Bananaman's issues with the FCP petition

Sikamick

How many members do NASRPC represent and how members do the NARGC represent.Sikamick

Quote[Bananaman]
The one I would have most exposure to is NASRPC - outside of clay shooting it is probably the largest group of competitive target shooters in the country, represents a large number of target shooting ranges and target shooting clubs, covers a wide array of shooting disciplines across a wide spectrum of firearm types and yet it has no voice, and has had no voice, in the Firearms Consultative panel.

Quote[Bananaman]
and has had no voice, in the Firearms Consultative panel.

Why.Sikamick

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

To most people 'the courts' is the appeals.process and.the FCP has not and cannot have any part to play in that - only the courts can decide.

Unless the FCP changes the law so the court cases aren't needed.
Which is pretty much the entire point of the FCP from our point of view.
Seriously B'man, come up with an argument that at least holds together long enough to pose it, would you?

They could be a lot of things - such as elected, representative, expert,
but they haven't been and they wont be.

Bollocks. They are all of those things. Just because you don't like the people chosen by the majority in votes doesn't mean you can say they're not elected B'man, that's not how it works.

They could.do a lot of things - such as report monthly on their agenda, progress, difficulties - but they haven't and they wont.

B'man, you were the Public Relations Officer for the NASRPC.
The NASRPC were a member of the SSAI. As such, it's officers sat in on SSAI meetings, where the SSAI reported on the FCP goings-on. Now, if your guys were hearing what was going on, and your job was the Public Relations Officer, the question becomes:

Why didn't you tell the ordinary members of the NASRPC what the committee was being told about progress in the FCP?

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Sparks has started a petition - I assume at the request of those on the FCP

Nope.

Sparks

Sikamick wrote: »

The one I would have most exposure to is NASRPC - outside of clay shooting it is probably the largest group of competitive target shooters in the country, represents a large number of target shooting ranges and target shooting clubs, covers a wide array of shooting disciplines across a wide spectrum of firearm types and yet it has no voice, and has had no voice, in the Firearms Consultative panel.

Why.

At the time the SSAI was around, it did. The NASRPC was a member of the SSAI and was represented through them at the top table, a system which was put in place by their spokesman (over a lot of objections at the time), and was a system that was lauded as representative, democratic, efficient and effective.... right up until someone else was elected to be the SSAI rep under his rules. At which point suddenly everything was broken and wrong and we needed to get rid of it immediately. :rolleyes:

And today, following the wind-up of the SSAI, it still does. The NASRPC currently runs FISA, the body which replaced the SSAI (FISA has five NGBs as members, each one runs the body for a set period and then they change over in a round-robin fashion). As such, the NASRPC are the people who are responsible for representing all their members and those of the NRAI, NSAI, Pony Club, and ITS at the FCP. (They agreed to this, by the way).

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

a mechanism for those that license firearms to be consulted on alterations to the firearms licensing regime in order to make it palatable and workable.

That's what it has done for several years now.

Leaving aside the point that people's NGBs were where they were meant to be getting their information about the FCP from or posing questions for the FCP to (and if that was unsatisfactory, the issue is your NGB, not the FCP); how many times did the SSAI FCP rep attend public meetings or hold them in order to answer people's questions about the FCP in the last year or two alone? How many open meetings did the Department hold for the FCP to discuss what was going on and talk to the grassroots shooters about?

And how many of those kind of meetings took place with the powers that be between 1972 and 2008?
(Hint, that last answer is a big fat zero, and if we lose the FCP framework, get ready for that to be the answer for the next decade or two as well).

In fact, looking at the rest of what you want the FCP to be, I'm wondering what you're playing at, because all those things have been done since 2008.

Every range operator was invited to a public FCP meeting to discuss the Ranges and Clubs SI which was still in draft stage at that point (and has since followed up with the Firearms Range Inspector). Everyone involved in the administration of the sport was represented in the FCP one way or another (if you want to moan about the SSAI structure, remember that the man who set it up was your own spokesperson, so point the blame his way, and remember the enormous row it caused when he did so). Just because you weren't passing on the information B'man, doesn't mean the problem was with someone else.

the FCP (a quango of political appointees)

What a load of horse****.
With the exception of Des Crofton, everyone on the FCP from a shooting body was an active shooter themselves, in rifle or pistol (usually both) or shotgun.

Hence I would like to see some representation and accountability built into the mandate before being asked to further it.

No, that's not good enough. Tell us exactly what you want B'man. Not some vague generalism. Politicians do that before elections - keep the demands as vague as possible in case they get elected and later get asked if they lived up to their own demands. It also helps if they haven't a clue about what they're talking about - so they can demand "better regulation" for firearms without knowing what end of a firearm you point downrange.
So go on, tell us. What specifically is wrong with the FCP (as opposed to what's wrong with the shooting bodies themselves) and what would you change it to?

Because I'm calling this one B'man - I think you haven't a clue about what you're talking about and I think you're just being a hurler on the ditch because you don't know how to be anything else.

Sikamick

Quote[Bananaman]
I said from the outset that the legislation needs change and we need an interface between the Gardai, License Holders and the State.


Bananaman and who would you suggest to be the ones to set up this interface.

Sikamick

Bananaman

Unfortunately, yet predictably, all effort is now focused off the topic and on attacking me in order to bore people and have them abandon the topic.

...

Back to the topic of the thread then ....

I have not suggested a solution - I have no power to suggest a solution.

I am but one target shooter in the quarter of a million that have been and will be affected by this.

All I have done is highlight that, in my humble opinion, the proposed, permanent, solution is not suitable and should not be blindly signed up to without questioning it and perhaps seeking alterations prior to giving it a permanent mandate.

I have never seen a report from the FCP - bar a couple of press release type things which were issued by its chairman in '08 and '10 - if a report was produced it never managed to cross my desk.

