FCP Conference this week

bunny shooter · 07-05-2008 2:11pm

Did the member of the NTSA who gave ye support not get ye an invite then ? He's on the invited list.

Sparks · 07-05-2008 2:15pm

I didn't have the means to get them an invite Bunny.

bullets · 07-05-2008 2:26pm

The Agenda looks interesting. It would be fantastic if someone could
record the audio or better still video. I would love to hear what is being said.

I am presuming that it would be OK to do this considering its not some Top-Secret
information that people would be talking about and that as members of the Public
we would be allowed to know whats going on if it effects us as firearms owners.

~B

Bananaman · 07-05-2008 3:07pm

rrpc · 07-05-2008 4:45pm

packas wrote: »

it would be good to know what issue other shooting bodies have with IPSA

That's more than unhelpful packas. Invitations were given to members of the FCP for their organisations. Would you have people lying to the DoJ as to who represents who, especially as this would not be sustainable.

So far on this thread I've seen absolutely nothing that hasn't already been taken up by the FCP and been briefed to everyone on.

That's apart from stuff that's just happened which you could hardly expect anyone to have acted on as yet.

cantona · 07-05-2008 5:05pm

rrpc wrote: »

That's more than unhelpful packas. Invitations were given to members of the FCP for their organisations.

Disagree with you on that RRPC. As can be seen below, invitations were for the shooting community not for their organisations.

"we requested
nominations from the shooting community to be channelled through the FCP"

Can anyone give me the breakdown of the invitations i.e which groups got 9 invites, which ones got 5 invites etc

Rovi · 07-05-2008 5:06pm

rrpc wrote: »

That's more than unhelpful packas. Invitations were given to members of the FCP for their organisations. Would you have people lying to the DoJ as to who represents who, especially as this would not be sustainable.

That's certainly the impression I'm under as regards the invitations; FCP members were issued spaces at the conference and asked to nominate attendees from their own membership.

I'll be there too, by the way.

Sparks · 07-05-2008 5:14pm

Bugger, now I have to actually talk to a moderator...

Cantona, I've no idea on how many are coming from where.

rrpc · 07-05-2008 5:15pm

cantona wrote: »

Disagree with you on that RRPC. As can be seen below, invitations were for the shooting community not for their organisations.

"we requested
nominations from the shooting community to be channelled through the FCP"

Disagree all you like Cantona, but that sentence can be read both ways.

Can anyone give me the breakdown of the invitations i.e which groups got 9 invites, which ones got 5 invites etc

Don't know, most got less than they asked for, and some handed back invites to be reallocated so I couldn't tell you any numbers.

Why do you need to know?

Bananaman · 07-05-2008 5:18pm

Not that old chestnut again....... I officially have a pain in my h0le with this stuff now.

I don't want this to turn into another "it's my ball, so there" kind of conversation - we have enough of those.

IPSA were told by the DOJ that it was up to the FCP to decide who attended the conference.

With regard to the invitations, I understand that some have issued. Due to the limited numbers than can be accommodated at the venue, we requested nominations from the shooting community to be channelled through the FCP

Therefore, The FCP decided, explicitly, not to invite IPSA. Even though they asked to be represented and as the sport(s) they represent are some of the fastest growing on the island.

As IPSA did not even have an invitation to have one attendee I have to ask how many people from each of the other attending organisations will be present.

All animals are equal.......the rest of us have to ho abroad for it.

B'Man

Bananaman · 07-05-2008 5:22pm

nominations from the shooting community

Does that not include all of the shooting community?

to be channelled through the FCP

Like tickets for a match going through the clubs - you don't have to be a member to get one - but if you happened to have gone to the right school and still have the tie it helps.

B'Man

macnas · 07-05-2008 5:27pm

Here's another unhelpful comment, it's amazing what a free lunch will buy!

rrpc · 07-05-2008 5:27pm

You're both making the assumption that 'shooting community' equals everyone.

That is not the way it happened. Each organisation was asked to nominate people, it's kinda hard to know who's been asked and who's not been asked in that situation.

Each organisation is directly reponsible to it's own members, not to the shooting world at large.

Hving said that, I've yet to hear anything said on this thread (or any other one for that matter) that hasn't been adequately or actively addressed by members of the FCP representing shooting organisations.

I've asked repeatedly for such issues to be aired, and still get the same tired old ones repeated despite ample evidence that they are already being addressed.

rrpc · 07-05-2008 5:29pm

macnas wrote: »

Here's another unhelpful comment, it's amazing what a free lunch will buy!

If you're suggesting that this is free, think again. So far it's cost me €112 and I haven't got there yet.

Sparks · 07-05-2008 5:31pm

Y'know macnas, as unhelpful comments go, that's right up there. I mean, I was off committee work before any of this ever got started, and even I'm taking offence at that one.
Seriously, you really think everyone who's going to this thing is going to turn around for no good reason and call for practical shooting to be banned or something? Or do you think this might be a good place to point out that the process has some holes that could be fixed by bringing the IPSA in?

IRLConor · 07-05-2008 5:32pm

Bananaman wrote: »

IPSA were told by the DOJ that it was up to the FCP to decide who attended the conference.

