NASRPC's exit of the Sport Coalition.

clivej

NASRPC.................

Hello all,
Just wanted to introduce the incoming NASRPC committee, but before that a very sincere thanks to the outgoing committee for all their service and support over the years.
The committee members are:
Karl O’Brien (Hilltop), Vice Chair.
Nicholas Flood (East Coast), Hon. Secretary.
Mike Nestor (Harbour House) Treasurer.
Mick McGrath (An Riocht), Asst. Secretary.
James Connolly (Lough Bo), PRO.
Jeff McCann (MTSC), National Competition Director.
Declan Keogh (Harbour House), National Training and Development Officer,
Noel Thompson ( Harbour House), Child Protection officer.

We hope to be of useful service to you the individual members and the clubs. We look forward to seeing you on the firing line.
Gerry McCarthy (MTSC) Chairman.

Tea drinker

BattleCorp wrote: »

So, ignore the constitution and move on because it suits you, is that what you are saying?

Things weren't done properly.

There was no vote to rejoin the coalition. If the majority of shooters vote to rejoin the coalition then I'll go along with that. But I won't be told something was voted on when it wasn't.

Well during and prior the meeting The constitution was getting mentioned like the Koran at a meeting between Shia and Sunni, but now it's a new committee we go straight back to the old ways, but the new committee get a pass on ignoring the constition? Eh no.....

1. We are one day in and already messing a bit
2. We are ONLY one day in so lets not xxxx the bed yet

Lets start like we mean to go on.

Tinybelle

I have just joined this thread and having read through it plus the other thread regarding the EGM I am truly shocked at the personal and vendictive nature of most of them. What I have not read is the actual truth regarding the NASRPC and the Sports Coalition. So for the avoidance of doubt and with first hand knowledge here is what I know, for a fact.

Mick Tope, in my kitchen received a phone call telling him of the plan by the DOJ and the Gardai regarding restrictions and cancellation of many types of our firearms with in two months. He saw red. He vowed there and then and 'while I have a breath in my body i wont let what happened in 2009 happen again'. Within seconds he phoned at least 20 people telling them of what was planned. He decided that night that the NASRPC was not strong enough on it own to fight this already underway plan and that the NASRPC would have to approach other organisations to join in this almost impossible task. So let me be crystal clear, Mick Tope and the NASRPC founded the Sports Coalition. He didn't want any glory and therefore did not lead this coalition, all he wanted is 'not to be fx*&ed over, like the last time".
The meetings, phone calls, powerpoint presentations and shear time he and the NASRPC devoted to fighting for us to keep our sport is too long to mention. Eventually, the SI was issued and while some people will be affected it was not what he wanted by any means. 4 places were allocated to the SC. However, not one was given to the NASRPC. NOT ONE even though they founded the SC.. talk about being stabbed in the back!
So, Mick being Mick still didn't give up. He wanted our interests to be heard at those meetings. After meetings with SC to negotiate a seat, WHICH FAILED a marathon meeting of the NASRPC committee (over 5 hours) ensued. By a majority they voted to leave the SC in order to gain an independent seat. BTW, Mick voted to stay in the SC at that meeting. And in the end got not one but two Nasrpc members seats.

I was present during all these calls, proof read his presentations, made him something to eat at 2am when he'd come from meetings. I saw how utterly exhausted he was dealing with this, and working full time and doing his PhD and dealing with the usual Nasrpc business - competitions etc. Not one penny did he receive nor thanks did he get not that he wanted it, all he wanted was for us to keep our sport. The personal attacks were just utterly shameful.


And then the AGM..... there was a mob mentality from the start....you could cut the air with a knife attendees were out for blood before the meeting ever began. Congratulations. .. you got it. You will never find a more dedicated man or team to fight for your rights. Mick Tope was Mike Tyson. .. and he was fighting on OUR side.
If it wasn't for him and the NASRPC we'd all be in our local Garda stations handing in our firearms right now with no compensation. Ye should be down on your knees kissing the ground he and the NASRPC walk on for saving what we have.
I sincerely hope the new committee don't have us crying in our beer in a few years time.

I know this is all mute now but I had to tell you what I know for a fact... I was there.

clivej

Tinybelle wrote: »

I have just joined this thread and having read through it plus the other thread regarding the EGM I am truly shocked at the personal and vendictive nature of most of them. What I have not read is the actual truth regarding the NASRPC and the Sports Coalition. So for the avoidance of doubt and with first hand knowledge here is what I know, for a fact.

