NARGC boycott

Gormley85

I am so sick of Des Crofton always 'representing shooters' when its a position he only has because often various clubs have an 'NARGC insurance only' policy.

As chair for one club and secretary for another I will be calling this to task at our next meetings and proposing that we stop accepting and recognising NARGC and only accept Countryside Alliance.

I would suggest others on here do the same.

deeksofdoom

Well you would really want to look into this before you go proposing it. Every member would want to be in agreement and signed up to this before they go for another insurance cover.

If anything goes pear shaped with a claim from the new insurer and they won't pay out for something that the NARGC would have covered then the club or the committee could end up paying for it.

Do your homework before making any proposals at your meetings. Every individual in the club will have to be in agreement.

wirehairmax

Why has there been a sudden change of NARGC chairman? The vice-chairman is acting chair now. Anybody know what happened ?

Cass

wirehairmax wrote: »

Why has there been a sudden change of NARGC chairman? The vice-chairman is acting chair now. Anybody know what happened ?

I believe there is a private/personal issue involved here and i think it best if we leave it at that.


@ Gormley85 - I am not setting out to tell people to leave the NARGC. What each club does is up to them.

The NARGC as an organisation serves a function. However through mismanagement, incompetence, lack of consultation, lack of understanding of their own members needs and wants, and an unchangeable personal belief (by the heads of the organisation) that the course they are on is the best, they have lost their way (imo).

Writing to them, as suggested on the main thread, would barely fall on deaf ears. Most likely it would end up in the bin. Even hundreds would not deter their course of action. I'm afraid the only way forward i can see is a complete separation from them. I realise that is not as easy as it sounds, and like an election people will always fall back to what they know over trying something new. So the NARGC represent safety in that manner.

However this is also the problem. Knowing this they know people will not just up and leave. I'm not going to suggest who to go to instead of them as it's not my intent or place to "advertise"" for other companies. All i ask is that the various clubs look closely at what is being done on their behalf, ask questions, ask the right questions, to the right people, and then make up their mind.

@ Deeksofdoom - That is a little like saying don't ever go outside because you might fall, get robbed, etc.

Deeksofdoom wrote:

If anything goes pear shaped with a claim from the new insurer and they won't pay out for something that the NARGC would have covered then the club or the committee could end up paying for it.

If a person or club does the necessary checks and their due diligence and find a new group can offer the same or better coverage then change. If not then stay where they are. The topic is not about which cover is best, it's about the actions of the NARGC, it's implications to the shooting community and the repercussions of allowing them to go unchecked. If they won't listen to people's complaints and act independently of the greater communities wishes then you have to voice your disgust in any other way you can.

nastros

There are a number of clubs who moved from NARGC insurance and have had no issues what so ever.

deerhunter1

Gormley85 wrote: »

I am so sick of Des Crofton always 'representing shooters' when its a position he only has because often various clubs have an 'NARGC insurance only' policy.

As chair for one club and secretary for another I will be calling this to task at our next meetings and proposing that we stop accepting and recognising NARGC and only accept Countryside Alliance.

I would suggest others on here do the same.

why, coming across a bit heavy without explaining yourself

LIFFY FISHING

As the NARGC is the only Irish representative body looking after the interests of Irish Hunters and shooters, who put funds directly back into clubs, I suggest that any thinking Shooters should ignore the rantings of an individual who must have an agenda to settle.

Sparks

deerhunter1 wrote: »

why, coming across a bit heavy without explaining yourself

Because he just threw us all under a bus, again, in order to try to get the "Sports Coalition" put in charge of more stuff. And in so doing, has probably lost us a favorable ear at a time when we desperately needed one.

Gormley85

Cass wrote: »

I'm afraid the only way forward i can see is a complete separation from them. I realise that is not as easy as it sounds, and like an election people will always fall back to what they know over trying something new.

Cass wrote: »

If they won't listen to people's complaints and act independently of the greater communities wishes then you have to voice your disgust in any other way you can.

Exactly.

I see this almost as a political situation. If you arent happy with a political party or how they are doing their business you dont vote for them at the next election. Simple. This is what we are doing here.

And as you said, sending them angry letters will probably just end up in the bin. The only way the NARGC will sit up and listen is if they suddenly see club after club leaving because us shooters are sick and tired of getting 'throwing under the bus' so to speak.

Cass wrote: »

All i ask is that the various clubs look closely at what is being done on their behalf, ask questions, ask the right questions, to the right people, and then make up their mind.

Should we compile a list of questions that clubs need to be asking themselves? If my own clubs are anything to go by, Id say there are a lot of clubs out there that only vaguely know something is going on.

Deeksofdoom wrote: »

Well you would really want to look into this before you go proposing it.

Thanks for the advice. The plan is to get quotes and covers from all the different insurance companies I can get and then propose them at the next meeting.

Deeksofdoom wrote: »

Every individual in the club will have to be in agreement.

Deeksofdoom wrote: »

Every member would want to be in agreement and signed up to this before they go for another insurance cover.

Majority wins. It was only 2 years ago one of our clubs had a vote on exclusive NARGC policy and of course the lads who had already paid with different insurance companies didnt like the idea of paying out again so they voted against it... but in the end majority won.

Sparks

LIFFY FISHING wrote: »

As the NARGC is the only Irish representative body looking after the interests of Irish Hunters and shooters, who put funds directly back into clubs

That's just plain incorrect. Every NGB does this. They may not stand on rooftops blowing smoke up their own backsides about it, but they do it...

deerhunter1

Sparks wrote: »

Because he just threw us all under a bus, again, in order to try to get the "Sports Coalition" put in charge of more stuff. And in so doing, has probably lost us a favorable ear at a time when we desperately needed one.

Ok was off the scene for a while, and not following what as happening

Sparks

deerhunter1 wrote: »

Ok was off the scene for a while, and not following what as happening

No worries, nobody knew about it until two or three days ago anyway, it was all done in secret back in February.

Gormley85

LIFFY FISHING wrote: »

As the NARGC is the only Irish representative body looking after the interests of Irish Hunters and shooters, who put funds directly back into clubs, I suggest that any thinking Shooters should ignore the rantings of an individual who must have an agenda to settle.

So you think the NARGC are the only ones pumping money back into the sport and representing shooters/clubs? Who told you this? Was it the NARGC?

And a personal agenda? Ehh... Along with all the other shooters in the country that are feeling stabbed in the back..... once again..... by the NARGC.

LIFFY FISHING

Can you please list the organisations who put cash funds back into clubs please ?

Sparks

LIFFY FISHING wrote: »

Can you please list the organisations who put cash funds back into clubs please ?

The NTSA, the NASRPC, the NSAI, the Pony Club, the NRAI, the SSAI while they existed, the MPAI, actually, pretty much every NGB out there. I've seen them do it, I've seen their accounts.

Gormley85

LIFFY FISHING wrote: »

Can you please list the organisations who put cash funds back into clubs please ?

I get the feeling thats not a genuine question. If you were that interested you would just google it yourself. And no doubt, even if I did post the list you would attack it, or downplay it, or find some other way to keep the heat off NARGC.

According to you I have an agenda, when really Im just sick of the NARGC saying they represent me and given recommendations (that would see me lose my firearms) and they are giving these recommendations to the government on my behalf.

I get the feeling most shooters here on boards would be against what the NARGC have just done. Except you it seems. I think the real question here is, why are you so quick to defend them? Whats your agenda?

Cass

LIFFY FISHING wrote: »

As the NARGC is the only Irish representative body looking after the interests of Irish Hunters and shooters, who put funds directly back into clubs, I suggest that any thinking Shooters should ignore the rantings of an individual who must have an agenda to settle.

I'm surprised and a little disgusted that you think that the NARGC put so much money back into the hands of clubs that their shadowy and back room dealings are worthy of excuse from their past and recent actions.

