TargetTalk

I just got a call from some clown claiming to represent the NRA in a survey of members. I didn't get past the first question because my blood pressure spiked and almost blew the top of my head off.

The question was "Which of the following is the most important focus for the NRA in 2017?"

I was given 3 options. They all involved legislation and should be the focus of ILA not NRA.

Not a damn thing about the traditional focus of NRA, like ranges, junior programs, competitive programs, club development and all the other things we used to be able to count on them for.

Time to sweep out the non shooters on the BOD and get a new group. There is no need for the marquee directors like actors and musicians .

May I suggest forming a new group? I think we can all read the writing on the wall with the NRA (as has been discussed often here). We all agree that there's an issue, but without capital or publicity nothing can be done.

It's not too difficult a process, big-picture wise. Small picture is much more complicated.

Big picture:
1. Remove NRA as a requirement to competitive clubs. This is done by offering an alternative that does NOT require NRA certification, and while utilizing their rules as a basis, modifying the rulebooks for various events. That can only be done by two groups of people: experts at the sport and people with trade/business contacts. Creating a separate certification and membership system would be critical, as would utilizing technology to reach a broad base of shooters, both for casual and serious competition. This means the rules would have to have two basic systems: a casual type of comeptition for informal events, and a moer structured and serious one for national events.

2. Publicize and indirectly compete with the NRA, drawing competition people away. Emphasize inclusiveness of all disciplines, and actually, I don't know, make a magazine that talks about competition guns and their history? There's plenty of lore to make a constant publication on, and not a lot of it is as well documented as it should be. Also, this is a great place to emphasize the training and safety aspects of the sports in a pretty divided country. It won't get everyone over, but staying out of the political arena (except for issues directly affecting the sports) will make for a lot more goodwill and less antagonism.

3. Once sufficient competition has been drawn away and the new organization has sufficient resources and goodwill, directly interfere with the NRA's running of events by scheduling things on top of theirs.

4. All of this leads up to one thing: take accreditation from the relevant organizations as the U.S. official sponsor of shooting sports, both nationally and internationally. Voila: functional competitive sports league for shooting.

Yeah, it's a hell of a thing to try and do, but them's the breaks. Either we complain or we do something. Currently we're just complaining. I'm not seeing it change anytime soon either unless an organization can be put together that does this.

Edit: When I first read this thread's title, I thought you were talking about them writing us off as a charitable expense...too much time in the tax code.

Cmp is rolling out its own class system for rifle since the NRA CMP camp perry thing. The do a lot for air rifle. Maybe they could take over pistol, and air events as well as international events

Chia,
Wasn't that how USAShooting got its start?

Christopher Miceli wrote:Cmp is rolling out its own class system for rifle since the NRA CMP camp perry thing. The do a lot for air rifle. Maybe they could take over pistol, and air events as well as international events

CMP Talladega Marksmanship Park - Civilian Marksmanship Program: Just curious, could National Matches be held here for many disciplines?

Rover wrote:Chia,
Wasn't that how USAShooting got its start?

I don't think so (and I didn't check how they did it before I wrote the above, just was shooting my brain off). But I doubt that USAShooting is going to lose that accreditation anytime soon...

gwsb wrote:I just got a call from some clown claiming to represent the NRA in a survey of members. I didn't get past the first question because my blood pressure spiked and almost blew the top of my head off.

The question was "Which of the following is the most important focus for the NRA in 2017?"

I was given 3 options. They all involved legislation and should be the focus of ILA not NRA.

Not a damn thing about the traditional focus of NRA, like ranges, junior programs, competitive programs, club development and all the other things we used to be able to count on them for.

Time to sweep out the non shooters on the BOD and get a new group. There is no need for the marquee directors like actors and musicians .

It's good to remember that nationwide CCW reciprocity, repealing silencer laws, banning states from regulating guns, keeping governments off of our AR15s, etc. mean that our target pistol shooting is very safe. If we lose on the big issues, it's an easy step for the bad guys to ban target guns.

smoking357 wrote:It's good to remember that nationwide CCW reciprocity, repealing silencer laws, banning states from regulating guns, keeping governments off of our AR15s, etc. mean that our target pistol shooting is very safe. If we lose on the big issues, it's an easy step for the bad guys to ban target guns.

There's the flip side to that. Once aligned with concealed carry, silencers, and AR15s, if regulation comes then target shooting sports may get swept up along with everything else.

