Funding legal action possibility

westwicklow

How do we (that's us all.....us all!!) fund possible court action(s) against licence refusals on apparent unacceptable grounds or is it coming to the situation that we may be "picked off one by one" until there's nobody left?? Eh, do we all stick together 'cause it seems to me we wouldn't stick together in a barrel of tar!!!

Sparks

It's more difficult than you think.

westwicklow

Excellent Mr. Sparks. I agree with each and every sentiment expressed.... but we are still "sitting ducks".

Sparks

Maybe so. But doing something just to do something, especially in our situation, is akin to throwing water on a grease fire. Sure sounds like you're doing something, but all you end up with results-wise is a 20 foot fireball, first-, second-, and third-degree burns over half your body, and a house burning down around your ears.

westwicklow

So we all sit here and wait, let down by supposedly representative organisations, societies, associations and clubs..... we wouldn't stick together in a barrel of tar!!

jwshooter

i like the way your thinking D , the courts will be flat out over the next few years,
i know that refused pistol holders are getting legal advice hear in wx .

if my mod is turned down il take action.

4gun

jwshooter wrote: »

i like the way your thinking D , the courts will be flat out over the next few years,
i know that refused pistol holders are getting legal advice hear in wx .

if my mod is turned down il take action.

what are the calibres that are being refused are they bigger that 9mm read sparks link above and well is a .4 really suited to target shooting, seems to me to be the same as using a .50 bmg to shoot silhouettes
I'd agree with the super in that case

IRLConor

I've deleted a few posts here (1 which was personal abuse, the rest which wouldn't make sense after that was removed).

jwshooter is also banned for persistently ignoring the rules.

rowa

4gun wrote: »

what are the calibres that are being refused are they bigger that 9mm read sparks link above and well is a .4 really suited to target shooting, seems to me to be the same as using a .50 bmg to shoot silhouettes
I'd agree with the super in that case

to be honest 4-gun , that sounds like a real "pull up the ladder i'm alright" type of statement , i shoot a .45 acp and this round is widely used in nra 3-gun competitions , the .45 is widely used for "bullseye" shooting and a whole range of accessories are available to convert 1911 pistols for this type of sport ,e.g. orthopaedic grips and target sights .
i have never competited in a practical pistol match or even attended one and always used my centrefire pistol for paper punching and ppc 1500 events and only intended to do so .

Bananaman

4gun wrote: »

what are the calibres that are being refused are they bigger that 9mm read sparks link above and well is a .4 really suited to target shooting, seems to me to be the same as using a .50 bmg to shoot silhouettes
I'd agree with the super in that case

You're a disgrace to your sport for making a statement like that - a good percentage of people in target shooting use a .4 - a good percentage use .38, .45, etc.

It is what they have, they cannot get anything else - do you condemn then to a life out of their chosen sport?? Who the flock are you to make that decision?

Colours nailed to the post alright - all calibres are equal - as long as I have one.

B'Man

rrpc

4gun wrote: »

what are the calibres that are being refused are they bigger that 9mm read sparks link above and well is a .4 really suited to target shooting, seems to me to be the same as using a .50 bmg to shoot silhouettes
I'd agree with the super in that case

You need to take a look around you 4gun; the standard calibre for WA1500 is .38 wadcutter and in fact that was the calibre for ISSF centre fire pistol up until the .32 WC took over. It's still allowed for in the rules which makes it (by your warped logic) perfectly suited for target shooting :rolleyes:.

I heard (and obviously this is not confirmed) that someone was refused a licence for a .38 under lever (used for gallery rifle) as it was 'a military weapon'. I nearly fell off my horse laughing

4gun

my point being that just because a shooting class exists, doesn't mean that you can shoot it. In the US there is a class of shooter that use sub machine guns in compition should we try to licence them also, just because it exists and some one wants to give it a go
the line has to be drawn some where

It wasn't me!

4gun wrote: »

my point being that just because a shooting class exists, doesn't mean that you can shoot it. In the US there is a class of shooter that use sub machine guns in compition should we try to licence them also, just because it exists and some one wants to give it a go
the line has to be drawn some where

Yes, but at calibres is a ridiculous way to do it. Your analogy is flawed, as only licensing a category of firearm (like centrefire pistols) in a certain calibre is rather different to not licensing whole categories of firearm (such as those with fully automatic capability). A more appropriate analogy would be to license an UZI in 9mm Para, but not a Thompson in .45 ACP, to continue your own illustration.

