Urgent Meeting

Blazher

HI all, Before i post this mail i have been sent, I would just like to say sorry if it has been posted before or if this is the wrong section,

I have been sent this mail and if its true, Worries me

If anyone has any information on this please post as this maybe the start of the end!

Due to the letter posted in this months Irish Shooters Digest and the UNLAWFUL RESTRICTIONS (1925 Act not applicable and relevant sections of CJA2006 not been commenced) being foisted upon ranges and clubs, it has been decided to hold an emergency meeting of IPSA, with an open invitation to all shooters and shooting organisations next Wednesday

Date; 09/04/08

Venue; Tullamore Heritage Centre, Bury Quay, Tullamore, Co. Offaly

Time; 8PM

This meeting will to discuss and investigate possible legal challenges, both to the letter in ISD and in relation to range specifications and to the fact that Justice are acting beyond their powers regarding CJA2006 (as it has not been commenced) and Range Inspector as he has not been appointed and as such has no legal power whatsoever

The letter in ISD not only affects practical shooting but almost every other discipline as well, e.g. Clay shooting--moving targets and moving firearm, ISSF--moving and turning targets, PPC1500--shape of target, Police Practical 1+2--use of holsters.

Basically, if let get away with this, Justice have in one stroke of a pen made possession of a pistol illegal as you will have no reason to hold a FAC for one as all target shooting disciplines are now illegal.

This has to be stopped in its tracks now.

I know that this is short notice but circumstances dictate that we act now rather than later. I urge every member to attend and to notify and bring any friends or colleagues that participate in any shooting sport

IRLConor

Does anyone have the letter in the ISD that it refers to? (My first inclination is to call bullsh*t on several of the points, but I want to know what the above is referring to before doing so.)

rrpc

AFAIK, the range inspector was appointed in August 2007. I remember seeing the notice in Iris Oifiguil.

The Letter

The Letter wrote:

and the UNLAWFUL RESTRICTIONS (1925 Act not applicable and relevant sections of CJA2006 not been commenced) being foisted upon ranges and clubs

Funny, I seem to have missed that email from the NTSA!

rrpc

Deleted User wrote: »

Funny, I seem to have missed that email from the NTSA!

Eh Zara?

The NTSA now publish the Irish Shooters Digest do they?

Grizzly 45

Letter posted in file here for everyones reading.

rrpc

rrpc wrote: »

Eh Zara?

The NTSA now publish the Irish Shooters Digest do they?

You missed my sarcasm..

I was stating how I seem to have missed the email where I was told my rights as a shooter were being infringed - hence, they probably aren't.

bigred

Does it actually define what a Target Shooting range is anywhere on the Statutes? Didnt realise if there is such a definition??

IRLConor

Thanks Grizzly.

There's no definition of what "target shooting" entails so I don't know how enforceable that decision is itself.

On the other hand, they can do it perfectly legally if the relevant Supers revoke the authorisation of all target shooting ranges and re-issue an authorisation for those ranges worded in such a way to prohibit the kind of shooting they wish to prohibit.

I don't think the DoJ can just issue a declaration saying what "target shooting" entails. That kind of legal interpretation is for the courts to decide.

The letter in the OP is still full of hyperbole though. "Justice have in one stroke of a pen made possession of a pistol illegal as you will have no reason to hold a FAC for one as all target shooting disciplines are now illegal" is rubbish.

rrpc

Deleted User wrote: »

You missed my sarcasm..

I was stating how I seem to have missed the email where I was told my rights as a shooter were being infringed - hence, they probably aren't.

Apologies Zara, missed it completely

rrpc

IRLConor wrote: »

The letter in the OP is still full of hyperbole though. "Justice have in one stroke of a pen made possession of a pistol illegal as you will have no reason to hold a FAC for one as all target shooting disciplines are now illegal" is rubbish.

Indeed, but if you were to read that letter literally (as if it were a law) It could quite easily refer to turning targets (electronic would be OK), ISSF running target and rapid fire pistol.

IRLConor

rrpc wrote: »

Indeed, but if you were to read that letter literally (as if it were a law) It could quite easily refer to turning targets (electronic would be OK), ISSF running target and rapid fire pistol.

Yes, but saying that "all target [pistol] shooting disciplines are now illegal" would still be nonsense since the likes of ISSF free pistol, 10m air pistol, etc. would still be allowed. Even if the most strict definition of that letter were law then it would still be possible to get a pistol for target shooting.

While the letter from the DoJ is a matter for concern and certainly worth fighting I disagree with the tone set in the letter in the OP. It seems to be written to produce a particular type of emotional response and has several inaccuracies (no mention of holsters in the DoJ letter, for example).

Who was the author of the letter in the OP? What body circulated it?

Sikamick

Open to correction, But I think any superintendent can close/stop shooting taking place in or on any piece of ground that he deems to be a danger to public safety.


Michael O'Connor
Secretary to Dublin Target Sports Club

packas

Other than IPSC,PPC & olympic pistol with .32S&W what pistol disciplines require you to shoot centrefire?

rrpc

IRLConor wrote: »

Yes, but saying that "all target [pistol] shooting disciplines are now illegal" would still be nonsense since the likes of ISSF free pistol, 10m air pistol, etc. would still be allowed. Even if the most strict definition of that letter were law then it would still be possible to get a pistol for target shooting.

While the letter from the DoJ is a matter for concern and certainly worth fighting I disagree with the tone set in the letter in the OP. It seems to be written to produce a particular type of emotional response and has several inaccuracies (no mention of holsters in the DoJ letter, for example).

Who was the author of the letter in the OP? What body circulated it?

I don't see the bit about 'shape of targets' either. One point in that letter is completely wrong though. Ranges were never authorised under the 1925 Act or any other firearms Act up to 2006.

The 1964 act introduced a permit for members of clubs to use, carry and possess firearms that were held under an authorisation issued to the club by the Superintendent. This was inserted into Section 2 as subsection 5.

Even a cursory viewing of the firearms act would support the view that this is an authorisations to hold firearms rather than to authorise ranges for the simple reason that it was inserted in Section 2 (which is the section that lists the various exceptions to the restriction on possession, carrying or using a firearm).

(5) (a) The Superintendent of any district may authorise in writing the possession, use or carriage of firearms or ammunition in that district in any of the circumstances specified in paragraphs (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (j) or (k) (2007 34) of subsection (4) of this section or of any component parts of a firearm, (1971 3) during such period, not exceeding one year, as may be specified in the authorisation.

rrpc

IRLConor wrote: »

Who was the author of the letter in the OP? What body circulated it?

It looks like the IPSA did. From the front page of the IPSA website:

Note to all IPSA members:

General meeting of the Association to be held at Tullamore Dew Heritage Centre, Bury Quay, Tullamore, Co. Offaly on Wednesday 9th April at 8pm.

Sikamick

rrpc wrote: »

It looks like the IPSA did. From the front page of the IPSA website:

This seems to be an add on (all shooters and shooting organisations next Wednesday)The IPSA websight does not say this that I can see, it is directed to their own members.


(Note to all IPSA members:
General meeting of the Association to be held at Tullamore Dew Heritage Centre, Bury Quay, Tullamore, Co. Offaly on Wednesday 9th April at 8pm.)

Looks like the sh*t stirrers may be at it again.

Sparks

packas wrote: »

Other than IPSC,PPC & olympic pistol with .32S&W what pistol disciplines require you to shoot centrefire?

Silhouette shooting as I understand it.

Reading the letter in the ISD, I can see why the IPSA would be worried. Thing is, this kind of thing is something you could have seen coming back when the FCP was formed and the IPSA wasn't on the panel. They're the only major group who wasn't, so far as I can tell (I know the deer hunters might disagree with me based on what they wrote in the ISD this month as well).

It's certainly an incredibly badly worded letter (the one in the ISD from the DoJ) - as written it covers every shooting sport out there, from ISSF running target and ISSF shotgun (clays not being shot at a set distance), through just about every formal and informal target shooting discipline out there, through to the IPSC and IDPA shooting that seems to be the focus of the between-the-lines bit of the letter (I'm pretty sure that given what the DoJ knows about shooting that that's what they're talking about - though that's just my personal opinion).

Perhaps a better route would be for the IPSA to be drafted onto the FCP and to discuss the matter in there, rather than immediately selecting a barrister? Membership of the FCP does not preclude later taking legal challanges, if it's really as bad as it sounds, but they really ought to be the avenue of last resort.

Sparks

Sikamick wrote: »

Looks like the sh*t stirrers may be at it again.

Hmmm. My comments were based on the idea that it was the IPSA issuing that letter (because in that letter it says it's from the IPSA). If not, and this is a redux of earlier twaddle, that changes things, and about the only reason to show up would be to tell the stirrers to take their spoon and go home...

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

It's certainly an incredibly badly worded letter (the one in the ISD from the DoJ) - as written it covers every shooting sport out there, from ISSF running target and ISSF shotgun

On further reflection, these would not be affected as (a) ISSF running target (and RF Pistol) are shot on defined lanes and (b) shotgun isn't included under the range authorisations as specified under the 2006 act.

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

On further reflection, these would not be affected as (a) ISSF running target (and RF Pistol) are shot on defined lanes and (b) shotgun isn't included under the range authorisations as specified under the 2006 act.

First off, I'm thinking that this isn't a formal statement of policy from the DoJ (I know it's not law), but a letter trying to give the gist of the thing. But, if it was, it would include ISSF running target and ISSF RF pistol because the targets move and he says "where the shooter and the targets are static and the shooting is carried out at fixed distances along fixed lanes".
You're completely right about the shotgun though, my bad.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

First off, I'm thinking that this isn't a formal statement of policy from the DoJ (I know it's not law), but a letter trying to give the gist of the thing. But, if it was, it would include ISSF running target and ISSF RF pistol because the targets move and he says "where the shooter and the targets are static and the shooting is carried out at fixed distances along fixed lanes".

Well, you'll have to drop RF pistol as well because the targets don't move, there's just five of them. And in case you were going to say "but the shooter moves", he doesn't, just his arm.

So it's running target only then.

That's if you're going to be a Pedantic Pat about the letter, which of course neither of us are.

I don't understand that letter about taking legal action though, because there is nothing at this point in time to take legal action against.

Sparks

RF Pistol targets turn though - unless you're a member of a well-off range with electronic targets for smallbore pistol

rrpc

Ok I'll grant that they turn but....

they're still static and you're not supposed to shoot at them when they're turned.

But seriously, there's no change in the backstop element whether the target is turned or not, which is what I think that letter was driving at.

chem

This is just more crap from DoJ. Do what I say as I know best rubbish (even if I know F all about shooting). Can these issues be taged on by DoJ and made law or is it the same problem we had with the gardi and gun safes before the law was changed?

Was it a case that DoJ worded everything so it looked OK to us at first , but now they are showing there hand?

Why are Irish shooters so much more stupid, dangerous and pose more of a risk to the public, then any other european shooter?:mad:

Tell you what DoJ. Why not write a law that only allows Gardi, TD`s and priests to hold a firearms licence, because us pond scum will only revolt if we get our hands on anything other then a shotgun.

Where is DoJ getting its stats from? Shooters in Ireland are amongest the safest in the world in the sport. But if we had reloading or practical pistol etc.. we will become blood crazed and triger happy?

I dont like the direction this seems to be heading:mad::mad::mad:

Bananaman

Great to see the shooting community rallying behind one of it's largest groups - almost brings a tear to my eye :rolleyes:

If you are to take the letter sent by an individual PO from the DOJ (I am correct in saying that PO is just a grade in the department and not somone who can make policy ??) as read it is a very worrying development.

Any limitation of the privileges which the shooting community have enjoyed to date - and exercised in the safest and most responsible way possible - is a backward step on what has, of late, seemed to be a very progressive move on the part of the various departments and bodies.

As an example we have had IPSC Practical Pistol here for some time. We have been recognised as the most improved region in the world this year. We have had official enquiries from other countries with respect to adopting our qualification and safety criteria as they are some of the safest in the world.

I hope that the views expressed in this letter are just the views of an individual or a topic of discussion that was meant to be just that and is not, in fact, a statment of intended policy.

I hope that we can get some clarification from the departments involved and the FCP as the body tasked with expressing and safeguarding the interests of the very sportsmen and sportswomen who are concerned about this.

In terms of the meeting that was called. I have no doubt that Practical Pistol Competitiors will attend - after all there are hundreds of active members of IPSA who have invested heavily in equipment, certification, practice and in many cases foreign travel to represent their country and sport. I am one of those and as such can state that I will be attending for those very reasons. Many clubs have also invested heavily in providing facilities where these sports can be exercised in the safest possible manner. Due to the phenomenal growth of the sport in the country this is not to be underestimated.

As I am not active in any of the other affected sports - although I know many who are and are also very concerned - I won't comment of what they will or will not do.

Suffice it to say that if this is real ( I still hope it is a fart in the wind ), I for one, will not allow this travesty to take place without every avenue having been explored, including a legal challenge, where necessary.

through to the IPSC and IDPA shooting that seems to be the focus of the between-the-lines bit of the letter

Do not try to associate IPSC with IPDA - IPDA is a discipline which is not practiced here in Ireland - it is a discipline largely confined to the U.S.A these days and was never popular in Europe. We, in Ieland, neither use their categorisations nor target types.
Practical Pistol in Ireland comes under the auspices of IPSC only .

Perhaps a better route would be for the IPSA to be drafted onto the FCP and to discuss the matter in there

I realise that IPSA were not extended an invitation to take part in the FCP at the start - which I, personally, believe to be a outright disgrace due to the size of the sport in Ireland but if memory serves there were many people stating on these very boards that it would not be an issue as the other bodies would look after their interests. Can I have a show of hands please :rolleyes:

I assume that IPSA would see it as a welcome development if they were to be asked to partake in the FCP - they would be sure to extend support to all other sports which need it and represent their interests where asked to do so - but I would also assume that there is absolutely no way they will ever accept this - there is not even any room for discussion in that letter.

Looks like the sh*t stirrers may be at it again

Klass - with a capital K. I'm sure if you go you'll bring a big swizzle stick.

B'Man

Sparks

It's not a good turn, but I think that it's not without solution. First step would be to get an IPSA rep onto the FCP and discuss it in there. Going to the courts or TDs before that point really would be a case of not doing your homework first.

Bananaman

First step would be to get an IPSA rep onto the FCP

Like the last time that was suggested??

IRLConor

Bananaman wrote: »

If you are to take the letter sent by an individual PO from the DOJ (I am correct in saying that PO is just a grade in the department and not somone who can make policy ??) as read it is a very worrying development.

PO is short for Principal Officer. I don't think any civil servant can make policy, that's a political function. Civil servants typically implement policy. I suspect that he would have looked for prior approval from his boss(es) before sending any letter in his official capacity.

The following is a diagram from Wikipedia showing the different grades:

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

Great to see the shooting community rallying behind one of it's largest groups - almost brings a tear to my eye :rolleyes:

Much as I would like to rally behind you B'man, the notice that the OP put at the head of this thread was not signed by any organisation and included a number of hysterical statements that were not backed up by a reading of the ISD letter. To top it all, the notice purported to speak for ISSF shooters amongst others and I as one of those felt it incumbent upon me to allay the fears incited by the meeting notice.

If the IPSA wish to engender support from other shooters and bodies, they would do well to sign their statements (if in fact the statement quoted at the beginning of this thread did come from them), refrain from hyperbole and deal with the facts only.

Sparks

Banana, I'm pretty sure I can guess at what your mood is right now, but I do want to point out one or two things:

Bananaman wrote: »

Suffice it to say that if this is real ( I still hope it is a fart in the wind ), I for one, will not allow this travesty to take place without every avenue having been explored, including a legal challenge, where necessary.

I've no objection (and don't really think I would be able to stop it anyway) to people resorting to the courts - but I really, seriously, sincerely and honestly believe that the courts are not the first place to try. Getting the IPSA on the FCP would be probably the first thing to try to do. That way there's more information available, and you have a direct line to talk to the people involved; and it may well be that that's all that's needed. Up until very recently, everyone in the DoJ "knew" that fullbore rifles and all types of pistols were far too dangerous for us to use - they've since learnt that what you know is often wrong. This may just be another step in that process, in which case it's far more important to be there to do the teaching than to be trying to pick a fight with an 800lb gorilla.

Do not try to associate IPSC with IPDA

I'm not. I know the history of both and they are clearly distinct in my mind - but I doubt that the DoJ representatives on the FCP would see any difference. For the same reason that their initial stab at a restricted list managed to restrict virtually all olympic rifles purely by accident. And the central thing both IPSC and IDPA have in common is that they are both dynamic in that the shooter moves to shoot at targets. The philosophical differences, the target differences, the rule differences; I don't think that they were foremost in the mind of the person drafting that letter.

if memory serves there were many people stating on these very boards that it would not be an issue as the other bodies would look after their interests. Can I have a show of hands please :rolleyes:

You won't see mine, I thought they should have been there from day one. I wrote to the DoJ at the time to say so.

Klass - with a capital K. I'm sure if you go you'll bring a big swizzle stick.

If I read Sikamick right, he wasn't talking about the IPSA as being ****-stirrers, it was a reference to the earlier hullabaloo about who got to sit at the FCP table and who didn't; a topic that's not germane to this thread.

Double-Alpha

How can the IPSA be elected or voted onto the FCP if they cant even get into the SSAI ???

I beleive that they have made several applications to the SSAI with no success. Who's blocking them ??? Why ????

This wouldnt be happening now if they were on the panel.

From what I am hearing, a certain group sometime ago sent in a list with specifications of particular handguns to the DOJ and said that they were the only type of handguns that they thought should be used for target shooting in Ireland.

If this is true, then I think that these guys are responsible for this situation.

bunny shooter

Is there an FCP response anywhere to this letter yet ?

Sparks

Double-Alpha wrote: »

How can the IPSA be elected or voted onto the FCP if they cant even get into the SSAI ???

Because one's nothing to do with the other - the CAI aren't in the SSAI, and they sit on the panel, so do a host of other groups, both within and without the SSAI.

From what I am hearing, a certain group sometime ago sent in a list with specifications of particular handguns to the DOJ and said that they were the only type of handguns that they thought should be used for target shooting in Ireland.
If this is true, then I think that these guys are responsible for this situation.

I've heard that rumour as well. However, I've also heard where it started from, and suffice it to say that the knowlege of the source very soundly discredited the rumour in my mind, long before I ever asked the guys cited in the rumour what the story was. And we've had this argument on boards before, and I don't want to go into it again. Click on the Search button at the top of the page and use it - there's at least three threads in here about it.

bunny shooter

I thought the "SS" in "SSAI" stood for "Shooting Sports" ? Is IPSA not a governing body of a shooting sport ?

rrpc

Double-Alpha wrote: »

From what I am hearing, a certain group sometime ago sent in a list with specifications of particular handguns to the DOJ and said that they were the only type of handguns that they thought should be used for target shooting in Ireland.

If this is true, then I think that these guys are responsible for this situation.

I was just on the phone to the NTSA Chairman and he'd like to know who sent that list in as well.

Any ideas?

Bananaman

I cannot speak for IPSA or the DOJ representative who drafted the letter.

I can only speak for myself - I am horrified - at

a) the fact that these issues were not addressed already by the FCP and that this is even an issue and

that people will jump up and say "my sport is ok - pass the lemon creams" in response to this rather than "jaysus - they can't do that coz...."

By all accounts the DOJ monitor this board and as such will have seen much discussion of the sport of Practical Pistol - they must read the Digest or else why are they posting in it hence they saw Last Months Article on IPSC.
Yet, they can make a statement that "with a stroke of the pen" can make a sport illegal in Ireland.

The FCP have no excuse - you cannot seriously tell me that a position like this was reached without consulting them - if they did then it looks like they just passed the vaseline around - if not then what differnce would it make if IPSA was on it???

This is not a few lads behind a shed somewhere. These are serious sports in which a great many people from Ireland compete at an international level.,

The PPC guys have an international coming up in which they expect to do very well - a good few from my own club - they do not need this hanging over their heads.

Ireland was planning to hold it's first IPSC Level III (International Open) this year but due to various uncertainties (some were DOJ related but I garauntee you nobody saw this flying pig come over the horizon) it had to be postponed until next year.
There was massive interest in the international community among people wishing to attend this competition. This was going to be peoples summer holidays - bring the kids - see Ireland - shoot at the first Irish International. When we go to internationals in other countries this season - there will be hundreds of Irish competitors at Internationls worldwide this year - I, personally, will be attending up to nine shoots abroad this year alone - what do we tell them??

I sincerely hope that this is all rubbish and I have just been venting for no reason.

B'Man

IRLConor

Double-Alpha wrote: »

How can the IPSA be elected or voted onto the FCP if they cant even get into the SSAI ???

As far as I am aware, seats in the FCP are by invitation. The DoJ issued the invites. I don't think there's a question of elections or votes.

Double-Alpha wrote: »

I beleive that they have made several applications to the SSAI with no success. Who's blocking them ??? Why ????

