Sports Coalition boycotts FCP

grassroot1

Wexshot1 wrote:

The biggest problem really is that no one properly understands any legislation. Hence the wide variation in licensing procedures from district to district. At the moment down in Enniscorthy people are being interviewed for substitute licence applications so there is an 8 week backlog at the minute. Wexford is a 2 week licence process at the minute.

What do you mean being interviewed?
As in attending the barracks to be quizzed by the superintendent?

Wexshot1

grassroot1 wrote: »

What do you mean being interviewed?
As in attending the barracks to be quizzed by the superintendent?

Exactly that yes

Grizzly 45

gunny123 wrote: »

If he is still involved with this lot of bandits, he'd want to have a word with himself.

Better to have someone in there than outside. He is the newbie in there and I wonder has he been initiated into all the secrets yet.
:eek:

grassroot1

Grizzly 45 wrote:

Better to have someone in there than outside. He is the newbie in there and I wonder has he been initiated into all the secrets yet.

If he is in there he is there because Voldemort chose him to be there

Cass

Wexshot1 wrote: »

The SC need to be abolished and they only way that’ll happen is of people know exactly what they stand for.

People fall into one of three groups:

1. Those who do not know
2. Those who do but don't care
3. Those who do and are trying to combat the actions/proposals (a very, VERY, small group)

The first and best step to combating them, as was discussed ad nauseam, is for the NASRPC and other groups that joined/rejoined the so called coalition to leave it. They only have the "authority" they have as a result of the support they garner from these groups.

Wexshot1 wrote:

The real firearms dealers in Ireland were not consulted or represented at any of those meetings but it’s being shoved down peoples throats that they were.

Three RFDs (and i use that term loosely) were involved. The other 99 (or so) were not. That is not consultation as you said.

Cass

BattleCorp wrote: »

Aside from our own side apparently doing us no favours, is this proof that the DOJ are making up the law in relation to the importation of pistols?

A dealer needs to have pistols licensed before the DOJ will allow them be imported yet the same rules don't apply for rifles.

I wonder what legislation allows for that distinction?

None. There is no legislation to demand this and there is precedence with the McViegh (IIRC) case that states just this. An RFD DOES NOT need a/the person to be licensed prior to importing a firearm. Discussed briefly here.

Cass

plinker66 wrote: »

Please remember there is more than one involved in this the other RFD is just as accountable

Yup. Three, one of whom is an ammo RFD only afaik. Not a broad range of RFD, no restricted dealers, etc. IOW a mockery of "representation".

gunny123 wrote: »

Kealan symes name rings a bell, any info on him ?

Ammo dealer only, afaik, and well known in shooting circles.

Grizzly_45 wrote:

Thing is, this is ancient history these releases...They are about a year and a half old.We need this info almost the moment the meeting has concluded.

Unfortunately, yes. The SI has been published since Christmas and caught the majority of people unawares including the RFDs it affected.

Grizzly_45 wrote:

So it looks like every time there is a concluded meeting someone needs to be putting in an FOIA request to get some kind of handle of what was said within months, not years.

And that is only when they will give it. FOI can and have been refused.

Cass

gunny123 wrote:

Is the jp craven i see on one of those sheets, the same jp craven who is/was involved on the midlands rifle range ?

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Yup , owner.

gunny123 wrote: »

If he is still involved with this lot of bandits, he'd want to have a word with himself.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Better to have someone in there than outside. He is the newbie in there and I wonder has he been initiated into all the secrets yet.
:eek:

grassroot1 wrote: »

If he is in there he is there because Voldemort chose him to be there

Addressing all of these as one.

I'm not defending JP, he is big and ugly enough to do so himself, however i have spoken to JP on this matter before, during, and after the dates of the letters/FOI documentation.

He was invited to these meetings but would not attend. Hence the reason he is marked on the initial meeting on the 8th March 2016 as "Apologies". IOW not there. You'll notice Keelan Symes was also marked the same.

The rest of the documentation is dated 24th October 2016, 23rd January 2017, and 20th April 2017 with all those who actually attended. None of which show him in attendance for ANY of the meetings. This coincides with his assurances to me that he would not attend or be part of anything to do with the so called coalition.