What good will gun clubs be when there are no guns left to shoot. Then it's just a club. It' exactly this kind of excusing away misdeeds that allows them to continue to do as they please.

You fail to realise that the gun clubs hold the power, or more precisely the members within the gun clubs. Without them the NARGC ceases to be. Plus as a member of a club and the founder of another i never seen a penny back from them. The set up cost, running cost, and everything in between was done at the cost of membership fees and our own work.

Gormley85 wrote: »

Should we compile a list of questions that clubs need to be asking themselves? If my own clubs are anything to go by, Id say there are a lot of clubs out there that only vaguely know something is going on.

By all means. I would suggest compiling your questions, and speaking with other clubs. See how many of them actually know the sh*t storm we are in and if they are aware of the actions of the NARGC via the coalition. Discuss your options, get a feel of their attitudes and make sure you are well prepared to answer questions and inform them of the current standings of things. Then look not only towards letters/e-mails but also a petition or group letter with each club signing rather than individual members.

It still amazes me that there are people that don't know anything about what is going on. I mean nothing. I've spoken to a few people in the last week to month and even a gun dealer within this group was unaware of either what was happening or the extent of it. He was disgusted and sickened. As members of the groups within the coalition they were not informed of their actions:

• Before they took it
• As it was happening
• After it happened

I've met some that say "i'm not into politics" to which i can only say "how are you about keeping your guns?"

Gormley85

Cass wrote: »

It still amazes me that there are people that don't know anything about what is going on. I mean nothing. I've spoken to a few people in the last week to month and even a gun dealer within this group was unaware of either what was happening or the extent of it.

Cass Im a frequent reader here and I try to keep up with it but Im not even going to pretend, I still dont even really know whats going on. So I dont hold it against anyone thats clueless. Theres so much history, with dozens of different organisations to get your head around, so many court cases, so many laws/acts, different politicians gunning for us and then amongst ourselves theres any amount of back stabbing and bad blood over the years. Its not easy to get your head around it all.

Cass wrote: »

Then look not only towards letters/e-mails but also a petition or group letter with each club signing rather than individual members.

How about this. If we write up an easy to understand and simple to follow guide to whats happening, explaining the situation and how bad it is, and what they can do to help, would you and Sparks sticky it and then we can send out links to all the different clubs facebook pages... and then just fingers crossed enough people will sit up and listen.

Cass

Gormley85 wrote: »

Cass Im a frequent reader here and I try to keep up with it but Im not even going to pretend, I still dont even really know whats going on. So I dont hold it against anyone thats clueless.

When i say they don't know what is going on i mean they did not know there were proposals from An Gardaí, that two review committee meetings were held, that we risk loosing all our guns, etc. IOW they had no idea any of this was going on. not a bit.

I wouldn't expect everyone to know every aspect. Few do.

How about this. If we write up an easy to understand and simple to follow guide to whats happening, explaining the situation and how bad it is, and what they can do to help, would you and Sparks sticky it and then we can send out links to all the different clubs facebook pages... and then just fingers crossed enough people will sit up and listen.

I could look into a "quick guide" type post over the next few weeks. However anything at a club level (action that is) needs to be at club level. It's not my place to tell clubs what they should do. My only reason for my latest posts in the main thread and here is to highlight what is going on and ask people are they happy with what is being done on their behalf. I know i'm not. I've no affiliation to the NARGC or NASRPC, i've made sure of that, and yet i get lumped into the same people they claim to represent by default. IOW the review committee see the coalition as representing the shooting community. They don't differentiate between the various groups. It's not ignorance, they simply don't know the full "tree" that is the shooting world.

berettaman

As an ordinary gun club member I can tell you that most of the NARGC members have not got a clue about the politics side of things. There are about 5 -10 individuals at the top that need to be removed for the good of the sport...and trust me we are working on that. Difficult to get people to stand up an be counted...

Gormley85

Cass wrote: »

However anything at a club level (action that is) needs to be at club level. It's not my place to tell clubs what they should do.

