Ammunition levy

For general announcements, and anything which does not fit into one of the categories below.

Moderator: Mod

Message
Author
Tim L
Posts: 504
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 7:11 pm
Location: Townsville

Ammunition levy

#1 Postby Tim L » Fri Nov 08, 2019 8:05 pm

It seems some info is not getting the wider distribution it warrants.
That being the case here is the NRAA discussion paper regarding future funding options for the NRAA

Paper on Ammunition Levy_v3.pdf
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

sungazer
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:58 pm

Re: Ammunition levy

#2 Postby sungazer » Fri Nov 08, 2019 9:20 pm

And the Fudds is Victoria want to leave things the same. Terminal cancer. Doesn't effect me jack hands off my stack.

Why not let TR and some of FSTD pay more that is until 6BR is in FSTD. Then what happens Just TR. Oh and FSTD dies and 6BR goes back to F open.

A lot of clubs only have 10 members and the Club Fee is $60 or less and you think clubs have money with incomes like this. The expenses are far greater.

The more the whole system becomes more of a user pays the better. That sort of structure works for small numbers. Otherwise you are alienating the members that do use the elite services or get anything back other than a structure.

A structure that is not even consulted by the Police in firearm matters. The SSAA and even the Deer Hunters Association are consulted on policy matters not the target shooters.

Josh Cox
Posts: 448
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 10:00 pm
Location: Cairns QLD

Re: Ammunition levy

#3 Postby Josh Cox » Fri Nov 08, 2019 9:20 pm

We get the representation we pay for.

Whether by yearly subscription or projectile levy, it matters not.

If we wish our sport to survive we must ensure our representative body is adequately funded to be effective.

When the anti-gun lobby make outlandish and untrue statements about our movement, gun ownership or anything else that can hinder the continuity of our sport, we have a fighting fund that is able to fund appropriate legal action with extreme prejudice to very publicly correct their bad behaviour.

sungazer
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:58 pm

Re: Ammunition levy

#4 Postby sungazer » Fri Nov 08, 2019 9:30 pm

Perhaps it is time to look to a takeover or merger into the SSAA a larger pool of shooters already being managed economies of scale and less duplication.

Trevor Rhodes
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 8:31 pm
Location: Woodbrook Vic.

Re: Ammunition levy

#5 Postby Trevor Rhodes » Sat Nov 09, 2019 7:10 am

sungazer wrote:And the Fudds is Victoria want to leave things the same. Terminal cancer. Doesn't effect me jack hands off my stack.

Why not let TR and some of FSTD pay more that is until 6BR is in FSTD. Then what happens Just TR. Oh and FSTD dies and 6BR goes back to F open.

A lot of clubs only have 10 members and the Club Fee is $60 or less and you think clubs have money with incomes like this. The expenses are far greater.

The more the whole system becomes more of a user pays the better. That sort of structure works for small numbers. Otherwise you are alienating the members that do use the elite services or get anything back other than a structure.

A structure that is not even consulted by the Police in firearm matters. The SSAA and even the Deer Hunters Association are consulted on policy matters not the target shooters.

Please explain a bit more about the Fudds in Victoria..

DannyS
Posts: 978
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Hamilton
Contact:

Re: Ammunition levy

#6 Postby DannyS » Sat Nov 09, 2019 8:01 am

I don’t have an issue with dropping the ammunition levy and increasing the membership fee slightly but I would like to see the levy for the Online Magazine dropped. Actually, I wouldn’t mind if they dropped the magazine completely. The magazine is outdated old news, PM scores etc are available quickly on the NRAA website and other news can be circulated via State websites.

Cheers
Danny

scott/r
Posts: 700
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2014 8:22 pm
Location: far north brisbane

Re: Ammunition levy

#7 Postby scott/r » Sat Nov 09, 2019 8:04 am

sungazer wrote:Perhaps it is time to look to a takeover or merger into the SSAA a larger pool of shooters already being managed economies of scale and less duplication.


Sungazer, you've mentioned this "take over of ssaa" a few times over different topics. Without sounding rude, you've got to have rocks in your head to think that would ever be possible, let alone viable. It'd be the quickest way to kill long range target shooting known to man. With ssaa's membership and budgets, do you honestly think we'd get a look in to shoot as we do now.


Personally, I don't have a problem with the levy thats in place now or with all of us paying the extra 10 or 20 bucks a year in nraa membership. At the end of the day, if we want to keep doing what we do, we need to have a governing body to watch over our sport and rights to play that sport. And having a broke and penniless governing body is not making any sense to me. Trying to put a bullet tax on f open and ftr is pointless because you guys can source your prjectiles from anywhere. The only reason you would purchase them from the state shops is if they were cheaper, but with a tax on top of the the usual price, I can't see that being the case.
As I said before, $10 from each of us a year is nothing when you consider what is at stake. McDonald's have a burger they charge $10 for, you'll spend ten bucks on 2 coffees, but for some reason we don't want to spend an extra tenner on ensuring that we get to keep on doing what we love to do.
Scott.

jasmay
Posts: 1072
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 9:26 pm

Re: Ammunition levy

#8 Postby jasmay » Sat Nov 09, 2019 7:17 pm

Agree with Scott, any affiliation which would see SSAA end up with potential for control of our ranges would be very bad for our disciplines.

Some form of alliance would be beneficial.

States need to look to move to more of a commercial arrangement to bring in funds.

I have some proposals I am working on, slow going though, I did put them out to a few members for input/comment, received very little back.... people are busy and that’s just how it is, unless it becomes more of a commercial based system I don’t see that aspect changing.

Cricket, football & soccer clubs, all sports far more popular than shooting all struggle at a club level when the reliance is heavy on volunteers, have seen many a club fold. The model doesn’t work very well these days.

sungazer
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:58 pm

Re: Ammunition levy

#9 Postby sungazer » Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:12 am

@Trevor a FUDD is someone who doesn't care what happens because it doesn't affect them.

Perhaps I have this wrong but if you listed the bullets that are taxed that would make it clear.

Who or what discipline is affected by the tax the way I see it is Fopen has a free choice to purchase any projectiles they like. Hence it would be hard to apply a tax here.
FTR likewise can use any projectile the like say Lapua again is a tax gathered on those?
Fstd the 223 shooters can now use any bullet up to 90 grain any brand how can that be policed and taxed.
That leaves the TR and 308 Fstd shooters that are still restricted to certain brands and weights. I bet these are the bullets that are contributing to the Tax. Companies like Lapua should actually take legal action against the NRAA for creating a restriction of trade the NRAA and VRA were happy to run there Advertisements for the 155grn Scenars.

Yes I do see that the SSAA would be beneficial to our sport if they took over as the governing body. I think it would be better to do it sooner than latter as while we are still self reliant we could have influence over a merger. If we are bankrupt or only have a small number of members that is the worse time to be looking at any merger / takeover.

Like any company mergers the aim is to reduce duplication in the administration portion of the business or any duplication and to use the strengths of both entities. They have the numbers in people and budget they are proactive in advertising and large events. Things we really lack, what they lack is ranges an issue would be that they can not simply operate many of our ranges like they do theirs due to a reduced danger zone. But they could adopt our safety procedures and run them.

Another curiosity question what is the current number of shooting members and what has it been over the last 10 years?
it would also be good to know how many members are in each age bracket of say 5 year intervals. This is so you can look forward to how may be leaving the sport and how many are coming in. Every organization (every person) should have a 5 year plan and an even further out goal.

Wingnut
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2018 7:34 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Ammunition levy

#10 Postby Wingnut » Sun Nov 10, 2019 11:32 am

A lot of interesting thoughts going on. My take on things being a relatively new shooter (less than 3 years in this game) who shoots F-open and also hunts: (This encroaches on a few different areas)

Our organisation is incredibly resistant to change. Heaven forbid you mention making changes to anything that might change the status quo. We do not accommodate people who come out to our ranges with a view to trying out what we do, or who just want to use the facilities to zero their rifles. We have a hard time imagining people shooting different disciplines on our ranges and heaven forbid your rifle is fitted with a muzzle break. We lose so many potential members as a result.

We have limited revenue streams which makes the generation of funds to operate, improve services or complete projects almost impossible. We do not appear to have any real affiliations with sponsors or marketing of our "brand" as a commercial entity. As far as I am aware, we don't offer services which cater for things like corporate team building days, training and development programs, televised competitions and the like. We need to examine offering an insurance product, at a small additional fee, that covers people wanting to use their rifles etc whilst out hunting, same as SSAA do. I cant speak for everyone, but I only maintain a SSAA membership ($128) per year so my rifles and equipment is covered while out hunting. You offer me an insurance that matches (or betters) theirs for $30 - $40 and I'd drop them like a hot potato. I also do not understand why we do not have commercial arrangements to import the various bits and pieces we use in our sport. Instead, we are left with a system that is controlled by one or two entities, and the associated price gouging that happens.

The number of people who complain when an increase in fees is proposed is almost overwhelming. While I appreciate there are lots of people out there on fixed incomes, paying an additional $25 per year (50 cents per week) to keep our organisation solvent would make some peoples minds implode. A fee increase across the board is a fair and equitable way of all members paying for the services the NRAA offers as the governing body.

Further, we should look at the State and National bodies taking over the range leases. Again, this may cause some peoples minds to explode, but it means that the state and national bodies can protect those facilities (and all the associated history / shields / trophys) from being given as a default to the SSAA or other groups who move in when the clubs membership begins to rapidly decline. The state associations (in conjunction with the local clubs) could then also look at commercial leases on unused facilities that would offer additional revenue. Country areas could look into live stock agistment / cropping / multi purpose use (low cost caravan sites / camping) of the land for additional income. Metropolitan facilities could lease out the ranges during the week and at other times when they're not being used. We need to change the mindset of our organisations from "just being a shooting club", to being run like a business. We need to control the real estate. That's where the value of our associations lies. That's the one thing SSAA and other organisations do not have.


We do not promote the sport enough. We fail to drive the safety aspect of our sport to schools and other organisations within the community as the "Safe" sport for kids. When was the last time you heard of someone under the age of thirty getting a broken bone shooting? Concussions? sprains and strains? Yet there is a perception within the community that what we do is dangerous. When was the last time you saw an article in the paper / online about the exploits of the Australian shooting team or another individual within our sport?

I think we need to have a holistic look at what we do and how we do it, and start making some positive "changes".

Wal86
Posts: 218
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2016 5:10 pm

Re: Ammunition levy

#11 Postby Wal86 » Sun Nov 10, 2019 1:41 pm

Spot on wingnut, =D> =D> =D>
Last edited by Wal86 on Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

bobbyaxe
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2018 1:07 pm

Re: Ammunition levy

#12 Postby bobbyaxe » Sun Nov 10, 2019 5:21 pm

I completely agree with Wingnut. The focus should be on how do we reduce overall fees by increasing attendance by current members and also increasing new memberships to the sport.

A few thoughts:

I suggest we learn from PRS shooting as it has grown exponentially in Australia and abroad. Having an entry class that limits the total cost of optics and rifles will help.

Muzzle breaks... no one likes laying beside them but it's possible to either let them shoot later in the day or set up portable baffles that stop the blast traveling to the neighboring shooter. Rather than turning them away, find a way to get them to shoot that day without removing the break.

Magazines: If the shooter is new to the range maybe ask that they do a few single shots until you know they're on target. Then let them use the magazines with 5 shots.

Create new events, that are done weekly and tie back to club championships. This could include single shot matches, multiple target matches where someone calls out the target number and the shooter needs to fire within a very limited time frame.

Every month we need to hold try shooting days, where P650's can come out at no cost, except for the ammunition. I'd also suggest that if a member brings on X new members in a year they're entitled to Y% discount on their membership the following year.

Any competent member of a club that's been with a club for more than 2 years, should be asked if they would like to become an examiner for the firearms safety training test. The more people you have that can complete this, the more people you'll have joining the sport.

As we move towards a cashless society, it's worth adopting payment processing machines like square payments, so that we don't make it so hard that people just don't come back.

bruce moulds
Posts: 2697
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 4:07 pm

Re: Ammunition levy

#13 Postby bruce moulds » Sun Nov 10, 2019 6:10 pm

firstlythe question is why after a general downward trend in membership nos, did membership increase in 2016/2017, then a further downward trend.
surely nraa management must have asked why the increase, and how could this have been built on.
this whole bullet tax debate is really about funding the nraa.
how they see those funds spent would be most interesting.
we now face a funding dilemma due to allowing membership to slide, and a failure to find new ways (see ssaa and other bodies) of raising money.
raising fees is potentially another nail in the coffin, but might be necessary as a temporary measure to get the show back on the road.
this would be acceptable, subject to management not falling back on the easy way as things were done in the past.
there must be an effective plan for new ways of finance, as well as membership numbers increase.
the two things are strongly linked.
bruce.
"SUCH IS LIFE" Edward Kelly 11 nov 1880
http://youtu.be/YRaRCCZjdTM

DannyS
Posts: 978
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Hamilton
Contact:

Re: Ammunition levy

#14 Postby DannyS » Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:01 pm

I wonder with this forum and some of the views expressed as to how many of the contributors are actually NRAA members, and if they aren’t then what is their agenda.

sungazer
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:58 pm

Re: Ammunition levy

#15 Postby sungazer » Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:47 am

I may have opinions different to a lot of NRAA members but I am a very active member non the less. Working hard at club level and having some great success. Not afraid to go outside the box and introduce some small changes.

As Wingnut said. "Our organisation is incredibly resistant to change. Heaven forbid you mention making changes to anything that might change the status quo"

It seems looking at some rules and seeing if they are relevant to the way things operate today and change them for todays conditions is an example. Although this has started for the extreme cases so should be commended for that.


Return to “General Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests