NRA wants to Sanction Multi-gun

[uscbigdawg]

And they covered Ft. Benning too!

Rich

[sinister]

I see much potential goodness coming out of NRA's interest in 3-Gun in many ways (both for shooters and for the NRA).

NRA, in my singular opinion, sucks out loud as far as attracting and maintaining a population or base of competitive and hobby shooters. The majority of the mailers, e-mails, and phone calls I've received from them over the last 25+ years are centered on fund-raising for ILA. Granted an important and noble cause, but they're like the in-law who only visits for hand-outs.

NRA's promotion of the National Matches at Camp Perry sucks as well. They are being edged out for participation by Civilian Marksmanship Program matches and young shooter training and education (CMP has a well-defined mission of running the National Matches, regional matches, and promoting youth shooting). NRA charges too much, offers too little, and wonders why folks are supporting other disciplines (namely practical shooting and Cowboy shooting).

Supporting and sponsoring a vital, healthy, and growing sport like 3-Gun helps to polish their image with the folks who actually spend (lots) of money pursuing their favorite activities of turning ammunition into happiness. 3-Gunners are already believers -- they've made the investment in 3 guns already for crying out loud (so have the Cowboys with a six-gun, lever action, and shotgun).

I think NRA would do well to sponsor practical shooting. It would showcase high-capacity rapid-fire weapons in "Legitimate, recognized, and regulated national sports." It certainly wouldn't hurt us in the mainstream media with their already deep institutional bias.

NRA promotion of the use of non-humanoid targets came about from the assassination of JFK and the '68 shootings of Martin Luther King, Jr., and RFK, most certainly high-visibility political targets. Fast forward to today's 9-11 era and the age of knuckleheads who want to blow themselves up or shoot up kids in school and the IPSC target argument is less an issue.

USPSA should be helping NRA out. Whining like the weekend rule challenger does not help 3-Gun grow. CMP's rule book is complementary with the NRA rule books (they regulate the National Matches and Excellence-in-Competition matches and DO NOT replace NRA rules -- the CMP books in fact reference NRA rules).

What could we do if everyone who owns a rifle, pistol, and shotgun 3-Gun set wanted to shoot every other weekend (alternating weekends doing family stuff or duding up in their Cowboy outfits)?

Just my two cents.

Edited December 11, 2008 by sinister

[Yankee Dog]

I dont see the slightess down side to the NRA getting involved. If they come up with their own set of rules, so what. It wont be any different than any other "outlaw" match with it own rules. Attend the match if you like them, dont if you dont.

More choices and opportunities are a good thing.

Yankee Dog

[Charles Bond]

USPSA should be helping NRA out. Whining like the weekend rule challenger does not help 3-Gun grow.

USPSA has not been asked to help NRA. Both USPSA directors who have posted here on this subject have stated their willingness to assist NRA becoming more involved in 3 gun.

[uscbigdawg]

Maybe USPSA making a phone call TO the NRA offering help would be in order instead of waiting for an invite. Proactive vs. reactive.

Rich

[Charles Bond]

Maybe USPSA making a phone call TO the NRA offering help would be in order instead of waiting for an invite. Proactive vs. reactive.

Rich

Is there are reason you assume that call has not already been made? Call your USPSA AD and your USPSA President who share the same state of residence as yourself. After you do, ask yourself who are you going to call that is going to respond to you if another organization takes over mulitgun. Having a BOD who is responsible to the members who elect them should mean something.

Edited December 12, 2008 by Charles Bond

[uscbigdawg]

Actually I'm not afraid of ANYONE taking over multi-gun as I see it as an impossibility. The independent matches are exponentially more successful than the USPSA Nationals. They obviously have it figured out and can do so with a limited number of on hand resources. The NRA (among others) have recognized this and maybe are researching programs that work VERY well rather than ones that do okay. In either case, a member on here apparently got a hold of the NRA without much difficulty and to hear repeatedly that USPSA has not been approached is a bit suspicious.

As for contacting Chris or Mike, I'm sure it'll come up when I'm down in southern California again. If I don't, I don't. It's not a big priority. At the end of the day I'm sure the NRA is going to do (or not do) what they want to do. They are much larger organization than any that we have in our sport and can use their resources how they see fit. Frankly, I hope they create a whole new 3-Gun/Multi-Gun event. Whether it's dynamic or static, is immaterial. Whatever they do it will be advertised (if only for a little while) and garner some interest from folks either within the NRA shooting community or those outside shooting in general. Our sports (action shooting as a whole) are attractive. There's adrenaline and movement and shooting and difficult shots that few get to take on their home range. That's the draw.

