NASRPC's refusal to allow affiliation of clubs

Grizzly 45

With all due respects to court cases and specifically DC court cases....I,and anyone else that I knowwho has done the DC shuffle at least three times,put our own hands in our own pockets and wrote our own cheques to our own solicitors and barristers.. I dont remember any NASRPC,NARGC or SFA other organisations offering to pony up the dough for these,or remember much on even moral support down in the court rooms of the lands.I DO remember NASRPC asking one of us to write up a story for their monthly sheet when the first cases wee won in Limerick.
In fact I remember one meet in Tullamore with then Joe Costelloe being the chairman[?] in Jan 2009 raising this exact point on the fighting of CFhandguns being told [1] You are on your own,get your own lawyers and [2] no money to fight these cases....I belive Sparks was present at this meet as well so he might care to verify this too?

So maybe you could enlighten us where and when did NASRPC pay for a court case???And to whom??

Individuals doing solo runs...Indeed nothing wrong talking to your TD if she is the minister for justice.. VERY wrong if the RUMOURS have it,said individual was ADVISING the minister on what she could get away with restricting by can kicking or throwing under the bus things like SA rifle liscenses being under a tempoary cap or .22 handguns if they breach a certain quota of new applications or imports[unspecified number] This person can refute these rumours in public at this AGM if it is brought up,and hopefully they are untrue,however no smoke without fire and all that.So I hope that this particular point is addressed too in a frank and open manner as well.

clivej

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

................

Individuals doing solo runs...Indeed nothing wrong talking to your TD if she is the minister for justice.. VERY wrong if the RUMOURS have it,said individual was ADVISING the minister on what she could get away with restricting by can kicking or throwing under the bus things like SA rifle liscenses being under a tempoary cap or .22 handguns if they breach a certain quota of new applications or imports[unspecified number] This person can refute these rumours in public at this AGM if it is brought up,and hopefully they are untrue,however no smoke without fire and all that.So I hope that this particular point is addressed too in a frank and open manner as well.

I have been at 2 public meetings where the person concerned did indeed refute these allegations.
Meeting one was at Harbour House at the same time that the Hilltop meeting was held.
Meeting two was at the NASRPC meeting held in the Manor Hotel in Abbeyleix. It was there that I directly asked those points to the person concernd

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

In fact I remember one meet in Tullamore with then Joe Costelloe being the chairman[?] in Jan 2009 raising this exact point on the fighting of CFhandguns being told [1] You are on your own,get your own lawyers and [2] no money to fight these cases....I belive Sparks was present at this meet as well so he might care to verify this too?

You're misremembering slightly. It was this meeting, Joe was the head of the SSAI and the FCP rep at the time and was speaking to Dave O'Dea - Dave had said that the NARGC would cover his costs if he lost a case, Joe was saying that he'd heard that the NARGC were not covering costs in the event of such losses anymore. I still have the audio recording of the meeting somewhere.
You might be confusing it with a different meeting in Abbyleix (which I wasn't at, but the events you describe tally with a report Cal Ward wrote about it).

jb88

Quota ??? etc etc. Don't know what your on about but please read the SI. The last one enacted to restrict .22 short barrel firearms (Pistols)

That's the law not what he said she said information from a grandmother's cat.

The person in question did none of this, they are exercising constitutional rights as a voting constituent to ask for information from their local TD. To lobby their TD to make them aware of what sport we all partake in. A person who is looking to preserve our sport and has suffered much abuse from ill informed individuals in our shooting community.

Something they don't deserve, it would be wise for all readers to take a step back here and understand what they read on these forums is not always correct.

Its how you go about this with decorum and a willingness to listen to all sides of the debate.
Public castigation of false truths and lads making things up, as they go along as many have throughout these threads hasn't helped.

This rubbish about throwing one firearm type holder under a bus or sacrificing one firearm type for another is quite simply a lie. (Unless it concerns another organization - not the NASRPC or any committee member associated with it) As many have several types of firearms and will themselves be subject to alterations should new legislation be enacted.

Unless the General public are made aware that this is not the USA. Our Sport is heavily regulated and needs more legislation if you ask me, what it doesn't need is restrictions and scare monger tactics.

It needs more security and a lot of training by all members associated with it to keep it safe.

Before a general election do you decide how you will vote based on some TV debating or do you actually know which party you should be voting for beforehand and vote the party.

Well that's the reason our country is in the state its been in for time and memorial. And its never going to change unless gossip mongers, do the unthinkable and find out the facts and make themselves informed.

