Rónán Mullen (Independent)

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 24, line 18, to delete "section" where it firstly occurs and substitute "sections".

I stated my intention on Second Stage to bring forth this amendment. I am concerned that in the context of unnecessarily rushed legislation and of a set of proposals contained therein, which are fine, the Minister is none the less proposing to use a sledge-hammer to crack a nut. All of this is being done in the context of a concern everyone in society shares about the theft of certain firearms, the unlawful use of firearms, the emergence of a gun culture and a sense of powerlessness in the face of certain types of criminal activity, especially gang related activity. This is the background and context for the Minister's proposal to ban certain types of firearms according to certain categories, calibre, working mechanism, muzzle energy and so on. More important, it is the context for the proposal to create an offence as set out in section 33 through the insertion of a new section 4C in the principal Act which offence will be that of a person facilitating or engaging the use of a firearm for the purposes of practical or dynamic shooting.

As I said last Friday, I come to this as a person who has never in his life picked up a gun - I used the phrase "a pacifist by physique" - and as a person who recognises that difficult times can call for extraordinary measures. However, it is precisely during difficult times that one must be careful about how laws are enacted and how that rule of law is used and should not be abused and, in our efforts to protect the rule of law, should not give us carte blanche to encroach on legitimate freedoms enjoyed by honest and responsible people.

Having discussed section 33 with some of the people who will be affected by it, I believe the Minister is targeting a type of activity which he believes might provide cover for anti-social or criminal elements. In targeting this activity in the manner he is doing, the Minister will inhibit and prevent the enjoyment of legitimate sports by people who are bona fide. As I said last Friday, I am concerned this is all about optics and being seen to be tough on crime. We all want to be tough on crime and to make this country a cold and unwelcoming place for criminals of any kind, especially those who have no respect for life not to mention property. However, in being tough on crime and bringing forward measures which will restrict people's freedoms supposedly in the interest of a greater good, we must first enure we have done everything necessary to target the behaviour which is wrongful and not legitimate respectable activities which may or may not be engaged in by people with criminal intent.

I have proposed in my amendments a change to the content of what section 33 would import. Amendment No. 1 seeks to substitute "section" with "sections". I have also proposed the insertion of new subsections 4C(5) and 4D. Whereas the legislation provides for the creation of an offence where a person facilitates or engages in the use of a firearm for the purposes of practical or dynamic shooting, I propose that it provide for the Minister's ability to make an order prohibiting the facilitation or engagement in a certain activity. The scope of what the Minister proposes in creating this offence is ill-thought out, encompasses legitimate and respectable activities and encroaches unnecessarily on people's freedoms, in particular the freedom of people interested in using guns for bona fide and legitimate sporting purposes. We need to delay the prohibition of any activity until we are sure what activity should be prohibited. In that regard, I propose we insert into the Bill an enabling provision that will allow the Minister to prohibit by order at a future point the facilitation or engagement in an activity of a certain kind rather than make such an offence in this Bill.

There is confusion to say the very least about what particular activity the Minister proposes to criminalise. Practical or dynamic shooting has been referred to. Section 4C(4), as inserted by section 33, states that practical or dynamic shooting "means any form of activity in which firearms are used to simulate combat or combat training". On face value, this would appear to provide some comfort for people such as those involved in the International Practical Shooting Confederation who state that their activity, which is known as practical shooting, does not in any sense simulate combat or combat training. One could argue that whatever simulation means, it cannot mean what the IPSC is doing. The confederation makes the case strenuously that its activity does not involve defensive or combat training techniques, that one would be more likely to get that in a game of paintball. It states that its activity involves the use of certain types of handgun to engage in firing at targets that do not resemble human or animal forms in quick succession. That is similar to shooting as an Olympic sport and it is a long way from immature people in fatigues playing at war games and pretending to attack and assault each other unexpectedly, the sort of thing we would associate with a game of paintball, which I have engaged in on one occasion, never to do so again.

Section 4 as proposed may very well exclude from the remit of the offence the activity the IPSC is involved in, but the IPSC and its adherents feel no comfort in this regard precisely because of the dialogue they have been having with the officials and the Minister because of what has been said in these Houses and at meetings of the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party about the sort of activity they are engaged in. It is their belief that the Minister believes that practical or dynamic shooting of the kind practised by the International Practical Shooting Confederation involves such simulated combat activity or training whereas it is the confederation's case that it is involved in a much more respectable and less war-like sort of activity in that it involves the use of certain types of handgun to shoot at particular targets that are not human or animal in form and to do so in quick succession, thus practising the skill of fast moving shooting. Clay pigeon shooting is an example of an activity that involves a high degree of hand to eye co-ordination and I doubt we propose to ban that.

