NASRPC's exit of the Sport Coalition.

BattleCorp

Sparks wrote: »

No, it wouldn't be, not in the medium or long term and possibly not in the short term. Yes, you want to see people interested in target shooting showing up more and get more people like that into the sport and you should work to reduce or remove any barriers to that. But that's not the same thing as wanting to see people showing up who just want to unload a boomstick into sandbags (and don't really care if there are targets or not). People who just want to do that and who aren't into the whole "competition" thing (informal or not) will also not be into the whole "safety" thing and things like "range ettiquette" or "basic cop-on".

And I'm not saying anything new here either. You show up at any range in the country today and try to pull stupid stunts, you'll get uninvited in a fair hurry the moment the RO sees you doing so. Nobody wants to get injured because some yahoo wanted to make a lot of noise and didn't care where the lead was going. I don't think I've ever been on a range in Ireland where there weren't rules against that.

I'm normally agree with most of your posts but not in this instance.

You seem to be assuming that anybody who wants to own and use a semi auto centrefire just wants to let rip with it and doesn't really care about hitting a target. I don't have a semi auto centrefire but the guys I know who do have them are just as interested in hitting that little x with it as they are with their 10/22's.

Yes, we don't want ar5eholes who think they are Rambo blowing the sh1t out of things but it's wrong to assume that's all people want them for.

Sparks

I think we're actually saying the same thing Battlecorp, just using different terminology. It's specifically the "ar5eholes who think they are Rambo blowing the sh1t out of things" that I'm talking about, not people who'd like to try target shooting but don't have the time to spend every night training for competition.

Walter Mittys Brother

Sparks wrote: »

There's a difference between being a "competition junkie" and getting one for target shooting, yes; but I would be cautious about the use of overly casual language. You go in and say you want one for plinking and the first thing you might hear back could be "if you're just plinking, won't a .22lr do you just as well and be cheaper to boot? I mean, if it's just plinking, why won't 50m do? Why does it have to be 300?".


(and by the way, it'd be a completely reasonable statement - if you're getting one just because you want to have one as opposed to getting one because there's something you want to use one for... is that really the kind of culture you want at your local range? "Good reason" doesn't have to be "The Olympics And Nothing Lesser" or some such nonsense and Ministers have officially said so - but "I want one" still won't clear the bar and shouldn't).

"Plinking" was term jb used. For me, plinking is going to range, shooting at a target, going home happy. My point is surely this should be acceptable and not make comp entry mandatory.....too much mandatory stuff being forced on us atm. I wasn't inferring getting it to simply have it.

Walter Mittys Brother

Sparks wrote: »

No, it wouldn't be, not in the medium or long term and possibly not in the short term. Yes, you want to see people interested in target shooting showing up more and get more people like that into the sport and you should work to reduce or remove any barriers to that. But that's not the same thing as wanting to see people showing up who just want to unload a boomstick into sandbags (and don't really care if there are targets or not). People who just want to do that and who aren't into the whole "competition" thing (informal or not) will also not be into the whole "safety" thing and things like "range ettiquette" or "basic cop-on".

And I'm not saying anything new here either. You show up at any range in the country today and try to pull stupid stunts, you'll get uninvited in a fair hurry the moment the RO sees you doing so. Nobody wants to get injured because some yahoo wanted to make a lot of noise and didn't care where the lead was going. I don't think I've ever been on a range in Ireland where there weren't rules against that.

Not what I meant by " plinking". Do you think as people want semi auto it's only because they want to fire fast? Are you one of the tweed brigade?

Grizzly 45

I'm probably going to be accused of self-interest here and " Fuk ye, I got mine!" attitude.But that's your opinions and you are entitled to it

As one of the biggest pro semiauto ownership people here on the boards and having fought their corner against all comers, both here in Ireland and the EU.I have to agree partially with Sparks comments about it not being a good thing in the long or short term.. But not for his reasons.
The reasons are simply two things, image and history.
At the moment semi-auto rifles have an undeserved appaling image in the media and Hollywood and in the Western World where most of the ignorant and seemingly govt bodies in charge of licensing things seem to get their firearms info.We have a terrible habit of blaming inanimate objects rather than "the nut behind the butt." in these incidents.

And this ties in with the historical reason too. You see...I am a great believer in learning from history and especially Irish history which consists of Einstein's definition of lunacy..[Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.] And the 2009 pistol debacle is prima facie evidence of both those two reasons coming into effect.. 2006, pistols are legal, mass rush to get one.2500 licenses.Panic in Garda ,a creep of an anti-gun politician and a challenge in the Dail..Ban pistols at the first opportunity..Aha murder with an illegal handgun..that will do...Now we have less than 600 and a banned sport of IPSC.Where the second rule of "Ah be grand, nothing will happen!" kicked in "getting shotguns going for iPSC...No one is interested in that!" There went the fallback position...IPSC could be alive here today...but that's another circus...

We have about 160/70 SA CF rifles here.On average 90% of those licenses have been at least twice in the DC, paid by the owners own pockets. I don't think any of them would be pleased to see a whole slew of lads coming in and demanding CF SAs and invoking the two above effects so that everyone loses out.And believe you me we have had some right yahoos with semi-autos here already...One being involved in the "Sons of Limerick" Biker feud and murder this year.Whose Tacticool gun featured prominently on the Prime Time hatchet job on firearms three years ago in Garda HQ..Or the other one who decided to go for a walk around Donegal town with his in a 1 point tactical sling.

I'm NOT saying, far from it, that no one should get a license for one here because I got mine and fuk the rest of ya.. I'm saying, it's a very bad time to start monkeying about demanding a most hated gun type very loudly in the strictest gun controlled country in the entire European Union when you want it "just for the craic like".we lost pistols for the same reason. IF you are going to go for a license for one, just remember to get your reasoning 100% straight, and FS keep it quiet and discrete.Doing stupid sht and hanging a ton of tacticool nonsense on your gun and showing it off at the range is utterly stupid and will reflect badly on all of us SA owners.
You will become marked even more by AGS as well ,and they would like nothing better to get rid of the whole lot, so getting your semi-auto under any circumstances is their priority if you flag up doing something you shouldn't have been doing.[And that's what I got from one of my contacts in AGS] You are joining a very small select niche here, so it's on you to represent and keep it that way.
Remember one thing too, you are also expendable in the big picture of things if TSHTF in the Irish scene, if some bigger groups need to ever appease a ban or sacrifice someone in their interests.

Oh, and I hope you have a lot of money to shoot rapid fire with one. These puppies will EAT your wallet in ammo trying to keep them fed and surplus 5.56 or 7.62 NATO isn't that easily got here. And hunting ammo is a bit expensive for paper punching.

jb88

"Being a member or former member of the NASRPC i can understand your surprise at being given all the available inforamtion, but most people like to know if something they intend to buy has the possibility of being taken from them.".

CASS. I was never a "member", of the NASRPC, merely like everyone else a member of a club who were members of the NASRPC. (Past tense as my club is not now a member of the NASRPC)
An individual who competed in national and international events, that is my only previous association EVER with the NASRPC. Sorry to disappoint.

"The possibility of being taken away". again scaremongering.You wrote this.

Sparks

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

Not what I meant by " plinking". Do you think as people want semi auto it's only because they want to fire fast? Are you one of the tweed brigade?

By this point you already know from the above posts that we have the same definition of plinking, so I'll skip the scrap and just ask you this - why do you believe that the local Garda Superintendent has the same definition we do for plinking when they have no training budget for handling civilian firearms licencing, no real support in doing the job and in the vast vast majority of cases, no personal experience in target shooting of any variety?

Walter Mittys Brother

Sparks wrote: »

By this point you already know from the above posts that we have the same definition of plinking, so I'll skip the scrap and just ask you this - why do you believe that the local Garda Superintendent has the same definition we do for plinking when they have no training budget for handling civilian firearms licencing, no real support in doing the job and in the vast vast majority of cases, no personal experience in target shooting of any variety?

If there's a "scrap" it'll be on your side. I simply don't agree with the way you interpreted my post.

"Plinking" isn't a word I'd use in relation to shooting. But then again I didn't introduce it in the thread. I agree wouldn't be a good word to use on a firearms application

Grizzly 45

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

Bad precedent to set. We're not all comp junkies. Why shouldn't you get one to "plink" at your local range?

Well,if your idea of plinking is sending on average 1euro of the cheapest .308 rounds or 75 cents of .223 downrange is "plinking"....Each to their own:)

Of course, if we could own conversion kits for .22 as can our European neighbours...Then yes a SA in .22 is a mighty fun gun.

Cass

jb88 wrote: »

CASS. I was never a "member", of the NASRPC, merely like everyone else a member of a club who were members of the NASRPC. (Past tense as my club is not now a member of the NASRPC)
An individual who competed in national and international events, that is my only previous association EVER with the NASRPC.

Semantics.

Sorry to disappoint.

You overestimate your value/worth to me.

.......... again scaremongering.You wrote this.

Of course i wrote it, it's right there.

However if you're saying that a future ban (or Grandfathering or any other form of restriction whereby no one else can license them or those with licenses after the Dail statement might loose them) is not possible then please just come out and say it.

At that point i'll ask how you can guarantee it, and apologise for mentioning it.

Cass

Tackleberry. wrote: »

Yet the facts are yet to be seen why the NASRPC rejoined the SC I hope your Rep spells it out clearly so all this can be put to bed.

So i had a long conversation with my Rep today.

He spoke to the NASRPC a couple of weeks ago and sought clarification on the status of the nasrpc and the sc. The response he got was vague, and frankly beyond belief. He was told "i don't know" when asked if the nasrpc had affiliated once again to the sc. He was promised it would be asked/looked into and then an answer forthcoming.

How can they not know? Either they are or are not. A simple yes or no would resolve this issue immediately. If yes then ranges/clubs must ask themselves do they support the proposals of the sc, and now the nasrpc by affiliation, and want these people representing them on the FCP. If no, then the sc need to explain why they are using the nasrpc logo on their website without permission, and why are some nasrpc committee members sending out circulars signed off on as being a member of the sc.

The way things stand its either one side [of the nasrpc] not telling the other what is happening, in which case things are being done/agreed to without the consensus of the committee and by default the knowledge of the clubs or there is consensus [of the committee] and the committee have not put a vote to the clubs and are acting on their own "authority". Again without the knowledge/agreement of the clubs. There is a third option, but i'll hold off on mentioning it until i get a reply from my Rep.

Over the last couple of months since this began:

• The nasrpc have refused to answer direct questions.
• The only response i did get was sarcastic and would neither confirm or deny the re-affiliation.
• Now they are vague to an official request from a club.
• I have people on this thread telling me the nasrpc joined two years ago.
• I have shown that no such vote/motion took place and hence never happened.
• We then have member(s) of the nasrpc sending out info letters signed off as "nasrpc is a member of the sports coalition" which means some committee members see themselves as sc affiliated and others don't know.

Walter Mittys Brother

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Well,if your idea of plinking is sending on average 1euro of the cheapest .308 rounds or 75 cents of .223 downrange is "plinking"....Each to their own:)

Of course, if we could own conversion kits for .22 as can our European neighbours...Then yes a SA in .22 is a mighty fun gun.

Your assuming that plinking is done at a faster rate of rounds fired than if I use a bolt action? For me plinking is target shooting in a non competitive way not necessarily the same as " blazing" or "spraying" a target

Hopefully that's cleared that up.

BattleCorp

Cass wrote: »

So i had a long conversation with my Rep today.

He spoke to the NASRPC a couple of weeks ago and sought clarification on the status of the nasrpc and the sc. The response he got was vague, and frankly beyond belief. He was told "i don't know" when asked if the nasrpc had affiliated once again to the sc.

Am I correct in assuming that "spoke to the NASRPC" means that your club rep spoke to a NASRPC committee member? Fairly shocking if a NASRPC committee member couldn't (or wasn't willing) to say if they were a member of the SC or not.

He was promised it would be asked/looked into and then an answer forthcoming.

It's a fairly bad state of affairs when a club rep can't get an answer from the NASRPC in a couple of weeks seeing as he asked the question a couple of weeks ago. If one NASRPC committee member didn't know the answer to that question, would it not be as simple as phoning someone else on the NASRPC committee and just asking them?

Sounds more like they don't want to answer that question.

Grizzly 45

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

Your assuming that plinking is done at a faster rate of rounds fired than if I use a bolt action? For me plinking is target shooting in a non competitive way not necessarily the same as " blazing" or "spraying" a target

Hopefully that's cleared that up.

Go to where the definition of plinking came from.The USA, where it is still legal to go out to your back 40 dirt lot or down to your local towns "free fire range", basically the town dump/scrap yard and shoot at everything from tin cans to whatever domestic appliance you brought out there, with whatever calibre you want.IOW utter fun shooting with whatever you want to shoot.

