NASRPC's exit of the Sport Coalition.

Sparks

Not really Mitty. You don't do well in politics if you remember what's happened in the past.

Walter Mittys Brother

Fair point.

But, politicans (notice small "p") conveniently forget the parts of the past that don't suit them, sometimes remember the parts that do, never answer the actual question & try to confuse & baffle with obscure with irrelevant information/facts, in my experience.

I reckon you're way too honest to be a politician

Sparks

I do believe that's the nicest thing anyone on here has ever said about me.

gunny123

Sparks wrote: »

Not really Mitty. You don't do well in politics if you remember what's happened in the past.

Sure if you don't do well you get kicked sideways to the EU parliament, complete with lotto win salary, expenses and pension, ala Brian Hayes, or Phil Hogan.

Cass

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

The term "club" in this scenario is incorrect especially when used in reference to most ranges in this country from what I can gather.

I use the term club and range both collectively and individually because they are used in most of the Acts. Such as the 2006 act where they list both club and range.

Also in everyday use the words club and range get used, possibly incorrectly, by people speaking about ranges.

The ranges are privately owned & are more or less commercial entities where members pay to essentially use the facilities.

I cannot argue on how they are run because i don't know the details of each range/club and how it is set up, run, etc. However not all ranges/clubs are privately owned or more accurately/correctly, owned by a single person. Some have trustees and the members are "stockholders" for want of a better term.

The members "rights" start & stop at the use of the facilities. Some have the illusion that the paid up members have some sort of control of the range/facilities or that they are members of a "club"

The word member means more than just someone who turns up to use something with no expectation of any rights. The various members of the FCP represent the various interests of their sport. I'm sure if someone told them they have no right except to attend they'd have something to say.

The range members may make decisions but the range owners ultimately make the decisions.

So in the case of the NASRPC some 18 people have control over the fate of the thousands of people that use the ranges regardless of their (the members) views or wants?

If the members don't like it they can leave and go to another range but is there any point?

If what you say above is true probably not, but i don't believe it works that way.

I agree a range/club can't exist without members but members need a range/club to target shoot on.

If a range had say 400 members each paying a yearly fee of say €400 then they have €160,000 per year in fees. If the range they are on refuses to abide by the majority view they can leave and with some time and work set up their own range/club. The problem comes from the 2% rule and the majority of people prepared to eat a sh*t sandwich rather than do the work needed to appose what they see and know to be wrong.

LB6

clivej wrote: »

AFAIK the 2 clubs that voted against were HH & Hilltop. All the other clubs were fore

2 clubs that voted against were Harbour House and Eastcoast.
1 club, who's members decided that they didn't want to rejoin by popular vote, had it overturned by the management who decided to abstain from the vote and in essence they remained in the nasrpc. Hilltop.

Walter Mittys Brother

LB6 wrote: »

1 club, who's members decided that they didn't want to rejoin by popular vote, had it overturned by the management who decided to abstain from the vote and in essence they remained in the nasrpc. Hilltop.

Which backs up this statement in at least one range?

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

The range members may make decisions but the range owners ultimately make the decisions.

Cass

And what did the members do? Sit back and say "feck it, nothing we can do now" or did they demand answers and hold this person to task?

BattleCorp

Cass wrote: »

And what did the members do? Sit back and say "feck it, nothing we can do now" or did they demand answers and hold this person to task?

I hear what you are saying and I'm not trying to be smart but supposing your range owner did the same against the members wishes, what would be your options? If you want to do long range shooting, your only other option would be An Riocht. That's a long way from Tullamore.

Cass

Do you think i'm a member for LR only? Do you think i would ignore any sh*t being done in my name* to avoid moving ranges/a bit of travel.

Not a hope and its this very attitude that i mentioned above as the reason for why people get away with it. The 2% rule. A small minority actually do something while the majority, while as offended by the actions, cannot be arsed because you create roadblocks like having to travel before anything is done. Those doing this (range operators, etc) know this and prey on the fact that most will either not speak up or will loose interest.

Jesus, i mean this is the basis of the NASRPC and why they continue to pull this sh*t over the years. Trying to grab control of pistol shooting so only they could "grant" someone that ability to shoot with graduated licenses and bans on certain types off pistols that their own members use, improperly applying for grants, sending in secret proposals, creating/co-founding the so called coalition. then when sh* gets real they disappear, ignore letters, e-mails, requests only to reappear and claim it never happened.

Each time it was discussed here and we're told "sure it's in the past". Then within a couple of years it happens again. Each time people cannot be bothered to do something for fear it interrupts or upsets their routine.

It's a f**king joke, but when the dust settles and only Gallery rifle, some bastardised form of pistol shooting and shotgun remain and you all wonder what happened, remember this thread and these times and how you could have done so much more, but didn't because it was "too much work".

It's pitiful.






* - By this i mean supporting a range that supports/affiliates to the NASRPC who ignore the wishes of the general shooting community and support an association (so called coalition) that has set out to destroy sports they don't deem important and control the ones they want to remain. not to mention control other aspects of shooting such as banning night shooting, etc.

Walter Mittys Brother

Cass wrote: »

And what did the members do? Sit back and say "feck it, nothing we can do now" or did they demand answers and hold this person to task?

For the record I'm not or have I ever been a member of Hilltop but I'd echo Battlecorps' reply.

Walter Mittys Brother

Cass wrote: »

Do you think i'm a member for LR only? Do you think i would ignore any sh*t being done in my name* to avoid moving ranges/a bit of travel.

Not a hope and its this very attitude that i mentioned above as the reason for why people get away with it. The 2% rule. A small minority actually do something while the majority, while as offended by the actions, cannot be arsed because you create roadblocks like having to travel before anything is done. Those doing this (range operators, etc) know this and prey on the fact that most will either not speak up or will loose interest.

Jesus, i mean this is the basis of the NASRPC and why they continue to pull this sh*t over the years. Trying to grab control of pistol shooting so only they could "grant" someone that ability to shoot with graduated licenses and bans on certain types off pistols that their own members use, improperly applying for grants, sending in secret proposals, creating/co-founding the so called coalition. then when sh* gets real they disappear, ignore letters, e-mails, requests only to reappear and claim it never happened.

Each time it was discussed here and we're told "sure it's in the past". Then within a couple of years it happens again. Each time people cannot be bothered to do something for fear it interrupts or upsets their routine.

It's a f**king joke, but when the dust settles and only Gallery rifle, some bastardised form of pistol shooting and shotgun remain and you all wonder what happened, remember this thread and these times and how you could have done so much more, but didn't because it was "too much work".

It's pitiful.






* - By this i mean supporting a range that supports/affiliates to the NASRPC who ignore the wishes of the general shooting community and support an association (so called coalition) that has set out to destroy sports they don't deem important and control the ones they want to remain. not to mention control other aspects of shooting such as banning night shooting, etc.

I'm with you 110% and have walked away in such situations. It's lonely out here on my own

Cass

I won't prolong this thread any more as it's already flogging a dead horse at this point. The NASRPC have once again used the "no comment" method to avoid having to answer or deal with this issue and people have lost what little interest they may have had because it takes effort to maintain an opposition.

No one cares enough to respond (here or by any other means) and most others i spoken to seem indifferent enough to this (with some implying that as long as the money keeps rolling in they don't care). Even those that have held out for years and are now affiliated don't give a sh*t so i'm left wondering why i should.

Good luck to the lot of ye.

When the so called coalition manages to have all the guns they proposed by their previous submissions banned and when they have bans on night shooting, courses for every type of shooting, all pistols banned, all semi autos banned, time lock sadfes, ballistic testing, shooting on all the ranges (through the NASRPC) limited to only rimfire/air rifle or shotguns and lads no longer have their current firearms or the chance for them.

When all this happens and you wonder how, remember this moment and look no further than your own apathy for the fault/cause.

homerhop

Has anyone asked their club rep what the story is or have their club made any statement regarding why they voted to rejoin?

jb88

Cass you are about two years too late in your thinking. Most Gallery shooters with an understanding of events quit the NASRPC long ago and have benefited significantly as a result.

Cass

homerhop wrote: »

Has anyone asked their club rep what the story is or have their club made any statement regarding why they voted to rejoin?

