Nimitz Posted January 15, 2014 Author Share Posted January 15, 2014 Jay's point was that while we may be crossing the line WRT the intent of USPSA shooting by having to follow the local rule, intent is not rules and he could not point to a rule violation ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHA-LEE Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Nimitz> I think you need to look at this from a different angel. If these additional restriction rules are deployed, how much will that negatively impact match attendance? If deploying these additional restrictions dilutes the quality of the match (circumvented stage designs) or sends half of the shooters home with DQ's (pointing above the berm) the match attendance will suffer dramatically. It does not take long for a particular match to get a bad reputation and shooters choose to avoid it verses attend. You need to look at hosting a match as a product shooters want to buy. If the product being offered is severely impacted in a negative way due to these new local range rules then it may not even be a viable endeavor. Every USPSA clubs expenses and income are different, but each one has a bare minimum shooter attendance needed to make the matches financially viable. If these new local range rules will push the attendance below the financially viable level then its pointless to even try to host a match. As others have already stated, these new rule additions may be a way for the BOD to push the USPSA club out of the range. If they don't "Need" the income generated by the USPSA club it is easy for them to try to push the club out by changing the range rules. Or the motives may be something completely different. In the end the reason for the proposed changes really does not matter if the restrictions make hosting a match a money losing proposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remoandiris Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 (edited) a "new" set of Board members can institute a waiver or even work to modify the by-laws ... First, the new set of BoD members to be elected. The fact is only 1 certain person on the current board needs to be replaced and the MD is running against him. I REALLY, REALLY, REALLY hope he is successful!!!! Second, if the new by-laws are passed, amendments will be allowed ONLY once a year (at the annual meeting) AND ONLY if 10% of the members sign a petition to put the amendment on a ballot. Edited January 15, 2014 by remoandiris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nimitz Posted January 15, 2014 Author Share Posted January 15, 2014 (edited) Even if the new by-laws get passed we don't need an Admendment, we just need a waiver ... If the board membe in question is replaced we will probably get that waiver .... Of course there are other provisions of the new by-laws that are of a concern but that's not the topic of this discussion. Cha-lee: I completely understand your thinking but believe it or not I don't think match attendance would suffer becuase 2 other ranges in the general area have already 'kicked out' USPSA and all those shooters now shoot with us. While there will be a learning curve to comply with the new rule and lots of frustration, (thus my original question in the first post), I think we could learn to 'live with it' given the alternative is no matches ... We'll see in 1 1/2 hrs .... Edited January 15, 2014 by Nimitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nimitz Posted January 15, 2014 Author Share Posted January 15, 2014 (edited) In my younger days most who new me would have considered me an 'all or nothing" kind of guy. Many who know me today consider me to still be that person becuase they didnot have the pleasure of knowing that 'other person'. However, I can assure you that as I have steadily advanced to old age that I am more interested in just getting along than most people would believe ... Edited January 15, 2014 by Nimitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgkeller Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Even if the new by-laws get passed we don't need an Admendment, we just need a waiver ... If the board membe in question is replaced we will probably get that waiver .... Of course there are other provisions of the new by-laws that are of a concern but that's not the topic of this discussion. Cha-lee: I completely understand your thinking but believe it or not I don't think match attendance would suffer becuase 2 other ranges in the general area have already 'kicked out' USPSA and all those shooters now shoot with us. While there will be a learning curve to comply with the new rule and lots of frustration, (thus my original question in the first post), I think we could learn to 'live with it' given the alternative is no matches ... We'll see in 1 1/2 hrs .... You going to be the MD? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperman Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Jay's point was that while we may be crossing the line WRT the intent of USPSA shooting by having to follow the local rule, intent is not rules and he could not point to a rule violation ... The rulebook is very clear on this issue. Section 10 covers penalties, and 10.3 - 10.7 cover Match Disqualifications. 10.3 covers the general regulations of a DQ. 10.4 involves and AD. That doesn't apply here. 10.5 covers unsafe gun handling. This is where your penalty would be, if it existed. 10.5.2 is about breaking the 180. There is nothing in there about any other exceptions that would allow you to DQ a competitor. 10.6 is for unsportsmanlike conduct. 10.7 is substance abuse. There is nothing in the USPSA rulebook that allows you to DQ a competitor for pointing the muzzle over the berm. 3.3 tells you that you can't make up local rules, without getting permission from Phil. I'm not sure how to make this any clearer. I know Jay is our Area Director, but he gave you bad advice. Ask Troy, or Amidon, or ask Phil for a waiver. Otherwise, don't call it a USPSA match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Jay's point was that while we may be crossing the line WRT the intent of USPSA shooting by having to follow the local rule, intent is not rules and he could not point to a rule violation ... The rulebook is very clear on this issue. Section 10 covers penalties, and 10.3 - 10.7 cover Match Disqualifications. 10.3 covers the general regulations of a DQ. 10.4 involves and AD. That doesn't apply here. 10.5 covers unsafe gun handling. This is where your penalty would be, if it existed. 10.5.2 is about breaking the 180. There is nothing in there about any other exceptions that would allow you to DQ a competitor. 10.6 is for unsportsmanlike conduct. 10.7 is substance abuse. There is nothing in the USPSA rulebook that allows you to DQ a competitor for pointing the muzzle over the berm. 3.3 tells you that you can't make up local rules, without getting permission from Phil. I'm not sure how to make this any clearer. I know Jay is our Area Director, but he gave you bad advice. Ask Troy, or Amidon, or ask Phil for a waiver. Otherwise, don't call it a USPSA match. Sperman, I like your style. I also happen to agree 100%. I also agree with the comments made about how it will impact participation. I know to some it seems nit picky but when this came up at my club feelings were pretty universal among the core of local shooters that they would shoot elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperman Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 I also agree with the comments made about how it will impact participation. I know to some it seems nit picky but when this came up at my club feelings were pretty universal among the core of local shooters that they would shoot elsewhere. I agree. That club would never see another penny of my money. I realized there are parts of the country that may only have 1 match within a few hours drive, but I don't think Florida is hurting for places to shoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseywales Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 (edited) Our club here in Dallas has a very strict rule over control of the muzzle. We also enforce the 180 deg rule as well. We suguest that the mussle be at the burn, not the ground, not over the berm. It really has never posed any problem for any of our matches. Our rule is truly a safety issue. It is backed from our Board and all march directors and range officers. JFWIW I'm a member of that club in Dallas. USPSA matches have NOT BEEN conducted on that range since the late 80's or early 1990's (and not because of "muzzle" rule). I understand why the Dallas club has the rule...it's an outdoor range in the middle of the city - soccer/softball fields on two sides within 100 yards, and 8-lane highway within 300 yards. The rule "helps" ensure range survival. It gives me a frame of reference to understand why another club (Nimitz's) may need/want this rule to survive. If Nimitz's club keeps their "muzzle" rule, it's possible to still have run & gun matches (they do at the Dallas club), but it can't be called USPSA,. If it's not called USPSA, the club will likely lose USPSA shooters (but others may fill their spots - they have at the Dallas club). Edited January 16, 2014 by joseywales Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remoandiris Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 I guess I got home faster than Ken. Meeting is over, the 1 board member I wanted to see replaced was not and the by-laws were passed. However, the secretary found a BoD motion passed in Feb 2012 that reinforced the club will allow USPSA to operate under it's own rules. Another however, this was prior to the newly passed by-laws. IIRC, board motions do NOT trump by-laws. Plus, does the Feb 2012 motion constitute a "waiver"? Don't know. I did/do find it interesting the secretary found the motion on the night of the vote as opposed to a few months ago when this crap first came up. In the next day or 2 the MD plans to discuss the board motion with the club pres to ensure USPSA is REALLY allowed to continue under the USPSA rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 (edited) Ok, so now it is the morning after and we need to work with what we got. Several of the elections results were disappointing to me, but the membership has spoken. On the bright side - several comments were made by the president, Chief instructor, and Secretary which were encouraging. What I heard was that nothing will change and as Remoandiris stated there are recent precedent BoD decisions allowing the use of USPSA rules during matches. Having our MD talk with it President and getting an agreement is great. I would also suggest we be the front runners to generate, format, and submit Standard Operating Procedures for USPSA/3G/Steel to the club’s BoD and set the SOP precedent since currently there are no SOPs which have been approved in accordance with the new by-laws. It may be more difficult if other disciplines get approved before us and they made concessions. In addition to the SOPs we may need back-up presentation material to support the rationale behind the submitted SOPs. One nice thing about the new by-laws is that once an SOP is approved it does not need to be reviewed/reapproved every year...so this horse shouldn't need to be beat again next year if we get it in writing and approved. I would be more than happy to help work this if needed. Edited January 16, 2014 by Bamboo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remoandiris Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 One nice thing about the new by-laws is that once an SOP is approved it does not need to be reviewed/reapproved every year...so this horse shouldn't need to be beat again next year if we get it in writing and approved. I would be more than happy to help work this if needed. You may be confusing SOPs with waivers. The waivers don't need reviewed every year. The SOPs can be changed at anytime. Or maybe I'm the one who is confused. BTW, I asked the BoD several months ago if they wanted a standard format for SOPs. I was going to do all the work for them. All I heard was crickets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remoandiris Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 One more thing on this then I'm going to STFU cause the whole situation makes me sick...during all the by-laws drafting meetings we had, there was NEVER, EVER ONE SINGLE MENTION OF THE DISCIPLINES (USPSA, SASS, HP, TRAP, etc) NEEDING SOPs!!! The SOPs are for the BoD members to spell out how they do their individual jobs. And despite the pres' statement that he had hoped the SOPs would have been written, there was NEVER, EVER mention or motion to start them. And why should there be? We didn't have by-laws that required/cited them. Many of the things said last night by the pres, safety officer and parlimentarian were inaccurate, one-sided, and some outright lies. O.k., I'm done and out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 What happens when a clubs BoD makes a "safety" rule that steel cant be shot, or no running with guns, or no rapid fire? The first is a stage design constraint. Having shot plenty of all paper stages, I wouldn't like it, but would prefer it to no USPSA. There's nothing in the rule book requiring you to use steel, or classic or metric targets..... The other two are a different story..... I understand that. My point was more about not letting a clubs BoD manipulate USPSA rules in the name of safety. From my experience with the BoD from 2 clubs the safety concerns are more about stopping action shooting than making anybody safer. And that should be fought tooth and nail..... On the other hand if there are legit reasons requiring all rounds to hit berms, lest we lose the entire facility -- then we should be a team player.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 one more thing. Our BoD would also insist we enforce the "no steel inside of 10 yds" rule as well. Since the USPSA minimum is 8yds this would obviously affect stage design but I would consider that relatively easy to comply with .... our SC matches are another issue as several of the stages have targets inside of 10 yds but we'd have to get a waiver from our Bod to handle that since we obviously can't change the SC stage layouts ... This would kill SC matches at the club. It would rule out half of the stages (Smoke & Hope, Speed Option, Roundabout, and Five To Go). Who would want to shoot the other 4 stages every month. There are more than 8 stages that can be run at SC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 So, let's try to get back to the original question since according to our AD we are ok to continue to hold sanctioned matches ... Your AD has been misinformed, I believe. - AD5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZackJones Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 There are more than 8 stages that can be run at SC. Technically there's an infinite number or stages that could be run but what I was referring to were those stages published with SC-XXX numbers from the SCSA organization. With the club rule permitting not steel closer than 10 yards the club could not longer shoot for of those designated stages. Sorry I wasn't clear in my post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 There are more than 8 stages that can be run at SC. Technically there's an infinite number or stages that could be run but what I was referring to were those stages published with SC-XXX numbers from the SCSA organization. With the club rule permitting not steel closer than 10 yards the club could not longer shoot for of those designated stages. Sorry I wasn't clear in my post. I wasn't confused. You had suggested you would only have 4 stages to shoot "every month." I like to shake up that mindset. I believe in a Steel Challenge > 8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 One nice thing about the new by-laws is that once an SOP is approved it does not need to be reviewed/reapproved every year...so this horse shouldn't need to be beat again next year if we get it in writing and approved. I would be more than happy to help work this if needed. You may be confusing SOPs with waivers. The waivers don't need reviewed every year. The SOPs can be changed at anytime. Or maybe I'm the one who is confused. BTW, I asked the BoD several months ago if they wanted a standard format for SOPs. I was going to do all the work for them. All I heard was crickets. Oops...you are correct, once approved we don't need to get the waiver reviewed/reapporoved every year. My mistake...thinking waiver, typed SOP. As mentioned, it didn't sound (at the meeting) like getting the waiver was going to be an issue. Anyway, Mr. B., thank you for all your service and work for this club. You did good. I hope we name one of the new shooting bays in your honor....or at least one of the berms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 So, let's try to get back to the original question since according to our AD we are ok to continue to hold sanctioned matches ... Your AD has been misinformed, I believe. - AD5 FWIW...I don't think an Area Director's opinion on this (mine or anybody's) is policy. My opinion may be wrong. My perspective is that the USPSA BOD...as a whole...governs policy. Such would be through the by-laws, the current rule book, and strategic direction given to the Executive Director (who runs the home office and it's policy and procedures). A local rule (such as the muzzle over the berm), would be addressed under the rule book. Which Scott quoted properly, IMO. So, to answer one question, an exception to a rule like this would require the USPSA President's approval, in writing. I don't believe we have any such exceptions currently in place. (My recollection is that the Pres communicated this to the BOD about a year ago.) ====================== But, to directly answer the OP's question...on how a Match Director should handle this... Personally, I would highlight (with the club powers that be) USPSA's long standing safety record...which includes running sanctioned matches all over the country...every weekend of the year. 20,000+ members...over 2,000 certified Range Officers...decades of experience...millions and millions and millions of rounds fired. Do they want to replace that with some other thing, that is a one off? Or, is there another agenda? (to run out something that some may not understand) Further...I'd look around and see what happens at the club with other activities. Are there rifle racks that have muzzles pointed up? (the gun is always loaded, right?) How are muzzles when being taken in and out of cars, handled in general? There are often...opportunities...here for the local club to focus their attention and training, to bring improvement. Those efforts might be more fruitful for real safety. Perhaps the USPSA shooters (who probably see how things are at a variety of clubs) could help in suggesting improvements? (Be the leaders.) Whereas we have Range Officers running every single shooter. Range Officers who will use belt and suspender rules in place...that will Disqualify a competitor (explain this means no more shooting). Who is watching the average club member? The take away is that I truly feel safer at an USPSA match than I do around any other shooting discipline or ANY shooting range in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrumpyOne Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Nicely said, Flex... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nimitz Posted January 16, 2014 Author Share Posted January 16, 2014 Flex, as usual, you are spot on. However, in our current local situation, with the personality politics in play, all of your rock solid analysis and logic will not work because the parties in question would actually have to be listening .... to give you a small insight into what we are dealing with I'll recount something that happened last year when I used to go to the monthly Board mtgs ... At that time the club was still using snail mail to send the monthly minutes to all club members, some 2,800+ .... since expenses were an issue I made the suggestion that we could eliminate that cost overnight by simply e-mailing the minutes to all members & posting a copy on our website--- what a idea !!! I equate it to Al Gore inventing the Internet in my weaker moments .... anyway, the Board person who has been referenced previously said "and how do we get the minutes to those members who do not have a computer?". At first I was going to make my usual comment when I hear something like this (refer to post #55) but then I just said that every public library in the county has free Internet access so members could check there if it was important to them ... at which he literally just repeated himself & said " and how do we get the minutes to those members who do not have a computer?" Of course he wasn't asking me to repeat the question, he simply didn't want to hear about it .... I pretty much stopped going to mtgs after that .... So as Bill has related, we appear to have the necessary waiver to be allowed to conduct USPSA sanctioned matches per our rules ..... we'll see .... But having to think about this over the last couple of days I've started to believe that ranges may have legitimate issues with our policies and what do you do about them besides the 'all or nothing' position of "we just won't shoot at your club" which only hurts the rank-and-file-shooter ....and doesn't do much for our public image either ... So here's the issue. As was pointed out to me, USPSA doesn't own a single range. We go to privately owned or commercially owned ranges to conduct our matches but we come with a specific set of rules on how we conduct our sport, which as Flex has said, comes with a tremendous safety history. HOWEVER ..... where is the liability if something happens? Is USPSA responsible if some gets shot or is the range responsible? While USPSA will probably be named in the lawsuit, the range will absolutely be named if for no other reason than that is where the insurance liability money lies. So given this reality, it ios no surprise thatlub's like mine feel the need to impose safety rules that they believe protect them. How does USPSA reconcile this? Shouldn't there be some middle ground to be able to be sensitive to the range's very legitimate liability concerns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cnote Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 (edited) That's like saying I go to a drag strip to race where there is a speed limit to protect the facility. It would diminish the quality of the race and the best competitors will go elsewhere to play. Although, in most regular day situations.... The wiser Post #55 guy is the more serene of the two and generally happier...! Edited January 16, 2014 by cnote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 I don't have an answer for you Nimitz other than to say that USPSA did not just show up at your club. USPSA had to be accepted, with their rules to go by, by every club in the country that hosts sanctioned matches. As far as I am concerned once a club says, "welcome USPSA", they have little to say regarding the sport. Clubs host USPSA with an understanding that they can not infringe on the matches with local club rules. If a club changes it's mind that is their prerogative. And I am so sorry you don't have a match somewhere every weekend close by to shoot. That is a luxury a few of us have and it makes it easier to stand firm against club rules I guess. I have been on both sides of this. I am an MD and I was an MD / BOD member for a few years. I gave up the BOD position partly because I sensed a small amount of distaste for the USPSA program. There were too many questions starting to pop up about shooters DQing and was I keeping a log of who DQ'ed so "we" could determine if they needed to not be allowed to shoot at the club. Just annoying little indicators like that. I was told as a board member my first concern was to the club, not to USPSA. And I'm sorry but I am all about USPSA. I would rather be a section coordinator or area director any day over a club BOD member. I heard our matches referred to as USPSA Bullshit by those who thought is was unsafe. Like Flex said, You want unsafe?, just look around at the general club members and ask yourself would you rather be on a plinking range with a bunch of undisciplined yahoos or at a sanctioned USPSA match? I feel much safer at a match for sure. Start running outlaw matches and see what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now