Wexshot1

Cass wrote: »

People fall into one of three groups:

1. Those who do not know
2. Those who do but don't care
3. Those who do and are trying to combat the actions/proposals (a very, VERY, small group)

The first and best step to combating them, as was discussed ad nauseam, is for the NASRPC and other groups that joined/rejoined the so called coalition to leave it. They only have the "authority" they have as a result of the support they garner from these groups.

Three RFDs (and i use that term loosely) were involved. The other 29 (or so) were not. That is not consultation as you said.

There are over 300 rfd’s in Ireland Cass

Cass

Yeah that was a "fat finger" moment on my behalf. I meant 99. Now edited.

However you say 300!!! :eek: Did not know that. At last count, about 2 years ago, i knew of almost 100. Since then i know of 5 that have closed down only one that opened.

Wexshot1

Cass wrote: »

Yeah that was a "fat finger" moment on my behalf. I meant 99. Now edited.

However you say 300!!! :eek: Did not know that. At last count, about 2 years ago, i knew of almost 100. Since then i know of 5 that have closed down only one that opened.

Around 100 active and another couple of hundred between estates gunsmiths partimers etc

Cass

So out of 300 registered as RFDs due to their business or activities only the 100 or so i mentioned are actually RFDs in the sense they sell guns/ammo, etc?

I think the point you made, and has been discussed previously, that 3 RFDs that claimed to represent all RFDs is not a true representation and somewhat disingenuous.

Wexshot1

Cass wrote: »

So out of 300 registered as RFDs due to their business or activities only the 100 or so i mentioned are actually RFDs in the sense they sell guns/ammo, etc?

I think the point you made, and has been discussed previously, that 3 RFDs that claimed to represent all RFDs is not a true representation and somewhat disingenuous.

Exactly
There was no discussion with any active dealer to speak of before all this took off.
The so called Firearms dealers association was a farce to get to an end with the minister.

The IGTA are the only dealers association in Ireland that actually have any members.

Cass

Wexshot1 wrote: »

The so called Firearms dealers association was a farce to get to an end with the minister.

It was created to give the so called coalition some semblance or credibility. However it only "represented" it's own three members.

The IGTA are the only dealers association in Ireland that actually have any members.

They represent the majority, but were excluded from all talks. The DoJ would have no issues with this because the so called coalition and vested interest groups gave the DoJ all the rope they needed to hang the RFDs out to dry.

gunny123

Cass wrote: »

BattleCorp wrote: »

Aside from our own side apparently doing us no favours, is this proof that the DOJ are making up the law in relation to the importation of pistols?

A dealer needs to have pistols licensed before the DOJ will allow them be imported yet the same rules don't apply for rifles.

I wonder what legislation allows for that distinction?

None. There is no legislation to demand this and there is precedence with the McViegh (IIRC) case that states just this. An RFD DOES NOT need a/the person to be licensed prior to importing a firearm. Discussed briefly here.

Back to that old stunt are they ? Policy, made up by god know who, with no basis in law, becomes the law.

Wexshot1

Cass wrote: »

It was created to give the so called coalition some semblance or credibility. However it only "represented" it's own three members.

They represent the majority, but were excluded from all talks. The DoJ would have no issues with this because the so called coalition and vested interest groups gave the DoJ all the rope they needed to hang the RFDs out to dry.

Exactly right.
It’s on loop up there,
Dealers weren’t represented “yes they were” no they weren’t “yes they were” and so on.
Like I said a few posts ago if people want to keep their local dealers open and stop the rot they need to open their eyes to what’s going on.
I’ve personally wrote to all my TD’s and I’ll keep writing till I get some answers.
Everything is wrong with the system at the minute.
I’ll be forwarding the minutes of those meetings to all of them too with an explanation of exactly who’s who and what’s what with them.

Cass

As said in the thread i linked to the RFDs won't have an issue with this, i'd imagine, because they have either money or some sort of guarantee before bringing in a pistol.

Doesn't make it right but making someone license a pistol before it being imported, while not a legal requirement, is unfair. Imagine if the same principle was applied to all firearms. RFDs would be pictures of guns on their walls with notes saying "can be ordered". No more checking for fit, feel, etc.

Wexshot1

Cass wrote: »

As said in the thread i linked to the RFDs won't have an issue with this, i'd imagine, because they have either money or some sort of guarantee before bringing in a pistol.

Doesn't make it right but making someone license a pistol before it being imported, while not a legal requirement, is unfair. Imagine if the same principle was applied to all firearms. RFDs would be pictures of guns on their walls with notes saying "can be ordered". No more checking for fit, feel, etc.

It’s also illegal under eu law to licence a firearm that’s not in the state 😉

Cass

Have you a link to that directive?

Also Ireland can veto some laws as long as those the apply are more strict and not less so than the EU directive.

Wexshot1

Cass wrote: »

Have you a link to that directive?

Also Ireland can veto some laws as long as those the apply are more strict and not less so than the EU directive.

I’ve no link to hand but it pretty set in stone from the sources I got it from.
A lot of time and energy is going into this at the minute.
Hopefully more will come clear in the near future.

Grizzly 45

Cass wrote: »

And that is only when they will give it. FOI can and have been refused.

Be hard for them to refuse it anymore, as they have previously openly supplied the meeting memos. Be very odd to now go and claim "Govt meeting or law enforcement confidentiality", and that would certainly make one want to dig deeper and get the FOI to review the decision.

Thing is, again it's now mid-2018,most of this was 12 to 18 months ago and the SC[OVI] has departed the FCP stage...[Or has it? Difficult to know...] So the question should be, is it a live entity still influencing Govt policy,or is it now 3 or 4 people meeting down in a phone booth somewhere, that no one pays attention to anymore??

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Be hard for them to refuse it anymore, ............

They have, recently.

solarwinds

Cass wrote: »

gunny123 wrote:

Is the jp craven i see on one of those sheets, the same jp craven who is/was involved on the midlands rifle range ?

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Yup , owner.

gunny123 wrote: »

If he is still involved with this lot of bandits, he'd want to have a word with himself.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Better to have someone in there than outside. He is the newbie in there and I wonder has he been initiated into all the secrets yet.
:eek:

grassroot1 wrote: »

If he is in there he is there because Voldemort chose him to be there

Addressing all of these as one.

I'm not defending JP, he is big and ugly enough to do so himself, however i have spoken to JP on this matter before, during, and after the dates of the letters/FOI documentation.

He was invited to these meetings but would not attend. Hence the reason he is marked on the initial meeting on the 8th March 2016 as "Apologies". IOW not there. You'll notice Keelan Symes was also marked the same.

The rest of the documentation is dated 24th October 2016, 23rd January 2017, and 20th April 2017 with all those who actually attended. None of which show him in attendance for ANY of the meetings. This coincides with his assurances to me that he would not attend or be part of anything to do with the so called coalition.

While I can understand him not wanting to attend I do think it would have better to go even if just to voice opposition to what was being proposed at least it would have been noted in minutes or something.
Having said that I dont know fully his reasoning so cant judge. I just feel it better to have someone in who can be there rather than no one.

Cass

I need to stress i'm not talking on his behalf merely voicing my opinion on what happened.

Had he gone it would have given credence to the so called coalition. Remember this was not a meeting of various groups, it was the so called coalition only. Any attendance would have been viewed, cause i know i would have seen it this way, as him giving legitimacy to the so called coalition.

Besides all that there are others who could have gone and should have gone. The IGTA or a rep from it should have been invited. The main body of the FCP should have been notified of this meeting, its content, the proposals, and the outcome prior to any SI being signed into law.

If it wasn't informed then it was bypassed to suit their [DoJ] agenda. If they were informed each step they someone needs to pull their head out of their arse and start to actually represent the groups they claim to by informing it's members of what exactly is happening to OUR sport.

BattleCorp

I'm extremely worried at a supposedly knowledgeable shooting body supposedly looking out for our interests (The S.C.) looking for a pilot programme to try convince the DOJ to change a law that doesn't exist to allow pistols be imported the same way rifles are imported.

