Flipping the safety off on a loaded holstered handgun

[ima45dv8]

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.

Tim,

If you disagree with the positions and opinions held by others in this thread, do so carefully and respectfully. The editorial comments are coming very close to the edge.

Because some may disagree with your reading of the rules does not give you license to imply or state that their position is based only on emotion, or personal values, or that they are somehow not following the rulebook, or don't feel obligated to specify a rule (I don't think I've seen anyone take that position), or are part of the group of RO's you see as so bad and so pervasive as to ruining this sport.

Your opinion is welcome. Your characterizations of those you're debating with...not so much.

[aztecdriver]

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!

Semantics aside - it's best not to do that practice at all --

Just remember that 1911s have a failure mode that allows the sear to unset slightly so that removal of the safety will allow the hammer to fall without touching the trigger. All this is is a slightly worn lug on the safety and this will happen. Remind yourself where that barrel is pointed before you do that next time.

Edited August 4, 2011 by aztecdriver

[ChristianHE]

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!

Semantics aside - it's best not to do that practice at all --

Just remember that 1911s have a failure mode that allows the sear to unset slightly so that removal of the safety will allow the hammer to fall without touching the trigger. All this is is a slightly worn lug on the safety and this will happen. Remind yourself where that barrel is pointed before you do that next time.

I do practice the "laser" rule, but wow, now I'm considering just getting rid of the 1911 if all it takes is a slightly worn safety lug to fire without touching the trigger. I did not know that, good to know, thanks.

[spanky]

If you can flip the safety off in the holster and be "handling" bc you are grabbing the gun than anyone who grabs their gun in the holster while walking around needs to be dq'd also.

[ima45dv8]

If you can flip the safety off in the holster and be "handling" bc you are grabbing the gun than anyone who grabs their gun in the holster while walking around needs to be dq'd also.

Even though they're not participating in a Course of Fire?

[ima45dv8]

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.

...(snip)...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"

Ken,

Sorry to quote you specifically, but yours is just one of several posts that give the impression that those of us who hold this is a DQ (having a loaded SA autoloader in a holster, before the start signal and without the safety applied, for those tuning in late) are demonstrating an unsupported stance without providing specific rules to back it up. That simply isn't so.

I just read back through this entire thread and numerous cites have been provided. That you disagree is clear, but they have been provided. Short list....

8.1.2.1, 8.5.2, 8.5.2.1, 10.5, 10.5.11, 10.5.11.1, 10.5.1, 10.5.3.4 was even drug into it as an example closely parallel to this one

That there are two passionate, firmly entrenched camps that disagree is obvious. The disagreement seems to come from the differing ideas of whether holstering is an action or a state. I see it as a state. If in that state the safety is removed I have no choice but to have the competitor unload and call for the RM. I will cite 10.5.11 and 10.5.11.1 on their scoresheet. My position is based on my training and experience. It will not change unless directed accordingly by a change in the rulebook or an appropriately published Ruling.

I fully understand that others disagree. I get that.

[twodownzero]

Mark, can you explain how your rule cite would be anything related to 10.5, which is for "unsafe gun handling," when the person is not "handling" their firearm within the definition in the rulebook, posted above?

All of the references in chapter 8 that you cited also reference 10.5, also, so this seems to a clash.

[ima45dv8]

As I said before, and I know some folks will disagree, I don't think the responsibility for having the safety applied to a loaded SA pistol ends the instant the gun hits the bottom of the holster. I don't care if the competitor draws it, takes the safety off and takes sight pictures, but when it goes back into the holster the safety has to be applied. Until I give a start signal with the timer, that requirement is in effect.

10.5.11 Holstering a loaded handgun, in any of the following conditions:

10.5.11.1 A single action self-loading pistol with the safety not applied.

[JAFO]

I agree it's not safe, and I see the point about it not being specifically forbidden to manipluate the safety of a holstered handgun in the rulebook. I'd personally support a rewording to cover that. But using what is specifically stated in the rulebook, the gun must be in the ready condition as stated in 8.1.2.1:

[8.1.2.1 Single action chamber loaded, hammer cocked, and the safety engaged.]

If the gun is not in the ready condition, then the shooter should be instructed by the RO to comply. If the shooter refuses to comply with the ready condition, i.e., refuses to engage the safety before the start, then it should be a DQ under 10.6.1 for failure to comply with the RO's instruction:

[10.6.1 Competitors will be disqualified from a match for conduct which a Range Officer deems to be unsportsmanlike. Examples of unsportsmanlike conduct include, but are not limited to, cheating, dishonesty, failing to comply with the reasonable directions of a Match Official, or any behavior likely to bring the sport into disrepute. The Range Master must be notified as soon as possible.]

