Here's my thoughts... I am a member at three different clubs. Of those three clubs, only Silverdale will allow me to use a holster. My other two clubs do not allow holsters at all. You made this thread talking as though holster use is a god given right. Reality check: it's not. While I respect the other two clubs as being non-holster for whatever reasons they are, I respect Silverdale for being holster friendly. The two non-holster clubs are owned by the membership so to speak. If one were to want to bring holsters into the allowable rules, they would have to bring this up at meetings, have it voted on and such. Silverdale is privately owned. The management there make the rules plain and simple. It's their land, their investment, their source of income. You make it sound like they owe you something, if you are a member, they do owe you... they owe you access to the range provided you abide by their rules. You don't make the rules, but you do have to follow them. Do you think that IPSC Canada is going to spend money on legal to try and tell Silverdale they that cannot set whatever rules they want? It is people like you with some sort of sense of entitlement who like to bash everyone else who doesn't see eye to eye with you. I am trying to find a way to tell you where to put your sense of entitlement without getting an infraction here. You want to take a tense situation and add to it with legal orders? BTW, I would suggest you do some research on what a C&D is and what it is applicable to before you start using the term.
A range deciding to honour the BB as the only non-LEO/MIL holster qualification allowed only adds value to IPSC. In addition to that, should more people take their BB they would have to actually shoot matches and pay IPSC each year to maintain it. Do you really think something that is going to attract more people into the sport and ensure a little participation as well as funding is something that IPSC would want to stop?
Give your head a shake here. Just because you might be inconvenienced and have a supreme sense of entitlement, along with a blatant lack of knowledge in legal proceedings makes you look like a fool. I have a guy at work who pretends to be a lawyer with lots of legal mumble jumble and I call him on it all the time. He tucks tail and runs, you should too.
A range deciding to honour the BB as the only non-LEO/MIL holster qualification allowed only adds value to IPSC. In addition to that, should more people take their BB they would have to actually shoot matches and pay IPSC each year to maintain it. Do you really think something that is going to attract more people into the sport and ensure a little participation as well as funding is something that IPSC would want to stop?
Give your head a shake here. Just because you might be inconvenienced and have a supreme sense of entitlement, along with a blatant lack of knowledge in legal proceedings makes you look like a fool. I have a guy at work who pretends to be a lawyer with lots of legal mumble jumble and I call him on it all the time. He tucks tail and runs, you should too.





















































