Firearms Consultative Panel

Sparks

jaycee wrote:

I have a huge problem with even the concept of a restricted list where a 10 year old child can tell that the descriptions and definitions are so muddy as to be nothing short of almost, a deny them all charter.

Especially when the definitions on that list are dependant on EU definitions which are about to change!

To quote a common bit of gallows humour on here , the expression IDONTLIKETHELOOKOFTHAT.. is all thats needed to make the acquiring of any firearm intensely difficult if not impossible.

It's not gallows humour any more, it's officially drafted in the last draft I saw.

Now , lets think about the word restricted .
Hmmm ... Ok, what will that mean ..?

Extra conditions on your licence, set by the Commissioner or Minister, with no legal avenue to challange them on any grounds, and with no legal obligation on the part of either Minister or Commissioner to even publish what those conditions are - in the CJB debates, the then Minister argued strongly against such an obligation on the grounds that you might be denied a licence because you lived too near a criminal suspect, but he didn't want to tell you this lest you tip this person off that he was under investigation.

Personally, I think if you see it on the restricted list, you might as well consider it gone for all the hassle involved.

How much security

Some clubs have 24hour security personnel (the two college clubs, because they're both on campus). So that could be asked for of all clubs. Enjoy...

In that sense , conflict between someones role with an organization or fighting about who get to go to the party pales into insignificance .
we have plenty of conflicts ahead , it would be better if we concentrated our energies on trying to clean up the mess that is on the table in front of us.

Can't do that if it means we have to ignore our own rules (or any rules at all) in order to get to the table - that's why we're in the muck to begin with!

Sparks

Kryten wrote:

Why has'nt the SSAI informed us about this Firearms consultative panel. They are supposed to represent the majority of target shooting clubs.

Are they?
I was of the impression that they were a group of NGBs, not an NGB themselves...

Sparks

bunny shooter wrote:

What we need is for every member of the attending group/s to revcieve a complete copy of the proposals, and I repeat the proposals, before anything is agreed to. These group/s reps shouldn't be allowed to agree to anything without their members approval in advance.

Amen to that. So what if it takes longer, I'd rather it took two years and was done right than see it stuffed up inside of a weekend!

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

Except that now the NTSA directors are voting to send a representative who won't be bound to act in the NTSA's interest and so they're acting ultra vires and the appointed representative doesn't actually have the NTSA's official backing because the decision to send them was outside the power of the board.

You're hilarious Sparks . If that were truly the case, no company could delegate any of it's authority under it's Memorandum of Association to any stafff member or officer. In any event, the company is authorised to so delegate to any member and to enter into any joint agreement or arrangement with any other body with similar aims.

It's not a conflict you can get around rrpc. That's why I've been pointing it out for the past seven years.

And it's not a conflict under the companies M&A of A or company law.

"Air and smallbore pistols lads, but stop asking about the fullbore rifles, would you?" was the situation outlined to me by a member of the NRPAI who was in the room when the offer was made. This would have been back before 2000.

Back then there were no other bodies involved in negotiations and certainly it was a bad move. However I'm not in a position to second guess the mood of the meeting or whether or not there was a possibility of getting everything back at that time. As I pointed out earlier, there's nothing ultra-vires about joining with similar bodies (Clause S in the M of A).

And if there's no NTSA person there? Last time, they put all the ISSF alu-stock rifles (air and smallbore and fullbore) along with all the ISSF pistols (smallbore and fullbore) on the restricted list!

And you made the suggestion to list all our stuff seperately, and they said it would be too much work. I believe at that point I suggested that we make the list and do the work for them. All they would have to do is check it out.

Sure. But it's a better idea for the shooting NGBs to meet as equals beforehand and compare agendas and agree points of mutual support and points that were NGB-specific and resolve conflicts there. We both know that that doesn't happen within the SSAI and that it didn't happen in the NRPAI.

Well my suggestion above would sort a lot of problems beforehand, because whoever attended the meeting would have the list with them. But yes, I would certainly see a pre-meeting meeting being a given.

Not to mention, if we go in as the SSAI, the uncomfortable question of the NRPAI/SSAI and the illegal AGM that brought about that change is a stick on the table for any other party to beat us with.

