FLAG / SSAI Respresentation with DOJ

Ned Muldhoon

Any comments on the bizzare decision by the SSAI to dispense with the services of the FLAG respresentative namely Mr. Declan Keogh.
From what I can see, this organisation (FLAG), has negotiated on behalf of the shooting community, very successfully for a number of years. From my personal dealings, I can state that without their tireless intervention and expertise we would not have Pistols, Full bore rifles etc.

They also laid the groundwork for the initial court cases!

cavan shooter

O Dear, this thread will become interesting!!!!

Rovi

cavan shooter wrote: »

O Dear, this thread will become interesting!!!!

Indeed.:(

Personal statement: I have no connection with either SSAI or FLAG, other than being an ordinary member of an organisation with representation on SSAI.

Anyhow...
The thing is, whatever the reasons for this decision (and opinions on their validity will be coloured by the viewpoint of the beholder), I'm sure any and all discussions/debates/votes on this matter will be confidential and can't be discussed in public.
So, unless someone privy to the decision process wishes to break confidentiality, I don't expect to see anything definitive emerge from this thread.

FLAG/Declan have done sterling work on behalf of Irish shooters over the years, so it does appear on the surface of it to be somewhat puzzling that they haven't been put forward for this particular process, but most of us here aren't in a position to comment unless we were part of the decision making process, in which case I strongly suspect we'd be bound to confidentiality.

Perhaps I'm wrong and all this can be discussed in public. If so, I look forward to definitive clarification.


Let the games begin...

Rew

Zero tolerence on this thread, 2 week bans for any thing deemed to be abusive or inappropriate.

I do think its unlikly that anything will come of this thread, it would seem you need a PhD in politics understand shooting bodies.

I personally think that a broad spectrum of representation and any previous experence is all good.

waggawagga

The word is SHAFTED. There's money to be made and the knives are out. CONTROL is the name of the game and he who negotiates with the DOJ holds both control and power and ultimately profit. Declan Keogh. FLAG, the LRRAI, the Irish Rifle Club and others who got in the way or raised moral objections have been SHAFTED. If you don't follow the twists and turns just look at the money trail. Next July you will pay through the nose to hold on to your firearms permit and have access to a place you can shoot. Ask yourself who stands to gain from that situation.

Ned Muldhoon

The main point I am trying to raise here is that we require someone with vast experience in dealing with the DOJ and has built up a professional working relationship with all parties involved.

Since Mr. Keogh has been in the fore front in talks with the DOJ, understands the complexities of the new draft / SI proposals etc. Why, at this critical stage, is he not being allowed to continue?

Is this an SSAI decision or has Mr. Keogh volunteered to step aside (again, I do not understand the logic!)

The purpose of the creation of this thread is to illicit an explanation from someone. The SSAI is not an autonomous body, it has numerous clubs affiliated to it and has a responsibility to members to act in an according manner.

alan123

Post removed, Alan123.

Bananaman

I'm quite baffled by this aswell.

Correct me if I am wrong but DK has been in dealings with Gardai and DOJ for a decade or more - having had input into the myriad drafts, proposals, etc that have brought us to this juncture - he would have seen the various Ministers come and go over that period of time but a lot of the faces would have stayed the same - one of them is his.

Considering the contacts he would have made over that time, all the nuances of who gets on with who, who is in favour of what, who will need to be reassured of X, etc. etc. Not to mention having fought the corner for probably most if not all NGOs - I would assume that he is uniquely placed to be on this panel.

Since this panel was announced I had fears for the representation of the participants of various shooting sports - particularly some of the newer, less established ones such as the dynamic shooting disciplines. This was fueled by earlier discussions on the polarity of the various NGOs and the fact that some of them are constitutionally opposed to each other and seem pre-disposed to not providing a united front.

I took some solace from the fact that Declan would fly the flag - no pun intended - for the rights of all individual shooters, regardless of chosen discipline(s) - in doing so he would also represent the interests of ALL of the NGOs impartially. All of this while at the same time allaying the fears and concerns of both the DOJ and Gardai, their experience of dealing with him over the years giving his voice tremendous weight in thsi area, and in the end helping this panel to reach a conclusion that will be of benefit to everyone.

