Flipping the safety off on a loaded holstered handgun

[Gary Stevens]

Lost two shooters at Area 8 a couple of years ago. One lady put a loaded, cocked 1911 in the holster without the safety engaged and assumed the start position . DQ.

Other shooter put the 1911 in his holster and as part of his "make ready routine" stood there and flicked the safety on and off 2-3 times. His hand was on the gun, and he was not in the act of drawing. As soon as that safety came off, as far as I was concerned he had a loaded 1911 in the holster with no safety applied. A DQ was issued, and I feel it was absolutely the right thing to do.

If an Arb committee wants to put their names on a document sanctioning this action, then they can defend it in a civil suit. I'll be more than happy to state why I felt it was unsafe and why the DQ was issued.

Safety is job one.

Gary

Hey Gary,

1. 10.5.11 - text book, right?

2. Is this 10.5.11 - and still considered holstering, or was the DQ issued under the blanket 10.5

Look, I'm not advocating that it's not. Undoubtedly it's dangerous as sin, but I want to make sure I quote the correct rule and reasoning. I want to make sure I answer either a question from the shooter, RM, or arb committee as concisely as possible.

Is it the argument that when you are manipulating the weapon in the holster you are actively holstering, until you take your hand off and it's inert? And then if you put your hand back on it you are again holstering if you didn't bring it out? I'd get behind that. If I get overruled - I get overruled.

Since I was working as RM I don't remember the exact rule that was quoted. IMO, 10.5.11.1 covers it perfectly.

I would add that I believe we have an NROI opinion that pulling the gun up far enough to expose the trigger is enough to be DQ'd for handling a firearm. I guess you could say that once the trigger is covered the gun is holstered. In all honesty though I have never had a problem being able to tell when the gun is in fact holstered.

Gary

[Gary Stevens]

I'm really surprised this discussion is still going on, despite the language of the rules. The language has to be our guide. "Holsters" is a verb. It does not state a condition.

If they wanted to make it DQable to have a "holstered, cocked, unlocked" firearm, they should have done so.

Nobody should be issuing a match DQ unless the rule book specifically requires them to do so given the circumstances.

No matter how stupid an action might be, if the rules don't create a bright line between DQ and no-DQ, it's not DQable.

It's easy to say that the competitor shouldn't be doing this at a match, but it's similarly easy to say that if the organization wants to make this act a DQable offense, that they can change the language to cover this behavior.

A lot of the discussion seems to surround how stupid it is to manipulate the fire control components, comparing to other firearm designs, etc., but all of that is irrelevant. The rule is that a competitor is not DQed unless he violates a rule that requires a DQ. There is no rule against having a "holstered" firearm that is not in the safe condition specified for that type of gun. This is not a discussion about semantics. If the rule doesn't fit, you must acquit. FWIW, I agree totally with how stupid this action is. It's absolutely stupid to switch off the mechanical safety, which is blocking the sear, while your gun is in the holster.

All this talk about "if I was on the arb committee" is all fine and dandy, but if I were on that arb committee and saw people disregarding the language of the rules to suit the ends they wanted to see from that arbitration, I'd be having long talks with the NROI about whether that person should continue to be a range officer.

This is a relatively clear rule that really shouldn't require 3 pages of discussion. "Holstered" is not "holsters." The language, not our intuition about safety considerations, is our ultimate guide. The language is binding if it is definitive. And it is here.

Please excuse the tone, as no disrespect was intended.

No rule for having a "holstered" single action gun with the safety off? Are you saying that I can be DQ'd while I am in the process of inserting the pistol into the holster with the safety off, but as soon as it hits the bottom I am OK? I am confused, but that is not all that unusual.

Gary

[twodownzero]

I'm really surprised this discussion is still going on, despite the language of the rules. The language has to be our guide. "Holsters" is a verb. It does not state a condition.

If they wanted to make it DQable to have a "holstered, cocked, unlocked" firearm, they should have done so.

Nobody should be issuing a match DQ unless the rule book specifically requires them to do so given the circumstances.

No matter how stupid an action might be, if the rules don't create a bright line between DQ and no-DQ, it's not DQable.

