Zxthinger wrote: »

Everyone here, well nearly everyone here keeps claiming that we owe the midland's range and their reloaders at debt of gratitude or at least a possible debt of gratitude, for it seems that they stopped reloading form being banned by keeping it alive.

I've never met anyone in the reloading scheme, either that does it or that helped get it, that would demand genuflection and gratitude on a daily basis for their efforts. Our (NRAI) representatives acted on our (NRAI members) interests and submitted an application as they were invited to by the DoJ. As was everyone else.

They had made enquiries to the DoJ prior to the DoJ issuing application invitations so i suppose to a degree they could be credited with starting the process/opportunities, but at no point do they claim to be the founders of reloading, the instigators of reloading, the controlling body of it, etc. IOW they never did and still do not seek credit for their actions.

What i want, and others have said the same, is that they not to be ridiculed for actually succeeding in getting it where the majority of others never bothered to apply, and the one that did, done so after months and was not in anyway near the same position as the NRAI/Midlands to initiate such a scheme. For years people ridiculed the NRAI as elite, and having done a dirty deal to get reloading. I challenged them to answer this question: What has the NRAI got, that the DoJ cannot simply take away? IOW what could we offer up in trade that they do not already have the power to take. The answer is simple - Nothing. Everything we have and everything we continue to get from them is at their pleasure. Until such a time as they change the reloading laws it'll continue to be run as a pilot scheme, and at their whim.

The reloading scheme was a joint venture by DoJ, AGS, Fire Services, and a host of other local/national departments. We had to constantly change, alter and upgrade our facilities as soon as or even before we finished building them. I know this first hand as i was present from the first sod being turned to the final passing of the facilities. To this day we are still at the whim, and at times these overly strict conditions make it so hard, to impossible, to freely reload that i for one wonder is the expense really worth it.

However up until the introduction of reloading every nation we shot against had reloading and we were still using factory ammo. We were barely hanging onto their coat tails which reloading sorted. So F-Class, and it was only F-Class, needed it. To this day the only reason we can have reloading is for F-Class. So it's no some band of elite shooters reloading for all their shooting needs. I still have to buy my hunting ammo in a shop. My propellant usage, bullet usage, etc. is checked and recorded. All records are checked monthly by AGS & DoJ.

I'll ask you this. Where do you think reloading would be had the NRAI/Midlands not applied for it? If there was no pilot scheme the last 5 years do you think reloading would have a mention on the proposals? Do you think without the scheme that trying to introduce reloading would be easier or harder?

However I must state that their expendure does not give them entitlement and yes, i know they are not claiming that but it could be an influencing part of there thought process. Any company/business is going to try and make a return on their investment, that's just life.. .

What entitlement? Read the above. They are as affected by any changes as anyone. More so actually considering that unlike you, who justs talks, they have invested over €100K that could effectively be wiped out if reloading gets turned down. It'll also destroy a sport as we cannot compete at an international level with factory ammo, with no competitors we loose NGB status, the NGB goes back to the English which had it up until 2007. Yes that's right, up until 2007 Ireland was represented by England. A throwback from the colony days. After that the Midlands would either drop in numbers to the extent that it'd be effectively closed or it would actually close. There goes the second largest range in Europe, and largest in the country.

Once again you use assumptions and a flawed thought process or more to the point you think they think as you do to question their motives. They have a set of goals. Much like the NARGC, NASRPC, NTSA, etc all have. All of their representatives covered pieces of the proposals that directly effected their sports. Anything not directly related, they stood their with the other representatives, but allowed those with greater knowledge or more interest to talk. Same with the NRAI and reloading. We have it, and we'd like to keep it. For the moment, and the reasons above, they need to keep it. If it can be introduced into legislation then we have somewhere to start from. Until then we are completely at the mercy of the DoJ. So in order to keep it, for the moment, we must show that the reason we got it, is still valid. now is not the time to go into indepth discussion on the merits of giving it to everyone, to everyone at home, and to allow the free and easy possession of propellant. You're asking too much, too quickly.

Considering the current reloaders are not allowed to reload at home, how open do you think the PTB would be to allowing or even entertaining your ideas that we should all have it, at home, and right now, without security?


Reloading has been something of a personal crusade for you, however you seem to be getting lost in the fact that the proposals are far, far more encompassing that just reloading. What good is reloading if you loose some or most of the guns to reload for? The fact that reloading was mentioned in the proposals is a good thing. IOW it was not ignored. If you have based your entire submission on reloading alone, well frankly you've wasted your voice and 24 pages.