I have no knowledge of the individual(s) that are proposed to now represent us in his place nor of their reasons or motives for wanting to do so at this late stage in the proceedings - I'm sure we will get all the juicy details in due course - but I have to admit that I now fear the outcome of this panel.

B'Man

Hence I have signed the following:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Declankeogh/index.html

Ned Muldhoon

So this was an SSAI decision? In light of the recent posting (thanks Alan123), I have to say I am appalled that the SSAI have taken this decision and would request that it is immediately reversed.

Can the SSAI respond with their side of this debacle?

As far as I (and most shooters) are concerned, my interests have been represented by Mr. Declan Keogh & Mr. T. E. Martin, through FLAG which is a sub committee of the SSAI.

We currently have a number of bodies representing all disciplines, we cannot afford another fractious event now. I believe that this is exactly what will happen if this situation is not resolved (either by the reinstatement of Mr. Keogh or a sufficiently plausable explanation from the SSAI on their actions)

Perhaps boards.ie is not the appropriate venue to discuss this given;

a) its a very personal and emotive topic
b) b.ie is already under the threat of legal action
c) anytime a topic such as this is brought up, it just devolves into a slagging match

Maybe, if Rew / CivDef were to lock the thread, and then people involve pm rew what they want posted - it will slow the thread down but should lead to a more thought out posts.

Just my two cents - I neither know enough nor care enough really to join in this debate.

Ned Muldhoon

I would not expect the contributors to this thread would resort to personal slander or attack. This forum is an adequate media to enable both parties to provide answers. If we can all agree that only informed opinion and fact are the order of the day, then I see no problem!

FLAG

Folks

I will only add the following to this thread at this time.

I am astonished and pleased with the level of support that I have received from the shooting community, no doubt there are some who may not agree but I would say that misinformation may colour their view. Being the FLAG representative since it's inception in 2001 and having stepped back from the committee of the SSAI has allowed me to represent the sport in an impartial manner looking after all interests. I have not done this alone there have been many contributors, a lot of people deserve credit, but now is not the time to be glory hunting, we have our sport to look after, no matter what your interests, air-soft, target shooting, hunting, pistol shooting, plinking, we need a cohesive group not a fragmented rabble!

That being said it is very important to be aware that we should not "air our dirty washing" in the pages of this so public boards.

You can be sure that the officials of the various government departments and the Gardai would be aware of these boards and would be keeping a close eye on them.

There are issues surrounding the recent SSAI decision, let’s deal with them in the correct manner and not enter into a debate on these pages.

Declan Keogh
Chairman FLAG

Rew

Ned Muldhoon wrote: »

I would not expect the contributors to this thread would resort to personal slander or attack. This forum is an adequate media to enable both parties to provide answers. If we can all agree that only informed opinion and fact are the order of the day, then I see no problem!

It hasn't been that way in the past, it does tune in to mud slinging but boards.ie is here for open discussion so I wont be locking the thread for now.

alan123

FLAG wrote: »

Folks

I will only add the following to this thread at this time.

I am astonished and pleased with the level of support that I have received from the shooting community, no doubt there are some who may not agree but I would say that misinformation may colour their view. Being the FLAG representative since it's inception in 2001 and having stepped back from the committee of the SSAI has allowed me to represent the sport in an impartial manner looking after all interests. I have not done this alone there have been many contributors, a lot of people deserve credit, but now is not the time to be glory hunting, we have our sport to look after, no matter what your interests, air-soft, target shooting, hunting, pistol shooting, plinking, we need a cohesive group not a fragmented rabble!

That being said it is very important to be aware that we should not "air our dirty washing" in the pages of this so public boards.

You can be sure that the officials of the various government departments and the Gardai would be aware of these boards and would be keeping a close eye on them.

There are issues surrounding the recent SSAI decision, let’s deal with them in the correct manner and not enter into a debate on these pages.

Declan Keogh
Chairman FLAG

My post edited.

V Bull

In reference to Ned Muldhoon's last and previous post on this matter.

It is my understanding that the SSAI was set up to represent all the NGB's of all different shooting bodies and disciplines in the Republic of Ireland.