And I am also worried that the DOJ answer to that proposal is in relation to competition law and not actually acknowledging that there is no such law in the first place.

The blind leading the blind springs to mind.

Anybody hitching their wagon to the S.C. needs to really take a good look at themselves.

Grizzly 45

Cass wrote: »

They have, recently.

Who,What,Why?

gunny123

Cass wrote: »

I'm not defending JP, he is big and ugly enough to do so himself, however i have spoken to JP on this matter before, during, and after the dates of the letters/FOI documentation.

He was invited to these meetings but would not attend. Hence the reason he is marked on the initial meeting on the 8th March 2016 as "Apologies". IOW not there. You'll notice Keelan Symes was also marked the same.

The rest of the documentation is dated 24th October 2016, 23rd January 2017, and 20th April 2017 with all those who actually attended. None of which show him in attendance for ANY of the meetings. This coincides with his assurances to me that he would not attend or be part of anything to do with the so called coalition.

Thats good to hear Cass. He was probably invited by Voldemort to lend weight to his and the so called coalitions carry on.
Its too easy to lie down with dogs and get up with fleas.

gunny123

Speaking of foi's, anyone ask to see the petition that Walsh handed in ?

Wexshot1

gunny123 wrote: »

Speaking of foi's, anyone ask to see the petition that Walsh handed in ?

Did he actually hand anything in ???
Spoof if you ask me.

gunny123

Wexshot1 wrote: »

gunny123 wrote: »

Speaking of foi's, anyone ask to see the petition that Walsh handed in ?

Did he actually hand anything in ???
Spoof if you ask me.

Either way, we should know.

cavan shooter

From what I hear the petition included all the signatures that the NARGC gathered when there was the so called threat to semi auto shotguns. If you remember they were done under the SC guise, that was back in the day when the NARGC was funding the so called Sports Coalition, before they woke up and saw the damage the Sports Coalition of Vested Interest (SCOVI) all members now called a shower of scovis'. was doing to the shooting community they pretended to represent... I reckon personally it was copies of the metro herald as numerous goateed' small stature persons were seen on dart and Luas lines across the Capitol collecting them in droves around that time.........God I hate night work, its boring as ****

berettaman

What I heard:


Bottom line was the NARGC (MK2) regime repeatedly asked the SCOVI's for a meeting to find out what the actual fock was going on .


Chairman of SCOVI's would not agree to meeting and took a less than respectful tone. Not a good idea when you think of the mindset of NARGC mark 2.


The Finance Committee do not need a second excuse NOT to write a cheque for anything let alone this type of sh1te. Formal pull away in Feb 2017. Unanimous vote of Gov Body If I recall correctly.


Since then a lot of SCOVI activity has come to light, you can see why they did not want to meet with NARGC.


Was on holidays and just read the FOI stuff. It is beyond belief. Some people have a neck like a jockeys bollix.

berettaman

Wexshot1 wrote: »

Two snippets from an foi request.
For anyone who gets ammo delivered this is just one thing the SC wanted to stop along with pages of other restrictions.
There is also a paragraph about dealers zeroing rifles illegally at their premises.

Still staggered by this.


Snippet No 1. Mr Walsh is talking about dealers trading from their premises.:eek::eek:


Eh? Did he not trade from his premises? For years? WTF?

gunny123

You misread, it says private residence.

berettaman

gunny123 wrote: »

You misread, it says private residence.

You are dead right, I did misread it.


It is private residence. He traded from his for years, maybe still does.


So this is do as I say, not as I do?:mad:

gunny123

berettaman wrote: »

gunny123 wrote: »

You misread, it says private residence.

So this is do as I say, not as I do?:mad:

Something the irish are very good at.

yubabill

Gun dealers to protest new storage SI today at Phoenix Park HQ - saying there was a lack of consultation on the new requirements.

Minister Stanton says he consulted with trade representatives.

Looks like the trade representatives forgot to tell many of the people they claim to represent.

http://www.thejournal.ie/gun-traders-protest-4147286-Jul2018/

Cass

yubabill wrote: »

Minister Stanton says he consulted with trade representatives.

