Gary Stevens

Not being a CZ guy I have very limited knowledge of them. Is the compact available as a single safety or can the off side be removed. I sent an e-mail to CZ custom about a week ago but have not received a reply. Thanks

I can not find language that prohibits an ambi safety. Can you explain ? Thanks

I brought this very subject up in a BOD meeting years ago and was told it was not a problem. Of course things can change.

Interpretation's are posted on the USPSA website. E-mails, I think, are unofficial guidance.

Correct Nik. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

I know for a fact that the DNROI, both past and present, has sought information, opinion, and guidance prior to issuing an official opinion. While Troy and I have strongly disagreed on particular issues, he has never exhibited a "my way or the highway" attitude. When push comes to shove someone has to make a decision. That job falls to the DNROI.

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

The Para LDA also has an external thumb safety that does not have to be engaged.

I believe this is part of the unfortunate migration from peace officer to LEO.

Addressing a potential safety or equipment issue before the start signal is one sign of a good RO. When in doubt he kicked it up the chain for more guidance. Good job.

Yes you can. Just be prepared to point to the rule that allows it.

This just frustrates the heck out of me. The rules are easily available at no cost. All an individual needs is the willingness to read them. Sad.

JP bolt and JP trigger assembly.

This. To do less is doing a disservice to the shooter.

The OP said the shooter shouldered the wall out of the way about a foot so he could shoot targets from that location. This seems to be different from the current version.

I don't think props should be required to be steel re enforced to keep shooter from deliberately pushing a wall out for the purpose of shooting a hidden target. Few have agreed with with anything I have said lately, but I would strongly consider a 10.6 call.

Both of the above examples, while maybe morally correct, are not by the rulebook. The rule book is established for all shooters to be treated equally. Administering rules by group think is wrong.

If the sport is going to keep the significant advantage rule, which they will, perhaps adding a word in the class examples or in the rulebook as examples given would help. It has always been explained that if a shooter obtains a better angle, or closer to the target, or can engage more targets than would have been available it was significant advantage. Perhaps adding the word significant to the examples would help. if a shooter obtains a significantly better angle, or is significantly closer to the targets then it would be a per shot penalty. Admittedly it is still subjective, but it makes the RO look for a significant result before they declare a significant advantage.

Actually I am concerned about the consistency across the sport.

I agree Nik, but my issue was consistency not convenience. The concept of significant advantage has been taught to untold numbers of RO's and it is still applied differently. I can understand that getting hit with multiple penalties for a toe over the line is painful, but it is the shooters toe. If the RO crew has failed to properly maintain the fault lines then the RM can address that and if any penalty should be applied. I had to do that very thing at Area 8 one year. Wet weather had played havoc with the ground outside the fault line causing the fault line to sink, since everyone stood on it while shooting. I erased the penalty, we repaired the ground and moved on.

I recently broached this procedural per shot fired idea with powers that be and was soundly rejected.

THIS!

Not to speak for the MD, but it has been limited to Single Stack and Production.

I caused this. My crew DQ'd a shooter at last years Single Stack for inserting a loaded magazine, and then re-holstering. The hammer was not back, the chamber was not loaded, but the safety was not applied. I thought, by the rulebook, it was a DQ. i was overruled. No harm, now I know how this to be handled.

This is the only direct competition sport I am aware of where your opponent will loan you their gun, their ammo, and tell you a better way to shoot a stage than they did. As for DQ's I make the call, explain the call, express regret to the shooter, explain their options (or lack of options). That covers all the bases. Give the shooter an opportunity to maintain dignity. Treat people like you would like to be treated, right up until they won't let you. Can't go wrong that way.