With regard to the invitations, I understand that some have issued. Due to the limited numbers than can be accommodated at the venue, we requested nominations from the shooting community to be channelled through the FCP

That may be what the DoJ told the IPSA, but what did they tell the various members of the FCP? I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was something like "Here's N invites to hand out to your members".

Assuming that there's some nefarious plan on the part of the members of the FCP to exclude the IPSA is not necessarily a safe assumption. It could be true but the simplest explanation is that there's a misunderstanding somewhere and that it's not malicious.

rrpc · 07-05-2008 5:37pm

If I was in the IPSA, I'd be doing the following:

As the letter in the ISD is the best indication of how the DoJ are thinking about practical shooting and since the range standards to be introduced here are to be the Canadian ones. I'd be on to the Canadian IPSC people to find out how they have been able to convince their athourities that IPSC shooting is safe.

All the other concerns the IPSA have seem to come down to:

Fullbore pistols: Not an issue anymore, 1) because the restricted list is in abeyance and 2) because the IPSA are not the only ones looking for full bore pistols.

Anything else?

rrpc · 07-05-2008 5:44pm

IRLConor wrote: »

That may be what the DoJ told the IPSA, but what did they tell the various members of the FCP? I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was something like "Here's N invites to hand out to your members".

Assuming that there's some nefarious plan on the part of the members of the FCP to exclude the IPSA is not necessarily a safe assumption. It could be true but the simplest explanation is that there's a misunderstanding somewhere and that it's not malicious.

You're forgetting Conor that in another letter/email to the IPSA, the DoJ referred to the 'shooting community' being adequately represented and hence the IPSA were not invited.

So there's a 'shooting community' and a 'shooting community' depending on who you are.

It was always understoood that the places were per association. All names and addresses had to be submitted well in advance.

Grizzly 45 · 07-05-2008 6:06pm

.

All the other concerns the IPSA have seem to come down to:

Fullbore pistols: Not an issue anymore, 1) because the restricted list is in abeyance and 2) because the IPSA are not the only ones looking for full bore pistols.

Anything else?

[/QUOTE]
Yup, Semi auto large calibre rifles and modified pumpand semi auto shotguns. As this will eventually be part of practical shooting sports equipment,it would be a concern as well as to restricted/unrestricted and attitudes from the Gardai Civvie service to this.
I would think.

cantona · 07-05-2008 6:08pm

rrpc wrote: »

If I was in the IPSA, I'd be doing the following:

As the letter in the ISD is the best indication of how the DoJ are thinking about practical shooting and since the range standards to be introduced here are to be the Canadian ones. I'd be on to the Canadian IPSC people to find out how they have been able to convince their athourities that IPSC shooting is safe.

Anything else?

RRPC, the Canadian document was produced in conjunction with IPSC Canada. When we approached DOJ to meet us and discuss range standards, they said that IPSC was not covered in the Canadian system, whereas Chapter 3 deals specifically with Action Shooting eg IPSC Style.

My reading of this-DOJ have not even read the document.

And by the way, we had the document in our hands 48 hours after being told by DOJ that they were considering this system, so they have no excuse.

rrpc · 07-05-2008 6:15pm

cantona wrote: »

RRPC, the Canadian document was produced in conjunction with IPSC Canada. When we approached DOJ to meet us and discuss range standards, they said that IPSC was not covered in the Canadian system, whereas Chapter 3 deals specifically with Action Shooting eg IPSC Style.

My reading of this-DOJ have not even read the document.

And by the way, we had the document in our hands 48 hours after being told by DOJ that they were considering this system, so they have no excuse.

That's interesting cantona, any chance you could get me a soft copy by say tomorrow morning before 7:30 am?

cantona · 07-05-2008 7:20pm

If anyone else wants a copy. PM me with an email address that can accomodate a 50MB attachment. I will wait for a hour and then send them out together (presuming anybody wants to see it )

packas · 07-05-2008 7:56pm

212 pages of very well put together information.

thehair · 07-05-2008 9:27pm

sparks and rrpc are going for two days at great time and expense ie. money== cost. can we not wait till they get back for a report steve:eek:

07-05-2008 9:55pm

cantona wrote: »

If anyone else wants a copy. PM me with an email address that can accomodate a 50MB attachment. I will wait for a hour and then send them out together (presuming anybody wants to see it )

I can pop it up on a webserver if you want for a while - save you wasting bandwidth.

rrpc · 07-05-2008 10:11pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I can pop it up on a webserver if you want for a while - save you wasting bandwidth.

Could be copyright issues there Zaraba, don't want anyone getting in trouble.:eek:

IRLConor · 07-05-2008 10:15pm

rrpc wrote: »

Could be copyright issues there Zaraba, don't want anyone getting in trouble.:eek:

The copyright notice on it says:

Copyright
Copyright belongs to the Department of Justice Canada.
Justice Canada will allow reproduction in whole or in part, with appropriate credit, as long as there are no changes to the text and it is intended for non-profit use.

IRLConor · 07-05-2008 11:08pm

Document is now here:

http://www.mcdermottroe.com/shooting/rangeconstruction/

Sparks · 07-05-2008 11:35pm

Cheers Conor.

cantona · 08-05-2008 12:36am

Does that mean that I can stop my 5 hour send/receive 86% sent now?

Please say yes.

Shooting Forum - Firearms licencing information

FCP Conference this week

Comments