Edited August 4, 2011 by JAFO

[Gary Stevens]

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.

How about NROI ruling issued 12-9-08 which states that taking off your outer belt with the gun in the holster (inert) is a DQ offense and refers to 10.5.1? Additionally 10.5.7 requires a DQ for the act of "wearing", not handling, more than one handgun during the course of fire.

Neither requires the shooter to actually touch the handgun.

Gary

[Skydiver]

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.

How about NROI ruling issued 12-9-08 which states that taking off your outer belt with the gun in the holster (inert) is a DQ offense and refers to 10.5.1? Additionally 10.5.7 requires a DQ for the act of "wearing", not handling, more than one handgun during the course of fire.

Neither requires the shooter to actually touch the handgun.

Gary

As I read that ruling, the shooter is DQ'd for violation of 5.2.1. Of course 5.2.1 refers to 10.5.1, but I think the rule cited on the DQ form would be 5.2.1, not 10.5.1. Maybe a case of tomato/tomahto... :-)

Gary is right on about 10.5.7.

[aztecdriver]

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.

...(snip)...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"

Ken,

Sorry to quote you specifically, but yours is just one of several posts that give the impression that those of us who hold this is a DQ (having a loaded SA autoloader in a holster, before the start signal and without the safety applied, for those tuning in late) are demonstrating an unsupported stance without providing specific rules to back it up. That simply isn't so.

I just read back through this entire thread and numerous cites have been provided. That you disagree is clear, but they have been provided. Short list....

8.1.2.1, 8.5.2, 8.5.2.1, 10.5, 10.5.11, 10.5.11.1, 10.5.1, 10.5.3.4 was even drug into it as an example closely parallel to this one

That there are two passionate, firmly entrenched camps that disagree is obvious. The disagreement seems to come from the differing ideas of whether holstering is an action or a state. I see it as a state. If in that state the safety is removed I have no choice but to have the competitor unload and call for the RM. I will cite 10.5.11 and 10.5.11.1 on their scoresheet. My position is based on my training and experience. It will not change unless directed accordingly by a change in the rulebook or an appropriately published Ruling.

I fully understand that others disagree. I get that.

Hey Mark,

No problem. First off - I disagree to the point that I think the wording leaves some semantic approach to challenge. I don't disagree in the fact that I'm issuing the same match DQ and citing the same rule.

My "site the rule" statement was meant for the process of how we handle the process of issuing the DQ and giving statements of evidence, not so much asking for it in the context of the thread. I'm sure we've beat the semantics around and agree on which one we'd use.

[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.

How about NROI ruling issued 12-9-08 which states that taking off your outer belt with the gun in the holster (inert) is a DQ offense and refers to 10.5.1? Additionally 10.5.7 requires a DQ for the act of "wearing", not handling, more than one handgun during the course of fire.

Neither requires the shooter to actually touch the handgun.

Gary

I am aware of that ruling. I think it's wrong, also, and should have resulted in a rule change. That is an example of "it's a DQ because we say so," precisely what my opponents are arguing here.

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.

How about NROI ruling issued 12-9-08 which states that taking off your outer belt with the gun in the holster (inert) is a DQ offense and refers to 10.5.1? Additionally 10.5.7 requires a DQ for the act of "wearing", not handling, more than one handgun during the course of fire.

Neither requires the shooter to actually touch the handgun.

Gary

As I read that ruling, the shooter is DQ'd for violation of 5.2.1. Of course 5.2.1 refers to 10.5.1, but I think the rule cited on the DQ form would be 5.2.1, not 10.5.1. Maybe a case of tomato/tomahto... :-)

Gary is right on about 10.5.7.

10.5 still requires "handling." No textual basis exists for a DQ under 10.5 unless there is gun "handling."

Edited August 5, 2011 by twodownzero

[ima45dv8]

I am aware of that ruling. I think it's wrong, also, and should have resulted in a rule change. That is an example of "it's a DQ because we say so," precisely what my opponents are arguing here.

10.5 still requires "handling." No textual basis exists for a DQ under 10.5 unless there is gun "handling."

You keep saying your 'opponents' have only a "...because we said so" basis for their stance, and that may be the case with some, but I've seen no evidence of it.

Speaking for myself, I do have a factual rules-based position that says it's a DQ.

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=132780&view=findpost&p=1504334

Disagree with that all you like. Discourse can be educational. But I'm going to ask you politely one more time to stop painting the picture that those who disagree with you have no rules-compliant basis to do so. I don't care if you disagree with my view, but your continued stance that it's only "because we said so" implies we are either lazy or poorly trained RO's.

