NASRPC's exit of the Sport Coalition.

Walter Mittys Brother

Sparks wrote: »

Kinda think you're assuming target shooters are idiots there. So, no thanks.

You'll have to explain how you came to that assumption.

Sparks

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

You'll have to explain how you came to that assumption.

Target shooters know as well as anyone else that bad law is bad law and it's in nobody's interest to support it. Which is why historically, when you look beyond the shoutiness and pub banter, they've usually opposed it.

Walter Mittys Brother

Cass wrote: »

I doubt they would draw a line in the sand like because if they don't act on behalf of all/other shooting sports then they'll find it a lonely stand when the next proposal from the so called "sports coalition" comes seeking to ONCE AGAIN ban semi auto rifles, restricted shotguns, and pistols.

Don't forget that (not you specifically, the general you) the proposals the sports coalition made a couple of years back included these. Its not just about night shooting. Its about every f**kwitted proposal they have made.

I think it's obvious from all of this that there is no "us". So while I agree with your logic I think reality is vastly different with most pasrts of this pulling their own way

Walter Mittys Brother

Sparks wrote: »

Target shooters know as well as anyone else that bad law is bad law and it's in nobody's interest to support it. Which is why historically, when you look beyond the shoutiness and pub banter, they've usually opposed it.

Nope I'm no wiser.

Sparks

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

I think it's obvious from all of this that there is no "us". So while I agree with your logic I think reality is vastly different with most pasrts of this pulling their own way

So if you do the divide into "those who pull together" and "idiots", you get a very lopsided distribution, with maybe two dozen on the "idiots" side.

Walter Mittys Brother

Sparks wrote: »

So if you do the divide into "those who pull together" and "idiots", you get a very lopsided distribution, with maybe two dozen on the "idiots" side.

From what I've been reading here you are dead right.

Cass

Apologies for the delay. Needed a cuppa.

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

I think it's obvious from all of this that there is no "us". So while I agree with your logic I think reality is vastly different with most pasrts of this pulling their own way

I've been saying for years and years (and i'm not the only one) that the notion of a united front in the shooting community is a dream. It has never happened, and never will as long as we have people seeking to control their own little corner of the various disciplines/sports like the links above.

That being said we have, on occasion, come together in large enough groups across a decent array of disciplines to combat a threat against us all. The majority of firearms in this country are owned for field sports/hunting. Far more so than target shooting. If you split people into two groups, hunting + target, i'd safely guess that the hunting group would outnumber the target by a factor of 14 or 15 to one (assuming a person can only claim membership of one). So in essence we don't need target shooters as long as the hunting groups come together.

However i would be hugely disappointed if the target community (shooters an ranges) did not support their hunting counterparts.

Walter Mittys Brother

Agree with you 100%

I reckon you will be disappointed unfortunately

Grizzly 45

That being said we have, on occasion, come together in large enough groups across a decent array of disciplines to combat a threat against us all.

Can't understand why this concept is so damn difficult to implement in Ireland. This is the norm anywhere else in the Western world.Each organisation looks after its own disciplines etc.But attack one, you attack us all.Don't get me wrong, there are still plenty of Fudds and "my discipline is king sht over everyone else." people around.But no one tries solo runs to appease the PTB, throwing a gun type or discipline to the wolves.. Strange we can't grasp that concept here...:rolleyes:

Tea drinker

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

As a member of an affialated club you can ask your clubb to ask NASRPC the question or is that not possible?

NASRPC is a club organisation maybe they don't feel they need to correspond with individuals?

I can't imagine anyone who pays for this stuff would agree. We all pay our insurance club memberships etc and NASRPC is the tip of the spear in terms of public relations and our interface into public services and legislation.
Anyway, with all the shouting and roaring a few years ago I thought the underhand stuff was done and the committee was there to serve us - that's what they said because i was there.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Can't understand why this concept is so damn difficult to implement in Ireland. This is the norm anywhere else in the Western world.