What I didn't know was, quote Ned Muldhoon, "As far as I (and most shooters) are concerned, my interests have been represented by Mr. Declan Keogh & Mr. T. E. Martin, through FLAG which is a sub committee of the SSAI."

What are Flag a subcommittee for and or which discipline of shooting do they represent ???

Also Ned, concerning Pistol & Full Bore, (I presume that you mean the lifting of the rifle calibre restriction, as I have been shooting full bore for years), it is my understanding that the return of the pistols & increase in rifle calibres was all down to Mr F B of the south east, Mr N F and in particular, the NARGC.

waggawagga

Rew wrote: »

It hasn't been that way in the past, it does tune in to mud slinging but boards.ie is here for open discussion so I wont be locking the thread for now.

I'd say they're getting too close to the truth, Rew, and the truth is sooooo dangerous!

The SSAI annual general meeting will be interesting this year, will it not, Mr. Cahill? It always comes back to haunt you.

Ned Muldhoon

Mr. B winning back his pistol was the culmination of a lot of work by a lot of people. Mr Keogh and associates being forefront in this.

V Bull, with respect, you appear to have an over simplistic view of the sequence of events in both cases or are portraying such. But I will defer on this for the moment.

Back to facts:

FLAG was established in order to provide consultative emphasis on ALL firearms legislation and engage with the various bodies on how to move the current legislation forward. To date, this have been incredibly successful. All aspects of legislation were looked at during meetings with the DOJ and, as we see today, this engagement provided the shooting community with tangible results!

Bananaman

I would implore people to please not give the Admins a reason to close down this thread. I would like this to remain an informed debate on the thread topic.
We need to know that this issue is being addressed and that we know what the outcome will eventually be.

If you have a viewpoint please express it but if we can refrain from mudslinging and only divulge facts or concerns we may be able to allay some of our fears. Stating peoples names, unless it is pertinent to the fact you are describing is not helping and will only end up with people feeling persecuted or the admins shutting it down.

I, personally would like to be assured thay my interests as a shooting enthusiast, regardless of disciplines or calibres are being represented.
I would like to know that my current freedoms, given adequate reason and preperation, to enter into other shooting sports/disciplines and my access to the range of calibres used in those sports on the international stage will not be curtailed in any unreasonable way.
Very importantly, I would like to know that future development of well established shooting sports, new shooting sports and sports as yet not present on these shores is not limited in any unreasonable way.

I was happy in the knowledge that Declan/FLAG would provide me with that assurance in so far as it was possible given the terms of reference of the panel.

Now I am not so sure - my confidence in my representation is rattled by such a major change at such a late stage. It is not that I do not have confidence in the individual NGOs to represent their own sport - I just fear while they are all carefully guarding their own hen they wont see the fox make off with the rooster. I also fear that they may give some unnecessary or unrequired concessions in order to smooth the road for themselves.
This could have far reaching implications for shooting in general and for the introduction of new disciplines and sports in particular.

Correct me if I am wrong but Declan/FLAG provided that safety net. Their main concern is the letter of the law and it's practical application - regardless of calibre or discipline. This is the very bridge that is needed to cross the divide between the people who understand the sport(s) and the people who define the law.
Surely from the DOJ and Gardai's point of view they must be wondering what is going on here as that bridge has been removed.

I am afraid I have heard nothing as yet to allay my fears in this regard.

Answers on a posstcard to.......


B'Man

rrpc

I'm not sure that I understand all the gloom and doom on this thread. FLAG is a subcommittee of the SSAI, the SSAI have been invited onto the FCP. Ergo FLAG is still involved as a subset of the larger body.

Or am I missing something?

Bananaman

FLAG has been disbanded.

sidneyreilly

rrpc wrote: »

I'm not sure that I understand all the gloom and doom on this thread. FLAG is a subcommittee of the SSAI, the SSAI have been invited onto the FCP. Ergo FLAG is still involved as a subset of the larger body.

Or am I missing something?

Experience is needed at this table. FLAG are the ones with the experience to change now is madness.

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

FLAG has been disbanded.

Where did you hear that? Is it on this thread?

Not saying it should or shouldn't be disbanded, but it would strike me that a subcommittee of the SSAI called the Firearms Legislation Action Group would no longer need to exist if it's sponsoring body was invited to participate in a Government initiative called the Firearms Consultative Panel.

The Action having been completed as it were.

rrpc

sidneyreilly wrote: »

Experience is needed at this table. FLAG are the ones with the experience to change now is madness.

I would presume that the benefit of that experience would be freely available to whoever is going forward from the SSAI. No organisation would send a delegate without them being fully briefed first and de-briefed afterwards.

If FLAG were fully briefing the SSAI on all their contacts with the Gardai and DoJ over the years, then everyone involved should be up to speed.

Rew

You would have to admit it seems madness to send in a fresh face into the most important meeting to date and have them briefed by the experienced person?

Best foot forward and all that. Is there any word on who the SSAI person will be and what makes them fit for the job?

sidneyreilly

rrpc wrote: »

I would presume that the benefit of that experience would be freely available to whoever is going forward from the SSAI. No organisation would send a delegate without them being fully briefed first and de-briefed afterwards.

If FLAG were fully briefing the SSAI on all their contacts with the Gardai and DoJ over the years, then everyone involved should be up to speed.

All the briefing and de-briefing in the world does not replace experience or indeed ability.

Rosahane

Bananaman wrote: »

I'm quite baffled by this aswell.

...

B'Man

Hence I have signed the following:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Declankeogh/index.html

So have I - 65 signatures and counting:)

I have held a firearms licence holder since 1973 - just after the infamous seizure of the majority of fullbore arms and I firmly believe that the reason I can now enjoy fullbore rifle and pistol shooting is down to the people who have been mentioned here - Declan among them!

It seems on the face of it, to be absolutely daft to replace Declan who has the knowledge and most importantly, the experience to continue the excellent work he has done to date. At this juncture we need the best and most experienced negotiatorswe can get. I don't suppose the NARGC and the ICPSA are changing horses midstream!

Let's get this resolved before we have another 1972:eek:

rrpc

I find all this very strange. People who run organisations are in that position because of their experience and knowledge. Boards and Committees exist so that no one person becomes the de facto repository of all knowledge and wisdom and to share the information across as broad a base as possible.

Rew. There are plenty of people on here who demonstrate a tremendous grasp of all the shooting sports and firearms legislation. Anyone who has been part of the shooting sports for any length of time will know what are the main areas of difficulty with the firearms acts and their implementation.

I don't know the SSAI representative, but I'm sure they were chosen by democratic means. Saying anything else is implying that they are not a democratic organisation without anything to base that on.

I am not saying that Declan Keogh would not have been a good choice, but suggesting that whoever has been chosen is not a good choice is an insult to them and the people who chose them.

sidneyreilly

rrpc wrote: »

Where did you hear that? Is it on this thread?

Not saying it should or shouldn't be disbanded, but it would strike me that a subcommittee of the SSAI called the Firearms Legislation Action Group would no longer need to exist if it's sponsoring body was invited to participate in a Government initiative called the Firearms Consultative Panel.

The Action having been completed as it were.

Whats in a name? FLAG are a component of the SSAI and the components of FLAG being the people. Mr. Keogh should be going to the table.

alan123

Do none of the shooters in this forum know who is representing them?!

rrpc

sidneyreilly wrote: »

Whats in a name? FLAG are a component of the SSAI and the components of FLAG being the people. Mr. Keogh should be going to the table.

Declan Keogh has already stated on this thread that he is no longer on the committee of the SSAI. So how could he represent the SSAI?

rrpc

alan123 wrote: »

Do none of the shooters in this forum know who is representing them?!

The chairman of the NTSA has been selected to go forward on behalf of the NTSA. That information is published on the NTSA website.

Bananaman

Hypothetically speaking, If I was undergoing a range of tests with a Doctor and when the most important one was due - which I had been told the entire time was the most difficult and required the most finesse and I arrived that day to find a new guy standing there asking me to sit down so we could discuss my history - I would at the very least be frightened.

I'm sure both of them are well qualified to be a doctor and both of them have got all the relevant experience to be able to do whatever it is and the first guy will have briefed the second guy quite well BUT I can guarantee you my confidence would have been shattered.