Get informed ladies and gentlemen, but don't turn up at an AGM expecting to hold people to account for trying to better our sport.

The committee of the NASRPC have a few questions to be asked of them. (Fairly trivial questions if you ask me), but their continued representation of the committee in its current form best serves mine and the vast majority of shooters and clubs ethos in Ireland

But I who was at the Hilltop meeting before Christmas and am a member of Harbour House know what good work they have been doing for years. I see it all the time. Not just in the last 6 months, but for years, and those are the years since 2009. (Before that I cannot comment)

I think it reflects well in the growth in memberships at these clubs in recent years, everyone has benefited, and gone over to there club when a national event is taking place to compete for the first time, its how new people need to be encouraged to participate in our sport and have it grow continuously.

I think a lot of people remember with fondness the representation by An Riocht at the 2014 International in Harbour House. I for one thought it was very cool and so did many who looked on that Sunday morning at 30 - 40 people in the same T - Shirts competing in an International event. I hope it will happen again, but mob rule is not the answer to strong arm a committee into resigning just because they disagree with decisions made at a national level.

If one group (SC) tries to limit any other groups ability to compete in any form of currently authorized target shooting in Ireland then that group no longer deserves my support.

As I have stated before, the SC didn't represent the NASRPC. The NASRPC I think now represents itself, its clubs "who want to be represented", and its members and the committee acted in our best interest in this respect.


The NARSPC never sought a vote to join, so why should they request a vote by its clubs to leave. Its done. The SC didn't help when the NASRPC needed it.

The FCP now has two representatives from the NASRPC and not due to the SC

Remember this committee is voluntary, VOLUNTARY.

And don't pick at my statements, anyone who wants more information can PM me and I will discuss, by phone.
Get informed don't make it up as you go along, its our sport and its our future and its leadership is best determined by the current committee of the NASRPC

Sparks

jb88 wrote: »

please read the SI. The last one enacted to restrict .22 short barrel firearms (Pistols)
That's the law not what he said she said information from a grandmother's cat.

Just to clarify, 'cos this kind of thing sets my teeth on edge, that is not what the last SI does and the text of that SI is right there in the first post of a sticky thread at the top of the forum. The last SI clarifies the restricted status of .22 caliber pistols, but it relaxes the requirements from what they were, it does not make them more strict. Under the new SI any single-shot .22 pistol and any .22 pistol with a magazine of five rounds or less (whether the magazine came from the factory with that limit or had the limit added later through modification) is unrestricted. They are no longer required to be designed for the Olympics which removes the source of contention over 1911-pattern .22 pistols and others; the point of whether or not they came from the factory with five-round magazines (something that was causing court cases) is resolved in our favour; and the barrel length restriction has been removed.

From the point of view of .22 pistols, the last SI is a Good Thing™ (from the point of other stuff it is definitely not).

jb88

word change to "Clarify:

Grizzly 45

jb88 wrote: »

SNIP!!!!

And don't pick at my statements, anyone who wants more information can PM me and I will discuss, by phone.
Get informed don't make it up as you go along, its our sport and its our future and its leadership is best determined by the current committee of the NASRPC

So could you answer a question I asked..WHEN and WHERE did NASRPC pay and support a court case???No PMs no phone calls ,open and clear here where everyone can see.

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

You're misremembering slightly. It was this meeting, Joe was the head of the SSAI and the FCP rep at the time and was speaking to Dave O'Dea - Dave had said that the NARGC would cover his costs if he lost a case, Joe was saying that he'd heard that the NARGC were not covering costs in the event of such losses anymore. I still have the audio recording of the meeting somewhere.
You might be confusing it with a different meeting in Abbyleix (which I wasn't at, but the events you describe tally with a report Cal Ward wrote about it).

Nope I wasnt at the Cal Ward meeting at Abbeyleix.Forgot Dave O Dea was at that meeting .I do deffo remember JC saying that it was pretty much we are on our own on this one re costs and legal rep.Either way it is now irrevelant ancient history.Simple fact is the only organisation that has the reputation that I can see for going to court on its members behalf is the NARGC.Whether it is wise or not in some cases is another bucket of fish.

BillBen

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

So could you answer a question I asked..WHEN and WHERE did NASRPC pay and support a court case???No PMs no phone calls ,open and clear here where everyone can see.

