FLAG / SSAI Respresentation with DOJ

rrpc

sidneyreilly wrote: »

While we are on the subject of paranoia, dose it not look a bit odd that DOJ would send a separate invite to NTSA (who are already represented by SSAI) and not IPSA despite numerous entreaties by the Regional Director and others to DOJ? (Sid reaches for his X-Files)

That's paranormal not paranoia Sid

I can't speak for the IPSA, but the NTSA invite was unsolicited. (that's not to say we weren't delighted to get it btw, and that we accepted it with alacrity).

I believe the main credit for this goes to Sparks and Liam Crawford who were in constant contact with the department over the last couple of years, mostly in an information gathering capacity regarding the CJB 2006. Sparks posted pretty much every detail of these contacts on this board for all to read.

This is what annoys me mostly about this thread. I have had plenty of public rows on this board with Sparks, but his input in this area was invaluable, and I for one appreciate it immensely.

rrpc

Ned Muldhoon wrote: »

You have accused me of applied inherent arrogance. My opinion is an objective view based on past experience. Did you ever hold a firearm in the UK or a dominion prior to the firearms act 1997? - aptly entitled "Prohibition of weapons and ammunition". The same arguments persisted in the UK prior to this (and previous) bills that killed off a number of shooting sports in one stroke of a pen. The inability of NGO's to present a united and consistent front in no small way allowed to ease this bill through. This fact has been accepted by most of these organisations, but enacted bills do not allow for retrospection.

Forgive me for snipping this section alone, but the reason for the inactivity of the UK NGB's was their perceived belief that keeping their heads below the parapet after Dunblane would help defuse the situation. It was in fact interpreted as weakness and allowed the Government carte blanche to introduce the ban virtually unopposed.

They presented a united front, but no-one saw it.

Sparks

Apologies for the length of this post folks, but it seems you have to be connected to the net 24-7 to keep up with the forum these days.

DJKH wrote: »

I have never been dismissed from a shooting club in my life

I believe there are one or two who would disagree with that statement Declan.

if I choose not to come to a meeting after being summoned by an ad hoc committee then that is my business

And when you choose not to come to a meeting of the SSAI on the 18th of October and later complain about decisions made there, shouldn't that just be your problem too?

if not answering "certain questions" is such a serious offence, then God help us.

It's not an offence. It's just a reason not to trust you to represent our interests.
BTW, I still have 28 outstanding questions from over 2 years ago still awaiting answers, which are rather pertinent to today. Shall we start by asking why you think you can represent all sports when you have deliberately acted against some sports you were meant to represent?

I have never contravened any constitution or rules supplied by me or not.

Liar.

Leupold wrote: »

Sparks, there is a difference between circulating minutes and producing the information I asked you for.

Indeed. But both would be circulating to the public domain. Which the original body hasn't okayed.

You have always been a champion of "open governance" . Why not practise what you preach?

I did. While I was the NTSA secretary, every NTSA club received copies of the minutes of the NTSA committee minutes. But I don't run the SSAI, I'm not even on the NTSA committee this year (so I can actually shoot for a change), so I can't openly govern them, now can I?

Is there a reason you do not want this information in the public domain?

Nope. I'd welcome it being in the public domain. I want everything in the public domain. ALL of it. I personally think FLAG would wind up being shut down so fast Declan's head would spin if that were to happen.

It is interesting that, despite your reference to the long threads that have gone before as being reasons why we should be critical of Declan, the overwhelming sentiment displayed here and in the petition is in support of him.

It is more interesting to me that the names of those on the petition include several who have had recent fallings-out with the SSAI. It's also more interesting to me that I have since been informed that Declan was invited to the relevant SSAI meeting - with more notice than some who attended were given - and declined to do so.

Ned Muldhoon wrote: »

As to NTSA / SSAI and FLAG, I am not familiar with inter body politics and unless there is a pertinent point I would rather be ignorant of such

There is a directly pertinent point - FLAG has acted in the past directly against the olympic shooting sports. I use that one example here because I have personal knowlege of it and I've published the details here.
If FLAG acts against us, how can FLAG claim to represent anyone?

In my opinion, FLAG and Mr. Keogh represent a large body of shooters who now feel they are left without representation.

I dislike sounding authoritarian, but the simple fact is that your opinion is incorrect in this case. FLAG's mandate is to represent bodies within the SSAI. FLAG answers to and takes direction from the SSAI (so that if the SSAI decide FLAG shouldn't do a thing, then FLAG has no mandate to do it anyway, and this whole thread is about someone not liking their job). But - and this is the pertinent point - if FLAG doesn't go to the FCP and the SSAI does, then noone is unrepresented there who would be represented should FLAG go.

I will be watching closely the progress of the SSAI with the DOJ and will make a decision on whether to keep my affiliation with the SSAI in light of recent events.

Unless you're an NGB you have no SSAI affiliation.
SSAI members (voting members) are solely comprised of five NGBs, the NTSA, the NASRC, the NSAI, the Pony Club and the NRAI. You would be affiliated to one of them.

By removing an experienced negotiator we have crippled ourselves before the negotiating even starts.

Declan might be experienced, but he's not actually very good. That's an important distinction to keep in mind here!
There's also the point that the SSAI Chairman has already been at several meetings with the DoJ and FLAG, so there's been a good handover done already.

Leupold wrote: »

we, the shooting community at large, will not have the benefit of his knowledge and experience, face to face with the DOJ, where is can be most effective.

I think that's for the best, quite frankly. FLAG never was very effective. For example, his amendments were ignored during the Criminal Justice Bill process.

FLAG wrote: »

The person who sits at the table carries the weight of the people he represents... He must also be responsible and take full responsibility for the decisions made right or wrong.

Indeed? Then it's good you won't be there, since I'm still waiting from 2004 to hear the answers to several questions put to you by me in here as to your conduct.

When it comes to signing on the dotted line with respect to decisions made at the forum there is only room for one signature

Have you even read the terms of reference of the FCP? The FCP does not make decisions. It advises, nothing more.

It is time to row back the decision based not only on my experience but the clear weight of opinion in favour of common sense.

In other words, you don't like the decision so you're complaining about it in public, passing around documents the SSAI didn't release, and trying to embarress them into changing their mind.
Is this how you'll behave if on the FCP?

I will make the point again, FLAG has the mandate to represent the SSAI

A mandate given by the SSAI and which the SSAI can (and has) taken back at any time. You made the rules on that one Declan, I was there at the 2001 NRPAI AGM when you did so. Abide by them now.

I have requested the minutes of the meeting but they are not forthcoming.

You've sent them round attached to a public email!

PS Nice to see you back Mark, on holidays were you!

New job Declan, been a bit busy of late as a result. But don't worry, I'm back now, so you'll get a more rapid response here from now on.

By the way, maybe you could tell me - why are you so eager to get back into the DoJ after having been so eager only last year to retire?

MortgageMan wrote: »

NTSA have been offered a seat independently, yet they are represented by SSAI anyway. If seats are limited and NTSA are already represented, it would seem to me to be a good idea and show of solidarity if IPSA or indeed Declan Keogh were get the NTSA seat.

Give the NTSA seat to the man who acted against the NTSA in the past when he was meant to represent them? I'd vote against that in an EGM...

le_Chacal wrote: »

2 ad hoc committee! you were one of the members that elected them

Interesting point that.

6 is the ssai the governing body and flag a sub committee then why is the flag trying to wag the pole

Humourous phrasing aside, it's an interesting question...

223 Hornady wrote: »

I'm not involved in the shooting scene for long enough to even pretend to know anything about the history of FLAG or the politics of the SSAI or other NGBs, but I think that anyone with a bit of cop on can see that if someone has done a job for 10+ yrs that he will have a far better insight , and knowledge of the workings of that job than say , someone that has been in a similar job for only 6 months.

Except that we've all been in this "job" for over a decade Hornady. I can probably name five or six people who have more experience than Declan and whose record in the community does not have the same degree of acrimony attached to it. And the SSAI representative on the FCP would be one of them.

FLAG being the one that ... has been instrumental in the release of Pistols and larger caliber rifles

FLAG did nothing effective in that particular avenue. Pistols were brought back in following Frank Brophy's court case which FLAG was not involved with, and Frank and the NARGC who backed him have publicly torn strips off of Declan for claiming credit for that one.
FLAG's main claim to fame in the fullbore rifles arena was Nicolas Flood's fullbore licence case, which was never heard in court but was settled, which left no legal precedent. Declan then threatened to sue me for libel for repeating what the Court Clerk had told me officially about the outcome of the case (you can't actually sue someone for libel for repeating a report of the outcome of a court case under Irish law).

Hello people , it is time to wake up to reallity

Some of us have been awake for a few years now...

Leave FLAG where they are I dont see where they have done anything to jeopardise our sport .

They took on court cases without the funding to handle a failure, and never achieved a legal precedent as a result. FLAG deliberately wrote to the Sports Council to undermine the NTSA in the past. FLAG continually issued factually incorrect press releases in the NTSA's name despite being asked to let me (as the NTSA PR officer) know their contents in advance. There are other issues, but that's a two-second list. Read the links to the threads posted above for fuller lists if you so wish.

223 Hornady wrote: »

if Members of the NRPAI left , it didnt stop the successful outcome of getting the fullbore rifles and pistols back by FLAG

Not by FLAG, see above.

Ned Muldhoon wrote: »

Le_Chacal,
I believe we have been through this discussion before (south Dub. club etc) on a separate thread and exhausted it.

You believe incorrectly - that thread is open, and on pause awaiting the outcome of a DTSC meeting. And the contents are directly pertinent to FLAG's suitablility as a representative, from what I read in there.

Division amoungst our respective organisations is obviously rife

No it's not. In fact, most of the organisations in this country get on very well, from what I've seen in the past decade. Most of the acrimony seems to stem from FLAG and from a few of those who've signed his current petition, in my experience, and that of everyone I've ever spoken to on the subject.

none of the organisations mentioned appear to have a global view on this subject of shooting.

And none should! Shooting is not one sport, any more than GAA football, American football and soccer are one sport! But last I checked, the GAA, the FAI and the IAFA don't have to be in one umbrella organisation to get results...

I've monitored progress with FLAG and the DOJ closely for a long time now and have formed a non biased, objective opinion that this body would equally represent all diciplines.

In what role did you do that monitoring? And with what information?
Perhaps Ned, you should drop the anonymity and divulge your identity?

Bananaman wrote: »

I do not know who will now be representing SSAI

Declan Cahill, as stated above.

they will be asked to provide input to the panel on questions arising in relation to those sports. This concerns me.

So it should - and you should be writing to the DoJ to have the IPSA offered a seat at the table.

This thread asked specifically, what has changed in the SSAI and why has it changed that FLAG is not representing them on the Panel when it was fine for FLAG to represent the SSAI at all other dealings with the DOJ to this point.

Obviously the outcome of those dealings was not considered fine, especially the disaster that the 2006 Criminal Justice Act amendments were. But we said that in the past, just read the threads on the 2006 CJA and the thread about the 2004 CJB before it to see that.

waggawagga wrote:

We can settle this in ONE day. Demand an EGM of the SSAI

There is no mechanism for ordinary shooters to do this. Ask Declan why, it's his ruleset, brought in at an invalid AGM in '04...

Ned Muldhoon wrote:

FLAG (along with other bodies) has been involved with formulation of the elements on the new CJB that directly effect the shooting community.

Indeed. FLAG bears responsibility, as he said above, for the CJA amendments. Which are the single worst thing in the history of the shooting sports in this state.
That's enough reason to sack FLAG, quite frankly.

The inability of NGO's to present a united and consistent front in no small way allowed to ease this bill through.

Horsefeathers. The 1997 act was put through because of political reasons between the conservatives and new labour. The NGBs in the UK never had a chance. As to presenting a united front in Ireland, I'll quote an earlier post of mine from another thread to indicate why it's so ironic to put Declan on the FCP in the name of unity:

My first ever email to FLAG was on working together to promote the sport. The first time I ever met Declan in person, we talked about getting all of the shooting associations to come together in one single body. The outcome of the former was this formal letter sent to the Sports Council, which lead to cuts in funding for not just the NTSA but the entire NRPAI; the latter never lead anywhere. And the last major public meeting that FLAG had much to do with saw an invalid AGM of the NRPAI where the NRPAI constitution was thrown to one side, voting rights ignored, member bodies ambushed and frankly, I don't think that's going to help if we do it again.

