Benefit of training to hunters/shooter

Cass

All posts from the "Night Shooting" thread relating to training and courses have been moved here as this topic/thread is specifically about that.

Tikka391

Zxthinger wrote: »

Trying--:-) Not going to be dragged in to a war here.

So to sum it up.

1st What I'm saying is that 16year old are very very capable, capable enough to recieve verbal instruction on the dynamics of shooting and thereafter act responsibly in the field. As proved by the Irish shooting community thus far.
16year old chaps are men.. (Hence the D-day ref)

2ed That's guns are just as dangerous or safe as other everyday objects.

You'd have people believing craving of a few shots at a bird was rocket science and frought with danger.

A gun is a tool, a lot less dangerous than a chainsaw, quad or a tractor.


The amount of regulation regarding licencing is very sufficient if properly done.

You comments although well meaning are only your opinion and stats will show that 16year old lads are not out blowing the heads off one another or popping pellets in each other's eyes.

Don't forget the debate here is about nighttime shooting ban and compulsory training for all. Both of which I'm fully against.

That said:- Training for anything is grand if Ye want to go get training.
If Ye want to ride a bicycle with conference there is a training courses, if Ye feel that you could improve you makeup skills then there is training.

I'm sick of this nanny state and I won't be participating in any bull sh11t training. This erosion of my liberty is what's destroying things. If we adopted this rubbish then it wouldn't be long before we'd need 'papers' to cross a county line.

Btw I only know of my fathers exploited youth from his emergency war time stories in which they narrowly avoided death. And for your info when your born in a sawmill, live in a sawmill, play in a sawmill, all in Scotland then you work in a saw mill.... In the 1940's anything goes... a shortage of men was prob a factor

Well you know what you have done it,you have won me over, and I'm not gonna let that nanny state get me down.

I wonder could we get a movement going to do away with all training schemes, Ah sure fup it all Them 17-year-old lads getting their first cars and spinning around the roads, all they have is a small car, and a car never hurt anyone,right?. No more shall we expect them to go through a compulsory training and testing system, sure their grand lads and very responsible there won't be another on them.
We won't let the nanny state get us down any more.

"Down with that sort of thing Ted "

Walter Mittys Brother

You seem very down on young lads be they drivers or shooters.

All the schemes & training in the world won't stop a fool being a fool.

Tikka391

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

You seem very down on young lads be they drivers or shooters.

All the schemes & training in the world won't stop a fool being a fool.

The opposite actually, I have a17yo and 15yo lads and they will do every course, open day, official or not be it a chat from our own club safety officer whatever or getting them out with other lads, because every grain of knowledge they might pick up from someone will help them become safe and trusted over time.

gunny123

You seem very airated about this Tikka391, do you have a dog in this hunt ?

Tikka391

gunny123 wrote: »

You seem very airated about this Tikka391, do you have a dog in this hunt ?

Absolutely not, as I said in an earlier post.

And not in any way airated, but when you read things like " it's only a gun not a weapon of mass destruction " ah just dosent sit well with me, but that's just my own personal opinion.

Like I posted in an earlier post I am not to familiar with the groups mentioned and am not up to speed with their ins and outs re. Personal or representatives.

meathstevie

Backbarrel wrote: »

very true Feckin wheels within wheels. always..

The people that stand up to them are knee deep in legal letters but fair play to those lads they are not stopping.

As long as you've dotted your i's and crossed your t's from a legal point of view anyone can instruct a solicitor to write you any ole ****e in a letter.... .The only binding bits of text you'll ever encounter are encoded law, court verdicts and orders, and contracts you've agreed upon.

Sparks

Tikka391 wrote: »

What if 10 different training companies started

Then you'd have ten different standards of training. In the real world, that leads to a race to the bottom and in our real world that means an eventual accident because of poor training. And accidents in our real world don't tend to be minor.

Tikka391 wrote: »

Am I mistaken can you not do this any more?

Yes, you can - that's the problem.

I'd dare say you'll be in contact with a lot more shooting people than me, have you ever heard of a super rejecting a competence course.

None of the shooters I know would ever have put down a competence course as proof of competence - we tend to bring people up through the clubs, train them for a period of time (usually months) on club firearms (identical to the ones they'd buy themselves) and then when they apply, they cite that training as proof of competence.
I've never heard of that being rejected. And courses were never meant to replace that method either. Courses are the edge case, for people without access to that kind of environment. And frankly, I'm not sure any course can ever be equal to that kind of training, because having habits set in by trainers over months is always going to embed them deeper than a few hours or weekend lessons.

Maybe I'm over simplifying things but your saying there is no way that a legal system of training can not be set up in this country.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Of course it can be, there are structures and standards in place for providing standardised accepted courses in just about anything. It's just that it's not trivial, it's not ten minutes in a Minister's ear, there's planning and paperwork involved as well as some actual skill in teaching which very few people have ever bothered to learn - most people think if you can shoot straight you can teach someone to shoot straight, which is flat-out wrong; you need to be able to shoot and to be able to teach and that's a rare combination. And whether because of that, or for some other reason, nobody is doing it and nobody seems interested in doing it, and there seems to be a lot of interest in making money off the current vacuum.

By the way any ideas on how to help my fictional 16 yo lad get shooting safely

Teach him. Same way we've been doing for hundreds of years.

Vizzy wrote: »

As Sparks has said maybe Fetac or City & Guilds?

FETAC is the Irish standard way to do this. City&Guilds is a UK standard, and while I don't think anything bad about them, with brexit and all, I'd lean towards something that's more long-term stable.

I know for example that there is a local lad giving a "competency course" in his kitchen to 6 or 7 lads next week - ?60 per head. It lasts just over an hour.
This will be accepted by the Super cos there are no other more substantial courses being done locally for the next few months.
Is the Super wrong for accepting such a course ?

I would say unequivocally yes. There is no way such a course could take someone from a standing start and get them to fully safe.
It could, however, teach them just enough to have a really serious accident.

Plus, if the Super starts to refuse to accept certification from certain people, then you will have lads saying "you have your course done so you should take the Super to Court. He can't win really.

Whether the Super wins or loses is about as important as used toilet paper.
If the course isn't up to snuff, the Super is breaking the law if he grants the licence.
That law is there to protect you and me. I've got no interest in seeing it broken, whether it's broken by a Super letting his personal feelings against private firearms ownership drive his actions instead of the law; or whether it's by a Super not bothering to do the job the law demands be done.

I'm afraid there is no way that one will ever be solved.

With the current law, that is correct.

Sparks

Zxthinger wrote: »

We have compulsory training in place. It's the firearms competence training.

This is completely and wholly incorrect.
There is no such thing in Ireland as compulsory training for firearms licences.
And with the way things are right now, it would be folly to try to introduce it.
Proof of competence is the standard and it's a good one.
The sole problem lies in the regulation of courses, which are just one possible method of proving competence.

tac foley

Sparks wrote: »

FETAC is the Irish standard way to do this. City&Guilds is a UK standard, and while I don't think anything bad about them, with brexit and all, I'd lean towards something that's more long-term stable

Ah, yes, the UK City and Guilds organisation. It was founded on November 11, 1878 by the City of London and 16 livery companies – to develop a national system of technical education, City & Guilds has been operating under Royal Charter (RC117), granted by Queen Victoria, since 1900. The Prince of Wales later King Edward VII was then appointed the first President of the Institute. City & Guilds is a registered charity (no. 312832). The Institute's president is HRH The Princess Royal who accepted this role in June 2011 (following her father HRH The Duke of Edinburgh, who held the position for nearly 60 years), and the Chairman of Council is Sir John Armitt, who took office in November 2012. Many of the livery companies who lend their weight and support to the C&G themselves date back to the 13th C - as you note, long-term stability is obviously something they know nothing about, right?

