NASRPC's exit of the Sport Coalition.

badaj0z

The NASRPC recently sent a communication to the member clubs which included the following statements:




Recently one of our member clubs emailed the committee with some questions relating to the NASRPC membership of the Sports Coalition as they thought there may be some confusion out there about this issue. In the interests of clarity we felt we should forward our reply to all our members to clear up any ambiguity, please see below.

I would like to clarify that at no time did the NASRPC or the Sports Coalition seek a ban or cap on either semi-autos or nighttime shooting. In the meantime please see below our response to your question re membership of the Sports Coalition.

NASRPC was a founding member of the Sports Coalition, which was formed to challenge legislative change which could have led to the destruction of our sports.

While we represent 18 shooting clubs across Leinster, Munster, Connaught and Ulster and their thousands of members, the Sports Coalition was formed to give the weight of 10s of thousands of voices to its argument and this was seen as a positive move for NASRPC.

In 2015, the National Executive of the NASRPC unilaterally withdrew from the Sports coalition. This led to some difficulties, culminating in a call for an EGM on the matter, and the expulsion of the clubs calling for the EGM by the National Executive and the cancellation of the EGM. Ultimately the National Executive did not stand for election at the following AGM, a new Executive was elected and all the expelled clubs were again accepted as members.

NASRPC re-sought membership of the Sports Coalition, with the approval of the membership, and in April of 2017 their membership was officially ratified.

We look forward to working with the other members of the Sports Coalition to safeguard and develop all of our sports.

Kindest regards

Mick McGrath
Secretary
National Association of Rifle & Pistol Clubs

In addition to this, the Sports Coalition has been requested to issue a statement directly to it's members further clarifying it's position on the issues.

BattleCorp

^^^^^^^^^^
So that's that then. The NASRPC are members of the SC.

Thanks for the clarification.

gunny123

Singing from the same hymn sheet too.

Sparks

I would like to clarify that at no time did the NASRPC or the Sports Coalition seek a ban or cap on either semi-autos or nighttime shooting.

Hmmm.

badaj0z

Sparks wrote: »

Hmmm.

?

Cass

badaj0z wrote: »

I would like to clarify that at no time did the NASRPC or the Sports Coalition seek a ban or cap on either semi-autos ........

April 2015 signed off by Des Crofton, Spokesman for the Sports Coalition:

On Centrefire Semi auto rifles wrote:

We could accept a temporary cap on licensing centrefire semi-automatic rifles with the exception of classic (old – pre 1950) models pending the outcome of a wider firearms licensing review. In other words, with immediate effect, no new licenses would be issued for this category until a full review is complete.

On 22 pistols wrote:

In relation to the .22 handguns which are currently licensed, this matter must be resolved by a new S.I. before the 2015 renewal date. The terms of resolution could restrict the licensing of such firearms to .22 calibre short firearms suitable for competition under ISSF rules (which include Olympic competitions), but with a barrel length of NOT LESS than 5 inches, and NOT LONGER than 30cm and with a magazine capacity NOT EXCEEDING 10 rounds.

badaj0z wrote:

or nighttime shooting.

From the report released by the so called coalition:

Following the 3rd Meeting of the Firearms Consultative Panel 5 April 2016 a decision was made to put in place a working group to look at the issue of shooting and hunting at night. This WG was open to all FCP members. However it was felt by those present as more relevant to the deer hunting organisations, Sports Coalition, National Parks & Wildlife Service and An Garda Siochana. This working group was to be chaired by Wesley Atkinson who represents NPWS on the FCP. There was agreement that the issue of unregulated shooting and hunting at night was a potential Health and Safety issue to the farming community, other rural dwellers and the general public.

Skip ahead to page four, section four. Proposed solution:

There was agreement that the majority of issues associated with shooting or hunting at night centre around (but not exclusively) the autumn, winter and spring periods.

The solution proposed is that a curfew is in place from 1st Sept until 31st March and operates between the hours of 12 midnight and 6am. During the curfew period no shooting or hunting should take place except in accordance with a licence or permit (e.g. Sec 42).

