in the original FCP we would have had a seat at the table form the start off this debacle and could have made much better progress and avoided some of the heart attacks over the last year. However not happy with that they left, screwed the rest of the organisations on the FCP, and destroyed any hope of that. Then set up this "coalition" with the empty call for unity. You know, the unity we HAD within the original FCP.

This boils my piss even thinking about the blind support these people get. If you (and i mean the general you, not you specifically) support them for legitimate reasons then please lay out those reasons for me here so i can try and understand. If you support them without knowing why or because "at least they're doing something" then do yourself a favour and educate yourself as to past actions.

Big Bangstick

Will you explain where your 25% figure comes from?

So what did any other group do? Nothing I can find in the public domain.

I don't blindly support the coalition and as I said all I know is what I've read on their facebook page and their website. But I can find no other group who did anything. Or have I missed something? Please do enlighten me.

Cass

Big Bangstick wrote: »

Will you explain where your 25% figure comes from?

200,424 licenses. Spread over approx. 130,000 people (as there are people like myself with more than one firearm.

The NARGC claim to represent 28,000 members. So that leaves 102,000. If you allow for the few thousand of the NASRPC, the fishermen, the few RFD that have formed this new dealers association, the few that have formed this new range operators association, the "others" then you are talking about ( and this is a guess) approx 7,000 or so.

That leaves 95,000. 95,000 represented by the IFA, CAI, NRAI, NTSA, Pony Club, the rest of the RFDs, the rest of the range operators, and all the other organisations.

In fact the "Coalition" only represent two of the 5 (or is it 6) main NGBs, and approx 25 - 27%% of the total amount of firearm owners.

Exact numbers are impossible to get as there will be cross over between people being members of numerous groups, and the fact that the members of some groups may not all be firearm owners.

So what did any other group do? Nothing I can find in the public domain.

Because they took the less "table thumping" route of doing it quietly. Don't confuse quietly working with not doing anything. This was shown to be the case by the fact that all other NGBs and organisations had some sort of representation on the live debate in December.

I don't blindly support the coalition and as I said all I know is what I've read on their facebook page and their website. But I can find no other group who did anything. Or have I missed something? Please do enlighten me.

As said above the other groups were present at the live debates, and worked tirelessly behind the screens to do their part. They did not seek the limelight as the "coalition" did. Plus with the errors and calamities of the "coalition" any public statement from any other group would have gone against the proposals of the "coalition" and made it very public that they did not represent the view of the majority of the shooting community.

IOW the actions of the "coalittion" painted the rest of the organisations into a corner of "be quiet or publicly argue with them". They took the former.

Big Bangstick

So how does 20 odd % pull down an fcp? Why didn't the other 80% carry on?

Cass

The FCP was formed at the invitation of the then current Minister for Justice. It was not wanted by AGS, but gave us a seat at the table for ALL organisations and NGBs to be heard. When one group walked out of a meeting then began to take court cases against the DoJ & AGS it meant they could no longer speak to the rest of us and as they never really wanted it to begin with it wasn't a hard choice for them (AGS) to stop taking part in it.

The FCP never officially disbanded. It just stopped meeting because of the actions of one group. The reintroduction of the FCP means this group must now practice what it has been preaching and actively take part in meetings under a unified banner.

Sparks

Big Bangstick wrote: »

So how does 20 odd % pull down an fcp? Why didn't the other 80% carry on?

So you think we should have said "stuff you" and continued? Well, that did get debated a lot - often on here. But in the end, we didn't throw them under the bus and hoped they'd cop on. They didn't; it nearly ended our sports. I don't think that'd be how it would be handled if they did that in the future.

Big Bangstick

OK so they pulled out. Why did they (the shooting crowd) pull out? Was it as I'm lead to believer it was because some of the Gardaí pulled a swerve after the 2008 clampdown and refused to licence fullbore pistols despite no valid reasons?

Hard to sit at a table with people who aren't blatantly playing the game surely?

So are ye saying the court cases (Grizzly comes to mind) were a bad idea and people should have stayed at the table?

And if the Garda pulled out too then who's to say they'll go back this time?

It wasn't me!

Big Bangstick wrote: »

And if the Garda pulled out too then who's to say they'll go back this time?

The minister for justice?

Sparks

First off, no, that's not why. Also, the AGS sat at the table, it wasn't their table; if you think someone else at the table is acting in bad faith, you don't quit the whole process and blind us to everything going on and leave them speak unopposed and unreported, that's the height of not having a good grip on the universe.

And you're saying that the court cases and how they were handled are seperate things; they're not. It's one thing to take a court case as a measure of last resort; it's another to use it as a threat to the PTB. The latter is a really stupid idea really.

As to going back to the table; the AGS have been directed to do so by the Minister. They don't get to avoid it.