Has that not been properly ratified since?

Sure, if the DoJ and Gardai don't mind the list being empty.

I think you know what I mean. Our stuff is a subset of everything else, and lower down the idontlikethelookofthat pecking order.

I still don't like that idea so much. We'd have to give a list, so would the ICPSA, the NARGC, the SSAI groups, the practical pistol lads (who, by the way, have no rep at this table because they can't be in the SSAI at the same time as the NTSA). It's more work than keeping the restricted list empty.

Now you're getting involved in other people's business. I don't think a list would work with the other bodies anyway, they're far too broad. We need a list because of the unique nature of our equipment which as you pointed out before could be restricted by means of description.

les45

The IPSA have written to the Minister requesting a seat on the Board , in relation to our membership of the SSAI we applied for membership in October 2006 we are awaiting a response from the SSAI in relation to this application.

John FitzGerald RD IPSA

Bananaman

I had hopes when I saw this thread to see a general meeting of the waters among people representing different groups in shooting and some info on what groups will be standing up for and promoting the use of the wide range of calibres in sport today (i.e. ALL of them) with the Firearms Consultative Panel.

Unfortunately it seems to just be about who gets to wear the NTSA hat - be it in the meeting or in the carpark - however that turns out.

Considering that the rumour and innuendo and possibilities that we heard all along with respect to the restricted list were that shotguns, 22 rifle and airguns would be unrestricted and everything else - including all pistols I believe I heard it said before - were potentially on the restricted list.

I for one find it a bit disheartening when I hear people start to discuss certain calibres and types of filearms e.g. pistols with a slight tone of "our type of shooting sport is more important than that type of shooting sport" - (not in this thread but as an undertone on this board in general).

As soon as the lobby that is shooting sports in general all skive off into different corners and start whispering and pointing at each all we are all buggered.

My own shooting sport preferences are Static Fullbore Pistol, Practical Pistol and Clay Pigeon Shooting.

Therefore I would like to know that fullbore revolver and semi automatics - regardless of colour or make - and catered for by one of the representative bodies.

I would like to khow that the full range of full bore calibres such as
9mm, .38, .38 Super, .357, .40, .45 etc. are all recognised as valid recognised calibres for valid recognised shooting sports in Ireland

I would like to know that all Dynamic shooting disciplnies - not just Practical Pistol - there is rifle, shotgun and plenty more - are recognised as a valid shooting sport and does not get relegated to "spooky stuff".

I would hope that I do not get the "What Olympic sport is that for?" drivvle when I next go to see the FO after these changes have come into affect.

I have not been in the loop in shooting for very long and dodge the politics of it like a plague of camel arse mites but I would hate all that it is to be pissed away by people posturing for position for both their own sport and themselves.

Here's hoping not.

B'Man

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

You're hilarious Sparks . If that were truly the case, no company could delegate any of it's authority under it's Memorandum of Association to any stafff member or officer.

No company is permitted to do so under company law if they know that the agent delegated may act in a manner not in the best interests of the company.
It's not a joke RRPC, the Officer of the Director of Corporate Enforcement takes it rather seriously, as do the members of any company who wish to see that company run in their best interests.

In any event, the company is authorised to so delegate to any member and to enter into any joint agreement or arrangement with any other body with similar aims.

And company law means that if they do so knowing it won't be in the company's best interest, then their actions are ultra vires and not binding upon the company. Look it up if you've forgotten.

And you made the suggestion to list all our stuff seperately

Actually, I didn't. And I don't remember you being at the meeting where I heard the idea for the first time.

Has that not been properly ratified since?

No, because it cannot be properly ratified. An invalid AGM brought the SSAI into being; it is not possible for the SSAI to properly ratify the situation. Two wrongs can't make a right and all that, even in the legal world. The NRPAI would have re-hold the AGM with a predeclared AGM and the voting rights would have to be respected; and then you'd have to have the SSAI re-admit the NRAI as a member. Luckily, the NRPAI technically speaking still exists as a seperate body with the same officers they had in '04; they've just never had their own AGM. Which begs the question of what happens if an NRPAI officer were to approach the FCP and ask for representation...

