diehli Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Is a copy of the blank form online anywhere (not one filled in by FN or anyone else), just the blank one ? http://www.uspsa.org/forms/Production_Gun_Approval_Form.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritinUSA Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Thank you for posting the link.... I think that the form needs a preface to describe the intent of the division along with a bunch of other changes to the questions and the layout... I will try and post some suggestions later tonight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racer377 Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 This comes to mind for some reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritinUSA Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Rough draft, something to get us started... perhaps we can come up with a solution here that the BOD can use... this being a volunteer sport... Production.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leas327 Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Reminds me of the knife throwing scene in Gangs of New York. Oopsie Daisy... No harm, no foul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38SuperDub Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Rough draft, something to get us started... perhaps we can come up with a solution here that the BOD can use... this being a volunteer sport... Production.pdf Rough draft, something to get us started... perhaps we can come up with a solution here that the BOD can use... this being a volunteer sport... Production.pdf So far so good. A couple of corrections - "That the 'ready to fire' firearm listED" I would put something also stating that the gun can be removed if at any time any of the statements are found to be untrue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beltjones Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 - Of note...and I missed this email until just today...DNROI got a message (which I believe might pre-date the letter) from FNH that stated, " This firearm’s initial production was quickly scooped up by the international, government and law enforcement community." So the gun is not available to the general public, admittedly so by FNH themselves? If you are looking to place blame, you are going to have to look around quite a bit. FN filled out our form. Our form doesn't say "general" public. And, historically, I think there has been some questions that never really got answered about who the general public is anyway. We need to clear the wording up, IMO. It says available to the public. When has it been available to the public ? As far as most of us know, it hasnt been. The fact ASSERTION that "initial production was scooped up by... insert commercial/government entities here.... " Does not make it available to the public. Or does it? Fixed it for you. I don't see a single shred of evidence that any LE agencies, government agencies, etc have bought the gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38SuperDub Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 EVEN if they did - I wouldn't consider foreign LE and Gvt agencies as part of the "GENERAL PUBLIC" but then again I just slept at home last night and not at a holiday inn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve RA Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 (edited) I'd think the word "public" would be inclusive of everyone, which would include Govt Agencies, LEO, military which are usually composed of people belonging to the public. So, to be effective, I'd think it would need to specifically exclude the previously mentioned agencies. Wikipedia definition of word "public". The name "public" originates with the Latin "populus" or "poplicus", and in general denotes some mass population ("the people") in association with some matter of common interest. Edited March 27, 2013 by Steve RA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38SuperDub Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 (edited) I was going off of the definition of "General Public" ordinary people in society, rather than people who are considered to be important or who belong to a particular group: can be followed by a singular or plural verb I would consider LE / GVT agencies a "particular group" but yes - let's SPELL it out 100% Edited March 27, 2013 by bsdubois00 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shokr21 Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 - Of note...and I missed this email until just today...DNROI got a message (which I believe might pre-date the letter) from FNH that stated, " This firearm’s initial production was quickly scooped up by the international, government and law enforcement community." So the gun is not available to the general public, admittedly so by FNH themselves? Yeah but only because the gun is so popular... get it? Got it, that makes it so much better. Honestly I can't find a glock locally anywhere lately so what does that mean? ha FN states they were scooped up by those member to a certain community, that being LE. That leads me to believe that FN believes that the LE community is separate to the "public". Flex - I'm not looking to assert blame, I want facts. No dancing around the subject, no kinda, sorta, maybe BS. Let the actual facts speak for themselves objectively rather than spew an editorial piece that interprets them. certainly not implying that you have done the editorializing. I believe that you, as most of the membership would just like to know where the disconnect is without blurry subjection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritinUSA Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 USPSA is open to all those who are permitted to posess a gun in USA. If we include LE and Federal agencies for the 2000 available/sold then it could create a situation where LE and Federal employees have access to a gun for competition that is NOT available to othere competitors, thereby creating an unfair advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritinUSA Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 (edited) I would put something also stating that the gun can be removed if at any time any of the statements are found to be untrue. If a company only produced 500 instead of 2000 but still signed the form then competitors would buy the gun. Once the truth was uncovered then removing the gun would not harm the company but it would harm all the individuals that purchased that gun in good faith. I think this is why it so important to get the approval process right the first time, because fixing it after the fact only harms the membership and sport in general. Edited March 27, 2013 by BritinUSA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpolans Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I'd think the word "public" would be inclusive of everyone, which would include Govt Agencies, LEO, military which are usually composed of people belonging to the public. So, to be effective, I'd think it would need to specifically exclude the previously mentioned agencies. Wikipedia definition of word "public". The name "public" originates with the Latin "populus" or "poplicus", and in general denotes some mass population ("the people") in association with some matter of common interest. Hmm...so based on this reasoning, reimplemention of the Assault Weapons Ban will do nothing to impair the public's access to firearms and thus will have no impact on our sport. Is that your position? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpolans Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I would put something also stating that the gun can be removed if at any time any of the statements are found to be untrue. If a company only produced 500 instead of 2000 but still signed the form then competitors would buy the gun. Once the truth was uncovered then removing the gun would not harm the company but it would harm all the individuals that purchased that gun in good faith. I think this is why it so important to get the approval process right the first time, because fixing it after the fact only harms the membership and sport in general. This is a key point and a reason why this problem demands a swift action from the BoD before competitors acting in good faith are harmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve RA Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 No, what I'm attempting to point out is the form, as currently stands, merely says "public" which I construe to mean everyone, in whatever agency, capacity or whatever. I merely suggested the new form, if there should happen to be one, should exclude the agencies listed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Stoeger Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 No, what I'm attempting to point out is the form, as currently stands, merely says "public" which I construe to mean everyone, in whatever agency, capacity or whatever. I merely suggested the new form, if there should happen to be one, should exclude the agencies listed. A specific police agency is part of the public, however, "public" should not be construed to mean a specific group such as a police agency. We need a Venn Diagram. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Stoeger Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I would put something also stating that the gun can be removed if at any time any of the statements are found to be untrue. If a company only produced 500 instead of 2000 but still signed the form then competitors would buy the gun. Once the truth was uncovered then removing the gun would not harm the company but it would harm all the individuals that purchased that gun in good faith. I think this is why it so important to get the approval process right the first time, because fixing it after the fact only harms the membership and sport in general. This is a key point and a reason why this problem demands a swift action from the BoD before competitors acting in good faith are harmed. Who fits this description at the moment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgkeller Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 USPSA really wants to ban pistols from Production that are mostly used by our military and law enforcement personnel? REALLY? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marv Z Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 Nobody really believes that any of these guns have been delivered, do they? Other than a handful of prototypes, they don't exist yet. I think we're kinda beating a dead horse here. FN isn't gonna pull the gun and USPSA isn't going to make them. And just for the record, I'll probably buy one when they come out. I already own a 4" FNS and a FNX. But they way this has been handled is like a bad movie. He said, she said, you get the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shokr21 Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 USPSA really wants to ban pistols from Production that are mostly used by our military and law enforcement personnel? REALLY? no not at all. That's just a side discussion, debating if model designation matters when for all other purposes the two models are identical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Stoeger Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 USPSA really wants to ban pistols from Production that are mostly used by our military and law enforcement personnel? REALLY? I really hope you are trolling, because this question doesn't really follow from the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Stoeger Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 Nobody really believes that any of these guns have been delivered, do they? Other than a handful of prototypes, they don't exist yet. I got information from an FN employee (not Dave, and I am not naming this person) that he had personally seen these guns, doesn't doubt that a couple thousand have been produced, but apparently there is an issue with the gun being worked on prior to them going out the door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 USPSA really wants to ban pistols from Production that are mostly used by our military and law enforcement personnel? REALLY? I hope not; I'd be in favor of a workaround.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 Nobody really believes that any of these guns have been delivered, do they? Other than a handful of prototypes, they don't exist yet. I got information from an FN employee (not Dave, and I am not naming this person) that he had personally seen these guns, doesn't doubt that a couple thousand have been produced, but apparently there is an issue with the gun being worked on prior to them going out the door. That was sort of the most plausible scenario I could imagine, which is why I didn't have a cow about this issue. Another reason I didn't have a cow about this issue is that I have no reason whatsoever to believe that some crappy plastic gun is actually an advantage to anyone. We should all be encouraging our competitors to shoot crappy plastic guns. Heck, I might even buy one for some of my local shhooting buddies if they'll agree to stop shooting all-steel cz wonder-weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts