10.5.7 and PCC

[bret]

Just now, mreed911 said:

 

I don't have Facebook.

 

USPSA, however, has a website.  That's not it.

 

USPSA uses multiple places to put out information, not just their website.

Did you use just their website for R.O. training or did you go somewhere to attend the class?

RULE 10.5.7 is very clear, the Q and A was just to clarify it as well as other issues in PCC.

Contact DNROI if you don't understand the rule.
 

[mreed911]

3 minutes ago, bret said:

Contact DNROI if you don't understand the rule.

 

Read my OP.  Then re-read it.  Then try the "don't understand the rule" approach again.  Then go back to step one.

When you get tired of that, feel free to join the actual conversation in progress.

[MAC702]

I'd be ticked if I had to use Facebook for an official rule clarification.  I'm not on Facebook, either.

 

So, here it is in the official PCC Rules Addendum, first paragraph: "All references to “handgun” in the current edition of the rule book are deemed to apply to PCC as well, except where PCC is noted in the rules." (https://uspsa.org/document_library/rules/2016/PCC_Rules_Addendum.pdf)

 

Now we can clearly apply 10.5.7

 

I'm glad for this thread.  I hadn't considered it yet.  Now, I need to check my rules for Steel Challenge because I frequently have my centerfire pistol on me in its holster while I shoot with a rimfire, as do several others.

[Garmil]

The lack of commas in the beginning of the rule means nothing gets disqualified. It says, "wearing or using more than one" - you can be firing a gun with one hand and have the other on your hip, you could be firing them both, or you could have them both holstered. The way it's written, the only relevant fact is how many guns. If it's two (or more) you're done.

[Sarge]

I'm still not convinced. Anybody ask DNROI?

[Kraj]

5 minutes ago, Sarge said:

I'm still not convinced. Anybody ask DNROI?

Uspsa put a link to common questions about pcc and Co on their Facebook with Troy answering them. I would be surprised if he changed his mind because of this thread. It's not the only place in the rule book that pcc doesn't fit the wording. 

 

The post on Facebook was 'Q and A with DNROI
PCC and Carry Optics" with this link 

http://www.multibriefs.com/briefs/USPSA/PCCandCOQuestions.pdf

[Sarge]

Hmm. I guess so! Was not aware of this. The actual rule wording is still confusing for those not FB inclined.

Technically cased closed on this one.

[Kraj]

1 hour ago, Sarge said:

Hmm. I guess so! Was not aware of this. The actual rule wording is still confusing for those not FB inclined.

Technically cased closed on this one.

 

It's getting to the point where a Internet connection us required at the range. With all the different emails and Facebook posts and extra pages explaining pcc rules. All to cover for the face that the rulebook wasn't wrote to include rifles

[Sarge]

28 minutes ago, Kraj said:

 

It's getting to the point where a Internet connection us required at the range. With all the different emails and Facebook posts and extra pages explaining pcc rules. All to cover for the face that the rulebook wasn't wrote to include rifles

Amen.. to every word

[mreed911]

I wasn't aware that unsourced documents on third party websites were part of the USPSA rules or interpretations, official versions of which are all on uspsa.org.

 

Alternatively: if USPSA wanted to update rules or interpretations it's easy for them to do so on their own website using their own procedures.

Edited March 18, 2017 by mreed911

[Sarge]

1 hour ago, mreed911 said:

I wasn't aware that unsourced documents on third party websites were part of the USPSA rules or interpretations, official versions of which are all on uspsa.org.

 

Alternatively: if USPSA wanted to update rules or interpretations it's easy for them to do so on their own website using their own procedures.

Actually a major problem if you ask me. Heaven forbid you go to a major and can't access online sources of random memorandums. Or the RM can't get a hold of Troy. You get DQED and are out a thousand bucks. Do you think anybody would refund your expenses when they realized they hosed you?

