Rob Boudrie

Does dinner with Brian Enos in Phoenix count?

I doubt any gun rag will ever do a concept on the "over trained but under practiced". Chances are you've met the type in various gun venues not involving actual shooting where score is kept. This sort has been to every brand name gun course and can cite the dogma of Ayoob, Front Sight, Gunsight, and Clint .... but rarely, if ever, set foot on the field of honor to test their skills against the "competitive folks with skills that will get them killed and stacked up like cordwood if they are ever in a real situation". I'm looking forward to talking to one of our own who is due back from one of the sandboxes (the one with the caves) this summer. His email described a big firefight he was in a "easier than a lot of stages at the Harvard club". He's still alive, so it looks like he overcame the limitations of all those "skills that will get him killed" he learned in competition .

I assume this is the Hartford Gun Club in CT Lots of green grass ranges - I hope something gets going there. While there is no harm in doing so, if the IDPA Indoor Nationals was held at S&W in MA, there was no need. Ditto for WPS (Westfield, MA). NY law makes specific reference to "approved by or under the auspices of the NRA or IMHSA". There is no such reference in MA law, so NRA sanctioning doesn't change the legal status of your competitors. But, the price is right and the effort low, so it's a harmless exercise.

Wow - thanks. If I can't find Fed or Win, it may give me a chance to try out the SVI interchangeable breechface

I certainly assume so. (this is in reference to the MA law) That's 265.20-13a. The law also recognizes IMHSA matches. I suppose a credible argument could be made that matches held at an NRA affiliated club count, however, there is no need to cross that bridge. The NRA will grant "Special tournament" status to a match that does not fit nicely into any of the existing NRA categories. In fact, if a club sends them their annual schedule, they will grant recognition to an entire season's match on a single form. The best part about this is that it is FREE service. The reference to match fees on the NRA web site pertains to official matches that are part of the NRA program, not "special tournaments". The match sends the form available at http://www.nrahq.org/compete/tourn-forms/spec-tourn-app.pdf in, and the NRA competitions division returns it with a rubber stamp indicating it's been approved. The requirements listed on the NRA form are simple: Complete and return this application in duplicate with two copies of the program. Conduct the tournament according to safe Tournament Regulations and Rules. Provide adequate operating personnel to conduct the tournament efficiently. In the event that the tournament is cancelled, immediately notify the NRA. I have never had a problem getting an Area 7 Championship approved. I always include a cover letter stating the match will be run by USPSA rules that require a cold range and shooting only under the direct supervision of an RO instead of a "match program". You might want to request that the president of the NY club you wish to shoot at apply for such recognition, and also provide you with a formal match invitation letter to carry with the gun. Since the Area 7 is a major match, I always budget for a thank-you donation to the NRA competitions division that we send in after the event (generally about $200). They show class by not charging for the service, so the match shows some class in return. When I teach the LTC (License to Carry) course in MA, I plan on a minimum of 1 hour to cover the law portion; 2 if it's a big group with questions. After all, I need to cover the storage law, the lab testing regulations, the AG's super duper secret double probation regulations on what dealers may sell (No new Glocks for you; no new STIs but SVIs are OK, etc.), the difference between the Green, White, Blue, Yellow and Pink license as well as the sub-types thereof. Of course, the upside is that my MA carry permit has fewer restrictions on where I can carry than residents in TX, AZ, FL or a host of other states are subject to. As a new CT resident, you may find it interesting to know that while there is no reciprocity (other than the very limited competition issue) granted by any of the NE states, you can mail order carry permits from MA, NH and MA. RI is a bit tougher (you need some sort of special need), but it can be done, and you have to pick it up in person. VT is a no permit required to carry state.

The wholesaler my dealer uses is out of Federal, Winchester and Remington SR. They do have Remington Small Rifle Benchrest primers (surprisingly at the same price as regular small rifle primers). Is there any downside to these?

