Urgent Meeting

coffeepot

Its not just IPSC shooting that is affected. During a recent visit to the Midlands, (MNSCI) I discovered that the use of all metal targets is no longer permitted.
Also it is no longer possible to rent any type of club gun.

Following a brief conversation with an F class shooter there it seems that some form of his sport has been restricted also. I don’t understand it fully, but it seems that there is a type of moving target that they engage in F class that is no longer permitted.

Perhaps someone can explain this further??

IRLConor

coffeepot wrote: »

Its not just IPSC shooting that is affected. During a recent visit to the Midlands, (MNSCI) I discovered that the use of all metal targets is no longer permitted.
Also it is no longer possible to rent any type of club gun.

Following a brief conversation with an F class shooter there it seems that some form of his sport has been restricted also. I don’t understand it fully, but it seems that there is a type of moving target that they engage in F class that is no longer permitted.

Perhaps someone can explain this further??

There's nothing in the law to cause those things, as far as I know.

They could be conditions of the MNSCI range authorisation though. Anyone from MNSCI here know what the story is?

rrpc

IRLConor wrote: »

There's nothing in the law to cause those things, as far as I know.

They could be conditions of the MNSCI range authorisation though. Anyone from MNSCI here know what the story is?

I don't know specifically what the MNSCI situation is, but metal targets have always been a problem with ricochets. I have personal experience of this having been buzzed by hornets in the carpark of a range that did silhouette shooting.

They're OK if you hit them in the centre, but if you nick an edge....

coffeepot

I don't know specifically what the MNSCI situation is, but metal targets have always been a problem with ricochets

Well I shot them there before.

I also rented a bolt action rifle there before. Now they will not rent any type of firearm to anyone.

rrpc

Double-Alpha wrote: »

The French Practical Shooting Association held the IPSC European Handgun Championships in September last, and guess what, it was supported strongly by the F.F. de Tir. Check out their website. http://www.fftir.fr/index.php?FicheNum=1775

Is the Irish shooter something special or what ???

No, the FFTir were the governing body for IPSC in France before the ban came into effect in 2000.

From what I can gather, the ISSF have a very big problem with the IPSC's attempts to become a recognised Olympic Sport. The FFTir were one of the bodies used as a Trojan Horse (so to speak) in this attempt along with the Greek federation. The Greeks also were in place before the ban.

So mainly it's a political reason, with (understandably) the ISSF being very angry about someone trying to steal their clothes.

AFAIK, the ban is taken very seriously, with at least one member federation suspended and another expelled.

packas

All,

The general meeting with invite to all shooters advertised on www.ipscireland.org for next Wednesday in Tullamore has been cancelled. Further updates will be posted on the website

regards
Pat
IPSA PRO

rrpc

IRLConor wrote: »

I don't think there's anything in particular that would stop them doing this. If the SSAI were being consistent about it, they'd probably have to kick out the ICPSA as well, since they're also an ISSF organisation.

Except the ICPSA are not in the SSAI.

I doubt they'd kick the NTSA out though. I suspect it would come down to the NTSA (and ICPSA) to decide whether they could or could not remain a part of the SSAI. (More political fun :rolleyes:)

That's about the size of it (apart from the ICPSA bit).

I don't know. I'm not (and have never been) a committee member of the NTSA (partially because it would involve dealing with political silliness like this).

Be careful what you wish for

IRLConor

rrpc wrote: »

Except the ICPSA are not in the SSAI.

Ah, my apologies, I thought they were.

rrpc wrote: »

Be careful what you wish for

:eek:

packas

Double-Alpha wrote: »

1. DOJ seem to have the upper hand if they decide who can play and who cant.

2. I dont understand what you mean by the IPSA & the NTSA can not be on the panel together or they will get a kicking from the ISSF

The French Practical Shooting Association held the IPSC European Handgun Championships in September last, and guess what, it was supported strongly by the F.F. de Tir. Check out their website. http://www.fftir.fr/index.php?FicheNum=1775

Is the Irish shooter something special or what ???

IRLConor wrote: »

Of course they have the upper hand. They make the law!



I have no idea what the ISSF response to that, if any, will be.

I was just going by what the official line from the ISSF was:



Personally, I would prefer if the IPSA were a member of the SSAI but I don't get to choose.

Note also, that the IPSA and the NTSA could both be on the FCP. It's membership of the SSAI that could be trouble.

IPSC's policy is to encourage IPSC shooters to actively take part in as many sport shooting disciplines as possible & to support them in any way they can. What do ISSF have to fear about other shooting sports???

rrpc

packas wrote: »

IPSC's policy is to encourage IPSC shooters to actively take part in as many sport shooting disciplines as possible & to support them in any way they can. What do ISSF have to fear about other shooting sports???

Have a look at my post for an historical perspective on the whole thing.

Kryten

rrpc wrote: »

What exactly is the situation regarding PPC? I refer to the letter in the ISD and what bearing it has on PPC shooting.

PPC Shooting is shooting at specific distances in defined lanes and both targets and shooter are static when firing. This should'nt be affected. Turning targets are not a requisite, whistle blast is commonly used. As for shape of the targets, nothing about this mentioned in the letter. They are rectangular in shape with an arrow at the top to aid shooting the 50 meter stages.

G17

Going for my practical competition licence very soon, oh well, it'll be 8 weeks of fun before I have to hand in my gun, at least all the equipment wasn't expensive, oh wait now, it was.

At least later on this year EVERYTHING will be AAAAAAALLLLLL sorted out and everyone will know EXACTLY where they stand, what they can own, where they can use it, which leg to put your weight on, the correct words to use, like bang bang pole instead of firearm.

I can't wait, no really. Bliss.......:D

chem

Just wondering are the ISSF on the FCP?

IRLConor

chem wrote: »

Just wondering are the ISSF on the FCP?

No, they're an international organisation. They're the governing body for both the NTSA and the ICPSA both of which are represented on the FCP.

chem

Is this policy from the DoJ or is it law? With the new laws that have been enacted can the DoJ do this warning terms and conditions may apply type of law.

The silence from any of the groups on the FCP is deafing on this.

chem

IRLConor wrote: »

No, they're an international organisation. They're the governing body for both the NTSA and the ICPSA both of which are represented on the FCP.

Oh so there are two groups on the FCP that follow the laws of the ISSF? The plot thickens me thinks;)

rrpc

chem wrote: »

Is this policy from the DoJ or is it law? With the new laws that have been enacted can the DoJ do this warning terms and conditions may apply type of law.

The silence from any of the groups on the FCP is deafing on this.

The FCP issued a briefing document a little while ago. There was a section on ranges and clubs. Nothing about specific types of ranges or shooting.

AFAIK, the FCP hasn't met since that briefing document was issued.

On the first part of your question, the DoJ have appointed a range inspector and it's his job to authorise ranges under certain guidelines. From the letter in the ISD we have some idea as to what sort of ranges will not be authorised.

IRLConor

chem wrote: »

Oh so there are two groups on the FCP that follow the laws of the ISSF? The plot thickens me thinks;)

It's not their fault they were invited!

rrpc

chem wrote: »

Oh so there are two groups on the FCP that follow the laws of the ISSF? The plot thickens me thinks;)

It's not unusual for the ISSF to recognise two different bodies. They only do it if it's a pre-existing situation. Which is the case here. The ICPSA govern shotgun sports and the NTSA the rest.

chem

rrpc wrote: »

The FCP issued a briefing document a little while ago. There was a section on ranges and clubs. Nothing about specific types of ranges or shooting.

AFAIK, the FCP hasn't met since that briefing document was issued.

It hasnt stopped the DoJ going ahead with sending a letter to the ISD magazine stating its point of view.

So whats going on? Who is telling it like it is? Did the FCP know the DoJ were feeling this way on things or is it a shock to them also? Or did they know and forget to mention it?

Somthing is rotten in the state of Denmark:D

rrpc

chem wrote: »

It hasnt stopped the DoJ going ahead with sending a letter to the ISD magazine stating its point of view.

So whats going on? Who is telling it like it is? Did the FCP know the DoJ were feeling this way on things or is it a shock to them also? Or did they know and forget to mention it?

Somthing is rotten in the state of Denmark:D

Well I for one (having gone through the whole range authorisation mullarkey) saw this coming like a steam train. When you've had to erect baffles, adhere to certain rules about backstops, make sure that there's no chance of a stray bullet leaving a range and generally engineer any possible chance of a misdirected shot going AWOL out of the equation, you'd have to wonder how the practical lads could make a range safe when there's no fixed firing point, no fixed butts or backstop and a possible 360 degree arc of fire (not to mention elevation).

The only way I can see practical shooting working (under the same conditions the rest of us have to obey) is to be completely indoors with bullet absorbing walls, ceilings and floors. And nobody in the firing zone except the shooter.

That is not an official position from anyone, but a considered opinion based on my reading of an awful lot of literature on range safety.

chem

have the range standards been posted here? Or where can they be found? Or is it makey upy as we go alongy type stuff? Tara mines might have found a new source of income:D

Grizzly 45

, you'd have to wonder how the practical lads could make a range safe when there's no fixed firing point, no fixed butts or backstop and a possible 360 degree arc of fire (not to mention elevation).

Errr.Thats 180 degrees RRPC.Anything behind that is a total disqualification and loss of your liscense.Not to mind proably a kicking from the Range officer who is right behind you. Yes there is a backstop,have you seen the Midland practical pistol range??Somthing like 30 ft high embankments on three sides.

The only way I can see practical shooting working (under the same conditions the rest of us have to obey) is to be completely indoors with bullet absorbing walls, ceilings and floors. And nobody in the firing zone except the shooter.

Yes can be done....Was in one last week in Hamburg Germany. Is
somwhat small more for practise but the concept is dooable.
But we are somwhat short of big halls here for reasonable money.
Dont see why it cant be done with the embankment system outdoors either.

dresden8

Anybody else smell an unseemly scramble for government sponsorship money?

IRLConor

dresden8 wrote: »

Anybody else smell an unseemly scramble for government sponsorship money?

Nope. Who? Where? (and Government Sponsorship?!?)

dresden8

IRLConor wrote: »

Nope. Who? Where? (and Government Sponsorship?!?)

Well, this for a start.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055224333&highlight=grants

And I'm sure there must be more out there with carding schemes and all that kind of stuff.

Sparks

By the way, on the whole ISSF-IPSC thing that got mentioned earlier, a bit of clarification - the ISSF will not permit ISSF members to be involved in IPSC matches. But an ISSF member is not a person - "ISSF member" is short for "member federation" here, and it is the NGB that manages the ISSF disciplines for that country. So in Ireland, for example, there are only two ISSF members - the ICPSA and the NTSA.

Neither the ICPSA nor the NTSA is permitted by ISSF policy to organise or take part in or generally have anything to do with IPSC events (as run by the IPSA). Ireland's a bit odd in that there are two NGBs - in most countrys there's only the one. Everywhere else, one NGB, one vote in the ISSF AGM. Here, and in a handful of other places, two NGBs, one half-vote each. This detail is highly important here because if the NTSA was, as Malaysia and a few other countries were, derecognised by ISSF because of breaking this policy, recognition immediately goes in its entirity to the ICPSA - and the NTSA cannot ever get that recognition back, not without taking the ICPSA's recognition off them in the process. And without that recognition, there's no real point in the NTSA existing. So it is the nuclear option really, that's why it's such a big thing for us.

What all that international politics and crap means in practise, is that the NTSA cannot be in the SSAI with the IPSA. That's about the limit of it. It does not mean that NTSA members can't shoot IPSA matches (several already do). It does not mean that the IPSA can't be in the SSAI either, just that it's us or them (and frankly, my opinion on this point has been on the record for years, I'd rather it was them than us). It does not mean that members of the two bodies can't get on - I know lads in the IPSA quite well, and I've written to the DoJ myself supporting them in the past.

In fact, I know of only one source for this whole "the olympic lads are selling everyone else down the river to save their own stuff" rumour, and frankly, we've had more than enough fun discussing the merits of that rumour with its originator here in past years and if you want to know how that ended up, read the stickies from devore in this forum.

Sparks

dresden8 wrote: »

Well, this for a start.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055224333&highlight=grants
And I'm sure there must be more out there with carding schemes and all that kind of stuff.

As chem pointed out, that's buttons and divided five ways. Also, membership of the SSAI is not needed to get those grants.

Carding grants don't benefit the organisations, they go directly to shooters - in fact, even if the NGB isn't recognised by the sports council (or even if it doesn't exist), the shooter can still get the grant. At present however, the last review of the criteria for the carding grants restricted them to olympic shooters only; the reasons for that are bad and were discussed on this forum when it happened - again, search for it, it's not a topic we can reopen and you'll see why when you read the old thread.

However, there's another review being sought and frankly, I can't think of a single reason to keep that "olympic only" rule - and the olympic shooters are rather unhappy with the system as it stands at the moment anyway. Well. The rifle/pistol ones anyway, I'm not sure how the shotgun lads feel about whether or not it can be improved, but they have a wholly seperate set of criteria anyway.

IRLConor

dresden8 wrote: »

Well, this for a start.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055224333&highlight=grants

Yeah, but who's scrambling for it and where?

dresden8 wrote: »

And I'm sure there must be more out there with carding schemes and all that kind of stuff.

Aren't the carding grants only issued for Olympic sports anyway. No scramble there really.

Traumadoc

From what I gather one of the main reasons being put forward by the DOJ is that the state would be liable for injuries if someone was injured while reloading was occuring or subsequently.

I cannot understand this reasoning but its one that is being put forward.