Flipping the safety off on a loaded holstered handgun

[ima45dv8]

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.

Walk-throughs have nothing to do with this issue.

If the position taken in the email response (not a Ruling or Clarification, BTW) is that it's not illegal to flip the safety off on a holstered SA auto, then how can an RO tell them to stop, and then DQ them if they don't?

[Jim Norman]

Failure to follow the REASONABLE directions of the RO?

OK, I am fed up with this. The action IS a dangerous one. The language says that the gun is to be holstered in the proper ready condition, in this case Loaded so the safety must be on. Once the gun is holstered, show me where it says we can now manipulate the gun? As soon as you take the safety off the gun is NO LONGER IN the READY CONDITION as specified. And to do this you have to have handled your gun. So DON'T DO IT.

Maybe we need to have YET ANOTHER rule. People, this is not rocket science. What as anyone gaining by flipping the safety off and on in the holster? While I am generally against more rules it is apparent that the range lawyers won't be happy here until we get an official rule inteh book saysing don't do this. In the absence of a rule change, how about a definition of Holstering and Holsters and Holstered that says that once the gun is in the holster (holstered) at the end of the act of placing the gun in the holster (Holstering) that the the state of the gun cannot be changed while still in the holster?

[sperman]

For the record, I would DQ the shooter on the spot (and I know the RM of the next major I'm working would support that call.)

But if you don't think it's illegal, you can't tell the shooter to stop.

If you don't like shooters who rack the slide and catch the round in the air, can you tell them to stop, and then DQ them if they don't?

[Jim Norman]

That is another thing that makes me see red. I think it is showboating and is likely to someday turn into a really really bad day. There are just too many things that can go wrong. ULSC is not a timed event, it won't win the match, it can cost you a match or more.

[sperman]

The point is that it is legal, and no matter how much you don't like it, there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

[ima45dv8]

The point is that it is legal, and no matter how much you don't like it, there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

And just to be clear, Scott's statement above "...that it is legal..." was in response to Jim bringing up the flippy-catch-unload technique.

He was not referring to flipping the safety off while holstered.

But the point follows both. If it is said to not be against the rules, how can you stop someone from doing it or DQ them?

I feel Jim's frustration and share it.

[sperman]

Mark,

Thanks for the clarification.

[ima45dv8]

Mark,

Thanks for the clarification.

I apologize for speaking for you, but I was sure I had that right and didn't want this to spin off into the weeds because anyone confused the two.

[Gary Stevens]

I am seeking further clarification of this from JA. I think most of it centers around the definition of "handling". It is my position that we already have one ruling and 10.5.7 that show that you do not have to be "handling" to receive a DQ under 10.5.

As an aside it seems that 10.5.7 is better than a silver bullet. It makes all the opposition disappear

[Singlestack]

Maybe JA is messing with us. You know, sitting there watching us argure about it. Laughing his butt off.

Makes as much sense as anything else.

[Flexmoney]

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."

That is a good point.

[Flexmoney]

I am seeking further clarification of this from JA. I think most of it centers around the definition of "handling". It is my position that we already have one ruling and 10.5.7 that show that you do not have to be "handling" to receive a DQ under 10.5.

Those other instances you mention...those aren't really "handling" issues, and/or are specifically covered, I believe.

This is clearly a case of "handling" the gun while it is in the holster...when the trigger is covered.

In my opinion, it should be illegal, but the wording on this isn't clear. (because, as Tim says...handling a gun while in the holster is defined specifically)

[Gary Stevens]

Exactly. The position was that you could not DQ the shooter because they were not "handling" per the definition in the rulebook. My point was 10.5.7 is a DQ for Unsafe Gun Handling even though all you had to do was wear it.

Gary

[racerba]

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.

The difference is that:

- one is reasonable because there is a viable reason to ask the competitor to stop inspecting the stage - they are interfering with the clearing of the stage.

- one is not reasonable because the reason is "because I don't like it"

I don't like it either, but I will not DQ somebody for something they are legally allowed to do just because I don't like it.

[Jim Norman]

I would really like an official ruling on this subject. I still feel it is USGH. You are manipulating a portion of the firearms firing mechanism while the gun is arguably pointed in a) an unsafe direction and not pointed at a target or even at the backstop.

I can assure you that should your 1911 go BANG whilst you are manipulating the safety with the gun in the holster that you will be informed of your DQ, hopefully requiring only that you first ULSC and then go to the Porta-john to change your skivvies. I would really rather not be informing you of this while waiting for the ambulance or worse.

Ideally this should be covered (although I personally feel that it is. If you holster your handgun with the safety off you get a DQ, so why would holstering the handgun with the safety on and then flipping it off be any different??

It is this type of argument that makes people leave a sport. (No I am not leaving, sorry)

[spanky]

It's different because of the wording of the appropriate rules.

Holstering (and holsters) is an action.

Holstered is a state once the gun is securely in the holster.

[Jim Norman]

And the state that the gun must be in while holstering is: Safety ON. And the state the gun must be in when the act of holstering is completed: Safety ON. And unless the safety mysteriously changes its state once the gun is holstered as in the completed state of the act of holstering is: Safety ON. So at what point can you flip the safety of? Now if at the start signal, you grab your gun, release the safety during the draw and this could be before you actually move the gun, OK, I think it is bad form, but that is something I could not see you do even if it were specifically against the rules, so I would not argue for a rule there, however to casually flip that safety on and off in your holster after LAMR and prior to the start signal while the gun is in the holster? No, don't do it on my watch. Now are you likely to get caught? No. But if you have a holstered gun with the safety off is that a DQ? Yes. So if you flip the safety off and your hand leaves contact for a single instant in time between off and on, then DQ.

[racerba]

Jim,

Let me say first that I don't disagree with your position and I will not do this, but we must apply the rules as it is written and interpreted by the powers that be, not how we like or don't like it.

And the state that the gun must be in while holstering is: Safety ON.

Agreed

And the state the gun must be in when the act of holstering is completed: Safety ON.

Where does it say that? No where in the rule book does it say that the holstered gun must have the safety on.

And unless the safety mysteriously changes its state once the gun is holstered as in the completed state of the act of holstering is: Safety ON.

The safety can be accidentally bumped by anything (prop, arm, etc.)

...however to casually flip that safety on and off in your holster after LAMR and prior to the start signal while the gun is in the holster? No, don't do it on my watch.

OK - but what rule prevents me from doing this. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean I violated any rule.

But if you have a holstered gun with the safety off is that a DQ? Yes.

What rule?

So if you flip the safety off and your hand leaves contact for a single instant in time between off and on, then DQ.

What rule? So you agreed that flipping the safety off and on while in contact with the gun is legal?

[twodownzero]

In my opinion, it should be illegal, but the wording on this isn't clear. (because, as Tim says...handling a gun while in the holster is defined specifically)

I agree that it "should" be illegal. This is an expression of a normative value--what "ought" to be rather than what is.

As a matter of positive analysis, I think we both agree that it's not illegal.

Or at least, if it is, nobody's made a persuasive argument to me yet.

[Skydiver]

(Moderators: I'm not trying to do a IPSC vs USPSA comparison/debate. I'm just trying provide a data point that I feel is interesting and may help in the future. If this spins out of control, feel free to delete this post or close this thread.)

I was answering the Production rule question in the other thread and ran across this while I was paging down. The 2009 IPSC Rulebook has 10.5.11 written this way:

10.5.11 Having a loaded and holstered handgun, in any of the following conditions:

[Jim Norman]

10.5 Examples of unsafe gun handling include BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO:

So we apply 10.5 USGH, simple and it is in the book.

So, feel free to arbitrate. If I lose, I lose, but I will issue you a DQ should I see you doing this. And I will work to get this specifically added to the rules next go around.

[Skydiver]

10.5 Examples of unsafe gun handling include BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO:

So we apply 10.5 USGH, simple and it is in the book.

So, feel free to arbitrate. If I lose, I lose, but I will issue you a DQ should I see you doing this. And I will work to get this specifically added to the rules next go around.

I think NROI has done well to train us, as well as having a general group culture that having to resort to a generic 10.5 is a last resort. (eg. We strive to point to a more specific rule whenever possible.) Which brings us back to Tim's excellent point if we were to resort to 10.5, the glossary definition of gun "handling" requires access to trigger which is not satisfied when the gun is in a USPSA legal holster. Gary brings up a valid counterpoint that 10.5.7 simply requires "wearing" not necessarily "handling", but the rule is lumped under 10.5 which would imply that unsafe gun handling is not limited to the glossary definition.

I think we all agree that shooter safety is top priority, and we would all like to make the practice illegal. The stumbling point in just the wording. One camp views things that the current wording does not support a DQ, while the other does.

Kudos to you Jim for working to get the rules fixed for the next update. May I suggest that cribbing the IPSC verbiage for 10.5.11 maybe the easiest route to achieving that goal.

Edited August 15, 2011 by Skydiver

[Singlestack]

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.

10.5.11.2 A double action or selective action pistol with the hammer

cocked and the safety not applied.

10.5.11.3 A revolver with the hammer cocked.

This is the rule I would use. If someone can't follow the logical conclusion that "Holstering" leads to "Holstered", they can arb my call.

[Skydiver]

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.

10.5.11.2 A double action or selective action pistol with the hammer

cocked and the safety not applied.

10.5.11.3 A revolver with the hammer cocked.

This is the rule I would use. If someone can't follow the logical conclusion that "Holstering" leads to "Holstered", they can arb my call.

Quite true, but just playing devil's advocate here. Imagine a "rule" about unsafe driving and cellphones. What if the "rule" was phrased this way:

10.5.11 Parking a car while using a cellphone, in any of the following conditions:

10.5.11.1 A non-hands free cell phone with phone in the drivers hand.

10.5.11.2 A hands-free cell phone with the driver physically manipulating the device.

(Along with the understanding that a "parked car" is inert.)

Following a similar logical conclusion, "parking" leads to "parked", then it is against the rules to make a call or text once the car is parked.

This extreme example isn't meant to piss people off. I know that it's an apples and oranges comparison because it dangerous to be driving while using a cellphone, but safe to be parked and using a cellphone. I'm just trying to make a point that the choice of words makes a difference in rule interpretations. In this case the word "parking" definitely seems to imply a verb, rather than a state.

But in any case, if I get the ticket, I'm free to go to the courthouse and hopefully get a fair hearing.

Edited August 15, 2011 by Skydiver

[Jim Norman]

I agree with SingleStack. Holstering leads to holstered and there is nothing in the rules that allows manipulation of the safety after the gun has been holstered. Holstering with the safety off is a DQ. So if the gun is in the holster with the safety off, DQ.