Now you're getting involved in other people's business.

Actually, I'm just pointing out another flaw in the idea that the SSAI is sufficient representation on the panel for us. The IPSA isn't in the SSAI so they need seperate recognition - so why can't we have the same?

Sparks

Bananaman wrote:

I had hopes when I saw this thread to see a general meeting of the waters among people representing different groups in shooting and some info on what groups will be standing up for and promoting the use of the wide range of calibres in sport today (i.e. ALL of them) with the Firearms Consultative Panel.

Except that we've never sorted out our internal problems properly, so we're being slapped around the face with them every time this sort of thing comes up. And until we sit down like grown-ups and sort it out, it will continue to bite us.

I for one find it a bit disheartening when I hear people start to discuss certain calibres and types of filearms e.g. pistols with a slight tone of "our type of shooting sport is more important than that type of shooting sport" - (not in this thread but as an undertone on this board in general).

Well, I'd rather expect every NGB would take that tone by definition. I mean, if you don't think your sport is the best, why the hell would you be putting your effort into it?
That's not to say that conflicts can be avoided - just that they can't be avoided the way we're doing it now (by pretending that there are no conflicts and looking away and whistling while pushing our individual sports while wearing the SSAI hat and hoping no-one notices).

I would hope that I do not get the "What Olympic sport is that for?" drivvle when I next go to see the FO after these changes have come into affect.

Which is why you should be seeing the IPSA on the panel as well as the ICPSA, to represent your interests. There's no conflict then. The various reps meet before the FCP meeting, agree on mutual areas of support and check for conflicts honestly, then show a united front to the FCP in some areas and at least no conflicts in the other areas. That's a damn sight better than the current arrangement where someone goes forward claiming to represent everyone, which is a patently impossible task unless they successfully get the DoJ to ignore the Gardai completely and leave the restricted list empty.

les45

As far as the IPSA is concerned we will if allowed put forward our views on behalf of our members but and this is the but I would also argue with the same vigour and determination for all other shooting sports ,and that ladies and gentlemen is the crux of the matter . If the NTSA are at the table will they simply look after themselves or will they fight for PP1500 , F.Class, and Practical Pistol . That is for the NTSA to answer !we need to work together , the IPSA are more than willing to help and assist in any way it can , will the NTSA in Ireland work with us on this or will they simply paddle their own canoe . If other European Shooting federations can work together !why the hell cant we.

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

No company is permitted to do so under company law if they know that the agent delegated may act in a manner not in the best interests of the company. It's not a joke RRPC, the Officer of the Director of Corporate Enforcement takes it rather seriously, as do the members of any company who wish to see that company run in their best interests.

How do they know that? If a person is delegated to put forward a proposal on behalf of the company, agrees to so do and does it, no-one is acting ultra-vires.

Actually, I didn't. And I don't remember you being at the meeting where I heard the idea for the first time.

Yes you did, do you want me to quote the email you sent to the committee regarding your meeting with the DoJ in May? You used the word 'we' which implies that you were part of the proposal.

No, because it cannot be properly ratified. An invalid AGM brought the SSAI into being; it is not possible for the SSAI to properly ratify the situation.

As the valid voting situation in question is just the members of the NRPAI, any committee meeting with a valid quorum could ratify the change.

Actually, I'm just pointing out another flaw in the idea that the SSAI is sufficient representation on the panel for us. The IPSA isn't in the SSAI so they need seperate recognition - so why can't we have the same?

No offence to the IPSA, but what makes you think they'll get representation seperately?

Bananaman

I mean, if you don't think your sport is the best, why the hell would you be putting your effort into it?

I have a preference for the ones I am any use at - not to say I am any great shakes - but I am getting better.

I like to see the shooting sports (all of them) developing - unfortunately we all only have so much time we can give to it and hence have to focus on a few - not because they are any better than the others but simply because we can only do soo much - note the rise of Practical shooting in it's short history - was at a 60 man shoot at the weekend - three international regions represented - and that was just a club shoot. What a day.