Except that people by and large do do that here (the rest of the Western world, well, we could argue that one for a while). But here, pretty much everyone does it. Bar a certain, fixed, minority whom we could all pretty much list off.

gunny123

BattleCorp

Has anybody seen the minutes from the NASRPC club consultation meeting held on 23/06/16 (over a year ago). Your clubs should have a copy of the meeting minutes on file as I believe they were sent out to the clubs following the meeting.

The 'Summary of the Chairman's report' section of the minutes contains the following paragraph:


"The Chairman then moved on to the issue of the NASRPC re-joining the Sports Coalition, upon seeking input from the clubs that 15 of the 17 affiliated clubs agreed that the NASRPC should re-join the Sport Coalition and that he was contacting the Sports Coalition the begin the process."


While it isn't conclusive proof that the NASRPC have rejoined the Sports Coalition, it shows that they certainly intended to rejoin it.

I can't understand why the NASRPC won't come out and say whether or not they are members of the Sports Coalition.

cavan shooter

BattleCorp wrote: »

Has anybody seen the minutes from the NASRPC club consultation meeting held on 23/06/16 (over a year ago). Your clubs should have a copy of the meeting minutes on file as I believe they were sent out to the clubs following the meeting.

The 'Summary of the Chairman's report' section of the minutes contains the following paragraph:


"The Chairman then moved on to the issue of the NASRPC re-joining the Sports Coalition, upon seeking input from the clubs that 15 of the 17 affiliated clubs agreed that the NASRPC should re-join the Sport Coalition and that he was contacting the Sports Coalition the begin the process."


While it isn't conclusive proof that the NASRPC have rejoined the Sports Coalition, it shows that they certainly intended to rejoin it.

I can't understand why the NASRPC won't come out and say whether or not they are members of the Sports Coalition.

It could be that they are reading everything that is going on her on boards and really don't need this ****.. Scared as **** to say anything that will bring hell and damnation onto them, because at this stage they are in and agree with what the SC is doing or they are out coz they disagree.

Cass

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

I reckon you will be disappointed unfortunately

Thing is i don't want to have to find out.

We don't need the target (only) community, as we are strong enough in terms of numbers and associations to counter any proposals. The fact that these proposals are coming from a target orientated side of the shooting community is worrying, but i won't let that undermine my confidence that the actual people of these groups will do the right thing if and when called upon and that it is only a few self serving people at the top tables that are pushing their own agenda and not what is best for the sport.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Can't understand why this concept is so damn difficult to implement in Ireland.

Me, myself and i.

That little terms rules everyone at the top. What pisses me off is not the stupidity and self centred attitude of those involved, its the fact that such groups have no actual power.

Look at any group within the sports coalition. Do all it's members know what they are doing and what it means for their sport? Now ask yourself if these groups were to leave the sort coalition what would be left? A defunct umbrella group with one or two men at the top in charge of exactly nothing.

IOW they receive any power they have from the groups within them and the groups from the people within them. Take away that platform and they are nothing.

The same applies for the NASRPC. It is made up of some 17 or 18 clubs/ranges. If those ranges leave, whether in whole or part, it leave s fairly defunct and powerless umbrella group. now i cannot and won't speak for any range, my own included, but i will be asking questions of my range as to why they have now aligned to a group that is running back into the arms of the sports coalition? I also want to know if my range knew the NASRPC had/was rejoining when they affiliated and also the timing of such rejoining. IOW now they had the largest range in the country was their intent to use this to get others to affiliate?

Tea drinker wrote: »

I can't imagine anyone who pays for this stuff would agree. [/B]

Based on their past actions it's more likely a case of them not knowing.

cavan shooter wrote: »

It could be that they are reading everything that is going on her on boards and really don't need this ****.. Scared as **** to say anything that will bring hell and damnation onto them, because at this stage they are in and agree with what the SC is doing or they are out coz they disagree.

I think its safe to say they are in. The lack of denial, the various hints, etc.

Now its a case of them being brought to task on why they rejoined and how they informed their members. I'll be saddened if this is allowed to go the same route as previous actions by the NASRPC and forgotten about.

I was told the last time they tried something that it was in the past and we should look forward to the future. I said then that they would repeat it, as it's in their nature. Here we are less than 5 years later in the same place.

How many times are people going to roll over and that this?

LB6

any update?

Cass

Nope, nor will there be.

They have gotten the desired effect. Its gone from the minds of people and they can continue on without having to explain their actions much like the so called sports coalition (i've asked before but does anyone else have a problem using that name considering all they've done is fractured the shooting community?)

homerhop

Cass wrote: »

Nope, nor will there be.

They have gotten the desired effect. Its gone from the minds of people and they can continue on without having to explain their actions much like the so called sports coalition (i've asked before but does anyone else have a problem using that name considering all they've done is fractured the shooting community?)

15 of 17 clubs voted in favour!!! I hope people start asking their clubs wtf they were at. The posters here who are very pro nasrpc are sitting very quiet on this one.......

Cass

homerhop wrote: »

15 of 17 clubs voted in favour!!!

Are you saying 15 of the 17 clubs within the NASRPC knew this was happening and voted for it?

I hope people start asking their clubs wtf they were at.

So do i.

The posters here who are very pro nasrpc are sitting very quiet on this one.......

A couple of things on this.

I have a been a critic of the NASRPC's actions in the past. During the GRPAI/NASRPC thing i was critical of the GRPAI and their actions so i suppose i could have been considered to have argued the side of the NASRPC (however improper that view i can see how it looks). However i'm not very interested in this whole point at the moment.

My concern about the NASRPC rejoining the so called coalition is the perceived support for it that such a move creates. If the coalition are seen as gaining support then all their proposals will carry that much more weight and considering their proposals thus far that can only be bad for us. Proposals such as:

• Ban on semi auto rifles
• Further restrictions on 22 pistols
• Graduated licesning
• Timelock safes
• Ban on night shooting
• Ballistic testing

The coalition is an imminent threat to sports shooting. They are prepared to seek bans on firearms they don't use or see no use for and throw other sports under the bus in order to attain it.

If i am thinking right the way the NASRPC is now it's a club vote and not individual members (someone can correct me if i'm wrong). Even at this the members of the club/range has rights within the club so get talking, get asking and get voting. If the NASRPC will only listen to club reps then make your reps know you're not happy and demand a club vote within the NASRPC to leave the coalition if they have indeed rejoined it.

If people sit on their hands, don't get involved, and assume someone else will do it or it won't bother them then they are greatly mistaken and will suffer the consequences of that inaction at some point in the future.

clivej

None of that is going to happen when the majority of the clubs think the NASRPC can do no wrong.
And the fact that one of the biggest clubs in the country did not affiliate to the NASRPC this year.

When the members had a say in the running of the NASRPC things got changed, now with only the clubs having to put forward proposals they have lost their way IMHO

Cass

clivej wrote: »

None of that is going to happen when the majority of the clubs think the NASRPC can do no wrong.
And the fact that one of the biggest clubs in the country did not affiliate to the NASRPC this year.

I cannot wrap my head around the reasoning for it [rejoining]. What purpose can it serve? The NASRPC had their own seats on the FCP, something they were not given when previously a member of the "coalition".

When the members had a say in the running of the NASRPC things got changed, now with only the clubs having to put forward proposals they have lost their way IMHO

Lets not pretend for one minute that the NASRPC of the last 8 to 9 years can claim their sh*t doesn't stink as they have been responsible for some outrageous and illegal secret proposals of their own, but with a new committee, new direction, and a break from the ""coalition" a couple of years back i thought all that was behind us.

cavan shooter

Lads I feel for ye..The Sports Coalition of vested interests is like a benign tumor, it seems harmless untill its influence spreads. Be under no illusion there is something a foot with this. The problem is that it will be too late for any ordinary member to do anything about it.

It took hard work in the NARGC to stop the spread, even now I believe the rot is still going to manifest itself in some way or form at the AGM. Best of luck lads, I hope ye can stick it out for the good of your Association.

gunny123

homerhop wrote: »

15 of 17 clubs voted in favour!!! I hope people start asking their clubs wtf they were at. The posters here who are very pro nasrpc are sitting very quiet on this one.......

Have you a list of those clubs ? If mine is on it there would be murder.

homerhop

gunny123 wrote: »

Have you a list of those clubs ? If mine is on it there would be murder.

I don't but that is the figure posted earlier in this thread

clivej

gunny123 wrote: »

Have you a list of those clubs ? If mine is on it there would be murder.

AFAIK the 2 clubs that voted against were HH & Hilltop. All the other clubs were fore

BattleCorp

Cass wrote: »

If i am thinking right the way the NASRPC is now it's a club vote and not individual members (someone can correct me if i'm wrong).

You are 100% correct. Since voting rights were removed from individual shooters, the NASRPC Committee have a lot less people to answer to.

Even at this the members of the club/range has rights within the club so get talking, get asking and get voting. If the NASRPC will only listen to club reps then make your reps know you're not happy and demand a club vote within the NASRPC to leave the coalition if they have indeed rejoined it.

While I agree with you that doing nothing isn't an option, the deck really is stacked against clubs making any headway with the NASRPC. They won't even answer a simple question regarding are they in or out of the Sports Coalition.

Here's the thing regarding the decks being stacked against change, and it relates to my point above about the NASRPC having a lot less people to answer to now.

Six clubs have a member or two on the NASRPC committee. When it comes to clubs voting, the NASRPC Committee pretty much know they have those votes in the bag. So, that's a third of clubs pretty much spoken for. Apologies if I'm mistaken here but experience has taught me that this is the way things usually work out.

Listed today on the NASRPC website are 18 clubs. It's a bit out of date as HH are no longer members but Midlands are. So let's go with 18 affiliated clubs.

So that's 6 out of 18 that will probably vote the way that the Committee want them to vote. Realistically, the NASRPC only have to look after 4 or 5 other people clubs to make sure that the status quo remains. It's much easier to look after a few people rather than everybody.

And as regards clubs giving their rep an instruction to vote a certain way, I know of one instance where a the members of the club had a meeting, gave instructions to their club rep, who then went to the NASRPC meeting and didn't vote according to the way they were instructed to.

I'm sorry, I've no faith in an organisation that takes votes from ordinary shooters and puts them in the hands of a few people.

If people sit on their hands, don't get involved, and assume someone else will do it or it won't bother them then they are greatly mistaken and will suffer the consequences of that inaction at some point in the future.

Agreed.

Cass

cavan shooter wrote: »

The problem is that it will be too late for any ordinary member to do anything about it.

BattleCorp wrote: »

You are 100% correct. Since voting rights were removed from individual shooters, the NASRPC Committee have a lot less people to answer to.

And as regards clubs giving their rep an instruction to vote a certain way, I know of one instance where a the members of the club had a meeting, gave instructions to their club rep, who then went to the NASRPC meeting and didn't vote according to the way they were instructed to.

I don't believe this for a second. Not what you have both said, but that it's either too late or that reps don't have to do what they are told.

Any association is only an entity as long as it has people/clubs supporting it. While i hate comparing it to American scenarios i've often wondered why if people in the USA hate the NRA so much that they don't join in huge numbers and vote as they want. Same applies here.

If your club rep has not carried out the will of the club then remove them from their position. The members put the rep there they can remove him too. Same thing applies to the NASRPC and the clubs that make it up. Remove enough clubs from the NASRPC and it ceases to be.

I've said this regarding the co called "coalition". Remove the groups that make it up and it ceases to be.

The NASRPC, like clubs, must be accountable to it's members. Now that is not a "i hope/wish they would", it's a case of they MUST. Your club must make its accounts, votes, finances, meetings available to all members. If you have Reps for each club acting on their own then its easy enough to find out and then remove them. That is what EGMs are for.

Here's the thing regarding the decks being stacked against change, and it relates to my point above about the NASRPC having a lot less people to answer to now.

As i've outlined above while the club vote seems to have made it so it doesn't negate the power of each individual club and it's members.

Listed today on the NASRPC website are 18 clubs. It's a bit out of date as HH are no longer members but Midlands are. So let's go with 18 affiliated clubs.

I have not been to my range in a couple of months due to real world issues, but i intend to bring this matter up. The Midlands were never affiliated to the NASRPC because it's membership of the so called coalition, but if the NASRPC have waited until the Midlands joined and then rejoined the so called coalition i want to know why the range has not broken their affiliation. Any support of the NASRPC is support for the so called coalition and is something i, as a member, won't abide. Supporting an organisation [NASRPC] that previously tried to illegally cap handgun licenses while gaining control of them, applied for grants improperly, and after years of trying to change and show they have now support a group [the so called coalition] that has called for the banning of at least one of the types of firearms i use and proposed a ban on my shooting sport not to mention impose huge restrictions and financial cost to me to continue in my sport(s).

NO F**KING WAY.

I'm sorry, I've no faith in an organisation that takes votes from ordinary shooters and puts them in the hands of a few people.

As i've said above the power is only perceived to have been taken from you. Vote within your club and make changes that are necessary. If the rep for your club continues to go against the majority then remove them. If they won't step down or own the range/club and refuse to listen then leave the range. Like the NASRPC or the so called coalition if a range has little to no members then it's not a range.

The problem, as always, is people won't go that bit extra to do what is necessary to make change occur. Complacency has cost us dearly in the past and will do so again if we don't act.

So here it is. Talk to your Reps. Talk to your fellow members. Call an EGM if necessary. If they refuse to change and the majority want such a change then come back on this thread and name the clubs, the reps and their decision.

If a member of two from each range can do this then we'll have a list of ranges that continue to support the NASRPC/so called coalition and we have a starting point from which to force the change we seek.

Walter Mittys Brother

While I agree with most of what has been said in the last few posts in my experience very few will do what it takes.

The term "club" in this scenario is incorrect especially when used in reference to most ranges in this country from what I can gather. The ranges are privately owned & are more or less commercial entities where members pay to essentially use the facilities. The members "rights" start & stop at the use of the facilities. Some have the illusion that the paid up members have some sort of control of the range/facilities or that they are members of a "club".

The range members may make decisions but the range owners ultimately make the decisions. If the members don't like it they can leave and go to another range but is there any point? I agree a range/club can't exist without members but members need a range/club to target shoot on.

Call me suspicious but wasn't it the first FCP that was responsible for the legislation to make it illegal to shoot targets with a rifle anywhere except a range .........were range owners were involved in that?) God be with th times lads could go the local quarry and have a plinking session, in complete safety, with their rifles ..........

Sparks

Call me suspicious but wasn't it the first FCP that was responsible for the legislation to make it illegal to shoot targets with a rifle anywhere except a range

Can I just call you wrong?

• The current FCP is the same body as the "first" FCP. The body was in hiatus for years because of a shooting body; it has now resumed operations.
• The legislation that made it illegal to shoot outside of a range came in several years before the FCP was set up. You could ask those who were cheering for the new rules. We did, on here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=51262469
• Range and Club are not interchangeable words. They mean different things, both in the "real world" and in the law. In most cases it breaks down to the range being the facility; while the club is the group of members who shoot there. Yes, there are more fine details and exceptions but read the legislation if you want the full set of details; as a rule of thumb, that one's good enough for most of the time.
• The term "club" in this context is a third definition; it means a group as recognised by the NASRPC for voting purposes. Which is nowhere near as well-defined as it is in law from what I can tell and is a completely different concept and context. It's a very bad idea to mix and match terms as a result, it just promotes obfuscation.

Walter Mittys Brother

I could have explained it in that way .......... but I decided to keep it simple.

Sparks, you should be a politician