Harlan's grasp safe with Dave Shaeffer's suspension

Bat, I think the response time is 30 days. They gave the accused person in my case in excess of 60 days. So do not put to much faith in how close the EC abides by their own rules and bylaws. How much time elapsed between the PA state shoot and the grand? Was the delegate in his home state notified? When was he notified? These are things pertaining to the lead up to the suspension. The EC is not very forthcoming on info about any of their actions, thus many members are suspect of just about any actions they take.
The EC should realize that when the officers of any organization loose the confidence of the members, the organization is in trouble. Having faith in the leaders is what keeps any member organization viable. With out it, the membership declines, and control is lost as to how the organization is operated. Waiting 3-4 months for the report of what happened at a meeting is not good practice. It makes one think things are being hid, does it not?
You are probably correct that the problem started after the round was finished. If the accusers prompted the confrontation they should also be suspended. This should have nothing to do with prior problems with Dave, unless he was warned about his conduct on the field. It seems a lot of people dislike him, for reasons not stated, those are personal problems, that they should have taken up with him personally. All people had to do was refuse to squad with him. This would have got his attention. They should have told him why, so he could change his ways. Roger C.

 

I strongly disagree with who think it may serve ...... anyone taking the time to read can have a better understanding ......

Any rule/by-law should not be "subjective", but very "specific" as you ask others to be ......

If "calendar days vs working days" or "the definition of safe gun handling does not matter", then NOTHING in the "rules/by-laws" does ......

 

I disagree User, it is not a good idea to "define" safe gun handling specifically. It's fine to describe certain items that fit a very specific circumstance, but safe gun handling is not something that can be defined to cover every possible action that some may come up with.

Roger, the bylaws do provide that ATA may allow a person an extension of time to reply on a case by case basis.

 

What about this ????? Is it "two" in name only ?????

 

This was mentioned before but it seems like it fell through the cracks - Harlan's name should be removed from the title of this thread. The administrator should do it if the poster doesn't.

 

The "NRA", and others, get "specific" enough with "definitions", that it would be clear to see a "violation" ..... https://gunsafetyrules.nra.org/

Why not the "ATA" ????? You can always "add definitions" as need be .....

Some even call it "Gun Etiquette" ...... http://www.magtechammunition.com/resources/safety-university/gun-etiquette/

Even the NLEFIA publishes their "Four Firearms Safety Rules" ...... https://nlefia.org/fsr

"Others" seem to not agree with your opinion of ...... "it is not a good idea to "define" safe gun handling specifically" ......

 

There remains the perceivable inconsistency in the severity of discipline recommended by Delegates and levied by ATA Executive Committees.

Interesting observation oleolliedawg.

HB

 

User, no, your examples from the NRA etc. are not comparable to the issue we are dealing with. They are not an organization's bylaw provision etc. that lists the exact and only actions that a member may be punished for. The NRA is trying to provide general gun safety rules to everyone. They are not limiting themselves to those rules in their internal member sanctions. The rules are great, and ATA could certainly use that as support for any situation where they are making a determination on unsafe acts. But, they are not rules that limit what the NRA can use to describe what a member can be sanctioned for violating.

The problem with making a very specific definition of something like "gun safety," in the context we are discussing, namely rules and member sanctions, is that you cannot possibly consider all of the unsafe acts that could occur. When you define an infraction specifically, you will not mention every conceivable action, and since you specifically defined the term in your rules, anything not specifically included in the definition is automatically legal. It is preferable have a general rule requiring safe gun handling, and to name a group responsible for making a determination based on the facts in a given case as to what that is.

As I stated, the big issue here will likely turn out to be behavior after the shooting. What went on during the event probably got people upset, but it was the actions afterward that seem to have really set-off both the ATA and even more severely the PSSA. Get Merlo on it, maybe some more details can come out of what set PA off so bad. Oleolliedawg has connections, and I think he gets along with most of them so he might know more.

 

Bat, It depends on who the accused happens to be. I do not want to air old news on here. If we ever meet remind me and you may not believe what you hear.
I to believe the real problem arose after the shoot was competed. If you poke a bear with a sharp stick, you may not like the outcome. Then you run for help. Roger C.

 

Bat, You are correct the time line does not fit the process. The decision was made way ahead of the procedure time line. Read my post about the EC not following their own rules and bylaws.
I wonder if their actions have any thing to do with our shrinking membership? Members have no other way of objecting to actions they do not condone. Roger C.

 

"What went on during the event probably got people upset, but it was the actions afterward that seem to have really set-off both the ATA and even more severely the PSSA."

Hmmmmmmmm ...... read this a few times, as I have ...... What do you KNOW that you are not telling ???????????? "it was the actions afterward" says you have information ..... What is it ???????

You didn't post "may have", "could have", "alleged", or anything else ...... so what "actions" are you speaking directly about ????????????

 

Does it make any difference to know that when interviewed by the shoot director and later the State Delegate, the scorekeeper for the squad who personally witnessed the entire incident and is an impartial party to this issue, told nearly the EXACT same story that the accusers told?

 

Sure it would ...... IF "the entire incident" happened where this person could "see" and "hear" everything ......

"Mr.Schaeffer" may be "guilty" of everything he was accused of doing ...... but, as those who post here keep saying, there is ZERO trust in the "ATA" ...... and so far ZERO people from PSSA or the ATA are willing to support "the other side of the story" .....

 

Sir, by the very rules you have agreed to abide by via your membership in the ATA, the disciplinary committee has investigated the matter, rendered judgement and disciplinary suspension based on the evidence presented. The scorekeeper providing affirmative backing to the accusers was likely the deciding factor. IF as you seem to suggest there were issues or altercations that arose later at a different location then Mr. Schaeffer hould be addressing that i. A sepaate complaint which is his right to do so. You seem to want and continue to insist that ATA officials should comment further on this when no other organization, sports team, etc. EVER does that. Once investigated and a decision is rendered the matter is closed and internal details and discussions are NOT made public. Mr. Schaeffer may either accept this and move on or as has been sugested here seek legal redress if he and his attorny feel it appropriate. I have no dog in this fight sir, but I understand and accept the rules of the organization I CHOSE to join.

 

User 1. you quote portions of my post and waste time with posts such as above. Don't pull one sentence out and make an issue out of it when it is out of context. In the leading sentence of the paragraph you pulled that from, I said "As I stated, the big issue here will likely turn out to be behavior after the shooting" emphasis added. Read the paragraph in context. From what I have read there was a lot going on afterward also, but of course none of us know what the main issues were if we have not read the complaints. I could certainly be wrong about that.

 

Yea well ..... before we start beating that dead horse, on the wrong thread, spend some time going over the membership numbers, Grand attendance numbers, and so on ...... and you will see tens of thousands of "members" ain't buying that garbage in your last post .....

 

Roger, I can't say the timeline does not fit, I was just saying it can take some time.

The complaint has to be made within 30 days, then reviewed by the ED, passed on to the Delegate to send a copy to the accused and investigate, accused has to respond with 14 days of receipt of the copy of the complaint from the ATA. Depending on when the complaint is filed, it could take some time, or it could move rather quickly. Delegate and Zone VP write up recommendations and then it is considered by the EC. The ATA is also allowed to extend any of these deadlines for good cause. A month would seem very fast, but it would seem one of these could drag on for a couple months or more depending on circumstances.

 

That makes it sound like I'm wrong about most of the issues occurring after the event had ended. That's why I keep stating that none of who have not read the complaints really know the story.

 

The "sentence" reads the same in any "context" ..... "it was" doesn't change ..... "was" "2. occur; take place."

 

Nearly? How do you know this? What was different?

Huh? This wont be in the minutes?

What was their decision on the Pull2012? Explain that one Bobby.

 

Yes there Davidson I kinda of want to hear Bobby Ward's explanation of Rob Taylor's involvement on the pull2012 issue, what his punishment, if any, his buddies on the EC gave him. And if he had to write a letter to the life members that he screwed over for his own enrichment. Because if he sent one, I didn't get mine. Brad

 

Hey Brad,

Long time no see.....Hope you are well. Obviously dude I have no explanation for the case you ask about because I know nothing of it. I am sure however there are numerous cases of inequity that can be quoted on this site and others. Don't know much about them either. And I have ZERO personal knowledge having not been there for this incident but like many others who post here I have talked to some of the principals involved. Past mistakes cannot be undone Brad. All we can hope for and try to do is make sure they don't happen again. This discussion, while I disagree with a great deal of it, serves a good purpose of showing ATA officials there is discontent.

Davidson, it came from someone there...When I used the word "nearly" above I mean in almost the exact same words used by the accusers. And since you brought it up sir perhaps rather than ask a question you know likely could not be answered, why not enlighten us with your version of the pull2012 issue? Before you do, answer me this: What could it possibly have to do with this issue?

User 1...I cannot and would not argue that there is not some discontent among the membership but for you to suggest it is the only or the main reason for lack of attendance and participation is truly a farce sir. Do you suppose back when gas hit $4.00 a gallon and targets due to petroleum prices skyrocketing went to $10 a case and shot was $51 a bag and shell prices to match, losing the old home grounds, etc. had anything at all to do with it?

 

Well you stepped in it there Bobby.......
------------------------------------------------
People from Ohio and PA that used to flock to Vandalia can tell you about bad economic times and shooting trap.
Remember the hyper-inflation under Nixon but Vandalia and trapshooting was getting bigger.

Carter and his malaise and double digit unemployment and the fuel shortage hit the Midwest hard. Of course it was another banner era for trapshooting.

One of the worst days for the Vandalia and the trapshooting lands was the Monday the steel mills closed in Ohio and PA. Another great year for trapshooting. One of the biggest.

Black Thursday and the stock market crash and the following recession did not stop trapshooting.

The next big crash was the dot com crash. Hurt everything but trapshooting. Vandalia hardly blinked.

We have been reminded on occasion how well the sport did during the great recession. Darn good.

All those bad times above we call the golden age of trapshooting. The good 'ole days.

Then came the move. Not even trapshooting could overcome that.

The move was only one of the moves. It was a big one. The lack of oversight has been our fault. There is a little now thanks to this website. But who wants the scraps?

 

Bobby, I wasn't sure if you were the Bobby Ward I knew or not, it has been a long time no see. I see that the pull2012 thread has been put up to the top so you can read it and catch up on what you missed. My point is that I know for a fact that the EC does not use any type of normal operating procedure when they issue punishment. I mentioned the 2012 because that was an EC member, Taylor, making money off of his position with no punishment that I know of. Also a few years back you had the son of a shooter SHOOTING an outhouse on the sporting clays range at Sparta with I think a 10 month penalty. I can't remember all the details so don't hold it against me if I'm off some on that, but I bet you kind find the discussion on here somewhere.

I don't know if Dave did what the ATA EC say he did or not , I do know from first hand experiences that the EC is very arbitrary in how they choose to enforce the rule book. Bobby I'm sure if you remember back to the old day's, three forth's of all the shooters we ever shot with could have been kicked out for various reasons.

Cussing and name calling just never hurt my sense abilities, on the other hand unsafe gun handling should be a capital offense. Two practices of today's modern shooter that I can't stand is TARGET claiming, on constantly resetting every trap to suit yourself. You remember I'm sure what some of us thought of target claimers in the day and hardly anyone reset a trap, but today this is standard procedure.

Brad

 

They raised the cost of targets that year I think to pay for that self enrichment.

 

I am betting the scorekeeper saw this issue as well - - Check the punishment

E. C. Minutes, December 12, 2014, pg. 4-5115 #15-02 – Filed against Harry Franklin, Jr. (#10-12357) and David Franklin (#10-14937) by James
116 J. Traynor (#08-11381)
117 During an ATA registered event at the Silver Dollar Shooters Club (FL) on September 1, 2014,
118 Mr. Traynor alleges that Harry Franklin, Jr. left the firing line with a live round in his opened
119 gun. The shell had slipped past the extractor of the gun and Mr. Franklin, Jr. left the line to
120 seek assistance in removing the shell from his father who was seated in a sun shelter behind
121 the line. While walking to the sun shelter, the muzzle of the gun was pointed in the direction of
122 several individuals in the sun shelter. Harry’s father was successful in removing the round
123 whereupon shooter Franklin, Jr. returned to the firing line only to have the same thing happen
124 again. This time Harry’s father walked to the trap field and removed the live shell from the gun
125 while standing behind the firing line. The complaint alleges violation of Section IV, I, rules 10
126 and 12. As this was a safety violation the two complainants were immediately placed under
127 administrative suspension. The complaint was sent to the delegate on September 2, 2014, and
128 he returned his recommendation on September 9, 2014. The investigation revealed that the
129 complainants were made aware of, and understood the safety violation shortly after it
130 occurred. It was clear that the violation was unintentional and that the complainants now have
131 a heightened awareness of safety procedures. The recommendation to the Executive
132 Committee was that the administrative suspension be removed and there be no further
133 sanctions. The Executive Committee accepted the recommendation and the parties to the
134 complaint were informed on September 13, 2014.

And................no oops sorry letter required.

 

Well "Bobby Ward" ...... It has been beat to death, but one more time just for you .....

To your point ...... In 1968 my father would purchase primers by the 100, powder in a one pound paper bag, pick up used wads, and buy shot one bag at a time ...... and we shot several days per week under those conditions, both of us joining the "ATA" by 1972.

Now I, like many others I know, can buy truck-loads of whatever I want, shoot any type of shotgun I desire, and so on ..... and I turn down free travel and lodging to attend the "Sparta Grand" ...... So., if you are asking me if "money" has anything to do with the decline, I will have to answer, not for me and many others I know ......

 

Yo Brad,

YUP its me! Same sorry assed shooter that you, Leo, Doc and Louie let fill your singles & handicap squad at the Illinois State Shoot in 93 and 94. I remember a lot about that shoot but the one thing I will ALWAYS remember best and most is you breaking 97 that day. The only reason you broke 97 was you REFUSED target #98 that the scorekeeper scored dead. One of the classiest moves I have ever seen and sportmanship at the highet level. And you are right friend. If course language and name calling would have been the standard for disqualification we would all have been spectators from the Budweiser tent. I think and I would hope most would agree that with the frequent changes in delegates and officers, consistency would be hard to come by. Bad things have been done for sure Brad and maybe we can't or wont overcome them. Right now I guess I would remember the good times and the good old days when Leo was still among us and we just shot and had a good time. Going to pour myself a double dram of 18 year old Glenlivet and drink a toast to old times and good friends, you very much still among them. Thanks for that lesson in sportsmanship Brad....Your character was always way beyond reproach.

Best to you always old friend.....Bobby

 

User 1, I honestly and sincerely am happy money is not an issue for you sir. I hope you someday pass the million taret count with a clean 100 straight. Sadly though sir way more are on the short end of the money tree and shooting dollars are hard to find. Your passion on this point is admirable sir, I just disagree and that doesn't make you or me more right or more wrong. I truly wish you well.

 

Trapshooting was booming during the great depression and the recessions above. Corruption has killed the goose. Hence the distrust for anything EC. Pull2012 is a great read.

 

And I would like to return the sentiment to you.

Difference of opinion makes things interesting ... when opinions are trying to be passed as facts, is where it gets ugly ......

 

Consider that there could have been a problem for the ATA if Shaeffer did become the Captain of the team. Would you want Shaeffer to be the darling of your organization? Maybe if you met Shaeffer you would say not. Just saying and repeating.

Someone posted your job as an officer is to look out for the best interest of the corporation.