Mick Tope, in my kitchen received a phone call telling him of the plan by the DOJ and the Gardai regarding restrictions and cancellation of many types of our firearms with in two months. He saw red. He vowed there and then and 'while I have a breath in my body i wont let what happened in 2009 happen again'. Within seconds he phoned at least 20 people telling them of what was planned. He decided that night that the NASRPC was not strong enough on it own to fight this already underway plan and that the NASRPC would have to approach other organisations to join in this almost impossible task. So let me be crystal clear, Mick Tope and the NASRPC founded the Sports Coalition. He didn't want any glory and therefore did not lead this coalition, all he wanted is 'not to be fx*&ed over, like the last time".
The meetings, phone calls, powerpoint presentations and shear time he and the NASRPC devoted to fighting for us to keep our sport is too long to mention. Eventually, the SI was issued and while some people will be affected it was not what he wanted by any means. 4 places were allocated to the SC. However, not one was given to the NASRPC. NOT ONE even though they founded the SC.. talk about being stabbed in the back!
So, Mick being Mick still didn't give up. He wanted our interests to be heard at those meetings. After meetings with SC to negotiate a seat, WHICH FAILED a marathon meeting of the NASRPC committee (over 5 hours) ensued. By a majority they voted to leave the SC in order to gain an independent seat. BTW, Mick voted to stay in the SC at that meeting. And in the end got not one but two Nasrpc members seats.

I was present during all these calls, proof read his presentations, made him something to eat at 2am when he'd come from meetings. I saw how utterly exhausted he was dealing with this, and working full time and doing his PhD and dealing with the usual Nasrpc business - competitions etc. Not one penny did he receive nor thanks did he get not that he wanted it, all he wanted was for us to keep our sport. The personal attacks were just utterly shameful.


And then the AGM..... there was a mob mentality from the start....you could cut the air with a knife attendees were out for blood before the meeting ever began. Congratulations. .. you got it. You will never find a more dedicated man or team to fight for your rights. Mick Tope was Mike Tyson. .. and he was fighting on OUR side.
If it wasn't for him and the NASRPC we'd all be in our local Garda stations handing in our firearms right now with no compensation. Ye should be down on your knees kissing the ground he and the NASRPC walk on for saving what we have.
I sincerely hope the new committee don't have us crying in our beer in a few years time.

I know this is all mute now but I had to tell you what I know for a fact... I was there.

That all sounds about true, and the way I was hearing how things were going down. Mick is a gent

Cass

I was hesitant to reply to this post as the topic does not concern me from a member point of view (as i'm not a member), and the discussion may meander away from the topic of the thread however it does concern me because of the tone in it. So what i've written below is my understanding. Please correct me if i'm wrong or there is another version.

Tinybelle wrote: »

Mick Tope, in my kitchen received a phone call telling him of the plan by the DOJ and the Gardai regarding restrictions and cancellation of many types of our firearms with in two months. He saw red. He vowed there and then and 'while I have a breath in my body i wont let what happened in 2009 happen again'.

Let what happen exactly?

This. A simple way to avoid it was not to do it. If not C/F handguns then what exactly was done that bothered him?

Within seconds he phoned at least 20 people telling them of what was planned. He decided that night that the NASRPC was not strong enough on it own to fight this already underway plan and that the NASRPC would have to approach other organisations to join in this almost impossible task. So let me be crystal clear, Mick Tope and the NASRPC founded the Sports Coalition.

So instead of using the already in place FCP he decided to start a new group with non of the recognition or history of the FCP? Would talking to all the NGBs already in the FCP not have been a better idea. Then asking the NARGC to rejoin it?

Eventually, the SI was issued and while some people will be affected it was not what he wanted by any means.

The SI? This one. All that done was clarify the position with .22 pistols, which was a good thing.

Perhaps you are referring to the rest of the stuff the Minister announced. All the things the "Sports Coalition" called for and were delighted to hear the Working group was taking their proposals on board. Things like:

• Cap on semi auto C/F rifles
• Further restrictions on .22 pistols
• Graduated license (exactly like the plan from 2009)

At this point the NASRPC was still a strong member of the SC and if they disagree with any of the proposals of the SC why did they not leave now instead of waiting until they found out they were not getting a seat on the FCP as part of the SC?

.. talk about being stabbed in the back!

Well according to the SC's own website they submitted the above proposals on 20th February but only released this information 2 days after the Working group released their interim report (April). So when you talk about being "stabbed in the back" are you referring to the act of doing things that go against the greater shooting communities preferences/wishes or maybe just doing things behind closed doors and without the input of any other shooting groups? You know, exactly what was done.

