OzFclass

Reading between the lines. unless your prepared to take on a board position you don't get the opportunity to question decisions made in our best interest or not.

off topic but the problem we have is the age of the highly active shooters engaged in the growing f classes are also those that are generally in full time employment with family's and other dependants. Until the demographic on the board changes by f class shooters nominating and being elected we get what we get.

Sorry to revive an old thread but I would still like so feedback on why the NRAA supported the limit?

Given we were asked for feedback on this forum I respectfully suggest it would be appropriate to receive this info here too.

SunnyCoast 5r wrote:Sorry to revive an old thread but I would still like so feedback on why the NRAA supported the limit?

Given we were asked for feedback on this forum I respectfully suggest it would be appropriate to receive this info here too.

I have asked both through this forum and other avenues, all has come up trumps so far.

I am happy to continue in my beliefs/speculation, especially after Gordon Duncan's comments in the ATR magazine, that it was financially motivated.

I will ask my local QRA councillor to ask the QRA to ask the NRAA...what a hassle to get information that should be freely available in the form of minutes that should be freely available to members...

Perhaps we could ask about that too!?

Any updates as to why the NRAA supported the bullet weight limit?

remember the "old boys club".
most of us are not members.
keep safe,
bruce.

bruce moulds wrote:remember the "old boys club".

Or perhaps they took note of our unanimity on the issue.

viewtopic.php?f=33&t=9145

johnk wrote:

bruce moulds wrote:remember the "old boys club".

Or perhaps they took note of our unanimity on the issue.

viewtopic.php?f=33&t=9145

Not the case at all John, it is common knowledge that Australia voted for the restriction at the ICFRA meeting, the voting here clearly had no “unanimity” bearing on the issue, and, an answer as to why they decided to vote for it would be lovely.

Jase,

At the time of voting, the survey had one shooter different between the F/TR for change & against. That varied by a couple when last I looked at it.

With it as you say, not unanimous, perhaps they looked at the bigger picture of one of the founding nations of international F Class shooting being forced out of the discipline.

John

John
You really are a "glass half full" kinda guy !!!
Matt P

johnk wrote:...... perhaps they looked at the bigger picture of one of the founding nations of international F Class shooting being forced out of the discipline.

A sweeping statement John.

Happy New Year!

Just wrote a reply to this thread and deleted it.

I have chalked this one down to experience and given up.

Lack of transparency is never positive....

Happy shooting in 2018 everyone and may the wind be light!

SunnyCoast 5r wrote:Happy New Year!

Just wrote a reply to this thread and deleted it.

I have chalked this one down to experience and given up.

Lack of transparency is never positive....

Happy shooting in 2018 everyone and may the wind be light!

Also not a good way to keep the "troops" on side!!! Sort of like "don't bite the hand that feeds you"!! No matter what "spin" the NRAA may put on it, without the "troops" they would have no reason to exist!!!
Keith H.

I agree. I'd like to know their reasons because if a vote like this comes up again, it will affect slot of people.

It's obvious they did not seek the opinions of those who matter. As with all politics --if you thing the public is not going to agree with you --don't ask.
For this reason, don't expect an explanation ---politics!!
Barry