 

What an interesting way to "look" at this .......

You "could be" ...... "alluding to" ...... "Industry et al" ....... may put pressure on the "ATA" ...... to have "their" preferred face/personality "represent" their "products" ......

The "average shooter" would not care if "Godzilla" was top "All American" shooter ...... but one could see how "Industry" may care .....

 

chouse, You may be correct in you assumption. Think back to when Jimmy Robinson picked the all American teams. It was based on; deportment, ability, and their personality. Their personal conduct was a factor. I will never believe Harlan had anything to do with this dilemma. A set up is still looming in the back ground, the whole thing smells.
If they wanted to by pass David, that is what they should have done. To besmirch his name , is the wrong thing to do.I do not know David, but a mans good name and a bare ass is the only thing a man brings into this world, and he should be able to go out the same way. No one should cast doubt on that name. Any one that does brings shame to his own name. Roger C.

 

Roger C, I would hope as you express here that EVERYONE would be judged fairly on personal experience with that individual, NOT on what is offered second hand in back room conversations.

 

Bobby, I have tried my whole life not to judge my friends. I also try to give as much leeway to people as possible, we are all individuals in this world, especially trap shooters. If we all fit in the same box it would be a very dull place to dwell. I have stated we must hear the whole story, then make our own personal decisions. It may not agree with the outcome, but it will the on we believe in.
The EC surely knows the shooters are following this very closely. Do you not think they should more forth coming with the reasons for the decision they made. Not just citing the rule the was broken, but how that rule was broken. I think many members would have more respect for the decisions made by the EC and BOD if they would inform the membership as to what is happening in our sport, before it leaks out and causes hard feelings and discourse among the whole organization. Roger C.

 

Roger,
All disciplinary actions used to be published in Trap & Field periodically although I don't remember the timing of the publication in regard to the actual date the action was taken. Does that still happen? I do remember however that there was no blow by blow detail in most cases that many on this thread suggest is necessary. I do as you ask, believe any such actions and the involved should receive full and equal consideration and that the membership should be informed of said actions. I think however that some details if made public could be embarrassing and or personally damaging to a member in question and I think that would not be beneficial or fair to any party involved.

My take on this case, again having NOT been there but having talked to some of the parties who were, is that it came down to accusers offering their version, and the accused offering his with a supporting witness. At that point it became 3 saying one thing and two saying another. When asked, the scorekeeper who would be an impartial witness in my estimation, offered substantiating testimony in favor of the accusers. Trying to be fair and impartial I would give great weight to that evidence over the others and it would tip the scale against the accused.

It has been stated in these discussions that the EC has been biased and inconsistent in past like cases. I think that is HIGHLY likely and that discipline over the years has not been consistent. That puts a question in the minds of many, me included, as to the overall fairness of the system. People have left the ATA over the political state of things. That is sad for all of us. But to your fairly posed question: "Do I think the EC should be more forthcoming with the reasons for the decision they made?" I guess I would be very careful in divulging each and every detail in every instance of disciplinary action in fairness to all parties involved. Many times in professional and or college sports an athlete is suspended for things like violation of team rules and the school when questioned specifically always responds: "That matter has been dealt with internally and no further comment will be made." Here, the EC has listed the sections violated by section and paragraph and for me that is enough. I understand with the very hard feelings that exist toward the ATA in general by some that it will never be enough and I respect that. I am just not sure that whatever would be offered will answer every question that some might pose. And I admire your open minded approach to this.

Bobby

 

Today, there are video recordings of EVERTYHING in our world, too bad someone didn't get this occurrence.

 

The true words of a Kool Aid drinker! Kool Aiders like Bobby are the the reason for our sport's decline.

He didn't read the Pull2012 story. For lots of Kool Aiders the misleading minutes were enough.

------------

You rock Bobby. Rock in the eyes of the Kool Aid servers. BARF!

 

Ha ha ha, Roger it all comes to what I was told quite some time ago.....The membership will be informed on a NEED TO KNOW BASIS.

And Bobby Ward, The ATA succeeded in getting rid of one more thorn in their side because of their shenanigans. I was nobody special but enjoyed the shooting with friends. I did not pay my annual dues this season, and unless things change, probably never will again. Now I just go and shoot the the breeze with my friends.

 

I'm neither defending nor condemning the EC, but, we live in a very litigious society these days. Perhaps the less said publicly the better.

 

Oh geeze....... So now I am a Kool Aid drinker because I don't agree in lockstep with everyone and everything on this site? Because I don't condemn anything and everything the ATA and the EC does and stands for? Well davidson..you win Sir....Brand me what you will but I did read the Pull2012 story but NOT on your recommendation but instead because I have a world and beyond respect for Brad Dysinger and his opinions and he suggested I read it. It is a sad story and I think and agree with Brad that it paints a factual story that the actions at times of the ATA are self serving to a select few at best. Whoa! Did I just spit out the Kool Aid? I agree as well that discontent from issues like this most definitely added to the decline of membership. Wow...another dose of Kool Aid expelled? My point in all of this discussion sir has been even if poorly communicated perhaps at times, that I hope ALL PARTIES are treated fairly in this process. If I look at the facts which are available to us right now, it came down to 3 opinions against 2 opinions and all 5 of those were directly involved in the incident. The scorekeeper WAS NOT involved other than being a direct and impartial witness and that person agreed with the 3 accusers. If I am fair minded that would be the best evidence available and unless something else came in to refute it I would like reach the same conclusion. If that is drinking the Kool Aid I am guilty as charged.