Probably not in the United States. Things are flipped so far in the pro-gun ownership direction right now in this country that any regulation which would affect most ISSF shooting sports would be politically impossible. Seriously, the guns used in ISSF shooting events are pretty tame stuff compared to what's out there in the U.S. (the guns have to be to fly in so many countries).

I mean, one same person can own a Barrett .50 BMG, a PS-90, an AR-15, and a Glock with extended clip. It's a lot of money, but totally possible to do here. And they can go shoot them out in their land without interference (well, mostly). 5-shot .22LR pistols, single-shot .22lr sporting rifles, and over/under shotguns just aren't even on the table for regulation currently.

Don't forget that some states ban popular target pistols because the magazine is in front of the trigger.

JD Mahan wrote:Don't forget that some states ban popular target pistols because the magazine is in front of the trigger.

Ah, fair enough, hadn't thought of that. That should be lobbied against, obviously. Way ovvereaching what they intend to regulate.

Cmp has all the electronic targets, but I think talledega has 25-50 pistol points. So not enough for bullseye but enough for international? They also have an air range @ camp perry, I'm guess one in talledega as well.

Chia wrote:I mean, one same person can own a Barrett .50 BMG, a PS-90, an AR-15, and a Glock with extended clip. It's a lot of money, but totally possible to do here. And they can go shoot them out in their land without interference (well, mostly). 5-shot .22LR pistols, single-shot .22lr sporting rifles, and over/under shotguns just aren't even on the table for regulation currently.

Everything except the extended clip can also be owned in Canada. A 50cal rifle, even semi-auto, is a non-restricted weapon. The PS-90 is non-restricted with an 18.5" barrel and a 5 round magazine limit.

The AR-15 and variants are restricted weapons, and can only be used at a range.

JD Mahan wrote:Don't forget that some states ban popular target pistols because the magazine is in front of the trigger.

In Canada, all .32 and .25 calibre weapons are prohibited. Except for those on the list of exemptions that are used in international competition.

A strong competition focused lobby, or a rabid individual 2A lobby that is pliable enough to separate issues, could probably fight successfully for similar exemptions for forward magazine competition pistols.

Chia wrote:Ah, fair enough, hadn't thought of that. That should be lobbied against, obviously. Way ovvereaching what they intend to regulate.

And can more effectively be lobbied against by an organisation that isn't in open warfare over other laws.

Meh. Coming from the guy who can't buy any .25 or .32 he wants, or own any handgun with less than a 4 inch barrel, I think I'll go with the "open warfare" organization to protect my 2nd Amendment rights.

JD Mahan wrote:Don't forget that some states ban popular target pistols because the magazine is in front of the trigger.

And that might just be because the NRA and its state affiliate organizations devote their entire effort - at least the effort that they don't devote to fundraising - to opposing all regulation instead of working with legislators to assure that inevitable rules and regs (in Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, California and some other places, yes the regulations ARE inevitable) actually make sense and are the least restrictive possible.

sparky wrote:Meh. Coming from the guy who can't buy any .25 or .32 he wants, or own any handgun with less than a 4 inch barrel, I think I'll go with the "open warfare" organization to protect my 2nd Amendment rights.

None of those issues concern me in any fashion. I don't see the need for shorter barrels or have an particualr attraction or fetish towards given calibers.

Just pointing out that if we're talking competition shooting, where for the most part you can't use any old gun you want anyways, you don't need libertarian post 1980 takeover interpretations of the American constitution and rabid opposition to any and all laws to protect the sports.

SlartyBartFast wrote: Just pointing out that if we're talking competition shooting, where for the most part you can't use any old gun you want anyways, you don't need libertarian post 1980 takeover interpretations of the American constitution and rabid opposition to any and all laws to protect the sports.

Tell that to the pistol shooters in the UK.

"When you disarm the people, you commence to offend them and show that you distrust them either through cowardice or lack of confidence, and both of these opinions generate hatred."
Niccolo Machiavelli

And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every
Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he
would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for
example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there
in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the
staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs
hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?

Solzhenitsyn, The GULAG Archipelago

Mike M. wrote:

SlartyBartFast wrote: Just pointing out that if we're talking competition shooting, where for the most part you can't use any old gun you want anyways, you don't need libertarian post 1980 takeover interpretations of the American constitution and rabid opposition to any and all laws to protect the sports.

Tell that to the pistol shooters in the UK.

Exactly!