Looks like the trade representatives forgot to tell many of the people they claim to represent.

No they didn't.

What Minister Stanton does not say is the sub-group he "consulted" with was the so called coalition and their THREE rfds, one of whom is only an ammo dealer. He never consulted with the larger RFD representative group(s) thus eliminating nearly 90% of the trade.

http://www.thejournal.ie/gun-traders-protest-4147286-Jul2018/

I rank the Journal as being right up there with the now defunct Irish Shooter's Digest for accuracy. The reporter/author of the article never asked which groups were consulted, what percentage of total RFDs that accounts for, why was it a sub group and not the full body of the FCP, and who the so called coalition claim to represent.

As for the comments well all you need is to read them to find out the ignorance of the general population regarding guns. From comments such as "No one needs high powered handguns/rifles" to "i didn't know gun dealers were a thing, would they have enough business to keep going", and finally to "guns shouldn't be allowed, you only need a 22 and/or a shotgun".

They are ignorant of the fact that there are an estimated 230,000 firearm licenses in the country held by an estimated 145,000 people. So called "high power handguns" would be anything other than 22lr which covers a grand total of some 200 firearms. Also the ignorance of the law. One comment that said we only need 22s and a shotgun for deer and foxes, doesn't even realise the law demands a so called high powered rifle for deer. You're not allowed to shoot them with a 22 or shotgun.


This is why i've been saying for years about the danger of the so called coalition and how the shooting community would receive little to no help or sympathy from the general public.

berettaman

yubabill wrote: »

Gun dealers to protest new storage SI today at Phoenix Park HQ - saying there was a lack of consultation on the new requirements.

Minister Stanton says he consulted with trade representatives.

Looks like the trade representatives forgot to tell many of the people they claim to represent.

http://www.thejournal.ie/gun-traders-protest-4147286-Jul2018/

Interesting.


I understand that the minister was informed in writing that the people he was dealing with represented no one but themselves.


Makes his statement all the more interesting.

Grizzly 45

This is the kind of twatology you are dealing with out there. I give you" Lochinvar 56" from the Journal.ie comment section on this article.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

@....... indeed I have…. I suppose youse will be looking for an amendment on the right to bear arms…. by the way is the NARGC funded by the NRA

Personally,if the journal.ie was in paper format,I wouldn't even hang it on the back of the jacks door it's that bad.
So to expect their "journalists" to actually report anything factually or accurately is asking a lot of a leaving cert grade student rag.

gunny123

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

This is the kind of twatology you are dealing with out there. I give you" Lochinvar 56" from the Journal.ie comment section on this article.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

@....... indeed I have…. I suppose youse will be looking for an amendment on the right to bear arms…. by the way is the NARGC funded by the NRA

Personally,if the journal.ie was in paper format,I wouldn't even hang it on the back of the jacks door it's that bad.
So to expect their "journalists" to actually report anything factually or accurately is asking a lot of a leaving cert grade student rag.

Yeah its dire, full of millenials, unemployed and unemployable far lefties. The journal is a cure for constipation :mad:

gunny123

What about the sports coalition ? Have they crawled back under their slimy rock or are they still doing the opening scene from "Macbeth", three witches around a cauldron dreaming up nasty surprises for us all ?

CJhaughey

Irish times has a video clip up on the Gun Traders protest.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/irish-gun-traders-claim-regulations-are-driving-them-out-of-business-1.3577199

gunny123

Thanks CJ. They didn't exactly turn out mob-handed did they ? Out of all the dealers in the country, six ? Also i never heard of any mention of the bogus sc security rubbish foisted on the dealers, in that video or that article .

cavan shooter

From what I hear (clay shoot gossip) they have met in the South and they are waiting on the outcome of The NARGC AGM with interest.
There meddling has gone wider as an organisation than just targeting shooting in ireland they apparently put in a pro lead shot ban proposal (allegedly ) and are quoted as saying we are dinosaurs, remember this would tie in with their proposal for a proof house as we would have to get our older guns all proofed for steel. One man said if steel comes in were goosed as its €18 a box. Dont know enough about it

To use a now infamous quote "They haven't gone away you know" and are still claiming behind the scenes they still represent the shooting community and that they spoke to a vast number of people they are lobbying hard only one shooting organisation seem to be mirroring all there proposals running courses for night time shooting of foxes etc. All other organisations IFA NARGC CSAI are treating them like a paria.