I will be confiused as to why the change happened.
I will be disappointed not to have been told it was going to happen - after all he was my doctor
I will be apprehensive as I have no experience of the new guy
I will probably leg it.

Is that not also the case here?

B'Man

V Bull

65 signatures out of 327 people that have viewed this thread............!!!!!

Not a great sign of support ..............

sidneyreilly

rrpc wrote: »

I am not saying that Declan Keogh would not have been a good choice, but suggesting that whoever has been chosen is not a good choice is an insult to them and the people who chose them.

Indeed. Dose not evidence confidence does it?

Rew

V Bull wrote: »

65 signatures out of 244 people that have viewed this thread............!!!!!

Not a great sign of support ..............

Dont read in to that too much the views could be the same person 3 or 4 times over.

rrpc

sidneyreilly wrote: »

Indeed. Dose not evidence confidence does it?

On the part of whom?

alan123

What a mess.

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

I will be confiused as to why the change happened.
I will be disappointed not to have been told it was going to happen - after all he was my doctor
I will be apprehensive as I have no experience of the new guy
I will probably leg it.

Is that not also the case here?

B'Man

I don't know, I'm not your doctor

However, I also don't know who's been talking to the DoJ on behalf of the SSAI in the last year or so since the Firearms Act was proposed. If you remember the debacle over the firearms licence fees, you'd have to ask who exactly dropped the ball there.

And make no mistake, the ball was dropped. It was only action on all our parts that caused that particular proposal to be shelved.

So.... I'm not sure if your first doctor lost the x-rays, got removed from the register or ran off with his secretary....

Bananaman

Did FLAG not get the ball rolling to reverse that decision?

I seem to remember http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53018564&postcount=1

sidneyreilly

rrpc wrote: »

On the part of whom?

The great unwashed:D oh erm and the apparent lack of judgement by the committee

FLAG

rrpc wrote: »

I don't know, I'm not your doctor

However, I also don't know who's been talking to the DoJ on behalf of the SSAI in the last year or so since the Firearms Act was proposed. If you remember the debacle over the firearms licence fees, you'd have to ask who exactly dropped the ball there.

And make no mistake, the ball was dropped. It was only action on all our parts that caused that particular proposal to be shelved.

So.... I'm not sure if your first doctor lost the x-rays, got removed from the register or ran off with his secretary....

Folks

So for the information of all and sundry

I cannot help but get in here to clarify who has been talking to DOJ in the last year and that has been myself on behalf of FLAG and Terry Martin, Declan Cahill of the SSAI also accompanied us to the meeting in question. It was at that meetings with DOJ where I raised the issue of the license fee increases and we were informed that they had already been set by the Department of Finance, a search of the finance bill that PM confirmed the worst and that same afternoon I contacted Des Crofton who was unaware of the license increases, we worked closely together to bring the issue to the point where the minister agreed to set up the consultative panel, we even made national TV Pobal (one sunday evening) the rest is history.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...64&postcount=1

All meetings that we had were reported back to the SSAI

Lets not muddy the water here again.

The intent at the next SSAI AGM was to change the FLAG name from "action" to Advisory, certainly that’s the way it has been for the last three years. Comments recorded in the house of the Oireachtas is testimony to the respect we gained from the department during the consultative process and the formation of the current and soon to be implemented legislation.

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

Did FLAG not get the ball rolling to reverse that decision?

I seem to remember http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53018564&postcount=1

And I don't just remember this, I posted it myself.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53026955&postcount=52

Same thread, bit further on and in the next post Declan agrees that the ball was dropped.

I take RRPC's point we should have seen this in February, but then again all shooting organisations should have been consulted directly by Finance, we have lobbied Finance since 1998 for a change to the cost of a second rifle and now the same with pistols.......clearly to no effect.

That was the single most important change in the last year and it was missed. It's still on the statute books by the way, so if we are going to dodge that particular bullet we'd be better spending our time writing to the organisations involved in our sports and advising them as to the threats facing us instead of bitching about who gets to devote their spare time to these meetings.

The existence of this Panel and the full representation it gives us is one of the best things that has happened for this sport... ever.