So, the City & Guilds - another fly-by-night, flash-in-the-pan, here-today and gone-tomorrow bunch of wowsers esconsed in fly-blown little office somewhere in London.

Obviously, another bunch of scheming Brits who can't be trusted, eh?

I've got two of their qualifications, gained way back when I was a techie in the Army - one in electrical and the other in mechanical engineering. These days either would have gotten me a walk-in apprenticeship with that other British back-street organisation, Rolls-Royce.

tac

Sparks

as you note, long-term stability is obviously something they know nothing about, right?

Nice snark, but ignores the little details.
Like, say, the GDPR which currently means that when brexit takes effect, we have to cut off most if not all data flows to the UK that could have PII data on them.
*That* is the long term stability I was talking about. Not whether C&G would be here in three years; but whether they would count for anything outside the shrinking borders of the UK. Such things have to be internationally agreed-upon through things like the Bologna agreement and such. And with the UK doing a nose-dive out the window of the EU without those agreements in place, what a C&G accreditation will be worth outside of Wangland in two years time is currently anyone's guess.

gunny123

tac foley wrote: »

Ah, yes, the UK City and Guilds organisation. It was founded on November 11, 1878 by the City of London and 16 livery companies – to develop a national system of technical education, City & Guilds has been operating under Royal Charter (RC117), granted by Queen Victoria, since 1900. The Prince of Wales later King Edward VII was then appointed the first President of the Institute. City & Guilds is a registered charity (no. 312832). The Institute's president is HRH The Princess Royal who accepted this role in June 2011 (following her father HRH The Duke of Edinburgh, who held the position for nearly 60 years), and the Chairman of Council is Sir John Armitt, who took office in November 2012. Many of the livery companies who lend their weight and support to the C&G themselves date back to the 13th C - as you note, long-term stability is obviously something they know nothing about, right?

So, the City & Guilds - another fly-by-night, flash-in-the-pan, here-today and gone-tomorrow bunch of wowsers esconsed in fly-blown little office somewhere in London.

Obviously, another bunch of scheming Brits who can't be trusted, eh?

I've got two of their qualifications, gained way back when I was a techie in the Army - one in electrical and the other in mechanical engineering. These days either would have gotten me a walk-in apprenticeship with that other British back-street organisation, Rolls-Royce.

tac

City and guilds were common enough qualifications here in the engineering trades until, i suppose 15 or 20 years ago Tac. They are all Fetac now.

tac foley

Sparks wrote: »

Nice snark, but ignores the little details.
Like, say, the GDPR which currently means that when brexit takes effect, we have to cut off most if not all data flows to the UK that could have PII data on them.
*That* is the long term stability I was talking about. Not whether C&G would be here in three years; but whether they would count for anything outside the shrinking borders of the UK. Such things have to be internationally agreed-upon through things like the Bologna agreement and such. And with the UK doing a nose-dive out the window of the EU without those agreements in place, what a C&G accreditation will be worth outside of Wangland in two years time is currently anyone's guess.

Not a 'snark', Sir, but a statement laying out the facts behind the C&G organisation whose 'long-term stability' you doubted.

Whether or not any post-exit British qualification will mean anything in Ireland is going to be a discussion point for years to come. Many of your doctors train here, as do many other medical specialists in every field. As do your scientists and so on - UK universities are as full of Irish students as any other nationality.

Many other skilled professionals in the public and private sectors are trained in UK. All achieve current UK standards, but will the Republic authorities acknowledge them?

These standards are hardly going to take a nosedive after the exit, or do you believe they will?

Still, the thread is drifting, and I'm sorry about that.

tac

Sparks

tac foley wrote: »

Not a 'snark', Sir, but a statement laying out the facts behind the C&G organisation whose 'long-term stability' you doubted.

But not the relevant ones in regard to the instability that I was talking about. C&G courses aren't going to stop; but their accreditation within the EU (and hence in Ireland) isn't clear and so using them as a basis for a training course's accreditation would not be the first choice of anyone starting the process in Ireland today.
Because of long term stability problems.

Whether or not any post-exit British qualification will mean anything in Ireland is going to be a discussion point for years to come.

No, it's been an action point for several months now.
Just because it's not hit the main papers doesn't mean that things like the GDPR don't require immediate prep work. Some of us have to do that kind of stuff for a day job, so this hasn't been some academic point to chat about over a pint, there's serious amounts of work involved in this and billion-dollar companies have been working on it flat out since last June.

These standards are hardly going to take a nosedive after the exit, or do you believe they will?

Whether they nosedive or skyrocket won't matter. Whether they are recognised at all is the question. My degree is recognised all over the world because of a fairly complex set of international agreements, from the Bologna process (which almost all STEM degrees rely on and which is a purely EU thing and which the UK just opted out of, so anyone currently in a UK uni course in years 1-3 is in trouble), to the Dublin, Washington, Seoul, Sydney Accords and a few others. It's a lively intricate net and Brexit just dropped a brick through the lines holding the UK in it and while nobody knows where the damage ends, nobody thinks it's untouched either.
And that's at the degree and higher (professional or academic) degree level. Lower certification levels are in even more fun territory.

TL;DR - if you're starting today, you use FETAC because nobody knows what a C&G accreditation will be worth outside of Wangland in two years time.

tac foley

Thank you for the thorough explication.

tac

bluezulu49

Not sure if this is the correct place to put this but I just found this:

"Coillte is moving toward a position whereby only persons who have completed an approved competence assessment will be permitted to hunt on its lands."

I found it on http://www.coillte.ie/our-forests/explore/permits/

Third sentence of third paragraph of Licenced Hunting. Who is going to provide the course, who is going to approve it and who has the competence here to do either?.

BattleCorp

bluezulu49 wrote: »

Not sure if this is the correct place to put this but I just found this:

"Coillte is moving toward a position whereby only persons who have completed an approved competence assessment will be permitted to hunt on its lands."

I found it on http://www.coillte.ie/our-forests/explore/permits/

Third sentence of third paragraph of Licenced Hunting. Who is going to provide the course, who is going to approve it and who has the competence here to do either?.

I know feckall about deer hunting but is it the HCAP training that they are talking about there?

bluezulu49

BattleCorp wrote: »

I know feckall about deer hunting but is it the HCAP training that they are talking about there?

No. Not only talking about deer. See quote of section on Licenced Hunting below.

LICENSED HUNTING
Game hunting and deer stalking are amongst the oldest forms of forest recreation and continue to be legally enjoyed by many people across the country.

Respecting the traditional nature of this activity and recognising the social, environmental and economic benefits which hunting can contribute, Coillte permit certain types of hunting on their estate where it is deemed compatible with forest management objectives and where it is not considered to compromise the safety of other forest users or negatively impact populations of quarry species. This is in line with our Recreation Policy and Deer Management Policy and supports the principles of multiple use forestry.

Hunting is managed and regulated through the issue of licences which are subject to open public tender. Tender bids are evaluated based on the annual fee offered, applicant's previous experience, their commitment to safety as well as environmental and local interest considerations. Coillte is moving toward a position whereby only persons who have completed an approved competence assessment will be permitted to hunt on its lands. Currently this is a mandatory requirement for all those intending to hunt wild deer.

Coillte have produced a code of practice which establishes minimum standards expected of all persons engaged in these activities alongside compliance with national legislation and conditions of the licence agreement.

Coillte is totally opposed to illegal hunting or use of firearms on its lands which is an offence under the Wildlife Acts 1976 (as amended) and under current Forestry Bye-Laws. Suspected occurrences of this activity should be reported immediately to an Garda Síochána, National Parks and Wildlife Service. Coillte fully supports the "Shine a Light on Poaching" campaign.

bluezulu49

It gets worse.
I just had a look at Coillte's Code of Practice for Sustainable Hunting.

