FCP associations (MOD NOTE in post 1)

grassroot1

MOD NOTE

Split off from this thread.

gunny123 wrote: »

Anyone i know in a nargc affiliated club who had issues with licencing was told to go get themselves a good solictitor with experience of firearms licencing cases. No help other than that.

"WAS TOLD TO GET"
This was the NARGC of a previous time, it is now hoped that conversations could be had with the Gardai that would avoid the costly legal cases that have been destructive to both sides. Let us hope it works!!

Walter Mittys Brother

grassroot1 wrote: »

"WAS TOLD TO GET"
This was the NARGC of a previous time, it is now hoped that conversations could be had with the Gardai that would avoid the costly legal cases that have been destructive to both sides. Let us hope it works!!

I bet you weren't around for some of the "good old days" before a few court cases made powers that be realise they too had to obey the law.

cavan shooter

Walter Mittys Brother wrote:

I bet you weren't around for some of the "good old days" before a few court cases made powers that be realise they too had to obey the law.

A yes those good old days.

When The NARGC was fighting pistol cases in the courts that in the end cost us thousands when we shouldn't be involved in pistols

When we were being fed the "this is the thin end of the wedge" line and we was swallowing it hook line and sinker.

When we were whipped up to stop them "taking" our semi auto shotguns.

I'll say it again NARGC is predominantly a game association for thise that shoot shot gun and rifle. We don't need 9mm or 45 or .38 you can target shoot all you want with 22lr.

The old NARGC did it's best to piss on everyone's toes in Justice so much so there was little trust. At least now the new way of doing things seems to be working.

BattleCorp

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

While we are on this topic.Does anyone have a contact email or phone nr/name for the NASRPC particularly those involved in the Embassy cup?I have sent two emails via the NASRPC web page and...[crickets] so far.

Will the NASRPC answer questions from individual shooters? I asked them a question on Facebook a good while ago and was told to ask the same question through my club.

Grizzly 45

Well, hopefully, you then have dismissed from the sainted ranks of the NARGC all those pesky pistol owners and target shooters who are also hunters??Or at least amended your T&C for joining that the legal fund only covers you if you are a knicker bocker and tweed cap wearing side by side shotgun man??

I'll say it again NARGC is predominantly a game association for thise that shoot shot gun and rifle. We don't need 9mm or 45 or .38 you can target shoot all you want with 22lr.

Are you inspector Brookes in disguise???Because thats the kind of statement I'd expect from him.
WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE WHAT WE CAN AND CANNOT HAVE???:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:. This kind of statement is a gross insult and divisive of the shooting community and to those who fought long and hard in the courts WITHOUT SFA help from the NARGC and won.OR financially from the NASRPC or any othe Irish shooting organisation for that matter.
No Irish shooting organisation, least of all the feckin NARGC was in the court room when I and others were forking out around 1500 euros per case per gun.At least three times per man in the middle of a recession too.

We have enough enemies trying to ban handguns,here and in the EU without with the likes of you Fudds and Micheal Yardley types back stabbing and judasing us as well.
You are an utter disgrace to even be suggesting that sort of sht and you should retract that statement at once here..:mad::mad:

Seriously pissed off!

Grizzly45.

BattleCorp

cavan shooter wrote: »

When The NARGC was fighting pistol cases in the courts that in the end cost us thousands when we shouldn't be involved in pistols

It is entirely probable/possible that some of those pistol case wins have actually slowed up/stopped the Gardaí from coming for your guns too.

When we were whipped up to stop them "taking" our semi auto shotguns.

Could still happen. Never say never.

I'll say it again NARGC is predominantly a game association for thise that shoot shot gun and rifle. We don't need 9mm or 45 or .38 you can target shoot all you want with 22lr.

Sure why don't you give up your clay shooting. Lets ban that. After all, you can still target shoot all you want with a 22lr.

Walter Mittys Brother

CS, my old days were the ones when you could have one shotgun and if you were really lucky one 22 rifle.

Seems some want to go back to that

cavan shooter

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Well, hopefully, you then have dismissed from the sainted ranks of the NARGC all those pesky pistol owners and target shooters who are also hunters??Or at least amended your T&C for joining that the legal fund only covers you if you are a knicker bocker and tweed cap wearing side by side shotgun man??



Are you inspector Brookes in disguise???Because thats the kind of statement I'd expect from him.
WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE WHAT WE CAN AND CANNOT HAVE???:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:. This kind of statement is a gross insult and divisive of the shooting community and to those who fought long and hard in the courts WITHOUT SFA help from the NARGC and won.OR financially from the NASRPC or any othe Irish shooting organisation for that matter.
No Irish shooting organisation, least of all the feckin NARGC was in the court room when I and others were forking out around 1500 euros per case per gun.At least three times per man in the middle of a recession too.

We have enough enemies trying to ban handguns,here and in the EU without with the likes of you Fudds and Micheal Yardley types back stabbing and judasing us as well.
You are an utter disgrace to even be suggesting that sort of sht and you should retract that statement at once here..:mad::mad:

Seriously pissed off!

Grizzly45.

Grizz, I respect your opinion however,

I will not retract any statement, i HAVE REPEATED What many an NARGC gun club member has stated when the NARGC handed over a small fortune (€791,000) even after taxing reduced it considerably. A topic which I believe is to be brought up at the AGM again. You may have paid money out of your own pocket for your licenses and I respect you for that, but the NARGC was handed a bill for a small fortune and me like every other 25,000 had every right to be pissed off about it.(Still).

The back stabbing was done a couple of weeks ago when the target shooters associated with the Sports Coalition (Bullseye, ICTSA and WA 1500) put in a complaint against the NARGC to the Gardai and the Sports Coalition and their like proposed a ban on night time shooting. The support from the other pistol and target organisations is deafening as well so please, less of the lecturing on the back stabbing it was done a while back.

Walter Mittys Brother

I'm one of that 25,000. And you do not speak for me. so possibly 24,999 are pissed off.

cavan shooter

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

I'm one of that 25,000. And you do not speak for me. so possibly 24,999 are pissed off.

Your right,

gunny123

cavan shooter wrote: »

A yes those good old days.

When The NARGC was fighting pistol cases in the courts that in the end cost us thousands when we shouldn't be involved in pistols

If the people involved in getting pistols back were paying their own costs, or if those cases were won (which nearly all were) and costs awarded against the superintendent or chief superintendent, then how did those pistol cases cost the nargc anything ?

When Neil Mcveigh went to the high court to get a licence for his .470ne double rifle years ago, he paid for it OUT OF HIS OWN POCKET. Yet when he looked around on the bench there was a high flyer from the nargc, with his "expert" witness in tow. They were looking to get involved in a case that no one had asked them too. They were promptly told to do one.

gunny123

cavan shooter wrote: »

The back stabbing was done a couple of weeks ago when the target shooters associated with the Sports Coalition (Bullseye, ICTSA and WA 1500) put in a complaint against the NARGC to the Gardai and the Sports Coalition and their like proposed a ban on night time shooting. The support from the other pistol and target organisations is deafening as well so please, less of the lecturing on the back stabbing it was done a while back.

I don't for one moment think any of the target shooting orgs mentioned above knew the first thing about the night ban proposals. They are small one man and his dog organisations and probably only heard about the night ban by coming on here and reading about it.

We all know there is one guy behind these proposals, who we cannot name because he likes court cases when his feeling get hurt. To say the bullseye, ICTSA and WA1500 were involved in backstabbing is disingenuous. I think i am correct in saying the ICTSA are not even members of the SC anymore.

grassroot1

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

I bet you weren't around for some of the "good old days" before a few court cases made powers that be realise they too had to obey the law.

I am around long enough to remember and long enough to know the **** we were spun a lot of the time was a crock of ****.

grassroot1

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

CS, my old days were the ones when you could have one shotgun and if you were really lucky one 22 rifle.

Seems some want to go back to that

I doubt if anyone wants to go back to that but we hope that the first option is not always legal action.

grassroot1

gunny123 wrote: »

If the people involved in getting pistols back were paying their own costs, or if those cases were won (which nearly all were) and costs awarded against the superintendent or chief superintendent, then how did those pistol cases cost the nargc anything ?

Yes thats the million dollar question right there!

berettaman

cavan shooter wrote: »

Grizz, I respect your opinion however,

I will not retract any statement, i HAVE REPEATED What many an NARGC gun club member has stated when the NARGC handed over a small fortune even after taxing reduced it considerably. A topic which I believe is to be brought up at the AGM again. You may have paid money out of your own pocket for your licenses and I respect you for that, but the NARGC was handed a bill for a small fortune and me like every other 25,000 had every right to be pissed off about it.(Still).

The back stabbing was done a couple of weeks ago when the target shooters associated with the Sports Coalition (Bullseye, ICTSA and WA 1500) put in a complaint against the NARGC to the Gardai and the Sports Coalition and their like proposed a ban on night time shooting. The support from the other pistol and target organisations is deafening as well so please, less of the lecturing on the back stabbing it was done a while back.

Just a few thoughts:

The NARGC spent €791K on the 9 test cases.

The NARGC spent €1.9m on legal fees over the last 5 years, admittedly not all of it on legal cases but most of it.

Putting that type of financial backing towards protecting all our shooting rights deserves respect.

The NARGC is a "broad church" in that we have members that shoot clays, pistols, game, archery etc. I would never run down another mans/womans sport.

There is a feeling/hope within the NARGC that these cases were taken for the good of shooting sports generally.

What the members of the NARGC would like is support from other shooting enthusiasts when it comes to something like the ban on night time shooting.

If that support is not there then it is just a case of use and abuse, no?

I might never hold a pistol but I would be against any thing that would stop someone from shooting a pistol at a target and pursuing their sport.

I hope the pistol guys feel the same about night time shooting .

We are definitely stronger together.

Now can I get an amen:D

cavan shooter

berettaman wrote:

The NARGC spent €791K on the 9 test cases.

berettaman wrote:

The NARGC spent €1.9m on legal fees over the last 5 years, admittedly not all of it on legal cases but most of it.

Absolutely disgraceful, I knew it was bad but not that bad.

cavan shooter

gunny123 wrote: »

If the people involved in getting pistols back were paying their own costs, or if those cases were won (which nearly all were) and costs awarded against the superintendent or chief superintendent, then how did those pistol cases cost the nargc anything ?.

Unfortunately costs are not awarded on licensing matters. Even if you win you pay your costs

cavan shooter

gunny123 wrote: »

I don't for one moment think any of the target shooting orgs mentioned above knew the first thing about the night ban proposals. They are small one man and his dog organisations and probably only heard about the night ban by coming on here and reading about it.

We all know there is one guy behind these proposals, who we cannot name because he likes court cases when his feeling get hurt. To say the bullseye, ICTSA and WA1500 were involved in backstabbing is disingenuous. I think i am correct in saying the ICTSA are not even members of the SC anymore.

I'm sorry Gunny its not disingenuous its a statement of fact or if I am being nice, these organisations all be it one man and a dog (except the ICTSA) are being used by the SC to add validity to it.,

Point me in a direction where i can read their statements of support for the NARGC or as a minimum a statement where they are distancing themselves from the Complaint against the NARGC put in by the Sports Coalition. Until these organisations are away from it, then they are part of it.

I am hearing how bad it was to do that and unfair and below the belt but now where am I reading that these organisations have issued official statements.

Walter Mittys Brother

berettaman wrote: »

Just a few thoughts:

The NARGC spent €791K on the 9 test cases.

The NARGC spent €1.9m on legal fees over the last 5 years, admittedly not all of it on legal cases but most of it.

Putting that type of financial backing towards protecting all our shooting rights deserves respect.

The NARGC is a "broad church" in that we have members that shoot clays, pistols, game, archery etc. I would never run down another mans/womans sport.

There is a feeling/hope within the NARGC that these cases were taken for the good of shooting sports generally.

What the members of the NARGC would like is support from other shooting enthusiasts when it comes to something like the ban on night time shooting.

If that support is not there then it is just a case of use and abuse, no?

I might never hold a pistol but I would be against any thing that would stop someone from shooting a pistol at a target and pursuing their sport.

I hope the pistol guys feel the same about night time shooting .

We are definitely stronger together.

Now can I get an amen:D

BIG amen from me !!!! Well said 😉

Grizzly 45

grassroot1 wrote: »

gunny123 wrote: »

If the people involved in getting pistols back were paying their own costs, or if those cases were won (which nearly all were) and costs awarded against the superintendent or chief superintendent, then how did those pistol cases cost the nargc anything ?

Yes thats the million dollar question right there!

Very simply because the previous cases that NARGC took on behalf of their "cross-pollinated" members, were before the change in the District court acts of 2014 by Alan Shatter. Before that, you were paying from your own pocket and the state didn't give a toss.It was a day out for them and they were getting paid anyway.That changed in Oct 2014 in Limerick DC when the DC court rules of application for costs first came into play, and CS D Sheehan lost 30k plus worth of his division's money.I know this for a fact as I was fighting for two of my licenses that year and mine was the last case of the day.

How the NARGC ended up with those bills is simply this.BAD LEGAL ADVICE and NON SPECIFIC contracts.Although seeing that the latter would have been hard to avoid without a serious crystal ball. Bad legal advice was going to the high and supreme court on the pistol case of "Because my mates have one I'm entitled to one so there!" up in Donegal in 07/08? That was a bad mistake But I can understand why with the colossal fees involved for NARGC's lawyer at the time and someone else's ego possible.Fighting legal battles are just as much a planning as going to court.A good lawyer will tell you news you dont not want to hear and say like a good general, this is not the time or place, and we'll fight another day.Which should have been done thussly saving the NARGC members this bill.

Grizzly 45

cavan shooter wrote: »

Unfortunately costs are not awarded on licensing matters. Even if you win you pay your costs

District court act 2014 says otherwise these days specifically on firearms cases.

.243

What's done and gone is in the past but can be learned from,
So can we just all just bind up,gel together and hit any further blockades to what we love doing best with a sledgehammer

Grizzly 45

cavan shooter wrote: »

Grizz, I respect your opinion however,

I will not retract any statement, i HAVE REPEATED What many an NARGC gun club member has stated when the NARGC handed over a small fortune (€791,000) even after taxing reduced it considerably. A topic which I believe is to be brought up at the AGM again. You may have paid money out of your own pocket for your licenses and I respect you for that, but the NARGC was handed a bill for a small fortune and me like every other 25,000 had every right to be pissed off about it.(Still).

The back stabbing was done a couple of weeks ago when the target shooters associated with the Sports Coalition (Bullseye, ICTSA and WA 1500) put in a complaint against the NARGC to the Gardai and the Sports Coalition and their like proposed a ban on night time shooting. The support from the other pistol and target organisations is deafening as well so please, less of the lecturing on the back stabbing it was done a while back.

CS your problem is not with the handgun owners or whomever.It lies within your own organisations shoddy, at the time legal charters and people running the show as well as very bad legal advice. The NARGC legal fund didn't discern between your gun being a shotgun or a pistol.Lots of the members are "cross pollinated" target and hunters.So obviously if someone was refused a handgun license they were 100% within their rights as a member to ask for the legal fund to fight the case.They had been paying into the fund like everyone else too, so why not?NARGC would have been sued if they didn't oblige on this because there was no specific clause saying handguns, etc are not covered by this fund.
But to give credit without a crystal ball no one would, well maybe we should have seen the deceit and underhandedness that the govt was going to play in 2008 with the attempted pistol ban.Hence the NARGC got caught in the cross fire in a way of its own making too.

Your legal rep of the NARGC should have even seen this but he had his eye on this fund and has been coining it literally off the NARGC for years so of course, he was going to go for the jackpot in the Supreme court.You were paying for it and no one was saying STOP in your official dom of the feifdom of one man.
No point in screaming "Waaa Waaa the pistol shooters cost us millions, they dont deserve to have handguns except.22s waaawaaa!"



T

he back stabbing was done a couple of weeks ago when the target shooters associated with the Sports Coalition (Bullseye, ICTSA and[ WA 1500 put in a complaint against the NARGC to the Gardai and the Sports Coalition and their like proposed a ban on night time shooting. The support from the other pistol and target organisations is deafening as well so please, less of the lecturing on the back stabbing it was done a while back.

[/QUOTE]

Are you double damn sure about that one??And have proof that all those groups put their names on that complaint?Because next Sunday I'll be talking apre match to the lads who run the matches and I'll get an answer on this for you. Unfortunately, due to boards rules and court evidence rules, as Devil's advocate, I'd love to hear what the NARGC stand accused of wrong doing?? Or is it one certain individual complaining to the AGS and using the SC banner to wrap himself in?

It's hard to say WTF is going on a there is so much fear of being called on a possible matter or being sued for publishing it an open forum so no one has the full details or can say it. But to blame a certain group just because you got stuck with a bill not of your making but by your leaderships, lackadasical handling is way out of line and that's what pissed me off.

Half-cocked

cavan shooter wrote: »

The back stabbing was done a couple of weeks ago when the target shooters associated with the Sports Coalition (Bullseye, ICTSA and WA 1500) put in a complaint against the NARGC to the Gardai

The ICTSA is not a member of the SC and never was. Attended a couple of early meetings of the SC and left it at that, never signed up to it.

The ICTSA has it's own seat on the FCP separate from the SC members - a fact that is blatantly obvious to anyone who bothered to look up the actual make-up of the FCP.

The only thing the ICTSA did wrong was not have their logo removed from the SC website sooner - it's gone now.

Maybe before making wild accusations about the ICTSA making complaints to the Gardaí, you could have simply asked them if they did? The current ICTSA executive committee give straight answers to straight questions and all the contact details are on their website.

The ICTSA enjoys good relations with the NARGC and many members are members of both organizations and active in both. Making a complaint about the NARGC would be like defecating on one's own doorstep.

Cass

I've split the thread as the posts have moved onto another topic. The original thread is here.

Cass

Half-cocked wrote: »

The only thing the ICTSA did wrong was not have their logo removed from the SC website sooner - it's gone now.

Yeah, but look at the sc's website. They removed the ICTSA logo and now have the NASRPC one back up claiming them to be a member.

Wonder does the NASRPC know?

Here is the logo with the ICTSA logo




.......... and here it is this morning (i highlighted the NASRPC logo)

Backbarrel

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

CS your problem is not with the handgun owners or whomever.It lies within your own organisations shoddy, at the time legal charters and people running the show as well as very bad legal advice. The NARGC legal fund didn't discern between your gun being a shotgun or a pistol.Lots of the members are "cross pollinated" target and hunters.So obviously if someone was refused a handgun license they were 100% within their rights as a member to ask for the legal fund to fight the case.They had been paying into the fund like everyone else too, so why not?NARGC would have been sued if they didn't oblige on this because there was no specific clause saying handguns, etc are not covered by this fund.
But to give credit without a crystal ball no one would, well maybe we should have seen the deceit and underhandedness that the govt was going to play in 2008 with the attempted pistol ban.Hence the NARGC got caught in the cross fire in a way of its own making too.

Your legal rep of the NARGC should have even seen this but he had his eye on this fund and has been coining it literally off the NARGC for years so of course, he was going to go for the jackpot in the Supreme court.You were paying for it and no one was saying STOP in your official dom of the feifdom of one man.
No point in screaming "Waaa Waaa the pistol shooters cost us millions, they dont deserve to have handguns except.22s waaawaaa!"

Are you double damn sure about that one??And have proof that all those groups put their names on that complaint?Because next Sunday I'll be talking apre match to the lads who run the matches and I'll get an answer on this for you. Unfortunately, due to boards rules and court evidence rules, as Devil's advocate, I'd love to hear what the NARGC stand accused of wrong doing?? Or is it one certain individual complaining to the AGS and using the SC banner to wrap himself in?

It's hard to say WTF is going on a there is so much fear of being called on a possible matter or being sued for publishing it an open forum so no one has the full details or can say it. But to blame a certain group just because you got stuck with a bill not of your making but by your leaderships, lackadasical handling is way out of line and that's what pissed me off.

I agree with much of what you say however I do not believe membership of fund = legal cases is taken for you.

I believe legal cases are taken on a case by cade basis...

could be wrong..

Grizzly 45

Correct...However, it is up to legal counsel to decide what is a surefire case a winnable case or, let's go home now, and come back another day to try, and snowball's chance in Hell.It has happened to me and many others numerous times.That's a reason I'm paying this guy in a wig and gown some hunk of my change for his expertise. However, if it is a situation of "well there is money there, I'm getting paid and it's a goodish chance of winning and these guys have no choice but to try and fight it because they are obligated to by their own contracts, and egotism in some cases.Let's go for it.!" You can't expect that outcome to be cheap for someone or group.Unfortunately, when that case reached the HC, it should have been called and the client told , its dodgy, and if you want to continue, we are going to need you carrying some costs to the Supreme court.

cavan shooter

Backbarrel wrote: »

Are you double damn sure about that one??complaining to the AGS and using the SC banner to wrap himself in?.

.

its on headed SC paper signed by the Acting Chairman on behalf of the SC. It would be great to hear from the other organisations in the SC.

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Are you double damn sure about that one??And have proof that all those groups put their names on that complaint?Because next Sunday I'll be talking apre match to the lads who run the matches and I'll get an answer on this for you.

Let me save you some high blood pressure. It's not the Bullseye 360 you're thinking off. That is a Midlands run match. Nothing to do with the Irish Bullseye Sports group. Two separate entities.