 

Any and all rule clarifications, opinions, practices etc should be sent out using the chain of command. DNROI, AD, SC, MD, CRO/RO and shooter database.

 

Of course this does nothing to clear up the fact that DNROI opinions written on a napkin at the local wings joint are not legal interpretations. Unless the time is taken to get the BOD to vote on it, it's still just an opinion. Sure it's an important opinion but just an opinion none the less.

[Garmil]

3 minutes ago, Sarge said:

Actually a major problem if you ask me. Heaven forbid you go to a major and can't access online sources of random memorandums. Or the RM can't get a hold of Troy. You get DQED and are out a thousand bucks. Do you think anybody would refund your expenses when they realized they hosed you?

 

Any and all rule clarifications, opinions, practices etc should be sent out using the chain of command. DNROI, AD, SC, MD, CRO/RO and shooter database.

 

Of course this does nothing to clear up the fact that DNROI opinions written on a napkin at the local wings joint are not legal interpretations. Unless the time is taken to get the BOD to vote on it, it's still just an opinion. Sure it's an important opinion but just an opinion none the less.

There is a difference between

 

someone asking a question because they are confused and giving an answer to clear up their confusion.

 

and the rules truly being flawed and requiring an interpretation or change.

[PPGMD]

12 hours ago, Kraj said:

 

It's getting to the point where a Internet connection us required at the range. With all the different emails and Facebook posts and extra pages explaining pcc rules. All to cover for the face that the rulebook wasn't wrote to include rifles

 

At some point, likely once it is no longer provisional, all those changes will be incorporated in a new rulebook.

[Gary Stevens]

Why would you even start the shooter without correcting the problem? No start=no DQ.

[Brooke]

1 hour ago, Gary Stevens said:

Why would you even start the shooter without correcting the problem? No start=no DQ.

 

Point well taken. Same for penalty for "creeping" on the start signal. Just do not push the start button.

 

The point that no one should have two guns on, or in use, during a course of fire seems obvious to me in the rule book. Unfortunately many who think the rule book is too complicated and long winded also want to parse every word to allow whatever they wish to be true. So if somehow you have both a PCC and a pistol during a COF, you're toast and no range lawyer can save your behind. It's pretty simple unless you want to make it complicated.

 

Facebook should NOT be a source of official USPSA rules interpretation rulings ...period. Facebook is not a source of anything official on any subject. Interpretations (and rules) should only appear in official USPSA pubs or on the USPSA web site. I can't imagine any common sense that puts official information on frigging Facebook.

 

Sarge you had trouble with attendance at the RO seminar because 3 other seminars occurred in the two months before yours within easy driving distance. You know that.

 

No I don't think the  seminars should be reduced to one day. The day and half format works and if you can't spend that much time you really are not interested anyway. We see all kinds of complaints about RO's. If anything, the seminars should last longer with more examples of actual practice running shooters. I don't think that's really necessary, but it wouldn't hurt anything. 

[Thomas H]

What interests me about the people arguing "I'm only wearing one and I'm only using one, so it shouldn't be a DQ" is that by that argument, if you are wearing one pistol in a holster and the stage has a table start, if you "use" a second pistol for the stage (from a table start, so you are never "wearing" it) you aren't going to get in trouble.

 

Which is obviously wrong.

 

PCC is exactly the same way.

 

I see that people are attempting to argue differently, but I don't see why.  The rule is really clear. 

 

For the person asking about SC:  There is no rule prohibiting "wearing" or "using" more than one gun during the course of fire, so you are good.  Matter of fact, the only real comment about more than one gun occurs in 5.6.1: Competitors are permitted to shoot multiple firearms as they compete during the event.  Other than that, it isn't mentioned.  So, having a holster centerfire pistol while shooting a PCC, rimfire rifle, or rimfire pistol is perfectly fine.

[Sarge]

9 hours ago, PPGMD said:

 

At some point, likely once it is no longer provisional, all those changes will be incorporated in a new rulebook.

And a month later there will be 5 more "opinions" posted on FB.

[Sarge]

3 hours ago, Brooke said:

 

 

 

Sarge you had trouble with attendance at the RO seminar because 3 other seminars occurred in the two months before yours within easy driving distance. You know that.

 

How in the HELL do you know what I know? I have no idea if there were other seminars near me leading up to it. What I do know is people begged for it and of course didn't sign up.

[PPGMD]

56 minutes ago, Sarge said:

And a month later there will be 5 more "opinions" posted on FB.

 

Are you reading the same document I am? Because that was more of a Q&A than a rule interpretation.

 

And we've always had rule interpretations that only exist online, like the prohibition of mag well markings in production. This is a new division and the kinks will need to be worked out, but IME the issues aren't that major just opponents of the division making mountains out of mole hills. Often any issues are resolved by a short discussion and it doesn't come up again.

 

Take the issue that started this whole thread. I don't know of many clubs that allow multiple entries outside of classifier matches. And even at the classifier matches, often you are only allowed to shoot your second entry after the main match is concluded.

[StealthyBlagga]

This rule is written in plain English and is completely clear to anyone who reads it honestly. A posting on FB is not an "official interpretation", but simply answering a question on a rule. It us the same as if Troy or any other more experienced RO would answer a question here on Enos, in person, by email or make a call at a match.

[bret]

On 3/18/2017 at 2:46 PM, Sarge said:

Actually a major problem if you ask me. Heaven forbid you go to a major and can't access online sources of random memorandums. Or the RM can't get a hold of Troy. You get DQED and are out a thousand bucks. Do you think anybody would refund your expenses when they realized they hosed you?

 

Any and all rule clarifications, opinions, practices etc should be sent out using the chain of command. DNROI, AD, SC, MD, CRO/RO and shooter database.

 

Of course this does nothing to clear up the fact that DNROI opinions written on a napkin at the local wings joint are not legal interpretations. Unless the time is taken to get the BOD to vote on it, it's still just an opinion. Sure it's an important opinion but just an opinion none the less.

how much clearer does the rule have to be?

 

 

[mreed911]

10 minutes ago, bret said:

how much clearer does the rule have to be?

 

I think he's expounding on the "I saw it on Facebook" mentality vs. this specific rule.

 

What next?  "I saw a re-tweet that said..." should be official, too?

 

We have both rules and rulings and OFFICIAL places to post them (hint: they all end with uspsa.org).  Anything past that... isn't.

[MikeBurgess]

Just to be a pain, and to show the easy trap of always reading the rules literally. 

 

Shooter comes to the light with a holstered pistol AND a bagged pistol tells RO he needs to change guns for the other division he is shooting or for a RM approved gun change.

RO says Make ready, shooter takes pistol out of bag. Should he now be DQed? he is at this point in possession of 2 guns during a course of fire (begins with make ready) 

[mreed911]

3 minutes ago, MikeBurgess said:

Just to be a pain, and to show the easy trap of always reading the rules literally. 

 

Shooter comes to the light with a holstered pistol AND a bagged pistol tells RO he needs to change guns for the other division he is shooting or for a RM approved gun change.

RO says Make ready, shooter takes pistol out of bag. Should he now be DQed? he is at this point in possession of 2 guns during a course of fire (begins with make ready) 

 

No, because you don't issue a Make Ready command for a pistol change - you supervise the pistol change as a separate event from the course of fire.

 

Alternatively, you redirect the competitor to a safe area and tell him to do it himself, sans handling ammo.

[MikeBurgess]

1 minute ago, mreed911 said:

 

No, because you don't issue a Make Ready command for a pistol change - you supervise the pistol change as a separate event from the course of fire.

 

Alternatively, you redirect the competitor to a safe area and tell him to do it himself, sans handling ammo.

IF you were recently reading this thread possibly, in the real world you  would get Make Ready from the RO and everything would be fine.