"2. Hunter Competence
Coillte believe that it is incumbent on all hunters to develop and maintain their skills and competencies with their firearms in order to minimise any associated safety risks and to avoid potential injury and unnecessary suffering by the quarry species. Regular practice on approved target ranges will assist a hunter in maintaining familiarity and proficiency with their firearm.
(Note:- The zeroing of rifles or other forms of target practice including clay pigeon shooting are not permitted on Coillte lands except under licence).


Coillte is rapidly moving to a position whereby only persons who have demonstrated their competence by satisfactorily completing recognised qualifications in safe firearms use and humane / sustainable hunting practices, will be licensed to hunt and use firearms on its lands.
Coillte’s current policy on this is :-
2.1 The hunting of game birds and other small quarry species :-
Coillte highly recommended that all game hunters complete a Nationally recognised, certified, firearms safety training course and have demonstrated their competence through the successful completion of an appropriate assessment.
After the 1st January 2021, only persons who have satisfactorily completed an approved, certified, hunter competence assessment will be permitted to hunt and shoot game and other quarry species on its lands.
2.2 The hunting of wild deer :-
Only persons who have satisfactorily completed an approved, certified, hunter
competence assessment are permitted to stalk and shoot deer Coillte lands. This policy is implemented as follows:-
2.2.1 Licence Holders and Stalking Permit Holders (standard) :-
Only holders of the Hunter Competence Assessment Programme1 (HCAP) qualification can hold a licence to hunt deer on Coillte lands.
All persons nominated to hunt under such licences (“nominated hunters”) will also require this qualification in order to be issued with an annual stalking permit which covers the full duration of the hunting season (standard permit)
2.2.2 Stalking Permit Holders (restricted) :- Nominated hunters who do not hold the HCAP qualification, but do hold an alternative, hunter qualification may, subject to additional conditions, be issued with a “restricted stalking permit” for a maximum duration of 2 weeks. A total of two such restricted permits may be issued to such an individual during the course of a hunting season.

1 Please note:- The Hunter Competence Assessment Programme (HCAP) – Is the only such qualification currently accepted by Coillte, as it is the only such assessment which evaluates an individual’s knowledge and understanding of relevant National legislation as well as Coilltes’ licencing conditions and safety control measures."

This is a very worrying development for all who shoot on Coillte ground as it appears to open the way for a "Game Shooting HCAP".

It strikes me also that someone has possibly done a cut and paste job on something published in England.

Sparks

Nationally recognised, certified, firearms safety training course

Does not exist.

Walter Mittys Brother

Sparks wrote: »

Does not exist.

Neither did HCAP until recently

Looks like "training" for all is on the horizon. Not a surprise when apparently the NASRPC rep just happens to own a firearm/training company and this training thing is on the fcp agendas. The range bit & practice I wonder if some of the range operators on the fcp are trying to make range membership/use compulsory too. nice little earners for some.

Any truth in the story that all nasrpc range officers have to pay this new company every 3 years to remain range officers

Fcp is a cosy cartel with all participants making sure their businesses are looked after and all backing each others proposals at least NARGC & IFA seem to have thrown a temp spanner into the works on one scam.

Sparks

1) It's not as simple as owning a company and trying to push for your company to get business. National recognition and certification is controlled through QQI and that means you need a FETAC course and that means ISO certification; and that means that there's an independent standard, not Joe Blog's Famous Firearms Course.

2) The FCP is not a cosy cartel and you're buying straight into the biggest lie that's circulated about the FCP.

Sparks wrote: »

I'm just waiting for the rumour to get injected that this is all the FCP's fault, when it seems that this, which would bring a huge amount of damage to the FCP's reputation, is coming from a group who've a public history of being highly opposed to the FCP...

Sparks

Also,

The range bit & practice I wonder if some of the range operators on the fcp are trying to make range membership/use compulsory too.

It's not legal to shoot outside of an authorised range if you're practicing. That's a ****ty law, but it's the law and Coillte can hardly require people to break it in a written document with their name on it.

Grizzly 45

I do belive said individual has stepped down from the NASRPC board due to this being a conflict o f intrest??

As for Coilte and HCAP.As rightly pointed out somewhere on one of the threads.HCAP would not exist because of shooting in Coilte woods.So without shooting in Coilte there would be no need for HCAP. I wonder how well Coilte would fare financially if there was a nationwide boycott of their lets for a season or two? Us hunters are providing a gratis service to them that we have the privilidge of paying for.I wonder how much would it cost them to hire in pro stalkers and all the rest .Ye are paying them a serious chip of change for these lets,I would be thinking you might also liked to be asked your opinions on how things might and could be done?Ye are after all customers too?

Grizzly 45

Please note:- The Hunter Competence Assessment Programme (HCAP) – Is the only such qualification currently accepted by Coillte, as it is the only such assessment which evaluates an individual’s knowledge and understanding of relevant National legislation as well as Coilltes’ licencing conditions and safety control measures."
QUOTE]

There is your cosy cartel.... Blatantly illegal under EU law.I'd rate a German Jagd Schein ,a French Permit De Chasse, or any other EU hunting license as a 1000% superior qualification than this joke that professes to be a qualification here.

Walter Mittys Brother

Sparks wrote: »

1) It's not as simple as owning a company and trying to push for your company to get business. National recognition and certification is controlled through QQI and that means you need a FETAC course and that means ISO certification; and that means that there's an independent standard, not Joe Blog's Famous Firearms Course.

2) The FCP is not a cosy cartel and you're buying straight into the biggest lie that's circulated about the FCP.

Re no 1 is Hcap covered by all those requirements?

Re no 2 my point is that the shooting participants seem to be submitting their agendas and they then don't diasgree with each others so doj think all shooters are happy with the agendas when in reality ordinary shooters are being asked or told nothing

Walter Mittys Brother

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

I do belive said individual has stepped down from the NASRPC board due to this being a conflict o f intrest??

Is he still on fcp?

Is he pushing this at fcp?

Sparks

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

Re no 1 is Hcap covered by all those requirements?

It doesn't meet them but it didn't have to as it was only coillte looking for it. If it had to be a nationally recognised certification then it would have to have done all of that but AFAIK only one portion of it did. And that was not to do with firearms at all.

Re no 2 my point is that the shooting participants seem to be submitting their agendas and they then don't diasgree with each others so doj think all shooters are happy with the agendas when in reality ordinary shooters are being asked or told nothing

Not participantS. Just one group from all appearances.

Walter Mittys Brother

Sparks you seem to be in the know so if hcap and other shooters training is to rolled out nationwide they'll have to get all the stuff you listed above?

If this training ****e goes compulsory for all shooters who will decide who gets to do it?

Cass

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

........... my point is that the shooting participants seem to be submitting their agendas and they then don't diasgree with each others so doj think all shooters are happy with the agendas when in reality ordinary shooters are being asked or told nothing

I said a good while back and i'll say it again to remind everyone.

THIS IS NOT THE FCP.

This is a minority of people, composing of at most two groups, within the FCP that are doing end runs without the knowledge of the majority of the other FCP reps, and more importantly without the knowledge of the people they claim to represent. As for the other groups doing nothing, my rep has challenged these, the NARGC have launched a petition as well as discussed it, but all of them are working on the back foot having only learned about these recently.

So look at the so called "sports Coalition". The NARGC left it, as did the NASRPC. The groups that cuurently make it up include the ICPSA, NSAI, WA1500, Irish Bullseye, IFDA, ROAI, and some angling crowd.

The important bit to note is the IFDA and ROAI. They are the Irish Firearm Dealers Association and Range Operators Association of Ireland. Two groups that up till a few years ago DID NOT EXIST and if memory serves me right has one or two people as its entire membership.

IOW the sports coalition is a dangerous relic of a time when people within the sporting community tried to break it into pieces they could control and manage. It failed but what is left is still being run the same way.

To blame this on the FCP is wrong, and a huge disservice as it only spreads the rumors i spoke about before (here and on other threads).

If this training ****e goes compulsory for all shooters who will decide who gets to do it?

It's not happening. It's a proposal form the very same group above, WITHIN the FCP and not the FCP itself. As proposals they can be countered, argued against and in the end defeated.

Contact the sports coalition and ask them why they are doing this. Ask them why they have taken these steps of their own volition without informing other parties on the FCP or the greater shooting community. I bet you get the same answer we all got when they tried this sh*t two years regarding the review on firearms when they submitted secret proposals which say them (the sports coalition) calling for the banning of semi auto rifles, pistols under 5 inches, demanding time lock safes for all, ballisitic testing that we have to pay for, etc, etc).

Walter Mittys Brother

So why does the fcp exist? Is it to make sure garda and or doj can't shaft us like they've tried previously? Or as it looks now is it to allow some shooting crowds to try and shaft us instead?

Cass

The FCP was created by Minister Ahern in 2008 IRC.

He created it and invited the various shooting bodies to be present to discuss firearms, legislation, etc. along with a representative from his office and An Garda?. We have no power, authority, etc. IOW we cannot tell them to do something. What we do have is a direct link to the Minister's office and a voice that has to be heard as equally as the voices of An Garda?, etc. IOW we have a foot in the door.

It's mission is simple. To try and create a platform whereby shooting sports gets a fair shout when any future or possible future legislation is being considered/drafted. IOW no nasty surprises. We also get to an input into how that future legislation can work for our benefit while giving peace of mind to the DoJ and An Garda?.

The problem is some shooting bodies have over the years done their own thing, separate to the rest of the FCP, and this has caused tension, disharmony, bad feelings and even a period of inactivity within the FCP. So ,ong as the people that have seats on the FCP do these secret proposals, end runs, etc. without the knowledge of the rest of the FCP or the greater shooting community we wil always face these kinds of situations.

Thankfully such acts are the work of a very, very small few and are in most cases shot down very qucikly as it's seen for what they are.

Sparks

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

Sparks you seem to be in the know

About FETAC courses, somewhat. About this latest nonsense, nope.

so if hcap and other shooters training is to rolled out nationwide they'll have to get all the stuff you listed above?

So "rolled out nationwide" and "nationally recognised" are not the same thing.
You can have a nationally recognised certification that has no courses anywhere and is effectively defunct; and you can have a course that's available everywhere but isn't a nationally recognised certification.

The important bit here is the "recognised" bit, because that implies that people are not allowed to say it's meaningless.

Right now, your local Super can look at an application for a licence that comes in and if it lists a course as proof of competence, he's totally free to say he won't accept it, because there are no recognised courses that prove competence. There are courses that are run (more or less) nationally; but that's not the same thing. Recognition would mean that the state has formally recognised it as (in this case) proof of competence and the Super would not be entitled to refuse to accept it. It's kindof a Big Thing?.

For example, you do a degree course. That degree gets recognised as saying you have a certain level of competence in whatever the degree was on. Doesn't matter when you did it or where, you have that bit of paper, nobody can say you know less than that certain level about the subject. Your boss wants to fire you and say it's because you don't know the job? He'd lose in court because you have a recognised qualification. That's how serious it is and that's why it's so much work to get a course recognised. There's a lot of hoops to jump through. And once the course is recognised (by which I mean the syllabus, the materials, the length of the course, the specification for how it should be taught), then people who want to run that course have to show that the specific training they provide meets the standard set out by the course.

If this training ****e goes compulsory for all shooters who will decide who gets to do it?

edit: I thought it was implicit but just to be clear, that is a monsterously huge if. It's really unlikely to happen.

Anyone who meets the standard of training required can teach a recognised course.

By which I mean, when a course is recognised, it's not an individual company's training that FETAC look at, it's the syllabus and standards of the course itself. And once that is recognised, everyone who wants to provide training to that certification level has their training inspected and approved by FETAC and then they can train people to that certification. It's not possible to have a monopoly on it - same way you can't have a monopoly on first aid courses or maths degrees. Anyone that meets the standard can get approved to teach them. So you don't get a UCD Maths Degree, you get a BA in Maths. You just happen to get it from UCD. You could as readily have gotten *exactly the same degree* from any other university that teaches that course.

Also, in case it's not clear, it's a huge amount of work to set all this up. It's not something someone is going to be able to do over a weekend, it's usually months of work if it goes fast.

edit: Also, ugh, it's not FETAC anymore, it's QQI these days - they basically merged FETAC, HETAC, NQAI and another crowd I can't remember into QQI a few years ago. The argument still holds, the process will still be the same.

cookimonster

Just a point to note, since we're on an acidemic slant - IF (notice the big 'if') this goes down the road of a national qualification then it most likely fall under the remitt of QQI if this is case then the course program will be more or less set in stone in regards to any other 'program' providing training and qualification. QQI are not in the habit of approving courses similar in design, learning out comes and respective certification.
Once they accept the course it is then open to any organization or group to be able to deliver this once they meet the requirements such as resources, quality assurance and system of work etc. So in theory a single gun club or a group of gun clubs can come together and deliver the course. If done right then cost would be minimal.

Level 5 and 6 courses are being delivered in local community centres by local people with minimal funding and at free gratis to the learner. Something to think about.

jb88

Ive looked at some of this with interest.
If you are new to shooting, whats the best course of action?

1. Join a club
2. That club should have the ability to train you to the club standard.
3. The Club provides the course and gives you the ability, knowledge time and patience to succeed in that course.
4. After a period of time when that new participant has demonstrated that they have passed the minimum standard required to be safe on a range then the Chief Range officer along with other range officers can sign that person off.
5. They are issued with a cert, that cert can be used along with other criteria to gain a firearms licence.

The onus is on the clubs to train their members and no one else, if a hunting club the same applies.

Train your own members or don't take on new ones.

Anyone wanting to see this in action should look at the 100 people trained for Free on both new and refresher courses for Range officers by the GRPAI in Harbour House over the course of the last 4 months.

Clubs have to train their own new participants to the clubs standard to allow a level of competence.

Sparks

jb88 wrote: »

If you are new to shooting, whats the best course of action?
1. Join a club
...
Clubs have to train their own new participants to the clubs standard to allow a level of competence.

That is not only the normal course of action, it was considered to be the preferred course of action when the proof of competence requirement was added to the Firearms Act.

As we've said here more than once, courses were not intended to take over from this, they were only supposed to provide an additional optional means to provide that proof for the edge cases who didn't have access to clubs or similar training. This thing where everyone "has to do a course" is a perversion of the original intent of the change.

jb88

Sparks wrote: »

That is not only the normal course of action, it was considered to be the preferred course of action when the proof of competence requirement was added to the Firearms Act.

As we've said here more than once, courses were not intended to take over from this, they were only supposed to provide an additional optional means to provide that proof for the edge cases who didn't have access to clubs or similar training. This thing where everyone "has to do a course" is a perversion of the original intent of the change.

If you are new to shooting, just like any other sport, its wise to get some form of training, who its from and what it entails is up to the person needing this training to research.

You don't just get into a car and drive unless you have had some instruction, somebody somewhere at some point has to have taught you how to drive.

So a person new to firearms needs someone to show them how to properly use the firearm. The club or range should then have to sign that they are proficient. If not and they use land owners on the reference then one of them should vouch for their knowledge and proficiency


The same as a referee on your application

This should be on the FCA1

Anyone in Ireland can get reasonable access to a club who should be able to give them the level of training they require to make the new entrant proficient. If not they should not have a firearm, but that's up to the DOJ and Gardaí to decide.

Sparks

jb88 wrote: »

If you are new to shooting, just like any other sport, its wise to get some form of training

That's not in dispute.
Never has been.

The form that training takes, however, is now becoming problematic, because as we've mentioned, the total lack of any and all regulation of firearms training (for civilians at least) means that we're starting to see more and more of these half-assed one-hour "courses" being cited as proof of competence and sooner or later that will lead to someone being badly hurt.

But bringing in a nationally recognised course isn't something that should be done without some thought. Firstly because to make it mandatory would require an amendment to the Act and that's always a risky idea given what happens when election-watching backbenchers get wind of it.

But more from our point of view is that if you make this mandatory and it is written in such a way that clubs can't run the courses themselves (and there is no conceivable reason they shouldn't do so given that it's kept us safe for the last 170 years), then we're all hooped.

So a person new to firearms needs someone to show them how to properly use the firearm. The club or range should then have to sign that they are proficient.

Can you spell "legal liability"?
You just required everyone who gives that course to get public indemnity insurance in the million-euro range.
Now maybe that'll just be a thing we have to do. And if so, maybe it's not the end of the world. But you do not bring in a requirement like that by accident because you didn't think the plan through in more detail first!

The same as a referee on your application

That is *not* what a referee on your application does. They testify to your character not your competence and most of the time they wouldn't be qualified to testify as to the latter.

This should be on the FCA1

No, it should not be.
This idea that we have to do a course is a bad one. The "proof of competence" approach is better and more flexible. There are too many different circumstances for people coming into the sport to do otherwise.

Anyone in Ireland can get reasonable access to a club

Eh... not quite. Unless you are *very* lax about your definition of the word "reasonable". And that's part of this whole problem as well. You make a course mandatory but someone in Donegal can't do it without taking a day off work and travelling half the length of the country and probably having to stay overnight before returning home? That's a failure, right there.
(Not to mention, this one-day-course idea is nowhere near as good as the traditional club approach of watching someone for weeks or months as the good habits bed in).

Mississippi.

bluezulu49 wrote: »

Coillte is moving toward a position whereby only persons who have completed an approved competence assessment will be permitted to hunt on its lands. Currently this is a mandatory requirement for all those intending to hunt wild deer.

Is this recommendation from coillte separate from the sports collation recommendations about night time hunting bans and that all dear stalkers need a heap or is there a link from coillte to the sports collation also??

Sparks

It's independent. Coillte can demand it on their land because, well, their land. Nationally however, is a whole other ball game.

Mississippi.

I know coillte is a totally separate body and I understand they can demand it on their land, it just seems a bit coincidental that these things are all coming at the same time .

jb88

Sparks wrote: »

That's not in dispute.
Never has been.

The form that training takes, however, is now becoming problematic, because as we've mentioned, the total lack of any and all regulation of firearms training (for civilians at least) means that we're starting to see more and more of these half-assed one-hour "courses" being cited as proof of competence and sooner or later that will lead to someone being badly hurt.

Look shooting is a sport where things can go wrong very quickly, its about limiting these problems, "half assed one our courses", are better than nothing at all. So unless you have given one of these courses what would make you qualified to determine their quality.

But bringing in a nationally recognised course isn't something that should be done without some thought. Firstly because to make it mandatory would require an amendment to the Act and that's always a risky idea given what happens when election-watching backbenchers get wind of it.

No I fundamentally disagree with the above statement, make that group responsible for safety and make them liable, no insurance company in Ireland will want to underwrite that task unless its at great expense to the shooter.

But more from our point of view is that if you make this mandatory and it is written in such a way that clubs can't run the courses themselves (and there is no conceivable reason they shouldn't do so given that it's kept us safe for the last 170 years), then we're all hooped.


Can you spell "legal liability"?

You just required everyone who gives that course to get public indemnity insurance in the million-euro range.

No I did not
The club provided the training delivered by a nominated and qualified team
On club grounds the club is responsible and has public liability for any and all accidents which may occur.

Now maybe that'll just be a thing we have to do. And if so, maybe it's not the end of the world. But you do not bring in a requirement like that by accident because you didn't think the plan through in more detail first!

That's not the suggestion, clubs train and clubs authorize after the club has determined if the person is competent.

That is *not* what a referee on your application does. They testify to your character not your competence and most of the time they wouldn't be qualified to testify as to the latter.

Yes that is not what a referee does I am well aware of this, but that is what happens. New entrants invariably approach someone they know to get them to sign that they will vouch for their good character, competence is what the prosecuting counsel question when it goes to court if there is an issue.

No, it should not be.
This idea that we have to do a course is a bad one. The "proof of competence" approach is better and more flexible. There are too many different circumstances for people coming into the sport to do otherwise.

Are you going to set this course up and get it through the FCP, I think someone has been trying that for a long time, I would question that persons competence having seen first hand on the line whats occurred.

Legislation isn't going to solve this problem, nor will Garda enforcement. Proper face to face and competent and comprehensive examination of the applicant by the Gardaí is the only way. After all its the local super or chief who signs your FCA1

If you cant answer and satisfy their questions then you shouldn't have a firearm, you can appeal and if satisfactory its approved.

I know people haven't the best things to say about this process and it isn't always the best solution, most including myself have had major issues with this in the past, but until someone suggests something better and gets it approved its the only way.

Eh... not quite. Unless you are *very* lax about your definition of the word "reasonable". And that's part of this whole problem as well. You make a course mandatory but someone in Donegal can't do it without taking a day off work and travelling half the length of the country and probably having to stay overnight before returning home? That's a failure, right there.
(Not to mention, this one-day-course idea is nowhere near as good as the traditional club approach of watching someone for weeks or months as the good habits bed in).

There are gun clubs all over Donegal, and if you want something bad enough travel isn't going to be an issue. We are Irish and we travel half way round the world for a pint, whats a couple of miles in a car to a range.

Grizzly 45

jb88 wrote: »

There are gun clubs all over Donegal, and if you want something bad enough travel isn't going to be an issue. We are Irish and we travel half way round the world for a pint, whats a couple of miles in a car to a range.

Quite a feckin lot!Especially if you have a mandatory attendence of 6to8 times a month.Especially on ort godawful "roads system" Just for an example there is ZERO ranges or clubs in the Clare,Limerick, Galway, Nth Tipp,Mayo areas. Closest is Midlands or MTSC with An Riocht being on the utter periphy of 110 klicks one way.That's 220 kilcks and two hours worth of a drive for me to Midlands or any of the others.Stack that up to go and do some cumpulsory attendence or lectures and you are losing people from certain areas right off with just the price in time and fuel.This idea would be grand if there was a range like GAA pitches in every county,but shooting doesn't have that luxury in Ireland.

Walter Mittys Brother

A nationally recognised qualification might not be a bad idea. It would stop all these self appointed experts on ranges. Went to a range a few years ago and sat in on an induction course for the range. There was a lad there giving it large on how great he was and how much he knew about firearms. Utter bs it was. Firearm safety ain't rocket science. There are a few basic principles to master that anyone can learn very quickly.

Sparks

jb88 wrote: »

Look shooting is a sport where things can go wrong very quickly

jb, could you stop talking as if nobody here has ever seen the inside of a range or trained a new shooter, please?

"half assed one our courses", are better than nothing at all.

No, they are far far worse than nothing at all because they give the illusion of safety and just enough knowledge to be dangerous. Those kind of "courses" need to be stamped out, not encouraged, because they are a danger to those taking them and frankly don't have any redeeming features outside of the paperwork box-ticking exercises.

So unless you have given one of these courses what would make you qualified to determine their quality.