When you are on the organising side of a shoot like that you have to put in a lot of time and effort - a lot of people do - but when a day like that comes off so well it is all worth it. The same applies when you attend a shoot run by other people, regardless of discipline. It's great to see a day go well for the organisers and to see people you know come good on the day and walk away with a medal.

It's bad enough now wth the amount of time I spend on the range etc. if I had the time and wonga (lotto win required) I would probably never leave and would partake in a wider range of sports. Hopefully the Mrs. is not reading this

Bottom line, from my own point of view - like I said I am not tarnished by the politics of shooting so do not have any crosses to bear - I would hate to see some of the "younger disciplines" (in Ireland) such as Practical Pistol suffer in the face of some of the older more established disciplines. Ditto for some calibres beng restircted just to smooth the road for some others.

As it stands today in Ireland we are spoiled for choice with respect to shooting sports - we are up to our oxters in disciplines to suit anybody - you hear the old cliché on the RTÉ Sport ads about Ireland being a sporting mad nation. Every weekend almost all year round you can attend a range of competitions, in a huge range of disciplines, either as competitor or as spectator. Alomost every week we see or hear of people coming back from Internationals with medals - some in disciplines I had not heard of before.. Even if they don't get a medal what a buzz. I was at a Practical Pistol International this year where the world champions in three categories were shooting in stages around me.
The more of that there is the more you will see new blood coming into the sports in general and what is good for the goose....

Lets hope we do not end up losing some of that diversity

B'Man

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

How do they know that? If a person is delegated to put forward a proposal on behalf of the company, agrees to so do and does it, no-one is acting ultra-vires.

Depends on the proposal and what else they do while there. If you're delegating someone to walk in, drop an agreed proposal on the table and walk out, sure, you're safe from company law. But it's hardly effective... and then you're nailed by company law again!

Yes you did, do you want me to quote the email you sent to the committee regarding your meeting with the DoJ in May? You used the word 'we' which implies that you were part of the proposal.

I used the word 'we' because I wasn't alone and I was reporting the actions of that group to the board. But if you want to assign individual responsibility, I'm the wrong person to look at in this case. And you weren't at that meeting rrpc, as I recall.

As the valid voting situation in question is just the members of the NRPAI, any committee meeting with a valid quorum could ratify the change.

No, it could not, for two good reasons:
1) It would have to be an AGM with an announced agenda - committee meetings cannot overrule AGM meetings and it was an AGM where the NRPAI name and structure were originally agreed upon, so it has to be an AGM where they are changed;
2) It would have to be the members of the NRPAI as they were in 2004. The current SSAI membership isn't valid because of the origins of the SSAI, so they can't ratify the decision that brought the SSAI into being.

No offence to the IPSA, but what makes you think they'll get representation seperately?

I don't know if they will or not - but from reading les' post above, I know they're at least trying. Which would be a point they've got over the NTSA so far in my eyes.

Sparks

les45 wrote:

As far as the IPSA is concerned we will if allowed put forward our views on behalf of our members but and this is the but I would also argue with the same vigour and determination for all other shooting sports

Thing is les, if you're going to argue for all the shooting sports, that's effort you're not putting into your own sport, so you're not doing as good a job for your own sport as you could be.

The problem here is people thing that it's not possible to build a united front from seperate elements.
Obviously dry stone walls never existed...

If the NTSA are at the table will they simply look after themselves

Any NTSA board member is bound by the confines of company law to serve the interests of the NTSA members. Those interests are not served by calling for some other discipline to be banned; but they're also not served by those representatives spending effort on representing other disciplines. They have their job to do, their part to play in an overall community.

will they fight for PP1500 , F.Class, and Practical Pistol .

PPC1500 is the NASRC's role; F Class is the NRAI's role; Practical Pistol is the IPSA's role (and you know the NTSA can't be involved on an organisational level there because of the ISSF-IPSC dispute).

By the way, observe a canoe:

Note how everyone has their own paddle and noone is paddling for the other guy, but they all go in the same direction anyway...

Sparks

Bananaman wrote:

Lets hope we do not end up losing some of that diversity

We don't have to, but as you said, there's a _lot_ of work in running these disciplines. It's too much for any one group to do all the shooting sports. So one group to a paddle, so to speak. And, like I said above:

les45

That particular canoe Mark has a cox to guide it and I have seen bigger waves in my bath ! and look at all the smiling faces , a very happy lot !:D:D:D, if only the Irish Shooting Sea was so calm.;););)

Sparks

See, always with the picking of the holes in a perfectly good analogy...