You will never find a more dedicated man or team to fight for your rights. Mick Tope was Mike Tyson. .. and he was fighting on OUR side.
If it wasn't for him and the NASRPC we'd all be in our local Garda stations handing in our firearms right now with no compensation. Ye should be down on your knees kissing the ground he and the NASRPC walk on for saving what we have.

I would argue his methods, but i'll give anyone Kudos for doing anything to further the sport. However when you look back at the actions of the NASRPC on their own and in conjunction with the SC i would ask are you seriously expecting me (won't speak for anyone else) to believe that all the actions taken since 2009 have (or would have, had they not been illegal and/or ignored) benefited the sport in any way other than to leave the rest of the shooting community scrambling to try and do damage protection and undo the harm caused by them. I won't speak about the man himself as i've never met him, but can only discuss the events he has put his name to.

I've heard all the bulls**t answers about it being in the past. I've said time and again how ignoring the past leads us to repeat the same mistakes. However at some point you have to ask if they are not simply mistakes but purposeful acts. The 2009 pistol grab, 2011 funding, founding/joining (honestly who gives a sh*t how this came about) the "Sports Coalition", then the seemingly endless list of f**k ups which include:

• Ignoring the FCP route for this "coalition"
• Splitting of existing groups into splinter groups (RFDs, Range operators, etc)
• Secret proposals (sent in 2009, 2011, 2015)
• Calling for caps (illegal and throwing other sports under the bus)
• The Prime Time show (when everyone else ran from it)

So if i've gotten anything wrong then please enlighten me as to what exactly he, and the NASRPC, has done that has prevented anyone from loosing guns. Considering all the above, the caps, the secret proposals, etc. that will see hundreds of us possibly loose our guns, and leave others unable to apply.

Backbarrel

Sorry to resurrect a thread from so long ago but are the sports coalition still in existence?

I had a look at their Facebook page and it is a year out of date and the website is not much better.

What's the story here?

cavan shooter

Backbarrel wrote:

I had a look at their Facebook page and it is a year out of date and the website is not much better.

Backbarrel wrote:

Sorry to resurrect a thread from so long ago but are the sports coalition still in existence?

Backbarrel wrote:

What's the story here?

Actually just looked there and agree there fone quiet but I dont think there meant to be anything more than something like the wooden spoon that the Mammy used to have. Take them out shake it around and threaten the garda and Politicians every now and again...Seriously I think it is dead or stagnant.

Backbarrel

Yeah, well I was wondering. it seems to be a "vehicle" for certain people but how much input do the member associations involved actually have?

When was the last meeting?

All gone very quiet since the purse strings were tightened in a certain association?

cavan shooter

Jaysus dont start that....

But after taking time and reading the minutes of the meeting in October they seem to be hat tippers.....doing a lot of agreeing with the Gardai "shared Concerns".....the ****ers are hanging us.

I asked our lads over the Christmas about it and they seem to know nothing which has me worried. At a Christmas shoot I heard lads chatting that the PTB want the Banning Lamping of foxes, now I read it....FFS

When can the shooting man get fair representation in this Country. Its sole destroying

Backbarrel

cavan shooter wrote: »

Jaysus dont start that....

But after taking time and reading the minutes of the meeting in October they seem to be hat tippers.....doing a lot of agreeing with the Gardai "shared Concerns".....the ****ers are hanging us.

I asked our lads over the Christmas about it and they seem to know nothing which has me worried. At a Christmas shoot I heard lads chatting that the PTB want the Banning Lamping of foxes, now I read it....FFS

When can the shooting man get fair representation in this Country. Its sole destroying

I wonder will the SC be aired at NARGC GOv Body Meeting.

A lot of clubs very unhappy with what they see coming down the tracks..

Cass

Posting in this thread as it's germane to the point i want to make.

In this thread on the proposed ban on night shooting we discussed the use of shooting associations logos by the sports coalition. It was discovered that the sc used logos without consent from the association and has since removed at least one from their website. However during this i found that the nasrpc's logo was now back on the sc's website. A curiosity for sure, but a simple cheeky move by the sc, or so i thought.

I contacted the NASRPC via Boards' PM system, their e-mail, messenger on their FB page and even through the contact section on their website. As said here i was expecting a quick and resounding "No, we've not rejoined the SC", however i received a limp "m'eh" with no outright denial. The language used in the PMs was such that it made out that those complaining about the proposed ban were whinging for no reason. This is the attitude of someone that either agrees with the proposed ban or has links to the group that proposed them. At this point i had only made contact via PM, so after this PM exchange i decided i needed to know if they had rejoined, and so used the other mediums listed above.

That was over 10 days ago and i've received no response. Now previous experience with the NASRPC has taught me that when they have done something that was not known about and/or is unpopular that they shut the doors, and ignore all correspondence from every source until the issue has died down. After some time they test the water with some release/statement about something unrelated to the topic, and if they receive no backlash they resume normal operations.

Without any verification i'm starting to think/believe the NASRPC have actually rejoined the Sports Coalition. Now if this is the case i'll be asking some pointed questions of some people and even some ranges/groups that are affiliated to the NASRPC. Questions such as:

• We're you told the NASRPC were rejoining?
• Do you agree with the SC's proposed ban?
• Are you going to remain affiliated to the NASRPC knowing they now support the SC?
• Do you expect to keep all your membership if you decide to remain affiliated?

This is, of course, all based on the silence and lack of clarification from the NASRPC. Perhaps they have not rejoined, but why stay quiet if this is the case? If they have not rejoined a simple "No" would suffice. However i've a sneaking suspicion they have.

Backbarrel

Cass wrote: »

Posting in this thread as it's germane to the point i want to make.

In this thread on the proposed ban on night shooting we discussed the use of shooting associations logos by the sports coalition. It was discovered that the sc used logos without consent from the association and has since removed at least one from their website. However during this i found that the nasrpc's logo was now back on the sc's website. A curiosity for sure, but a simple cheeky move by the sc, or so i thought.

I contacted the NASRPC via Boards' PM system, their e-mail, messenger on their FB page and even through the contact section on their website. As said here i was expecting a quick and resounding "No, we've not rejoined the SC", however i received a limp "m'eh" with no outright denial. The language used in the PMs was such that it made out that those complaining about the proposed ban were whinging for no reason. This is the attitude of someone that either agrees with the proposed ban or has links to the group that proposed them. At this point i had only made contact via PM, so after this PM exchange i decided i needed to know if they had rejoined, and so used the other mediums listed above.

That was over 10 days ago and i've received no response. Now previous experience with the NASRPC has taught me that when they have done something that was not known about and/or is unpopular that they shut the doors, and ignore all correspondence from every source until the issue has died down. After some time they test the water with some release/statement about something unrelated to the topic, and if they receive no backlash they resume normal operations.

Without any verification i'm starting to think/believe the NASRPC have actually rejoined the Sports Coalition. Now if this is the case i'll be asking some pointed questions of some people and even some ranges/groups that are affiliated to the NASRPC. Questions such as:

• We're you told the NASRPC were rejoining?
• Do you agree with the SC's proposed ban?
• Are you going to remain affiliated to the NASRPC knowing they now support the SC?
• Do you expect to keep all your membership if you decide to remain affiliated?

This is, of course, all based on the silence and lack of clarification from the NASRPC. Perhaps they have not rejoined, but why stay quiet if this is the case? If they have not rejoined a simple "No" would suffice. However i've a sneaking suspicion they have.

Holy crap..we live in strange times.

A no comment = yes in many places..

Shocking if true..

cavan shooter

Backbarrel wrote: »

Cass wrote: »

Posting in this thread as it's germane to the point i want to make.

In this thread on the proposed ban on night shooting we discussed the use of shooting associations logos by the sports coalition. It was discovered that the sc used logos without consent from the association and has since removed at least one from their website. However during this i found that the nasrpc's logo was now back on the sc's website. A curiosity for sure, but a simple cheeky move by the sc, or so i thought.

I contacted the NASRPC via Boards' PM system, their e-mail, messenger on their FB page and even through the contact section on their website. As said here i was expecting a quick and resounding "No, we've not rejoined the SC", however i received a limp "m'eh" with no outright denial. The language used in the PMs was such that it made out that those complaining about the proposed ban were whinging for no reason. This is the attitude of someone that either agrees with the proposed ban or has links to the group that proposed them. At this point i had only made contact via PM, so after this PM exchange i decided i needed to know if they had rejoined, and so used the other mediums listed above.

That was over 10 days ago and i've received no response. Now previous experience with the NASRPC has taught me that when they have done something that was not known about and/or is unpopular that they shut the doors, and ignore all correspondence from every source until the issue has died down. After some time they test the water with some release/statement about something unrelated to the topic, and if they receive no backlash they resume normal operations.

Without any verification i'm starting to think/believe the NASRPC have actually rejoined the Sports Coalition. Now if this is the case i'll be asking some pointed questions of some people and even some ranges/groups that are affiliated to the NASRPC. Questions such as:

• We're you told the NASRPC were rejoining?
• Do you agree with the SC's proposed ban?
• Are you going to remain affiliated to the NASRPC knowing they now support the SC?
• Do you expect to keep all your membership if you decide to remain affiliated?

This is, of course, all based on the silence and lack of clarification from the NASRPC. Perhaps they have not rejoined, but why stay quiet if this is the case? If they have not rejoined a simple "No" would suffice. However i've a sneaking suspicion they have.

Holy crap..we live in strange times.

A no comment = yes in many places..

Shocking if true..

It's the equivalent to plausible deniability.

Cass

I have to stress that at this point we still don't know where they stand. However if it is the case that they have rejoined then its the same crap as i've seen time and again when they have done something either in secret or against the wishes of the majority, they remain quiet. Give it a few weeks to a month for everyone to forget, and then come out as though nothing happened.

The Ostrich approach.

Gleefulprinter

Show us the PMs.

Cass

The PM system is named private for that very reason. Any communication using the PM system is between the users, and them only. It's why no one else can see them.

The only way for ANYONE to show a PM on the open forum would be for both parties to agree to have them published. If one party were to publish them without the consent of the other party it would result in infractions/bans for that party.

As i said above the PMs did not confirm or deny if they joined the sc again. The language was vague and non committal. However i believe there is an e-mail doing the rounds and its signed off as NASRPC Member of the Sports Coalition. From April of this year.

So any NASRPC member out there willing to confirm receiving this e-mail?

homerhop

Any reply?

LB6

homerhop wrote: »

Any reply?

Now that was funny :):D:D:D:D

Cass

homerhop wrote: »

Any reply?

No, but i'd be a fool to expect one.

BattleCorp

Cass wrote: »

No, but i'd be a fool to expect one.

Bad form for a NGB not to give a straight answer to a simple question. Either they are in the SC or they are not in the SC.

How hard is it to give either a yes or no.

Cass

I've never gotten a reply from the NASRPC.

When they done this or this, they never once replied to any mail from any person that contacted them. Instead they stick their fingers in their ears, hum, and when they think everyone has forgotten about it or it's been long enough that people won't be angry they come out as though nothing has happened.

This has been their way for years so i don't expect it to change now.

Walter Mittys Brother

Cass wrote: »

No, but i'd be a fool to expect one.

MNSCI are in NASRPC.

Aren't you a member of MNSCI?

Cass

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

MNSCI are in NASRPC.

They affiliated earlier this year.

Aren't you a member of MNSCI?

Your point?

Walter Mittys Brother

Cass wrote: »

Your point?

As a member of an affialated club you can ask your clubb to ask NASRPC the question or is that not possible?

NASRPC is a club organisation maybe they don't feel they need to correspond with individuals?

Cass

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

As a member of an affialated club you can ask your clubb to ask NASRPC the question or is that not possible?

No idea.

The whole "affiliation" thing would not be my cup of tea and i dno't know how it works. However as i said above:

Cass wrote:

Now if this is the case i'll be asking some pointed questions of some people and even some ranges/groups that are affiliated to the NASRPC

NASRPC is a club organisation maybe they don't feel they don't correspond with individuals?

Again i don't know how it works.

As a member of the MNSCI i go there and shoot. I don't deal with nor am i involved in the running of the range or how the range committee act. However if the NASRPC has rejoined the so called "sports coalition" and the range is affiliated to it through the NASRPC then i'll be asking for answers from the range.

This shouldd be the case with any and all ranges affiliated to the NASRPC. With so many speaking out against the sc, and its secret and bastardised proposals, it makes me wonder why the NASRPC would rejoin and why more clubs are not talking wit their feet (out the door).

The NASRPC only exists as long as clubs affiliate. Like the NARGC. It only exists as long as local/county clubs sign up it. Stop that and they cease to exist.

I have to say i'll fairly pissed at the notion that the NASRPC would rejoin and even more so that any range/association i'm a member of would allow themselves to be affiliated to the sc regardless of how tentative the link is.

Walter Mittys Brother

So, the hunting members of the ranges affialiated to NASRPC need to start asking questions of their ranges?

Cass

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

So, the hunting members .......

Why specify these?

Walter Mittys Brother

Cass wrote: »

Why specify these?

As I don't think target shooters who don't hunt would be too bothered if shooting foxes at night was banned

Sparks

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

As I don't think target shooters who don't hunt would be too bothered if shooting foxes at night was banned

Kinda think you're assuming target shooters are idiots there. So, no thanks.

Cass

I doubt they would draw a line in the sand like because if they don't act on behalf of all/other shooting sports then they'll find it a lonely stand when the next proposal from the so called "sports coalition" comes seeking to ONCE AGAIN ban semi auto rifles, restricted shotguns, and pistols.

Don't forget that (not you specifically, the general you) the proposals the sports coalition made a couple of years back included these. Its not just about night shooting. Its about every f**kwitted proposal they have made.