Just for those of you that don't know what curfew means:

"a regulation requiring people to remain indoors between specified hours, typically at night."

In case that is not enough read my reply to the release they made after we complained about the proposed night time shooting ban/curfew.

badaj0z wrote:

In the meantime please see below our response to your question re membership of the Sports Coalition........................

.......................... NASRPC re-sought membership of the Sports Coalition, with the approval of the membership, and in April of 2017 their membership was officially ratified.

When did they seek to rejoin because as i showed earlier the proposal/motion that i was told happened in the 2015 AGM never happened and that is proved by the minutes of the meeting as supplied by the NASRPC. A refresher:

Cass wrote: »

So i got the minutes of the AGM you were talking about.

There is only one mention of the FCP and no mention of the sc. The question posed was who will represent the nasrpc on the FCP. The reply was the man holding he position has vacated that position, which was followed by discussion as to whether he wanted to go or not. The committee were told to ring the man, and the debate ended with the committee taking it under advisement.

No record of a vote to join the sc. Not even a mention of the sc. So:

1. When was this motion made to rejoin?
2. When was the vote taken on this motion?
3. What was the result of this vote?
4. Why is there no record of it in the minutes?

Appreciate any light you can shine on this.

So the so called coalition DID propose/agree to a ban/curfew on night time shooting, sought the temporary capping of semi auto rifles except pre 1950s ones, sought a ban on any 22lr pistol under 5 inches (meaning anything currently licensed is now banned) and the NASRPC rejoined the coalition without having a vote on it.

Cass

badaj0z wrote: »

NASRPC re-sought membership of the Sports Coalition, with the approval of the membership, and in April of 2017 their membership was officially ratified.

Exactly what i wanted to know. now its time to contact my rep see if he got this and if so why i wasn't told, and if not why.

Secondly its time to ask my rep does he support the clubs affiliation to the nasrpc and so affiliation to the sports coalition that have called for the banning of certain types of firearms, certain types of shooting and done all this without informing its membership.

Lastly i'll be asking if the club/range intends to remain affiliated and if so why.

After i get answers to these it will determine my continued membership to said range or any range that would support organisations out to destroy the sport.

As for the NASRPC. You, as an organisation, are a joke. You have tied your horse to a group with publicized and celebrated interests contrary to the better development of all shooting sports. You have hid your rejoining and support for months with evasion and non answers. The rejoining itself is suspect as no vote has taken place within the group of clubs the nasrpc claim to represent.

I for one will not be a part of any such group and if my rep feels staying affiliated despite this overwhelming evidence of the transgressions perpetrated by the so called coalition and now supported by the nasrpc is the course they wish to go then i'll sadly stop over 18 years of membership. I won't be a hypocrite and stay involved given my utter rejection of everything the so called coalition and it's partners represent.

badaj0z

Cass wrote: »

April 2015 signed off by Des Crofton, Spokesman for the Sports Coalition:

Old NASRPC committee, Old SC committee. The word "current" should have been included in the statement from the NASRPC. Throughout this thread you have been blaming the current committees for the sins of their predecessors using the argument that it is the "organisation " that counts.We both know that is rubbish. The old NASRPC committee had very different views from the current committee and would not have countenanced what they(the old) did. Similarly the reformed SC consists of many new members and has not put forward the proposals that you have been blaming them for.

[Mod Note]Text deleted. Do not make official statements on behalf of organisations anonymously. The organisations involved have official avenues of communication and at least one has a verified account here. Official statements of policy should be made though those mechanisms.[/Mod Note]

Sparks

badaj0z wrote: »

Old NASRPC committee, Old SC committee.

Here we go...

To succinctly answer your key questions about the key issues, the current position of the NASRPC and the SC is as follows

I'm sorry, but on what grounds do you claim the right to speak for BOTH the NASRPC and the SC in public?

Walter Mittys Brother

The people making and/or maintaining these proposals are part of these organisations. The organisations and their reps are responsible for what they say, do or propose whether they do do it as a rep of an organisation or as an individual.

It's obvious most if not all these organisations are not representing those they claim to but are looking after their own interests under the guise of representing other shooters.

badaj0z

Sparks wrote: »

I'm sorry, but on what grounds do you claim the right to speak for BOTH the NASRPC and the SC in public?

I claim the right to speak my opinion just as you two moderators do. The main difference between our opinions is that I am trying to encourage unity in the interests of all target shooters whereas you seem to like contention.

Sparks

badaj0z wrote: »

I claim the right to speak my opinion just as you two moderators do. The main difference between our opinions is that I am trying to encourage unity in the interests of all target shooters whereas you seem to like contention.

No, I'm sorry, that's not good enough. You didn't give your opinion. You openly stated:

badaj0z wrote: »

the current position of the NASRPC is as follows:

And then you proceeded to represent two organisations in a public statement, giving their official position on a number of contentious topics.

So I'll ask again - what right do you have to speak in public for these two organisations?

Cass

badaj0z wrote: »

Similarly the reformed SC consists of many new members and has not put forward the proposals that you have been blaming them for.

Have they openly, as they did with the proposals, asked for them to be ignored? Where is their letter/release to say they no longer seek to have these proposals enforced or even considered?

Also why was the last statement of "clarification" with relation to the ban on night time shooting from the so called coalition sent out in June of 2017 if its a new committee and new direction?

The old "it wasn't me, it was the one armed man" routine doesn't fly.

...... the current position of the NASRPC is as follows:

As a committee member, which i assume you are given your statement of official position of both groups can i direct all further queries to you directly?

Text deleted above

I'll ask all this as a group set of questions rather than breaking it down to each individual one.

WHERE is the "repeal" of these proposals? WHERE is the letter/statement/release to ask for them to be ignored/not acted upon? Where is the letter from the NASRPC demanding these proposals be publicly denounced?

It is not a perfect world and I can not say that the current SC is united on all aspects of shooting.

Yet they make unilateral decisions that effect whole sections of the various shooting sports? So whose interests are being looked after in this split group/organisation?

vested interests will always surface and the political skills of representatives are needed to keep things balanced.

The same ""skills" that called for all these bans?

Who is in the so called coalition now that was not in it in late 2015? IOW show me how the committee/leadership has changed. I cannot find any info on it on their website.

Your diatribes against the largest representative rifle and pistol target shooting organisation in this country have done target shooters no favors.

The size of the organisation has no effect on my opinions or their actions. It does have an effect on others opinions if the view/actions of a few at the "top table" are seen to be the will of the majority of members with the organisation, then size becomes an issue.

As for my "diatribes". I will question any group that makes proposals to ban firearms i use and by doing so destroy parts or whole sections of various shooting sports. The fact that some seem to happily go along with with whatever they are told without questioning it is worrying to me.

It should have been common sense for you to realize that no body such as the NASRPC could in any way countenance supporting the restrictions you talk about.

Almost 3 months ago i started asking questions of the nasrpc. It could have been answered immediately. It wasn't. For the last 11+ weeks i have asked the same questions on here, the nasrpc website, Facebook, e-mail, and through my rep. No answer to any of them.

This morning a post was posted that outlined what the nasrpc had to say, or at least i'm taking it as such because my rep still has gotten no word and was unaware of this member wide notification.

In the two years since the new committee came on board the finding of the nasrpc logo on the so called coalition's website was the first indicator they had rejoined. No notice was sent out to tell people and no notice on their website was placed. Couple those to the refusal to answer a simple "yes or no" question and it leads to these past few months of speculation.

So if i cannot get a yes or no to a simple question such as "have you rejoined" then how in God's name can anyone use common sense to guess at their actions or motives? Now if you take that secrecy and add it to the fact the proposals from the so called coalition which still stand and are still active in the FCP/Working group (according to my rep on the FCP) then the rejoining of the nasrpc to the so called coalition is a support of such proposals unless otherwise categorically denied by either group. Which neither have.