If anyone has a copy please pass em on and I'll read em over my ovaltine tonight.

...

I base my opinions on what I have seen;

a) The sorry state of our licensing system

b) That I am not represented on the FCP (regardless of what dotted lines are drawn on the great org chart in the sky)

c) That even when organisations attempted to replace their representative on the FCP that change was denied on the basis it was the individual and not the organisation that was selected to sit on the panel.

d) That all animals are equal, except some animals.

perhaps I am missing the point, perhaps we need not be bothering our betters with out concerns, perhaps we should be happy with our lot in the world

But ...... like I said, it is only my own opinion

Everyone is entitled to their own (and they should form one of their own)

B'Man

Longranger

To Ezridax and Vegata,Can you guys please get on to Boards on ask them to create a thread entitled "Sparks v B'man":rolleyes:. Seriously lads,It's [EMAIL="f#@king"]f#@king[/EMAIL] handbag stuff and,to be quite honest,if this was any other two guys the thread would be snipped to ribbons by now!:mad: If two posters want to get into a war of words they should do it by PM ffs... No offence to anyone involved but GROW THE FCUK UP!!!!

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

I have not suggested a solution

So hurler on the ditch then.
Grand so.

extremetaz

Longranger wrote: »

To Ezridax and Vegata,Can you guys please get on to Boards on ask them to create a thread entitled "Sparks v B'man":rolleyes:. Seriously lads,It's [EMAIL="f#@king"]f#@king[/EMAIL] handbag stuff ....

I'd be inclined to disagree - whilst the exchange has been heated, there is merit in the debate.

As someone who doesn't know a lot about the history of the FCP there is a lot of information and food for thought so IMO at least, the thread has been constructive.

Longranger

extremetaz wrote: »

I'd be inclined to disagree - whilst the exchange has been heated, there is merit in the debate.

As someone who doesn't know a lot about the history of the FCP there is a lot of information and food for thought so IMO at least, the thread has been constructive.

Fair point. Maybe I was to quick to speak but it just seems to go on and on. If there wasn't so much slagging and bitching it would make for better reading.

LR

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

And today, following the wind-up of the SSAI, it still does. The NASRPC currently runs FISA, the body which replaced the SSAI (FISA has five NGBs as members, each one runs the body for a set period and then they change over in a round-robin fashion). As such, the NASRPC are the people who are responsible for representing all their members and those of the NRAI, NSAI, Pony Club, and ITS at the FCP. (They agreed to this, by the way).

Going slightly OT,but this kind of alphabet SOUP of abbreviations of the Irish shooting community ,does my head in!!!And I've been shooting over 35 years here I still have to somtimes sit down and figure out who is talking about or repersenting whom!!!Or has power over what.
Even Sparks tried to chart it out once in a Spider gram chart,and it looked even worse drawn than been spoken about.:(
If it doing this to me what is it doing to a newbie or somone looking in from the PTB??Multiple organisations bickering over imaginery turf and power that doesnt exist..No need to divide and conquer they do it all themselves so nicely.:rolleyes:
This is the one thing that I could see being another problem with the FCP.While it is better than nothing,if it is going to function at the level of national level of inter organisational and personality rivalry,how could it function well when dealing with Govt agencies??
If we cant get our own house in order.HTF do you think a Govt body will percive us as ??

Tackleberrywho

Well said!

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Going slightly OT,but this kind of alphabet SOUP of abbreviations of the Irish shooting community ,does my head in!!!And I've been shooting over 35 years here I still have to somtimes sit down and figure out who is talking about or repersenting whom!!!Or has power over what.
Even Sparks tried to chart it out once in a Spider gram chart,and it looked even worse drawn than been spoken about.:(

Yup. And it's now out of date, this was only current in 2009 (I must update it when I get some time over xmas. Click on the image to get the full, readable size):

[url=https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/17587/183077.png[/img][/url]

But, bad as it is, two things ought to be remembered:

• It's like that for a reason (namely that our sports are so disparate in nature and history that there wasn't any sense in having one unified body to govern everything - it'd be a nightmare to organise or to try to do anything with). And as for a single lobbying body... well, people think this thread was a bitchfest, but this has been very very quiet and calm compared to the sort of rows the admin side has seen in times past, and they were rows over serious conflicts of interest, not just "my dad didn't like his dad so now we fight" or the like.
• While it's not what it was intended to do, the FCP has had the side effect of showing that all these groups could actually come together and work in concert on something. Not perfectly, but feck it, nobody does it perfectly.

And there's a third thing - everyone else in other countries have this problem and nobody else has fixed it. Just look at the US. Everyone says "oh, they have just the one body, the NRA and it's the way to go".... except that they have a dozen or more major national organisations governing their shooting sports, not just the NRA; and they have dozens of lobbying groups apart from the NRA (most of whom spend a lot of time trying to tear strips off the NRA as being too large, too boring, too ineffectual... sound familiar to anyone?).

One Irish sports journalist once put it (privately) like this: Sports administration, once you get above the club level, is a crock of ****. Which seems to be a universal fact of life

Cass

Sikamick wrote: »

At least 90% hadn’t got a clue what I was talking about or didn’t care.

I would not expect everyone to know all about the law, SIs, Acts, FCP, NGBs, etc, etc, but to bury your head in the sand and point blank refuse to at least stay up to date about whats going on in regards to issues that could affect their sport i believe is a must.

The same 90% will complain about some new legislation/SI/Act that is introduced claiming they knew nothing aabout it simply because they couldn't be bothered asking or staying informed.

In my opinion if you want to get a powerful voice behind any petition you go to the biggest Shooting organisation in the Country, the (NARGC).