Make YOUR case.

[Gary Stevens]

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.

How about NROI ruling issued 12-9-08 which states that taking off your outer belt with the gun in the holster (inert) is a DQ offense and refers to 10.5.1? Additionally 10.5.7 requires a DQ for the act of "wearing", not handling, more than one handgun during the course of fire.

Neither requires the shooter to actually touch the handgun.

Gary

I am aware of that ruling. I think it's wrong, also, and should have resulted in a rule change. That is an example of "it's a DQ because we say so," precisely what my opponents are arguing here.

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.

How about NROI ruling issued 12-9-08 which states that taking off your outer belt with the gun in the holster (inert) is a DQ offense and refers to 10.5.1? Additionally 10.5.7 requires a DQ for the act of "wearing", not handling, more than one handgun during the course of fire.

Neither requires the shooter to actually touch the handgun.

Gary

As I read that ruling, the shooter is DQ'd for violation of 5.2.1. Of course 5.2.1 refers to 10.5.1, but I think the rule cited on the DQ form would be 5.2.1, not 10.5.1. Maybe a case of tomato/tomahto... :-)

Gary is right on about 10.5.7.

10.5 still requires "handling." No textual basis exists for a DQ under 10.5 unless there is gun "handling."

You skipped over 10.5.7 which does not require handling. How about addressing that in the context of your position?

Edited August 5, 2011 by Gary Stevens

[spanky]

"I think that the competitor should be told to stop it immediately, if they persist, then further action must be taken.

 

John"

Edited August 7, 2011 by spanky

[Skydiver]

"I think that the competitor should be told to stop it immediately, if they persist, then further action must be taken.

John"

I'm assuming this quote was from JA's response. Do you mind sharing how you phrased the question to John so that we get the full context of his interpretation?

[spanky]

Sure.

John,

 

Thanks in advance for taking the time to read and respond to this request.

 

I am writing to question the legality of a shooter whose loaded handgun is fully within his holster and the shooter flicking the safety off and then back on. 

 

10.5.11 Holstering a loaded handgun, in any of the following conditions:

10.5.11.1 A single action self-loading pistol with the safety not applied.

 

8.5.2 If a competitor holsters a loaded handgun at any time during a course

of fire, it must be placed in the applicable handgun ready conditions

(see Section 8.1). Violations will be subject to match disqualification

(see Rule 10.5.11).

 

Are the terms "holstering" and "holsters" considered actions or physical states?  In other words, if the competitor has completed "holstering" his gun and he hasn’t "holstered" with the safety off but, rather, flicks the safety off after he has holstered the gun, can the shooter be DQ'd under 10.5.11? 

 

The same question applies to a DA/SA gun worn by a production division shooter.  Can the shooter cock the gun while it is in the holster?  It seems obvious that he cannot start with the gun cocked since he would not be in compliance with the ready condition in 8.5.2 but I am thinking this would simply require either a corrective action before start signal or a reshoot if it is noticed after the start signal.

[Singlestack]

"I think that the competitor should be told to stop it immediately, if they persist, then further action must be taken.

 

John"

Really.

[sperman]

So it's not illegal the first time they do it, but it might be if they continue the practice?

[Schutzenmeister]

So it's not illegal the first time they do it, but it might be if they continue the practice?

10.6.1 ... I think that could be considered "reasonable directions of a Match Official."

[sperman]

IMO-

If it's illegal, DQ the shooter on the spot.

It it's legal, then telling the shooter to stop is not a "reasonable direction."

[Schutzenmeister]

IMO-

If it's illegal, DQ the shooter on the spot.

It it's legal, then telling the shooter to stop is not a "reasonable direction."

Scott

If that's your position, then the phrase "reasonable directions of a Match Official" would have no meaning at all ...

[racerba]

IMO-

If it's illegal, DQ the shooter on the spot.

It it's legal, then telling the shooter to stop is not a "reasonable direction."

Scott

If that's your position, then the phrase "reasonable directions of a Match Official" would have no meaning at all ...

If it's not illegal, on what grounds is it "reasonable" to ask the shooter to stop?

[Skydiver]

IMO-

If it's illegal, DQ the shooter on the spot.

It it's legal, then telling the shooter to stop is not a "reasonable direction."

Scott

If that's your position, then the phrase "reasonable directions of a Match Official" would have no meaning at all ...

If it's not illegal, on what grounds is it "reasonable" to ask the shooter to stop?

It's not illegal for competitors to continue inspecting a stage while resetting between shooters, but it is reasonable for an RO to ask them to stop doing so because the range needs to be cleared for the next shooter.