Better now?

Rovi

So long as it doesn't end up like this-

les45

Well done Rovi

Sparks

And you think it's not like that now?
Although to be fair, it's more like this...

LB6

Phew - sense of humours still in tact! TG

Sparks

Always intact LB6, if stretched very thin from time to time...

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

Depends on the proposal and what else they do while there. If you're delegating someone to walk in, drop an agreed proposal on the table and walk out, sure, you're safe from company law. But it's hardly effective... and then you're nailed by company law again!

You really should read the company's Memorandum Sparks, because the remit is quite broad, far broader than you appear to think.

I used the word 'we' because I wasn't alone and I was reporting the actions of that group to the board. But if you want to assign individual responsibility, I'm the wrong person to look at in this case. And you weren't at that meeting rrpc, as I recall.

I never suggested that I was at the meeting. If you wished to distance yourself from the proposal, perhaps you shouldn't have use the word 'we'. Especially since the 'group' consisted of yourself and the Chairman.

No, it could not, for two good reasons:
1) It would have to be an AGM with an announced agenda - committee meetings cannot overrule AGM meetings and it was an AGM where the NRPAI name and structure were originally agreed upon, so it has to be an AGM where they are changed;

Not a good reason. Since the original voting rights of the AGM were the same as any committee meeting, any such meeting could be declared an EGM for the purposes of ratifying the name change.

2) It would have to be the members of the NRPAI as they were in 2004. The current SSAI membership isn't valid because of the origins of the SSAI, so they can't ratify the decision that brought the SSAI into being.

It's not the individual members, but the positions they occupy that are entitled to a vote. What you're saying in essence, is that any decision made by a previous committee can only be reversed by the same committee whether they hold office or not. :rolleyes:

I don't know if they will or not - but from reading les' post above, I know they're at least trying. Which would be a point they've got over the NTSA so far in my eyes.

While you are pointing fingers, could you explain why you dropped the ball on this, seeing as up to the 15th September, you were secretary of the NTSA, and were supposed to be in contact with the DoJ before the AGM?

I have made a number of submissions to the committee about this in the last 24 hours, and the only responses I've had so far are from the Chirman (in India) and the outgoing treasurer, but it would have been a lot better if your eye had been kept on the ball and we weren't now presented with what appears to be a fait accompli.

But hey! this is all about solidarity and sticking together and presenting a united front, so we'll do our very best to live up to the high standards you've set for everyone else.

I can't believe the **** that I have just read.

Not ever 24hrs after this has been identified and already it reads like the NTSA sticking it to other sports while stabbing itself in the back.

There has only been two official announcments in this thread (CAI and Practical Pistol) yet it reads like the NTSA has hung the other sports out.

Perhaps rrpc and Sparks can continue this debate in private and wait for an official announce from the NTSA (I am aware that rrpc is on the committee but he has been very clear (and rightly so) not to make any official announcement.)

Perhaps then, when official data is available and more data regarding the consultative panel is available, then continue the debate.

Because at the moment it reads like the NTSA is running for the fire exit and well screw anyone who gets in the way - which I don't believe to be the case.

A proud day for Olympic shooting in Ireland.

dresden8

Right lads, first item on the agenda

The split!

Kryten

I agree with Bananaman here. I too am not in shooting circles long enough to be affected by the politics, bad blood and all the b****hit of the past. For example, Why cant someone be a member of the SSAI and NTSA at the same time? By whose rules? I will shoot any competition out there for which my guns are suitable for, so I have to liase with 3 different associations to do this. Where's the problem?

Sure, we can fight for our discipline of preference, but I will fully support other people's preferences. I never shoot silouette or benchrest, but will support anyone who does.

I like practical, but also ISSF Pistol. It comes across as a bit elitest to claim that your shooting sport is better than another. That is how divisions in the sport are created. There is diversity in people's shooting preferences and we should accept this.

As for the FCP, and the worst case scenario where the NTSA and IPSA dont get a place on the panel, the SSAI should contact the committees of the two associations affected, sit down with them and work together on an agreed proposal, without any dragging up the politics of the past. Leave the past in the past.

Just my tuppence

Kryten

Kryten wrote: »

Leave the past in the past.

That will happen at the same time that flying pigs replace clay pigeons

.243

Sparks wrote: »

Except that we've never sorted out our internal problems properly,

well you better sort them out fast,because if you dont this chance to represent "shooting" will be whipped out from under all of ye very quick,it does not matter who is sitting there just as long as everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet,plus from the last three pages ive just read does not paint a very good picture of orginaizations who are suppose to repesent "shooting" having a go at each other over pityful issues that should have been sorted out years ago,and when that chance is missed you will all be back here doing the typical irishman thing on a thread called "point the finger at somone to blame"

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

Not a good reason. Since the original voting rights of the AGM were the same as any committee meeting, any such meeting could be declared an EGM for the purposes of ratifying the name change.

And the minor fact that changing the name and structure of the NRPAI is required to be done at an AGM and announced well in advance according to the NRPAI's own constitution?

It's not the individual members, but the positions they occupy that are entitled to a vote.

Actually, it isn't in this case. Since the NRPAI was never actually dissolved or wound up, and since the NRPAI representatives are appointed from AGM to AGM according to NRPAI rules, those eight people who were the NRPAI committee in 2003-4 are still the NRPAI committee and have to be the ones to organise the AGM.

While you are pointing fingers, could you explain why you dropped the ball on this, seeing as up to the 15th September, you were secretary of the NTSA, and were supposed to be in contact with the DoJ before the AGM?

I was. There was nothing from them regarding the FCP or our requests for further meetings and I've not made any contact with them in the month since.

Sparks

Deleted User wrote: »

already it reads like the NTSA sticking it to other sports while stabbing itself in the back.

it reads like the NTSA has hung the other sports out.

it reads like the NTSA is running for the fire exit and well screw anyone who gets in the way - which I don't believe to be the case.

I know you've repeated it three times, but you were wrong on each instance.

The point I'm trying to make is that the NTSA should not be in the SSAI and should be representing itself seperately the same way the IPSA is.

There's an inherent and irreconcilable conflict of interest for anyone serving on the NTSA board and the SSAI committee and company law demands of them that they always put the NTSA first. However, if the NTSA is seperate from the SSAI, there's nothing to stop them from doing things in a dovetailed manner with them so that NTSA members' interests are looked after and SSAI members interests don't get stepped on and vice versa (vice versa being the way it's always been done in the past).

It's not the case that the NTSA has to sacrifice anyone else to further its agenda - and if it were the case, then the SSAI is the last place anyone should want them to be!

Sparks

Kryten wrote: »

Why cant someone be a member of the SSAI and NTSA at the same time?

You can't be a member of the SSAI - only the NGBs can be members of the SSAI. However, there's no rule at all against someone being a member of several NGBs.
It's serving on committees that causes the conflict.

It comes across as a bit elitest to claim that your shooting sport is better than another.

It can certainly be read that way by the uncharitable. Alternatively, it can be read as you saying you prefer your sport so much that you give all your time to it instead of to other sports. The difference is focus - the former reading is concerned with other people, the latter with yourself and your sport. I prefer to focus on my own stuff. Others prefer to focus on theirs. Noone needs to step on toes.

Leave the past in the past.

I'd love to, but it's still here in the present and needs to be sorted out.

.243 wrote: »

well you better sort them out fast

I've been saying that for seven years. Others have been saying it for longer.

it does not matter who is sitting there

Maybe not to you, but I lost a decade of pistol shooting because of this in the past.

the last three pages ive just read does not paint a very good picture of orginaizations who are suppose to repesent "shooting"

Except they're not. The IPSA is supposed to represent ISPC shooting, the NTSA ISSF shooting, the NASRC sporting rifle and PPC1500 shooting, the NSAI silhouette shooting, the ICPSA clay pigeon shooting, the NARGC hunting, and so on. Different areas, different NGBs. No overlap. But again, to use an image to get my point across: