nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

NASRPC's exit of the Sport Coalition.

Tackleberry.

NASRPC Communication
From
Will Danaher

Dear NASRPC Members
We are writing to inform you that at a meeting of our National Executive on Saturday the 24th of October, we made a decision to withdraw from the Sports Coalition.
We have reluctantly come to this decision for a number of reasons, including the following:
* Our right to effectively represent you, our members through the coalition has been denied.
* The lack of objectivity and transparency of the selection process for representation on the FCP.
* The ratification of the Sports Coalition representatives for the FCP without the approval of all coalition members.
* The failure to notify the NASRPC of the agenda item for the meeting on Monday the 5th of October; that was the selection of the Sports coalition representatives for the FCP.
* Our disappointment at the lack of our direct representation on the Firearms Consultative Panel through the Sports coalition.
* Lack of direct communication and consultation on the selection process for the FCP sports coalition representatives.
* Communication from the Sports coalition legal representative threatening to summons a member of the NASRPC committee and the Minister for Justice to court.
* Our final effort to resolve the situation prior to the first meeting of the FCP, scheduled for the 29th of October did not yield a positive result.
We recognise the invaluable contributions the Sports Coalition has played in bringing Shooting Sports to where we are today, but as we move to the next phase of this process, we believe that our decision is in the best interests of you, our affiliated members and clubs.
In our continuing efforts to achieve the best possible representation for you, we are actively exploring all option to continue to have your voice heard, including directly on the Firearms Consultative Panel and elsewhere.
Accountability is important and to this end, We are now and always available to discuss with any group, club or individual any aspect of our decisions and how we got here.
To this end we are organising an information forum, which will be open to all affiliated clubs, on Sunday 1st of November at 11.00 - venue to be confirmed.
Regards,
Will Danaher
Secretary
National Association of Sporting Rifle & Pistol Clubs

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Cass

Election for what?

Tackleberry.

I have read a lot of the last few pages on this thread I can see maybe I should of gone back a little more but here's my take..
2 years ago Will Danaher posted that the NASRPC where leaving the SC..,
This is part of the upheaval of the NASRPC and the now GRPAI..
When the new committee 2 year ago got voted in it was part of the intention to rejoin the SC the NASRPC needs to be sitting at the table where decisions are made..hence this is where we are now. The SC is part of the reason we now have Pistol shooting in Ireland. How could you expect a National body to sit outside the circle and have future decisions made for it?
The Justice Dept leaked the doc on the proposal which is "best practice not law" l
know that 90% of NASRPC competition shooters all shoot game and plenty night shoot also.. why would you think that they support the proposed doc?
The NARGC have more or less said they will cover the cost of illegal activities of farm animals being shot... good for the farmer but I think it's the wrong approach, there paying the criminals Insureance (shoot away lads we are covered).
The SC has many angles and interests the NASRPC is there for sport target shooting, yet it will have to involve itself in other countryside shooting matters..I have talked this out with NASRPC members with them showing no concern, all I see is another opportunity here on boards for GRPAI and HH members to throw stones..

Tackleberry.

Cass wrote: »

Election for what?

Think he means the up soon AGM..

Cass

Tackleberry. wrote: »

2 years ago Will Danaher posted that the NASRPC where leaving the SC..,

Why?

Because the so called coalition were placing two member of their choosing on the FCP to represent the NASRPC which the NASRPC were not happy with as they had no direct representation on the FCP by their own members.

Leaving the so called coalition meant the NASRPC could place their own members on the FCP, seats which they hold regardless of their affiliation to the so called coalition. The NASRPC were represented on the FCP before the foundation of the so called coalition and were invited by the Minister to sit on the FCP.

This is part of the upheaval of the NASRPC and the now GRPAI..

I've no loyalty to the NASRPC or the GRPAI as i'm not a member of either and couldn't give two f**ks about the pissing match between them. So that has nothing to do with anything i write here.

My concern is the so called coalition and the support of its dangerous proposals by the rejoining of the NASRPC.

When the new committee 2 year ago got voted in it was part of the intention to rejoin the SC the NASRPC needs to be sitting at the table where decisions are made..hence this is where are now.

The NASRPC have two seats on the FCP regardless of their affiliation to the coalition. So saying they had to join the so called coalition to get them is a joke and utterly wrong. The so called coalition don't dictate who sits on the FCP, the Minister does.

The SC is part of the reason we now have Pistol shooting in Ireland.

How in the name of Jesus did you come to that conclusion?

The so called coalition didn't exist until a few years back and only rose out of the ashes when the NARGC almost burned down the FCP with their court cases.

So tell me how they saved pistol shooting when there still is no centrefire handguns being licensed since 2008 and they (the so called coalition) proposed to ban any 22lr pistol under 5 inches. This means a ban on currently licensed firearms, a prohibition on licensing certain models/makes and further restrictions on an already overly restricted sport. From their own website:

So called coalition wrote:

The Sports Coalition could accept the following as a basis to commence round table discussion on a wider review of the firearms licensing system:
Immediate:

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.

How could you expect a National body to sit outside the circle and have future decisions made for it?

This is just wrong and the third time you've mentioned it and for the third time i'll correct you. The NASRPC had seats on the FCP before the creation of the so called coalition and since it's formation.

The Justice Dept leaked the doc on the proposal which is "best practice not law"

Tell me what in here sounds like best practice:

coalition proposal wrote:

To explore the practicalities of imposing a curfew during hours of darkness (11pm till dawn was discussed) whereby shooting should not take place save in accordance with a licence or permit.

I know that 90% of NASRPC competition shooters all shoot game and plenty night shoot also.. why would you think that they support the proposed doc?

So the members of the NASRPC were asked to vote on the issue of rejoining? If not then those at the "top table" made this decision and therefore the decision of 8 or 9 men to rejoin is not a consensus or the view of the majority of the NASRPC.

The act of rejoining a group that seeks to see if such a ban could work would immediately show agreement with such a ban. Also who are they to accept caps or bans on firearms for anyone they have not consulted with?

So Called Coalition 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.

So they'll accept an illegal cap on semi auto rifles except the vintage stuff. So they throw the "new gun" owners under the bus for the sake of the classic lads. Who is looking out for their own interests here?

The NARGC have more or less said they will cover the cost of illegal activities of farm animals being shot... good for the farmer but I think it's the wrong approach, there paying the criminals Insureance (shoot away lads we are covered).

If you are referrencing the complaint lodged by the so called coalition against the NARGC to the Gardaí, FCP, DoJ, Minister for justice, and anyone else they can get to listen then you can stop that noise as this forum is not the platform for spewing the "words" of the coalition.

........ all I see is another opportunity here on boards for GRPAI and HH members to throw stones..

After the bit directly above about the complaint from the so called coalition against the NARGC you're really going to say that some here have axes to grind?

What about me? I am neither GRPAI nor HH. I'm also not NASRPC nor coalition. So what horse have i in this rac?

The so called coalition proposed bans, restrictions, temporary caps, curfews, etc, etc. When they got called out on it they said we were too stupid to understand what they were actually doing.