Brads friend..... I feel your pain sir. I am still a member but went from shooting 25,000+ targets a year down to a annual appearance at the Grand shooting 200 targets annually. I do that because I still enjoy occasionally shooting with my friends who continue to be active throughout the target year. But I no longer care to waste a lot of my money participating earnestly in a system that I feel is unfair to the average shooter. And yes sir I made my opinion known to the ATA on every level that I could pursue and was looked at like I was a just a whiner and malcontent. I learned from that incident that I DID NOT matter to the people who were supposed to listen to me. So they lost me too for the biggest part. That I choose to once a year or maybe twice enjoy the company of my friends is my choice and if it costs me an annual membership to do that I deem it ok and necessary. The ATA did not go broke because of me stopping my more involved pursuit but when more and more shooters drop out maybe it will someday hit home for them. You have to wonder don't you actually how many like you and me there are and how many more are to come? My best to you sir....

 

Bobby, Your last post cleared up for me many things that were on my mind. It's to bad that you lost a sport that you enjoyed as many of us have. When the members of any organization have no say in the operations, they loose interest in the sport. I think that is what had an affect on the rise of Sporting Clays. I mentioned this many times on here and to some of the ATA people. It had no affect on their line of thinking. It has turned into a self serving entity, and being used as a cash cow.
Many of the people that I shot with have left the sport and the new shooters do not know what it was to be a competitor before the demise of the sport. I still feel glad to have competed in the sport in the great day's of trap shooting. That feeling can never be replicated today. I have registered about 350,000 targets, shot in 39 Grand Americans, and I to am ready to hang up the guns. It was fun I enjoyed ever shot I fired and would not change any thing , especially the friends that I have made all over this country. And my many friends from up north in Canada. Shoot well and enjoy. Roger Coveleskie

 

NO...you are a Kool Aid drinker because of your silly post.

"Here, the EC has listed the sections violated by section and paragraph and for me that is enough for me."

Drink up Bobby. It has nothing to do with this site. Saying this forum is monolithic is offensive. Read some more Bobby. These guys do a lot of research. They enjoy opposing views.
------

What facts are those? Where did you get them?

Did you hear that testimony? Or is that the word of an EC member? Hmmmm. What flavor is that Kool Aid?

 

davidson you are obviously on a much higher plane of conciousness and intelligence than I am. Maybe its the result of years of recoil slowing my below average brain. As is evident from yor response to my direct communication and here again now, nothing I say is ever going to be good enough for you. Best to you sir and friend..

Roger C I share your thoughts thhat the greatet reward from this sport are the many friends I have made along the way. That I can still enjoy those relationshps today in person and on line is gratifying indeed. As you can see above there are detractors too.....remember friend no good deed goes unpunished!

All the best to you and your family, friend

 

Bobby....

The point is you are telling us some things that are facts as you say. You said,
If I look at the facts which are available to us right now, it came down to 3 opinions against 2 opinions and all 5 of those were directly involved in the incident.

You avoided the question. How did you come to know that these are facts?

Don't send me a pm. It is a forum. That is how they do it here.

 

Davidson,

I avoided nothing. You are not a lawyer and I am NOT under interrogation in a court of law and you WILL NOT insult and then dictate to me what my activities will be in this or any other forum. If you want respect you have to earn it. At this point you have earned nothing from me. Like several others in this discussion I have openly said I have spoken to some of the individuals involved and my information vame from them. Anything that does not fit your agenda draws your criticism and disdain. That is your issue not mine.

 

Bobby--you say you avoided nothing.. Huh? Nothing but the answer. You said you know the facts. You said, "If I look at the facts which are available to us right now, it came down to 3 opinions against 2 opinions and all 5 of those were directly involved in the incident."

So those are the facts? Again....where did you get the facts? How do you know they are "the facts"? You say you talked to some people involved. What people? Friends of the accused, the accuser, or friends or Fred the Barber?

How do you know it came down to 3 opinions to 2 opinions. Are you talking about EC opinions or those testifying.?

Usually you don't call the testimonies opinions.

More and more it sounds like your BS would go better with a glass of Kool Aid. So far you haven't poured enough.

 

I got your pm again Bobby. Keep them to yourself. Don't need them.

They don't just shut up here or quit asking questions simply because you do not care to answer or like the venue. At least the original poster made is clear where he or she got his message you have only sent me private pm's that do not answer the question you keep dodging.

It is mega clear you probably don't have the facts. A good guess maybe or not. So far you have poured nothing but Kool Aid. No answers. Only question dodging. Makes me think you are a likely candidate for EC. Either way you are pouring the EC drink.

 

Well since you keep tripping over it......You continually question me because it fits YOUR agenda only, I wonder why since you have seemed to anoint yourself as the site moderator that you did not do the same with the first post that started this thread. Do not take that wrong..I am NOT questioning Merlot and the piece he offers as Interview with David Schaeffer. He makes several statements in his posting presenting "factual testimony" supposedly from Schaeffer and his witness and supporter and yet you accept it at face value. Obviously because it fits and suits your agenda. Anything contrary or questioning what YOU personally believe does NOT fit or sit well with you so you stoop to hurling insults and engage in name calling. Again that is your fight sir, not mine. And you seem quite brave hiding behind the anonymity of a computer screen and a nickname unless it involves a PM directly to you. Whether or not you need them or want them it is an option offered through participation on this site that you at times again fitting your agenda quote so firmly. So sir, I choose to engage those with a sense of decency and decorum and that does not mean you. I wish you well in the pursuit of your idea of justice here.

Attention username Bobby Ward. Please make yourself aware of the forum rules before posting again. Specifically the part about usernames. mods

 

Merlo made it very clear where he was getting the information. He said it was an interview. You have a question with Merlo? Ask him. Quit whining. They do that here. Kool aid is not consumed here.

You keep dodging the question. A question Merlo did not dodge. Who is your source? You said

No answer from you still. I call BS.

 

Blah blah blah.....wouldn't it be easier to just say where you got your information. It appears the EC knows the site is here.

 

I think Shaeffer had around 1,700 points before the grand and was not able to shoot the Cardinal Center. Question from me is what was the value of those points that have been removed?

Also, how is the retroactive removal of points consistent with the punishment?

 

Did Shaeffer decide not to shoot for Kolar or did they snub him?

 

We used to shoot for money now it's points and trinkets. Where have we gone wrong?

 

Well, I am now bored with this pathetic site.

But I will hack it again just for grins.......................
=======

We were aware at the beginning of the site that there would be people within the industry / sport that would want to take it down. We will continue to give the shooting population and vendors an open forum. Nothing new--moderators

 

oleolliedawg,
It happened when we became to trusting of the people we had in charge of the sport. They slowly took complete control of the organization, like thieves in the night. Who do we blame them or us? Them for being sneaky, us for being trustful and dumb. Just my opinion, what is yours. Roger C.
PS Foster we will really miss you. HONEST, You rate right up there with the class idiot.

 

Does the person that filed a complaint shoot a Kolar?

 

Another. Did Kolar donate a gun to the ATA for the grand? Strange questions but curious.

 

She is listed on the Kolar site.

 

No wonder he had statements but no answers. Question from me is why would Bobby Ward (if that is who he says he is) would claim to have inside information. The ATA EC would not give them privileged info would they.

 

Sir,

Like several other who have participated on this thread have said I spoke with one of the people involved. I am still discovering what the sie rules are in depth but not publishing personal information is evidently one of them. IF, owning andd shooting a Kolar is having ties to the company then you are correct I evidently have ties. In my time shooting trap I have also owned and shot Beretta, Winchester and Kreighoff so does that mean I have ties to them as well? I hope that the details of this incidcent are published in Trap & Field as has been past practice. Maybe then there will be some clarity.

 

I have NOT intended to offend anyone here. It is not my intent or purpose to degrade my comments to personal insults and name calling as some have or to lecture that person or persons on personal behavior. I have stated that I have spoken with one of the individuals involved BUT I DO NOT consider any information I might have to be more significant or have more credibility than the information any other poster might have. I have received two warnings about my postings and been advised to comply with the rules of this site which I honestly did not know I had broken. Always best to read rules and directions.....those rules include NOT posting things considered private or confidential and or personal information regarding others. So to my "friend" above perhaps HE should read the rules himself before demanding answers to his interrogation of me.

Attention username Bobby Ward previously we did not have to tell users on this site not to repeatedly send unwanted emails-moderators

I DO NOT believe the ATA and EC reads this site and if they do they DO NOT care what is said here any more than they have cared over the years when I and others I know attempted to speak with them directly and voice concerns on other issues. I appreciate the thoughtful and honest opinions expressed here, even those with which I might choose to disagree at times. Does NOT make me more correct or more wrong than any other contributor.

 

Bobby you are a real creepy. Spelling errors from you include, sie, andd, and Merlot. But yet you chastised Roger with your self righteous pompous attitude. In my opinion you come off as an EC butt sniffin hound. No disrespect to the hound.

I don't post much here but you and your clown hacking pal bring out the best in the world.

Creepy!

 

Just a heads up Bobby. There have been close to 6,000 views already just on this thread. Those people are not from the committee to elect Hillary. Do you think any could be members of the ATA?

Bobby, if you left click on the heading "views" the forums will be listed from most viewed to less. The one at the top should be close to 16,000. A little research would keep your posts from looking silly.

We have had many EC members and BOD posting here. Pipe Liar is one of the more notable. Do some research Bobby. Don't be so wimpy when challenged. You need challenged.

 

BS Bobby. You don't shoot because you have fewer friends to shoot with. It all started crumbling when you lost your attempt at running for the zone position.

I doubt you have any inside info.

 

Bobby, It looks like some of these dogs want to use you like a fire plug. Ignore their sarcasm.
FRANK, Never put anything above what the EC will or will not do. They do not always act like honorable men. Roger C.

 

If I were Kolar and the shooter that dissed my guns won I might be a bit miffed. Does anyone have the video of that?

 

Union strong, Kolar should be above that kind of action. It is below what honorable men and companies should do. When you dice your competition you upset many people that just may be thinking of buying your product. It could be a loosing action for a company to do that. If Dave was critical of their product they should have taken it as constructive criticism. To retaliate is many times counter productive. Roger C.

 

Bobby, In 87 or maybe 88 you did try and run for a position in the central zone. You apporached me,Eldon Trent and Bert Mathews and asked if we would vote for you. It was at the old Mather's land of sports club in Springfield.

 

Eldon Trent, now there is a name from the past. Shot with Eldon at Wallace many moons ago. I'm getting old!

 

Eldon is/was a great guy and shooter. I traveled alot with him from 86-91. Last time that I seen Eldon was 2012 at Sparta. I don't think he shoots any more.

 

Has anyone ever been given a 2 year suspension for anything like this before?

 

Heidelberg, Who was suspended for two years, and for what, by who? Has the ATA been installed as a mod? If they were I may be next. Roger C.

 

Roger C

I am talking about the Shaeffer suspension.

 

sorry, I thought you were talking about from AMER. TRAP SHOOTERS. Roger C.

 

How is it no one can remember anyone being suspended by the ATA for this long for an offense where no one was close to being hurt or there was not embezzlement of some type. Crypes we had systemic cheating and no one had a 2 year suspension a few years ago.

Blood must have been spilt. Just guessing.

 

Heidelberg, I think many are aware of such penalties. Just look at the minutes from last year and you will see similar situations.

Mr Shaeffer received a 1 - year suspension and requirement to make written apologies, with an additional year's suspension to be imposed for failing to follow the terms of the initial sanction. They set requirements as part of some penalties, and if you do not satisfy those requirement you receive an additional penalty just for ignoring the requirement. It isn't something they just did in this case. There are examples in those minutes... a guy whose penalty was just to write an apology letter, he failed to do so and received a year suspension for not following the ATA's terms of the initial penalty.

Guys have received worse penalties than this one without any blood flowing. See August 2016, two year suspension (more than Shaeffer's initial suspension) for verbal abuse. In another case a guy received received 5 years for similar issues. If you want to spend some time looking at it, I'm sure you can find more that received worse suspensions than one year.

 

Well, one of my buddies got a 5 year suspension for putting a line referee up against the wall at the Grand in Vandalia. It seems he informed the ref several times to hold the kids from starting cleanup on the adjacent trap until he finished his handicap round as it was distracting. Well, this kid, who looked like he just got out of Marine Corp boot camp-big, with ripples in the back of his neck and all, ignored my buddy once too often. Unfortunately, he ended up crying like a big baby and called security who then escorted this guy off the grounds. Now I know we're not supposed to beat up on line refs but after consuming a bottle of wine prior to shooting my buddy wasn't a real pleasant person to be around.

See, Sir Neil is right!

 

Wasn't there a man named "Earl Scripture" who received "worse" for alleged "systemic cheating" ......

It would be easy to guess that the mental midgets, when putting their collective thoughts together, did not expect such a "backlash" if a "man" "allegedly threatened" a "woman" ..... Given the "average age" of the "ATA membership", it is not something that would be considered "socially acceptable" ..... "They"(ATA) would do well to seek "legal counsel" the next time, to understand the "legal system" is more "gender-neutral" now, then "back in the day" ......

IF ..... it was a "one-sided confrontation" ..... the "Man" "allegedly" verbally threatening a "Woman" ..... the "punishment" may not be "harsh" enough .....

IF .... the "legal system" finds it "mutual" ..... "gender" may give no advantage, when all "reports" keep it "allegedly" being limited to a "verbal altercation", some undefined "unsafe" actions, and "alleged conduct" issues by ONLY ONE of the "involved" .....

It would be hard to imagine someone spending years of their time, and large amounts of their money ..... then just sitting back and "doing nothing" about what seems to be yet another ..... "not so clear" ..... "ATA" ..... "fantastic direction" .....

 

User 1 can you remember what the outcome of the Las Vegas Gun Club shoot from a few years back was. If I remember right the ATA had to resend their suspensions and pay them off too. Can you or anyone on here remember? The details escape me but I know the ATA had to fold so there is a resent history of the ATA EC going off half cocked without a true investigation. Brad

 

Yes, I don't recall the details on the Vegas deal, but ATA did not come out so good on that one. Hiring an attorney is always a choice, just is it worth it? Maybe, maybe not, depends on how bad you want to shoot.

 

Let me preface this post with, I have NO personal knowledge of this "lawsuit", or how "correct" this "information" is .....

From cyber-land ..... "Here’s some food for thought; because of the ATA’s willingness to settle instead of hitting the matter head on and incurring the possible cost they have potentially opened the door for every shooter who was or is given a suspension as a result of a negative finding, on any investigation, which is an opportunity to circumvent the ATA appeals process by file a frivolous law suit. Let alone it shows the complete lack of protection the Delegates have when investigating complaints, as they can be held punitively liable when they are listed on the suit."

"Jim and Gary posted that they had filed the suit against the ATA and then they posted again that the suit was settled. They posted that the ATA wanted the details of the case and settlement sealed. If you read their filed complaint it states that they, Jim and Gary, requested the court seal the file. Which is it? Can’t have it both ways."

"At some point the ATA, EC needs to wake-up, step up and take some responsibility. This entire issue should never have gotten to this point. The ATA, EC should have put out the correct information in the beginning. This might have at least made Jim and Gary stop and think about the lies and misinformation they would post."

Maybe ..... someday ..... the "ATA" will "figure out" ..... providing the "membership" with "information" ..... is NOT a "bad thing" ..... unless that "information" may be "worse" than cyber-land "supposition" ......

 

Thanks User 1. Brad

 

I would like to see a copy of the complaint on this. With this being the so called "open forum of facts" I find it hard to believe Merlo has not come up with one.

 

Merlo, ( Has lost his need to know status. ) We as members probably will never know the whole story of how this came about. If any one on the EC or BOD had a hand in the making of this problem, we will never get the true story. If this was the result of a set up, the persons that did it, have no honor, and will turn on one another at some later date. You can count on it, they can not trust one another as people with no honor have no trust either. Roger C.

 

Roger, I know two people from that squad who's integrity shouldn't be in question. Let's just say the suspension may have been a long time coming!

 

Oleolliedawg, I know no one on that squad, so I have no preconceived ideas about anyone of them. There are to many things that do not add up. We do not have all of the info as to what transpired between Dave and the other people after the shoot was over, and they were in the parking lot. I do know a little about human nature, and no one ever truly knows another person. We only know of our own experience with them, and that can be very limited. We all make choices, those people could have refused to squad with Dave. If he has a reputation of disturbing the squad stay away from him. If he is known to have a terrible temper, do not poke him with a sharp stick, just walk away. Roger C.

 

There were likely over 1,000 shooters in that event and it was unlikely those two squadmates ever knew Dave prior to entering.

 

'dawg......your previous posts make us wonder if a little more may have been tacked on. Not questioning the management of PA. Much different record than the EC.

 

If this is true, it makes it look worse for the "ATA", not better .....

IF ..... This person has a "known history", then "at this time" crosses the acceptable lines of "conduct" and "safety" enough for a "written complaint" to be presented against them ..... After being "notified" by "written complaint", the "ATA" allows this person to continue without a "temporary" suspension pending "investigation", and this person "goes on" to "injure" someone through "conduct" and/or "unsafe" actions ..... it is game over for the "ATA" .....

What "pushed" this incident "over the line" ... IF "the suspension may have been a long time coming!" for this person ?????

What possible reason would there for a "delay" in action, possibly putting "unknowing members" in "harms way" ?????

 

Let's just say even a "Godfather's" protection only lasts so long and when a subordinate steps over the line once too often he's properly fitted with a pair of "concrete shoes"!

 

"Let's just say" ... alleged "safety" and "conduct" issues, to the level of "suspension", is nothing to make "jokes" about .....

In the "February 19, 2017", "ATA minutes", lines "74 thru 85", this was the "filed" complaint ..... "moved from station five to station one with two live shell in his gun" .....

Is "this" acceptable, "lines 81 thru 83", ..... "that there was now complete understanding of the nature and concerns and that no further action was recommended" ??????????????

A "functioning" shotgun, with "two live shells", "moving from station five to one", can cause serious injury or death ..... A alleged SBT with a "stuck hull", could do the same "harm" as a baseball bat or golf club .....

Was a "blowhard" having a "bad day" ????? Or was something more serious than "two live shells", "moving from post five to post one", going on ?????

People's health and safety are very serious issues ...... the "ATA" doesn't need to "cheapen" that in any way by the "who", not the "what" ......

 

Dave is one very good shooter. If he is also a loose cannon, it's hard to believe that no one knew him, or of his disposition. As you said this was a long time coming, that makes it harder to believe that he was not known to those shooters. This was not their first rodeo. Where did the confrontation take place? Was it on the field or in the parking lot? oleolliedawg, you must know as you said you know two of the people involved. Did they accost him or did he accost them after leaving the field? If they instigated the conflict they are just as guilty of a rule infraction as he is.
I have no dog in this fight, all I'm concerned about is it must be fair to all parties involved. It does not appear to be the way it is to unbiased observers. It seems that Dave is being judged for things that happened in the past. The complaints should have been filed then.not at a much later date. If Past offences were registered in the complaint they are mute points and should not have any bearing on the actions at the PA shoot. Lady justice may be blind but people are not. Roger C.

 

So the guy from KY, that is now a VP, from the heartland of sandbagging, that was on the net saying the ATA may have been loosely ran in the past, is now one of those in charge of discipline.

Yippeeeee! What could go wrong?

 

The ATA should start the discipline in their own ranks. The self serving should be looked at. No more real estate insider deals. no more perks that are prohibited. That would be a good place to start. Roger C.

 

Where do you file the lawsuit? I am thinking that since Shaeffer is a member of the Maryland Assoc and the delegate there represents him that he can file in MD. That would be uncomfortable for the EC. Lots of travel.

 

DRAIN THE SWAMP .... WPT ... (YAC) ...

mango,
The EC gets paid for travel and expenses, it would be like a vacation for them ... Suck the Cash Cow dry, the members can kick in an extra $20 at a shoot down the road someplace to cover more of their screw ups ...

 

If there is a suit it will be against the other party. jmho

 

mango, The delegate does not represent David. He is an employee of the ATA. As stated by the EC. I would not want the delegate representing me again. I was screwed pretty good by mine a while back. Roger C.