The IPSA and the NTSA can't be in the SSAI at the same time or else the NTSA will get a kicking from the ISSF (and probably be disaffiliated). It's a sh*tty situation to be in but there's very little any Irish shooter can do about it.

chem

IRLConor wrote: »

As far as I am aware, seats in the FCP are by invitation. The DoJ issued the invites. I don't think there's a question of elections or votes.



The IPSA and the NTSA can't be in the SSAI at the same time or else the NTSA will get a kicking from the ISSF (and probably be disaffiliated). It's a sh*tty situation to be in but there's very little any Irish shooter can do about it.

So we just cut lose the blokes who are not sitting at the table with us:mad:

bunny shooter

Bananaman wrote: »

These are serious sports in which a great many people from Ireland compete at an international level

What kind of numbers are we talking about here. Not too many I'd say ? I reckon the domestic scene would be a better judge of the amount of people actively involved in pistol shooting in this country. I do very few domestic comps and no foreign ones but shoot on my rasnge very, very regularly, which I can prove with the attendance register as do a lot of my shooting friends.

bunny shooter

IRLConor wrote: »

As far as I am aware, seats in the FCP are by invitation. The DoJ issued the invites. I don't think there's a question of elections or votes.



The IPSA and the NTSA can't be in the SSAI at the same time or else the NTSA will get a kicking from the ISSF (and probably be disaffiliated). It's a sh*tty situation to be in but there's very little any Irish shooter can do about it.

DOJ only invited who they wanted. Nice. Hardly going to invite some crowd thet wanted to shaft.

Simple answer to why IPSA can't be in SSAI, politics ?

IRLConor

chem wrote: »

So we just cut lose the blokes who are not sitting at the table with us:mad:

No. I'm not saying that. I was merely explaining why the IPSA is not in the SSAI.

I have no idea why the DoJ did not extend an invite to the IPSA to be on the FCP.

I don't know if the FCP were consulted before the DoJ decided to send that letter. Even if they were consulted, they're a consultative body. Their opinions are not binding and the DoJ can turn around and decide "We've talked to the FCP but we don't care what they said, send the letter".

I'm sure the FCP will at some stage tell us whether or not they were consulted before the letter was sent and, if they were, what their opinion was. I wouldn't judge them before you hear from them.

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

I cannot speak for IPSA or the DOJ representative who drafted the letter.

I can only speak for myself - I am horrified - at

a) the fact that these issues were not addressed already by the FCP and that this is even an issue and

Range construction was addressed by the FCP. It's in the briefing document.

that people will jump up and say "my sport is ok - pass the lemon creams" in response to this rather than "jaysus - they can't do that coz...."

That's a totally unhelpful attitude. A great many statements were made in the OP and a great many were wrong. Most of us were concerned with the veracity of the statement itself and then with the letter that prompted it. Most people when faced with a statement that: [insert your sport here] is finished, will strive first to see if it's true before looking at the bigger picture.

The FCP have no excuse - you cannot seriously tell me that a position like this was reached without consulting them - if they did then it looks like they just passed the vaseline around - if not then what differnce would it make if IPSA was on it???

From the start of range authorisations in this country back as far as 2006, it was fairly obvious that IPSC shooting here would have problems meeting range safety standards that everyone else was being made to meet. Do the IPSA feel that they are a special case and that these critreria shouldn't apply to them?

As an example: Midlands have spent an enormous amount of money on a pistol range with a backstop over twenty feet high. Even with that, the targets may not be moved back towards the firing point from their position at the butts. Other ranges have had to fit baffles and raise backstops to meet the standards.

The PPC guys have an international coming up in which they expect to do very well - a good few from my own club - they do not need this hanging over their heads.

What exactly is the situation regarding PPC? I refer to the letter in the ISD and what bearing it has on PPC shooting.

Bananaman

What kind of numbers are we talking about here. Not too many I'd say ? I reckon the domestic scene would be a better judge of the amount of people actively involved in pistol shooting in this country.

You are correct - in Practical Pistol - a percentage of those who compete here at home compete abroad.

IPSA will have the numbers but I think there are ~200 active competitors in Ireland and may more signed up for training recieve their competition licenses.

I only stated International Competition to highlight the fact that the sport has grown from just local competitions to international competition on a par ( with much higher numbers and frequency ) with our *******ns.

B'Man

Bananaman

For *******ns - read O l y m p i a n s as in ISSF cousins.

IRLConor

bunny shooter wrote: »

DOJ only invited who they wanted. Nice. Hardly going to invite some crowd thet wanted to shaft.

Either that or they had never heard of the IPSA when they sent the invites. I don't know their motivations.

bunny shooter wrote: »

Simple answer to why IPSA can't be in SSAI, politics ?

Yes, but primarily at a global level (ISSF v IPSC) rather than a local one (NTSA v IPSA). I suspect that relations at local level are a lot more cordial.

Double-Alpha

IRLConor wrote: »

1. As far as I am aware, seats in the FCP are by invitation. The DoJ issued the invites. I don't think there's a question of elections or votes.



2. The IPSA and the NTSA can't be in the SSAI at the same time or else the NTSA will get a kicking from the ISSF (and probably be disaffiliated). It's a sh*tty situation to be in but there's very little any Irish shooter can do about it.

1. DOJ seem to have the upper hand if they decide who can play and who cant.

2. I dont understand what you mean by the IPSA & the NTSA can not be on the panel together or they will get a kicking from the ISSF

The French Practical Shooting Association held the IPSC European Handgun Championships in September last, and guess what, it was supported strongly by the F.F. de Tir. Check out their website. http://www.fftir.fr/index.php?FicheNum=1775

Is the Irish shooter something special or what ???

Bananaman

Much as I would like to rally behind you B'man, the notice that the OP put at the head of this thread was not signed by any Organisation

I'm not talking about organisations - I'm talking about shooters and the sports in which they compete.

I have zero time for politics. There are too many bodies representing bodies representing bodies who don't represent shooters if you ask me.

Restrictions like those outlined in that letter do not prevent organisations from existing - they prevent people from competing in sports.

If these restrictions went ahead it would mean that we could not compete in Practical Pistol or WA1500 or ISSF running target in Ireland - it would not stop us from competing abroad.

What it would do is smother the sports - not the organisations - out of exitence here in Ireland because those that were already competing would be it. There could be no training so no new people could be introduced to the sports.

In the long run the organisations would also die due to lack of membership.

Sounds a bit apocalyptic - doesn't it.

It'll make Ireland the laughing stock of Europe.

B'Man

IRLConor

Double-Alpha wrote: »

1. DOJ seem to have the upper hand if they decide who can play and who cant.

Of course they have the upper hand. They make the law!

2. I dont understand what you mean by the IPSA & the NTSA can not be on the panel together or they will get a kicking from the ISSF

The French Practical Shooting Association held the IPSC European Handgun Championships in September last, and guess what, it was supported strongly by the F.F. de Tir. Check out their website. http://www.fftir.fr/index.php?FicheNum=1775

Is the Irish shooter something special or what ???

I have no idea what the ISSF response to that, if any, will be.

I was just going by what the official line from the ISSF was:

The ISSF... would like to remind all members, officials, trainers, coaches and athletes of our international federation of the decision of our General Assembly 2000 in Sydney, Australia to not cooperate with the IPSC and that no member of the ISSF shall participate in any practical shooting activities.

Personally, I would prefer if the IPSA were a member of the SSAI but I don't get to choose.

Note also, that the IPSA and the NTSA could both be on the FCP. It's membership of the SSAI that could be trouble.

Bananaman

not cooperate with the IPSC and that no member of the ISSF shall participate in any practical shooting activities.

How does being a member of the SSAI consitute a breach of this?
That's a dangerous position to be in - If there are more shooters in IPSA what is to stop SSAI inviting them and kicking out the NTSA so as not to piss off the ISSF?

Has this ever been fought in the intervening 8 years ?

I have not heard that the French are not allowed to compete in the shooting events in the the Beijing Olympics after their national shooting body supported IPSC when they held the European championships.

B'Man

chem

I dont care or give a dam about IYZX and ZZTT or whatever group is in bed with eachother but when i see


The ISSF... would like to remind all members, officials, trainers, coaches and athletes of our international federation of the decision of our General Assembly 2000 in Sydney, Australia to not cooperate with the IPSC and that no member of the ISSF shall participate in any practical shooting activities.

Thats NUTS::eek: are we in nazi germany here folks??

I will not be told by anyone what sport I will partake in and any member of any group or club that allows themselfs be TOLD what to do should take a long hard look at themselfs and consider growing a backbone. shamefull