AD during LAMR 5.7.1 vs 10.4.3

[Yar1180]

This is strictly hypothetical

I understand about the no more broken gun alibi and how it was effective 2008. I just question the way 5.7.1 and 10.4.3 are written and how they seem to contradict.

If you specifically say 5.7.1

A competitor who experiences a handgun malfunction while responding to the “Make Ready” command, but prior to issuance of the “Start Signal”, is entitled to retire to repair his handgun without penalty...

and the malfunction is something like a hammer following the slide with the shooters finger out of the trigger guard.

To me it seems like this leaves too much room for interpretation. This can cause a match being slowed down as people discuss the right call at lenght and somebody being upset with the ruling either way because it is not very clear. If 5.7.1 was specificly stated that a mechanical AD is still a DQ per 10.4.3 or handgun malfunction is defined as any malfunction other than one that caused a AD it would be much better.

As the way the rules are written is there a clear "right call?" Do you agree that 5.7.1 and 10.4.3 seem to contradict.

Rulebook for reference so you do not have to dig it out of the rangebag. http://www.uspsa.org/rules/2008HandgunRulesindexed.pdf

[Flexmoney]

Probably a good point.

Thanks for bringing it up.

I don't think they contradict, but I understand why they were written/updated. Others might not.

[eerw]

One subtle point is that 5.7.1 says malfunction, but does not say an AD due to mechanical is allowable.

the hammer may follow ( no AD ) or maybe the trigger is stuck, or safety does not work properly. the competitor is allowed to repair.

It would seem that an AD while LAMR IS covered under 10.4.3.

a shooter may try an argue that, but I would think the DQ would be issued and the shooter be allowed to arbitrate.

[mactiger]

There is no contradiction here.

5.7.1 A competitor who experiences a handgun malfunction while responding

to the “Make Ready” command, but prior to issuance of the “Start

Signal”, is entitled to retire to repair his handgun without penalty, under

the authority and supervision of the officiating Range Officer and subject

to the provisions of Rule 5.7.5, Rule 8.3.1.1, and all other safety

rules. Once the repairs have been completed (and the provisions of

Rule 5.1.7 have been satisfied, if applicable), the competitor may return

to attempt the course of fire, subject to scheduling as determined by the

officiating Range Officer or Range Master.

10.4.3 A shot which occurs while loading, reloading or unloading a handgun.

This includes any shot fired during the procedures outlined in Rule

8.3.1 and Rule 8.3.7.

10.4.3.1 Exception – a detonation, which occurs while unloading a handgun,

is not considered a shot or discharge subject to a match disqualification,

however, Rule 5.1.6 may apply.

10.4.4 A shot which occurs during remedial action in the case of a malfunction.

The italics are mine.

5.7.1 specifically addresses a malfunction, not a discharge. If the malfunction causes a discharge or shot, it's still a DQ. The broken gun rule has been removed from the current rule book and there is no longer an alibi if your gun goes off accidentally or unintentionally.

A malfunction means that your gun isn't working properly, and if that's discovered prior to the start signal, you can go fix it and try again without penalty. That's definitely not the case if it goes "bang", regardless of whether the malfunction caused the discharge or not.

Troy

[Yar1180]

Troy thank you for your input. It would be better I think if 5.7.1 was rewritten to paraphrase what you said

5.7.1 specifically addresses a malfunction, not a discharge. If the malfunction causes a discharge or shot, it's still a DQ. The broken gun rule has been removed from the current rule book and there is no longer an alibi if your gun goes off accidentally or unintentionally.

That is not how 5.7.1 is written.

[Gary Stevens]

General statement follows:

The enemy of a good rulebook is the search for a perfect rulebook. Spending $16,000 + dollars, printing new rulebooks, every time someone finds a really good way to rewrite a particular rule could get real expensive real fast.

I would suggest that folks send a proposed rewrite of any particular rule to the DNROI so that he can compile them. Then when it is time to print a new rulebook, we can take serious looks at the proposals.

Gary

Edited June 3, 2010 by Gary Stevens

[mactiger]

Troy thank you for your input. It would be better I think if 5.7.1 was rewritten to paraphrase what you said

5.7.1 specifically addresses a malfunction, not a discharge. If the malfunction causes a discharge or shot, it's still a DQ. The broken gun rule has been removed from the current rule book and there is no longer an alibi if your gun goes off accidentally or unintentionally.

That is not how 5.7.1 is written.

I disagree. That is exactly how 5.7.1 is written, and there are several other rules that describe what happens if your gun discharges. A malfunction is not a discharge. You are the one who stuck the "hammer following/gun goes off" thing in there. While that may be a malfunction, it's also an accidental discharge and is a DQ. No need to re-write a rule that is as plain as that one, especially since an accidental discharge, including one during the make ready process, is already covered so many other places in the book.

And, what Gary said.

Troy