I'm allergic to inaccurate information, and I feel a rash coming on, so here's the correct info on MA and NY: To do so in MA, you need a permit issued by any state, district or territory that does not issue to drug users or felons (Mass General Law Chapter 140 Section 131F) or be police with carry authority in another state (LEOSA rendering the later option redundant). To do so in NY, the match needs to be NRA recognized and you have a +/- 48hour window (NY penal code 265.20-13a). The 2009 Area 7 Championship has received formal recognition from the NRA (and I have the paperwork to prove it). Only partially true. Attend any match in NY or MA and you will see plenty of non-police using perfectly legal high cap magazines. You'll also see them in gun shops (although new guns come with 10 rounders, and high cap mags sell at a premium - for example, a MA shop known for good prices has pre-ban AR15 30 rounders for $39.95) Both states ban only mags made on or after the original federal AWB date of Sept 14, 1994 (consider it an "anti-sunset" law). MA requires an LTC (License to Carry) Class A or B for > 10 round mags if you are not covered by the competition exemption, but you need one of those for a handgun anyhow. NY excludes mags made before the Sept 1994 date from the definition of high capacity feeding device (NY penal code 265.00-23). MA law explicitly limits the ban to feeding devices made after Sept 13, 1994 (Mass General Law chapter 140 section 131M). I am not aware of any prosecutions for this offense, however, it's not uncommon for someone without a license to be charged with unlicensed possession of a high capacity feeding device as one of many charges (as in "assault, possession of ammo without a license, possession of a high cap mag without a license, and fishing without a license. ") You're in luck - CT is pretty dang close to a "shall issue" state, and they cannot apply a standard of "special need required" to get a carry permit. If you moved to MA, you would need to get the color coded list of towns (Green=good, Red=Bad, Black=Terrible) and pick one where the chief of police didn't have it in for gun owners. ps: CT has an AW ban covering certain rifles by brand and model, so I can bring my JP but not my Colt HBAR.

Might as well post a sign "Something very interesting is inside this case". I just have a label "Owner's cell: ..................."

Agreed, but it can happen dang quickly. An special meeting can be called by the president or three directors and may occur no sooner than 7 days after call for said meeting. The meetings are generally conducted on-line using a voting system that is self-documenting, so there is no need to "review the minutes". Every director sees the motion they are voting on, casts a vote (w/optional "roll call request"), and it's recorded. Once the president adjourns the meeting the President marks the meeting "closed" and "publish" and the minutes are immediately available on www.uspsa.org in the "Board Minutes" section. It is quite possible for an on-line meeting to go from "Open for voting" to "Minutes published" in less than 24 hours. The board occasionally gets together for a conference call, but these are generally discussions rather than meetings with motions and votes. By leaving the "votes and motions" for the on-line meeting, the President directors can see the exact wording of the motion, and the voting record is maintained with absolute precision. The lengthy prepare and review process occurs after the in-person meetings only; on-line ones more much more quickly.

In an absolutely brilliant move, SKB redesigned their latch to use only TSA locks, with no provision for using your own lock on the case. I emailed them about this and they basically told me that a TSA lock was what I needed.

A7 application sent to by PO box by EXPRESS MAIL - exactly 14 days to deliver. Two 1911 slides shipped priority "2 day" mail to TX - 11 days. USPS brags of 96% on time delivery of express next day guaranteed mail. I'll bet a Fedex manager who bragged that only 4% of the overnight packages shipped on his watch arrived late would have cause to fear for his job. But, the USPS people are always very nice to deal with and I've never had one complain about the weight or try to say I have to pick it up at the post office.

True, but email is an imperfect medium especially with the handwriting of some of our members. We're also sending out a US-Snail confirmation letter (you should keep with the gun when traveling in NY) that contains the PIN as well. The letters have already been sent for all registrations shown on the site. Confirmation letters for new registrations will be mailed no later than 7 days after the form arrives at the PO box (usually much sooner). Also, although not advertised, the PIN from Front Sight should also work assuming we have the correct member number for you on file. Now if people would only stop stapling their checks to the application form !!!!! This is one of the things done differently in various parts of the country. I've been in USPSA forever (well, since about 1987) and have never seen an Area 7 Championship where competitors entered over multiple days. The plan is small squads, and 1/2 day of shooting (8AM-1PM or 1PM-6PM). We cut down the waiting time, not the amount of shooting in the match.

Rosa's picture is on your match confirmation letter.

We also have group rate of $89.99 at the Quality Inn Fairgrounds in Syracuse NY. This is right off exit 39 of the NY Thruway if you want to be near the megalopolis, but about a 20-30 minute ride form the range. The Riverside Inn is the closes to the range (about 4 or 5 minutes), and only $79 a night .... but, they only have 70 rooms in the hotel so you need to act fast. In the "old days" a decade or so ago, the hotel set a 2 night minimum when the match was in town. I spoke to their bookings manager, and he was most accommodating - no minimum stay, and an incredibly good rate. We do not have any rooms blocked out at either hotel, however, I expect the Riverside will be full for at least Friday and Saturday evening.

Read the NRA policy carefully. I was involved in insurance selection for a local gun club and found that the NRA insurance provided a false security blanket. The biggest limitation was the exclusion for claims brought by members of the club - the people most likely to be involved in an accident that results in a suit. Just imaging telling the range owner "You're not covered if any of our members decide to sue, but, other than that, we have great insurance." The other two biggies (of less relevance to a USPSA club) were an exclusion on hunting accidents and anything involving a firearms inside a motor vehicle.

It's just a "restatement" of the 1994 Federal ban - creating a situtation just as if the federal ban never expired (ie, pre Sept 94 mags are OK). This is the same situation as in MA. Nothing has changed in NY in recent years (ie, this is not new info). It's not like CA where you can only have mags you personally posessed in CA before the Caliban, or HI where there is no grandfathering. Not to mention BE (the man, not the forum)

Done correctly, it is. Just try to think about it from the owner's point of view - revenue vs. the issues involved with closing the range to members during your match.

They are quite different. #1: No company has stepped forward and tried to gain market share by undercutting the higher prices everyone got used to charging. #2: Congress isn't going to be all over the bullet industry like a cheap suit because their constituents are angered over high bullet prices. Sounds like a good opportunity for someone to start a bullet company

Not before the deal closes - read my comment carefully. The point I was trying to make in that example is that there are times where public disclosure of information is not in the best business interests of the organization. I rely on the expertise of our Executive Manager and accounting firm as to the level of detail accounting information and expenses are reported. If you accept the premise that every USPSA member is not entitled to know the specific salary of each USPSA HQ employee, you already agree there are limits on the amount of detail reported; the only issue is where is that line to be drawn. I wonder how many people knew, prior to Bruce Gary's post, that we have already had a case where using a pre-defined formula results in us knowingly sending a team that was not the best one possible. ---- I suggest you write a letter for Front Sight - there is an excellent chance it will be published (chances go down if they get many letters on one topic as the magazine is of fixed size). Criticism is always welcome, and the org will even provide you with a forum in which to do it.

Members are the owners as far as I am concerned. I thought we used the best approach to hire a team to bring back wins for the organization. As I have said before, if members value an objective process over wins, we blew it. No one discussing "suitable formulas" has addressed the issue Bruce Gary pointed out - knowingly sending a sub-optimal team because were were boxed into a formula (yes, it happened). Everyone tries to sidestep this issue pretending it's possible to have both - an objective system and the assurance we won't knowingly send a sub-optimal team. I have not heard a single person say "I would rather have a sub-optimal team and an objective process than a better team lacking such process". While I would not necessarily agree with that position, I would support if it if there were indications a majority of the membership felt that way. If everything could be done by popular vote, we'd put together an on-line voting system and have a system for the automatic introduction of motions, taking votes, and publishing minutes. Give me a couple of months and I could write the entire system and save USPSA the expense of board meetings. As to the Steel Challenge purchase: The nature of the opportunity precluded polling the membership. The opportunity would have evaporated by then as there were other interested parties. Disclosing the price would undermine our negotiating position in any possible future purchases (no, I do not know of any under consideration at the moment). Perhaps you could suggest a manner in which we could tell the price to the membership, but not allow any party attempting to sell us an organization in the future to have that information available when deciding how much they wish to ask for in price negotiations with USPSA. Just call a realtor who just put up a "sold" sign on a house what it went for - the answer will be "I can't tell you until the deal closes because that info could be used against the seller in future negotiations if the deal falls through." Same concept here. As to the comment about revenue source: Sorry, I do not respect attacks on myself or other board members because you don't agree with a decision. The "revenue source" is used to fund USPSA activities, NROI classes, nationals, and yes, world shoot teams. The only personal benefit I get from the USPSA Board meetings is loss of a few vacation days a year and meals while at the meeting - this is an unpaid position.