Having trained somewhere around a thousand people to shoot over the course of a decade. Having been involved in preparing a course on basic instruction in target shooting for FETAC (which was nixed by fun inside the ISC rather than any problem within FETAC). And having half an ounce of common sense about how long it takes someone to learn how to be safe with a firearm properly.

No I fundamentally disagree with the above statement, make that group responsible for safety and make them liable, no insurance company in Ireland will want to underwrite that task unless its at great expense to the shooter.

That makes no sense. I don't mean "I disagree with you", I mean that your statement is utterly unrelated to what I was saying, in the way that "Blue" is not an answer to "Would you like the fish or the chicken?".

No I did not

Look, I don't care if you don't know how legal liability and indemnity insurance works, and neither do the courts. If you sign off on someone being proficient in the use of a firearm, and they subsequently have an accident because they were not, then you are legally liable and the damages could be in the millions. That's all there is to it.

Other than to point out that competency and proficiency are not the same thing and the law not only notes the distinction, it very deliberately looks for the former and not the latter. The minister who drafted the law was asked about this specific point at the time and specifically answered that he did not want a proficiency test in the law because it was not appropriate - you shouldn't have to be Tiger Woods to be allowed to play pitch-n-putt.

The club provided the training delivered by a nominated and qualified team
On club grounds the club is responsible and has public liability for any and all accidents which may occur.

And your signature is right there saying "I certify this person is proficient". At which point the club says "not our deal" and your arse is twisting in the wind.

Like I said, not only do I not care if you don't know how legal liability works, neither do the courts.

I love how you just invented a second, completely seperate course to train the trainers and got that nationally recognised as well by the way.

That's not the suggestion, clubs train and clubs authorize after the club has determined if the person is competent.

They currently do not have that duty, and no club run by sane people would take that mantle on even if the Gardai would be willing to delegate licencing firearms to the clubs like that.

Yes, having a veto over who can and can't get a licence does mean that the Gardai have delegated their licencing role to you; because legally your decision fetters theirs. BTW, that would require a change in the Firearms Act to bring about as well.

Yes that is not what a referee does I am well aware of this, but that is what happens.

No, it's not. I've stood as a referee for people several times and I have never, ever been asked to testify as to their competence, ever. Their character, yes. Their competence, no, and the Garda calling always avoided asking rather pointedly. That call is not down to the referees, it's down to the Gardai and not only do they not want the referees to do it, it's not legally permitted and no sane person should take it on even if offered because again, legal liability in the event of an accident caused by incompetence.

Are you going to set this course up and get it through the FCP

The FCP should not be involved in setting up a course or trying to get it approved by QQI. The two have simply no overlap at all.

I think someone has been trying that for a long time, I would question that persons competence having seen first hand on the line whats occurred.

I'll pass on the free ticket to a defamation lawsuit thank you and ask that you don't give out names on that line. Regardless of my personal feelings on the topic, defamation is defamation and the last shooter that went after another shooter for that won seventy-five thousand euro over a single comment on facebook over it.

Legislation isn't going to solve this problem, nor will Garda enforcement.

...I can't even.
I mean, seriously, I've probably seen things written on firearms legislation that were less grounded in reality or a basic knowledge of how the law works, but there haven't been many.
This is a problem that *requires* legislation to solve *and* that legislation will have to be enforced by the Gardai, because there has been a decade during which we could have sorted this ourselves and we just patently have not, and now we have opportunistic chancers trying to make a quick few euro out of the situation and it will lead to a public safety risk. That is *explicitly* the area the Gardai and the law are responsible for.

Proper face to face and competent and comprehensive examination of the applicant by the Garda? is the only way.

Is your local Super competent to judge competency in firearms when there are no recognised courses he can take to prove that he or she is competent?
And if you think this is splitting hairs, tell me what happens when the first case goes to court under your system when someone disputes a Garda's finding of incompetence?

There are gun clubs all over Donegal, and if you want something bad enough travel isn't going to be an issue. We are Irish and we travel half way round the world for a pint, whats a couple of miles in a car to a range.

That's the most head-in-sand, unable-to-grasp-the-idea-of-fairness, privileged pile of nonsense I've seen said about a proposed firearms act this year that wasn't said by a Garda, a TD, or some chancer looking to make a few quid off the backs of other shooters through underhanded means.

I mean, you do understand that we're not all rich enough to take a day off work, drive half the length of the country and take a course that hasn't been required for the last 170 years? That making such a course mandatory would require some justification in the face of that 170-year safety record that has not been given by anyone so far? That this is all something that's been invented from whole cloth, that was never intended to replace the existing system and the only reason it's taken off like it has is because nobody has pushed back on the bad idea of applying to everyone a solution intended only for the exceptional cases?

THIS is how we wind up hip-deep in ****e with everyone asking how we got there three years too late to do anything about it, by just blithely accepting that kind of bad idea. Well, No. It's not good enough. It's not thought out, it makes no sense in the real world or in law, and it has no basis in data. Enough already.

Sparks

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

A nationally recognised qualification might not be a bad idea.

If it was done right it *might* not be.
But that's a HUGE if.
It's far more likely to be obstructed, co-opted or otherwise mangled by people with more mercantile interests, or more political ones, and we could be stuck with an absolutely unworkable system as a result.
Something like this *could* be good, but it would take a lot of effort to ensure that was the case, and I see absolutely no evidence of any of the cross-NGB work that would be required to set this up in a way that didn't crucify everyone.

It's like an amendment to the Firearms Act. Yes, you can do a lot of good with one of those, but what's far more likely to happen is that you'll draft something good, the AG's office will mangle it, the DoJ will mangle it further, the Minister won't be completely briefed, and in committee stage and the second stage arguments in the Dail, it'll be savaged by backbenchers looking to get their names in the press for getting a dig into the minister or into drug gangs by standing up against the proliferation of guns in our society (if this sounds familiar, it's because that's exactly what Finian McGrath did the last time, and Jim Deasy before him).

Things like this need to be handled like an old stick of dynamite.

Sparks

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

There are a few basic principles to master that anyone can learn very quickly.

BTW, can we clear something up here?

There's a huge, call-the-ambulance-now sized gap between learning what the basic rules of firearm safety are, and learning to follow them.

I've seen, first-hand, people who knew the rules quite well, just momentarily forget them in the wrong moment and wind up doing things that could have proven fatal to them or someone else (me in at least two cases). I've seen inexperienced people waving loaded and closed-breach firearms in unsafe directions with no idea what they were doing. And my experiences aren't anything unusual or special. Everyone has seen this. It just happens. It's caused by human nature. It's why clubs never signed off on you on day one. The club should watch, and wait for the inevitable slip, and then give the necessary bollocking that reminds you that those rules are there to keep you alive instead of being some paperwork exercise. And until you've made that slip, you're usually not really safe.

And if we're being honest here, we have all had that slip when we started. I did. I was about to load a .22lr pistol on the range in East Antrim when the RO physically stopped me to point out there were people downrange that I had lost awareness of because I was so focussed on learning how to use the pistol. That's why we have instructors and very low training ratios, because that's the kind of incredibly bone-headed basic mistake newbies make and there isn't enough room for people to safely make that kind of mistake. Ask any honest experienced shooter and they will either have a similar "how I got bollocked out of it early on" story or they won't be either honest or experienced or safe

This is a huge part of why one-hour courses are dangerous. Learning to recite the rules is not enough to keep you safe. Learning to follow them is what you have to do and that takes time and you have to have someone watching over you for that time.

(I'd say you should also buy those watchers a pint every so often but I don't think I'd get away with it )

jb88

Sparks wrote: »

jb, could you stop talking as if nobody here has ever seen the inside of a range or trained a new shooter, please?

I shudder to think sometimes, on how most people view firearms training but that's my two cents. When the training is delivered by a chief range officer from the NRA, its more than enough for our club. But maybe yours has a higher authority

No, they are far far worse than nothing at all because they give the illusion of safety and just enough knowledge to be dangerous. Those kind of "courses" need to be stamped out, not encouraged, because they are a danger to those taking them and frankly don't have any redeeming features outside of the paperwork box-ticking exercises.

So no training at all is better than some training. Don't agree with that.

Having trained somewhere around a thousand people to shoot over the course of a decade. Having been involved in preparing a course on basic instruction in target shooting for FETAC (which was nixed by fun inside the ISC rather than any problem within FETAC). And having half an ounce of common sense about how long it takes someone to learn how to be safe with a firearm properly.

For some like me I will be learning for the rest of my life so I will never be qualified to shoot

That makes no sense. I don't mean "I disagree with you", I mean that your statement is utterly unrelated to what I was saying, in the way that "Blue" is not an answer to "Would you like the fish or the chicken?".

Look, I don't care if you don't know how legal liability and indemnity insurance works, and neither do the courts. If you sign off on someone being proficient in the use of a firearm, and they subsequently have an accident because they were not, then you are legally liable and the damages could be in the millions. That's all there is to it.

Im extremely familiar with most insurance types and its not wise to display why your wrong but in this case I will make the exception. Having had a number of successful claims and counter claims. These issues relate to public liability insurance if you must know.

Other than to point out that competency and proficiency are not the same thing and the law not only notes the distinction, it very deliberately looks for the former and not the latter. The minister who drafted the law was asked about this specific point at the time and specifically answered that he did not want a proficiency test in the law because it was not appropriate - you shouldn't have to be Tiger Woods to be allowed to play pitch-n-putt.

I mentioned nothing of a proficiency test, the club trains the club members to the NRA standard, even though its probably not recognized in Ireland, but when the club member is asked if he has had training at least he can say he/she was trained by an NRA instructor. The Super or chief sign your licence they ultimately must decide if its good enough along with many other factors not connected to this conversation

And your signature is right there saying "I certify this person is proficient". At which point the club says "not our deal" and your arse is twisting in the wind.

Twisting in what wind where, maybe in your club

Like I said, not only do I not care if you don't know how legal liability works, neither do the courts.

This discussion relates to how someone can be trained, not insured. Again this is public liability if someone is injured, anything else is outside the relm of this discussion

I love how you just invented a second, completely seperate course to train the trainers and got that nationally recognised as well by the way.

Nationally recognized where??? Our club recognize that. That's all that matters. Nothing invented only training provided.

They currently do not have that duty, and no club run by sane people would take that mantle on even if the Gardai would be willing to delegate licencing firearms to the clubs like that.

Yes, having a veto over who can and can't get a licence does mean that the Gardai have delegated their licencing role to you; because legally your decision fetters theirs. BTW, that would require a change in the Firearms Act to bring about as well.


No, it's not. I've stood as a referee for people several times and I have never, ever been asked to testify as to their competence, ever. Their character, yes. Their competence, no, and the Garda calling always avoided asking rather pointedly. That call is not down to the referees, it's down to the Gardai and not only do they not want the referees to do it, it's not legally permitted and no sane person should take it on even if offered because again, legal liability in the event of an accident caused by incompetence.


The FCP should not be involved in setting up a course or trying to get it approved by QQI. The two have simply no overlap at all.


I'll pass on the free ticket to a defamation lawsuit thank you and ask that you don't give out names on that line. Regardless of my personal feelings on the topic, defamation is defamation and the last shooter that went after another shooter for that won seventy-five thousand euro over a single comment on facebook over it.


...I can't even.
I mean, seriously, I've probably seen things written on firearms legislation that were less grounded in reality or a basic knowledge of how the law works, but there haven't been many.
This is a problem that *requires* legislation to solve *and* that legislation will have to be enforced by the Gardai, because there has been a decade during which we could have sorted this ourselves and we just patently have not, and now we have opportunistic chancers trying to make a quick few euro out of the situation and it will lead to a public safety risk. That is *explicitly* the area the Gardai and the law are responsible for.

Everything in Irelands needs the cover your arse approach because the risk of being sued is always in the background.

Don't expect anything quickly its hard to enforce their own existing legislation, not to mention making more legislation for the most law abiding group of private individuals in Ireland (Firearms holders)

But my points related primarily to a course in which a person could do and use as a basis along with other supporting documentation gain a licence,

Is your local Super competent to judge competency in firearms when there are no recognised courses he can take to prove that he or she is competent?

Yes he is extremely competent in this regard with relation to firearms. My super did ask for lots of supporting documentation and it was provided and he was satisfied.

And if you think this is splitting hairs, tell me what happens when the first case goes to court under your system when someone disputes a Garda's finding of incompetence?

What system, I think you are making up these problems as you go along, here. The fact that you are trained does not mean that mistakes cant be made, if you infer this then there would be no traffic accidents by anyone in Ireland who passed their driving test. (Makes no sense at all)

That's the most head-in-sand, unable-to-grasp-the-idea-of-fairness, privileged pile of nonsense I've seen said about a proposed firearms act this year that wasn't said by a Garda, a TD, or some chancer looking to make a few quid off the backs of other shooters through underhanded means.

Your taking a lot of this out of context,

No money was handed over by the participants for the courses they are free and if clubs want competent shooters they should train their shooters for FREE. Its about sharing knowledge nothing else and keeping people safe, tell me how this is wrong????????

I mean, you do understand that we're not all rich enough to take a day off work, drive half the length of the country and take a course that hasn't been required for the last 170 years? That making such a course mandatory would require some justification in the face of that 170-year safety record that has not been given by anyone so far? That this is all something that's been invented from whole cloth, that was never intended to replace the existing system and the only reason it's taken off like it has is because nobody has pushed back on the bad idea of applying to everyone a solution intended only for the exceptional cases?

No one said anything about mandatory except you?

So there are not clay clubs and hunting clubs and ranges in every county in Ireland, id wager there is one form of the above if not all in every county in Ireland. That's where your training should take place.[/B]

THIS is how we wind up hip-deep in ****e with everyone asking how we got there three years too late to do anything about it, by just blithely accepting that kind of bad idea. Well, No. It's not good enough. It's not thought out, it makes no sense in the real world or in law, and it has no basis in data. Enough already.

Its not that its a good idea to train members of your club is a great one, and if people got behind it and did some training there would be less problems, im sure everyone has done their fair share of helping and supporting new entrants and giving them advice.

Only this training and advice takes place off keyboard.

bluezulu49

jb88 wrote: »

No one said anything about mandatory except you?

Coillte seem to be moving in that direction.
Quote from Coliite's Code of Practice, Sustainable Hunting and Shooting of Deer, Game and other Quarry Species, under hunter competence on page 3.

"Coillte is rapidly moving to a position whereby only persons who have demonstrated their competence by satisfactorily completing recognised qualifications in safe firearms use and humane / sustainable hunting practices, will be licensed to hunt and use firearms on its lands.
Coillte’s current policy on this is :-
2.1 The hunting of game birds and other small quarry species :-
Coillte highly recommended that all game hunters complete a Nationally recognised, certified, firearms safety training course and have demonstrated their competence through the successful completion of an appropriate assessment.
After the 1st January 2021, only persons who have satisfactorily completed an approved, certified, hunter competence assessment will be permitted to hunt and shoot game and other quarry species on its lands."

Sparks

jb88 wrote: »

I shudder to think sometimes, on how most people view firearms training but that's my two cents. When the training is delivered by a chief range officer from the NRA, its more than enough for our club. But maybe yours has a higher authority

No, ours had a different authority, specifically ISSF. And the training delivered in our ranges was up to the same standard and our coaching and judging accreditations and structures had been at an international level since long before I started shooting. Just because the clubs are in different org charts doesn't mean you're doing it better or worse or longer or shorter.