So again i'll ask how can i guess at their intent when they won't tell me (or us).

All you have done is sown discontent in spreading the impression that us shooters are less united than we actually are.

If any organisation refuses to answer any question let alone basic ones then they will be subjected to guesses, speculation and supposition. 3 months of silence has lead to this.

The deer alliance and the hcap fiasco might be ongoing but within a week the deer alliance released a statement of clarification on their position. Right or wrong, whether anyone agrees with it or not they answered and in a timely a manner. Not so with the nasrpc or event he coalition for that matter.

However time is no longer an issue. A week or so ago i knew they had rejoined from their silence. Typical nasrpc MO. Stay quiet and hope it goes away. Its why i haven't posted. However the bigger issue is if it took 3 months to get a yes or no how long is it going to take to get answers to my other questions including the ones above about a public denouncement of the proposals of the so called coalition.

If they don't agree with them as you've said they don't and the so called coalition no longer view THEIR proposals as being something they wish to pursue then they can come out and denounce them and put the same effort as they did into submitting them, in getting them squashed.

badaj0z

Sparks wrote: »

No, I'm sorry, that's not good enough. You didn't give your opinion. You openly stated:


And then you proceeded to represent two organisations in a public statement, giving their official position on a number of contentious topics.

So I'll ask again - what right do you have to speak in public for these two organisations?

Two errors there Sparks. I only stated my informed opinion on the position of the NASRPC not on the position of the SC, so that is only one organisation:-

badaj0z wrote: »

. To succinctly answer your key questions about the key issues, the current position of the NASRPC is as follows:
.

The "official" word you use is your assumption, not my statement.

The first post I made today was sharing a communication from the Secretary of the NASRPC. What he said was official. What I said was my informed opinion of the position of the NASRPC on the contentious issues. I made no statement on the position of the SC on these issues as I do not know what it is. The NASRPC has requested the SC to make a statement in this area.

badaj0z wrote: »

In addition to this, the Sports Coalition has been requested to issue a statement directly to it's members further clarifying it's position on the issues.

badaj0z

Cass wrote: »

As a committee member, which i assume you are given your statement of official position of both groups can i direct all further queries to you directly?

I am not a committee member and you have assumed "official" , just like Sparks.

Cass wrote: »

Almost 3 months ago i started asking questions of the nasrpc. It could have been answered immediately. It wasn't. For the last 11+ weeks i have asked the same questions on here, the nasrpc website, Facebook, e-mail, and through my rep. No answer to any of them.

This morning a post was posted that outlined what the nasrpc had to say, or at least i'm taking it as such because my rep still has gotten no word and was unaware of this member wide notification.

You did get an answer eventually

Cass wrote: »

If they don't agree with them as you've said they don't and the so called coalition no longer view THEIR proposals as being something they wish to pursue then they can come out and denounce them and put the same effort as they did into submitting them, in getting them squashed.

The debate within the SC on these and many other issues continues. As with all political bodies, factions are fluid and it is often not clear what the eventual outcome will be. Our representatives, the NASRPC, the NTSA and others will continue to put the interests of target shooters forward and work towards an optimum solution. Compromises may be necessary in the trading that goes on. When the outcome becomes clear will be the time for all of the member bodies of the SC to decide if they gain or lose by being members.

solarwinds

Just curious, seen as the nasrpc have their own account on here, that their release to queries had to be posted by a third party.
I have to say that any organisation who does not answer queries from their members. Who avoids questions at all costs and after some months eventually come out with a non descript statement is all a bit suspicious.
How can an organisation fully represent its members if it will not even engage with them. And any questions will only be entertained through reps as official channels. If the reps cant hold them to account and the top brass wont even answer to reps what hope have the rest of us. So i suppose you have to wonder just who exactly are they representing.

Sparks

badaj0z wrote: »

The "official" word you use is your assumption, not my statement.

No, I'm sorry, that's not acceptable. I might disagree with what those organisations have done, but they have the right to make their own statements instead of having random anonymous people on the internet claim to make official statements from them. I'm deleting your post. Please refrain from making statements on the behalf of an organisation in that manner.

badaj0z

Sparks wrote: »

No, I'm sorry, that's not acceptable. I might disagree with what those organisations have done, but they have the right to make their own statements instead of having random anonymous people on the internet claim to make official statements from them. I'm deleting your post. Please refrain from making statements on the behalf of an organisation in that manner.

As you said earlier. here we go again. You repeat your error of "claim to make official" and then you delete the only post made in answer to the key questions asked by Cass. I would like to remind you of an earlier post I made in this thread about arguing with mods:_

badaj0z wrote: »

I have been watching this thread for a long time. I needed immense self control to not reply in the face of most of the arguments that you, Cass, have been promulgating. I learnt many years ago that it was pointless arguing with a moderator on here. I have seen posts removed with warnings and I have seen posts removed without warnings or any PM. You have become strident in your illogical condemnation of the NASRPC and have brow beaten anyone who dares to disagree with you.

Sparks

I'm not interested in listening to the Ronan Mullen act badaj0z. You don't have the right to speak on behalf of an organisation like you were trying, and it won't be permitted on here. You can offer your opinion all you want; but posting new facts and claiming they are official gospel is not on.

badaj0z

I do have the right Sparks, but why should I have to prove it? I think you know that is true from the nature of my posts. Does every one with knowledge have to submit a certificate of official approval or does that only apply if the information disagrees with the opinions of a mod? I have no doubt that the NASRPC are looking at this thread and would interject if they disagreed. The only real answers to Cass's questions were provided by me today. Most of the recent posts, when the thread was resurrected by Cass, have been condemning the NASRPC for doing things it did not do. I am the only one who provided rebuttal. You will ask why but perhaps the answer is that not everyone is comfortable with arguing on this forum or maybe believe they have better things to do such as representing target shooters in political forums or organizing and running training and competitions.
Let me ask the readers here, who are no doubt puzzled by the posts which refer to the post you deleted, would you like to see it reinstated?

Sparks

badaj0z wrote: »

I do have the right Sparks, but why should I have to prove it?

Because posting here is legally publishing. And either you have the right to do it or you don't; and if you do, you should be doing it through official channels.

Does every one with knowledge have to submit a certificate of official approval

Yes to everyone; no to a certificate; they just have to supply evidence that is in the public domain.

The only real answers to Cass's questions were provided by me today.

What you provided were not answers. What you provided was anonymously sourced opinion with no supporting evidence.

Let me put it more constructively - if you do have the right to speak on behalf of either the NASRPC or the SC, use their public channels to make an official statement.

Then we would have answers.

solarwinds

If the nasrpc are looking at this thread which i have no doubt they are. Then you would imagine the easiest thing to do would be to give a few lines of an official statement to clarify all the issues raised.
It would appear to me looking on that they have no interest in engaging with their members.
They seem more than happy to watch what is going on from the sidelines. If all that is being asked is wrong then let them come out and say so.
If anybody is accused of actions that are untrue then you defend yourself silence is not a defence.
If they stand for the same policies as the sc then at least have the balls to admit it.
All this can be quickly cleared up but it seems there is no will to.

badaj0z

Sparks wrote: »

What you provided were not answers. What you provided was anonymously sourced opinion with no supporting evidence.
.

Since when was that a problem on Boards.ie?

Sparks wrote: »

I'm not interested in listening to the Ronan Mullen act badaj0z. You don't have the right to speak on behalf of an organisation like you were trying, and it won't be permitted on here. You can offer your opinion all you want; but posting new facts and claiming they are official gospel is not on.

I made no such claims Sparks and yet you and Cass keep using that word(official). As I have not claimed to be an official spokesman and as you have pointed out that what I am saying is my opinion , what is your problem in reinstating my post? If it is just my opinion then what value does it have? Why not leave it up to the readers to decide? You have clearly distanced yourselves and Boards.ie from it so what harm can come to you?

