SAJWV comments on proposed amendments

[Pirate]

Nee boet, that's no different or any worse than some of the suggestions made by our most imminent members on the original thread. There we're told that "we must offer workable solutions instead of just pushing back" and everyone applauds. Here a workable solution (minimum participation, how is this different to a current points-based system for SAPSA / SADPA?) is offered and we shout "sellout!" ??

At least we as the gun-owning community seem to be consistently inconsistent...

[Yellowfever]

I read that to mean the Association (anyone accredited) will then "police" the members and ensure compliance.
Yes you do have DSS but you have to comply with the annual minimum participation levels to retain. They are addressing semi-auto because the amendsments are.
I would much rather be monitored for compliance by a Organisation qualified and passionate about FA than a DFO with a GFSA poster.
Also the principle is it is easier to audit e.g. 10 Organisations than 10,000 members. Members should then peer review their own.

[Psychosis]

What thread are you referring to Pirate?

[Pirate]

What thread are you referring to Pirate?

The original thread where the draft amendments were first posted on. I'm on mobile so no linky (sorry) but it should not be too far back

[Psychosis]

Nah dude... I don't see any outright consensus on the issue regarding the bodies doing more to govern\police themselves. More specifically, I see no consensus on the Sem-Auto\DSS status issue either in that thread.

But hey... good job in getting a response out

[Pirate]

Wasn't talking about consensus I was talking about suggestions of "perhaps we should accept some sort of waiting period" and similar comments.

It completely escapes me how a suggestion minimum level of participation made here can be seen as a sellout.

I'll say it again: I've had direct and sometimes less than friendly comms with these guys in the past. But here I believe they've stood up for what is right.

Also, I cannot help but notice a glaring absence of comments by the two big "3-gun oriented" organisations, while the two biggest hunting organisations (CHASA and SAHGCA), and a sport/hunting organisation (NSA) actually took the time to make a comment. Let's read into that what we want.

:- P

[Psychosis]

According to you 'everyone applauded' ... is that not the same as consensus\agreement? Since 'everyone' seemed to agree by your statement.

The two organizations you mention asked for an extension.

Cannot speak as to when such will be available.

[Pirate]

Let's allow some forum-based hyperbole and sarcasm at least ;-) the point I was trying to make is that these guys' suggestions are no worse, and in many ways better, than the "we must be prepared to accept some sort of time-based restriction" mentioned a few times on that original thread.

This is turning into an unnecessary disagreement about something I think we fundamentally actually agree on and have similar interests in. All I'm saying is "give credit where it's due". In this case, SAHGCA, CHASA, NSA (and SAGA, I think??) actually stepped up to the plate.

:- P

[JS4]

Nee boet, that's no different or any worse than some of the suggestions made by our most imminent members on the original thread. There we're told that "we must offer workable solutions instead of just pushing back" and everyone applauds.

<Koff>

[JS4]

In this case, SAHGCA, CHASA, NSA (and SAGA, I think??) actually stepped up to the plate.

Excellent point, well-presented.

I am waiting with baited breath to hear what the other accredited associations did...