So no training at all is better than some training. Don't agree with that.

Then try telling someone how to use a chainsaw for three minutes and then turn them loose on a tree and watch the ensuing episode of Casualty. I recommend you wear an apron, people splash.

Bad training is always and forever worse than no training, because at least with no training the average person knows they don't know anything.

For some like me I will be learning for the rest of my life so I will never be qualified to shoot

Which is why we talk about competence and not proficiency (amongst other reasons).

Im extremely familiar with most insurance types and its not wise to display why your wrong but in this case I will make the exception. Having had a number of successful claims and counter claims. These issues relate to public liability insurance if you must know.

Please, demonstrate away.

I mentioned nothing of a proficiency test

You used the term several times. In those exact words. I'm quoting you, not making it up.

, the club trains the club members to the NRA standard, even though its probably not recognized in Ireland, but when the club member is asked if he has had training at least he can say he/she was trained by an NRA instructor. The Super or chief sign your licence they ultimately must decide if its good enough along with many other factors not connected to this conversation

That is how it works today, not in the new system you were proposing.
So are you saying that you didn't mean to propose a new system but were just badly describing the existing one?

Twisting in what wind where, maybe in your club

Before you go judging what your club and my club and that club in the corner would do in such circumstances, remember that you won't ever know until you're in them. And while the club has the option to throw you under the bus, you're firmly attached to someone's proficiency rating under that system you described. And the casebooks in Irish law are filled with clubs-versus-members cases, many of which would leave us in the ha'penny place for pettiness.

Besides all of which, you're talking about a general system. Not one specifically populated by you and your club and nobody else. Can Joe Bloggs in Ballygobackwards have the same faith in his club that you have in yours?

This discussion relates to how someone can be trained, not insured. Again this is public liability if someone is injured, anything else is outside the relm of this discussion

And if someone has an accidental discharge because they weren't properly trained, what are the odds that some member of the public will be the one who gets hurt? Because on at least two occasions I can think of in the last 20 years that's what's happened. And that's public indemnity insurance.

Nationally recognized where??? Our club recognize that. That's all that matters. Nothing invented only training provided.

Your club's recognition (or mine) is only of any importance when considering club matters like membership or who should be an RO. It has no bearing when it comes to your FCA1 proof of competence, which is the matter at hand. If you want your training to be nationally recognised as you're suggesting, your trainers also have to have nationally recognised accreditation. Hence the comment about needing to put that, separate course into place.

Everything in Irelands needs the cover your arse approach because the risk of being sued is always in the background.

Foreground, not background, especially in our sport. Last time there was a lawsuit between shooters was less than six months ago, don't forget, and there are solicitors' letters flying all over the place at the moment over NGB level stuff as mentioned in other threads.

Don't expect anything quickly its hard to enforce their own existing legislation, not to mention making more legislation for the most law abiding group of private individuals in Ireland (Firearms holders)

Yes, I might have said something along those lines before.

But my points related primarily to a course in which a person could do and use as a basis along with other supporting documentation gain a licence,

Yes, and as we've said over and over, we don't have any such animal. And bringing one in is not simple, not risk-free, and prone to being hijacked by short-term views mainly focussed on profiting from the task financially.

Yes he is extremely competent in this regard with relation to firearms. My super did ask for lots of supporting documentation and it was provided and he was satisfied.

(a) Your Super, not Supers in general;
(b) Prove he's competent. List his accreditations. (Past histories are lovely stories; accreditation is what you need in a formal legal setting like this to prove to non-experts that you possess a set level of knowledge about a topic).

Given that there aren't any accreditations in this country for this topic (the sole QQI-recognised course is on forensics for firearms-related crime scenes if I remember right), I'm not sure how you could possibly prove his competence. He certainly could convince you in the space of a few minutes that he knew which way was up or through some external personal relationship, which is always a nice thing to have and is indeed valuable; but that isn't the same thing as competent as far as the law is concerned.

What system,

The new one you were describing.

I think you are making up these problems as you go along, here.

No, I've just had this discussion before, many times, and you're following the same path I did so I can tell what you're going to bang your head off next.

The fact that you are trained does not mean that mistakes cant be made, if you infer this then there would be no traffic accidents by anyone in Ireland who passed their driving test. (Makes no sense at all)

Nope, that analogy doesn't hold water. If you go to a driving instructor in Ireland and spend time learning with them and they sign off on you as being able to drive, you don't get a driving licence. You still have to take a driving test first. If you went and took that test while wholly incompetent and the tester let you pass anyway and you subsequently had an accident, then the tester would be legally liable. They wouldn't pay out of their own pocket, they have insurance for that, but they would be legally liable nonetheless. The instructor is only liable if they spend time instructing you without the appropriate qualifications (because you could be as thick as two short planks and never learn anything about driving despite the instructor's best efforts; so the onus falls to the tester).

And yes, I've had this argument before a few times too, with the guy who brought in the current system of driving tests and instruction for the RSA.

Your taking a lot of this out of context,

I'm reading what you're writing. Not what you were thinking (because nobody can see that). If what you wrote isn't what you were thinking then yes, we're going to be talking about different things but since I wasn't the only one that had that reaction to what you said, I'm at least sure I'm not reading it wrong.

No money was handed over by the participants for the courses they are free and if clubs want competent shooters they should train their shooters for FREE. Its about sharing knowledge nothing else and keeping people safe, tell me how this is wrong????????

Nothing's wrong with that when it's not legally mandatory. It's how we do things at the moment and how we've done them for nearly two centuries.

No one said anything about mandatory except you?

No, you did:

Anyone in Ireland can get reasonable access to a club who should be able to give them the level of training they require to make the new entrant proficient. If not they should not have a firearm,

You're calling there for a legally mandatory proficiency test because there is no other legal way to have what you're writing about. And ultimately, all of this is a legal argument, not one about the actual practice of shooting.

So there are not clay clubs and hunting clubs and ranges in every county in Ireland, id wager there is one form of the above if not all in every county in Ireland. That's where your training should take place.

There sure are, and you can't target shoot at them. The law bans that. And while you can get a training licence so you can hold the firearm while being trained in one of those clubs, you can't shoot it except at animals and that's not an ideal way to learn, on animal cruelty grounds alone. You need to start learning somewhere where you can shoot at paper targets and right now the law says that's a range authorised under section 2(5) or 4B if you're using a rifle. Clay pigeon shooting gets around this somewhat and there's a route there for people who want to learn to go shoot pheasant with a shotgun, but if that's not what you want to learn, you're out of luck. If you've never fired a shot before and your dad wants to take you out hunting rabbits, he can't legally do anything outside of a range; and your legally mandatory proficiency test just ratchets down on that known-to-be-an-accidental-drafting-mistake provision of the law.
And if you want to shoot at targets and your local club doesn't run the course because it's too small or they only run them rarely and you missed the last one, well, you're hooped.

Its not that its a good idea to train members of your club is a great one, and if people got behind it and did some training there would be less problems, im sure everyone has done their fair share of helping and supporting new entrants and giving them advice.

Sure they have and this is all nice stuff, but nothing to do with what you were specifically talking about.

Only this training and advice takes place off keyboard.

Yeah, but the law doesn't care about your training and advice if you meet one Super who has a problem with private firearms ownership. If your super looks at your FCA1 form and your proof of competence and says nope, then all that off-keyboard chatter over bad coffee on the range is worth the square root of a fart in a hurricane.

And for *some* courses - specifically the one-hour-wonders out there - that's a bloody good thing. It's just that for the rest of us, it's a pain in the arse.