Amendment No. 2 states that the Minister may prohibit by order the activity known as practical or dynamic shooting or facilitation of or engagement in that activity. It would change the situation from the creation of the offence in the Bill to one where the Minister has power under the Bill to criminalise or prohibit an activity known as practical or dynamic shooting. There is no clarity or correctness in the Minister's mind about what exactly is going on in this activity. I await the Minister's comments on whether section 33(4), the Government's proposal, would relieve of criminal sanction any activity of the kind I have described being practised by the IPSC, which involves firing at non-human or animal targets in quick succession using a certain level of handgun.

To put the issue beyond doubt, I have proposed amendment No. 4, which would allow for further clarification of what the Minister may prohibit and the circumstances under which the Minister may prohibit practical or dynamic shooting. The amendment would provide that for the purposes of the section, an activity shall not be designated practical or dynamic shooting simply because it entails the use of specified firearms and-or that it entails aiming and firing at particular targets in rapid succession where the said targets are not designed to represent human and-or animal figures and where no combat or other defence techniques are entailed in the said activity.

Given the doubt and confusion surrounding what practical or dynamic shooting involves and the unsatisfactory nature of the correspondence between adherents of that sporting activity and those in power, I propose that we clarify the issue and provide that the Minister may not prohibit practical or dynamic shooting if the only reason for doing so is that a certain type of firearm is involved, because he has power under section 27 to prohibit certain firearms.

I did not table an amendment to section 27 because it provides that the Minister may make an order in the future, and I hope this will lead to common sense when judging what to prohibit by order. There is reason in section 27 because it allows for dialogue and the checking out of matters before a prohibition is made.

I have concentrated my fire on section 33 because it takes a step that may injure the rights of respectable people to carry out a legitimate activity. In the proposed amendment, the Minister, in designating an activity as practical or dynamic shooting, and therefore prohibiting it, may not so designate it simply because it involves the use of specified firearms, unless they are already prohibited, and may not do so if what is involved is the aiming and firing at particular targets in rapid succession. In proposing that limitation on the Minister's ability to designate a certain sport as practical or dynamic shooting, that limitation applies on the Minister where we are not talking about the use of human or animal type targets and where we are not talking about the use of combat or other techniques. The onus will be on the Minister to only designate the activity as practical or dynamic shooting where something more is involved. The mere fact that an activity involves a certain type of handgun or firing at targets in quick succession is not enough to bring that activity within the scope of that legislation.

The last amendment stems from the reasonable efforts made by advocates of practical or dynamic shooting to be regulated. They want any dodgy characters who seek to be engaged with the activity for a criminal purpose to be policed and they want to co-operate in such regulation. Amendment No. 5 provides that the Minister may regulate any sport carrying or including the designation practical or dynamic shooting to ensure the practice of the said sport or sports in a manner that protects public safety and security. In a sense, these are alternatives. The Minister may prohibit facilitation of or engagement in practical or dynamic shooting. If he does not like that approach he has the option, under section 4D, of regulating the activity which he chooses to designate practical or dynamic shooting. Thus, there are options available for the Minister.

Why am I proposing this? As I have said, there is a belief that a certain viewpoint has been taken by members of the Garda Síochána whose claims, although they are acting in good faith, deserve to be scrutinised. There is a fear that the Minister, in seeking to be tough on crime and to be seen to be tough on crime, is accepting uncritically a certain narrative about a certain activity, namely, that a gun culture is emerging and that this activity is ripe for the plucking, so to speak, by people with criminal intent. It is not that I do not respect greatly the good work being done by the Garda Síochána. However, the Garda does not make the laws of this land. It can advise the Minister as to what he should do but, in making up his mind, he needs to be careful about not encompassing legitimate activities in his rush to take what are largely good measures. He must be very careful to listen to the other side. There should be proper investigation of this kind of activity. The Minister might go and see for himself what is involved. Perhaps he has already done so and we will hear this. He may have asked certain questions and been unhappy with the answers he got.

