I only know Fabian through randomn mentions on the forum, but I have to wonder at his appointment given I've never heard his name in committee, representative or firearms group(s) circles before. What experience has he in not only dealing with such a surrounding, but one that involves "heavy hitters" from the DoJ?

No offence intended towards the man, but being a good sportsman in his chosen field is not credentials enough, for me, to be placed on this committee. I'd have ideally liked to have had someone with far more experience such as someone that previously sat on the SSAI, FSAI, FCP, etc. Given Walsh's appointment, holding such a position [on a previous committee] would not have been a precluding factor.

Of course if I'm wrong, which I may well be due to my not knowing about the man, then by all means I'm open to correction and willing to listen to his experience/credentials.

To be honest, whether its Fabian or someone else I believe the position to be a "death sentence" to the crdibility and character of whomever takes it. If things go badly you'll be blamed regardless of the "fight" you put up and given the make up of the committee I cannot forsee any outcome that leaves the majority of our sport in the status quo (its never going to get better so I didn't bother with that pipe dream).

The remaining two, Garda and Chair are complete unknowns to me. Other than a Linkedin account for the Chair, and some beif Bio on her company page, I think little is know of her. As for the Superintendent, not a clue who he is but as rep for AGS as well as DoJ, we know his position.

That were deleted for bad language directly at another user and back seat moderation.

It is on their website. They are the ones who announed what they had done in April 2015.

As for why I bringing up "old contentious" issues. Simple, the secret proposals from the so called coalition were the catalyst for this ban. Its not old news when its still an ongoing issue and how else do you judge someone but by their previous actions?

Retention? We already had 22lr pistols, and no ban was forth coming, other than the one they proposed (a ban on 22lr pistols with a barrel length of less than 5")

Given your apparent knowledge, could you explain to me the interview process each candidate went through, the vetting on their credentials and how their knowledge base was judged to come to the conclusion they were suitable? If you don't know, no worries.

I've heard that same dismissive line when someone went for a position or was a self appointed representative for the shooting community who had previously be involved in secret and potentially damaging proposals as far back as 2010. It didn't hold water then and won't now.

A positive attitude is always best, but there is no mud slinging here. Mud slinging implies unjust criticism of a person via insults and accusations. As the proposals submitted by the so called coalition in 2015 were publicly shared BY THEM their intent and actions, as summarised above and recorded on this forum, are plain, obvious and leave no room for interpretation.

If Mr. Walsh has stepped down, and the so called coalition's website being "wiped" would suggest something has happened, then his previous ations, statements, proposals and intent will be a chain around his neck that not only the shooting community will not forgot but nor will the committee.

In other words how does he argue, if he will, that semi-autos pose no danger to the public when he called for their banning? How will he push back on any issue(s) that he previously not only supported but actively called for?

You say I'm dragging up old issues, they are very relevant today, and will be "dragged" up by the committee as the basis for this FEC.

The make up of the committee was a given or known, and it was always going to have at least two people we did not know anything about (either the chair and the AGS rep, or the AGS rep and DoJ rep if the chair happened to be a sports shooter with a legal background which would have been a stretch).

The other two, ordinary members, well they were the "wild cards". Paul Walsh's appointment does not surprise me, but does shock me given his past and Fabian's took me utterly by surprise as I wouldn't have guessed the Man's name had I a hundred attempts.

You don't have to prove it conclusively. I'll even take bits. Like a link to the prosposed ban they alledgedly fought against (whomever wanted to ban them must have released a statement, like the DoJ did with SACF rifles). Who proposed the pistol ban they were fighting? How they stopped it, even if its only your relaying of the information rather than actual documentation.

At the moment, and going by your post I've just quoted, its akin to saying it never happened. In other words they won a non existent battle. In which case its disengenuous to claim to have won something that never happened.