I have, multiple times. The last this very morning. I have been promised questions will be asked and answers forthcoming.

jb88 wrote: »

Cass you are about two years too late in your thinking. Most Gallery shooters with an understanding of events quit the NASRPC long ago and have benefited significantly as a result.

First off don't confuse my current issue with the NASRPC as some sort of "i was wrong about the GRPAI" confession. Its not.

Secondly there is a "moratorium" on the GRPAI -vs- NASRPC pissing match as per this post some time back.

Lastly to address your specific comment regarding the NASRPC. Two years ago, November 24th 2015 actually, the NASRPC left the sports coalition and the NARGC soon followed. I celebrated this news and heralded it as the beginning of the end of the so called coalition.

In my opinion their [the coalition] views, proposals, submissions, and agenda are not in the best interests of all shooting sports. The rejoining of the NASRPC to the so called coalition is a step backwards imo. It props up a defunct and anti shooting group with a renewed level of credibility and that should of concern to everyone.

In case you have all forgotten (i don't know how as i go on enough about it) the so called coalition have proposed:

• A ban on night shooting during deer season
• A ban on any 22 pistol under 5 inches
• A ban on all semi auto rifles
• Ballistic testing
• Graduated licensing
• Time lock safes
• Mandatory training courses

By affiliating/rejoining the so called coalition the NASRPC along with the 18 clubs they represent and the thousands of members within that club have just said in one loud voice "We support these proposals" because lets face it, would support any group whose goals you don't agree with.

This is a dangerous move and the review committee on firearms will view this as a consensus for the proposals meaning the chances of them becoming a law or enacted in some form is that bit closer to actually happening.

Your comment about the gallery rifle shooters relates to the current and past feud between the grpai and the nasrpc which i'm not interested in dragging back up now. If you mean it with regard to the nasrpc's actions some two years ago, well as i outlined above two years ago they seemed to be moving in the right direction by leaving. Now they seem to be undoing all that good work.

jb88

There seems to be no accountability for their actions, would any shooter in their right mind follow the NASRPC now

Given the issues they are for as stated in previously in this thread, all of the proposals are quite simply empty noises to keep the SC and NASRPC in shooters minds and to possibly further enhance certain peoples agendas in shooting.

As quoted by Cass below

"A ban on night shooting during deer season
A ban on any 22 pistol under 5 inches
A ban on all semi auto rifles
Ballistic testing
Graduated licensing
Time lock safes
Mandatory training courses.".


We all know that none of this is much use to 90% of shooters and the 10% it does affect, well the other 90% dont care.

It is placing further restrictions on an already extremely heavily regulated shooter and will do nothing to stem the real issues. Its smoke and mirrors designed for some members to make a living selling the resulting benefits of this rubbish.

All the people who have anything to gain by getting these changes passed are attached to the NASRPC and or SC. They have to make a profit somehow.

Be you a "range owner or member of a committee" for the added prestiege of financial benefit then thats why the NASRPC and cohorts are pushing this agenda. To have some of their representatives profit. It wasnt always like that. I dont have an issue with ranges making money, but I do when they recruit the people to make up new problems and try and profit by them.

Dont be suprised to see more of this rubbish in the next couple of years so that some more guys can make money.

But normal club members wont see this, its just carry on as normal and pay more money for something really isnt necessary.

Oh and I cant go to my committee rep and ask him to speak to the NASRPC, Because my club saw what was happening and chose to leave the hospitality of "Big Whiskey".
We all know how that ends in Unforgiven, so we were not hanging around to be in that room when the reckoning arrives. I can see Clint Eastwood getting off his horse as we speak....

clivej

jb88 wrote: »

There seems to be no accountability for their actions, would any shooter in their right mind follow the NASRPC now

Given the issues they are for as stated in previously in this thread, all of the proposals are quite simply empty noises to keep the SC and NASRPC in shooters minds and to possibly further enhance certain peoples agendas in shooting.

As quoted by Cass below

"A ban on night shooting during deer season
A ban on any 22 pistol under 5 inches
A ban on all semi auto rifles
Ballistic testing
Graduated licensing
Time lock safes
Mandatory training courses.".


