"Local Rules," revisited

[Paul B]

Mactiger had the best comments on this thread. I have designed stages and run matches at several clubs. Indoor ranges usually have the most Range limitations - for one you usually always must shoot forward and never to the side. You have to work with this limitation.

I shot a match once in Dallas where we were told we had to cover our guns (rain covers) when we walked from stage to stage because the soccer fields next door did not want to see guns. We all complied and thought nothing of it.

We cannot beat our chests too much about these minor annoyances as most every club has them and no matter what everyone thinks we cannot afford to lose the ranges as much as they can afford to lose us.

On the other hand I was once shooting a match at a large club in the south where there was a stage set up with a cell tower just above and slightly left of the center of the bay and about 200 yards away. There were workmen at the top of the tower during the match in plain sight above the berm. Then to top it off there was a mini-popper (back falling) and a target directly beneath where the tower was above the bay. I DNF'd the stage and so did a few others but most shot it. I wish the club there had a rule about shooting in that direction but they did not. By the way the workmen actually seemed to enjoy the show and waved at us now and then - go figure.

[twodownzero]

I've been avoiding posting in this thread for a while because the hate mail really isn't enjoyable. That said, I think this is an important topic. It's important enough to deal with the hate mail and discuss the issues, although I wish people would stop assuming bad faith and realize that we're all here because we want to enjoy the sport, not as some aggressive assertion of power.

It seems that after 3 pages of discussion, there's an issue that has come up, but not been clearly analyzed. What this issue really comes down to is a conflict of property rights between two legitimate organizations.

Most everybody recognizes the real property rights of the range on which matches are held. Someone owns that dirt you're standing on when you're shooting and whoever that person or organization is, they expect to have the power to direct what goes on. This is fundamental to any system of property--the exclusive authority to dictate who may be present on your land and who may not, as well as what they're allowed to do while they're there, is among the basis for the bundle of rights that we call, "property."

It seems that while some have brought it up, it is often overlooked that the USPSA has a property interest in the way matches are managed as well. In law we call this "intellectual property." Organizations have a "right," which is comparable in many ways to the "real property" right referred to in the previous paragraph, to dictate how their name, likeness, and trademarks are used. This is the basis for the preemptive power of USPSA's rules. The rules aren't saying that a club can't kick everyone off their land, close up shop, and prohibit people from entering. What they are saying, however, is that if you want to use the USPSA name, benefit from the relationship between your club and USPSA, and draw members of the USPSA to shoot at your club, that you must either do so under the color of USPSA rules or apply for an exception. As such, the general rule is that USPSA clubs and USPSA matches must follow USPSA rules without any unapproved local exceptions.

Critics are correct in stating that this creates a conflict of rights. I think where they get it wrong is presuming that because a club owns the dirt, that their right outweighs any interest the USPSA has in specifying how a match will be run and managed. I disagree. This conflict of rights, and where the balance must be struck between them is the basis for this entire thread. Additionally, the harmonizing of this conflict is beneficial to all parties involved.

We spend a lot of time on this forum trying to identify just what a particular rule means, and that's a good thing. If the debate really is about whether or not USPSA's rules intend to remove the discretionary power of local match directors from making up rules particular to their range, I don't really think that's a matter of legitimate debate. The first post in this thread contains quotes from the USPSA's rule book. It is abundantly clear that local rule making without permission of the President of the USPSA is specifically prohibited. Just as local clubs should be expected to have a right to determine how their "dirt" is used, USPSA is using its intellectual property rights to demand that a match be conducted in a certain manner. Whether or not you, as the person reading this, genuinely believe that USPSA's assertion of right ought to be respected is really what we're talking about. I really don't think anyone here is honestly trying to argue that the rule book doesn't specifically remove certain discretion from local MDs, RMs, etc. It's obvious from the language of the rules that USPSA's intent is just that.

It is understandable that an assertion based on an intellectual property right is less obvious as is an assertion regarding real property. Real property rights sure are an abundant and strong source of ability to dictate what goes on in a given place at a given time. It's certainly not the case that real property rights can't conflict with other rights, however.

The basic point I'm making is that USPSA does have a right to demand how local clubs run their matches if they are labeled as USPSA matches. That demand is an exercise of a property right comparable to that of ownership of real property. The suggestion that real property rights somehow may everywhere and always trump intellectual property rights is unpersuasive. USPSA is a guest on local ranges. Similarly, local ranges are guests of USPSA's intellectual property when they put on a USPSA match.

What's really important isn't trying to make these rights clash as much as possible. I think the real goal is finding a way to figure out the nature of the agreement between USPSA and local clubs regarding their ability to use USPSA's trademarks in exchange for the ability to put on matches. Once we determine what the terms of that agreement are, we can talk about how to enforce it so the rule's intent of creating uniformity and equity from one club to the next.

If we didn't want this sort of uniformity, we wouldn't need a national (and, indeed, international) sanctioning body for our sport. We wouldn't need RMIs teaching the rule book across the country. If the intent wasn't to demand adherence, all of that would be wasted. But the fact is that USPSA has expended a lot of resources, and volunteer RMIs and others teach the courses in order to create this uniformity.

The reason why I started this post is that I am hoping to find the best way to enforce that intentional act of creating uniformity on a national level. It seems like the responses here range from, "screw it, let's shoot and stop asking questions" to "damn right they should have to follow the rules." Both sides make legitimate points. Where they clash, I think we have a real need for a resolution.

And before I get any more hate mail about helping out at local matches, I'll just say this publicly: If you want me to help you with a match, whether it's setup, stage design, debugging, running shooters, scoring, or tearing down, just ask me. I volunteer as much of my time as I possibly can to this sport. I enjoy doing it because I absolutely hate seeing people get burned out trying to manage everything themselves. You'll never see me refusing to stay behind to tear down, no matter how hot it is outside or how important it is for me to do something else afterwards.

The relationship between USPSA and local clubs is one of mutual benefit. It may not be one of equal benefit, but harmonizing their relationship is to the benefit of both parties. That's why this thread is here.

Edited September 21, 2010 by twodownzero

[schroed]

All I can say we have a screwy range arrangement.

However Tim(twodownzero) was out there all day with us in some great Iowa weather(rainy and cold)

even stayed to help tear down, not bad for first time shooting with us.

[mhs]

What's really important isn't trying to make these rights clash as much as possible. I think the real goal is finding a way to figure out the nature of the agreement between USPSA and local clubs regarding their ability to use USPSA's trademarks in exchange for the ability to put on matches. Once we determine what the terms of that agreement are, we can talk about how to enforce it so the rule's intent of creating uniformity and equity from one club to the next.

I can't figure this one out. Does the first sentence state what you want it to?

[Flexmoney]

There is no need for any of this to get personal. If you feel that way, please refrain from posting.

This is a discussion forum, share ideas.

Kyle F.

Forum Administrator

[Flexmoney]

Additionally, the harmonizing of this conflict is beneficial to all parties involved.

That is well stated.

Do realize, however, that some things aren't black and white. Where you might see something that may appear strange to you, it may not appear strange to me. There may be no conflict.

I wouldn't see bagging guns as a conflict of USPSA interests.

On the other hand, DQ'ing a shooter for pointing a muzzle over a berm is a direct conflict with USPSA rules. And, I do believe a club would need to seek an exception from the USPSA President to call that differently from our rule book.

(and for an FYI...I don't know that the proper way to do that is to directly address the Prez. Run it up the chain through the Section Coordinator and the Area Director first.)

[twodownzero]

I wouldn't see bagging guns as a conflict of USPSA interests.

Nor would I. I do think that disqualifying a USPSA member from a USPSA match for failing to bag his gun (when he didn't know such a rule even existed, nor was he given an instruction by a range officer to do so) is a conflict.

That's what I was threatened with. Fortunately it was quickly resolved, and I'm happy for that.

But the fact that it happened illustrates a bigger problem, as I see it, with local clubs trying to circumvent the rules. It's not really about one particular incident; it goes to the culture of our sport at the local level.

That's why it's so important to legitimately and honestly respond to this as a concern, because it's not about one incident. It goes to a much deeper question about the uniformity and equity that our rule book seeks to establish and protect.

The muzzle over the berm rule is precisely what I'm talking about, and I'm glad you brought that up. There's a rule that's unquestionably well-intentioned. The problem is that allowing such a rule opens Pandora's box. I know I'm not the only one who doesn't want to go there.

[ima45dv8]

Refering back to your opening post, this is not a "new one". Passionately dedicated match organizers have been dealing with this for a long time. Many of the responses provided illustrate the situation well.

I've been avoiding posting in this thread for a while because the hate mail really isn't enjoyable. That said, I think this is an important topic. It's important enough to deal with the hate mail and discuss the issues, although I wish people would stop assuming bad faith and realize that we're all here because we want to enjoy the sport, not as some aggressive assertion of power.

It's regretable that people have been sending you hate mail because they think you might be promoting, "…some aggressive assertion of power", but examine your choice of words and phrases in that same opening post. Some could be viewed as antagonistic and confrontational. Examples:

"I'm personally hostile…"

"…need to consider some sort of discipline program…"

"…I hate to seem like a rule Nazi, but…"

It's worth remembering that you have but one chance to make a first impression with the topics you start.

It seems that after 3 pages of discussion, there's an issue that has come up, but not been clearly analyzed.

It has. But pointing at a bad situation and announcing, "here's a problem" requires only minimal effort and accomplishes little or nothing. Sadly, it's old news. Proposing and enacting a real solution is noteworthy.

Embrace the fact that people in this organization have been working diligently for many years to find gentle, common understanding with the various venues that host our events. If that approach is lacking and you feel a more litigious course of action is warranted, I'm confident that once you've passed the bar you'll contact Dave Thomas at USPSA and offer to represent us pro bono. As an owner/member of the organization, I would be very grateful.