Have a read here of their reply.

now you want us to believe the so called coalition are the saviours of pistol shooting, have the best interests of the shooting community in mind (given the list of proposals they have submitted) and we have nothing to worry about because now it's not sa ban/curfew they want, but aset of best practice guidelines.

Guidelines are not worth a feck and laws already exist to control/govern all they want. Everything else they called for will only further restrict our sport and you want us to drink the soup like the rest of the sheeple.

Feck that noise.

Think he means the up soon AGM..

As above.

Also i'm not a member of the NASRPC and never will be. Given their history and track record of secret proposals and end runs coupled with their flip flop attitude depending on how the wind blows, how could you be a member of such a group.

Walter Mittys Brother

From what I was told individuals are not members of nasrpc. Clubs are. Grpai hard to know who or what they are at.

Usual thing a few wannabes doing what they like and majority being kept in the dark or worse sitting back.

Only for here none of this would be known.

cavan shooter

Tackleberry. wrote: »

The NARGC have more or less said they will cover the cost of illegal activities of farm animals being shot... good for the farmer but I think it's the wrong approach, there paying the criminals Insureance (shoot away lads we are covered)..

I think you have that wrong what the NARGC said was that if a dodgy shot was taken and subsequently it is proved you were in the wrong the fund will still cover it. Its akin to as drink driver or dangerous driving your still insured. The legality will be dependent on how you fair with the Gardai.

The NARGC does not condone illegal activities by its members and many a man has been told to swing when they come cap in hand looking for backing.

Sparks

cavan shooter wrote: »

I think you have that wrong what the NARGC said was that if a dodgy shot was taken and subsequently it is proved you were in the wrong the fund will still cover it. Its akin to as drink driver or dangerous driving your still insured. The legality will be dependent on how you fair with the Gardai.

Sorry, can I just point something out here?

We have been saying on this forum for years that if you're looking for insurance and comparing groups like CAI with the NARGC compensation fund that it was deeply critical that you evaluate both carefully with regard to your needs because one was insurance and the other was a compensation fund and while they both meet the legal requirements for providing an insurance solution, they run under different rules.

One of those rules says that an insurance company may not pay out for cases where the insured claimant (ie. you) was proven to have been breaking the law at the time of the incident. That's why your car insurance won't cover you in certain circumstances (eg. if you drive down the wrong way on the M50 over the speed, alcohol and narcotics limits and you clip the divider and total your car, your first-party insurance provider isn't going to even blink at refusing your claim). (BTW, for the rules lawyers, most car insurance is for third parties and this is unaffected by whether or not you were breaking the law as you are not a third party and therefore not a recipient of the funds but the source of the funds in any such claim).

Compensation funds on the other hand are not bound by this rule.

That does not mean they are illegal. You will note that every insurance scheme in the state is backed by a national compensation fund for a start; there's also things like the Law Society running one. If they were illegal or even seen as dodgy, that would not be the case. It's just a consequence of the laws that govern these funds and insurance schemes.

Saying that the provider of a compensation fund is a participant in, or an accomplice to, or even a supporter of criminality because they pay out according to their own bylaws to someone who was found not to have been acting legally is utterly, unbelievably, stupid. The fund payout and your subsequent charges from the Gardai if any, are just not related.

Not that you are saying that CS, but as you know some... individuals have been floating that particular notion of late and I'd rather someone pointed out the elephant in the room if possible.

Tackleberry.

cavan shooter wrote: »

I think you have that wrong what the NARGC said was that if a dodgy shot was taken and subsequently it is proved you were in the wrong the fund will still cover it. Its akin to as drink driver or dangerous driving your still insured. The legality will be dependent on how you fair with the Gardai.

The NARGC does not condone illegal activities by its members and many a man has been told to swing when they come cap in hand looking for backing.

I agree thats probably what they meant.. but it's not what was said hence the debacle,.... animals that have been shot with no one accountable have been payed out of the fund, we can call it good will an part of the NARGC and I've no problem with the farm getting payment for any loss, but it all puts a spot light on shooting illegal or not.. day or night and it needs sorting, we have a chance at policing our own sport but power struggles seems to top all agendas I'd hope all this sh*te sorts its self out soon.

Sparks

animals that have been shot with no one accountable have been payed out of the fund, we can call it good will an part of the NARGC and I've no problem with the farm getting payment for any loss, but it all puts a spot light on shooting illegal or not

And that illegality is for AGS to police. Not the NARGC. That's a very dangerous path you're suggesting, allowing a body like the NARGC (meaning one run by private citizens with little or no external oversight and with limited manpower) the role of determining if an illegal act has taken place or not.

Hell, if I was an NARGC board member I'd be backing away from that proposal screaming in panic at the idea that I could be held liable in a defamation lawsuit because the board decided not to pay out in a case that subsequently turned out to involve no illegality at all.

Leave determining criminality to AGS; that's their defined role and they have legal protections when doing so that NGBs do not.

berettaman

Tackleberry. wrote: »

,.... animals that have been shot with no one accountable have been payed out of the fund, we can call it good will an part of the NARGC .

Hold on there a second..I think someone has been yanking your chain.

No way does the NARGC pay out for a shot animal without a direct link to the person that pulled the trigger.

You are lamping foxes..shoot a farm animal by mistake. You knock on farmers door and apologise and get his details for the Comp Fund Administrator. Farmer will be sorted..

You are a farmer and you come across a dead animal with a bullet hole, you cannot ring the NARGC and ask for payment as they will not know that it involved one of their members. NARGC do not pay out for random dead animals..

Every claim is looked at and if you were acting the tool the fund may not cover you. simple as..

Gleefulprinter

Cass wrote: »

Also i'm not a member of the NASRPC and never will be. Given their history and track record of secret proposals and end runs coupled with their flip flop attitude depending on how the wind blows, how could you be a member of such a group.

Thats a fairly serious thing to say about an organisation. Did they ever properly leave the SC? What other secret proposals are you talking about?

Cass

I'm not saying it like it's an opinion. It's documented FACT:

Sending in secret proposals in a bid to grab control of pistol shooting
Doing an end run around the (then) SSAI to improperly apply for grants

As for leaving the so called coalition. This thread is all about them leaving. Red the first page or two of posts. If that is not enough then read this from November 2015.

Tackleberry.

Cass wrote: »

I'm not saying it like it's an opinion. It's documented FACT:

Sending in secret proposals in a bid to grab control of pistol shooting
Doing an end run around the (then) SSAI to improperly apply for grants

As for leaving the so called coalition. This thread is all about them leaving. Red the first page or two of posts. If that is not enough then read this from November 2015.

That was as I said before a different committee that sat at the top table of the NASRPC at that time, all of whom are now GRPAI so that's the now GRPAI's doing not the current NASRPC committee and that this is all part of the upheaval where the current committee took the rains of the now NASRPC....

Tackleberry.

Tackleberry. wrote: »

That was as I said before a different committee that sat at the top table of the NASRPC at that time, all of whom are now GRPAI so that's the now GRPAI's doing not the current NASRPC committee and that this is all part of the upheaval where the current committee took the rains of the now NASRPC....

