omnia1911

If we establish categories within a division, will we carry a classification for each category, or will the classifications be at the division level only? In other words, if L10 and SS become a category of Limited, will L10, SS, and Limited compete with each other for a combined score under a single Limited division classification? How will awards and prizes be handled for category competitors? Order of finish prize tables for each division will take away the incentive for someone to compete in a division's category using disadvantaged equipment. Why would I compete for a Limited division prize table against a high cap S_I using SS equipment rules? So I get an extra plaque for my SS win, but loose out on a chance to win a gun at the prize table due to my equipment disadvantages effecting my order of finish in the division. More divisions does not equal more membership. Show me the evidence. Since we went from 2 to 6 divisions how much has membership increased on an annual basis? If the clubs have too few shooters in a division, stop running so many divisions. Just let the shooters know at least a month ahead of time what your format will be. Do we need to recognize every division at the Nationals?

For the life of me, I can't imagine why you'd want to do this. Limited is fine as it is, although the 9mm major makes sense to me. Production is fine as it is, although the IPSC "load up the mag" idea sounds great. L10, doesn't affect me at all, keep it if you like. Same with Revo. Single Stack sounds good, but the mag pouch limitation sounds too IDPAish to me. I used to think it was a good idea to chop back the Divisions, now, I don't really care. Someone else brought up SASS and fact they have way more divisions than you can shake a stick at. I think that's great. The smart thing to do is, put a limit on payouts/prizes. If there aren't X number of shooters in a Division at a match, that division doesn't get official recognition at that match. The mistakes were made years ago by not setting stronger boundaries for Limited and letting it get out of control. Now everyone is going to feel like their ox is being gored by any suggestion of change, or they are indifferent to change if it doesn't directly effect them. The success of SASS is driven by cowboy nostalgia and costuming more than the competition. Making any comparisons between USPSA and SASS is pretty shakey. SASS has a great marketing platform that appeals to a broad audience that reaches beyond the shooting aspect. Don't think we should chop back on the divisions? How about adding an "Old West" division in USPSA. We can co-opt some of SASS's success, just as we did by co-opting IDPA's success with Production (formerly Concealed Carry), co-opting Soldier of Fortune's 3 gun matches with our own, and now co-opting the Single Stack Classic match with Single Stack division. USPSA was once the pioneer and innovator in the shooting sports.

What are your recommendations for growing the membership base of USPSA? First thing to do is pay more attention to the paying customer standing in front of you, rather than the one you wish was coming in the door. Membership growth only occurs if they are coming in the front door at a faster rate than they are leaving out the back door. Hang on to those you have. Never get into a position where your need to meet your expenses drives your membership goals. Your decisions aren't always that sound when you do. Nothing attracts customers better than a good product or service. The money will follow. Then again, USPSA may very well have found its buoyancy at 13,000-15,000 members. I repeat. Hang on to those you have. I think USPSA is paying attention to the members, right now. The Nationals have a waiting list, most of the Area matches and many of the other majors have waiting lists. The membership wants to shoot our matches. What about USPSA is driving away members? USPSA should have the answer. If they don't have an answer.....Oh, well. In the mean time, over 34,000 members have gone out the back door, not to mention those that have walked in the front door and did not become members before walking out the back door. A Nationals match? That accounts for about 350 members. What about the other 14,000? Most of the corporate cash flow comes from membership fees, classifier fees, and activity fees at the club level. Potential members walk in the door at the club level and get their first impression of the organization. For various reasons at least 2 out of 3 have walk out the back door at some point.

What are your recommendations for growing the membership base of USPSA? First thing to do is pay more attention to the paying customer standing in front of you, rather than the one you wish was coming in the door. Membership growth only occurs if they are coming in the front door at a faster rate than they are leaving out the back door. Hang on to those you have. Never get into a position where your need to meet your expenses drives your membership goals. Your decisions aren't always that sound when you do. Nothing attracts customers better than a good product or service. The money will follow. Then again, USPSA may very well have found its buoyancy at 13,000-15,000 members. I repeat. Hang on to those you have.

Want to turn 5 divisions into 1? Take Limited, L10, SS, Revolver, and Production, then turn them in to 1 division called Limited. Added Division requirements: Mag and cylinder capacity is 8 rounds, holster and mag pouches are worn behind the hip, 9mm/38super makes major. Added Rulebook change: No more than 8 rounds from a shooting position. Abracadabra...POOF! Then let the best platform for Limited rise to the top. Some will still cling to their revolvers and DA pistols, but so what, they may like the challenge. At least the rules would give them a fighting chance, and they would all be competing with each other, rather than fragmenting into smaller and smaller division. Sometimes it is better to tear the house down and start over from scratch rather than live in a patchwork of "handyman fixes". Imagine if Limited had been designed like this from the get go. We could have spent our time making USPSA a top notch organization rather than constantly running around "fixing" previous repair jobs.

SS division has 3 years to prove its case for continued existence. What is the benchmark by which the SS division will be judged as a success or failure? I have to assume that the benchmark will have to exceed the successes, or lack of successes of L10 and Revolver, as they are being discussed as candidates for the chopping block as divisions. If SS is being added for purely a change in philosophy, such as returning to "our roots", then any measurable benchmark is mute. So, why the 3 years? The 3 year term will have the decision being made in the next USPSA presidential term. Who is running? Are we headed for a "back to our roots" philosophy after we complete 8 years of a "3 gun is our future" philosophy? USPSA membership has had an anemic annual growth rate of less than 1% over the last 6 years. It is clear that most of any new division's participation comes from current membership switching divisions, or shooting in multiple divisions. Can any of the changes USPSA has made in its elected offices or rulebook be considered a success with these membership growth numbers? SS division gives us yet another misguided chance to hope for a brighter future, another chance at "20,000 in 2000", the day when all will be right with the universe. ....I think I'll go fishing today.

I thought the new format said that USPSA would run some IPSC rules matches, not "those folks". The United States Practical Shooting Association will offer and promote IPSC competition within the United States, in accordance with IPSC rules, and in doing so fully satisfies its obligations under the IPSC constitution and affiliation agreement.

I sincerely wish the best of luck to both IPSC and USPSA in regards to their recent decisions. The sport will be forever changed. Hopefully, it will be for the better.

Just what we need. Another nose in the buisness. Might work better than the egos, power players, and personalities that seem to muck up the business end of the gears right now.

+1 Has the IPSC Rules Committee ever considered hiring an independent, professional mitigation service?

Recognition can take many forms and depends on the locality. It can be: - A firearms licensing official accepting that IPSC is a "legitimate" sport which creates a valid "need" to own a handgun. - It can be a formal determination by a government agency such as the ministry of sport - It can be a formal determination by a government agency such as the US BATF - which has already issued a formal opinion that practical shooting is not a "legitimate sporting purpose" for the purposes of the gun control act of 1968. US law allows certain guns to be banned or relegated to Destrictive Device status unless they are for a "legitimate sporting purpose". The BATF non-recognition of IPSC allows them to relegate the USAS12 shotgun to DD status - making it all but impossible to buy ($200 tax, federal paperwork, signoff by local police chief, advance ATF permission to take the gun across state lines, etc.) - The holy grail of recognition is Olympic Medal Sport status. Just below that is non-medal or demonstration sport. - The General Association of International Sport Federations is regarded as legitimate by many governments. - One example is Australia. IF the government decided to recognize IPSC as legitimate, it could allow posession of handguns above 9mm even with the current law. They have decided not to grant such recognition. These are legitimate concerns of USPSA for which it should hold its ground, but many of the differences between the IPSC and USPSA versions of the rulebook don't have any connection to these important concerns. Someone in another country not having access to a gun or specific caliber to compete with in an IPSC match is different than not being able to agree on issues, such as, standardized power factors, or a single version of 4.3.1.6, for example.

I thought IPSC was a non-political organization? Can you explain the concept of "recognition"?

Rather than have two entities operating under one IPSC-USA Region, why not have two separate IPSC Regions operating in the USA; IPSC-USPSA and IPSC-USA; both with their own BOD, bylaws, budget, RULES, etc.?

All the positions that I have read so far from USPSA are how the changes it wants would be best for it and its membership. I would like to hear the arguments from this USPSA BOD why it wants to remain a member in IPSC? I'm not advocating a split, but a token effort to run a few IPSC matches when it has the capacity to do much more, in spite of what other Regions do, seems disingenuous.

I can’t help but see this as a strategic error on the part of the USPSA BOD. Its position states that it can’t hold IPSC rules matches in the USA several reasons… “Insofar as USPSA has historical, practical and reasonable needs to deviate in several and various ways from the IPSC rules for the conduct of shooting competitions within the United States,…” …then, goes on to say in the same document that it can hold IPSC rules matches in the USA. “The United States Practical Shooting Association will offer and promote IPSC competition within the United States, in accordance with IPSC rules,…”

My comments are based on what is in the IPSC constitution. The issue is coming down to whether an IPSC Region can operate as two separate entities under an IPSC "umbrella" in order to circumvent those parts of the parent organization it doesn't like. It looks like USPSA's position is that it can, because it isn't specifically forbidden in the constitution ("if its not specifically forbidden in the rule book it must be legal" approach to the issue). IPSC may have a different opinion of that, and may be constructing an amendment to its constitution right now to address the issue that USPSA has presented it with.

The purpose of belonging to the IPSC Confederation is to promote and shoot IPSC matches after all. If you are not happy with the organization that you belong to, start your own organization like IDPA did. No, but it can deny IPSC Regions the use of anything but the IPSC rules in their matches. IPSC also has exclusive rights over the use of its logo, shield, and name. We/USPSA cannot kick IPSC out of the USA. IPSC is not a member of USPSA, but the other way around.

The USPSA BOD understands that it needs the approval of the IPSC Assembly, or it wouldn't be presenting the Assembly with a proposal, but would just do what it wants. The IPSC Confederation has its own mission statement and preferred organizational structure. What USPSA is trying to do here may not conform to those goals. We'll have to see what transpires. Read it again, it looks like a statement, not a proposal. "Accordingly, the Board of the United States Practical Shooting Association directs its President, as the Regional Director for the US Region of IPSC, to communicate this direction to the IPSC Executive Council." We can call it a statement if you wish. The fact is that it has to be presented/communicated to the IPSC Assembly. I would think that IPSC would want its member Regions to have as their primary goal the promotion of the IPSC Confederation. Technically, USPSA was doing that, even with its waiver. Now USPSA wants as their primary mission the promotion of USPSA Inc. and secondarily IPSC. I'm not sure that IPSC will want that. It is possible that IPSC will be OK with it.

The USPSA BOD understands that it needs the approval of the IPSC Assembly, or it wouldn't be presenting the Assembly with a proposal, but would just do what it wants. The IPSC Confederation has its own mission statement and preferred organizational structure. What USPSA is trying to do here may not conform to those goals. We'll have to see what transpires.

I just don't understand where the problem is. USPSA, as a Region of IPSC is going to have IPSC matches, run completely under the IPSC rulebook. There will be no USPSA rules used, if I understand everything correctly. How is also running USPSA matches, run with the USPSA rulebook a problem? The IPSC Assembly will ultimately have to answer this question with a vote. Even though USPSA has a large membership, relative to the other Regions, it has only one vote in the Assembly. It will take a majority of three-fourths of the votes to affect affiliation. How many IPSC Regional friends does USPSA have?

Up to this point, USPSA's position for not using the IPSC rulebook in its entirety revolved around the following: (snip) -- IPSC rules that you believe are problematic for USPSA (and why) -- Current USPSA rules that you believe are problematic and should be changed -- Rules that you believe are missing, unclear or incomplete, and should be added. (snip) These issues precluded USPSA from being able to run any IPSC rules matches in the USA, so we were told. The new USPSA proposal now says that we can run IPSC rules matches in the USA, will agree to do so, and we want a permanent waiver/exemption to some of the provisions of the IPSC constitution, not because we need one, but because we want one. This is a paradigm shift in USPSA's position, and will require a significant restructuring of the IPSC constitution. USPSA can't expect that its region alone will receive this waiver/exemption. The IPSC BOD is going to have to grapple with the reality of constitutionally granting the provisions that USPSA seeks to all of the member regions, if USPSA should prevail.

IPSC would still be available, perhaps in its "pure" form (whatever that is) while USPSA can now remove some of the dumber rule changes that IPSC pushed through. This is an essential part of USPSA's position with IPSC. It would be nice if USPSA granted its affiliated clubs the same operational freedoms in running their USPSA matches, as USPSA is asking of IPSC in the proposal. Excerpts from the proposal: " its sole recognized affiliate for the United States region, The United States Practical Shooting Association (USPSA)" "needs to deviate in several and various ways from the IPSC rules for the conduct of shooting competitions within the United States" "in no way represents a violation of the IPSC Constitution or the affiliation agreement currently in effect between USPSA and IPSC". Sweet deal for the clubs, if they could swing it.

Running IPSC rules matches in the USA is not a big issue with me, other than the funding aspect. USPSA had the right to run these kind of matches all along. The fact that they are making this part of their proposal to IPSC is kind of ho hum to me. The important issue is the challenges that USPSA's proposal makes to the IPSC constitution. This is where I will be interested in seeing how the IPSC BOD responds.

My understanding is that this idea is in its proposal stage and that the USPSA BOD has given Mr. Voigt the go ahead to approach the IPSC BOD with it. It's a ballsy move on the part of USPSA. USPSA sends a lot of money IPSC's way, but IPSC wants uniformity. I'll be waiting on the edge of my seat to see what the IPSC BOD has to say. I thought that some of USPSA's arguement for having its own rulebook was based on section 4.9(1)of the IPSC constitution. 4.9 It is recognised that circumstances may arise which force a Regional Directorate to take action which may be in violation of the Constitution. Such action would fall into one of two categories: (1) Action taken in order to comply with the laws or with legal precedent pertaining in that Region; or (2) Action taken on a voluntary basis for any other reason. (3) In respect of action falling within (1) above, no Region shall be subject to censure or suspension. The Region shall inform the Executive Council of the action taken and the reasons therefor; (4) In respect of action falling within (2) above, the onus shall be on the Region to demonstrate to the Executive Council that the action taken was reasonable in all the circumstances; If USPSA starts running IPSC rulebook matches, doesn't that negate the 4.9(1) position and force USPSA to rely on 4.9(2), which has a higher threshold?

Set aside this new idea of running IPSC style matches under the IPSC rulebook in the USA. USPSA is grated a waiver from IPSC to run USPSA style matches under a different set of rules than IPSC. USPSA is seeking an extention of that waiver. Without that waiver, USPSA would have to use the IPSC rulebook. If USPSA refuses to do so, it could loose its affiliation. The part you are missing is that we won't need a waiver anymore. We are going to run IPSC matches, using the IPSC rulebook without the USPSA exceptions. USPSA matches will be run under USPSA rules, which happen to use the USPSA modified IPSC rulebook. IPSC won't have anything to do with USPSA matches. So, you believe that USPSA is now going to engage in the same duality that Bruce Gary has been complaining about some clubs engaging in; real IPSC matches and USPSA/wildcat matches, much like the clubs having real USPSA matches and off the books wildcat matches? Interesting view. If we don't need a waiver anymore, why are we seeking to get an extention into 2007?