Bananaman

4 gun - why are you off tryng to use an analogy with the USA - we have ad naueum outlined here and elsewhere that we have no interest in what goes on there.

We have no interest other than safeguarding the
SPORTS WE ALREADY TAKE PART IN AND HAVE DONE FOR YEARS NOW.

The Gardai have licensed various firearms over that time, for use in those sports.

If the individuals who hold those licenses can show that they have been using the firearm, for the purpose for which they licensed it, then their application should be dealt with on that basis.

There are no new restricted firearms licenses - i.e. no new centrefire pistol licenses - therefore all applications for a centrefire pistol license are for those that were ALREADY LICENSED.

You may have been refused your license(s) but that is NOT because of ANYTHING done by ANY other target shooter.

It is either because of something YOU did or did not do or simply because you are a Target Shooter - i.e. persona non grata with Mr. Ahern.

Please direct your anger towards the cause of your predicament - not the target shooters, rather our esteemed policy makers.

Do that by contacting your club and/or NGB, informing them of the relevant information and putting pressure on them to inform you of what THEY (i.e. WE) are going to do about it.

If Every aggreived target shooter, regardless of dscipline, calibre or action were to pressure their NGBs (who we elect) to provide a united front on our behalf, AND KEEP US INFORMED OF EVERYTHING THEY ARE DOING, we MAY get somewhere.

If the reps from your NGB pulls a 'we don't want to play with them' or 'we have our own ball' or the now infamous 'keep your head down' bullsh1t then tell em you don't give a rats arse and you want them to put their petty differences aside and work together on this - and keep you informed of what they are doing - or you will see them out on their arse come the AGM and replaced by someone who will.

Time for fecking about is well gone. They'll be the lords of an empty mano and known forever as the ones who rode the horse off the cliff r if they don't get their collective fingers out.

United we stand, divided we fall.

B'Man

4gun

for starters let me just get one thing straight ..my post that you are all commenting on was in responce to an earlier post that has been now deleted for some reason
I am not anti pistol in any shape
my origional post was in relation to the link in sparks post above in which a case was taken against a local super who refused someone a licence for a certain type of pistol and his decision was upheld in court, after reading part of the transcript from the case I said that I a would agree with the super

Sparks

You probably should reread the transcript 4gun - that case was lost because the applicant made a dogs dinner of the application process. From reading between the lines of the transcript, I'd say he shouldn't have had a firearm either - but it had nothing to do with the kind of firearm he was looking for and everything to do with how he went looking for one and why. If someone walks into the local station, demands a firearm (of any kind) because he "has a right to one" in return for filling out a form correctly, and gets into a shouting match with the Super and accuses the Super of breaking the law and thinks he should have a firearm because all his mates have one... yeah, that's not someone whose application is going to be looked on favourably, and probably with good reason.

Bananaman

All of which has feck all to do with someone who HAD a license for a centrefire handgun now having to re-apply.

Discuss cases of people who never had a license (and hence now never will) in a seperate thread please.

B'Man

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

All of which has feck all to do with someone who HAD a license for a centrefire handgun now having to re-apply.

Discuss cases of people who never had a license (and hence now never will) in a seperate thread please.

B'Man

I thought this thread was about legal action and court cases and the need to be careful as to which cases you take to court?

Bananaman

It is - but we must prevent there being a 'select few' (be that people, firearm make, model, calibre or action)

All animals are equal.........

B'Man

4gun

Sparks wrote: »

You probably should reread the transcript 4gun - that case was lost because the applicant made a dogs dinner of the application process. From reading between the lines of the transcript, I'd say he shouldn't have had a firearm either - but it had nothing to do with the kind of firearm he was looking for and everything to do with how he went looking for one and why. If someone walks into the local station, demands a firearm (of any kind) because he "has a right to one" in return for filling out a form correctly, and gets into a shouting match with the Super and accuses the Super of breaking the law and thinks he should have a firearm because all his mates have one... yeah, that's not someone whose application is going to be looked on favourably, and probably with good reason.

look we're all on the same page here, we're just looking at it from different angles
Sparks your post was origionaly about the perils of people taking ill prepared and weak cases to court and in that case losing, to the cost of every other shooter
I was, after reading the link you included in agreement with you :eek:

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

It is - but we must prevent there being a 'select few' (be that people, firearm make, model, calibre or action)
All animals are equal.........
B'Man

It's not about a "select few" B'man -- unless you define that select few as being the ones who don't stomp into a Garda station and demand a 9mm pistol as their right as an Irish citizen because all their mates have one and doesn't their taxes pay the Garda's wages and I WANT IT NOW OR I'LL HOLD MY BREATH UNTIL I TURN BLUE!!!!. You know what I mean?

4gun

Bananaman wrote: »

It is - but we must prevent there being a 'select few' (be that people, firearm make, model, calibre or action)

All animals are equal.........

B'Man

the select few already exists, granfathering should never have happened people were afraid of going for all or nothing, but once the minister said that those who already had their licences as of Nov.'08 could keep them and this pacified the pistol community ...well ,thats where the battle was lost
just pick a few off at a time over the next few licencing terms and you'll all be gone:(

Bananaman

i will not countenance a person, firearm make, model, calibre or action being sacrificed on the altar in order to smooth the road for another.

I am talking about centrefire handguns here - those that are already licensed - or at least were until Saturday night. Not hypothetically blue faced people in Garda Stations.

If persons got their licenses under false pretences (No Club, No Range Attendance, etc) in the past they have in essence not had a license so they are not of interest to me. They are not a relevant aspect of the discussion.

They were the chaff we always assumed would blow off in the wind and leave the wheat - trouble is, it's the wheat that is currently in the wind.

We have already seen what was done to the rimfire pistol sports with specific people, firearm makes, models, calibres and actions being put on a pedestal to the detriment of others.

That was done because there were competing voices, each lauding their own people, firearm makes, model, calibres and actions.
Look what happened. A Disgrace.

It should not be allowed to happen to the centrefire handguns.

B'Man

Bananaman

4gun wrote: »

once the minister said that those who already had their licences as of Nov.'08 could keep them and this pacified the pistol community ...

It only silenced the sheep. Anyone remember this: "Keep your heads down lads - you'll get to keep what you have"

there were plenty who fought tooth and nail until there was no recourse. All the time with the sheep snapping at their heels.

B'Man

4gun

Sparks wrote: »

It's not about a "select few" B'man -- unless you define that select few as being the ones who don't stomp into a Garda station and demand a 9mm pistol as their right as an Irish citizen because all their mates have one and doesn't their taxes pay the Garda's wages and I WANT IT NOW OR I'LL HOLD MY BREATH UNTIL I TURN BLUE!!!!. You know what I mean?

Just in case any one thinks that i am demanding that i have a right to a pistol just because so'n so has one,not my case, I have no interest in them apart from curiosity

we are all supposed to be equal under the law wher you give one group of people entitlements over another you create inequality

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

i will not countenance a person, firearm make, model, calibre or action being sacrificed on the altar in order to smooth the road for another.

Should that not be the royal 'we'

meathshooter

4gun wrote: »

just pick a few off at a time over the next few licencing terms and you'll all be gone:(

minister ahern wont have a job(as minister) over the next few terms and good rid of him and shame on him

4gun

meathshooter wrote: »

minister ahern wont have a job(as minister) over the next few terms and good rid of him and shame on him

I doubt any new minister is going to repeal these new laws
they would not want to be seen to be taken a step backwards ...remenber the media are anti gun as well and thats how they would view it the only way forward would be court action and then not have that court action overturned by further leglislation

deerhunter1

westwicklow wrote: »

How do we (that's us all.....us all!!) fund possible court action(s) against licence refusals on apparent unacceptable grounds or is it coming to the situation that we may be "picked off one by one" until there's nobody left?? Eh, do we all stick together 'cause it seems to me we wouldn't stick together in a barrel of tar!!!

The best way is to take legal action. Sue your local superintendant who goes against the rules and refuses your licence off his own back, instead of going by legislation laid down for them to follow. This way he is then accountable in court for his actions and possibly will have to pay costs. By suing the Minister for justice it take so long and its the taxpayers who pay the costs so these guys dont care as it does not affect them directly, I have seen something like this done a while back where the super got a solicitors letter reference his stance on issuing firearms licences, he was not long changing his approach and attitude and promptly issued same.

rrpc

I think many people are afraid to go to court for fear of the costs. The District Court is not like the High Court (which is where people had to go in the past - and only for judicial review) you can represent yourself there rather than get a barrister.

That's the other difference, you don't need a barrister in the DC, your solicitor is able to represent you if you need representation.

Remember that the District Court is where speeding fines, parking fines and other minor offences are tried. Mostly summary offences, family law and other non-jury offences and not much standing on ceremony.

More details here.

Bananaman

Need to be careful about who is sitting in the court when they call out

Mr. R. RPC
1 Main Street
Townsville

Seeking a review of a refusal to renew his license for a <insert firearm in question>

Scobe behind you calls his mates, gives them the address and tells em you're not home.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

We have already seen what was done to the rimfire pistol sports with specific people, firearm makes, models, calibres and actions being put on a pedestal to the detriment of others.

That was done because there were competing voices, each lauding their own people, firearm makes, model, calibres and actions.
Look what happened. A Disgrace.

Actually B'man, that's precisely the opposite to what actually happened. There were no competing voices - there was only a single solitary voice, because only the NTSA was pushing their sport in all the media. We saw every other body keeping things quiet, and some even strongly suggesting that their members keep off boards.ie and keep schtum about the firearms they were using. We saw names being withheld in other disciplines, but the NTSA was pushing names and faces and photos and competitions and so forth. In other words, we did PR, others didn't (outside of the very small circulation of the shooting magazines). If everyone had done the same level of PR, we'd have been much better off in the rimfire sports. Instead all you saw was NTSA stuff - and that meant that NTSA stuff was more familiar territory to the Gardai so when people started drawing up guidelines in the Commissioner's office and started drawing lines between what they thought was safe and familiar and what wasn't, well, three guesses who wound up on what side of the line.

The truly depressing part is that this wasn't some dark art. It wasn't some secret cabal meeting every sabbath for unholy rites involving wierd robes, a rather surprised-looking chicken and an oddly-shaped piece of rhubarb. This was something we were screaming for every other body to do, and every other body decided it knew better and we were naive idiots. We threw away so much it's just depressing. And now whenever you mention this, it's assumed that the NTSA had some sort of under-the-counter deal going on, because that's easier to think than it is to think that other people made a choice and chose poorly.

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

I think many people are afraid to go to court for fear of the costs. The District Court is not like the High Court (which is where people had to go in the past - and only for judicial review) you can represent yourself there rather than get a barrister.

Yes, but you know what they say about the person who represents himself in court.

Also, while the DC is in theory more convienent, I honestly think it's more a step backwards than a step forwards. You can't set legal precedent in the DC, it's very hard to get a transcript of a decision, the judgements (compared to other courts) tend to be very summarial (a necessity given the caseload I know, but still), and if it's you versus the superintendent that the judge has seen every other day for years, your case is on the back foot from the get-go.

The odds are pretty good that you'd have to go to the circuit court anyway on appeal if there's any real argument over the licence, and then the barrister fees arrive.

Bananaman

What I find quite annoying (on top of everything else) is that I have never been inside a courthouse - I would have been quite happy to live out my days without ever having done so.

I don't know anyone who had been and is not in some way diminished from the experience.

Now it is looking more and more likely that I will have to - and all to argue that 'nothing has changed'.

B'Man

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

Yes, but you know what they say about the person who represents himself in court.

Also, while the DC is in theory more convienent, I honestly think it's more a step backwards than a step forwards. You can't set legal precedent in the DC, it's very hard to get a transcript of a decision, the judgements (compared to other courts) tend to be very summarial (a necessity given the caseload I know, but still), and if it's you versus the superintendent that the judge has seen every other day for years, your case is on the back foot from the get-go.

You can (and I did say this) have a solicitor represent you and it would be my advice that you do this. This evens up the 'familiar face' situation that you describe, with the judge knowing both.

The odds are pretty good that you'd have to go to the circuit court anyway on appeal if there's any real argument over the licence, and then the barrister fees arrive.

You only have to go if you agree to go. You can explain that you can't afford the cost of an appeal if you win and the judge may not grant leave to appeal on that basis.

And you can ask to have your case heard in camera B'man. You might not get it, but it is done regularly in the DC for family cases.

westwicklow

So, to get back to my OP, funding.......

Sparks

To get back to your OP, who do you suggest take charge of the fund? And be specific, because you're looking for money in a recession...

Greenacre

what if each NGB nominated one person to a commitee mandated to control the "fund"

rrpc

Greenacre wrote: »

what if each NGB nominated one person to a commitee mandated to control the "fund"

It was just 'resting' in my account Dougal

Sparks

Greenacre wrote: »

what if each NGB nominated one person to a commitee mandated to control the "fund"

Then you'd just see the same fight in one room with one person per side. You're not solving the problem that way, you're moving it -- and you're complicating things by having each person bound to represent the interests of a particular NGB rather than a single common interest. You're introducing several conflicts of interest right from the get-go that way.

e.g. There's only enough money to do one case - do we take on a refusal for a .308 rifle or for a 9mm pistol?

Bananaman

You, we, they

Fight for all handguns - centrefire, rimfire & air - revolvers, semis, spud guns - end of story.

Under no circumstances allow there to be any acceptancewhatsoever that any of them are any more or less of a sport. They are all firearms, they are all used in sport.

We will not tolerate any order of merit among sports.

This legislation, from the get go - has been to get rid of centrefire handguns - outright - first by destroying the sports in which they are used and then by criminalising those that own them. Rimfire handguns will be next. Do not doubt it for a moment. Air Pistols might be left alone in the long run but I doubt it.

Many of us have been saying this since summer 2008 - many of us have been fighting it since summer 2008 - many of us have had the rug pulled out from under us by petty people who thought they were saving their own arses - the same arses that are now in the wind.

Anyone who shoots deer can get a .308 - refusals for a license for a .308 are individual cases - they can be fought on their own merits.

Refusals for centrefire handguns are part of a campaign .... which must be fought ..... by each and every one of us ..... or they are gone forever.

Fear that some people may have horns or tails and rumours to that effect are a major part of this campaign .... for you to suggest that the focus be put on someone losing a .308 license or to suggest that it shoulkd not happen unless you like who is involved, are yet more examples of trying to take the focus off the actual problem.

I do not care who manages the fund, or the fight - well bar the gombeens who got us here ('Keep your head down lads, you'll get to keep what you have' - have to get that etched on some national tiddlywinks trophy)- we have one shot at this - it needs to be done. The people who have the best skills should be in the positions - if they happen to be a complete ignorant bollix, so what.

A Few ignorant bollixes are exactly what is required now. The lads with the nivea hand ceam can stand aside. We're done patting arses.

Either support the initiative, start the initiative or quit with the naysaying and whinging. It's been a fantastic help so far.

B'Man

Greenacre

Sparks,

while i'm not convinced personally that a legal fund is the way to go, it would be nice just for a change if you tried to offer some kind of positive comment or suggestion instead of always clinging to the negative or telling people where they are wrong.

your points are valid but please offer something positive, a change is as good as a rest!

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Fight for all handguns - centrefire, rimfire & air - revolvers, semis, spud guns - end of story.

And if there's only enough money to do one thing, who's more important, the .223 rifle owners? the .308 rifle owners? the sound moderator owners? the 9mm owners? the .40 cal owners? the glock owners?
No surrender! is a lovely idea, but doesn't survive contact with the real world all that well.

refusals for a license for a .308 are individual cases - they can be fought on their own merits.

Handguns first, feck the rifle owners? Why not rifles first and feck the handgun owners as there's so few of them? Or shotguns first as they're the most successful in the sport? Or moderators first as they're so necessary to the health of shooters? Is your personal preference enough to decide what's prioritised?

I do not care who manages the fund, or the fight - well bar the gombeens who got us here

And how did they get to get us here? Because noone cared who managed the fund or the fight. You want to do something like this, get the unsexy crap right first. It's like getting in a boxing ring - first off, tie your shoelaces.

The people who have the best skills should be in the positions - if they happen to be a complete ignorant bollix, so what.

Complete ignorant bollixes who are also highly competent at doing this job do not exist, because the two characteristics are mutually exclusive. That's so what.

A Few ignorant bollixes are exactly what is required now. The lads with the nivea hand ceam can stand aside. We're done patting arses.

Ah yes, the school of thought that says when you're hanging on by a fingernail, that is when you should start waving your arms about. Brilliant, just brilliant. Tell me, did you ever read the Criminal Justice Bill 2004? Lovely commentary on the effectiveness of "a few ignorant bollixes", that Bill.

Either support the initiative, start the initiative or quit with the naysaying and whinging. It's been a fantastic help so far.

You know what? If you'd listened five years ago, we wouldn't be here now. But no, five years ago, it was all "we'll kick their arses in court boys, by jingo, hurrah!". And now look where we are. And you want to start that all over again, with even less forethought and with far more difficult obstacles to get past? Not only will it do no good to go charging in like that, but you'll scupper everyone else with you. Take your damn time, do it properly. You're not talking about arguing with amateurs, you're talking about taking on professionals who get to write the rules of the game and you think bullheadedness will see you through? :rolleyes:

Greenacre wrote: »

your points are valid but please offer something positive, a change is as good as a rest!

I agree. A change would be nice. We've been seeing this same stupid idea from the first month the forum opened. A single fund or a single governing body for all the sports -- ignore the details -- it'll all be grand lads, trust me. I've actually lost count of how often that's been posted here as though it was a completely new idea that noone else was ever smart enough to have, and with which the poster will save the entire target shooting community.

Well, you know what? Just once I'd like to see someone actually answer the question of "how do we do this without it all going to hell in a handbasket like it has every single time it's been tried before?". Just once.

PJ Hunter

i suppose, sent to hell in handbaskets and getting a roundthe table, i'd be thinking quick:rolleyes:

Grizzly 45

For what it is worth...Seeing that this is first about money and second about who is controlling the money,and thirdly the controllers of the money are not influenced by any sector of the shooting community intrest here.
May I suggest an offshore trust foundation administerd by a totally indifferent board of trustees to the plight of individual Irish shooting organisations.But NOT to the plight as a whole??
I am no financial whizzkid,but this is a legal entity recognised by the Revenue and Govts.It would have the following advantages
[1] it is offshore so it isnt likely that a chat in the local pub or the ol pals network or whatever skullduggery would upset the cart
[2] Anyone who did try and influence the trustees,could be reported in the annual report to the members.
[3]It can be set up for profit or non profit making.IOW what is put in may make more money for the cause of funding a challange.After taxes of course.
[4] It would require satisfaction of the board to release the funds for whatever legal challange would be mounted,in the fact the legal party would have to present a strong arguement that this case could win or the other is hopeless.IOW cases what gave us the Charlton decision wouldnt have a prayer.
Thinking Switzerland,pro gun,tough financial laws and astute with money.
Not the total masterplan,but "back of the envelope"idea sofar.But could we work with this???

Bananaman

Sparks,

Maybe not all your dogs are barking - either that or you do not get the same message from reading something that other epople do.


I said that Handguns must be fought for because there is a campaign to see their total removal from Irish Sport - altogether.

I do not see a difference between make, model, calibre or action on handguns - they are ALL handguns. They should all be fought for. To make any form of distinction is to simply ensure their removal.

Rifles are not under such threat - if and when they are we will all weigh in there.

B'Man

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

You, we, they

Fight for all handguns - centrefire, rimfire & air - revolvers, semis, spud guns - end of story.

Under no circumstances allow there to be any acceptancewhatsoever that any of them are any more or less of a sport. They are all firearms, they are all used in sport.

We will not tolerate any order of merit among sports.

Laudable sentiments Bananaman until...

This legislation, from the get go - has been to get rid of centrefire handguns - outright - first by destroying the sports in which they are used and then by criminalising those that own them.

IPSC was not the only centrefire handgun sport in this country or anywhere else for that matter. If you don't want to emphasise differences, please don't dismiss the other centre fire pistol sports that many people take part in. I know it was yours, but it wasn't the only one.

bunny shooter

Sparks you are entrenched in your sport as others are in theirs please do not assume everyone is like that.

Maybe, and it's a big maybe, there are people out there who can be impartial :eek:

It wasn't me!

bunny shooter wrote: »

Sparks you are entrenched in your sport as others are in theirs please do not assume everyone is like that.

Maybe, and it's a big maybe, there are people out there who can be impartial :eek:

That's to assume it's possible to objectively assess the value to the sport of shooting as a whole of pursuing a particular course of action. It's not.

Bananaman

IPSC was only one of the handgun sports that I took part in here - I still take part in all the others here and travel abroad to take part in IPSC.

Be under no illusions that they are ALL now under threat (and always have been)

A few heads have been pulled out of the sand - only to see a bulldozer getting very close.

B'Man

bunny shooter

It wasn't me! wrote: »

That's to assume it's possible to objectively assess the value to the sport of shooting as a whole of pursuing a particular course of action. It's not.

Why ? Shooting is shooting ? It is to me

To Joe public guns are guns