To hold the current committee of the NASRPC to account on any issues before the upheaval is wrong, for any other reason over the last two years I'd say fair enough as the committee is pretty much the same for last two years,
They do need to publicly explain to people.
1, why they rejoined the SC
and
2, there position on the leaked best practice doc.
It's unclear to quite a few here on boards especially if your unaware of the timeline of committee changes what's happening with the NASRPC but it's obvious to me that clubs wanted to be sitting at the SC but not with the committee of 2 years ago which are all the now GRPAI, the NASRPC grew in club numbers after the AGM 2yr ago, it is obvious that there is support for the NASRPC to be at the SC the only issue needing clarification is the position they hold on the Best Practice doc..

Cass

Tackleberry. wrote: »

That was as I said before a different committee that sat at the top table of the NASRPC at that time, all of whom are now GRPAI.......

I know and have said it time, after time, after time. However it's not germane to the thread or to the topic.

so that's the now GRPAI's doing not the current NASRPC committee

That was the doing of the NASRPC. Because the people involved are no longer part of it does not negate the actions that were commited in the name of the NASRPC.

However that too is not germane to the thread or the topic and does not adress or answer the points i made above that you have not answered.

In what way did the so called coalition save pistol shooting?
The NASRPC have seats on the FCP regardless of any affiliation to the so called coalition so why rejoin?
Does the NASRPC support the proposals of the so called coalition?
Why does the NASRPC support proposals to ban semi auto rifles, 22lr pistols, the introduction of ballistic testing, time lock safes, and a curfew/ban on shooting at night?

and that this is all part of the upheaval where the current committee took the rains of the now NASRPC....

For a time they seemed to be on the right track. They kept their heads down and got on with the business of shooting sports. However like previous committees they started to get notions above their station and by affiliating to the so called coalition have once again done an end run off their own volition and hung others out to dry.

The fact that you try to bring up a completely ridiculous allegation against the NARGC which has been leveled by the chair of the so called coalition is a sign of where their priorities are. You are being fed a one sided and highly biased agenda and are swallowing it up completely.

Tackleberry. wrote: »

To hold the current committee of the NASRPC to account on any issues before the upheaval is wrong, for any other reason over the last two years I'd say fair enough as the committee is pretty much the same for last two years,

You brought up the topic of the new committee. One poster asked what things the NASRPC done previously and i gave them links. I am not interested in those actions at the moment, but the current rejoining of the NASRPC to the so called coalition.

They do need to publicly explain to people.
1, why they rejoined the SC

Good luck with that, They have avoided, dodged and ignored any attempt to contact them. They surfaced briefly, on this forum, but soon deleted their post and ran back into the void.
and

2, there position on the leaked best practice doc.

It's not a best practice document. It's called that NOW, but the wording as i quoted above directly from their own website/release, is clear. They called for a curfew/ban on shooting at night between the hours of 12 midnight to 6 am during the months of September to March.

I am not making this up or imagining it. I am responding to their own words, but once again like the old committees of the NASRPC we have the "die hards" that deny such a thing was said when it's there in black and white on their own website.

It's unclear to quite a few here on boards especially if your unaware of the timeline of committee changes what's happening with the NASRPC but it's obvious to me that clubs wanted to be sitting at the SC but not with the committee of 2 years ago which are all the now GRPAI,

I'm going to, for one last time, remind you to stop trying to re-ignite the pissing match between the NASRPC and the GRPAI.

I don't care what was done in the past, for now, it's the fact the NASRPC rejoined the so called coalition. That lies at the feet of this committee and the buck cannot be passed onto someone else.

As for sitting on the FCP are you reading what ive said, multiple times, in repsonse to your continued use of this as an excuse. The NASRPC already have representation on the FCP. They HAVE their own seats. Had them before the so called coalition was even a dirty thought, had them to a limited extent during the first affiliation to the so called coalition, and had them again after leaving the so called coalition.

it is obvious that there is support for the NASRPC to be at the SC the only issue needing clarification is the position they hold on the Best Practice doc..

The "best practice" document is not even close to the only thing that needs addressing.

As for how obvious it is. Well here is a simple way to find out. Make the always silent NASRPC release the number of clubs/ranges that voted to go back into the so called coalition. If there are 18 clubs/ranges and a majority wins then 10 club/ranges must have voted to return to the so called coalition.

That raises a few other issues. Did the ranges put a vote to their members? If not then who made the decision for the entire range and it's members? The ranges that did not want to return to the so called coalition, are they going to remain within the NASRPC and by default the so called coalition? Do the ranges and members of the ranges agree with the proposals of the so called coalition?

When i spoke to my rep he knew nothing of it, and was not happy about the rejoining. So he is writing to the NASRPC to ask for clarification on what has happened, why, when, etc.

Tackleberry.

Cass wrote: »

[*]In what way did the so called coalition save pistol shooting?

Cass wrote: »

My opinion is that Mick Tope NASRPC and Des Crofton while singing from the same page did a lot of good work for Pistol shooting under the Umbrella of the SC only for arse to fall outta the bucket later on...

Cass wrote: »

[*]The NASRPC have seats on the FCP regardless of any affiliation to the so called coalition so why rejoin?
[*]Does the NASRPC support the proposals of the so called coalition?

Cass wrote: »

If I recall correctly it was part of the AGM 2yr ago and it was agreed at the AGM that the NASRPC would be part of the SC, as for the proposals again that's for the NASRPC to answer.

Cass wrote: »

[*]Why does the NASRPC support proposals to ban semi auto rifles, 22lr pistols, the introduction of ballistic testing, time lock safes, and a curfew/ban on shooting at night?

Cass wrote: »

I can't answer that, that's for the NASRPC to answer.

Cass

Tackleberry. wrote: »

My opinion is that Mick Tope NASRPC and Des Crofton while singing from the same page did a lot of good work for Pistol shooting under the Umbrella of the SC only for arse to fall outta the bucket later on...

Since the formation of the so called coalition there has been no improvement in the sport of pistol shooting.

Centrefire handguns are still banned.
The submission by the so called coalition via Declan Keogh regarding the ability to substitute centrefire handguns was dismissed.
The so called coalition have, as i quoted earlier, made a submission to accept a ban on any 22lr pistol under 5 inches in length, but not over 30cm. This would have wiped out currently licensed pistols and prevented/prohibited certain makes and models from being licensed.

That is what has been done by the so called coalition. And YOU think that is, how did you put it, "... the reason we now have Pistol shooting in Ireland". Because of the so called coalition?

Are you serious? Even before the formation of the coalition the NARGC under it's old management lead court case after court for a topic (pistol shooting) that to me had feck all to do with them but they've deeper pockets than the governing body that claim responsibility for it (NASRPC). These court cases are what brought the FCP to a grinding halt and stymied any progress for years.

If I recall correctly it was part of the AGM 2yr ago and it was agreed at the AGM that the NASRPC would be part of the SC,

So as soon as the old committee were gone the new committee immediately voted to rejoin the so called coalition?

Were the members allowed to vote either as individuals or within their own ranges to go for this?
Why, if it was decided two years ago, was it only done in April?
Why , if it was decided two years ago, was it only FOUND OUT (not declared) a few weeks back that they had?
Why keep it secret?

as for the proposals again that's for the NASRPC to answer.

So you don't know, AGAIN, and yet choose to come on here and defend their actions? Let me ask you this, as a member of the NASRPC and an individual with a working mind of your own.

Do you agree with a ban on semi auto centrefire rifle?
Do you agree with a ban on 22lr pistols under 5 inches?
Do you agree with a ban/curfew on night shooting as outlined above?
Do you agree with graduated licensing?
Do you agree with Ballistic testing?
Do you agree with Time lock safes?
Do you agree with mandatory courses (ran by the so called coalition groups)?

By being a member of the NASRPC, via your club, this is what you agree to as these are the proposals and objectives of the so called coalition. Please answer them. I'm not holding you to ransom, but i genuinely want to see if you agree with them and why.

I can't answer that, that's for the NASRPC to answer.

Lastly, and yet AGAIN, you don't know.

Answer this, and i know i'm asking you a lot of questions but frankly they are questions you and every other members of the NASRPC and the group within the so called coalition should have been asking before joining.

If you don't know is that because you were not told by the NASRPC? If you were not told then why not? Is it because the NASRPC once again are doing things as they (and by they i mean the top table ONLY) see fit without informing or getting consensus on? If so how are they any different to the old committee that you like to bring up so much (and by the way read back on my posts from the last 5 or 6 years and tell if you think i supported the NASRPC at any point incase you think it's that).

The simple fact here is you don't know what the NASRPC, and by default the so called coalition, are doing in your name. I have once again listed their objectives in this post and ask you to point to the proposals you agree with.

While i don't hold much to comparing us to America, as they are no the poster child for gun control, i will say that when any attack however small appears they squash it immediately. Even ones that to us seem reasonable.

HEre we have so called shooting representative bodies actually PROPOSING to ban certain firearms and further restrict an already overly restrictive sport and we have you and others like you defending this action.

The Minister, Gardaí and DoJ must be loving this.

badaj0z

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.
It should have been obvious to you that the only support you have received is from the supporters of the "old" committee to whom you have thrown a life line. As regards the attitude of the club members and the clubs who are part of the current NASRPC, we have been silent because we are happy with the way they have managed our association. More shoots, more participants, more success, including world championships. Good progress at political level too including the FCP. The clubs are kept informed and they in turn, keep the members up to date. The list of "dangerous" actions "supported" by the NASRPC is hilarious, especially considering that the members of the NASRPC who sit on the SC or the FCP actively participate in the activities which you say they want to ban.
You can dice and dissect this message any way you want. This is my one and only post in this debate, but someone had to set the record straight.

Cass

badaj0z wrote: »

I needed immense self control to not reply in the face of most of the arguments that you, Cass, have been promulgating.

So now you've found the courage?

I learnt many years ago that it was pointless arguing with a moderator on here.

Who is arguing with a moderator. Have i posted in bold font or issued a "MOD NOTE" on any of my posts? The answer is no so it's a poster you've arguing with, or about to.

I have seen posts removed with warnings and I have seen posts removed without warnings or any PM.

Surprised you can see removed posts and warnings. Must check into that.

You have become strident in your illogical condemnation of the NASRPC

Which parts are illogical.

Don't do the usual NASRPC thing and come on, call names then run away.
Argue your points. What is illogical? Where do you see me as being wrong.

and have brow beaten anyone who dares to disagree with you.

At what point have i intimidated anyone with foul or abusive language? That is the meaning of brow beaten. SO can you point that out for me please.

It should have been obvious to you that the only support you have received is from the supporters of the "old" committee to whom you have thrown a life line.

I seek no ones support or approval.

As regards the attitude of the club members and the clubs who are part of the current NASRPC, we have been silent because we are happy with the way they have managed our association.

So you're happy with the affiliation to the so called coalition and the proposal that so called coalition has put forward to the working review group?

Again please answer and don't avoid the question with off topic nonsense and name calling.

More shoots, more participants, more success, including world championships.

That is all great news and i couldn't be happier.

Now back to the topic of the thread. As i asked another poster:

Do you agree with a ban on semi auto centrefire rifle?
Do you agree with a ban on 22lr pistols under 5 inches?
Do you agree with a ban/curfew on night shooting as outlined above?
Do you agree with graduated licensing?
Do you agree with Ballistic testing?
Do you agree with Time lock safes?
Do you agree with mandatory courses (ran by the so called coalition groups)?

Good progress at political level too including the FCP.

As i also asked above, what progress?

The clubs are kept informed and they in turn, keep the members up to date.

Th rep for my club claims to know nothing about any of this and as a member of that club i only know because i found it out, and not from being told. So there is a hole in your argument already.

The list of "dangerous" actions "supported" by the NASRPC is hilarious,

I'm "glad" you find the illegal bans being called for, the destruction of aspects of fieldsports hilarious. Perhaps if the so called coalition targetsgallery rifles or pistols ABOVE 5" then you'll take notice.

especially considering that the members of the NASRPC who sit on the SC or the FCP actively participate in the activities which you say they want to ban.

I don't say they want it banned, they do. It's on their website and in their proposals. I quoted and linked to them above.

AGAIN READ THE PROPOSALS AND THE RELEASES.

You can dice and dissect this message any way you want. This is my one and only post in this debate, but someone had to set the record straight.

AND there it is. The typical response of no facts, name calling, and then run away.

You have set nothing straight, explained nothing, and the line of "will be my only post" is a cop out that has been used before by your NASRPC Brethren previously on their attempt to grab pistol shooting and other actions.

So if your grand contribution to this thread is a name calling, NASRPC biased propaganda speech from a soap box, then it's as useful as a chocolate astray.

Now if you want to discuss the proposals, if you agree with them, why the NASRPC rejoined (seeing as how you are all so well informed), the agenda of the so called coalition then i'm happy to discuss it.

If you cannot argue your point(s) and cannot support your point(s) with facts,links and quotes as i have done then it's not my fault, but your lack of ability. So calling me names for it is not going to solve the matter.

Tackleberry.

Cass wrote: »

Since the formation of the so called coalition there has been no improvement in the sport of pistol shooting.

You have your 5 shot .22pistol thanks to SC your no longer bound by the Olympic this that and the other..but sure your prob not happy with that..sure everyone wants more..

Cass wrote: »

Are you serious? Even before the formation of the coalition the NARGC under it's old management lead court case after court for a topic (pistol shooting) that to me had feck all to do with them but they've deeper pockets than the governing body that claim responsibility for it (NASRPC). These court cases are what brought the FCP to a grinding halt and stymied any progress for years.

I don’t believe this to be correct it’s your opinion, I went down the courts road twice having to stand alone with no support from either NASRPC/NARGC even with both knowing my case details.

Cass wrote: »

So as soon as the old committee were gone the new committee immediately voted to rejoin the so called coalition?

That was the plan from the start and should not of been a surprise to anyone at the meeting.

Were the members allowed to vote either as individuals or within their own ranges to go for this?

YES voted as individual by way of show of hands

Cass wrote: »

[*]Why, if it was decided two years ago, was it only done in April?

I don’t know.

Cass wrote: »

[*]Why , if it was decided two years ago, was it only FOUND OUT (not declared) a few weeks back that they had?

It was agreed at the AGM

Cass wrote: »

[*]Why keep it secret?

It was never a secret

Cass wrote: »

So you don't know, AGAIN, and yet choose to come on here and defend their actions?

Lets get one thing straight I am not here to defend the SC I’m here as I said in my first post “saying it as I see it”, sharing what I know. YOU CASS are a member of the NASRPC you also have a Rep at your club why burn everyone here boards...

Cass wrote: »

Let me ask you this, as a member of the NASRPC and an individual with a working mind of your own.
Do you agree with a ban on semi auto centrefire rifle?

Do you agree with a ban on 22lr pistols under 5 inches?

Do you agree with a ban/curfew on night shooting as outlined above?

Do you agree with graduated licensing?

Do you agree with Ballistic testing?

Do you agree with Time lock safes?

Do you agree with mandatory courses (ran by the so called coalition groups)?

By being a member of the NASRPC, via your club, this is what you agree to as these are the proposals and objectives of the so called coalition. Please answer them. I'm not holding you to ransom, but i genuinely want to see if you agree with them and why.

Short answer No...why? because I have talked to a Rep and I’m happy none of this will happen let’s see what your Rep in the Midlands says..?as you well know you yourself are now a member of the NASRPC.

Cass wrote: »

Answer this, and i know i'm asking you a lot of questions but frankly they are questions you and every other members of the NASRPC and the group within the so called coalition should have been asking before joining.

If you don't know is that because you were not told by the NASRPC? If you were not told then why not? Is it because the NASRPC once again are doing things as they (and by they i mean the top table ONLY) see fit without informing or getting consensus on? If so how are they any different to the old committee that you like to bring up so much (and by the way read back on my posts from the last 5 or 6 years and tell if you think i supported the NASRPC at any point incase you think it's that).
Well

The simple fact here is you don't know what the NASRPC, and by default the so called coalition, are doing in your name. I have once again listed their objectives in this post and ask you to point to the proposals you agree with.

I do agree with you that I may well not know everything that the Top Table are doing but I do try keep in touch with what is happening, there is a disconnect between the single member and the NASRPC now that it’s recognized as a association of clubs where one individual represents each club so whenever anything is now happening you do really need to be involved at club level to know what’s going on, meetings etc.
The last NASRPC meeting held in Hilltop was informative with yet with none of the information from said meeting posted here on boards, I would have to say it was productive, so it also proves there is stuff happening in the background that people don’t know about because they don’t attend the meetings ..

Tac out..

Cass

Tackleberry. wrote: »

You have your 5 shot .22pistol thanks to SC your no longer bound by the Olympic this that and the other..but sure your prob not happy with that..sure everyone wants more..

How?

What did the so called coalition do? You cannot just say they done "stuff" and expect me to take at face value. Show me what they done, how they saved pistols because that is what you claim. They saved pistol shooting.

I don’t believe this to be correct it’s your opinion, I went down the courts road twice having to stand alone with no support from either NASRPC/NARGC even with both knowing my case details.

Because you paid for your own court case does not make it untrue, nor does your lack of belief.

Court cases for pistols were going for years before the so called coalition were formed. The NARGC pulled out of the first FCP sometime in 2012 (IIRC) and took cases, including pistols, to the courts. It was actually the reason fro the ceasing of the FCP.

That was the plan from the start and should not of been a surprise to anyone at the meeting.

I have never agreed with the so called coalition, it's methods, it's secret proposals and behind the scene actions. However had the NASRPC rejoined back then, while still wrong, it'd be less damaging than now.

The so called coalition have done so much more harm in terms of more proposals and accepting of bans/curfews and further restrictions without being asked for them that to join it again, NOW, lends support and agreement to those proposals.

YES voted as individual by way of show of hands

I don’t know.

It was agreed at the AGM

It was never a secret

Gonna address all these together.

A meeting/AGM from some two years ago and its only acted upon in the last couple of weeks/months. So a vote was taken by those in attendance rather than the entire membership, even if on a range by range basis, and with clubs leaving and others joinging the make up of the NASRPC is different to what it was then.

For a start the so called coalition had no released all their proposals, but they have now.
Only members in attendance of the AGM were able to vote. It should be all members of a range, and then the range votes based on the majority opinion of it's members.
New ranges/clubs were not able to vote two years ago so affiliating within the last two years and then finding out the NASRPC has rejoined either came a s shock, or they agree with the proposals. Which do you reckon it is?
It had to be a secret as i and other members of my range didn't know and my rep, according to them, did not know. So someone is pulling my leg, and regardless of who it is i still was not informed, nor were the other members of the range.

Lets get one thing straight I am not here to defend the SC I’m here as I said in my first post “saying it as I see it”, sharing what I know. YOU CASS are a member of the NASRPC you also have a Rep at your club why burn everyone here boards...

You are defending them. By posting and saying that this was known, agreed to and accepted by the membership of the NASRPC you agree to the so called coalition and their agenda.

As for me being a member i'm coming to the stark realisation that that may be true. I have contacted my rep already as the NASRPC deem themselves above having to answer to someone directly. When i get answers from my rep i will be better informed regarding the questions that no one here will answer. I say will not because from what you and a couple of others have said this was widely known yet no one will answer basic questions.

Short answer No...why? because I have talked to a Rep and I’m happy none of this will happen

You're missing the point. If they don't happen we've dodged a bullet (excuse the pun) but it's a bullet we should never have had to dodge.

These are NOT proposals that the DoJ has submitted or suggested.
These are NOT proposals the Gardaí have submitted.
These are NOT proposals the review committee have proposed.

These are proposals our OWN groups are proposing. The so called coalition are calling for these changes. This is the basis for my outrage and my outrage at the NASRPC for supporting any group that would make these proposals.

As for me being a member. It's painfully becoming obvious that perhaps i might be. That'll change soon enough.

I do agree with you that I may well not know everything that the Top Table are doing but I do try keep in touch with what is happening, there is a disconnect between the single member and the NASRPC now that it’s recognized as a association of clubs where one individual represents each club so whenever anything is now happening you do really need to be involved at club level to know what’s going on, meetings etc.
The last NASRPC meeting held in Hilltop was informative with yet with none of the information from said meeting posted here on boards, I would have to say it was productive,

I don't want to know what they had for lunch. I don't want to know when they decide to buy new targets, flags, or hwo they organise shoots, etc. Some things we simply don't need to know about. That would be my opinion on the day to day running of the NASRPC.

However when it comes to something as serious as this then feck yes i want it printed in giant letters and sent out to every member. This "disconnect" you speak of. If this is the cause of me, other members and ranges not knowing about the big things that are happening/planned then it's time to scrap it.

If my range made such a huge decision without informing the membership or giving us a chance to have our say then i'd be pissed. Same applies to the NASRPC. They are not the planning authority (try get planning permission and you'll know what i mean). They have to be accountable and any group that is not and makes HUGE sweeping decisions like rejoining the so called coalition without consultation, or if you are to be believed, reminding the various ranges (two years is along time) then things have to change.

This is not about not being told by the way. That is only one aspect, it's the actual joining. I cannot stress this enough. I don't care about old committees, old actions, old agreements, etc. The current and recent rejoining of the NASRPC to the so called coalition because of what the so called coalition stand for is my only concern.

so it also proves there is stuff happening in the background that people don’t know about because they don’t attend the meetings ..

Tac out..

As i said above if you don't attend and things happen then you've no right to be pissed off, but when a meeting occurred two years ago before i or others were members then i had no say. Also if two years is left between taking a vote and acting upon it were the ranges that joined int he interim given the chance to vote for or reject such a rejoining. Were they informed and allowed to refuse affiliation or not told and joined without knowing?

Tackleberry.

Cass.. lets see what your Rep comes back with. I'm done here for now.

Cass wrote: »

How?

What did the so called coalition do? You cannot just say they done "stuff" and expect me to take at face value. Show me what they done, how they saved pistols because that is what you claim. They saved pistol shooting.

Because you paid for your own court case does not make it untrue, nor does your lack of belief.

Court cases for pistols were going for years before the so called coalition were formed. The NARGC pulled out of the first FCP sometime in 2012 (IIRC) and took cases, including pistols, to the courts. It was actually the reason fro the ceasing of the FCP.

I have never agreed with the so called coalition, it's methods, it's secret proposals and behind the scene actions. However had the NASRPC rejoined back then, while still wrong, it'd be less damaging than now.

The so called coalition have done so much more harm in terms of more proposals and accepting of bans/curfews and further restrictions without being asked for them that to join it again, NOW, lends support and agreement to those proposals.

Gonna address all these together.

A meeting/AGM from some two years ago and its only acted upon in the last couple of weeks/months. So a vote was taken by those in attendance rather than the entire membership, even if on a range by range basis, and with clubs leaving and others joinging the make up of the NASRPC is different to what it was then.
For a start the so called coalition had no released all their proposals, but they have now.

Only members in attendance of the AGM were able to vote. It should be all members of a range, and then the range votes based on the majority opinion of it's members.

New ranges/clubs were not able to vote two years ago so affiliating within the last two years and then finding out the NASRPC has rejoined either came a s shock, or they agree with the proposals. Which do you reckon it is?

It had to be a secret as i and other members of my range didn't know and my rep, according to them, did not know. So someone is pulling my leg, and regardless of who it is i still was not informed, nor were the other members of the range.

You are defending them. By posting and saying that this was known, agreed to and accepted by the membership of the NASRPC you agree to the so called coalition and their agenda.

As for me being a member i'm coming to the stark realisation that that may be true. I have contacted my rep already as the NASRPC deem themselves above having to answer to someone directly. When i get answers from my rep i will be better informed regarding the questions that no one here will answer. I say will not because from what you and a couple of others have said this was widely known yet no one will answer basic questions.

You're missing the point. If they don't happen we've dodged a bullet (excuse the pun) but it's a bullet we should never have had to dodge.

These are NOT proposals that the DoJ has submitted or suggested.
These are NOT proposals the Gardaí have submitted.
These are NOT proposals the review committee have proposed.

These are proposals our OWN groups are proposing. The so called coalition are calling for these changes. This is the basis for my outrage and my outrage at the NASRPC for supporting any group that would make these proposals.

As for me being a member. It's painfully becoming obvious that perhaps i might be. That'll change soon enough.

I don't want to know what they had for lunch. I don't want to know when they decide to buy new targets, flags, or hwo they organise shoots, etc. Some things we simply don't need to know about. That would be my opinion on the day to day running of the NASRPC.

However when it comes to something as serious as this then feck yes i want it printed in giant letters and sent out to every member. This "disconnect" you speak of. If this is the cause of me, other members and ranges not knowing about the big things that are happening/planned then it's time to scrap it.

If my range made such a huge decision without informing the membership or giving us a chance to have our say then i'd be pissed. Same applies to the NASRPC. They are not the planning authority (try get planning permission and you'll know what i mean). They have to be accountable and any group that is not and makes HUGE sweeping decisions like rejoining the so called coalition without consultation, or if you are to be believed, reminding the various ranges (two years is along time) then things have to change.

This is not about not being told by the way. That is only one aspect, it's the actual joining. I cannot stress this enough. I don't care about old committees, old actions, old agreements, etc. The current and recent rejoining of the NASRPC to the so called coalition because of what the so called coalition stand for is my only concern.

As i said above if you don't attend and things happen then you've no right to be pissed off, but when a meeting occurred two years ago before i or others were members then i had no say. Also if two years is left between taking a vote and acting upon it were the ranges that joined int he interim given the chance to vote for or reject such a rejoining. Were they informed and allowed to refuse affiliation or not told and joined without knowing?

Cass

Tackleberry. wrote: »

Cass.. lets see what your Rep comes back with. I'm done here for now.

That is a non answer and frankly a cop out.

If the questions i'm asking cannot be answered because you don't know, were not told to you or you cannot answer them because the answer would go against the NASRPC party line then its time to start asking these questions of the NASRPC directly.

You say you don't agree with the proposals so how can you agree to rejoin the group that proposed them.

You say they were never going to happen, but you don't know that, and just to settle something the review committee do take these things on board as is the case with semi auto rifles. They have imposed a stealth ban on them. They recommended the numbers of them being licensed be monitored and the Minister's statement to the matter in the Dail means if anyone licenses one now, and the Minister decides at any point to go after them then like pistols in the November 2008 statement she can back date any future legislation to that date. So without legally banning them she has banned them.

This is a direct result of the proposals by the coalition.

Not one person that has replied to me posts has been able to defend these proposals or the reasons for the NASRPCs rejoining. Instead if get don't knows, not sure, ask for yourself or in the case of others name calling, accusations of brow beating, and emotional statements with no facts.

Here is something i don' think i've asked.

What possible reason does the NASRPC have for rejoining? What do they gain? They have their own seats on the FCP so it's not to get that. They have a large membership so it's not about "safety in numbers". The FCP is meant to be the unified body to represent shooting sports so joining a smaller group of groups is redundant.

I'm sure people have been told to stop replying. It happened a couple of times in other threads over the years. That is another example of the problem. If the body representing you tells you to not answer, but won't answer themselves, you have a problem.

Tackleberry.

I think we have a run away Mod here..
Take a tablet relax, like you said yourself your Rep will hopefully answer all your questions.. if you possibly asked them all that is.. coz no matter what I answered it was never enough.
You have been lately described to me as the "best ill informed person on boards" you need to wait till your Rep gets back to then you can tear him a new A hole if you like .. goodluck to you sir..

Cass wrote: »

That is a non answer and frankly a cop out.

If the questions i'm asking cannot be answered because you don't know, were not told to you or you cannot answer them because the answer would go against the NASRPC party line then its time to start asking these questions of the NASRPC directly.

You say you don't agree with the proposals so how can you agree to rejoin the group that proposed them.

You say they were never going to happen, but you don't know that, and just to settle something the review committee do take these things on board as is the case with semi auto rifles. They have imposed a stealth ban on them. They recommended the numbers of them being licensed be monitored and the Minister's statement to the matter in the Dail means if anyone licenses one now, and the Minister decides at any point to go after them then like pistols in the November 2008 statement she can back date any future legislation to that date. So without legally banning them she has banned them.