Cass

gunny123 wrote: »

What about the sports coalition ? Have they crawled back under their slimy rock or are they still doing the opening scene from "Macbeth", three witches around a cauldron dreaming up nasty surprises for us all ?

The problem, yet another one, of the so called coalition is when they're public they create a sh*t storm and a mess the rest of us have to clean up, and when they're quiet it's worse. They're involved in some secret sub group which is pissing away our sport, or making wild accusations against long established shooting groups that have actually done good for the community.


It won't end for them [sc] until we, all of us, make it known to the Minister, Review Group, NASRPC, and any other group that continues to give credit to this so called coalition that we don't support them, don't agree with them, and frankly want them gone.

gunny123

cavan shooter wrote: »

From what I hear (clay shoot gossip) they have met in the South and they are waiting on the outcome of The NARGC AGM with interest.
There meddling has gone wider as an organisation than just targeting shooting in ireland they apparently put in a pro lead shot ban proposal (allegedly ) and are quoted as saying we are dinosaurs, remember this would tie in with their proposal for a proof house as we would have to get our older guns all proofed for steel. One man said if steel comes in were goosed as its €18 a box. Dont know enough about it

To use a now infamous quote "They haven't gone away you know" and are still claiming behind the scenes they still represent the shooting community and that they spoke to a vast number of people they are lobbying hard only one shooting organisation seem to be mirroring all there proposals running courses for night time shooting of foxes etc. All other organisations IFA NARGC CSAI are treating them like a paria.

They can get stuffed them and their poxy proof house, you would want to be a right charlie to hand that shower a gun for them to attempt to blow it up, and pay for the privilege too. There are excellent professionally run proof houses in the rest of Europe, some hundreds of years old with huge experience, that i would use if i needed a gun tested. Rather than hand it to "come here to me bud" and co.

As for claiming to represent Irish shooters, well i and a few on here did take the time and trouble to email Stauntons office telling them very plainly that the scam coalition did in no way represent me. But how many others did ? 20 ? 50 ? 100 ? Out of how many licence holders ?

gunny123

Cass wrote: »

It won't end for them [sc] until we, all of us, make it known to the Minister, Review Group, NASRPC, and any other group that continues to give credit to this so called coalition that we don't support them, don't agree with them, and frankly want them gone.

Where is the scam coalitions registered offices ? Anyone want to make a placard and have a day out ? Maybe hire a coach or two and have a day out ?

cavan shooter

The argument that Ireland needs a separate proof house is archaic and null and void in what is meant to be a European market. Any item should not be sold into the market unless it's reached a minimum standard therefore Italian proofs and British proofs or German proofs should be good enough for Ireland there was a reason we went for harmonised standards.

It's only another attempt to ride the shooting men by SCOVI

yubabill1

Cass wrote: »

No they didn't.

What Minister Stanton does not say is the sub-group he "consulted" with was the so called coalition and their THREE rfds, one of whom is only an ammo dealer. He never consulted with the larger RFD representative group(s) thus eliminating nearly 90% of the trade.

My usual sarcasm, there, Cass - always useful to get a conversation going.

That was a fairly professional protest yesterday despite the speakers wandering off topic at times.

Minister Staunton must be scratching his head - he thought he had consulted with RFD's and now some of the heavy hitters in the trade are protesting outside the structure of the FCP.

The protest was about the whole system, rather than the new SI but you have to ask why the authorities take any half-opportunity to regulate shooting even more?

My own opinion is the authorities have a very low opinion of Irish shooters, possibly owing to media coverage of mass shootings by nutjobs.

My experience with the authorities is that they all know an uncle or someone in the family that shoots but then there comes a disconnect when it comes to policy as their perception makes a quantum leap to the nutter mass-shooter side.

It would help the authorities perception of us if we had more representative representatives, rooting out the type who let a tiny bit of power go to their heads.