My reasons for withdrawing my support for the FEC
My reasons for withdrawing my support for the FEC reports are as follows: by Fabian Connolly.
Fabian Connolly is one of the firearms experts appointed to the FEC (Firearms Expert Committee) by the Minister for Justice and he has provided Rural Pursuits with a statement clarifying his position with regard to the FEC Report.
I applied for the Firearms Expert Committee (FEC) having read the topics for discussion in the Minister’s call for expressions of interest. It was clear to me that the Minister planned to make significant changes to the current licensing system and I wanted to make sure there was as broad a knowledge base as possible in those discussions. Like many others I was surprised by some of the selections that were made for the committee.
At the ninth meeting of the FEC I highlighted a number of places where the draft report used the phrase “The Committee agrees” where I did not agree with the recommendations. These were to be changed and a final draft was to be sent out to the FEC members for our approval. The report sent out on the 16th of March still had a significant number of these mistakes, omissions and some other errors on which I and the other members provided feedback before the deadline. Some of the omissions and corrections I raised were opposed by other members of the FEC and consequently the Chair called an online meeting on the 28th March to discuss this. It was at this meeting that the Committee voted to omit my objections from the report. On the morning of the 29th March 2023 I emailed the chair to notify her and the Minister of my withdrawal of support for the reports. The Chair responded the following day that she had already sent the reports to the Minister. I emailed the Minister directly to highlight the omissions to the reports and the events that led me to my decision. The Minister didn’t acknowledge my email.
The role of the FEC was never to act as a substitute for consultation with stakeholders. It was to provide guidance to the Minister and to produce a report which would provide an authoritative yardstick for use by the Department of Justice and An Garda Síochána. Unfortunately, I feel in this regard it has failed due to fear and paranoia in the DOJ and the Garda Síochána that people with no experience might be walking around with guns. They appear oblivious to the high level of training currently available in the country. The Minister has said on countless occasions that he would consult with stakeholders before any legislation would come before the Dáil. Already the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2022 is travelling through the Houses of the Oireachtas.
Unfortunately at present the Minister’s department doesn’t appear to want to engage with stakeholders and instead is seeking approval of its report through what I consider to be a poorly constructed online poll. For example the online poll asks whether you agree or disagree with the following: “Silencers should be available to be licensable for use by employees who use firearms as part of their legitimate duties. (Note: the Committee suggests that applications for a silencer for this purpose should be supported by a letter from the employer outlining that such a device is required and why the use of ear protection is not sufficient.)” Obviously employees must have access to appropriate PPE. In terms of firearms EU law says noise should be controlled at source mandating the use of a silencer. So I would have to agree; right? However, the note says they want “a letter from the employer”. I disagree with this unnecessary requirement. So what answer should I give? If I disagree are they going to stop allowing the use of silencers?
You may be asking what’s new about the reports. The honest answer is; not a lot really. It’s not dissimilar to that which the Joint Committee presented to Frances Fitzgerald in 2015 which was rejected by stakeholders. Maybe in another seven or eight years the Minister of the day will actually sit down with stakeholders rather than attempting yet again to force something upon us.
Fabian Connolly
10/05/2023
Read more on this very contentious issue in the June edition of Rural Pursuits from Cal Ward.