I think USPSA and its inefficiencies are probably what's hurt its bid as a major multi-gun provider. At the end of the day, it's a business and if not run like one, well it's either feast or famine. When certain matches sell out as fast as they do, maybe there's a reason.

Rich

[Flexmoney]

I don't have a dog in this. I do have an observation.

Ohio recently (few years back) got CCW. The Ohio CCW (CHL) requires taking a 12hr class, given by certified instructors.

The LAW that governs CCW lists the requirements for who can give the classes (instructor). Something like 7 or 8 of the requirements defer to the NRA..directly.

Good, bad or whatever...I find it interesting...maybe even ironic...that the NRA (a political group) managed to get itself written into the actual LAW.

Now, somebody correct me if I'm wrong... Don't other countries, which face tight firearms laws, have clauses written into their laws that only allow (specific?) gun ownership for sporting purposes? And, to qualify, the shooter must be a member of a recognized sporting organization?

[hf219]

I don't have a dog in this. I do have an observation.

Ohio recently (few years back) got CCW. The Ohio CCW (CHL) requires taking a 12hr class, given by certified instructors.

The LAW that governs CCW lists the requirements for who can give the classes (instructor). Something like 7 or 8 of the requirements defer to the NRA..directly.

Good, bad or whatever...I find it interesting...maybe even ironic...that the NRA (a political group) managed to get itself written into the actual LAW.

Now, somebody correct me if I'm wrong... Don't other countries, which face tight firearms laws, have clauses written into their laws that only allow (specific?) gun ownership for sporting purposes? And, to qualify, the shooter must be a member of a recognized sporting organization?

You couldnt have said it better, once again something so simple eludes most of us. I wonder if USPSA has approached law makers in various states to include our organization into ammendments to current law governing various firearm restrictions. NJ state law has recongnized NRA sanctioned events for exemptions of certain firearm restrictions. Oh and if USPSA has tried going down this road, it would be nice to hear about it in a BOD meeting minutes or something written up in Front Sight issues. H!

[bgary]

USPSA canNOT get involved directly in political processes; our status as a 501©3 organization precludes it.

That's [among other reasons] why we're so interested in BEING A PART of NRA's efforts to sanction multigun matches. Wouldn't it be cool if the NRA umbrella covered not just 8 or 10 once-a-year multigun matches, but all of USPSA's hundreds of club-level matches? And maybe even the thousands of pistol matches, too? And not only gave us all air-cover, but actually helped us all grow?

I have no interest in being an obstacle to what NRA is doing. Quite the contrary, I'd love to help make it work for ALL of us. And without unintended consequences, if at all possible.

B

[Charles Bond]

USPSA canNOT get involved directly in political processes; our status as a 501©3 organization precludes it.

That's [among other reasons] why we're so interested in BEING A PART of NRA's efforts to sanction multigun matches. Wouldn't it be cool if the NRA umbrella covered not just 8 or 10 once-a-year multigun matches, but all of USPSA's hundreds of club-level matches? And maybe even the thousands of pistol matches, too? And not only gave us all air-cover, but actually helped us all grow?

I have no interest in being an obstacle to what NRA is doing. Quite the contrary, I'd love to help make it work for ALL of us. And without unintended consequences, if at all possible.

B

Exactly!

Charles

[uscbigdawg]

Anyone else want to go in on a new shooting organization that operates FOR PROFIT?

Rich

[benny hill]

IF the NRA would hire me to oversee 3-gun & stay the hell out of my way & agree on everything I wanted to do, I think it would be world class. Just my thinking of course.

[atbarr]

IF the NRA would hire me to oversee 3-gun & stay the hell out of my way & agree on everything I wanted to do, I think it would be world class. Just my thinking of course.

We probably need to discus this.

A.T.

[Flexmoney]

USPSA canNOT get involved directly in political processes; our status as a 501©3 organization precludes it.

... B

Exactly!