We all know that none of this is much use to 90% of shooters and the 10% it does affect, well the other 90% dont care.

It is placing further restrictions on an already extremely heavily regulated shooter and will do nothing to stem the real issues. Its smoke and mirrors designed for some members to make a living selling the resulting benefits of this rubbish.

All the people who have anything to gain by getting these changes passed are attached to the NASRPC and or SC. They have to make a profit somehow.

Be you a "range owner or member of a committee" for the added prestiege of financial benefit then thats why the NASRPC and cohorts are pushing this agenda. To have some of their representatives profit. It wasnt always like that. I dont have an issue with ranges making money, but I do when they recruit the people to make up new problems and try and profit by them.

Dont be suprised to see more of this rubbish in the next couple of years so that some more guys can make money.

But normal club members wont see this, its just carry on as normal and pay more money for something really isnt necessary.

Oh and I cant go to my committee rep and ask him to speak to the NASRPC, Because my club saw what was happening and chose to leave the hospitality of "Big Whiskey".
We all know how that ends in Unforgiven, so we were not hanging around to be in that room when the reckoning arrives. I can see Clint Eastwood getting off his horse as we speak....

A good write up of all that is happening within our sport. It's such a pity that the relevant bodies don't put as much effort into promoting our sport

Cass

jb88 wrote: »

There seems to be no accountability for their actions, would any shooter in their right mind follow the NASRPC now

Why do the various groups, not counting the NASRPC, follow the so called coalition? You are right that there is no one accountable, but that is the fault of the membership of the various groups, now including the NASRPC.

I've said before the members make up the clubs/ranges that make up the NASRPC. You hold the power. Too many times i've heard people say they're not interested in politics, but it's not politics. It's your sport, and your way of life. Its this "head in the sand" attitude that allows the people in control of these groups to carry on as they do without having to be accountable.

You wake up one morning and find your sport is gone and i'll bet then you'll want to know why, but at this point it'll be too late. The time to know is before it gets to that point.

Given the issues they are for as stated in previously in this thread, all of the proposals are quite simply empty noises to keep the SC and NASRPC in shooters minds and to possibly further enhance certain peoples agendas in shooting.

They're not empty gestures to keep them in the limelight and that kind o thinking is dangerous because it's too easy to dismiss the groups and their proposals.

These groups are submitting proposals, in secret, to the working group on the review of firearms. That is chaired and administered by Ministers and law makers. We have already seen some of the consequences with the Minister saying she will have a review on semi auto rifles and if the numbers increase by a large enough factor she will review the licensing of them. This has caused a freeze on the buying and licensing of them as people are fearful they may loose their rifle and license in the future.

That proposal came from the so called coalition. They proposed a temporary ban, which is ILLEGAL, but the proposal was acted on (albeit in part) by the Minster.

So thinking all their talk is just hot air is a dangerously naive outlook.

As quoted by Cass below

"A ban on night shooting during deer season
A ban on any 22 pistol under 5 inches
A ban on all semi auto rifles
Ballistic testing
Graduated licensing
Time lock safes
Mandatory training courses.".

If these proposals gets even the same amount of interest by the Minister as the semi auto rifle proposal got then you'll see them enacted in some form over the coming years.

Remember that as far as the working group is concerned the body making these proposals represent shooters and the shooting community and therefore why shouldn't they take what they propose into consideration. I mean if, as they see it, we want this why shouldn't they oblige if it's what they want too.

We all know that none of this is much use to 90% of shooters and the 10% it does affect, well the other 90% dont care.

Are you serious?

You think that 10% of the shooting community won't be affected by a night time shooting ban, semi auto rifle ban, timelock safes, ban on short barreled pistols, ballistic testing, graduated licensing or mandatory training?

EVERYONE will be affected by these proposals. Granted some more so than others, but none will escape it.
Everyone will be subject to:

• The graduated licensing,
• Mandatory training,
• Ballistic testing.