This is a direct result of the proposals by the coalition.

Not one person that has replied to me posts has been able to defend these proposals or the reasons for the NASRPCs rejoining. Instead if get don't knows, not sure, ask for yourself or in the case of others name calling, accusations of brow beating, and emotional statements with no facts.

Here is something i don' think i've asked.

What possible reason does the NASRPC have for rejoining? What do they gain? They have their own seats on the FCP so it's not to get that. They have a large membership so it's not about "safety in numbers". The FCP is meant to be the unified body to represent shooting sports so joining a smaller group of groups is redundant.

I'm sure people have been told to stop replying. It happened a couple of times in other threads over the years. That is another example of the problem. If the body representing you tells you to not answer, but won't answer themselves, you have a problem.

Cass

Tackleberry. wrote: »

I think we have a run away Mod here..

I think it's laughable and a disservice that as soon as ye cannot make a counter argument or raise a single valid point you immediately resort to "it's not fair" and name calling.

As i said above in response to this:

badaj0z wrote: »

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.

Cass wrote: »

Who is arguing with a moderator. Have i posted in bold font or issued a "MOD NOTE" on any of my posts? The answer is no so it's a poster you've arguing with, or about to.

So please don't insult me or anyone else reading this with an attempt to distract from your inability to counter anything i've said.

Not once have you made a clear, factual and coherent response to anything i'e asked or said. Your inability to do this is your failing and has nothing to do with my status as a Mod, which for the purpose of this thread i have not replied as, only as a regular poster.

Take a tablet relax, like you said yourself your Rep will hopefully answer all your questions..

He hopefully will be as you said about the disconnect between the NASRPC and it's membership, and with first ahnd knowledge/experience of them ignoring issues they don't want to deal with i'm not expecting much.

if you possibly asked them all that is..

Thats a little petty don't ya think? Of course i asked, it's easy enough to check out. Ring the Midlands and ask if i contacted them last week.

However this thread serves as an example of the conduct of the nasrpc, YET AGAIN.

coz no matter what I answered it was never enough.

You didn't answer at all, that is the problem.

This is a discussion forum. We are free, mostly, to discuss most topics and issues. Arguments for and against will be raised.

However when the other party doesn't answer and makes vague, non factual remarks and calls them answers i'll call them out on it.

In case you need a refresher here is what i want to know:

How exactly did the so called coalition save pistol shooting?
Why did the NASRPC rejoin the coaliton?
You said you don't agree with the proposals, then brushed them off because not all were enacted. Well what about the fact they were proposed at all?
You said the vote was held two years ago to rejoin. Where can i get the minutes for that AGM to see the vote?
What about the clubs that have joined since? Do they/their members get no say?
What benefit(s) does rejoining the NASPRC give?

By the way before you say "i don't know again" you surely have an opinion and some of the questions are directed at you. Why do you think they done what they done, and what do you think of it?

You have been lately described to me as the "best ill informed person on boards" you need to wait till your Rep gets back to then you can tear him a new A hole if you like .. goodluck to you sir..

More name calling. You know insult is the last refuge of the ignorant? I'd suggest you try inform yourself and not listen to what others are forcing upon you. Make your own mind up and ask questions.

As for being wrong. What am i wrong about?

The proposals? Did they not happen?
The ban/curfew on night shooting? Was it not put forward?
Pistol shooting? Did the so called coalition save it, and how?

These are easy questions to answer and if you are better informed then teach me. I'm not arguingg for the sake of arguing. If you show me why i'm wrong, and what actually happened and why then i'll be forced to re-evaluate my position.

Lastly i'd suggest you question these things for yourself, not to mention your source. You mentioned the NARGC and the "illegal actions they fund". That is a complaint made by the so called coalition, and has no legal or otherwise basis.

Who sits on the board/committee of the so called coalition?
Would they have any ill feelings against the NARGC for any reason?
If the so called coalition is for all shooting sports why are they attacking another group that actually does things for the sports?
Why has the NASRPC put they weight/support behind the so called coalition in their attack on another group?
How does this further shooting sports and unity?

I'd really like an answer to question 1, btw.

Tackleberry.

Yip the reply I taught I'd get..
You accuse me of answering notting..
You know it all..and we are all wrong about the way your carrying on..
Continue if you must..

Cass wrote: »

I think it's laughable and a disservice that as soon as ye cannot make a counter argument or raise a single valid point you immediately resort to "it's not fair" and name calling.

As i said above in response to this:

So please don't insult me or anyone else reading this with an attempt to distract from your inability to counter anything i've said.

Not once have you made a clear, factual and coherent response to anything i'e asked or said. Your inability to do this is your failing and has nothing to do with my status as a Mod, which for the purpose of this thread i have not replied as, only as a regular poster.

He hopefully will be as you said about the disconnect between the NASRPC and it's membership, and with first ahnd knowledge/experience of them ignoring issues they don't want to deal with i'm not expecting much.

Thats a little petty don't ya think? Of course i asked, it's easy enough to check out. Ring the Midlands and ask if i contacted them last week.

However this thread serves as an example of the conduct of the nasrpc, YET AGAIN.

You didn't answer at all, that is the problem.

This is a discussion forum. We are free, mostly, to discuss most topics and issues. Arguments for and against will be raised.

However when the other party doesn't answer and makes vague, non factual remarks and calls them answers i'll call them out on it.

In case you need a refresher here is what i want to know:
How exactly did the so called coalition save pistol shooting?

Why did the NASRPC rejoin the coaliton?

You said you don't agree with the proposals, then brushed them off because not all were enacted. Well what about the fact they were proposed at all?

You said the vote was held two years ago to rejoin. Where can i get the minutes for that AGM to see the vote?

What about the clubs that have joined since? Do they/their members get no say?

What benefit(s) does rejoining the NASPRC give?

By the way before you say "i don't know again" you surely have an opinion and some of the questions are directed at you. Why do you think they done what they done, and what do you think of it?

More name calling. You know insult is the last refuge of the ignorant? I'd suggest you try inform yourself and not listen to what others are forcing upon you. Make your own mind up and ask questions.

As for being wrong. What am i wrong about?

The proposals? Did they not happen?
The ban/curfew on night shooting? Was it not put forward?
Pistol shooting? Did the so called coalition save it, and how?

These are easy questions to answer and if you are better informed then teach me. I'm not arguingg for the sake of arguing. If you show me why i'm wrong, and what actually happened and why then i'll be forced to re-evaluate my position.

Lastly i'd suggest you question these things for yourself, not to mention your source. You mentioned the NARGC and the "illegal actions they fund". That is a complaint made by the so called coalition, and has no legal or otherwise basis.
Who sits on the board/committee of the so called coalition?

Would they have any ill feelings against the NARGC for any reason?

If the so called coalition is for all shooting sports why are they attacking another group that actually does things for the sports?

Why has the NASRPC put they weight/support behind the so called coalition in their attack on another group?

How does this further shooting sports and unity?

I'd really like an answer to question 1, btw.

Sparks

Tackleberry. wrote: »

You have your 5 shot .22pistol thanks to SC your no longer bound by the Olympic this that and the other..but sure your prob not happy with that..sure everyone wants more..

I hate to tell you this, but the Olympic NGBs didn't propose the 5 shot limit, AGS did.
However, the SC _did_ propose tighter restrictions on the allowed smallbore pistols with things like barrel length restrictions that would have disallowed most of the smallbore pistols owned in Ireland today.
And that was done behind the backs of everyone else at a time when AGS were looking to restrict things from the current position where the law doesn't say "olympic" or anything else but only "smallbore".

So, long story short, you have your smallbore pistols in spite of the SC, not because of them. And this is not secret information, it was on here as soon as it was discovered: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94956830&postcount=2195

And it's not us accusing them of doing it; they actively boasted about doing it in a detailed press release.

Cass

Tackleberry. wrote: »

Yip the reply I taught I'd get..
You accuse me of answering notting..

You misunderstand me.

I'm not saying you did not answer at all, but of not actually giving an answer/explanation. IOW you have not shown anything to back up your claims to the extent you have not explained your reasoning.

Tackleberry.

You've held me to account as if a was the Secretary of the NASRPC ..borderline badgering..
I'm a normal shooter who could only could share so much.. as much as I know even if is all from the perspective of the NASRPC, boards has become a very one sided place with numerous folk members from HH/GRPAI throwing sh*te whenever it can be flung.. Yet the facts are yet to be seen why the NASRPC rejoined the SC I hope your Rep spells it out clearly so all this can be put to bed.

Cass wrote: »

You misunderstand me.

I'm not saying you did not answer at all, but of not actually giving an answer/explanation. IOW you have not shown anything to back up your claims to the extent you have not explained your reasoning.

Any time I said it was my opinion I pointed that out..
when I talked about the AGM of 2 year ago I was there.. I don't have the minutes
...yet you fail to accept my answers even if they are a genuine attempt to answer your questions even partially. .
I don't and never had all the answers yet you actually accuse me of defending the SC I don't care for the SC.. it's the one side veiw here on boards I did not like reading about.
The NASRPC as a body by themselves in my veiw promotes shooting .
Maybe when your Rep gets back to you you can convince me of been hoodwinked.
But till then I wish you my kind regards Tac.

Cass

Tackleberry. wrote: »

You've held me to account as if a was the Secretary of the NASRPC ..borderline badgering..

You posted in this thread all by your lonesome. I never made you, forced you or asked you. As you are the only one on the NASRPC "side" willing to post i'm asking you.

I'm a normal shooter who could only could share so much.. as much as I know even if is all from the perspective of the NASRPC,

You surely have your own opinions though? You don't need NASRPC permission, consultation or authorisation to answer?

I'm asking you some questions, directly. Not asking you to answer on behalf of the NASRPC. I've conceded to the fact they will never answer.

I said for you to ask the same questions of the NASRPC. Don't take everything you're told as Gospel or even at face value. This is true for all groups, all bodies, and all associations that act as a voice for segments of shooting sports.

boards has become a very one sided place with numerous folk members from HH/GRPAI throwing sh*te whenever it can be flung..

For the love of God. I've asked for the NASRPC vs GRPAI pissing match to be left at the door. This has nothing to do with that.

When the GRPAI first came to light i was, and still am, critical of the group, how they acted and of those in charge. For the same reasons you mentioned earlier in the thread. Read my posts from the thread. I am not a member of HH, and therefore have no affiliation to either.

They have nothing to do with this topic. All the actions of the last two years are on the current NASRPC's head.

Yet the facts are yet to be seen why the NASRPC rejoined the SC I hope your Rep spells it out clearly so all this can be put to bed.

So you don't know why either. Again not an attack, i'm asking do you know why? If you don't then either you were not present when people were told or you simply were not told.

If it's the latter then does this not concern you? You have already said you don't agree with the proposals but you are now part of the group that created and submitted them.

I don't have the minutes

Fair enough, but i didn't ask you for them. I asked where i can get them. I accept that you were there, and you don't have the minutes, but i'm curious to know where i can get the minutes so i can see who voted for rejoining the sc and why they done it.

...yet you fail to accept my answers even if they are a genuine attempt to answer your questions even partially. .

There is no embarrassment or shame in saying " i simply don't know". When you said the sc saved pistol shooting i asked how. You could not tell me. The reason is a combination of you not knowing, and the fact they didn't.

If you said because they took case after case in the courts, invested tens of thousands in ranges, training, etc. and then hold weekly/monthly courses for free at various ranges to promote the sport coupled with combating restrictive legislation then i would have said great, thanks. I could have read the court reports, seen the events advertised on the sc website or nasrpc website, and agreed with your assertion.

However none of that happened. So who told you the sc saved pistol shooting?Do you not think, now, that they were misleading you. If they were what else are they misleading you on?

I don't and never had all the answers yet you actually accuse me of defending the SC I don't care for the SC.

When you came on this thread, of your own volition, and said that what i have said is wrong, the nasrpc are good (m'kay) and its all the grpai's fault then to me that is defending the nasrpc and as it's now affiliated to the sc, defending them by default.

. it's the one side veiw here on boards I did not like reading about.

Thing is everyone is free to respond, but they won't. badaj0z posted and i thought i'd get a response or a well balanced counter argument. instead i got the same name calling, substanceless, and emotive posts i've gotten before when people don't like that i am questioning their organisation.

A lot of this boils down to that by the way. Insulting someones range, organisation or club is almost worse than insulting their Mother. they will defend the indefensible simply because they are a part of it.

The NASRPC as a body by themselves in my veiw promotes shooting in my opinion .

The NASRPC could have settled all this weeks ago by replying. They have no problem posting events, and results and even have their own verified account so you know it's them. However they stay silent.

What does that say about them when they won't explain themselves?

Maybe when your Rep gets back to you you can convince me of been hoodwinked.

If my rep comes back to me and say "here is the story. ...................." then tells me what happened, why, the consequences, benefits and effects of rejoining and i can see he and the nasrpc have valid points i'll come back on here, report what i was told and thank them openly for their work.

However if he comes back to me with, they wouldn't answer, they didn't answer, or the answer they gave was baseless and meaningless then i'll continue to ask questions until others (as i see it now) get their head out of the sand and start asking the same questions.

You must realise, and if you only take one thing from our back and forth the last few days let it be this, that i do this because the nasrpc has a history of poor choices and secret/backroom deals. The proposals of the sc are a danger. You said yourself you don't like them but why is a shooting group even proposing them?

This will have real world consequences for ALL of us, not just some. If the nasrpc and the sc go unchecked an accountable to no one you might just find that along with the current semi auto"ban" you cannot buy a pistol under 5 inches, you cannot shoot foxes at night, you cannot buy a new shotgun until you "graduate" to that caliber, etc, etc, etc.

But till then I wish you my kind regards Tac.

Nothing you have said have i taken personally. I hope the same applies. While tempers can rise, it's a forum and any disputes on topics here should end here.

I've known you a long time and consider you a decent person with a good head on your shoulders.

I'm not out to try change the world, but if i can make you and a few others question what is happening and then let you make your own mind up then i'm happy. I don't want to "brainwash" people to think like me simply because i said so.