Sparks

badaj0z wrote: »

Since when was that a problem on Boards.ie?

Since day one. You're letting the whole "publication" word go right past you without remembering where that language gets used in the law, I invite you to brush up on where it's used.

I made no such claims Sparks and yet you and Cass keep using that word(official). As I have not claimed to be an official spokesman and as you have pointed out that what I am saying is my opinion , what is your problem in reinstating my post?

The fact that you stated that you were posting the NASRPC position on several points.

Like I said, I'm not interested in the Ronan Mullen act. This issue is closed. Either you can speak for the NASRPC or the SC, in which case you have access to their official channels and can use them to make an official statement; or you can't in which case your post was misleading and grounds for a defamation lawsuit by the NASRPC or the SC.

And at this point, I'll remind you of the recent facebook post which got someone sued and saw damages of €75,000 awarded against them.

badaj0z

Sparks wrote: »

The fact that you stated that you were posting the NASRPC position on several points.

Please show me where I did that Sparks. As you have removed my post, and as I did not copy it, I can only recall that I was posting my opinion on such matters and not ever using the words "facts" or " official". You have confirmed this by stating that all I said was my opinion.The only fact that you can rightly claim is that I made a post .All of the rest is your assumption. BTW, I do not think that the NASRPC will sue me and as I made no statements about the SC, I do not think they will sue me either.

Sparks

The relevant part of the post has been quoted. I'm not going to repost it. We are done here. Either make an official statement through the usual channels if you have that authority, or stop trying to represent organisations you don't have the authority to represent.

badaj0z

Q.E.D. I think not.

BattleCorp

badaj0z wrote: »

Q.E.D. I think not.

Just a few points.

Why do you think the NASRPC haven't been answering the SC question for months? Seems like a straightforward question with either a yes or no answer.

Second point. Why are you on here batting for the NASRPC? Do you not think that they should be defending the organisation themselves?

Gleefulprinter

I would like some help to understand what is going on here.It looks like answers were provided to the questions that Cass was asking for the last 4 weeks and then the answers were deleted. Sparks is questioning the authenticity of the posts by Badajoz. OK so but why delete them? Surely the readers here can be trusted to make their own decisions about the quality and relevance of Badajoz' posts .This looks more like censorship than moderating.

ezra_

Gleefulprinter, this is the NASRPC statement that badaj0z provided.

There have been no amendments by any moderators

badaj0z wrote: »

The NASRPC recently sent a communication to the member clubs which included the following statements:




Recently one of our member clubs emailed the committee with some questions relating to the NASRPC membership of the Sports Coalition as they thought there may be some confusion out there about this issue. In the interests of clarity we felt we should forward our reply to all our members to clear up any ambiguity, please see below.

I would like to clarify that at no time did the NASRPC or the Sports Coalition seek a ban or cap on either semi-autos or nighttime shooting. In the meantime please see below our response to your question re membership of the Sports Coalition.

NASRPC was a founding member of the Sports Coalition, which was formed to challenge legislative change which could have led to the destruction of our sports.

While we represent 18 shooting clubs across Leinster, Munster, Connaught and Ulster and their thousands of members, the Sports Coalition was formed to give the weight of 10s of thousands of voices to its argument and this was seen as a positive move for NASRPC.

In 2015, the National Executive of the NASRPC unilaterally withdrew from the Sports coalition. This led to some difficulties, culminating in a call for an EGM on the matter, and the expulsion of the clubs calling for the EGM by the National Executive and the cancellation of the EGM. Ultimately the National Executive did not stand for election at the following AGM, a new Executive was elected and all the expelled clubs were again accepted as members.

NASRPC re-sought membership of the Sports Coalition, with the approval of the membership, and in April of 2017 their membership was officially ratified.

We look forward to working with the other members of the Sports Coalition to safeguard and develop all of our sports.

Kindest regards

Mick McGrath
Secretary
National Association of Rifle & Pistol Clubs

In addition to this, the Sports Coalition has been requested to issue a statement directly to it's members further clarifying it's position on the issues.