Charles

Weird coincidence...on an unrelated front...I was looking up the filing status for various non-profit orgs.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501©#501.28c.29.283.29

Political activity

Organizations with this classification are prohibited from conducting political campaign activities to influence elections to public office. Public charities are permitted to conduct a limited amount of lobbying to influence legislation. Although the law states that "no substantial part" of a public charity's activities may be devoted to lobbying, charities with very large budgets may lawfully expend a million dollars (under the "expenditure" test) or more (under the "substantial part" test) per year on lobbying. [7]

All 501©(3) organizations are also permitted to educate individuals about issues or fund research that supports their political position as long as they don't overtly advocate for a position on a specific bill. Think tanks such as the Cato Institute, Center for American Progress, Heritage Foundation, The American Foreign Policy Council, and other 501©(3) organizations produce reports and recommendations on policy proposals that do not count as lobbying under the tax code.

I make no claims to the accuracy of the above...got it off the internets.

[Charles Bond]

Flex is correct that USPSA is permitted to conduct some lobby efforts and make recommendations as to specific provisions in a proposed law but given the size and budget of our organization, there would be very little we could do in this arena. Since a hundred thousand dollars does not go as far as it once did with firm who one hires to lobby and given that most of what will likely need to be addresssed will be on the state level, we would run out of budget almost immediately.

What is on the radar scope at this point is a outright ban. Can USPSA point out that there are sporting purposes for the firearms that might be the subject of a ban? Of course. Does USPSA have the funds to develop an effective lobby on this issue? Almost certainly not.

The trick might also be in the actually detail of how legistlation which "bans" anytihing firearms related takes place. Education has not prevented all of the dumb legislature in California or New York or New Jersey from passing. The only tactic that has proven effective in the past is to pledge support and money to pro gun candidates and this is something that we clearly can not do.

[SGDM]

It does not cost anything to write your Congressman, Senator, Representative, or Lobbyist.

[davidwiz]

I don't know if anyone noticed, but in the current issue of the American Rifleman (the NRA member magazine), they have a article about the 2008 FHN 3-Gun match. This is the first time that I can remember that American Rifleman has covered a shooting discipline outside the auspices of the NRA. Hopefully this will bring more people to 3-Gun shooting.

[uscbigdawg]

Dave,

In the last year, I've seen on American Rifleman TV, coverage of Fort Benning, FNH and DPMS matches. Shooting Gallery added the Rocky Mountain. If the powers that be don't see that someone (with deep pockets) is paying attention to these matches, there's a big problem. These matches are exceedingly successful and have less than a third of USPSA's rules. Coincidence?

Rich

[Carlos]

This thread has been inactive for some time.

Couple things have happened since then (SHOT, NRA show and Larry Hauck leaving NRA's police 3gun competition).

At SHOT or NRA this year, did anyone from NRA approach anyone from USPSA? Or vice-cersa? (folks from both groups were there).

Anyone have any other updates?

[SGDM]

Yes Sir, Mike V. met with NRA to discuss future OPS.

[atbarr]

Yes Sir, Mike V. met with NRA to discuss future OPS.

And,.....?

A.T.

[ac4wordplay]

... Couple things have happened since then (SHOT, NRA show and Larry Hauck leaving NRA's police 3gun competition). ...

Details?

[Rob Boudrie]

Good, bad or whatever...I find it interesting...maybe even ironic...that the NRA (a political group) managed to get itself written into the actual LAW.

The NRA, and IMHSA are written into the NY law regarding non-residents possessing handguns in-state without a NY pistol license.

The NRA competitions division has been absolutely wonderful about granting formal written recognition to our major matches in NY State so that we can have this base covered.

MA law does not require "NRA certification" to become a MA carry permit instructor but, as far as I know, it's the only certification readily available to civilians that is accepted without question.

So that's two more states that formally recognize the NRA in their laws or policies.

[ChristianHE]

Good, bad or whatever...I find it interesting...maybe even ironic...that the NRA (a political group) managed to get itself written into the actual LAW.

The NRA, and IMHSA are written into the NY law regarding non-residents possessing handguns in-state without a NY pistol license.

The NRA competitions division has been absolutely wonderful about granting formal written recognition to our major matches in NY State so that we can have this base covered.

MA law does not require "NRA certification" to become a MA carry permit instructor but, as far as I know, it's the only certification readily available to civilians that is accepted without question.

So that's two more states that formally recognize the NRA in their laws or policies.

Speaking of States' gun laws... I was born and grew up in CA, spent my first 40 years there. I've lived in FL now for 3 years. I sold my old 1989 AR lower that I bought back then in CA. So what if someday I want to move back there? I won't be able to bring my newer AR's? I would sue the state, grounds being that I've been competing in USPSA multi-gun for two years now and I have the right to continue. Would NRA join the fight?