Most will be affected by:

• The night shooting

Less so, but still a good few will also be affected by:

• Time lock safes
• No pistols under 5"

And lastly a small number will be affected by:

• Ban on semi auto rifles

So above you have four "levels" of possibilities. Like the secure accommodation SI everyone will be subject to level one, some to level two and the more you have and the type you have the more you are affected.

It is placing further restrictions on an already extremely heavily regulated shooter and will do nothing to stem the real issues. Its smoke and mirrors designed for some members to make a living selling the resulting benefits of this rubbish.

I don't disagree.

Dont be suprised to see more of this rubbish in the next couple of years so that some more guys can make money.

That is exactly what i said above and why i asked you do you think that only 10% of people will be effected and do you think these proposals are just hot air?

Oh and I cant go to my committee rep and ask him to speak to the NASRPC, Because my club saw what was happening and chose to leave the hospitality of "Big Whiskey". .

Unless all the clubs/ranges left the NASRPC and left it an empty shell then one or two leaving is counter productive.

The proposals are still being submitted but now the club and all it's members have no say or input as to how or what is submitted. That is one less voice (club wise) against the proposals.

What we need is for clubs to stand up and ask what the feck is going on. I know, it's not even a feeling, that the majority of the club/range membership don't know what is going on and being done in their name.

People should be asking for AGMs, EGMs, meetings, etc and getting this out in the open. Don't except brush offs, and don't let it end until you have both your answers and a clear mandate for your club going forward.

Rifter

Cass wrote: »

Why do the various groups, not counting the NASRPC, follow the so called coalition? You are right that there is no one accountable, but that is the fault of the membership of the various groups, now including the NASRPC.

I've said before the members make up the clubs/ranges that make up the NASRPC. You hold the power. Too many times i've heard people say they're not interested in politics, but it's not politics. It's your sport, and your way of life. Its this "head in the sand" attitude that allows the people in control of these groups to carry on as they do without having to be accountable.

You wake up one morning and find your sport is gone and i'll bet then you'll want to know why, but at this point it'll be too late. The time to know is before it gets to that point.


They're not empty gestures to keep them in the limelight and that kind o thinking is dangerous because it's too easy to dismiss the groups and their proposals.

These groups are submitting proposals, in secret, to the working group on the review of firearms. That is chaired and administered by Ministers and law makers. We have already seen some of the consequences with the Minister saying she will have a review on semi auto rifles and if the numbers increase by a large enough factor she will review the licensing of them. This has caused a freeze on the buying and licensing of them as people are fearful they may loose their rifle and license in the future.

That proposal came from the so called coalition. They proposed a temporary ban, which is ILLEGAL, but the proposal was acted on (albeit in part) by the Minster.

So thinking all their talk is just hot air is a dangerously naive outlook.


If these proposals gets even the same amount of interest by the Minister as the semi auto rifle proposal got then you'll see them enacted in some form over the coming years.

Remember that as far as the working group is concerned the body making these proposals represent shooters and the shooting community and therefore why shouldn't they take what they propose into consideration. I mean if, as they see it, we want this why shouldn't they oblige if it's what they want too.


Are you serious?

You think that 10% of the shooting community won't be affected by a night time shooting ban, semi auto rifle ban, timelock safes, ban on short barreled pistols, ballistic testing, graduated licensing or mandatory training?

EVERYONE will be affected by these proposals. Granted some more so than others, but none will escape it.
Everyone will be subject to:

• The graduated licensing,
• Mandatory training,
• Ballistic testing.

Most will be affected by:

• The night shooting

Less so, but still a good few will also be affected by:

• Time lock safes
• No pistols under 5"

And lastly a small number will be affected by:

• Ban on semi auto rifles

So above you have four "levels" of possibilities. Like the secure accommodation SI everyone will be subject to level one, some to level two and the more you have and the type you have the more you are affected.


I don't disagree.


That is exactly what i said above and why i asked you do you think that only 10% of people will be effected and do you think these proposals are just hot air?


Unless all the clubs/ranges left the NASRPC and left it an empty shell then one or two leaving is counter productive.

The proposals are still being submitted but now the club and all it's members have no say or input as to how or what is submitted. That is one less voice (club wise) against the proposals.