WHY WAS THE ORIGINAL NEGOTIATING TEAM REPLACED?

BECAUSE THEY WERE BLOODY USELESS.

alan123

Sparks wrote: »

Liar.

[/SIZE][/B]

Its all getting a little venomous isnt it?

Dont you think this thread has served its purpose?

Everyone gets to air their opinion on Declan and nothing is resolved.

Net result: all the non shooters, antis etc get a great laugh at our expense and are no doubt emailing links to all their like minded associates.

I dont know about the history here, but I do know what makes my sport look bad.... this thread.

Sparks

alan123 wrote: »

Its all getting a little venomous isnt it?

No, because there's no other way to put it Alan. Declan was instrumental in ignoring the NRPAI Constitution and rules in 2004 at the AGM to rename everything as the SSAI and he's just said here that he's never broken any rules of any group, despite the enormous number of posts on this forum pointing out where he breaks rules again and again. What other word which conveys the same depth of disbelief at his neck would you care for me to use and remain in a civil tone?

Dont you think this thread has served its purpose?

What was the purpose of this thread? The SSAI made a decision that they were entitled to make. Declan and Terry and anyone else in FLAG is bound by that decision if they want to follow SSAI rules. That's it, that's the end of the story.

Everyone gets to air their opinion on Declan and nothing is resolved.

First off, there's proof with those opinions; and secondly, everything is already resolved, Declan doesn't like the resolution and is complaining about it in public and being answered in public, instead of going to the SSAI meeting himself and dealing with it there, as he would no doubt have demanded of anyone else!

Net result: all the non shooters, antis etc get a great laugh at our expense and are no doubt emailing links to all their like minded associates.

And all because of Declan's ego.

alan123

Sparks wrote: »

The SSAI made a decision that they were entitled to make. Declan and Terry and anyone else in FLAG is bound by that decision if they want to follow SSAI rules. That's it, that's the end of the story..

Close it so.

Sparks

And if I do that, everyone screams censorship. No thanks, not planning on damaging the forum's reputation for letting everyone have their say.

le_Chacal

Ned Muldhoon wrote: »

Clash,

In answer to your questions:

Le Chacal made an accusation - proof please - otherwise as you very rightly point out - it's merely conjecture


from le_chacal to ned
if your a member of the ssai or former member check with them, our club secretary has already passed the information / proof on to them. as requested by our committee

ned it is easy to see you have your own hidden agenda - would it have anything to do with you setting up you own commercial range 70 grand.theres money in it for you, if you have your people on the inside.

I think you said you were starting your own range on another tread.

tom jackelson---- ned dont leave me sitting here immmm getting to like you.

Legal Eagle

As a committed game shooter, I am disgusted with this unseemly and misguided public debate about who should be representing target shooters on the Firearms Consultative Panel. I am not a target shooter, I am not a member of any of the target associations and therefore I am not a supporter of either side in the current debate. As far as I can see this is about one individual and not about the future of the shooting sports. And the saturation circulation of emails and petitions seeking support for the individual does no one involved any credit. As I understand it, a meeting of the SSAI was held and a vote taken as to who would be the representative and that should be the end of the matter. The current debate has all the halmarks of an inability to accept a democratic decision, not to mention sour grapes. If Declan Keogh and his supporters were truly concerned with the future of shooting, they would not be campaigning as they are. Instead, they would be supporting whatever representative was chosen. I'm afraid it looks and smells more like a lust for personal power and sending emails around which purport to tell us all that we will face some kind of apoplectic meltdown in our shooting future if Declan is not the chosen one is just pathetic. All things considered, he is clearly such a devisive figure among target shooters his ability to effectively represent their collective interests is now fatally damaged. I also want to place on record, because it is a documented fact and the documents concerned can be found in the High Court office, Declan Keogh did not get the return of pistols and nor did he get back full bore rifles. It was the NARGC which achieved that by putting it's money where it's mouth was and taking the financial risk. It was NARGC, guided by Des Crofton, which launched the High Court challanges which brought these back and it is the NARGC which, without exception, has taken every legal challange which has benefited shooting to date. It is the only organisation which has at it's core the welfare of the individual shooter as well as shooters collectively. This is evidenced by the sheer number of cases it has taken on behalf of individual members. Can any other group claim as much? I think not. It is also the organisation which with a very swiftly and well organised national lobby of local TD's got the outrageous proposed massive licence fees abandoned at a meeting with the DOJ.

waggawagga

The history here is that Sparks has had a flea in his ear about Keogh for years and doesn't really care who wins so long as it's not Keogh. (We're all weary of it). If the DOJ shuts down the whole sorry lot of us and leaves the target shooters alone that's ok by him too. In anticipation of action by the moderator I suggest again we call for an EGM of the SSAI, a root and branch reorganisation to make them democratic and representative and a word with the sports council about funding and who gets it pending resolution of a few serious issues. We are on the verge of the most monumental shafting since 1972 and we are sitting around moaning, arguing, score-settling and impotently waiting for it to happen! Wise up! You are going to lose your firearms and you'll scream like stuck pigs when it's too late!

rrpc

waggawagga wrote: »

The history here is that Sparks has had a flea in his ear about Keogh for years and doesn't really care who wins so long as it's not Keogh. (We're all weary of it).

Sparks didn't start this thread, so blaming him for airing his opinion and experience here is misplaced.

If the DOJ shuts down the whole sorry lot of us and leaves the target shooters alone that's ok by him too.

This representation of the DoJ as some sort of enemy is both unfair and unwarranted. I would suggest that people stop referring to them in these terms. The fact that they have formed this body and sent invitations to sit on it to a wide range of interests belies this characterisation.

In anticipation of action by the moderator I suggest again we call for an EGM of the SSAI, a root and branch reorganisation to make them democratic and representative

You should read the constitution of the SSAI. Really, you should.

and a word with the sports council about funding and who gets it pending resolution of a few serious issues.

Is this some sort of threat?

We are on the verge of the most monumental shafting since 1972 and we are sitting around moaning, arguing, score-settling and impotently waiting for it to happen! Wise up! You are going to lose your firearms and you'll scream like stuck pigs when it's too late!

On what basis do you make this assertion. Please point to the evidence.

le_Chacal

waggawagga wrote: »

The history here is that Sparks has had a flea in his ear about Keogh for years and doesn't really care who wins so long as it's not Keogh. (We're all weary of it). If the DOJ shuts down the whole sorry lot of us and leaves the target shooters alone that's ok by him too. In anticipation of action by the moderator I suggest again we call for an EGM of the SSAI, a root and branch reorganisation to make them democratic and representative and a word with the sports council about funding and who gets it pending resolution of a few serious issues. We are on the verge of the most monumental shafting since 1972 and we are sitting around moaning, arguing, score-settling and impotently waiting for it to happen! Wise up! You are going to lose your firearms and you'll scream like stuck pigs when it's too late!

wagga what ever! you seem to be another one thats afraid of the garda , doj, public opinion and transparency.:rolleyes:

i hope you don get on the panel , it will be dark rooms and secret societies and brown envelopes:eek:

ma will you put that dog (pal) out and leave my computer alone:D

sidneyreilly

rrpc wrote: »

I can't speak for the IPSA, but the NTSA invite was unsolicited.

.

Thats the spooky bit! Please note I was not accusing NTSA of any double dealings.

IRLConor

waggawagga wrote: »

The history here is that Sparks has had a flea in his ear about Keogh for years and doesn't really care who wins so long as it's not Keogh. (We're all weary of it).

That's a highly unfair characterisation of Sparks. I've known him and shot with him since 2000 and what I've learned in that time is:

• He really cares about shooting.
• He takes on way more work on the administration side of shooting than is sensible, usually for lack of volunteers.
• He has strong ideas about the rights and wrongs of how shooting is run in this country (and IMHO is usually right).
• He has a rare talent for p***ing people off.

I've never (to my knowledge) met Declan Keogh but I sincerely doubt that Sparks is annoyed at him for anything other than legitimate factual reasons. It's not an ego thing with Sparks, if magic pixies came in the night and ran all shooting sports perfectly he'd just settle down and quietly enjoy the shooting.

waggawagga wrote: »

If the DOJ shuts down the whole sorry lot of us and leaves the target shooters alone that's ok by him too.

That wouldn't be the Sparks I know.

le_Chacal

ma that shag***g dog is at the computer now , immmm going to put both of you in a home. i asked you to put him out... 223hornady will be here soon and he dosnt like pal.:D

cavan shooter

Guys
First and foremost like leagal eagle I am a game shooter/Clay shooter and have no axe to grind (NARGC tatoo on my ar$e:D).

However on the outside looking in, The thread and comments in it doesn't read well and does you guys no favours, washing Laundry in public etc...

There is a very fine line between open debate and all out WAR

(I said at the start that it was going to be interesting.........)

Bananaman

Not having any direct knowledge to base this on but simply the reading of these boards.

Sparks and Declan have not held hands and danced across a field in quite some time. There is a very obvious high degree of animosity between them and whenever they both enter a discussion it devolves into an all out cat fight.

This has the effect of making neither of them look objective and leads, me at least, to take everything they say, after they first bang heads in a thread, as being a personal attack on the other.

This thread is no different. As evidenced by the following comments.

WHY WAS THE ORIGINAL NEGOTIATING TEAM REPLACED?

BECAUSE THEY WERE BLOODY USELESS.

Objective, succinct, as evidenced by the minutes no doubt.

Sparks has listed a number of reasons why FLAG is no longer the representation for the SSAI in discussions with the DOJ.
It leads me to ask - Did he have some input into the decision or is this simply one of the "personal attacks" I mentioned above.

If he was present and has some further information related to the decision under question, that is in the public domain, please feel free to let it out. However, if these reasons are not the answers to the question to hand I do not see the point in airing them.

As for questions he should have definitive answers to....

Why did NTSA did get an invite considering it already had representation under the SSAI? Which came first the chicken or the egg?
In accepting said invite does that not undermine the SSAIs position on the panel by diluting its mandate?
Did that in any way lead to the decision by SSAI to alter it's representatives.

B'Man

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

Not having any direct knowledge to base this on but simply the reading of these boards.

Sparks and Declan have not held hands and danced across a field in quite some time. There is a very obvious high degree of animosity between them and whenever they both enter a discussion it devolves into an all out cat fight.

This has the effect of making neither of them look objective and leads, me at least, to take everything they say, after they first bang heads in a thread, as being a personal attack on the other.

Read Legal Eagle's very succinct and pointed post. Some of the statements he made support those Sparks made.

This thread is no different. As evidenced by the following comments.
Objective, succinct, as evidenced by the minutes no doubt.

As evidenced by the facts. Again read Legal Eagle's post. He refers to High Court documents.

Sparks has listed a number of reasons why FLAG is no longer the representation for the SSAI in discussions with the DOJ.
It leads me to ask - Did he have some input into the decision or is this simply one of the "personal attacks" I mentioned above.

Sparks has stated that he has not and never will sit on an SSAI committee. Therefore he could have no input into their decisions. He also resigned from the NTSA committee at the AGM on the 15th Spetember, so has no input there either.

If he was present and has some further information related to the decision under question, that is in the public domain, please feel free to let it out. However, if these reasons are not the answers to the question to hand I do not see the point in airing them.

He may also have reasons not in the public domain.

As for questions he should have definitive answers to....

Why did NTSA did get an invite considering it already had representation under the SSAI? Which came first the chicken or the egg?
In accepting said invite does that not undermine the SSAIs position on the panel by diluting its mandate?
Did that in any way lead to the decision by SSAI to alter it's representatives.

He won't seeing as he's no longer on the NTSA committee. The main question you pose can only be answered by the DoJ and I've already stated here that the NTSA invite was unsolicited.

How would accepting the invitation undermine the SSAI? And obviously the fact the NTSA were invited seperately may have had an impact on who was nominated by the SSAI because if they had not been invited seperately, the NTSA members of the SSAI would have voted for an NTSA representative. That's not to say they would have got their man on board, but in a democratic organisation they would have had the right to vote for one.

Obviously, already having a seat, they wouldn't have had the neck to look for another one

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Objective, succinct, as evidenced by the minutes no doubt.

As evidenced by the list of amendments to the CJB that Declan forwarded as going into the CJA which were then wholly ignored; by the hike in the licence fees; by the sheer damage the CJA has done to the shooting sports in general.

It leads me to ask - Did he have some input into the decision

No. I have never sat on the SSAI committee (I was asked and I declined to do so). I had no input into this decision, though obviously I think it's the right thing to do. First I learned that Declan was not in the loop anymore was when Declan sent round a public open letter by email on the subject.

if these reasons are not the answers to the question to hand I do not see the point in airing them.

Because they show why the decision is a good one.

Why did NTSA did get an invite considering it already had representation under the SSAI?

Because the NTSA met with the DoJ in the past, and the DoJ decided upon who'd go to the FCP. RRCP stated this above. And frankly, for the reasons laid out in the Firearms Consultation Panel thread, the NTSA should have it's own representation on the panel. Noone else has the necessary experience or authority to represent the NTSA other than the NTSA.

In accepting said invite does that not undermine the SSAIs position on the panel by diluting its mandate?

Nope. No more so than having the NARGC, Countryside Alliance or the IPSA (if they succeed in getting their seat - which I think they deserve) on the panel would do any harm.

Did that in any way lead to the decision by SSAI to alter it's representatives.

Couldn't have, they made the decision before the NTSA knew it'd be on the panel.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

Couldn't have, they made the decision before the NTSA knew it'd be on the panel.

That's actually incorrect Sparks. The NTSA knew they were invited to the panel before the SSAI meeting. I collected the letter myself on the day of that meeting.

Which is why the NTSA didn't nominate a representative for the SSAI seat.

That would have been in the interests of fairness and equal representation to all, something a great many people on this thread don't seem to understand.

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

So it should - and you should be writing to the DoJ to have the IPSA offered a seat at the table.

I'm not currently a member of the IPSA so would have no basis under which to write to the DOJ requesting their invitation.

IPSA themselves have requested their presence at the table. I suggested earlier that the other invitees should also request their presence as a show of solidarity.

The only bodies at the table to which I have any direct affiliation are SSAI and Countryside Alliance.

B'Man

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

The only bodies at the table to which I have any direct affiliation are SSAI and Countryside Alliance.

B'Man

Who are you affiliated to the SSAI through Bananaman?

Bananaman

rrpc wrote: »

Who are you affiliated to the SSAI through Bananaman?

NASRC

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

NASRC

There are pretty good people involved there B'man, I'd suggest that you address any concerns you may have to them. I imagine (like the NTSA) that they would want to hear from all of their members as to what areas they consider most important.

Repeating Henry

What's going on here confirms what members of the sport feel has been going on for years, just like the FAI the amatures running this sport
have turned a blind eye to all sorts of carry on.

I'am sick to death of moaning about this club and that club, bullying in it for himself / herself people with a couple of stooges as yes men running the club, if members want to do something about the sport and clean it up then speak up. If sheep is what you are then shut up and let lassy do the walking

SSAI, is this some sort of savings account! What about a real manly hairy chested return to family values name. Come on lads look at the joke the FAI
has become put you're best foot foward and dream up a new future.

The digest, you too have a big part to play, cannot have boards do it all.
Having a go at the Garda is easy, looking under the carpet requires the latex
gloves. Cheer up lads a good dose and a hose down will put back on a smile:)

Henry.

alan123

Can you repeat that Henry?

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

I'm not currently a member of the IPSA so would have no basis under which to write to the DOJ requesting their invitation.

Anyone can write to the DoJ. It was because we all wrote in, en masse, to the DoJ demanding a reduction in licence fees that the hike was postponed a year or so. So stop complaining and write in as a concerned citizen!

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

stop complaining and write in as a concerned citizen!

Consider it done.

Sparks

Good for you. Can't repeat it often enough - if more of us wrote in more often, we'd be listened to more often. Visibility matters.

(I mean, there are limits - we don't have the numbers to elect our own TD - but still, the more we're seen, the more we're listened to)

rrpc

Repeating Henry wrote: »

SSAI, is this some sort of savings account!

That was an SSIA Henry easy to make that mistake!

What about a real manly hairy chested return to family values name.

The Manly Association of Hairy Chested Shooting Organisations (MAHCSO)

Almost but not quite Macho