Sikamick

Biggest but by no means the best or even the most appropriate. The NARGC through Des Crofton has dealt with issues that have nothing to do with his organisation, ignored issues that should be dealt with by his organisation, and proceeded to publicly embarrass those people that we need to deal with in order to secure better/freer legislation for shooters as per his latest article in the ISD.

Sure its all well and good for popularity amonh his members, and the 90% you refer to above to be seen to be speaking up "against the man", but do you really think these people will forget such attacks, and be more OR LESS willing to deal with these organisations in the future.

For the other 10% that know about some things or a lot of things he does not speak for us, well me at least.

Bananaman wrote: »

Unfortunately, yet predictably, all effort is now focused off the topic and on attacking me in order to bore people and have them abandon the topic.

Not by my reading. You refuse to listen, repeat the same statments that have been explained to you, claim ignorance when its obvious you know more than you let on, you refute your association to a particuler NGB then after many, many posts of asking you finally say you are, and not just affilitiated, but a committee member. Its easy to see why patience is thin and comes across as attacking.

I have not suggested a solution - I have no power to suggest a solution.

Who said you need power. You are very quick to dismiss the FCP, and any progress they may have made, but hide behind the veil or powerlessness when asked to suggest an alternative.

It has been said numerous times, yet still you cannot see the obvious. If the FCP go then we are not represented, whether they done a good job or not is irrelevant for the moment. You seem, from my reading, to be linking the people that sit on the panel to the actual body itself which is a mistake. The idea/concept of the FCP is whats important. Not the people sitting on it. People can be replaced, the FCP cannot.

Everyone is entitled to their own (and they should form one of their own)

B'Man

Very true. Maybe if more people formed their own opinion instead of listening to the half stories, rumours, etc that usually float around we would have a lot more people in a better position to understand the importance of this issue.

extremetaz wrote: »

I'd be inclined to disagree - whilst the exchange has been heated, there is merit in the debate.

As someone who doesn't know a lot about the history of the FCP there is a lot of information and food for thought so IMO at least, the thread has been constructive.

+1

Longranger wrote: »

To Ezridax and Vegata,Can you guys please get on to Boards on ask them to create a thread entitled "Sparks v B'man":rolleyes:. Seriously lads,It's f#@king handbag stuff and,to be quite honest,if this was any other two guys the thread would be snipped to ribbons by now!:mad: If two posters want to get into a war of words they should do it by PM ffs... No offence to anyone involved but GROW THE FCUK UP!!!!

Longranger wrote: »

Fair point. Maybe I was to quick to speak but it just seems to go on and on. If there wasn't so much slagging and bitching it would make for better reading.

LR

Do you not realise the importance of what is being discussed. This is not a minor thing that will be resolved, and have no effect on you one way or the other. It is not an NGB discussion that may affect only a certain class of shooting This is about a body to represent ALL shooters to the Mininster.

It is not a trivial matter, and to complain about the heated debate as though the two primary posters involved were going at a personal issue, is as you said yourself quick to judgement and lacking a solid understanding of the importance of the matter. That is why this issue casuses such heated debate.

The concept that if something doesn't work well to get rid of it as though we (all shooters/NGBs) can simply replace it with another body is foolish. We have no authority save that which is granted to us by the Mionister/DoJ/An Gardai. They are under no obligation to allow us to participate. So if we disband the FCP or allow it to fade away, then come back in a year or two telling the PTB that we have a new group, and are ready to start discussions again what do you think they'll do?

Grizzly45 wrote:

but this kind of alphabet SOUP of abbreviations of the Irish shooting community ,does my head in.

It can be a head spinner alright, but how hard is it to remember FCP.

Not knowing what the abbreviations are for, the different organisations, NGBs, etc is still no excuse for some atitudes i seen and heard over the last few years. People get irrate at the debating, arguments, discussions about these groups, but its important.

How many times have we read "I can't be bothered with all this fighting, talk of organisations i don't know about" only to be met with "whats happening" from the same posters weeks/months later after something has taken place. Even if they don't fully understand every aspect i fail to understand peoples refusal to have an idea as to whats going on around them especially when it comes to issues that directly effect them.

Longranger

If my ignorance can be excused, what's the alternative? It sounds like we are fighting a losing battle. I don't want ignore this problem but I can't get my feckin head around it! Maybe I'm just thick but it boggles the mind. Now, if you'll excuse me iI'm going to find a corner, hide in it, and put my foot back in my mouth where it belongs!

Bananaman

Longranger wrote: »

If my ignorance can be excused, what's the alternative? It sounds like we are fighting a losing battle. I don't want ignore this problem but I can't get my feckin head around it! Maybe I'm just thick but it boggles the mind. Now, if you'll excuse me iI'm going to find a corner, hide in it, and put my foot back in my mouth where it belongs!

Thats a seperate problem.

I have no doubt that it is eminently possible to have one body administer the shooting sports in Ireland

what is not possible.is for everyone who wants to be the big swinging dick, to be the big swinging dick, when there is only one body to swing from.

The real problem is you need to start afresh and too many people would fight that as they fear not having any control or not being 'a name' when the concept of control is not needed and the cult of personality is probably the crux of most problems. There are always loads of people who want to be 'in charge' but if you cut that out you cut out most problems

But if you want to have that conversation then I would start a seperate thread as its not relevant to this topic


B'Man

firefly08

alphabet SOUP of abbreviations of the Irish shooting community

Fact! I have never been able to keep track of it.

Everyone says "oh, they have just the one body, the NRA and it's the way to go".... except that they have a dozen or more major national organisations governing their shooting sports, not just the NRA; and they have dozens of lobbying groups apart from the NRA (most of whom spend a lot of time trying to tear strips off the NRA as being too large, too boring, too ineffectual... sound familiar to anyone?).

There may be a great many sports organizations in the US, but there are really very few lobby/civil rights groups besides the NRA. Most of them are concerned only with their sports and leave the lobbying, negotiating and suing to the NRA. The vast majority of shooters who take an interest in protecting the future of their sports join the and support the NRA (still only comes to less than 10% of gun owners mind you, but that just goes to show you what could be achieved in Ireland if current clubs and members were united). NRA membership is a requirement for pretty much every local gun club I've ever seen. They do get criticism (mostly for being too soft) but it's really nothing like the splintering and bickering that goes on here. That seems to be a distinctly Irish thing! Look at our politics. Jesus, even our terrorist groups can't agree on the colour of sh1te.

I've heard people point to this aspect of our culture as a positive thing, and it can be for sure. We're probably better off having a few political parties instead of 2 like the US. But on the other hand, there's something to be said for the black-and-white, with-us-or-against-us mentality that they have, and the NRA is a prime example. There are a great many shooters in the US who would rather I didn't have black semi automatic rifle with a 30 round magazine. They don't understand what I want it for. But they'll send their cheque to the NRA, to help me to keep it, because they know that if they don't, they're next.

Is there any common ground that Irish shooters can unite on? Given the cluster fcuk that is the current legislation, and the attitude of the public towards us, I feel that anything that gives shooters a voice is a plus. So I signed the petition. After all, if the authorities want to make the situation any worse for shooters, they sure as fcuk don't need the FCP.

Longranger

Bananaman wrote: »

Thats a seperate problem.

I have no doubt that it is eminently possible to have one body administer the shooting sports in Ireland

what is not possible.is for everyone who wants to be the big swinging dick, to be the big swinging dick, when there is only one body to swing from.

The real problem is you need to start afresh and too many people would fight that as they fear not having any control or not being 'a name' when the concept of control is not needed and the cult of personality is probably the crux of most problems. There are always loads of people who want to be 'in charge' but if you cut that out you cut out most problems

But if you want to have that conversation then I would start a seperate thread as its not relevant to this topic


B'Man

Cheers B'man, it just is a hell of a lot to try and understand. It's stuff like this that put me off staying on committees go fishing and shooting clubs! As for starting another thread like this, YOU MUST BE F#*%ING JOKING!
LR

323

firefly08 wrote: »

Fact! I have never been able to keep track of it.



There may be a great many sports organizations in the US, but there are really very few lobby/civil rights groups besides the NRA. Most of them are concerned only with their sports and leave the lobbying, negotiating and suing to the NRA. The vast majority of shooters who take an interest in protecting the future of their sports join the and support the NRA (still only comes to less than 10% of gun owners mind you, but that just goes to show you what could be achieved in Ireland if current clubs and members were united). NRA membership is a requirement for pretty much every local gun club I've ever seen. They do get criticism (mostly for being too soft) but it's really nothing like the splintering and bickering that goes on here. That seems to be a distinctly Irish thing! Look at our politics. Jesus, even our terrorist groups can't agree on the colour of sh1te.

I've heard people point to this aspect of our culture as a positive thing, and it can be for sure. We're probably better off having a few political parties instead of 2 like the US. But on the other hand, there's something to be said for the black-and-white, with-us-or-against-us mentality that they have, and the NRA is a prime example. There are a great many shooters in the US who would rather I didn't have black semi automatic rifle with a 30 round magazine. They don't understand what I want it for. But they'll send their cheque to the NRA, to help me to keep it, because they know that if they don't, they're next.

Is there any common ground that Irish shooters can unite on? Given the cluster fcuk that is the current legislation, and the attitude of the public towards us, I feel that anything that gives shooters a voice is a plus. So I signed the petition. After all, if the authorities want to make the situation any worse for shooters, they sure as fcuk don't need the FCP.

From someone who used to send that cheque to the NRA.

Never realized there were so many organisations involved until seeing Sparks chart.
Absolutely amazing that the only organisations that appear to present a united front are those that would shut us all down?

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

I have no doubt that it is eminently possible to have one body administer the shooting sports in Ireland

It's not.
Not just because of the personality problems - though I'd point out that a few of those aren't mere spats driven by ego, but are more substantial and justified.

There are reasons why some sports simply have to be maintained by seperate bodies. The NTSA can't be in the same body as the ITS for example, or they'd lose their Olympic recognition and could never get it back. There are other examples - the Pony Club couldn't be merged in because they already belong to Equestrian Ireland. And so forth.

That diagram is a complex one and it's not beginner-friendly; but it's evolved to the way it is for a reason, and while we could simplify parts of it, we can't just replace it with a single monolithic body.

And we've had several long threads discussing all the details as to why several times before...

Sparks

firefly08 wrote: »

There may be a great many sports organizations in the US, but there are really very few lobby/civil rights groups besides the NRA.

Apart from the NRA-ILA (the part of the NRA that does the lobbying) and their internal splits (an ex-VP of the NRA, Neal Knox, has been castigating them for years now), you have the Gun Owners of America, The Second Amendment Foundation, the Gun Owners' Action League, the Calguns Foundation, the Pink Pistols, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, The Second Amendment Sisters, Students for Concealed Carry on Campus and so on. There's a lot more groups than you'd think.

NRA membership is a requirement for pretty much every local gun club I've ever seen.

Yes... but they provide the insurance too, so that's not so much an endorsement as you might think.

They do get criticism (mostly for being too soft) but it's really nothing like the splintering and bickering that goes on here.

Really? Seems fairly bloody and feral from where I've been watching!

Is there any common ground that Irish shooters can unite on?

Actually, and this surprised me a fair amount, the various groups came together to work on the FCP with remarkable success. I honestly can't remember any project that saw that much coordinated effort for that long, or that achieved that much (even if what they achieved was to avoid the worst of what was aimed at us rather than to build something out of whole cloth, the achievement should still be recognised).

firefly08

Apart from the NRA-ILA (the part of the NRA that does the lobbying) and their internal splits (an ex-VP of the NRA, Neal Knox, has been castigating them for years now), you have the Gun Owners of America, The Second Amendment Foundation, the Gun Owners' Action League, the Calguns Foundation, the Pink Pistols, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, The Second Amendment Sisters, Students for Concealed Carry on Campus and so on. There's a lot more groups than you'd think.

Of those, only the NRA and the SAF are national lobby groups with any real clout. The rest are either state-specific (calguns, Gun Owner's Action League) or they don't have much influence at all. I'd be very surprised if any of them besides the JPFO actually draw members away from the NRA.

Admittedly, the NRA and the SAF do not always pull in the same direction (most notably in the landmark Heller case), but they frequently do, and a lot of people support both groups.

Really? Seems fairly bloody and feral from where I've been watching!

Well fair enough, some of it is pretty bad (especially reading that JPFO website :eek:) but I was going by what I hear people say about the NRA generally, and the trend tends to be "yeah they could be better, and I wish they'd stop sending me junk emails, but I probably wouldn't have my guns if it wasn't for them".

There is a great amount of diversity for sure, but those who are willing to put their differences aside for a common goal vastly outnumber those who are not. Which is not a trait we are known for! But if as you say the FCP was successful in this regard, then happy days.

Bananaman

Yet the FCP is NOT representative of the shooting sports in Ireland

It contains people that represent nobody while large swathes of the shooting community are not represented at all.

Attempts by associations to replace their representative were refused on the grounds that the individuals were invited to participate, not the organisations. (Another tip of the hat to the cult of personality)

They do not meet as a panel and they do not report on what their agenda is or what they are doing

There are no procedures in place to replace useless types, yet the petition calls to make it a permanent fixture.

B'Man

Sparks

B'man, simply put, none of that is true, as has been pointed out in some detail above. And bluntly, your statements there are just plain ridiculous.

Bananaman

Bananaman wrote: »

Yet the FCP is NOT representative of the shooting sports in Ireland

It contains people that represent nobody while large swathes of the shooting community are not represented at all.

Attempts by associations to replace their representative were refused on the grounds that the individuals were invited to participate, not the organisations. (Another tip of the hat to the cult of personality)

They do not meet as a panel and they do not report on what their agenda is or what they are doing

There are no procedures in place to replace useless types, yet the petition calls to make it a permanent fixture.

B'Man

And contrary to some earlier comments - I am NOT proposing that we do not have an interface ala the FCP - I just do not think the current.implementation of that interface is to our benefit and we should think twice before making them permanent.

I am proposing that the representatives on it be representative, accountable and expert. I realise we have no say in who represents the Gardai or the Civil Service but we should have a say in,who represents us.

the panel should represent, and be accountable, to each of the demographics within the shooting sports.

The individuals on the panel, should be selected by, report to and ultimately be accountable for their actions to, those demographics.

I am not.proposing a talking head who has to contact 'the home office' before deciding whther to have milk in his tea - but someone who is.expert, has the support of the group they purport to represent and who can be replaced by that group should they believe hiim/her to have gone feral.

...

I have already used the example of the NASRPC, a group which represents a large proportion of target shooters, a large proportion of shooting ranges, a large proportion of shooting clubs, a wide array of shooting sports and a wide spectrum of firearm types.

I belive, that after clay shooting, they are the largest group of competitive target shooters in the country.

Because they represent such a large demographic within the shooting sports ...

Their sports and competitors are the ones most affected by silly rules in the legislation,

Their membership is the one most affected by the Range or Club SI.

Yet they are NOT represented on the FCP.

And their membership is not consulted by the FCP.

...

How do problems like that get fixed, should the current structure get made permanent?

Because if not then I do not see how it could be a good thing.

B'Man

mister gullible

Glad Bananaman and Sparks are in agreement now.

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

And contrary to some earlier comments - I am NOT proposing that we do not have an interface ala the FCP - I just do not think the current.implementation of that interface is to our benefit and we should think twice before making them permanent.

And, as was pointed out before, we don't get to tell the Minister how to structure the FCP. We either work within it or we just walk away and go back to where we were from 1972 to 2004.

I am proposing that the representatives on it be representative, accountable and expert.

You are proposing what we already have.
You might not like the choices of personnel who were voted in, but they were voted in according to the system that was set up by NASRPC personnel, so frankly, your dislikes aren't a valid reason for complaint.

the panel should represent, and be accountable, to each of the demographics within the shooting sports.

You want the Panel, which is chaired by the Minister via his Principal Officer, to be accountable to the individual people withing the shooting sports -

• Even though that's not legal because a government Minister can't be answerable to a subset of the electorate.
• Even though we don't even have a way to list all the target shooters in the country or to contact them, and compiling such a list, while technically possible, has never been done in the history of the sport and would have major privacy issues with the Data Protection Act.
• And even though the Panel is not made up of just the shooting sports, but of all the interested parties in the firearms act, including the AGS, two government departments, insurers, firearms dealers and the IFA.

I think, B'man, that you really haven't been thinking about this very deeply.

The individuals on the panel, should be selected by, report to and ultimately be accountable for their actions to, those demographics.

They already are.

I am not.proposing a talking head who has to contact 'the home office' before deciding whther to have milk in his tea - but someone who is.expert, has the support of the group they purport to represent and who can be replaced by that group should they believe hiim/her to have gone feral.

Which is what we have. The AGS might not have that, nor the DoAST, but we, the shooting community, do.
For now, at least.

I have already used the example of the NASRPC...
...
Yet they are NOT represented on the FCP.
And their membership is not consulted by the FCP.

See, that right there tells me you're lying.
Because you, as an ex-NASRPC committee member, know that the NASRPC currently run FISA, the body which took over from the SSAI, and which is meant to be representing shooters at the FCP table.

So, if they're not sitting there, it's because they've ****ed something up horribly... and now you're trying to make noise about closing down the FCP.

I have to wonder if the latter is to prevent us reading yet another thread about the NASRPC doing something stupid which kicks a lot of other shooters in the teeth for no good reason, following on from the unbelievably stupid pistol rules they proposed and the attempt to snarfle a grant they had no rights to. So B'man, what have they done this time?

Bananaman

Again - the topic of this thread is not about me - so stop trying to direct it at me - take a deep breath and focus.
If you want to have a go at me - by all means open another discussion topic and let rip.

...

I am not "trying to make noise about closing down the FCP".
It is already closing down, as it's mandate is complete.

You are making noise about making it a permanent fixture and seeking a mandate from the viewers of the shooting forums on boards, via petition, to do so.

....

I am asking people to think about the petition you created, rather than blindly signing it.

I highlighted one example that shows that the FCP, as it stands is not representative of the shooting community. (No amount of dotted lines on your org chart will make that any less true)

I highlighted another example - which shows that those on the panel were chosen, as individuals, not elected by representative shooting groups,
as evidenced when one of those groups attempted to replace its representative and that attempt was rebuffed as it was the individual, not the organisation, that was invited to be on the panel.

I also outlined some, not unreasonable, controls I would hope to see in something you are calling to have made permanent.

...

i do not think it is unreasonable to try to fix these as part of what we wish to make permanent.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

the topic of this thread is not about me - so stop trying to direct it at me

B'man, if you're lying when you put forward your arguments, then pointing that out is not trying to redirect anything, it's addressing the problem directly.

I am not "trying to make noise about closing down the FCP".
It is already closing down, as it's mandate is complete.

And that's the point of the petition, to try to stop that, because if we lose the FCP now, there will not be a replacement.

I highlighted one example that shows that the FCP, as it stands is not representative of the shooting community. (No amount of dotted lines on your org chart will make that any less true)

No, you haven't. You've said the NASRPC isn't represented. But that's just not true, and that's been pointed out to you and everyone else here so often it's boring people.

I highlighted another example - which shows that those on the panel were chosen, as individuals, not elected by representative shooting groups,

No, you haven't. You've said that Declan Cahill wasn't ejected from the FCP when the NASRPC fell out with him. However, the NASRPC elected him onto the FCP in the first place, and you've not mentioned anything about the circumstances of his falling out with you guys, so how the hell is anyone meant to know what happened there?

And everyone else on the FCP from a shooting body was nominated by their NGB committees, and those NGB committees are voted in by the membership. If an NGB wanted to let the membership appoint them directly, that was down to the NGB itself, not the FCP, but even as it stands, that's still the opposite of what you're saying happened.

I also outlined some, not unreasonable, controls I would hope to see in something you are calling to have made permanent.

We have controls on the individuals representing the shooting bodies on the panel.
We cannot legally have controls on the panel itself as a whole because believe it or not there is no legal way for Ministers from two departments and the AGS be answerable to a subset of the electorate like that.

Hell, you can't even say who you want them to answer to, because you don't know how many target shooters there are in Ireland, let alone know how to contact any of them.

And by the by, just to get to what I think is the real reason behind your issues, why haven't the NASRPC contacted the Department to arrange to attend an FCP meeting now that that's their job?

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

You've said the NASRPC isn't represented. But that's just not true, and that's been pointed out to you and everyone else here so often it's boring people.

Who on the FCP represents the Clubs, Ranges, Sports, Competitors and Firearm types in the NASRPC?

B'man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Who on the FCP represents the Clubs, Ranges, Sports, Competitors and Firearm types in the NASRPC?

That'd be FISA today.
Which is currently being run by the NASRPC.
If you can think of a more representative way for the NASRPC to represent the NASRPC, let us know...

However, I've contacted the Department and they tell me that since FISA formed six months ago, the NASRPC has not contacted the Department about the FCP at all.

So I have to ask again B'man:

why haven't the NASRPC contacted the Department to arrange to attend an FCP meeting now that that's their job?

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

I've contacted the Department and they tell me ......

I'll bet you have - on speed dial no doubt

Sparks wrote: »

That'd be FISA today.
Which is currently being run by the NASRPC.
If you can think of a more representative way for the NASRPC to represent the NASRPC, let us know...

Firstly - FISA is a federation, as far as I was aware - not an employer - all members are equal partners - nobody "runs" it. (there is, as always, no need for someone to be "in charge")

Secondly, I was not aware that the FISA had been invited to participate on the panel. If they have, and they have not responded, then that is unfortunate, but I somehow doubt it.

...


Regardless of what smoke and mirrors you pull out - the fact remains that the Clubs, Ranges, Sports, Competitors and Firearm types in the NASRPC are not represented on the FCP. Clicking your heels together all day long will not make that less true.

You are trying to blame NASRPC for that - which I find baffling. They have, of course , spent years trying to have their voice heard - to no avail.

They represent far more shooters, clubs, ranges and firearm types than most of the members of the panel - I find it shocking that the Panel would seek a permanent mandate to represent the shooting sports to the Gardai and Department and not actively seek to have NASRPC front and centre seeing as it represents such a wide breadth of expertise and relevant interest.

I have no doubt that "you" see the "voice" of the NASRPC as being one of the many people you personally hate for whatever reason - and hence will do anything and everything you can think of to stop them - regardless of what is good for the sport.

You should have no say in it anyway - you are just one target shooter among a quarter million - as I am - but you are wrong anyway

.... that voice is the hundreds, if not thousands, of members of the clubs and ranges represented by the NASRPC - which should be heard.

.....that voice is the majority of target shooting ranges in Ireland - which should be heard.

.....that voice is the majority of pistol target shooters in Ireland - which should be heard

.....that voice is the majority of rifle target shooters in Ireland - which should be heard

.....that voice has expertise in sporting rifle, gallery rifle, benchrest rifle, rimfire pistol, centrefire pistol, target shotgun and many many more forms of target shooting and the required firearms.

My assumption is that the FCP does not want the NASRPC to have that voice.

I find it quite worrying that a thread which attempted to highlight that fact has gone on so long with counter arguments - mostly from one person (Sparks) - When all you have to do is .....

Go to any NASRPC International, National or Club match - there are at least one a month - and ask any of the people there - there are an average of over 60 competitors there but have been over 100 - what the FCP is, what it does for them, whether they feel things have progressed on its watch and whether they feel it continuing, without changes, on a permanent basis will make things better for the shooting sports.

Go to any of the NASRPC Open, Training or Women on Target days and ask any of the new entrants to our sport - what the FCP is, whether they feel it is getting easier or more difficult to compete in target shooting on their watch and whether changes are needed.

They'll tell you if they feel represented - and they will tell you if they think it is the NASRPCs fault.

B'Man

Sikamick

Quote[Sparks]
No, you haven't. You've said that Declan Cahill wasn't ejected from the FCP when the NASRPC fell out with him.

Sparks who in the DOJ decided to keep an individual on the FCP when they weren’t backed by their NGB and I don’t have any problems or axe to grind with DC, all I want to see is fairness.

Sikamick

Quote[Sparks]
We have controls on the individuals representing the shooting bodies on the panel.
We cannot legally have controls on the panel itself as a whole because believe it or not there is no legal way for Ministers from two departments and the AGS be answerable to a subset of the electorate like that.


Sparks The Minister set up the FCP to deal with a subset of the electorate i.e. shooting bodies.

Sikamick

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

I'll bet you have - on speed dial no doubt

Yes, I have the Minister at my personal beck and call for all my little whims. Didn't you know?

Firstly - FISA is a federation, as far as I was aware - not an employer - all members are equal partners - nobody "runs" it. (there is, as always, no need for someone to be "in charge")

That's not how it works.
FISA is the five bodies who were in the SSAI. Each body takes it in turn to run the FISA for a set period of time, then hands over the reins to the next body in turn. The purpose being to try to eliminate all the petty bickering ****e that was happening before when people were clamouring to take over the SSAI and causing havoc in the process for everyone.

Secondly, I was not aware that the FISA had been invited to participate on the panel. If they have, and they have not responded, then that is unfortunate, but I somehow doubt it.

First off, the handover from SSAI to FISA was agreed on before the SSAI was wound up - no invitation was necessary and that was spelt out before the handover.
Secondly, the department was very, very clear on this (seriously, I'm not used to answers being so direct) - there has been no contact from FISA to the DoJ.

So basicly, the NASRPC took over FISA six months ago and did nothing about the FCP - and at this time, you were still an NASRPC officer B'man - and now you're complaining that the NASRPC isn't represented on the FCP, even though you've never even picked up the phone to ask when the next meeting was on.

I mean, were you expecting a gilt-edged invitation hand-delivered by the Minister?

You are trying to blame NASRPC for that - which I find baffling. They have, of course , spent years trying to have their voice heard - to no avail.

They had years of direct representation on the FCP.
They've been the people who were meant to be at the FCP table for the last six months and did nothing.

I mean, what do you want here? Do you get someone else to load and shoot for you in a match as well or something?

They'll tell you if they feel represented - and they will tell you if they think it is the NASRPCs fault.

If I'd asked them what the NASRPC had proposed as the rules for pistol ownership before we posted up that particular document here, would they have known?

If I'd asked them if NASRPC officers had applied for a grant that wasn't theirs while claiming to be officers of another organisation, would they have known the answer?

If you won't inform your own members B'man, when you're the Public Relations Officer, how would they know about the FCP? And if you know so little about it that you constantly show you don't know the basics of how it's set up, how would you inform them properly?

Sparks

Sikamick wrote: »

Sparks The Minister set up the FCP to deal with a subset of the electorate i.e. shooting bodies.

Not quite, it was set up to let that subset of the electorate and a dozen other interested parties meet together to discuss issues pertaining to the new Firearms Act legislation.

The FCP is chaired by the Minister via his PO - so if the FCP was answerable to the shooting bodies' members the way B'man suggests, the Minister would be reporting and accountable to a subset of the electorate (and you'll note that that's not even the full FCP there - why would he be accountable to us and not to, say, the rank-and-file gardai when the AGS sat on the panel? Or the rank-and-file workers in the Sports Council?).

Apart from being silly, that'd be unconstitutional, because the Minister is accountable to his Taoiseach in terms of which way the reports flow, and to the entire electorate in terms of who votes for him (yes, for a Minister, that gets a bit odd because it's his constituency that elects him as a TD and the Taoiseach who appoints him as a Minister, but even then, there's no way for what B'man wants to be constitutional).

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

Not quite, it was set up to let that subset of the electorate and a dozen other interested parties meet together to discuss issues pertaining to the new Firearms Act legislation.

The FCP is chaired by the Minister via his PO - so if the FCP was answerable to the shooting bodies' members the way B'man suggests, the Minister would be reporting and accountable to a subset of the electorate (and you'll note that that's not even the full FCP there - why would he be accountable to us and not to, say, the rank-and-file gardai when the AGS sat on the panel? Or the rank-and-file workers in the Sports Council?).

Apart from being silly, that'd be unconstitutional, because the Minister is accountable to his Taoiseach in terms of which way the reports flow, and to the entire electorate in terms of who votes for him (yes, for a Minister, that gets a bit odd because it's his constituency that elects him as a TD and the Taoiseach who appoints him as a Minister, but even then, there's no way for what B'man wants to be constitutional).

Correction: I said that those on the Panel who purport to represent certain demographics within the shooting sports - should represent and be answerable to that demographic - and should be replaceable should they have gone feral and no longer be representing that demographic. (Much the same as the Minister may replace his PO should he deem him to have gone off the reservation)

B'Man

Sparks

And as I said, later in that same post, you already have that. NGB representatives to the FCP are answerable to the NGB members at their AGMs (or earlier, depending on the rules of the NGB in question).

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

And as I said, later in that same post, you already have that. NGB representatives to the FCP are answerable to the NGB members at their AGMs (or earlier, depending on the rules of the NGB in question).

Then why has the FCP not,

through those same "NGB representatives", at their AGMs (or earlier, depending on the rules of the NGB in question) put it to the NGB members

to call for a review of the Firearms Act and to have the remit of the Firearms Consultation Panel extended

B'Man

Sikamick

Why is this question being sidestepped?

Sparks who in the DOJ decided to keep an individual on the FCP when they weren’t backed by their NGB and I don’t have any problems or axe to grind with DC, all I want to see is fairness.

Leupold

Whilst we are on the topic of who has direct access to the Dept of Justice, Sparks, why don.t you tell us all about the Olympic Coaches Association and the origin of the 5 shot magazine restriction?

See this thread for a bit of history very related to the topic of this thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=302954

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Then why has the FCP not

See, there you go again. The FCP is not a seperate group. It's where the NGBs go to. It's a forum for interested parties, not a lobby group in and of itself.

Sparks

Sikamick wrote: »

Why is this question being sidestepped?

It's not; I'm at work and missed your post. Even touchtypists have limits Mick...

Sparks who in the DOJ decided to keep an individual on the FCP when they weren’t backed by their NGB and I don’t have any problems or axe to grind with DC, all I want to see is fairness.

I don't know the details about DC's case; I presume Garrett Byrne but I don't know why.
B'man is the NASRPC committee member (or was at the time) - I've asked him but he's ignored the question.

Sparks

Leupold wrote: »

the origin of the 5 shot magazine restriction?

Garda Ballistics section. Nothing to do with the NTSA or anyone on the ISSF side of things so far as I know.

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

Sikamick wrote: »

Why is this question being sidestepped?

It's not; I'm at work and missed your post. Even touchtypists have limits Mick...

Sparks who in the DOJ decided to keep an individual on the FCP when they weren’t backed by their NGB and I don’t have any problems or axe to grind with DC, all I want to see is fairness.

I don't know the details about DC's case; I presume Garrett Byrne but I don't know why.
B'man is the NASRPC committee member (or was at the time) - I've asked him but he's ignored the question.

Declan Cahill was not a member of the NASRPC committee while I was. if memory serves he did not stand for re-election at the AGM, which he last attended, a year or two before I stood for election, which itself was a little over a year ago.

B'Man

hrta

I know it's off topic, but has an Explosive Expert been consulted, that knows the 1875 Act,
About the reloading, And for storage design and building facilities for explosives.

Bananaman

Sparks wrote: »

Bananaman wrote: »

Then why has the FCP not

See, there you go again. The FCP is not a seperate group. It's where the NGBs go to. It's a forum for interested parties, not a lobby group in and of itself.

you've said.that a few times now.and.it doesn't make a lot of sense - you make its sound like its the back room in biddy mcginties pub - interested parties will be meeting for pints and waffle at 8pm

but its not - its a group of individuals, invited by the department of justice, to rubber stamp what they are told and allow the Minister to claim that,.in whatever decisions or actions are taken, that the shooting community and interested groups, have been consulted. Political hoodwinking 101.

I see no two way street or examples of the very grassroots you are appealling to having had an opportunity to utilise the FCP for their benefit.

But I'd love to see examples.

B'Man

Bananaman

I'm also not convinced on the lobbying argument - from one perspective it is a quite ingenious way to prevent lobbying.

To instigate change in legislation there is only one group you lobby - the Government.

I was a (very small) part of a group that lobbied the Government to try to prevent the handgun ban in general and the ban on IPSC Handgun in particular.
That involved lots of meetings in Leinster house, Constituency offices, and Shooting Clubs and Ranges.
It involved sending a lot of emails and letters and corresponding with Ministers, TDs, Councillors all over the country.
It led to heated debate in both houses of the Oireachtais on the topic.
It led to enough backbench trouble to warrant a special meeting of the Fianna Fail parliamentary Party.
It led to some of our current Ministers arguing on behalf of our argument.
It also led to a lot of attacks on those doing the lobbying. It led to a strong campaign to divide the group and dilute its resolve.
It led to the then Minister, under Dail Privilege, openly telling TDs on the floor of the Dail to be careful who they were associating with,
as if we were a subversive group
and ultimately utilising the party whip to force the bill though anyway.

What that boiled down to is that a few people,
with the knowledge that they were right (and I suppose the naivete to assume that should be enough),
with the knowledge that the Minister was wrong, and forcing a personal agenda into law,
with the resolve to do something about it, through lobbying,
created enough of a political stir that we thought we had a chance.

But the deck was stacked against us.

Could the FCP, as a lobbying forum have made any difference?
If it gets a permanent mandate, could it make any difference?

Will it ensure that the shooting community will not annoy the current or future Ministers by lobbying the Government for change?

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

but its not - its a group of individuals, invited by the department of justice, to rubber stamp what they are told and allow the Minister to claim that

Okay, now you're just spouting bull**** in complete denial of the facts that have been related to you over the last three years from various sources including the committee you've been sitting on.
It's like that lovely anecdote about Lyndon Johnson falsely accusing a rival of bestiality, just to see him deny it in the press so that the public would always associate the rival with ****ing a pig.