What we need is for clubs to stand up and ask what the feck is going on. I know, it's not even a feeling, that the majority of the club/range membership don't know what is going on and being done in their name.

People should be asking for AGMs, EGMs, meetings, etc and getting this out in the open. Don't except brush offs, and don't let it end until you have both your answers and a clear mandate for your club going forward.

Is there no way that we as individual shooters, or collectively, can write to the working group highlighting the various proposals, the cynicism of them, outline why these proposals have no backing by ordinary club members as decisions are being taken by comitees without members approval??

Just a thought

Grizzly 45

You'll have to break some dreadful Irish habits first.
"Mustn't make a fuss now!" "Shure it could be worse" and "I'll do it in tomorrow,/next time I go to the club, range, etc"

BattleCorp

Cass wrote: »

Unless all the clubs/ranges left the NASRPC and left it an empty shell then one or two leaving is counter productive.

The proposals are still being submitted but now the club and all it's members have no say or input as to how or what is submitted. That is one less voice (club wise) against the proposals.

I'm speaking personally here, as an ordinary member of a club. These are my own personal views, I'm not purporting to represent my club in any way.

I totally accept your view that it's better to be in the organisation and getting to have your voice heard, but sometimes staying in is counter productive too.

Why stay in an organisation that you believe is victimising your club and not acting in the best interests of your members?

Why pay membership fees and financially support an organisation that you believe is victimising your club?

Why give credibility to an organisation by staying in it, thus giving the organisation the right to say they represent 400 extra shooters?

I had typed up a load of issues where I believed the NASRPC were acting unfairly against my club but I deleted them. There's no point in opening up old wounds.

People should be asking for AGMs, EGMs, meetings, etc and getting this out in the open. Don't except brush offs, and don't let it end until you have both your answers and a clear mandate for your club going forward.

I'm trying not to be negative here but from looking at the last NASRPC AGM and EGM that I attended, I don't have any confidence whatsoever in the NASRPC.

While accepting your point regarding staying in the NASRPC, I fully back the position of my club not to affiliate to the NASRPC this year.

And just in case you think I've given up, no I haven't. I've given up on the NASRPC but I am continuing to write to MEP's, TD's, FCP etc. when I feel it is needed.

Cass

Rifter wrote: »

Is there no way that we as individual shooters, or collectively, can write to the working group highlighting the various proposals, the cynicism of them, outline why these proposals have no backing by ordinary club members as decisions are being taken by comitees without members approval??

Just a thought

As individuals we can write in and make our feelings known. As a group it'd carry more weight, and it can be done through your club, range, group, association, etc.

Cass

BattleCorp wrote: »

Why stay in an organisation that you believe is victimising your club and not acting in the best interests of your members?

Why pay membership fees and financially support an organisation that you believe is victimising your club?

Why give credibility to an organisation by staying in it, thus giving the organisation the right to say they represent 400 extra shooters?

I had typed up a load of issues where I believed the NASRPC were acting unfairly against my club but I deleted them. There's no point in opening up old wounds.

I'll answer all these as the one question because while they may all be valid and fair points they have the same answer.

If all clubs or ranges were to leave or at least a majority, enough so that the NASRPC can no longer purport to represent the 18 clubs then great. However that is not the case.

One club leaving in this case only weakens the position of those in opposition. The NASRPC still have 18 clubs and more importantly still have a voice directly to the FCP/Working Group.

To be honest it's a bit like the situation that created the SC. One man in an organisation went his own way, and caused problems by doing so. Caused the break up of the old FCP, and while he could stand on his principles he was now standing on them outside the meeting room. Meaning he had no voice.

By leaving the NASRPC in small numbers (member wise or club wise) it weakens them but ultimately does not stop them having a direct line to he PTB and so they can continue unchecked with their proposals and destruction of our sports.

It's a tough situation and i understand the desire to just get away from it, but this situation is unique in that the group you've left could ultimately change, ruin or destroy your sport and you won't be able to do a thing about it.

Whats that old expression, "change from within".

I'm trying not to be negative here but from looking at the last NASRPC AGM and EGM that I attended, I don't have any confidence whatsoever in the NASRPC.

