Invitation to NASRPC members...

Rovi

...from Joe Costello (Chairman - SSAI, Vice Chairman - NRAI).

Just posted on the MNSCI site.

Rovi

By permission of the author, here's the entire text of the document:

Meeting Invitation to members of the NASRPC.

The end of the first year under the new firearms licensing system has passed and so it may be a good time to look at what has been achieved and what remains to be done.

Throughout the past period I have striven to foster dialogue and co-operation between the main stakeholders in the shooting sports . There have been some notable successes in this regard of which we can be justifiably proud and will stand for a long time as reminders of what can be achieved by working openly and honestly together.

To those who were open minded and far sighted enough to lay aside perceived petty differences in pursuit of furthering our respective sports I express my deep appreciation and gratitude . No other strategy except mutual support will bring us the excellence and respect for our sport that we all should aspire to.

Unfortunately, not everyone apparently feels the same and while differences of opinion in the path to take are acceptable , the countless instances of ongoing misinformation and rumours that circulate throughout the shooting community serve only those who would seek to divide and plant dissention and ill feeling . The motivation of such people is a mystery to me.

One of the most disheartening , damaging and recurring aspects of these stories and tall tales is that even when disproven satisfactorily around a committee table , even when proof is offered and accepted as to their invalidity , quite often the message never circulates through the wider community and the falsehoods and misunderstandings continue to breed mistrust.

Quite often this is not anyone's fault , volunteer committees give of their time freely and often at great personal expense in terms of both time and money. Often , having satisfied themselves that there is no substance to a particular rumour the matter rests there , apparently dealt with while in the wider shooting community all that continues to circulate is the original misinformation.

As responsible adults we have a duty to seek the truth so that we can move forward fully aware of the lessons of the past and with a clear view of the road ahead.

With this in mind and in a further effort to address the fears and concerns and indeed any and all tall tales that may be about , I am inviting all NASRPC members to contact their NASRPC Secretary Michael Tope , by email or letter ..and to express their concerns on any matter to him in writing.

I will leave it to Michael to collate and list each item and then to forward them to me.

I will hold a meeting for all those who have expressed their concerns in this manner on any matter , any rumour they have heard , any supposed fact that causes them unease, any case in which they think they have been treated unfairly by their shooting representatives , even any story they have heard of any 'Deal' that has been done to disadvantage them.

I am offering to hear them all , to answer them all and to once and for all end the cancer of mistrust that eats away at our will to work together.

I am placing this notice of invitation on the NRAI website , the MNSCI website , the SSAI website the shooting forum of Boards .ie and I am requesting that the committee of the NASRPC place it on their website also. I am sure they will welcome this opportunity for clarity too.

We can only move forward and grow if we work from the basis of truth and reality .. Tall tales and horror stories are for children.

Below is a list of the various websites mentioned above.
http://www.nrai.ie/
http://www.nationalshootingcentre.ie/
http://www.ssai.ie/
http://shooting.boards.ie/
http://www.nasrpc.ie/

I urge any NASRPC member with any concerns as to how they are represented by the shooting organisations to take this opportunity to have their issues or any they have heard of, aired and dealt with.

I repeat that in the spirit of transparency all communication should be in writing or by email to the Secretary of your own organisation NASRPC, Michael Tope. In case some new rumour grows that I have personally selected the queries to answer.

A meeting will be held in the near future and all who submitted concerns will have them addressed on the day.

Yours in sport...
Joe Costello -
SSAI - Chairman
NRAI -Vice Chairman

Tackleberrywho

Good man JC, well said!

Bananaman

Sent to the NASRPC today.
(also posted on the NASRPC website)

Posted here for completeness.

To: Affiliated Clubs and Range

As I am sure you are aware the NASRPC are members of the SSAI which is an umbrella group for shooting NGBs. The chairman of the SSAI and the FCP representative (Joe Costello), effectively your FCP representative, has suggested that he holds a question and answer session with the NASRPC.
We, the committee of the NASRPC, welcome this opportunity for our affiliated club members to pose questions directly to Joe. This is your opportunity to let him know how you feel about the current licensing situation and the role of the SSAI. You will also have the opportunity to seek clarifications, question the SSAI strategy, question and discuss any rumours / innuendo circulating in the shooting community. in effect you set the agenda.

In the spirit of openness and fairness to all involved this exercise will be conducted in a controlled manner and the process to be followed is summarised below..