It's easy to say that the competitor shouldn't be doing this at a match, but it's similarly easy to say that if the organization wants to make this act a DQable offense, that they can change the language to cover this behavior.

A lot of the discussion seems to surround how stupid it is to manipulate the fire control components, comparing to other firearm designs, etc., but all of that is irrelevant. The rule is that a competitor is not DQed unless he violates a rule that requires a DQ. There is no rule against having a "holstered" firearm that is not in the safe condition specified for that type of gun. This is not a discussion about semantics. If the rule doesn't fit, you must acquit. FWIW, I agree totally with how stupid this action is. It's absolutely stupid to switch off the mechanical safety, which is blocking the sear, while your gun is in the holster.

All this talk about "if I was on the arb committee" is all fine and dandy, but if I were on that arb committee and saw people disregarding the language of the rules to suit the ends they wanted to see from that arbitration, I'd be having long talks with the NROI about whether that person should continue to be a range officer.

This is a relatively clear rule that really shouldn't require 3 pages of discussion. "Holstered" is not "holsters." The language, not our intuition about safety considerations, is our ultimate guide. The language is binding if it is definitive. And it is here.

Please excuse the tone, as no disrespect was intended.

No rule for having a "holstered" single action gun with the safety off? Are you saying that I can be DQ'd while I am in the process of inserting the pistol into the holster with the safety off, but as soon as it hits the bottom I am OK? I am confused, but that is not all that unusual.

Gary

That's the language of the rule, yes.

[Gary Stevens]

Well an Arb form and a 100 dollar bill will give you an answer for one match:)

Gary

[twodownzero]

Well an Arb form and a 100 dollar bill will give you an answer for one match:)

Gary

I suspect that the answer will reflect that a "holstered" handgun is inert.

You can't sweep yourself with a holstered gun, either.

I'm not saying I agree with that position, but that's Amidon's position right now.

[Gary Stevens]

I know you can't sweep your self with a holstered handgun, but can you show me where JA says it is OK to have a single action pistol in the holster with the safety off?

[JThompson]

Well an Arb form and a 100 dollar bill will give you an answer for one match:)

Gary

Yup, because if I see it you will need to find out. I am inflexible when it comes to safety... You will be going home or arbing.

JT

[twodownzero]

I know you can't sweep your self with a holstered handgun, but can you show me where JA says it is OK to have a single action pistol in the holster with the safety off?

Nope. Thus how this thread has gone this many pages. But the burden isn't on the competitor to show how he wasn't DQed. The burden is on the range officer to support a DQ with a rule cite.

I haven't issued a whole lot of them, but I have issued enough of them that I imagine that I'm not completely off base about the procedure.

Edited August 3, 2011 by twodownzero

[Nik Habicht]

I know you can't sweep your self with a holstered handgun, but can you show me where JA says it is OK to have a single action pistol in the holster with the safety off?

Nope. Thus how this thread has gone this many pages. But the burden isn't on the competitor to show how he wasn't DQed. The burden is on the range officer to support a DQ with a rule cite.

I haven't issued a whole lot of them, but I have issued enough of them that I imagine that I'm not completely off base about the procedure.

Tim,

the commission of the infraction as described by the RO isn't open to debate. If the RO states "I saw the gun in the holster without the safety being applied, therefore the shooter holstered a gun without the safety being applied," you're going to have a very tough time convincing an arbitration committee that didn't happen.....

I unfortunately have issued enough DQs to be certain I'm not off base about the procedure. If I'm convinced you committed a safety violation, you will need a successful arb to be reinstated.

I'm not eager to practice first aid on the range.....

[aztecdriver]

I know you can't sweep your self with a holstered handgun, but can you show me where JA says it is OK to have a single action pistol in the holster with the safety off?

Nope. Thus how this thread has gone this many pages. But the burden isn't on the competitor to show how he wasn't DQed. The burden is on the range officer to support a DQ with a rule cite.

I haven't issued a whole lot of them, but I have issued enough of them that I imagine that I'm not completely off base about the procedure.

Tim,

the commission of the infraction as described by the RO isn't open to debate. If the RO states "I saw the gun in the holster without the safety being applied, therefore the shooter holstered a gun without the safety being applied," you're going to have a very tough time convincing an arbitration committee that didn't happen.....

I unfortunately have issued enough DQs to be certain I'm not off base about the procedure. If I'm convinced you committed a safety violation, you will need a successful arb to be reinstated.

I'm not eager to practice first aid on the range.....

Nik,

First of all, again, I'm not saying this isn't a safety issue, and sure as heck not condoning snapping the safety off in the holster. Hammer falls are REAL and that's just inviting an issue.

I hear what Tim is saying - if one goes by the language of the rule book - it's questionable by the terms. Both the rules use action words like "holstering" or the completed action of "holsters" (10.5.11 and 8.5.9 respectively) Let's use a parallel example of these words and their use - like loading, unloading and reloading. Loading ends when ammunition is inserted in the pistol and your support hand comes off the magazine. When does "holstering" end? You're decidedly leaving out the part of the evidence that is when the gun went into the holster - it was on safe.

One might argue the intent of the rule as being having an unsafe gun in the holster, but it doesn't say that.

Confronted with this situation - I'm most likely issuing a match DQ under 10.5.11 with the argument that if you go back to your gun and manipulate it in the holster - you are still holstering the weapon. If someone wants to shoot holes in that argument and arb it - we're back in the same boat, but at least with this facts of the situation are documented. If the arb panel sees fit to reverse it - I'm sure we'll see an "or" clause added to 10.5.11

[ima45dv8]

I unfortunately have issued enough DQs to be certain I'm not off base about the procedure. If I'm convinced you committed a safety violation, you will need a successful arb to be reinstated.

This -- ^^^^^^.

Nuances and arguing of wording aside, if I see someone at a match with a loaded single-action autoloader in their holster without the safety applied, that's a bus ticket outta here.

For me this is not one of those situations open to creative interpretation.

[twodownzero]

it's probably for the best if I keep my comments to myself (edited out my response here)

Edited August 3, 2011 by twodownzero

[ima45dv8]

it's probably for the best if I keep my comments to myself (edited out my response here)

Self-moderation is a beautiful thing.

[twodownzero]

it's probably for the best if I keep my comments to myself (edited out my response here)

Self-moderation is a beautiful thing.

For the record, the post I deleted reiterated a lot of my prior points, and I think my position is well-represented by what I've posted in the forum already (and I'm not sure others will find it persuasive in any event) and so I'm going to sit back and read/watch this rather than continue to try to drive home the same points.

I will also add that "nuances and wording aside" is not the right attitude for a range officer to have. We are bound by the language, whether it satisfies our expected norms or not. And enforcing the rules differently than the language demands is just a recipe for allowing our rule book to continue mediocrity where we have a chance to make changes that will increase the safety of our sport without creating DQs based on subjective judgment, which the rule book more than goes out of its way to prevent.

Edited August 3, 2011 by twodownzero

[Nik Habicht]

We are bound by the language, whether it satisfies our expected norms or not.

Actually we are bound by the language as taught and interpreted by NROI, hence rules discussions......

[Jim Norman]

Is a holstered SA handgun with the safety off safe?

No, so USGH, DQ. eliminates all the other arguments.

[twodownzero]

Is a holstered SA handgun with the safety off safe?

No, so USGH, DQ. eliminates all the other arguments.

Is a holstered gun "handling"? That argument is questionable at the very least.

I don't know of any other instance where "unsafe gun handling"--even the catch-all under 10.5--doesn't involve "handling" a gun at all.

I'm also not sure how any DQ under this set of facts would be consistent with Amidon's position that a gun is "inert" when it's in the holster.

It appears that DQing someone under these facts still results in inconsistencies that would be better suited to a rule language change rather than stretching the rules to fit the facts.

Just for reference:

Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . .(As in “handling a firearm”) The act of manipulating,

holding, or gripping a firearm while the trigger is

functionally accessible.

(emphasis added)

It's pretty obvious to me that a holstered firearm cannot be "handled" in any sense of the word that is consistent with the rule book.

Edited August 4, 2011 by twodownzero

[Jim Norman]

If you holster the HG with the safety ON, it can only come off if you HANDLE the HG, therefore, USGH, DQ. Want to go tot he Match Gunsmith and prove your gun is broken, that the safety came off all by it lonesome? Go ahead, meanwhile DQ.

[ima45dv8]

If you holster the HG with the safety ON, it can only come off if you HANDLE the HG, therefore, USGH, DQ. Want to go tot he Match Gunsmith and prove your gun is broken, that the safety came off all by it lonesome? Go ahead, meanwhile DQ.

Don't forget, Jim....the "Broken Gun DQ Alibi" no longer exists.

[racerba]

If you holster the HG with the safety ON, it can only come off if you HANDLE the HG, therefore, USGH, DQ.

Not necessarily. You can flick the safety off without touching the gun at all (besides the the safety, of course). And of course the safety can be flicked off by other means as well (i.e. hitting a prop).

[twodownzero]

If you holster the HG with the safety ON, it can only come off if you HANDLE the HG, therefore, USGH, DQ. Want to go tot he Match Gunsmith and prove your gun is broken, that the safety came off all by it lonesome? Go ahead, meanwhile DQ.

Obviously you didn't read the definition of handling, which I pulled straight from the current rule book. If you do not have access to the trigger, you are not "handling" the firearm.

I'm perfectly willing to concede that there can be differing opinions on this, but I'd appreciate it if people would at least make a good faith effort to respond to the argument that it cannot be "unsafe gun handling" if the action does not fit within the definition of "handling."

The topic of this post is flipping the safety ... on a ... holstered handgun. A holster has to deny its user any trigger access or it is not legal for use in USPSA at all. Therefore, how can someone be "handling" their holstered firearm?

This is also consistent with Amidon's position that a holstered firearm is inert.

Edited August 4, 2011 by twodownzero

[Jim Norman]

Mark,

I forgot that one. So DQ then, no excuses

Bob,

Prove it was knocked off by a prop. As for not touching anything but the safety, as I recall that is part of the gun therefore to flick it off you had to touch, fondle or otherwise handle the gun.

A holstered gun if loaded must be on safe if a safety is available, ie. XD and Glock etc. do not have a safety except for that little trigger thingie. Other guns are hammer down DA first shot.

Maybe the next book will include a line that clarifies this, in the mean time I will inform you of your DQable action or status should I notice it.

Also this whole thread begs the question of 'WHY" as in why would you flick the safety off of your loaded holstered gun? Do you really think that taking the safety off before you draw is going to win the match for you? I can think of no reason to release the safety until the gun is up and pointing at least nominally down range. I my not be all the way on target when the safety comes off, but the gun is definitely clear of the holster and coming up.

When some one with authority tells me or better writes us that it is OK to flick your safety off on a loaded and HOLSTERED gun, I will then allow it, but We will have a discussion anyway. As I said, I see no reason in competition why one would do this and no reason that we should allow it. That said, it is probably one of those things we are not too likely to catch you doing.

[twodownzero]

Mark,

I forgot that one. So DQ then, no excuses

Bob,

Prove it was knocked off by a prop. As for not touching anything but the safety, as I recall that is part of the gun therefore to flick it off you had to touch, fondle or otherwise handle the gun.

A holstered gun if loaded must be on safe if a safety is available, ie. XD and Glock etc. do not have a safety except for that little trigger thingie. Other guns are hammer down DA first shot.

Maybe the next book will include a line that clarifies this, in the mean time I will inform you of your DQable action or status should I notice it.

Also this whole thread begs the question of 'WHY" as in why would you flick the safety off of your loaded holstered gun? Do you really think that taking the safety off before you draw is going to win the match for you? I can think of no reason to release the safety until the gun is up and pointing at least nominally down range. I my not be all the way on target when the safety comes off, but the gun is definitely clear of the holster and coming up.

When some one with authority tells me or better writes us that it is OK to flick your safety off on a loaded and HOLSTERED gun, I will then allow it, but We will have a discussion anyway. As I said, I see no reason in competition why one would do this and no reason that we should allow it. That said, it is probably one of those things we are not too likely to catch you doing.

Thanks for sharing your personal values. Now please do us all the favor of reconciling them with the rule book.

A person does not need to prove that their action was not DQable. The burden is on the range officer to cite a rule that required him to DQ a shooter. This is taught in the range officer class and every range master should require it before affirming the range officer's DQ. If the range officer is unwilling, or cannot provide a citation to a rule that directly supports his actions, the shooter should not be DQed. Thus the competitor has no obligation to prove that the safety was removed by a prop.

The use of a safety is not required unless it's a single action gun. Plenty of double action guns, including Berettas, HKs, etc., have safeties. The rules do not require their use. The handgun ready conditions are in the rules, and have no connection to whether the gun is equipped with a safety.

This thread does not "beg a question." Please review http://begthequestion.info/ for information on what the phrase "beg a question" means. It does not mean to "pose a question." It does not matter why a competitor would take a particular action. Even if the action is unsafe, it does not automatically make their action "gun handling" nor subject them to a match disqualification.

No authority needs to tell you that it is okay to reload your gun even if it isn't empty, or okay to shoot a stage with one hand if you desire, etc. Once again, the burden is on the range officer who claims to have observed an unsafe action with a rule cite that supports his decision, not on the competitor to explain why his action was permissible. All competitor actions are presumed permissible unless a specific rule states otherwise.

I see no reason why we "should" allow it either. But the rulebook is not an expression of my personal values. If it prohibits this at all, it doesn't do so under "unsafe gun handling."

I will also add that I look at the safety of every gun as it enters the holster. If the competitor holsters too fast for me to see, I check it after it is in the holster. Plenty of people have been DQed for forgetting to apply the safety before holstering, which is what 10.5.11 is all about.

If your current position is that you don't have an obligation to the competitor to articulate a specific rule that requires you to issue a match disqualification, then I'm sorry to say that I don't agree with that position. As a range officer, you should be willing to defend any judgment call that you make, especially one that removes a competitor from the competition.

I see this as a continuing part of the "local rules" problem, as well. As much as the USPSA struggles to keep one rule book, one interpretation, and one set of rules, there are always people injecting their personal values into the equation. The USPSA needs to make a serious effort to combat that at every level. It's a pervasive problem, and so divisive that my last thread on that topic didn't last very long in this forum at all.

[ChristianHE]

" A holstered gun if loaded must be on safe if a safety is available, ie. XD and Glock etc. do not have a safety except for that little trigger thingie. Other guns are hammer down DA first shot. "

XD's do have a grip safety like a 1911 : )

I shoot a limted XD and sometimes my Trojan 1911 - When I make ready with the Trojan I rack it, put the safety on, slide it down into the holster then make certain that I did not knock the safety off while holstering, by clicking it off then back on so that I'm sure it's on before I let go. So it seems I'd better not do that at some matches!

This was an interesting thread to read, the semantics of language really come into play.

[aztecdriver]

[content removed]

Tim has answered this.

Site the rule and the evidence and treat every decision as it could be arb'd. Do you really want to present evidence to your peers that says "it's unsafe, I said so."? We know it is - we don't disagree with that. I just have a problem with the wording - and yes, it matters.

How many times have you seen someone clearly accidentally discharge their weapon. I mean, it went off at mid chest level - their eyes got wide as saucers - it took them 2 seconds to even break the next shot on a 5 foot target - it was clear it went off way before intended.

It was an AD. You know it, the shooter damn well knew it, but by the book it's not. Was it unsafe? Want to argue that with a bunch of people - be my guest. That's not even what we are talking about here - we are CLEARLY saying having a SA gun off safe in the holster is NOT SAFE. The question is - is the rule sufficiently worded and it's not. You all are covering it by saying "damn it, it's unsafe, I don't care what the word semantics is, your DQ'd" Hell, even I'm saying it.

The problem is - if we play rule wording semantics to WSBs and any other little trivial piece of the sport to game the stage - and then we just stomp our foot down and say - "nope, it's safety, no more word games" - really? You must have equal application of the rules under all parts, then I'm for the latter - the no word games application of the safety rules applied to the rest. The next time someone tells me that "engage X, reload, engage Y" means they can reload off the clock (ie last) I'm giving them 6 procedural.

I guess what I'm saying is you are arguing intent of the rule - and I get that. We don't allow intent elsewhere - why do we accept it here. Let's get the hone out a little further on working of 10.5.11 and make it clear.

Edited August 4, 2011 by aztecdriver