While accepting your point regarding staying in the NASRPC, I fully back the position of my club not to affiliate to the NASRPC this year.

I wouldn't argue with your decision or beliefs on this. I also don't doubt you have legitimate gripes as does your club and the action you all took was the best for you. However for the moment with so many clubs and voices still in the NASRPC they have strength and have transferred that to the so called coalition.

The only way to build on your position would be to have other clubs/ranges leave and reduce the NASRPC to a meaningless nothing.

Again i have to stress this is not a de facto "the GRPAI were right". That is whole other, and to me, internal conflict/discussion. The GRPAI were not at the table, not recognised and i'm not getting into that whole debate now for the reasons i said above, but it's a point i need to make to hammer home my point now. The NASRPC were there, at the table and that is what we need to deal with now.

And just in case you think I've given up, no I haven't. I've given up on the NASRPC but I am continuing to write to MEP's, TD's, FCP etc. when I feel it is needed.

I'll be brutally honest, i had. One of my posts above said i won't drag this on because no one gives a sh*t, and i believe not many still do. However after speaking to my range rep an finding out some things i've got a renewed sense of "we could manage to turn this around yet".

Only time will tell.

jb88

Yes people should be asking whats going on, but you will get the same aul rubbish responses.

If someone has tried to damage your sport would you continue to support them?? NO.
The clubs need to leave the NASRPC and form a new group. Everyone has seen the problems created by being associated with them.. I think I have pointed this out on more than one occassion.

Ranges and range need to accept that the NASRPC have done too much damage to shooting in Ireland and that they are nothing more than a hindrance. There are just too many problems to be fixed.
Back when it was one member one vote that was clearer, but now the whims of the many are controlled by the few, and many of them are the committee of the NASRPC, and the SC pushing their own agenda, for Monetary gain.

Oh and you cant vote them out, a vote was taken in secret and they decided that only one rep from each club would have a vote now, more democratic I think it was said.

There is no voice for the individual now as I have stressed many times with the NASRPC, its a select few now ruining target shooting in Ireland and it will only change when ranges and members wake up and realise the proposals put forward by the NASRPC took away their already existing rights in relation to shooting.

But remember there are many different groups in the FCP its just a shame that one of those groups who proport to support shooters is doing so much damage. The best laugh is they will be let away with it.
Some new proposal which will take away the existing rights you have as a shooter, without you now even having a voice to vote to object as an individual.

But hey the NASRPC took a vote in secret to ban individuals from having individual voting rights after the used those existing rules to gain control of the NASRPC.

Yet some ranges and operators think this is fine.. lets carry on NASRPC. Now you can do what ever you want and say "well our members voted for it".

Its Orwellian in its outlook, "some members are more equal than others",

If I was a member in that club id be hitching my cart to another horse very quickly.
Ive repeated my points on at least two occassions there just in case anyone reading is still looking at this and wondering whats going on

Cass

jb88 wrote: »

Yes people should be asking whats going on, but you will get the same aul rubbish responses.

That defeatist attitude helps no one and does not address the problems. Thinking nothing will get done before it's even tried is lazy and a cop out. Its that very attitude that has caused many problems over the years.

That is not an attack on you personally, it's a very large view shared by the majority of shooters so its a statement of fact. just look at previous submission amounts, petition signatures, etc. over the years. They ranged from 0.5 to 1% of the total amount of firearm owners in the country.

If more took an active role in how their sport is represented then perhaps we would have better unity and a bigger consensus.

Ranges and range need to accept that the NASRPC have done too much damage to shooting in Ireland and that they are nothing more than a hindrance. There are just too many problems to be fixed.

This thread is about the NASRPC's involvement in the so called coalition so i don't want to go off on a tangent about how the NASRPC, as an organisation, has failed. There are enough threads on the topic the last of which was this one.

The NASRPC did not become some sort of monster overnight or since the last AGM and the fact that you keep eluding to the harm the NASRPC has done before the AGM is disingenuous. The NASRPC has caused problem after problem without informing other groups or even their own members of what they were doing and some of the people that were involved in those issues were named as committee members on the GRPAI's website when it was first created.