I won't go into details but I know the person too and they wouldn't want the details put on a public forum

cra

jb88 wrote: »

I think a lot of people remember with fondness the representation by An Riocht at the 2014 International in Harbour House. I for one thought it was very cool and so did many who looked on that Sunday morning at 30 - 40 people in the same T - Shirts competing in an International event. I hope it will happen again, but mob rule is not the answer to strong arm a committee into resigning just because they disagree with decisions made at a national level.

It sounds like you are saying that An Riocht are attempting to "mob rule" the NASRPC and are trying to "strong arm" the committee. Where does this come from and why would you think that. We called for an EGM and yes we called for resignations initially, we thought that the NASRPC was a democratic organization but we were proved wrong. Yes we disagreed with the actions of the committee and we said so in the now famous letter, I accept that the letter could have been worded differently but the committee instead of acting like the big brother national organization that I would have expected it acted rashly and harshly pretty much giving An Riocht the two fingers. If any one can be accused of strong arming it is the committee.

jb88 you claim to be well informed and maybe you are but it sounds like to me anyway that you are well informed on one side of the argument. Look back over my posts and you will see some of An Riochts issues(not rumors), if you have any other questions give me a ring I think you have my number if not pm me.

badaj0z

jb88 wrote: »

To the vast majority Its time to grow up and smell the coffee.

Nice way to start by insulting your readers.

jb88 wrote: »

Understand NASRPC is national not just in Kerry, its National just like its title.

It also doesn't and hasn't sat with ECSSC - who have cancelled NASRPC shoots for the last three years. If your not a member anymore then why all the negative discourse. I know when I attended there a few years ago I had some great times with some of the Clay guys and it was excellent. Thanks again.
.

The ECSC were in correspondance with the NASRPC about broadening the types of competition and sharing the proceeds. The committee declined so the ECSC did not host the competitions.BTW the ECSC were members at the time of these discussions and last year. They are still waiting for the invoice for this year's fee, in line with the published constitution on the NASRPC website, until it was changed just before Xmas.

jb88 wrote: »

But PAY your 10 euro and have your club pay, its too small a price to even comprehend. Anyone who says they don't have the money is frankly lying as shooting is not a cheap sport as we all know. Pay that first and get your club to collect it. (This is why)

It pays for your targets, your medals, court cases of which there will be many more in the coming months, I know I was at one just before Christmas. (From now on as an Individual you will have to pay for court cases) Why because the funds wont be there. Its the same for the NARGC - they wont be paying for them. The only ones paying will be you and the NASRPC if they can afford it and if anyone pays.

Its a non profit organization. They covered one case I know about because I attended, and may have covered another this year and they are not cheap. It looks like there may be two more from some very high profile competitors in the near future who need your support, because they are our friends and fellow competitors and I will do all that is required in a personal capacity to help them in any way possible.

This is the reality for some of the NASRPC members, who have competed for 10 years or more at the highest stage. (But really you could be next when your chief super denies you a licence and you have to go to court to get your "golf club" back)

Clubs I understand are looking for some cash from the NASRPC events, It costs money in Tea and Coffee etc to do these things and this should be accounted for, but please provide some club RO'S. on the day of these events, It could so easily be one of your members or you who needs backing for a case in the future. Having one of your members at a national competition as an RO advising a new competitor will do lots for their confidence, this I know.

If a national competition is going on in your club, please attend. I see maybe the same faces year in year out and frankly its getting boring. Even in my own club. You or your clubmate is going to need that revenue generated from that entry fee to pay for upgrades to their own club, court cases and targets and medals. If you have 10 or 100 members, their participation is required to safeguard our sports future. Its not run on fresh air and hand shakes

Every club if they need revenue for themselves can organize and advertise via the NASRPC. 150 plus travel to Lough Bo every year, its an amazing place packed full of some of the best people in the world who love shooting. Its one of the stellar events of the national calendar, I know I would travel there a few times to compete in their club events should they choose to invite me ;-) as would many others. To assist and help them raise funds for the promotion of the sport they cherish

Please see Griz 45's comments above on this issue. I am also not aware of funding for court cases provided by the NASRPC. I am aware that substantial funding for the NASRPC has been generated by competition fees and I would like to understand more fully how this has been spent. Perhaps we will find out more at the AGM.

jb88 wrote: »

Forget about the Sports Coalition - a complete waste of time. If your still going on about that time to find another sport as you are not informed or haven't bothered in the last 6 months.

The SC is read to any target shooter in Ireland as a group, they will not represent you when you need it,

This is total rubbish and flies in the face of common sense. Every shooter in the country recognised that there was strength in numbers when the SC was formed and that is still the case. Why is the NASRPC the only group that has "resigned from the SC?

jb88 wrote: »

The NASRPC contributes towards International shoots and will continue long after all of this is over. (If you only knew how complex this is to organize your eyes would pop, so thank you famed Italian footballer schillaci In addition to many other things, all of which help and promote target shooting in Ireland.