Of course. And its not my place either. Its up to each club to decide on their own actions and take a majority vote.

But the problem is, or the way I see it, is that the people and clubs just dont know any different. And if they dont know then they will continue to sit back happily thinking the NARGC are out fighting the good fight on their behalf.

Then in a year or two when they lose their guns or have to go through some kinda apprenticeship and "build up" their collection or have to get these monitored time locks installed on their safes there'll be any amount of kicking up then when its too late.

Cass wrote: »

IOW the review committee see the coalition as representing the shooting community. They don't differentiate between the various groups. It's not ignorance, they simply don't know the full "tree" that is the shooting world.

Thats another issue alright. Maybe when we write up this post, it might be worth sending them a copy of it just to let them know the shenanigans and that the majority of shooters don't feel represented by NARGC.

tikkahunter

I was at a regional county agm recently and was not really impressed with how little air time this subject got at it , it was a perfect time to get on to secretary's and chairmen from the clubs and give out the information and risks associated with this bill if it passes.All there was was 2 minutes at the end where one of them partition forms was produced and everybody was ask to sign and ask their members to log on and sign and the reason was the government where" looking to ban a few handguns and the likes".(70% of my club members would not know how to turn a computer on never mind log on )
I piped up and let everybody know exactly what they where looking to ban and what the implications where for their club members ,i would not have that information or know half as much of what is going on only for all the information that is posted on this site.
The communication is very poor to clubs and there is no scope for feedback.
I have defended Des Croftan many a time and the Nargc as they have helped me and my club club out on a number of occasions but im far from impressed with that letter or the lack of dialogue with the clubs but that being said im not going to cut my nose off to spite my face and switch to the country alliance when its an inferior policy ,if anything happens me or my dogs when im out i want the best cover but i do think Secretary's should be forwarding their displeasure at how they are being represented.

grassroot1

The email that was sent to the Firearms Committee had nothing to do with the NARGC, it was sent by the spokesman for the Sports Coalition.

Cass

Same person. From the website:

Des Crofton

National Director, NARGC & Spokesperson for the Sports Coalition.

Cass

Are you trying to insult my intelligence? You are saying that the NARGC had no hand in the letter that was sent?

Seeing as how they are the largest party in this "coalition" and their director happens to be the spokesperson for the "coalition" how could they not have a hand in it? If they did not then perhaps the NARGC would like to issue a separate statement in which they say they either agree with (support) the points in the interim report and the letter sent by their director in his role as spokesperson for the "coalition" or they don't.

grassroot1

No Cass I am not insulting your intelligence, if the email was not discussed with the Sports Coalition what would make you think it was discussed with the NARGC.

Cass

toolazyforgolf wrote: »

Is that for me?

No.

Let me clarify my post.

NARGC are involved BUT they are not the ONLY organisation involved. Des is the head of NARGC & Spokesperson of Coalition. So he's responsible as he's obviously speaking for NARGC in the first instance & as Coalition Spokesperson in the second instance. And to repeat myself he or the NARGC are not the only problem.

Agreed he/they are not the only ones in the "coalition". The problem is much bigger in that other heads off other organisations agreed or signed their name to this travesty.

grassroot1 wrote: »

No Cass I am not insulting your intelligence, if the email was not discussed with the Sports Coalition what would make you think it was discussed with the NARGC.

So you're saying there is a possibility the letter sent by Des Crofton, as spokesperson of the "coalition", was sent without him consulting with either the rest of the "coalition" or his own organisation?

I don't agree with the man, his methods, the letter that was sent, etc. but he is not a stupid man. To do something like that would leave him in a very bad position. Writing such a letter under the guise of representing all parties involved even though it was from his own thoughts!!!!!!!!!

However if you can show he done this i'd be very interested as i would be in the reaction of the members of the "coalition" and the NARGC to the letter. Assuming, as you said, that they did not know he sent it.

tikkahunter

Do you know off hand who else had a hand in that letter ?

tikkahunter

toolazyforgolf wrote: »

All the organisations in the Coalition whether they knew about it or not. It was sent by their spokesperson.

I was looking for specific names as a few lads where preaching one thing all the time yet this letter getting sent in proves they where just lying to lads about what their motives.

Cass

Me?

As it was on, and written under the heading of the "coalition" i'm assuming all members of it signed off on it. If you want names go to the websites of each organisation on the "coalition" and search for chairman, secretary, etc in each. You'll have your names.

tikkahunter

Cass wrote: »

Me?

As it was on, and written under the heading of the "coalition" i'm assuming all members of it signed off on it. If you want names go to the websites of each organisation on the "coalition" and search for chairman, secretary, etc in each. You'll have your names.

http://www.sportscoalition.org/home/who-we-are/

Ok i was a bit wide of the mark ,i dont see any of the deer associations on it and thats what i was looking for.

tikkahunter

I see the IFDA on it , are they happy as the proposals with this stupid apprentice system will generate more sales for their members as lads will have to buy at least 4 lower calibre firearms before they can get a deer legal one.

Deaf git

Just read the 20th Feb letter again and the author clearly refers to consultation with colleagues etc several times. The first paragraph even apologises for the delay in drafting the letter due to 'longer than expected consultation and debate by the coalition members'. The apology might suggest the letter was a response to a request for proposals. Were the other contributors to the committee's work asked for proposals? If so, what were the responses?
The mention of 'apprenticeships' and such like I have heard before from a range operator.
5 inch barrels I have heard before from a pistol dealer (in his world all the gsp types had 5 inch barrels).
There is a reference to opposition from some quarters- perhaps the consultation didn't go smoothly.
The sa cf pre 1950 proposal is bonkers- haven't heard that one before.

Yes there was consultation with the constituents of the coalition. The letter says so.

But back on topic, is insurance readily available from sources other than nargc / countryside? Anyone got cover through an ordinary broker?

tikkahunter

Deaf git wrote: »

Just read the 20th Feb letter again and the author clearly refers to consultation with colleagues etc several times. The first paragraph even apologises for the delay in drafting the letter due to 'longer than expected consultation and debate by the coalition members'. The apology might suggest the letter was a response to a request for proposals. Were the other contributors to the committee's work asked for proposals? If so, what were the responses?
The mention of 'apprenticeships' and such like I have heard before from a range operator.
5 inch barrels I have heard before from a pistol dealer (in his world all the gsp types had 5 inch barrels).
There is a reference to opposition from some quarters- perhaps the consultation didn't go smoothly.
The sa cf pre 1950 proposal is bonkers- haven't heard that one before.

Yes there was consultation with the constituents of the coalition. The letter says so.

But back on topic, is insurance readily available from sources other than nargc / countryside? Anyone got cover through an ordinary broker?

The ifa have one ,i think FBD is what the country side alliance use, i stand to be corrected on that, im sure if you ring a broker they could get get you a policy to meet your requirements , try aaron insurance in harolds cross , they are very good.

Sparks

Deaf git wrote: »

The apology might suggest the letter was a response to a request for proposals.

It might, or it might just mean it had been a month since we sat in front of them in January and they'd not kept in touch.

Were the other contributors to the committee's work asked for proposals? If so, what were the responses?

Not explicitly, or at least I wasn't (I won't speak for the others), though we were told on the day (you can hear it in the videos a few times) that we could submit more relevant materials if we had them and that invitation remains open to this day. But that's the standard operating procedure for this kind of thing.

The mention of 'apprenticeships' and such like I have heard before from a range operator.

Yeah, and we've all seen it before as well.

5 inch barrels I have heard before from a pistol dealer (in his world all the gsp types had 5 inch barrels).

And it's in the Coalition's letter to the Committee.

There is a reference to opposition from some quarters- perhaps the consultation didn't go smoothly.

There's a line between "didn't go smoothly" and "told them the idea was unethical and they'd leave rather than sign their name to it".

Yes there was consultation with the constituents of the coalition. The letter says so.

Really?
You really think that if that letter had been seen back in the Jan 21-Feb 20 timeframe by all the members of those organisations that you wouldn't have seen it pop up here hours later?
You actually think there's such a thing as secrets in our sport?

But back on topic, is insurance readily available from sources other than nargc / countryside? Anyone got cover through an ordinary broker?

That's not the topic. But if you want to start a seperate thread, or browse for one of the many other threads on this topic from the last few years, go for it.

Grizzly 45

tikkahunter wrote: »

I see the IFDA on it , are they happy as the proposals with this stupid apprentice system will generate more sales for their members as lads will have to buy at least 4 lower calibre firearms before they can get a deer legal one.

Who is actually a member of this organisation?? The few dealrs I've talked to have never heard or actually been approached by anyone of this group??
Also going by the NASRPC face book and web page they are in agreement[??] with this statement that was released.

Going by Midlands RRPC main man he dumped the IFA/FBD insurance as being less than useless.Couldnt get their heads around target rifle shooting... Countryside Alliance and Countryside Ireland do insurance too.

Deaf git

Of course there are secrets, its Ireland for godsakes.
when you think consultation you think meetings, memos, minutes etc.
other people consider consultation to be a phonecall or informal chat, and maybe only speaking to the ones they know will agree. Not everything reaches these pages.
The letter has several sets of fingerprints on it.

My reference to insurance goes back to the op proposal to boycott nargc insurance.

Sparks

Deaf git wrote: »

Of course there are secrets, its Ireland for godsakes.

That's exactly my point. Nothing stays a secret in this sport for very long because it's Ireland and people love to talk. Nothing ever has.

My reference to insurance goes back to the op proposal to boycott nargc insurance.

Was he talking about boycotting NARGC insurance - or about boycotting the NARGC as a whole?

Gormley85

Sparks wrote: »

Was he talking about boycotting NARGC insurance - or about boycotting the NARGC as a whole?

For sake of clarity, I would have been suggesting boycotting the NARGC as a whole- but with an emphasis on clubs finding a different insurer.

When the money stops rolling in, the NARGC will have no other choice and be forced into realising that they cant just say and do what they please in our names without consequence. If they want to represent us, that's fine. But dont take my money, claim to represent me, and then go to government and recommend they take my guns off me.

Also to clarify, yes there are other organisations involved in the coalition, and they too will have to be called to task.

However at this time, the only person we know for certain who had a hand in this was Des Crofton.... and his position with the coalition is to represent NARGC. So I think a boycott of NARGC is justified.

And to keep this on track, would the mods mind if we put further investigations of 'who said what' into a seperate thread as I feel this is important and shouldnt be sidetracked.

tikkahunter

toolazyforgolf wrote: »

Before ye all rush off to join IFA Countryside for insurance do not forget their submission ...................... discussed here somewhere too

yep another hatchet job

Deaf git

Sparks wrote: »

That's exactly my point. Nothing stays a secret in this sport for very long because it's Ireland and people love to talk. Nothing ever has.

Was he talking about boycotting NARGC insurance - or about boycotting the NARGC as a whole?

Well in this case a certain letter remained secret from 20th Feb up to the last few days- and only became public when published by the authors. Most things leak in this country (not just the water infrastructure), but this was different- maybe even a record of some sort.

NARGC insurance is probably their main contact with shooters. Boycotting NARGC would create a requirement for an alternative.

Tikka391

Deaf git wrote: »

Well in this case a certain letter remained secret from 20th Feb up to the last few days- and only became public when published by the authors. Most things leak in this country (not just the water infrastructure), but this was different- maybe even a record of some sort.

NARGC insurance is probably their main contact with shooters. Boycotting NARGC would create a requirement for an alternative.

Sorry for jumping in, but where can this letter be red

Sparks

Tikka391 wrote: »

Sorry for jumping in, but where can this letter be red

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94956830&postcount=2199

Sparks

Deaf git wrote: »

Well in this case a certain letter remained secret from 20th Feb up to the last few days- and only became public when published by the authors.

And now it's out. In other words, secrets don't last, they never do in our sport. But people keep insisting on needing to hide everything away...

NARGC insurance is probably their main contact with shooters. Boycotting NARGC would create a requirement for an alternative.

And people have been discussing those alternatives on here for several years now. They're not unknown quantities.

Sparks

Okay, but let's also not forget how those were offered to us on a plate a decade earlier and turned down.
And can we also forget that they got that money from their members, not their own private funds?

Cass

toolazyforgolf wrote: »

Let's not forget who put up the money (as it were) for the original cases that got us back rifles over .270 & pistols.

Ask yourself:

1. Why they got involved in pistols in the first place?
2. Why did a game organisation feel it their responsibility to fight for a sport they have nothing to do with when their bed partners are the main body for pistol shooting and they didn't pony up the money or "take the fight"?
3. How much money have they spent, members money, on pistol cases?
4. How much more can they give?
5. How are their finances after not just the district, but high court and supreme court cases?
6. Could that money have been put to better use financing, supporting and encouraging the field of sport they were founded to lead (game clubs)?

Cass

Nope.

Was hoping someone could shed some light on it. To me it's like the NRAI trying to finance any ban directed at the NTSA. The Pony club lobbying for the WDAI. Makes no sense.

grassroot1

EGO

Grizzly 45

1)Cross pollination of a member being a pistol applicant and nargc member.Nargc would have been obliged under their membership terms to fight for the refused liscense,irrespective of type.

2)Proably told we havent the money,inclination or not our beef by the sporting side of things?

3)Is nargc a company or commercial entity?Then companies house or solocheck.ie is your friend.You can pull the annual returns and see yourselves for a small fee.

4) The above point will proably answer points 4,5 ,6.

berettaman

Cass wrote: »

Ask yourself:

1. Why they got involved in pistols in the first place?
2. Why did a game organisation feel it their responsibility to fight for a sport they have nothing to do with when their bed partners are the main body for pistol shooting and they didn't pony up the money or "take the fight"?
3. How much money have they spent, members money, on pistol cases?
4. How much more can they give?
5. How are their finances after not just the district, but high court and supreme court cases?
6. Could that money have been put to better use financing, supporting and encouraging the field of sport they were founded to lead (game clubs)?

Rank and file member NARGC trying to answer those queries:

1 The ego of one man trying to look after his friends..
2 The ego of one man trying to look after his friends..
3. I have a good idea but won't put that out there...Lets just say A LOT!
4. I hope the tap is turned off soon...
5. Okay but the money shouldn't have been spent.
6. Oh my God absolutely yes.

I talk to some of the lads that go to the national meetings. They were disgusted with the way things have been done and the antics of a few..
The arrogance and ego of one individual keeps a lot of the rank and file cowed but some members are trying to change things...

Why oh why are we as an organisation making enemies across all NGO's and Gardai when there is no need.

Why Oh why are we spending money on court cases when we should be supporting pheasant and duck shooting...

Because of one mans ego.:mad:

Last year some changes were made..but there is more to be done. We got a new Chairman, (Lasted 6 months-no comment) almost got a new Treasurer.. The change is coming and can't come soon enough.

I am embarrassed by some of the antics that have taken place and if I was the next Chairman of NARGC I would do all in my power to work together with other bodies for shooting sports on an equal basis..

B

berettaman

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

1)Cross pollination of a member being a pistol applicant and nargc member.Nargc would have been obliged under their membership terms to fight for the refused liscense,irrespective of type.

2)Proably told we havent the money,inclination or not our beef by the sporting side of things?

3)Is nargc a company or commercial entity?Then companies house or solocheck.ie is your friend.You can pull the annual returns and see yourselves for a small fee.

4) The above point will proably answer points 4,5 ,6.

1 There is some crossover in membership but NARGC is a game shooting organisation and one mans ego took it in another direction.

3. NARGC is a company..