NARGC boycott

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..

tikkahunter

berettaman wrote: »

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

Would agree with all that ,lately it's becoming a bit of a dictatorship, I have noticed the the money being handed out for pen grants ,vermin control and the likes being harder to get the past few seasons, looks like it's been a bit of Rob Peter to pay Paul if they are spunking all their money on the cases

Grizzly 45

berettaman wrote: »

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..

It might be a game shooting organisation but it also has given written agreements to its members to repersent them in cases relating to their firearms.Not specifiying any particular type of gun is abit of a bummer there.Unless they wanted to be sued for breach of contract they proably had zero choice in the matter.

3)Well follow the money then and see what the books say.

deeksofdoom

Gormley85 wrote: »

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.

If a club is affiliated to to the NARGC then all of its members have to have insurance with the NARGC. That is in the NARGC constitution.

That aside I wouldn't be happy to just up sticks and leave the NARGC as I do think that the club and the commitee members of the club could leave themselves hole opened to being sued by a member if they had an accident that wasn't covered by the new insurance company.

Majority rule counts for nothing, if the court can prove the the claimants insurer was changed without them being proprely informed then I'ld say the committee themselves will be footing the bill.

Cass

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.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

It might be a game shooting organisation but it also has given written agreements to its members to repersent them in cases relating to their firearms.Not specifiying any particular type of gun is abit of a bummer there.Unless they wanted to be sued for breach of contract they proably had zero choice in the matter.

Grizzly, have you a copy of this contract between the NARGC and it's members (remember it's a club organisation so it's not individual members, but members in terms of individual clubs. ) If so i'd love to see one because everyone that contacted the NARGC for help with their license and were redirected to Willie Egan would have a case for breach of contract that the NARGC did not fund and aid in their case.

deeksofdoom wrote: »

That aside I wouldn't be happy to just up sticks and leave the NARGC as I do think that the club and the commitee members of the club could leave themselves hole opened to being sued by a member if they had an accident that wasn't covered by the new insurance company.

What makes you think a club would just leave without first checking what coverage they were getting? You said this (posts 2 & 4) on the first page. Do your due diligence and if it suits change, if not stay where you are.

You make is sound like leaving the NARGC would mean bankruptcy for the club. It wouldn't. Also it's not insurance through the NARGC, it's a compensation fund. Small difference but one worth pointing out.

..... if the court can prove the the claimants insurer was changed without them being properly informed then I'd say the committee themselves will be footing the bill.

• Firstly, it wouldn't be the court proving anything. If a claim was made it would be from the brief of the claimant/injured party against the brief of the insurance company.
• Secondly, all members of the club would have to sign policies, pay their fees, etc. So the onus is on you to understand the policy before signing. This eliminates the ""i didn't know" excuse..

Grizzly 45

Cass wrote: »

Grizzly, have you a copy of this contract between the NARGC and it's members (remember it's a club organisation so it's not individual members, but members in terms of individual clubs. ) If so i'd love to see one because everyone that contacted the NARGC for help with their license and were redirected to Willie Egan would have a case for breach of contract that the NARGC did not fund and aid in their case.

Nope I dont, and this was before 2008 and the way it was worded in the NARGC advertising of the time was that they would assist in any firearms liscensing disputes of their" members"Wheter they meant on an individual basis or collective wasnt clear . Yes the Egan referral situation came about after the lost Supreme court challange in 2009? Wonder why?? Let me root about the archives,I might have an old ISD with this ad in it.

Yep Here you go. ISD April 2007 page 44
Bottom quarter of the page NARGC Compensation Fund advert.
Bullet point nr 8
The defence of members rights,individually and collectively,even in ther courts
Bullet point 2 is quite ironic to this discussion
A say in running the association-elections/resolutions.

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

the way it was worded in the NARGC advertising of the time was that they would assist in any firearms liscensing disputes of their" members".

Not to be a "Pedantic Pat" but the wording is vital. if they said they will "assist"" that could mean they'll pass on your number to a brief and therein is the end of the assistance.

If they issued contracts wherein they had an obligation, as you put it, to help their members then that is a different kettle of fish, and a legal one at that. It also depends on the wording of such a contract, hence the reason i'd be keen to see any such contract or know the wording of it.

I was a member of the NARGC until recently and never received anything like you describe. Verbal or written.

Grizzly 45

I suppose a contract could be construed as your collective /individual membership which this was advertised as part of the benefit of being part of their organisation[IE legal repersentation if needed].If you were signed up as a club, then it was done without you individuals been given the right to read the T&C and agreeing to it,could that be considerd duress? Maybe this advert and offer of service is false advertising as the way it is worded suggests more than been given a solrs number "assist" definition being the key word here?? Out of my field,this is more contractual law and advertising..

Cass

Above my pay grade too i'm afraid and it's for that reason i'd rather not go into "what ifs" based on our own interpretations. Even with paperwork that would be shaky ground.

I only asked about the contract because as i've said above it's the person signing up that needs to ask for and understand their rights within such an organisation. So if you join a club that is under the NARGC umbrella and you are not given the full "whack" in terms of paperwork, rights, rules, etc. then the onus is on you not to sign or to ask for a copy of each before signing.

Most don't think that far ahead and are happy to just join a club. plus who reads an advertisement and tries to pick apart the possible legal definitions of the wording? Assist in this case if most likely they will put you in contact with someone that can help. If this is the case then they have fulfilled that obligation by making the necessary introductions between club members and Willie Egan.

On a side note, i cannot see any group or organisation guaranteeing help or assistance in the form of a legal contract for someone joining to help fight their case for them. It'd bankrupt a group within a year and if the person is not suitable the club face a loss before they have begun and legal ramifications for not upholding their end of such a contract. No one is so stupid as to offer that.

Grizzly 45

Think too about the time when this ad was written 2007. 8 years ago the shooting scene was VERY different here.Handguns in CF were still being bought,IPSC ws starting off ,and all and sundry were considering buying a pistol.So it was more than likely tha a good bit of "Ah shure nothing will happen,all is rosy in the Celtic Tiger garden." mentality came into play on this as well and not expecting despite having enough advance warning from the most anti gun minister Dermot Aherne of an impending Pearl Harbour for the whole thing to go very badly tits up,and actually having to do what it said on the tin?
Never underestimate the capability of stupidity of people in power.Esp in this country.

badaj0z

I think the DOJ/Garda/Politicians are rubbing their hands with glee at this moment. The only apparently large block of opposition to their plans, i.e., the Sports Coalition, is being attacked from within the NARGC in this thread, and from shooters, outside the NARGC on the other thread. If you stand back from the detailed arguments. especially including the "ad hominem" insults, and look at the broad picture then you would have to weep.