• Questions. will be e-mailed to me at FCPrepquestion@nasrpc.ie.
• Please include your name and club details to ensure you are invited to the question and answer session
  (questions will be accepted up to midnight on the 23rd of September).
• Questions received will be listed and summarised by me.
• The summarised list will be forwarded to Joe in order for him to complete any preparation work necessary to provide answers.
• A Q&A session will be arranged (within a week of the closure date - 23rd of September).
• Those who forwarded questions will be invited to this Q&A session where their question(s) will be put directly to Joe and they will have the opportunity give their feedback on his answers..

Note: Only those who forward questions will be invited to the Q&A session

I have asked Joe to outline his proposed strategy at this session and explain how this strategy will improve the situation for sports shooters going forward.

You have a chance here to feedback directly to our FCP representative, please use it.

Yours Sincerely

Michael Tope
Secretary
NASRPC

The original appeal, sent by Joe Costello, is attached to the NASRPC website

National Association of Sporting Rifle & Pistol Clubs

Grizzly 45

So we have our own "LIVELINE" then??? "Talk to Joe on....":D:D:D:D

rrpc

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Good man JC, well said!

I know this might sound a bit clueless, but that in fact is the state I find myself in here. I've read both letters (received the email from the NASRPC today) over and over a number of times before posting this.

Maybe there are others like me who feel they shouldn't say anything because they'd feel a bit stupid, but I'm completely at a loss as to what's going on.

I doubt very much that I'll be enlightened, but I felt I should at least point out that neither letter has shed any light on the matter for me.

Very hard to respond to something that leaves you scratching your head and saying WTF?

I must also point out that I'm posting this as a (very confused) member of the NASRPC...

Sparks

Haven't spoken to him in a while, but jaycee's been encountering lots of people who believe the oddest things. For example, there's apparently quite a few who think he's anti-pistol.
As in, this guy, is anti-pistol:


And then there are the usual political bits and pieces, usually along the lines of "you sold out X to save Y", in all the possible variations.

And then there are the ordinary questions, asking "what good is the FCP", "Why aren't we suing the Minister to get pistols back", "what was all this about?" and so on.

But to be honest, even the idea of doing something like this is a nice one IMHO.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

Haven't spoken to him in a while, but jaycee's been encountering lots of people who believe the oddest things. For example, there's apparently quite a few who think he's anti-pistol.
As in, this guy, is anti-pistol:

And then there are the usual political bits and pieces, usually along the lines of "you sold out X to save Y", in all the possible variations.

And then there are the ordinary questions, asking "what good is the FCP", "Why aren't we suing the Minister to get pistols back", "what was all this about?" and so on.

But to be honest, even the idea of doing something like this is a nice one IMHO.

Thanks for that Sparks, though tbh, I'd heard none of the above bar the usual 'sell out' crap that everyone gets thrown at them.

I normally don't pay this stuff a blind bit of notice because it's like chasing shadows; lots of fun for the shadows presumably, but ultimately a waste of time. The 'list' thing that the NTSA were accused of is exactly that kind of thing which we dealt with quite openly here, but people still disbelieved because it suited them and because they had heard it from such and such reliable character :rolleyes:

People always want to believe in conspiracy before reality because invariably reality has a habit of uncovering uncomfortable truths.

Consider my question answered. Thanks.

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

people still disbelieved because it suited them and because they had heard it from such and such reliable character :rolleyes:

And I could probably name the character

People always want to believe in conspiracy before reality because invariably reality has a habit of uncovering uncomfortable truths.

Not to mention that the reality of these things is usually far less sexy and exciting than the conspiracy theories make it out to be.

bunny shooter

Right, am I entitled to respond under this request?

I'm a member of MNSCI, NARGC & NTSA

If I am/am not please explain why?

Thanks

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

Right, am I entitled to respond under this request?

Not sure, but I don't think so bunny.

I'm a member of MNSCI, NARGC & NTSA
If I am/am not please explain why?

Well, it's been extended to NASRPC members, and unless you're a member of them via the MNSCI, you're not on that list.

But you know Joe personally, so just ask him next time you see him on the range

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

Not sure, but I don't think so bunny.Well, it's been extended to NASRPC members, and unless you're a member of them via the MNSCI, you're not on that list.

No, afaik MNSCI are not affialiated to NASRPC.

Sparks wrote: »

But you know Joe personally, so just ask him next time you see him on the range

Your name dropping now, on my behalf even :P

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

Your name dropping now, on my behalf even :P

Well, I figure everyone should know how well-connected you are

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

Well, I figure everyone should know how well-connected you are

You make it sound so wrong

TBH this should have been done a long time ago :cool:

bunny shooter

rrpc wrote: »

............The 'list' thing that the NTSA were accused of is exactly that kind of thing which we dealt with quite openly here, but people still disbelieved because it suited them and because they had heard it from such and such reliable character :rolleyes:...........

Ouch ! What was that :P

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote: »

TBH this should have been done a long time ago :cool:

Well, technically it was done:

Joe ... explain(ed) the actual procedure used by the FCP and the Department in formulating Bills

(He basicly answered questions from anyone for 10-15 mins during that and for the guts of an hour afterwards, and gave his contact details to all there to come ask him any other questions they thought of).

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

Well, technically it was done:(He basicly answered questions from anyone for 10-15 mins during that and for the guts of an hour afterwards, and gave his contact details to all there to come ask him any other questions they thought of).

Even before that :rolleyes:

Like at the very start not after the horse had bolted

Sparks

Well, it was... but generally on the range on an ad hoc level. Joe was saying that for about a year there, he'd go to the range, get his kit unpacked, get the rifle ready to shoot, and the first question would arrive... and three hours later, it'd be time to go home and there wouldn't have been a shot fired

bunny shooter

Erm...............before that, before Joe even

Tackleberrywho

bunny shooter wrote: »

Erm...............before that, before Joe even

Joe's been around a long while bunny.
Long enough to produce a fine shooter.

People tend to believe what they want to believe and ignore the facts in general in this country

The amount of rumors and speculation down the years. Some based in fact, some in fantasy.

bunny shooter

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Joe's been around a long while bunny..

:eek: Really

Maybe I meant before he climbed to the dizzy heights he's now reached :P

Sparks

Dunno if Joe really climbed to be honest Bunny, from back here it looked more like he had to be pushed every step of the way...


edit: and in the Great Beforetimes you're talking 'bout, even talking was likely to get your card marked, let alone asking questions

bunny shooter

Where did I say they were "Great" :eek:

See ! that's how rumours start

Tackleberrywho

bunny shooter wrote: »

Where did I say they were "Great" :eek:

Bunny I remember a time when folk were afraid to say dirty words like centrefire pistol and the likes

Reason being "we needed more like Joe" to stand up and speak in a clear and concise and logical manner.

Joe I believe is a good man to put a case forward

bunny shooter

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Bunny I remember a time when folk were afraid to say dirty words like centrefire pistol and the likes

In my area they are still "dirty words" :eek:

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Reason being "we needed more like Joe" to stand up and speak in a clear and concise and logical manner.

Joe I believe is a good man to put a case forward

+1 .......... hopefully ****e won't be his thanks though

And don't forget the NARGC put it's, which is technically my, money on the line too And Mr. Brophy put his head in the proverbial noose along with Nicholas Flood Heroes one and all

Bananaman

I remember when people had to ask where to put the petrol into a hillman hunter ........... but that has bugger all to do with this either.

From an NASRPC perspective, as the NGB for many sports, clubs and ranges including the non olympic pistol disciplines (the majority of pistol sports in Ireland) and most short range rifle disciplines (arguably the most popular target rifle disciplines in Ireland) .............. they, their members and indeed their members, are not directly represented on bodies such as the FCP.

The SSAI were allocated a seat on these bodies and that was deemed to be sufficient to represent the NGBs within it.

I believe Joe, as that FCP rep, is providing the members of the NASRPC and their members - a not insignificant number of people, that feel understandably disenfranchised in this matter - the opportunity to air their concerns directly to him.

It is not for me or you to try to pre-empt what it is that people would like to ask, what they feel concerned about, or to try to belittle it by denigrating it to the level of rumour or innuendo. I am sure there will be plenty on that but I think people have legitimate questions and concerns also.

RRPC has said that people may feel there is no need to ask their questions as they may feel stupid. There is no need for people to feel so. If you have a concern then raise it, if you have a question then ask it - the worst thing that can happen is that your question gets answered. Where is the downside in that?

Joe has asked Michael to seek and collate these queries, which he has agreed to do, and to arrange a meeting at which Joe will answer these queries, which he has done.

I, for one, have a few questions, which I will be putting forward.
I am sure there will be plenty more.

B'Man

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

RRPC has said that people may feel there is no need to ask their questions as they may feel stupid. There is no need for people to feel so. If you have a concern then raise it, if you have a question then ask it - the worst thing that can happen is that your question gets answered. Where is the downside in that?

That's not what I said B'man. I said that I hadn't a clue what this was about because both letters referred to rumours/innuendo but not who they were being circulated by, what they were about or who they were directed towards.

Which I was sure many others were also confused about, but were tiptoeing around it like the elephant in the room. To confuse matters more, the emphasis in each letter was slightly different, Joe's letter was almost eclusively about the rumours issue whereas the NASRPC one listed it in fourth place behind licensing issues, the role of the SSAI and SSAI strategy.

On face value, asking questions 'about whatever ails you' is not the same as asking for clarification on the latest rumour doing the rounds.

However my question has now been answered and that answer is here in print for anyone who like myself has a WTF moment after reading both letters.

Unless of course Sparks' answer is incorrect and you have the facts at hand to correct it.

Bananaman

Personally I take no heed of rumour or innuendo - just discount it immediately

people can read the emails and take from it what they will - Joe obviously wants to do this so I will not preempt that by answering questions people pose of him

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

It is not for me or you to try to pre-empt what it is that people would like to ask, what they feel concerned about, or to try to belittle it by denigrating it to the level of rumour or innuendo. I am sure there will be plenty on that but I think people have legitimate questions and concerns also.

(a) It's not for you to say what people may and may not talk about on here.
(b) Talking about it isn't pre-empting anything.
(c) RRPC is an NASRPC member at any rate; and
(d) We already said that there would be perfectly reasonable questions that just weren't being asked/answered.

Chill out a little bit B'man.

Bananaman

Sparks,

They don't come more chilled than me (must be all the insulation)

RRPC asked me a question as to whether or not I had more information than you on the question he asked. I answered him.

B'Man

Sparks

He did ask you B'man, but not until after the post I was talking about, which was unprompted (which is fine) and which effectively told everyone not to discuss the topic (which is not fine).

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

He did ask you B'man, but not until after the post I was talking about, which was unprompted (which is fine) and which effectively told everyone not to discuss the topic (which is not fine).

Incorrect - and I will not comment any further after this - as the usual nit picking has hit off down the garden path, over the back wall and is now snuffling through a hedgerow somewhere.


RRPC had specified that he was confused as to joes motives for seeking this meeting with the NASRPC members. The NASRPC committee tried to clarify what they believe it is for and I tried to further clarify it by specifying what I believe it is for (unprompted as you say)

I said.....

It is not for me or you to try to pre-empt what it is that people would like to ask, what they feel concerned about, or to try to belittle it by denigrating it to the level of rumour or innuendo. I am sure there will be plenty on that but I think people have legitimate questions and concerns also.

This is asking people not to speculate as to what other peoples concerns are or to try and label their concerns in any way - it in no way tells people to not discuss the topic - which is the actual appeal for questions itself.

I hope that is clear.
B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

This is asking people not to speculate as to what other peoples concerns are or to try and label their concerns in any way - it in no way tells people to not discuss the topic - which is the actual appeal for questions itself.
I hope that is clear.

It is clear. But it's called back-seat modding when others do it, and it's called back-seat modding when you do it. So don't do it please.

shedd7

Sparks wrote: »

It is clear. But it's called back-seat modding when others do it, and it's called back-seat modding when you do it. So don't do it please.

:rolleyes:

Sparks

Just a reminder, this is going ahead this weekend, at 11am in the Heritage Hotel in Portlaois.

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

Just a reminder, this is going ahead this weekend, at 11am in the Heritage Hotel in Portlaois.

Thanks,

All of those that submitted questions have already been invited to attend.

As far as I am aware, only those that did submit question to NASRPC, as per the earlier post, are invited to attend.

B'Man

Sparks

As far as I am aware, only those that did submit question to NASRPC, as per the earlier post, are invited to attend.

That's not quite right B'man. This is an SSAI event after all.

Bananaman

Sparks,

It is an appeal from Joe Costello - not from the SSAI - as far as I know they were informed of it about it the same time the rest of us were - after it went on boards.

I will not get into this here but if you look at the original invite it says

Invitation to NASRPC members.

and further clarified by

I repeat that in the spirit of transparency all communication should be in writing or by email to the Secretary of your own organisation NASRPC, Michael Tope.

NASRPC were asked to collate the questions for the meeting and did so and in their email (posted here by me) and in that stated quite clearly

In the spirit of openness and fairness to all involved this exercise will be conducted in a controlled manner and the process to be followed is summarised below..
Questions. will be e-mailed to me at FCPrepquestion@nasrpc.ie.

Please include your name and club details to ensure you are invited to the question and answer session
(questions will be accepted up to midnight on the 23rd of September).

Questions received will be listed and summarised by me.

The summarised list will be forwarded to Joe in order for him to complete any preparation work necessary to provide answers.

A Q&A session will be arranged (within a week of the closure date - 23rd of September).

Those who forwarded questions will be invited to this Q&A session where their question(s) will be put directly to Joe and they will have the opportunity give their feedback on his answers..

Note: Only those who forward questions will be invited to the Q&A session

Sparks

I won't get into it B'man, but:

1. it wasn't an exclusive invitation for NASRPC members and it is an SSAI event; and
2. pick up your phone and call Joe.

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

I won't get into it B'man, but:

1. it wasn't an exclusive invitation for NASRPC members and it is an SSAI event; and
2. pick up your phone and call Joe.

No need for me to call - I submitted questions by the cutoff date, received my invitation and will ask and have them answered at the meeting.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

No need for me to call - I submitted questions by the cutoff date, received my invitation and will ask and have them answered at the meeting.

I didn't mean you should call to submit questions; I meant you should call so that Joe could confirm for you that this is not an NASRPC event which only NASRPC-invited guests can attend.

Greenacre

The original statement as issued by Joe Costello and published here is entitled Meeting Invitation to the members of NASRPC

Has Joe changed his mind? has he issued a further statement or did he just tell you Sparks?

Bananaman

Again with the slight of hand.

i did not say it was an NASRPC event - I said it was a Joe Costello event.

The invitation, that the NASRPC were asked to distribute was limited to NASRPC members in the title so they limited it to members of affiliated clubs.

Joe asked NASRPC to collate the questions in advance and to do that you have to
a) get the questions in advance and
b) limit the attendees to only those that submitted questions.

(otherwise the 'advance' bit is a bit moot)

As long as all of the questions that were submitted, in advance, by NASRPC members, are answered fully and the questioner has the opportunity to comment on or critique the answer, before any new questions are entertained, I suppose it makes no difference what time of the night it runs on to.

B'Man

Sparks

Greenacre wrote: »

The original statement as issued by Joe Costello and published here is entitled Meeting Invitation to the members of NASRPC

Yes, and that's what that was, the invitation to the NASRPC. It was never said that nobody else would be invited; the whole purpose of this meeting was to address rumours that were going around, so keeping it a small closed-door affair would be utterly counterproductive.

Has Joe changed his mind? has he issued a further statement or did he just tell you Sparks?

If he's released a further statement, I've not seen it. I've been invited to attend to report on it, but I don't know if I'm the only person who has been or if there are a dozen others. I doubt that any genuinely interested party (as opposed to folks looking for a shouting session for amusement and ****stirring) would be refused an invitation if they asked Joe.

Bananaman

I was at the last open meeting in Abbeyleix
I could do with that day of my life back.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

As long as all of the questions that were submitted, in advance, by NASRPC members, are answered fully and the questioner has the opportunity to comment on or critique the answer, before any new questions are entertained, I suppose it makes no difference what time of the night it runs on to.

I don't wish to speak for the man, but I believe Joe fully intends that all the NASRPC questions will be answered fully and exhaustively. That's the point of this meeting after all.

Bananaman

As long as they're done first - I have to go to work less than 24 hours after that meeting starting - I don't want to be late.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

I was at the last open meeting in Abbeyleix
I could do with that day of my life back.

You and me both, though that could have been (and was) predicted ahead of time. Thing is, that meeting was caused by certain people capitalising on poor communication and rumour in order to dump yet more politics on us. Meetings like the one this weekend should forestall meetings like the last one in Abbeyleix.

Greenacre

Sparks wrote: »

This is an SSAI event after all.

I wonder does the rest of the SSAI committee agree with you considering there is no mention of Joe's statement/invitation on the SSAI website.

Sparks

Greenacre wrote: »

I wonder does the rest of the SSAI committee agree with you considering there is no mention of Joe's statement/invitation on the SSAI website.

Yes is the short answer, and that's from Joe. Why the SSAI website hasn't been updated in a while, I'm not sure. I know that had the SSAI committee not approved, it would have been hard to keep it secret; they're fully aware of the meeting - the SSAI secretary is the chap collating the NASRPC questions...

Bananaman

Greenacre wrote: »

I wonder does the rest of the SSAI committee agree with you considering there is no mention of Joe's statement/invitation on the SSAI website.

I do not know what they agreed to but I know that the invite was posted on boards before the SSAI heard about it so they were not involved.

B'Man