Rob Boudrie

The concept of "private postings" seems to be unique to states which enacted their carry laws fairly recently. Generally, these newer carry laws were enacted in the face of organized opposition, and a number of bones were thrown to the antis. The most common ones are a laundry list of no-gun zones [schools, churches, police stations, stadiums, places where admission is charged, places licensed to sell alcohol by the drink, etc.], and the ability of private businesses to make carry a crime by posting a sign. Juristictions which have had CCW for many years don't have nonsense like granting private bsuiness the authority to make carry on the premises a crime (business have the right to order people to leave, but can't have them arrested for carry with a permit). Even anti gun places like MA and NY don't grant business this authority. You don't tend to see signs like this in states where there is no law granting them special standing. The public in states with recent "carry for the masses" (TX, FL, AZ, OH, etc.) seem to be aware of the concept of "ordinary" people carrying and some businesses thing of this as a problem which must be addressed. States with old carry permit procedures don't seem to ahve this on the radar screen, have experienced many decades without undue incidents, and no one seems to worry about this issue. I've never seen a "no gun in this business" sign in MA, NY or any of the New England states.

This is one match that is worth the trip.

The issue has NOTHING to do with our sport. The issue is "what consequences would recognizing a particular sport have on established law which grants special standing to 'legitimiate sporting activities?'". All indications are that the decisions were made in the context of a desire to prevent certain consequences of recognition from coming into play, and this consideration, rather than the merits of the activity, drove the conclusion. Read the entire ATF report and note that the discussion centered on the type of gun being used, not the activity. Pay particular attention to the conclusion which basically states "if the activity uses this type of firearm it is not a sport, but simply an activity using this type of firearm." They have pretty much admitted that the type of firearm used drove the conclusion that practical shooting is not a "legitimate sporting activity." This Higgens case was about shotguns only, however, the ATF report - which remains the official position of that agency - does not limit itself to shotguns.

You mean like the court which heard Gilbert v. Higgins?

The ATF issued a report during the Clinton years that determined that practical shooting was not a sport, but competitions involving military style firearms. The report may be found at http://www.atf.gov/pub/treas_pub/assault_rifles/index.htm with he specific mention of practical shooting, including the international organization and the fact that we have had national matches since 1989 (not sure that's the right date, but it's what's in the report), on page 3 of the PDF at http://www.atf.gov/pub/treas_pub/assault_rifles/typscope.pdf

You should read "The Care and Feeding of Tenants" by Andy Kane. One trick he recommends is a locked thermostat - but let the tenants see you carefully turn it down. This should be in series with a second thermostat which is hidden, never disclosed to the tenants, and sets the limit temperature. Tenants will turn up the visible thermostat when you are gone and will actually feel warmer.

Nice rifle, but why haven't you sent in your registration for the Area 7 3 Gun Yet?

Accepting the signs as "OK" is like considering "no jews" or "no blacks" signs acceptable because they are not legally enforceable. The first step is to find out who to blame; the second is to give them a chance to reform; and the third is to adjust one's behavior accodingly.

Thanks, Rob. Here's some other info that might be useful: -Chet The first step is to find out if franchisees have the authority to make their own decision. If the answer is "no", USPSA members across the country should consider how Cedant values the rights of gun owners. If the answer is "yes", it's time to deal with the franchisee - who may actually care about the business. It makes no sense to deal with the franchisee until you know if you should believe the not unexpected response of "It's not up to me, it came from corporate."

Cedant hotels has many brands of hotels (Super 8, Days Ins, etc.) and is at least in part a franchise operation. I'm going to write the CEO of Cedant with a few questions: 1) Is this sign corporate policy? 2) Are franchisees required to display this sign, or is the decision as to posting left up to the individual franchisee? 3) Since the public is told that citizens are not lawfully armed in the hotel lobby, what precautions are taken to assure that the lobby remains a sterile gun-free environment so that your disarmed and law abiding patrons are not the proverbial sitting ducks? 4) Are hotel managers permitted to give groups booking blocks of rooms in their hotels permission to carry firearms, the provisions of the Texas 30.06 sign not withstanding? I'll post the response when/if I get it.

It would be interesting to see if the NRA was willing to withdraw its endorsement of the program, and advise their customers to avoid Super 8's. Of course, if it's a discount program with a rebate to the NRA (car rental discounts work this way) it could be a tough call for them.

The reason you don't see this in Super 8's across the country is that only some states have a law allowing a businesses's posted sign to have the force of law. For example, we never see such signs here in the People's Democractic Republic of Massachusetts, since there is no provision to give such signs any more standing than signs banning entry while wearing dirty underwear. While business are free to expel pretty much anyone they want (except for a few prohibited forms of discrimination) at which point refusal to depart is trespass, the mere violation of a sign does not become a crime except in states with laws such as Texas which has the infamous "30.06" law. This TX law was created because some DA or AG came up with the creative interpretation of the trespass law that violating a sign was "armed criminal trespass". The TX legislature decided to solve the ambiguity of that interpretation by codifying it in law, and setting specifications for the sign (1" letters, bilingual, specific wording). I do hope that someone had the presence of mind to oprganize a mass early checkout and move as many people as possible to another hotel. As to an NRA legal challange - there is no more basis in law for this than challanging any of the other "no carry zone" laws in various states.

I believe that C68 contains a provision for a high capacity license, however, the policy is that no such licenses will be issued. Other than this non-issued license, there is no exemption or provision for posession of said magazines in Canada, eh. Also, don't forget the Canadian ban on hollowpoint handgun ammo, barrels under 105mm in length** (grandfathered for guns registred to Canadians prior to that law), and a ban on calibers such as 25ACP. * - why not 100mm? That would have let pocket pistols like the S&W 686 w/4" barrel and the Glock 24 into Canada - they found that adding 5mm banned many more guns so they did it.

--> QUOTE(Paul B @ Mar 20 2006, 08:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Rob, are you sure it isn't 10 rounds for handguns? I remember talking to Canadian shooters who were griping about the 10 round limitation? Maybe it has changed. Typo - should have said 10. The Canadian experience has valuable lessons about how the game is played: 1. When the original bill C68 was proposed, competitors objected. Proponents countered with the provision for the hi-cap licenses and the objections were considered addressed. 2. Once the law was passed, the gun control organizations started to lobby against the issuance of any such licenses. 3. When an official of IPSC Canada was permitted to address a parlimentary body regarding the impact of gun laws on competitors, he was specifically required to agree to make no mention of the 10 round issue, or it's impact on competitors, as a condition of being allowed to speak. 4. Once the debate was frames as "legitimate competetive needs vs. public safety", it was easy to both acknowledge that the competitive needs were indeed legitimate while concurrently stating that they were not as important as public safety.

Canada has an absolute ban on the civilian posession of handgun mags > 10 rounds. Although there is a provision in Canadian law for hi-cap licenses for competitive shooters, the official position of all provinces is "no such licenses shall be issued." Corrected - I typoed and should have said 10.

NY has had lifetime carry permits (subject to the whims of the licensing judge) in counties outside the greater NYC area for decades. In many parts of NY these permits (whcih are not valid in NYC, but are good in the rest of the state except for schools and the usual federal places) are routinely issued even though they are not shall-issue by statute.

About match registration Please read the posted policies at www.uspsa.org/squadding Visit that address prior to registration if you would like to see what shoot times are available. Please do not call asking us to hold you a slot. We are following our published policy, and we will not say "NO" to a shooter who has submitted a paid registration because someone who delayed sending theirs in wants a "hold". Please do not ask us to increase the squad size by "just one" since your squad will "be very fast" Expect fast processing of your registration. We are getting confirmation letters out within 5 days of receipt of the registration - usually even sooner Expect a great match. We have reduced the squad size from last year, and are being strict on the count so we can offer you a great match experience.

I don't think so - I just haven't gotten to putting together the 3-Gun confirmation letters. At least you had the printed address on your check and didn't use staple, and you didn't ask me to hold a bunch of slots for people who haven't sent in their registration.

I hate it when - - Competitors ask you to "hold a slot" for someone whose registration is arriving later, despite a published policy no slots will be held - Competitors send you an large packet of registrations and each one has a check STAPLED to it. Do they think the checks are going to crawl away if not stapled? - Competitors whose handwriting is so bad that you get the name wrong, and virtually have to guess on the email address.

The USPSA President has full authority over this, so I will ask him. Keep in mind that the "official ammo" chrono is confirmation sample of 3, not the best 3 of 8, so that alone will make these numbers a bit lower. It will, however, give us a great set of data across a wide variety of guns. Rob

I can assure everyone that the board will be very interested in learning if any problems develop in this program. Given the current information available, I think we have struck a reasonable balance between the different tradeoffs. The World Body - which is actually where this concept started - seems to think so as well. We already make tradeoffs between "fairness" and "expediency" - for example, nothing is done to level the playing field when different competitors compete under vastly different weather conditions. None the less, we still allow match scores to stand even if it only some competitors get rained on as doing so represents the best balance between "fairness" and "getting the job of running a match done." The tradeoff between the convenience of an assured power factor and an absolute assurance nobody gets an undeserved pass is another balancing act. We will be watching for actual problems, and also measuring the positive benefit matches receive from this program, to make sure we maintain a reasonable balance.

Shortly after getting married, my wife informed me that no individual gun could cost more than her ring since it had to be the most expensive non-car product in the house. I can buy as many as I want, as long as I keep each one under that limit.

If one accepts the premise that the program is not viable without a power factor provision, the question becomes: Which is better for our membership? Having a direct-to-match ammo program with the power factor rule, or not having a program? It is not accurate to say the rules are not the same for everyone. To say that "different rules apply" is like claiming that the rule "retention straps, if present, must be used" is a rule that is only applied to some competitors. Everyone is subject to that rule, even if their holster does not have a retention strap. There is room for legitimate debate on the rule, but this choice of term is like insisting on using the definition "Assault weapon" for a semi-auto gun ... if accepted it allows those on one side of the debate to start the discussion with an a-priori assumption built right into the question.

I don't remember that there was ever a rule which officially supported the "house gun" concept - people just sort of "did it" and nobody complained.

I have seen "house guns" used in numerous matches, with the consent of NROI. I will ask for a formal ruling on the matter. Rob