Agreed, they have done very good work in this area

jb88 wrote: »

Paying towards maintenance and new facilities in clubs nationally.

This, I would like to know more about? Which clubs? How much? For what?

jb88 wrote: »

All shooting and NASRPC Events nationally and internationally will be damaged beyond repair if the current committee in its present form are not allowed to continue and voted back in. I know this because I have seen the progression of the sport in Ireland since 2008

The current committee has lost the trust of most of the member clubs because of how they handled their dealings with he SC and how they have handled their dealings with the clubs who criticized them for this. They have lost the right to be reelected but they have not lost their obligation to work for the good of our sport. They can continue to provide input and guidance as long as they see the bigger picture.

jb88 wrote: »

"Solo Runs", rubbish ive been hearing about, when your local TD is the minister for Justice and you want to go and speak to them go ahead. Remember that person is one of us a fellow shooter, without him we would be in a much worse place. If more of us did this with our local TD and made it more of a national issue and tried to educate the public at every level maybe our sport would be in a better place.

The heart of the issue. Please read Des Crofton's letter on this point. The NASRPC agreed to a set of rules when they joined the SC. They broke these rules and everything discussed in this thread has flowed from this point. Once broken, trust is hard to reestablish-in the eyes of most of the Sporting Rifle and Pistol clubs in Ireland that is.

jb88 wrote: »

The NASRPC are there to organize and co ordinate primarily Gallery Rifle and Pistol shooting in Ireland, in addition to sporting rifle and benchrest among many other disciplines for the clubs, that's not always their remit, but thats what they do for us and you are not a shooter unless you are thankful for this. The NASRPC - represents the Clubs yes, but without the clubs membership and club members participating and voting there would be very little if any target shooting taking place in Ireland.

True, but not relevant to this debate. It is not what they do which is the problem, it is how they did it in recent times.

jb88 wrote: »

2000+ members gets a lot of ears when it is required in powerful places, its time to call in those favours and educate.
Shooters are the most law abiding group in Ireland, we have to be. We are the only sport regulated by the Gardaí. (Start using the NASRPC as a lobby group) But don't moan.

You are arguing against yourself here. 2000 is not a lot but the SC represents 16 times this number. There is strength in numbers so why leave the SC?

jb88 wrote: »

Name another target shooting organization who provides - National competitions and to the amount, the NASRPC does.

That is what they are there to do. It is part of the constitution. The argument is not what they do, it is how they have just done it!

jb88 wrote: »

If your club has a problem and your a member then get it on at the AGM and if not attend as an individual, but don't throw all your toys out of the pram and expect them to be put back in. There is no Mother or Father here to pick them up, you have to get out and do that yourself.

Here I endorse what you are saying. But you must remember that many of the clubs who thought they were affiliated to the NASRPC and on whose ranges, the NASRPC has run "National" shoots this year, have suddenly discovered that they are no longer affiliated, meaning that their members can not vote at the AGM. You have not mentioned this issue in your discourse or the other non democratic actions that have taken place such as "avoiding" an EGM. It is these most recent events that have really exacerbated the problem in the eyes of many clubs and it it these issues which will figure in the minds of many attendees.

downrange

The vast majority of target shooters do not wish to see the NASRPC re-affiliated with the Sports Coalition.

We might have all welcomed the Sports Coalition with open arms in November 2014, one big happy club with a common mission, and a leader who might save us all from doom, but not now.

Prime Time changed all that. Yes, remember Prime Time or have you all forgotten? Did the Sports Coalition representatives defend our interests sufficiently on Prime Time?

The Sports Coalition has now run its course. It is time to wake up and smell the coffee.

The FCP is where the focus should be going forward and the NASRPC is very well represented at that table.

Tea drinker

Well the legal route SC took against the commitee (sparking the whole fallout) sealed the fate of the union

Grizzly 45

downrange wrote: »

Prime Time changed all that. Yes, remember Prime Time or have you all forgotten? Did the Sports Coalition representatives defend our interests sufficiently on Prime Time?

.

This one is collective guilt not individual guilt .
Is everyone actually aware of what happened on this prime time interview between Mc Grath and Egan?? No one wonder why a lawyer was matched up against an anti gun politican?? As a matter of fact it had nothing to do with the SC/NASRPC/NARGC. it was Prime time itself pulling a fast one.Egan was supposed to debate law with an ex cheif super who was pulled out or "advised" not to go on the programme and their stand in on Prime times side was Mc Grath. So you had an imbalanced programme of emotions[Mc Grath] Vs legal facts [Egan].At that stage Egan should have withdrawn or there should have been a replacement canditate on our side on Mc Graths level.

If anyone should be to blame it was whoever thought it was a good idea to go to a sensationalist blood bath and death revelling media whore called Primetime voulantarily on a subject as touchy as guns in society in the first place,without a posse of pitbull lawyers,and PRmanagers who would lay down ground rules and have had a say in the final production and pre screened the programme.But they cost money...Without them it was like coating yourself in bloody steaks and jumping into a tank of great white sharks and thinking it will be grand. We obviously didnt learn jack from the first disaster in 2008 and went back for a second beating in 2015.

downrange

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

This one is collective guilt not individual guilt .
Is everyone actually aware of what happened on this prime time interview between Mc Grath and Egan?? No one wonder why a lawyer was matched up against an anti gun politican?? As a matter of fact it had nothing to do with the SC/NASRPC/NARGC. it was Prime time itself pulling a fast one.Egan was supposed to debate law with an ex cheif super who was pulled out or "advised" not to go on the programme and their stand in on Prime times side was Mc Grath. So you had an imbalanced programme of emotions[Mc Grath] Vs legal facts [Egan].At that stage Egan should have withdrawn or there should have been a replacement canditate on our side on Mc Graths level.

If anyone should be to blame it was whoever thought it was a good idea to go to a sensationalist blood bath and death revelling media whore called Primetime voulantarily on a subject as touchy as guns in society in the first place,without a posse of pitbull lawyers,and PRmanagers who would lay down ground rules and have had a say in the final production and pre screened the programme.But they cost money...Without them it was like coating yourself in bloody steaks and jumping into a tank of great white sharks and thinking it will be grand. We obviously didnt learn jack from the first disaster in 2008 and went back for a second beating in 2015.

Grizzly 45 - as this discussion is specifically related to the NASRPC, can I ask are you actually an NASRPC shooter?

badaj0z

downrange wrote: »

The vast majority of target shooters do not wish to see the NASRPC re-affiliated with the Sports Coalition.

Would you like to explain how you arrived at this conclusion? Does it include Target Rifle, Sporting Rifle, Pistol and clay pigeon shooters? Was it a statistical survey and if so what sample size? Did you ask a few friends in the pub or club? Or is it wishful thinking? Whatever it was, I think you should wait for the outcome of the AGM before you make such sweeping statements.

jb88

Quite frankly I think it was you who insulted a great many members of the NASRPC when you attempted to tarnish the good name of the president of the NASRPC, whom to any and all who know him have nothing but admiration for all the work he has done and will continue to do with the NASRPC.


Also just because you are not personally aware of something or anything for that matter does not mean it didn't happen. Or maybe just in your world.


It appears that you were the well informed person, yet you know very little, but its easy to use a forum like this to try and get many unfounded points across.


Due to your comment in relation to the president I will share no further information with you on the subject.

badaj0z wrote: »

Nice way to start by insulting your readers.




The ECSC were in correspondance with the NASRPC about broadening the types of competition and sharing the proceeds. The committee declined so the ECSC did not host the competitions.BTW the ECSC were members at the time of these discussions and last year. They are still waiting for the invoice for this year's fee, in line with the published constitution on the NASRPC website, until it was changed just before Xmas.



Please see Griz 45's comments above on this issue. I am also not aware of funding for court cases provided by the NASRPC. I am aware that substantial funding for the NASRPC has been generated by competition fees and I would like to understand more fully how this has been spent. Perhaps we will find out more at the AGM.

This is total rubbish and flies in the face of common sense. Every shooter in the country recognised that there was strength in numbers when the SC was formed and that is still the case. Why is the NASRPC the only group that has "resigned from the SC?


Agreed, they have done very good work in this area


This, I would like to know more about? Which clubs? How much? For what?


The current committee has lost the trust of most of the member clubs because of how they handled their dealings with he SC and how they have handled their dealings with the clubs who criticized them for this. They have lost the right to be reelected but they have not lost their obligation to work for the good of our sport. They can continue to provide input and guidance as long as they see the bigger picture.

The heart of the issue. Please read Des Crofton's letter on this point. The NASRPC agreed to a set of rules when they joined the SC. They broke these rules and everything discussed in this thread has flowed from this point. Once broken, trust is hard to reestablish-in the eyes of most of the Sporting Rifle and Pistol clubs in Ireland that is.

True, but not relevant to this debate. It is not what they do which is the problem, it is how they did it in recent times.

You are arguing against yourself here. 2000 is not a lot but the SC represents 16 times this number. There is strength in numbers so why leave the SC?




That is what they are there to do. It is part of the constitution. The argument is not what they do, it is how they have just done it!



Here I endorse what you are saying. But you must remember that many of the clubs who thought they were affiliated to the NASRPC and on whose ranges, the NASRPC has run "National" shoots this year, have suddenly discovered that they are no longer affiliated, meaning that their members can not vote at the AGM. You have not mentioned this issue in your discourse or the other non democratic actions that have taken place such as "avoiding" an EGM. It is these most recent events that have really exacerbated the problem in the eyes of many clubs and it it these issues which will figure in the minds of many attendees.

downrange

badaj0z wrote: »

Would you like to explain how you arrived at this conclusion? Does it include Target Rifle, Sporting Rifle, Pistol and clay pigeon shooters? Was it a statistical survey and if so what sample size? Did you ask a few friends in the pub or club? Or is it wishful thinking? Whatever it was, I think you should wait for the outcome of the AGM before you make such sweeping statements.

Now, you know that neither of us has completed a statistical survey but you seem to be of the opinion that the majority wish to remove the NASRPC committee and jump back into bed with the Sports Coalition. All that I am saying is that the reality on the ground is quite different, there are more NASRPC shooters that hare happy with the committee than those that are not happy.

I fully agree with you that we should all wait until the AGM but in that case this thread should be closed down and ALL parties should wait until the AGM. And, if you feel that I am making "sweeping statements", I think you should actually look at your own statements.

badaj0z

jb88 wrote: »

Quite frankly I think it was you who insulted a great many members of the NASRPC when you attempted to tarnish the good name of the president of the NASRPC, whom to any and all who know him have nothing but admiration for all the work he has done and will continue to do with the NASRPC.


Also just because you are not personally aware of something or anything for that matter does not mean it didn't happen. Or maybe just in your world.


It appears that you were the well informed person, yet you know very little, but its easy to use a forum like this to try and get many unfounded points across.


Due to your comment in relation to the president I will share no further information with you on the subject.

I do not understand your comments. The NASRPC does not have a President so how could I tarnish him or her? I have not tarnished anybody who does exist in the NASRPC in any of my posts. I have reported on events and outcomes. You and every other reader will have arrived at whatever conclusions they wished to make.

badaj0z

downrange wrote: »

All that I am saying is that the reality on the ground is quite different, there are more NASRPC shooters that hare happy with the committee than those that are not happy.

How many shooters in how many clubs have you spoken to? Sweeping statements?

downrange wrote: »

I fully agree with you that we should all wait until the AGM but in that case this thread should be closed down and ALL parties should wait until the AGM. And, if you feel that I am making "sweeping statements", I think you should actually look at your own statements.

Why would you want this thread closed down? Perhaps you do not like the information it contains being disseminated too widely? Maybe it contradicts the information being provided by those who wish to maintain the status quo?

downrange

badaj0z wrote: »

How many shooters in how many clubs have you spoken to? Sweeping statements?


Why would you want this thread closed down? Perhaps you do not like the information it contains being disseminated too widely? Maybe it contradicts the information being provided by those who wish to maintain the status quo?

I don't necessarily want this thread closed down, I simply said that in response to your comment that we should all wait for the AGM. If you want to silence everyone and wait until the AGM then closing the thread would be the only option.

downrange

I have now posted twice questioning the reasoning behind wanting the NASRPC to join back with the Sports Coalition.

So far, nobody has replied to explain why we now need the Sports Coalition so badly.

So, if any NASRPC shooter on here can outline specific reasons why the NASRPC must rejoin the Sports Coalition, can you please do so.

badaj0z

downrange wrote: »

I have now posted twice questioning the reasoning behind wanting the NASRPC to join back with the Sports Coalition.

So far, nobody has replied to explain why we now need the Sports Coalition so badly.

So, if any NASRPC shooter on here can outline specific reasons why the NASRPC must rejoin the Sports Coalition, can you please do so.

Why did the NASRPC join the SC in the first place? The answer to this question has been posted many times already in this thread-- STRENGTH IN NUMBERS.
The threat of further restrictions to our sports will never go away, not as long as there are sensationalist media outlets and politicians looking for a quick score. So if the threat still exists, then the reasons for being part of the SC still exist.
You have ignored the other 2 reasons why we are having this discussion:
Firstly, the way that the NASRPC committee handled it's relationship with the SC including the manner in which they left it.
Secondly, the way that the NASRPC committee has behaved in attempting to stop the clubs who want a change having a vote in the matter.
All of this has been laid out in detail in earlier posts in this thread. Please read them before asking for answers that have already been supplied.

jb88

Forgive my tone its not to be interpreted to be harsh, but it is direct.

Democracy - control of an organization or group by the Majority of its Members, The MAJORITY, not one or two clubs, the majority or in the case of calling for something to be changed a predefined number, which wasn't reached through written submission, this is documented throughout this forum. = no EGM...

If your Club's committee state you wish to no longer engage with the Committee, in your letter which was produced on this then that's it. (If you don't talk to the people who are democratically elected by the Majority of the clubs then quite frankly what would be the next logical course of action?)

Its not harsh, its reality.

I know the letter could have been worded differently, well ask the An Riocht committee to re write it with an apology. (Make that apology public)

If you call for the resignation of your own club Committee and refuse to engage with them?
What would happen?
Its not a viable solution to anyone's problems.

What is a solution? To re engage, have a meeting of which I am aware the NASRPC have offered on several occasions and find common ground, but have had no reply.

Some of the An Riocht committee were standing behind me at the hilltop meeting and all they wanted was answers to why the NASRPC should leave the SC, well as we all know the NASRPC never asked to join.

The NASRPC committee met for 7 Hours the following week, and made their decision.

To accept that soon after the NASRPC would have no representation at the FCP as a result of the Sports Coalition decision.

How can you support an organization when you have no individual representation?

More importantly how can the NASRPC then represent An Riocht and every other club when they have no representation at the FCP?

Do you find this acceptable? I as an individual club member don't find it acceptable. The Sports coalition no longer represented my views, my club views nor the organization who represents the clubs view.

The Sports Coalition have a different agenda so I wish them all the best of luck in the future.

An Riocht are a great club as all sporting clubs and associations are in Ireland, but a hand has to be offered out to be shaken by your committee and the NASRPC.

Because right now and in the future its moving forward without your clubs representation or participation and that s not good for anyone

cra wrote: »

It sounds like you are saying that An Riocht are attempting to "mob rule" the NASRPC and are trying to "strong arm" the committee. Where does this come from and why would you think that. We called for an EGM and yes we called for resignations initially, we thought that the NASRPC was a democratic organization but we were proved wrong. Yes we disagreed with the actions of the committee and we said so in the now famous letter, I accept that the letter could have been worded differently but the committee instead of acting like the big brother national organization that I would have expected it acted rashly and harshly pretty much giving An Riocht the two fingers. If any one can be accused of strong arming it is the committee.

jb88 you claim to be well informed and maybe you are but it sounds like to me anyway that you are well informed on one side of the argument. Look back over my posts and you will see some of An Riochts issues(not rumors), if you have any other questions give me a ring I think you have my number if not pm me.

downrange

badaj0z wrote: »

Why did the NASRPC join the SC in the first place? The answer to this question has been posted many times already in this thread-- STRENGTH IN NUMBERS.

I didn't ask why we joined in the first place, that is history, I asked why we need them now.

badaj0z wrote: »

The threat of further restrictions to our sports will never go away, not as long as there are sensationalist media outlets and politicians looking for a quick score. So if the threat still exists, then the reasons for being part of the SC still exist.

I know the threat will never go away but the NASRPC is capable of representing our own interests. Nobody better to represent Target Shooting than Target Shooters. We don't need the Sports Coalition (which is effectively an organisation under the control of one individual) to control us.

badaj0z wrote: »

You have ignored the other 2 reasons why we are having this discussion:
Firstly, the way that the NASRPC committee handled it's relationship with the SC including the manner in which they left it.
Secondly, the way that the NASRPC committee has behaved in attempting to stop the clubs who want a change having a vote in the matter.
All of this has been laid out in detail in earlier posts in this thread. Please read them before asking for answers that have already been supplied.

No, I haven't ignored those issues, I simply asked for a convincing argument as to why the NASRPC needs the Sports Coalition going forward (i.e. from this point forward, the other stuff is in the past).

Regarding your last two points above, I and many others feel that not all the blame lies with the NASRPC, the Sports Coalition did not handle the relationship with the NASRPC very well to begin with.

To re-cap, all I asked for is a convincing argument as to why it is essential for the NASRPC to rejoin the Sports Coalition now and going forward. Repeating the grievances about the NASRPC leaving in the first place does not answer my question.

BattleCorp

I would consider a seat on the FCP to be very valuable for an organisation interested in protecting and furthering their members interests.

If the NASRPC had stayed in the SC, then they would have had no representation on the FCP.

As things stand, they now have two seats on the FCP and one on the subs bench.

I would consider that a major success by leaving the SC.

As for negatives ......................... realistically, what are the negatives for not being in the SC?

downrange

I notice that the most recent post on the Sports Coalition website is related to Salmon Farming. I am sure that the topic is a very important issue to Salmon Farmers but this just further proves that Target Shooting needs to be represented by Target Shooters with a single minded and focused approach and not by an organisation trying to represent everybody.

No organisation can be expected to effectively further the interests of Target Shooters and Salmon Farmers at the same time.

The NASRPC is better off on its own two feet and well done to the committee for taking the necessary step to withdraw from the Sports Coalition. It was the best thing to do in the interests of Target Shooting.

Let us all look forward to the AGM and hopefully come out of it with a focused organisation with a mandate from its members to represent our interests and then we can start the competition season with only one thing in mind - that X in the centre of the target....

badaj0z

downrange wrote: »

I didn't ask why we joined in the first place, that is history, I asked why we need them now.



I know the threat will never go away but the NASRPC is capable of representing our own interests. Nobody better to represent Target Shooting than Target Shooters. We don't need the Sports Coalition (which is effectively an organisation under the control of one individual) to control us.



No, I haven't ignored those issues, I simply asked for a convincing argument as to why the NASRPC needs the Sports Coalition going forward (i.e. from this point forward, the other stuff is in the past).

Regarding your last two points above, I and many others feel that not all the blame lies with the NASRPC, the Sports Coalition did not handle the relationship with the NASRPC very well to begin with.

To re-cap, all I asked for is a convincing argument as to why it is essential for the NASRPC to rejoin the Sports Coalition now and going forward. Repeating the grievances about the NASRPC leaving in the first place does not answer my question.

I do not know whether it is you or I who is being thick here but you seem to have answered your own question in your own post. STRENGTH IN NUMBERS Why not take your argument one stage further. Why not have a separate National Organisation for Gallery Rifle Shooters and one for Pistol shooters and one for prone shooters and give them all seats on the FCP so that they can look after the peculiar interests of their disciplines. All of the arguments you have put forward are an attempt to justify an action after it was taken, especially as the action, leaving the SC, was in direct conflict with the directions given to the committee by the floor at the HIlltop meeting.

BattleCorp

downrange wrote: »

I notice that the most recent post on the Sports Coalition website is related to Salmon Farming. I am sure that the topic is a very important issue to Salmon Farmers but this just further proves that Target Shooting needs to be represented by Target Shooters with a single minded and focused approach and not by an organisation trying to represent everybody.

No organisation can be expected to effectively further the interests of Target Shooters and Salmon Farmers at the same time.

The NASRPC is better off on its own two feet and well done to the committee for taking the necessary step to withdraw from the Sports Coalition. It was the best thing to do in the interests of Target Shooting.

Let us all look forward to the AGM and hopefully come out of it with a focused organisation with a mandate from its members to represent our interests and then we can start the competition season with only one thing in mind - that X in the centre of the target....

I do and I don't agree with you if that makes any sense. I've no problem with the NASRPC standing alongside Salmon Farmers, that's not an issue for me.

But I do think that being excluded from the FCP by the SC wasn't in the interests of NASRPC members so I think that the NASRPC were right to leave the SC.

badaj0z

BattleCorp wrote: »

I would consider a seat on the FCP to be very valuable for an organisation interested in protecting and furthering their members interests.

If the NASRPC had stayed in the SC, then they would have had no representation on the FCP.

As things stand, they now have two seats on the FCP and one on the subs bench.

I would consider that a major success by leaving the SC.

As for negatives ......................... realistically, what are the negatives for not being in the SC?

The NASRPC has no seats on the FCP. An individual, who is a member of the NASRPC has a seat and another individual member of the NASRPC represents the Countryside alliance on the FCP. Do you consider this a success? I would also refer you to your colleague Downrange's post, where he questions what Salmon Farming and Shooting have in common and ask you to think about this in relation to the NASRPC and the Countryside Alliance.
The negatives are obvious, if there is strength in numbers, there is weakness in isolation from many perspectives including politics and finance,