The moaning and sniping as a result makes me despair. Better if we got nothing

Bananaman

the full representation it gives us

From my own point of view some of the sports I partake in
in particular Dynamic shooting are not yet represented.
Last I heard (last week) IPSA had not yet received their invitation.

I have heard plenty of people state that they either could or would not support other disciplines (IPSA as an example declared that they WOULD support shooting on the whole)

Under those circumstances I was happy that Declan/FLAG would provide a voice of reason without prejudice or vested interest in anything but the promotion of shooting sports and not any particular discipline.

For example - as you have pointed out earlier NTSA have a seat on the panel (although I thought they were a member of SSAI and hence already represented) - some of their committee members have stated in the past that they are restricted from supporting other disciplines. I believe they are consitutionally opposed to IPSC. Even when the license fee debacle was in full swing they were still issuing press releases calling for the license fees changes to be reversed for OLYMPIC SHOOTING firearms. I, for one, felt all warm and fuzzy.

So as you can imagine I would like to know that I have some impartial representation on the panel.
I thought I had it. Now I dunno what is going on.

B'Man

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

From my own point of view some of the sports I partake in
in particular Dynamic shooting are not yet represented.
Last I heard (last week) IPSA had not yet received their invitation.

I have heard plenty of people state that they either could or would not support other disciplines (IPSA as an example declared that they WOULD support shooting on the whole)

Under those circumstances I was happy that Declan/FLAG would provide a voice of reason without prejudice or vested interest in anything but the promotion of shooting sports and not any particular discipline.

I can only point you to the terms of reference Bananaman. Most of them are relatively sports indifferent and as such would not cause any divergence of interests.

For example - as you have pointed out earlier NTSA have a seat on the panel (although I thought they were a member of SSAI and hence already represented) - some of their committee members have stated in the past that they are restricted from supporting other disciplines. I believe they are consitutionally opposed to IPSC. Even when the license fee debacle was in full swing they were still issuing press releases calling for the license fees changes to be reversed for OLYMPIC SHOOTING firearms. I, for one, felt all warm and fuzzy.

You are deliberately misrepresenting the situation there. Sparks pointed out that the NTSA had no role in speaking for other bodies, and that all of us speaking seperately was the same if not better than all speaking together prividing the message was the same (which it was - no mention was made in the press release about OLYMPIC SHOOTING firearms as you put it). The GAA have no role in speaking for the IRFU, and their members would be more than a little miffed if they did so. In fact if the NTSA represented itself as speaking for the NASRC, they would surely get and deserve a flea in their ear for it.

The NTSA is not constututionally opposed to IPSC. This has been stated over and over again, and been continually misrepresented. The ISSF to which the NTSA belong is opposed to it's member federations being associated with practical shooting which is a completely different thing. I know for a fact that some members of the NTSA take part in practical shooting and there is no problem with that.

So as you can imagine I would like to know that I have some impartial representation on the panel.
I thought I had it. Now I dunno what is going on.
B'Man

I fail to understand your reasoning. You had representation under the SSAI in the form of Declan Keogh, you now have it under the SSAI in the form of someone else. You don't know who that is, but you insist that it couldn't be better than Declan and therefore you are unrepresented.

You'll forgive me if I'm slightly underwhelmed by your logic.

le_Chacal

Ned Muldhoon wrote: »

Any comments on the bizzare decision by the SSAI to dispense with the services of the FLAG respresentative namely Mr. Declan Keogh.
From what I can see, this organisation (FLAG), has negotiated on behalf of the shooting community, very successfully for a number of years. From my personal dealings, I can state that without their tireless intervention and expertise we would not have Pistols, Full bore rifles etc.

They also laid the groundwork for the initial court cases!

have yoou ever heard of the nargc or other bodies that were involved in gegoitations.

i heard that the pope is looking for anotheer saint

le_Chacal

Rovi wrote: »

Indeed.:(

Personal statement: I have no connection with either SSAI or FLAG, other than being an ordinary member of an organisation with representation on SSAI.


FLAG/Declan have done sterling work on behalf of Irish shooters over the years, so it does appear on the surface of it to be somewhat puzzling that they haven't been put forward for this particular process, but most of us here aren't in a position to comment unless we were part of the decision making process, in which case I strongly suspect we'd be bound to confidentiality.

Perhaps I'm wrong and all this can be discussed in public. If so, I look forward to definitive clarification.


Let the games begin


...

Anyhow...
The thing is, whatever the reasons for this decision (and opinions on their validity will be coloured by the viewpoint of the beholder), I'm sure any and all discussions/debates/votes on this matter will be confidential and can't be discussed in public.
So, unless someone privy to the decision process wishes to break confidentiality, I don't expect to see anything definitive emerge from this thread.

why not in public is it a secret society..... I'm sure any and all discussions/debates/votes on this matter will be confidential .....is this so the meembers wont know what is going on.

Ned Muldhoon

ok lads, we're now getting bogged down with rhetoric. As I see it, the question is simple. Why has Mr. Keogh been replaced on the consultative panel? I can see no logic in this.

Over the past number of years, I have had numerous occaisons to consult with the SSAI on various topics. Without fail, Mr. Keogh was the one who answered all questions, provided relevant information and gave unlimited time and assistance in getting a number of projects off the ground - all of which were to the benfit of the shooting community in my area (sporting shotgun, hunters, rifle and pistol etc).

Now, if the SSAI proports to speak on my behalf (and others affiliated) I would like to know the who, why, etc. This appears to me to be a simple, democratic request! Transparency of operation and motive is required.

le_Chacal

FLAG wrote: »

Folks

I will only add the following to this thread at this time.

I am astonished and pleased with the level of support that I have received from the shooting community, no doubt there are some who may not agree but I would say that misinformation may colour their view. Being the FLAG representative since it's inception in 2001 and having stepped back from the committee of the SSAI has allowed me to represent the sport in an impartial manner looking after all interests. I have not done this alone there have been many contributors, a lot of people deserve credit, but now is not the time to be glory hunting, we have our sport to look after, no matter what your interests, air-soft, target shooting, hunting, pistol shooting, plinking, we need a cohesive group not a fragmented rabble!

That being said it is very important to be aware that we should not "air our dirty washing" in the pages of this so public boards.

You can be sure that the officials of the various government departments and the Gardai would be aware of these boards and would be keeping a close eye on them.

There are issues surrounding the recent SSAI decision, let’s deal with them in the correct manner and not enter into a debate on these pages.

Declan Keogh
Chairman FLAG

That being said it is very important to be aware that we should not "air our dirty washing" in the pages of this so public boards.
dirty washin why not! it did not stop you blagging two clubs and their members sofar on boa**s this year.

is this the flag waving the pole. if you get my drift....
who is in charge ssai and its members or flag .... democracy!
who are the people on the commitee of flag ...names pleaseor is it a one man band:eek:

rrpc

Ned Muldhoon wrote: »

ok lads, we're now getting bogged down with rhetoric. As I see it, the question is simple. Why has Mr. Keogh been replaced on the consultative panel? I can see no logic in this.

As far as I can understand, the SSAI were asked to send a representative to the Panel. Mr. Keogh is not a member of the SSAI but co-opted to a subcommittee called FLAG. He was never on the panel because the panel has not convened yet.

..... Without fail, Mr. Keogh was the one who answered all questions, provided relevant information and gave unlimited time and assistance in getting a number of projects off the ground - all of which were to the benfit of the shooting community in my area (sporting shotgun, hunters, rifle and pistol etc).

As have I and many others in the community who gave their time willingly in the interests of their sport. I'm not requesting a place on the panel, because I trust the organisations who represent me to do the job they were elected to do.

Now, if the SSAI proports to speak on my behalf (and others affiliated) I would like to know the who, why, etc. This appears to me to be a simple, democratic request! Transparency of operation and motive is required.

And presumably the decision was reached in a democratic manner. I'd expect that an announcement to that effect would be published on their website the same as the NTSA made their announcement on the NTSA one and Countryside Alliance etc. etc.

We don't know when the SSAI made their decision, but seeing as this thread appeared today, it must have been fairly recently, so allow them a little time to make their announcements.

Ned Muldhoon

Le Chacal, Can we please stay with the tabled topic. Off topic and deviations from the item at hand such as this will not help.

rrpc

The NARGC website (which has been down for a long time) does not mention the FCP either. Does anyone know if they are going to be represented?