There have been assertions it takes performance out of the process. My view of how the process would work: The team manager will gather performance statistics on all the persons who are contender and compare them He will use his judgment, while looking at the stats. If there is something that is not reflected in the stats (unusual event at a single match, injury that prevented top performance at a match, etc.) If any selection involves a potential conflict of interest, the board would be advised and asked to approve the appointment There are two approaches: "Hiring decision" vs. "Competition". I thought we hired a team to win, and as such, believed that treating it as a hiring decision would be the way to go. In reference to an earlier comment, I view the team as something akin to a professional sports franchise - you NEVER see them publishing a competitive metric and telling all baseball or football players "try to make the team, we'll look at your stats and pick from the top of the list". I don't see the team as the apex of personal competition - that's what individual entries are for. If the membership wants team slots to be a prize, we on the board blew it. If goal #1 is a winning team, we didn't. You can't have it both ways by claiming a formula can be determined in advance that will always select the best team, and that we won't knowingly omit a better candidate because of the way the numbers cranked through the formula. If you're willing to take that risk to make a team berth a competition, fine - but it's factually inaccurate to argue that such risk does not exist. The manager based selection approach is similar to the private sector hiring practice. The formula based approach is more like civil service. The issue of slots to the WS is a valid one. In the past this has been handled by the president, and the location was such that there was not an overwhelming demand. I expect we will need to address this issue prior to the next WS due to its location. This gets back to the fundamental question "job" vs "competition". If it's a competition, you are absolutely right. If it's a job, then my response would be that there are few, if any, jobs outside civil service that tell you "This is the formula by which you can be assured you will beat out other candidates".

The key to running matches at commercial range is $$$. 1. Make sure you charge enough, and give the range a big enough cut of the action, that they would be sorry if you are gone. 2. If the match means the facility does not have ranges available for their members to use, think carefully about how much time you block out for the match and limit attendance if necessary. We have a local range (www.americanfirearmsschool.com) booked for winter matches a it SW of Boston. A couple of things we do: - Pre-registration, pre-payment ($20), no refund after Thursday - Match time 9AM Sunday, scheduled to end by Noon (sometime it stretches to noon thirty) - The range covers our expenses, mission count and wood props (we loan them poppers for the match), and keeps all profit. This formula has kept everyone involved happy, most importantly, the general manager of the facility.

#1: Standard case/inaccessable and "opaque case" (I guess those transparent cases are dangereous), to be carried with the match program (ie, your confirmation letter). A copy of NY 265.20-13b will be provided with the confirmation letter sent to non-NY residents. #2: There is no specific mention of mags in the exemption so the simple answer to your question is on that issue is no. NY law bans > 10 round mags made after the magic date in 1994, as does MA.

It depends on what you think the team exists to do - reward the team members or win. To answer your question: If the US team wins, the person with the desire would be the better member. If the US team loses because we took a pass on someone better able to win the job, it means that person would have made the better team member. Our members pay for the team, so the real question is "how do we serve the membership best", not "how do we best serve the fraction of 1% of our membership who are actually contenders for a team". With that in mind, I expect our members want to see US teams win. Sure, cosmic justice of having people who "desire" to represent the US would be nice, but when it comes down to it "desire" is not what determines the winners at the WS - the score is. Put another way - if you are going to be operated on, do you want the doctor who had the most "desire to be a surgeon", or the one who is "the best surgeon". Of course, if the goal is to serve the 1% of the members on the team with a fair contest, and to reward desire and effort rather than the ability to deliver the goods, the boards decision was not the right one. I believe the current process is the best one to select the optimal team (since the team manager can analyze performance after the fact, rather than be constrained by a predetermined formula).

Affirmative on self-service squadding.