Trouble is, that even in the USA, the BATFE won't even accept Plinking as a good reason for some types of firearm to be imported or sold. Or that plinking is a legit use of a firearm...
So transfer that train of thought to this, the most anal of gun controlled countries in the Western world.Who seem to get all their firearms knowledge from Hollywood.What sort of an image do you think they have of "plinking " here?Remember image is everything in a gun controllers mind, facts ,not at all.

jb88

Cass wrote: »

Being a member or former member of the NASRPC i can understand your surprise at being given all the available inforamtion, but most people like to know if something they intend to buy has the possibility of being taken from them.

Back in say January of 2009 if someone approached you and asked if they should buy a C/F pistol, you are saying you'd tell them to go for it? You wouldn't have warned them that doing so will/would result in them loosing it come June 2009?


So you're basing the accusation of scaremongering on the possibility of my information being incorrect?

You're not even saying it's wrong,only that it's possibly wrong. The reason you cannot say i'm wrong is twofold:

• I didn't say they would be banned, only that given the Minster's statement the option to do so it there.
• You cannot guarantee they won't be banned.

Absolutely.

Poor advice. You own it regardless of whether you license it or not (and i don't mean it in relation to this topic, i just mean if someone gets refused on "normal" grounds)

I presume you mean about the "post code lottery" system we have?

Competitions and competitive history are not prerequisites of licensing. I got mine with no history of comp attendance. I gave my reasons, and i got it.


Why?

Correct again.

Yet the same groups come back time and again. Each time someone like you says "it's in the past" and we should move on.

How many times, and i said this the last time too, do we ignore the actions of a few that have consequences for many? At some point it's not a series of individual actions but a pattern.

Cass wrote: »

Semantics.


You overestimate your value/worth to me.


Of course i wrote it, it's right there.

However if you're saying that a future ban (or Grandfathering or any other form of restriction whereby no one else can license them or those with licenses after the Dail statement might loose them) is not possible then please just come out and say it.

At that point i'll ask how you can guarantee it, and apologise for mentioning it.

Still not previously a member of the NASRPC, just a former participant NOR IS MY CLUB for that matter.

"Grandfathering", your words not mine.
I will say it, today, there is no ban on the licencing of semi automatic centrefire rifles in the Republic of Ireland. NO Written law that I am aware of yet passed.

The Dails members make statements about lots of stuff every day they are in session since the foundation of the state, how much of it makes it into the legislation? very little.

its only you who mention future bans, not me.
Until its law or about to be enacted legislation or even passed the first debate for consideration, then some of what you have written may make sense, until then, Please please please stop scarmongering people about getting a cf semi auto rifle.

Get back your original task of asking questions which will never be answered by the NASRPC, that seems to be going well at the moment.

Walter Mittys Brother

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

Your assuming that plinking is done at a faster rate of rounds fired than if I use a bolt action? For me plinking is target shooting in a non competitive way not necessarily the same as " blazing" or "spraying" a target

Hopefully that's cleared that up.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Go to where the definition of plinking came from.The USA, where it is still legal to go out to your back 40 dirt lot or down to your local towns "free fire range", basically the town dump/scrap yard and shoot at everything from tin cans to whatever domestic appliance you brought out there, with whatever calibre you want.IOW utter fun shooting with whatever you want to shoot.

Trouble is, that even in the USA, the BATFE won't even accept Plinking as a good reason for some types of firearm to be imported or sold. Or that plinking is a legit use of a firearm...
So transfer that train of thought to this, the most anal of gun controlled countries in the Western world.Who seem to get all their firearms knowledge from Hollywood.What sort of an image do you think they have of "plinking " here?Remember image is everything in a gun controllers mind, facts ,not at all.

Obviously it didn't make my position clear so

Grizzly 45

No I don't think I did..:)
You are saying you are just shooting at a regular pace at a "target" We'll leave semantics aside for a moment, as I assume if you are shooting on a range its's at paper targets and not that laptop or washing machine that finally peed you off?

"Plinking" in the States and the definition would travel over here, is just fun shooting for the Hell of it at any old item that poses as a target, be it with a .22 or a full auto 50 cal at the l machine gun shoot.A course of fire, amount of ammo or how fast or slow you pull the trigger is irrelevant.It's just fun shooting.
So saying you want a SA CF for "plinking" down the range could put all sorts of weird and wonderful thoughts into your CS head.

I know where you are coming from with this, and obviously "spray&pray" isn't going to be happening on any ranges here, you need to be 100% dead on all the time on why you want one of the most hated guns here. It's like the same reason the dOJ prohibited any imports for sale of the Charter Arms AR7 "survival rifle" [the rifle that you can pack up into its stock and floats] because it had the word "survival" in there and that scared the bejesus out of someone.

Walter Mittys Brother

I wasn't even the one who introduced "plinking"into the thread

OK so, wherever I used "plinking" insert "informal target shooting". I originally used it in reply to JB88 now I'm being held responsible for it

Cass

BattleCorp wrote: »

Am I correct in assuming that "spoke to the NASRPC" means that your club rep spoke to a NASRPC committee member? Fairly shocking if a NASRPC committee member couldn't (or wasn't willing) to say if they were a member of the SC or not.

I cannot say who they spoke to, only that they spoke to the nasrpc. I'd asume that meant someone in the know, meaning a committee member but cannot say for definite..

It's a fairly bad state of affairs when a club rep can't get an answer from the NASRPC in a couple of weeks seeing as he asked the question a couple of weeks ago. If one NASRPC committee member didn't know the answer to that question, would it not be as simple as phoning someone else on the NASRPC committee and just asking them?

Sounds more like they don't want to answer that question.

I'll know in a few days as i was told they'll "look into it" and get back to my rep.

Cass

jb88 wrote: »

........ until then, Please please please stop scarmongering people about getting a cf semi auto rifle.
.

If some of what i say makes sense then the possibility of a ban also makes sense.

Stop pussy footing around and come out, here and now, and say there will not be a ban on semi auto rifles in the future. If it's scaremongering then it's an easy statement to make.

BattleCorp

Cass wrote: »

I cannot say who they spoke to, only that they spoke to the nasrpc. I'd asume that meant someone in the know, meaning a committee member but cannot say for definite..

I'll know in a few days as i was told they'll "look into it" and get back to my rep.

Did your club rep get an answer from the NASRPC yet regarding membership of the SC?

jb88

Cass wrote: »

If some of what i say makes sense then the possibility of a ban also makes sense.

Stop pussy footing around and come out, here and now, and say there will not be a ban on semi auto rifles in the future. If it's scaremongering then it's an easy statement to make.

So you can see into the future?

Cass

BattleCorp wrote: »

Did your club rep get an answer from the NASRPC yet regarding membership of the SC?

Nope. Seems no one is worthy enough to be told.

Cass

jb88 wrote: »

So you can see into the future?

You going to keep avoiding the subject? I've asked three times now and three times you've made a smart arse remark and avoided the question.

Perhaps the fourth time might work.

Come out now and say semi autos will not be the subject of a ban, cap or any sort of restriction/grandfathering. If you stand by your convictions and come out and say it clearly then time will tell if i'm scaremongering or you're living in denial.

Grizzly 45

Cass wrote: »

Nope. Seems no one is worthy enough to be told.

Maybe because he is the new boy in the Fraternity house and hasn't been initiated into all the secret rituals yet??:):rolleyes:

BattleCorp

Cass wrote: »

Nope. Seems no one is worthy enough to be told.

Still no word eh? Must be well over a month since the club rep sought information and still no word.

When asked in the Target Shooting Forum if anyone would be in attendance to answer questions at the Introduction and Training day in MNSCI on Sunday 3rd December, this was the NASRPC response.

This will be purely an introductory and training day on Gallery Rifle and Pistol shooting.

I'm guessing that this statement means that if Committee members are in attendance, they won't answer questions relating to the SC.

Gleefulprinter

I was told they are a member of the SC.

BattleCorp

Gleefulprinter wrote: »

I was told they are a member of the SC.

By a Committee member?

They seem awful reluctant to confirm or deny if they are a member of the SC when asked here. And elsewhere for that matter too.

Gleefulprinter

Yes from a comittee member. Asked straight out in the club.

cavan shooter

BattleCorp wrote: »

Gleefulprinter wrote: »

I was told they are a member of the SC.

By a Committee member?

They seem awful reluctant to confirm or deny if they are a member of the SC when asked here. And elsewhere for that matter too.

Seems a lot of people are ashamed to admit membership of the SC. The fishing crowd in Bird walked away from me.