[Joe4d]

Again, noone is advocating some time of enforcement procedure against mistakes, short notice issues or coming down on new set up crews, Nothing in the rules says you cant require I protection at all times, You have quite a bit of leeway in "Reasonable directions of match officials" Its perfectly reasonable to be asked to wear eye protection on the range, and not shoot concrete dividers, Also noone expects every match to be perfect, things happen,

Whats not reasonable is to have RO's yelling cover, or telling you you have to have a hammer down on a loaded chamber start with a Browning Hipower, or not having a WSB and then changing the COF as you go along, and doing things like that over and over and over.

Never seen any of this at a USPSA match as cover is not an issue and a Browning Hi-power would shoot Limited or L-10, not Production.

Thats exactly my point, I have seen it at matches that call themselves USPSA, and I was shooting Limited.

[rgkeller]

USPSA does not give away their intellectual property for nothing.

I say again, if USPSA demands that their rules must override range rules, then USPSA will suffer an economic loss.

So might the range/club, but that won't alleviate loss to the USPSA.

If clubs/ranges are using USPSA intellectual property and not paying the USPSA for said use, then, IMO, the USPSA has a self interest worth pursuing.

Edited September 21, 2010 by rgkeller

[Gary Johnson]

I think we're overlooking an important element of 3.3

3.3 Applicability of Rules:

USPSA matches are governed by the rules applicable to the discipline. Host organizations may not enforce local rules except to comply with legislation or legal precedent in the applicable jurisdiction. Any voluntarily adopted rules that are not in compliance with these rules must not be applied to USPSA matches without the express consent of the President of USPSA.

A local 'bag your gun between stages' rule doesn't fall under 3.3 because USPSA rules don't address casing/bagging between stages. It's neither required nor forbidden. It sounds silly but it doesn't clash with anything in the USPSA rule book.

One example where 3.3 applies is a club I know of that doesn't allow loaded mags on your belt in the safe area. 3.3 applies because the local rule is in direct conflict with 10.5.12. Competitors at monthly matches go along with it since it doesn't impose a great hardship on them but that club will have a hard time getting approval for a major USPSA match while that policy is in force. A 'no muzzles above the berm' rule is another example.

As far as a local club threatening to DQ someone for non-compliance with a local rule, that's a non-starter. Local clubs have no say in how USPSA matches are run. They can ask you to leave but they can't disqualify you. The only way anyone is going to get tossed out of a match for non-compliance with a local rule is if it's seen as 'unsportsmanlike'.

[mildot1]

I hate what "I" think are stupid rules probably more than most.

However that is only my opinion and there is nothing I can do about unless I do the following.

Vote with my feet or try to open the "rulemakers" minds to a different way of thinking.

If I try to beat the commitee into submission by waving the USPSA rule book in thier face, I will prolly be shown the door!

Is it better to deal with the rules and have a place to shoot or not shoot at all?

You do realize that you are only a guest, even if you are a "club member" the majority rules.

Since you are so gung ho, why don't you get the vote out and get a seat where you can be heard?? I doubt very much that the powers that be from that organization are reading this thread. Get all your USPSA buddies together, join the club and make your vote count.

Then come back and tell us the changes made and how you did it.

Respectfully

Mildot1

[mactiger]

There have been a lot of ideas presented here, but I haven't really seen much in the way of local rules interfering or superceding USPSA rules. Any time you use someone elses range, you will be bound by their policies and rules regarding range use. If those policies and rules present a direct conflict with a USPSA rule, that needs to be worked out, but in my travels as an instructor, I've found those instances to be few and far between. Most of the time, it's a "can't shoot in this direction" issue, i.e. into the side berm, or "must use forward falling poppers" (USSA in Tulsa has this particular rule). None of those conflicts with USPSA rules.

While it's probably somewhat distasteful to have to deal with what is perceived as a local rule, in many cases that rule is not in conflict with our rule book.

What worries me more is the local match RO's interpretation of some of our rules, or their ignorance of or flat-out disregard for certain rules. I've already written about that one, though, and I don't want to drift the thread. I will say, however, that there is a difference between what some RO's want a rule to say and what it actually says, so it's best to leave your personal desires and feelings out of it and just follow the rule book. When that's not happening is when the NROI and USPSA tend to get involved.

Troy

[Flexmoney]

I pulled a post (for moderator review) that went back to bringing personal animosity into this discussion.

I am going to close this thread until the Moderator Team reviews it, so we don't see any retaliatory posts showing up.

I was mentioned (as a subject) in the pulled post that went personal, so I will recuse myself.

If you have any questions on this, please contact one of the other Moderators.

CLOSED for review.

Thanks,

Kyle F.

Forum Administrator

[Nik Habicht]

I'm not seeing a reason to open this back up. While in a utopian world, I'd like all matches to comply exactly with the rulebook, while allowing 100% freestyle with perfect stage design, building, and ROing, the reality is that's not likely to ever happen. We should certainly do everything in our power to strive toward that goal -- but given that all of the participants are human, sometimes stuff will happen.

Then it's time to start the striving all over.....

If anyone has something new to contribute, feel free to pm me or any other moderator on the board, and we'll consider opening it back up.