The object of this thread is not to start the blame game or point fingers at the failings of NASRPC as an NGB, but its affiliation to the so called coalition and what it means for ALL shooters and not just the members of the NASRPC.

With regard to all you have said about the voting system, again that is a fault you have with the NASRPC as an organisation and has nothing to do with the grander picture of the so called coalition. You mention it a few times and it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread but more so to do with your grievance of how the NASRPC's voting system works. So i won't be addressing anymore of your comments on the subject in this reply.

But remember there are many different groups in the FCP its just a shame that one of those groups who proport to support shooters is doing so much damage.

You have blinkers on and are focusing on the NASRPC and its "internal" actions. While this thread is about them [NASRPC] it's about how they rejoined it [so called coalition]. Within the FCP and the so called coalition there are seven different organisations so therefore it's more than just one group. However as i keep saying the other groups are not a concern as of now as the NASRPC leaving, then rejoining, coupled with it's large membership numbers is of more concern than the other six, for right now.

The best laugh is they will be let away with it.

Again only if they're allowed. Accepting "defeat" before a defense is put up is defeatist and will allow the unopposed agenda of the various groups to continue.

Ive repeated my points on at least two occassions there just in case anyone reading is still looking at this and wondering whats going on

You have repeated the point on the voting system numerous times, but it's irrelevant to the topic on this thread.

BattleCorp

Straightforward question - not trying to be smart.

What benefit would it be to shooters if the NASRPC left the SC without having a radical change in their thinking?

My belief is that things wouldn't change if the NASRPC were pressured by their members to leave the SC. It would weaken the SC numerically, but the NASRPC would still be an ally to them on the FCP.

If the NASRPC left the SC, both the SC and the NASRPC would still have their same seats on the FCP = same people representing us as before (although under two separate banners this time).

The current set-up:
SC (Other groups + NASRPC) = seats on the FCP = dodgy proposals that most shooters aren't in favour of = awwwww sh1t.

The set-up if the NASRPC left the SC:
SC (Other groups - NASRPC) = seats on the FCP with their NASRPC buddies = dodgy proposals that most shooters aren't in favour of = awwwww sh1t.

Sorry Cass for the defeatist attitude but my faith in the NASRPC is at a very low ebb.

Cass

I get what you're saying and there is substance in what you say. You could argue that it's simply one enemy instead of two. However i believe it to be more than simply optics.

The NASRPC left the sc some 2 years back. Any and all proposals and actions by the sc in that time were of their own volition. With the NASRPC rejoining the sc it not only bolsters their numbers, but now lends weight to the proposals of the sc. The working group will now view all submissions by the sc as being more in tune with the will and want of the membership of the various groups which now count the thousands the NASRPC bring to the table.

If the NASRPC were there on their own all submissions by the sc would be their own. Any submissions the NASRPC would want to put forward would have to be done under their own name and they would be responsible to their membership for whatever those proposals contained. It's easy to say we agree with them, and if the winds of favour change they can say they never wrote anything and don't agree with any or all of what they said. IOW they can hunt with the hounds and run with the foxes.

The NASRPC are not the largest shooting body in the country, but they do represent a much wider range of disciplines than any other one group including rifles, shotguns, pistols, gallery, sporting, etc.

If the NASRPC were to leave the sc again then while some damage has been done it can be undone. IOW a case can be made that the decision to rejoin was that of a few individuals who took the decision upon themselves rather than listen to the consensus of the members of the clubs/ranges the represent.

It could also be argued that the decision of the NASRPC is based on the will of the membership, but i highly doubt it as phone conversations over the last few days and weeks have shown me that not only were people unaware of what is being done in their name, but some were unaware any of this was even happening.

cavan shooter

As an outsider looking in I am struggling to understand why the NASPRC would affiliate to the Sports Coalition of vested interests considering how divisive they have been over the year culminating in the alleged complaint against the NARGC alleging illegal activities by its members.

Sure to God the Sports Coalition as a group is "zombified" i.e dead but doesn't know its dead yet.

Would it not be better for this group if its that large to seek a position in its own right at the FCP.

Gleefulprinter

Cass have you thought of putting yourself forward for election at the agm on this issue?