On Committee Stage of this Bill, at a meeting of the Select Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, the Minister quoted from a letter he had received from the former Garda assistant commissioner, now deputy commissioner, Nacie Rice:

Practical pistol and shotgun shooting are new activities which mimic combat or confrontational shooting scenarios. This was developed as a more realistic training method for military and police personnel. The shooting at human-shaped targets would not be considered as legitimate firearms use and possession and the question therefore arises if such practice is considered as a legitimate reason for possessing or using the weapons. There would be concerns that this type of shooting ... could be seen as a way of training in the use of these weapons with a view to criminal actions and as such the banning of this type of shooting would remove the inherent dangers associated with people engaging in this type of shooting. It is agreed that the scenario-based combat simulation situations could easily lead to criminal elements using the type of shooting as a "cover" for the training in the use of these weapons. I recommend that practical shooting, which is clearly compared to combat shooting and not target shooting, should be removed and banned as this type of training in weapons is not legitimate and could be utilised by criminal elements.

Here we see the root of the misunderstanding - the association of practical shooting, or something to be designated as such, with a type of combat-based activity which we all agree should be prohibited or at least controlled to a considerable degree. In a letter to the deputy Garda commissioner, an adherent of the sport stated that its representatives had engaged with the firearms policy unit of the Garda Síochána and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to show that while this may the impression given by ungoverned individuals in the United States, it does not accurately represent the sport of IPSC. It is the contention of the correspondent, who practises practical shooting, that officials in the firearms policy unit and the Department were left under no illusion as to what the sport was, bearing in mind that it is a recognised sport in 80 countries worldwide, including in Europe.

The practitioners of this sport deny that it involves combat-style shooting and human-shaped targets and they wonder how that impression can persist among the Garda Síochána and in the views of Government Departments. What these practitioners have been asking is that IPSC be investigated properly and that people consider exactly what is involved in the sport. They give their personal assurance that it has neither criminal nor tactical connotations. It makes one wonder how a sport can be practised legitimately in 80 countries yet be criminalised in Ireland.

I also received documents about the difference between tactical and combat training and IPSC sport shooting, with which I do not propose to detain the House. However, it is important to put on record an open letter from Nick Alexakos, the president of IPSC, in which he states:

I have been following the emergence of efforts to ban the ownership and use of firearms in Ireland with the exception of those used to compete in the Olympic shooting sports. The proposal is using the sport of IPSC shooting, which is not an Olympic sport, to draw a line between those shooting sports that are acceptable and those that are not.

It seems that is a rather strange basis on which to draw a line between acceptable and non-acceptable sports given the limited number of Olympic sports. Mr. Alexakos continues:

Based on what I have read in the newspapers and followed in debate during a meeting of the Select Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights on June 18th, it is necessary and critical that the facts about IPSC shooting be known.

By way of background, the International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC) was founded as a shooting sport in 1976 and is recognized as a sport in over 80 countries (list attached). IPSC is an international sport, emphasizing safety and safe gun handling, accuracy, power, and speed, in high-level competitions around the world.

Here is the interesting part. He notes:

Although the early beginnings of IPSC were martial in origin, the sport developed just as karate, fencing, and archery had developed from their martial origins into well known, internationally recognized sports. As a point of fact, many Olympic sports today have their origins in military training exercises including the Olympic equestrian sports of dressage and eventing, and the Olympic Biathlon of skiing and target shooting, and like these sports IPSC is a civilian target shooting sport.

I emphasise that this means a sport for civilians, as distinct from a sport that targets civilians. The letter continues:

I noticed with interest that the term "extreme sport" was used many times to describe IPSC shooting. I believe it would have been invaluable to the discussion to have a firm understanding of the term "extreme sport" and what kinds of sports define the term.

Generally speaking, "extreme sports" is a media term for certain activities perceived as having a high level of inherent risk and danger. IPSC as the internationally governing body does not allow nor condone the promotion of IPSC as an "extreme sport" because IPSC does not fall within the definition of that term, nor does it in the minds of promoters and marketers of extreme sports.

There appears to be a mistaken impression of what the sport is. Mr. Alexakos states:

IPSC has an exemplary safety record and incidents of injuries are so rare as to be less than what is recorded for any Olympic sport let alone any non Olympic sport. Also, IPSC sanctioned competitions are judged on strict criteria and use highly competent range safety officers. Any safety infraction, no matter how small or unintentional, results in a match disqualification.

Arguments for banning non-Olympic firearms make a sharp distinction between stationary targets and moving targets harkening to Olympic level shooting of stationary targets as the only acceptable shooting that should be allowed. I draw attention to the sports of skeet, trap, and sporting clays shooting wherein the targets indeed move.

I mentioned this myself in the context of clay shooting. He continues:

IPSC competitors do have some moving targets, but they are designed to ensure a 0% margin of error in safety and the vast majority of targets are, in fact, stationary.

I would also like to set the record straight about remarks that IPSC creates settings that are combat based such as home invasions or hostage scenarios. These are simply and boldly a misstatement of the facts. The IPSC does not allow any element of a competition to create such scenarios. Further, the use of humanoid targets is banned.

I have taken all of this into account in preparing my amendment in order to allow the Minister to target what should be banned and not what need not be banned. Mr. Alexakos concludes by saying:

The suggestion that air pistols and paintball guns should be substituted for the firearms appears to contradict other statements that IPSC shooting itself trains combatants. It defies logic that air pistols and paintball guns are acceptable even though they could just as effectively serve as criminal training tools. This statement is made only to illustrate that it has no relevance because IPSC is a recognised lawful, civilian sport, recognised as such around the world.

I am an Independent Member, not a member of the Fianna Fáil Party, but I have it on good authority that there is a degree of satisfaction within that party at how the Minister addressed the concerns of backbenchers at a parliamentary party meeting on this issue. I understand a significant number of Members took the opportunity to raise concerns about the unnecessarily broad scope of this provision and what it will entail, and that contrary to the Minister's assertion in the House, he did not leave even the majority of those with whom he discussed the matter satisfied in the light of certain supports he offered for his conviction that this is the correct approach to take. I acknowledge that the Minister is a good man and that his objective is to legislate for the common good. However, there have been many references in this House in recent days to the inappropriateness of rushing so much legislation through at the end of sessions, particularly legislation that impacts on recognised civil liberties. We spoke about how this undermines the important role of the Seanad as a second Chamber where legislation is properly scrutinised.

If that is the case in regard to legislation generally, surely it must be even more the case where there is such a difference of opinion about the activity the Minister proposes to criminalise. Surely this calls loudly for further consideration and for a proper investigation of the relevant sport. Why would the Minister cause such unnecessary offence to law-abiding citizens by bringing forth sloppy criminal justice legislation and by criminalising an activity that does no harm to anybody and which is practised by respectable people? What he should do, if he fears such activity may be infiltrated by criminal elements, is to facilitate the policing and regulation of that activity. As I suggested last week, one might as well ban paintball on the basis that some gang in Limerick might send its members out to play it to learn combat techniques. One might come closer to doing the public some good by doing that.

The exchanges between adherents of practical shooting and the Department are continuing. An issue that has caused a degree of confusion is the tendency of the Minister and Ministers of State to give varying reasons for their approach in this matter. In the Dáil debate on the Bill, the Minister of State, Deputy Curran, seemed to suggest that the motivation in bringing forward this proposal was not necessarily because of concerns regarding the emergence of a gun culture. He stated: "I have never claimed that these measures were intended to target gangland crime." The Minister of State went on to say:

The Government has also made it clear that its reasons for restricting hand guns are much wider. In particular, we have made it clear that we do not wish a hand gun culture to take hold here.

That is an aspiration we all share. It is a question of what means are employed to achieve that goal.

However, the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, apparently contradicted that when he stated in the Dáil:

In any discussion about offensive weapons, there is one aspect of the problem we must confront. Items used as offensive weapons are often items which are in legitimate, everyday, mundane usage. This makes it almost impossible to distinguish by legal definition between knives which have a legitimate use and those the sale of which might be undesirable. Even if this was to be attempted it would prove futile in practice as quite ordinary kitchen knives or tools, the sale of which could not be prohibited, could be just as lethal in the wrong hands as anything which might be prohibited and are all too often the weapons used to cause death or serious injury. That is why the law must concentrate on the circumstances in which these items are in a person's possession.

The last sentence is particularly important, offering a far more sensible approach. In it, the Minister acknowledges that if one targets a particular type of weapon or instrument, one moves away from intentionality, which is the key issue. We are all aware that the most ordinary, everyday implements can be used as weapons of murder.

The correct approach should be to concentrate on the circumstances in which items are in a person's possession. If that is the correct approach, how can it be right to criminalise a particular type of sporting activity? What should be done is to criminalise the use of a particular type of activity for a certain purpose or the engagement by particular people in a particular type of sporting activity for a nefarious purpose. What is required is policing, not unnecessarily sweeping prohibitions which target respectable people unfairly. I commend these amendments to the House.