Flipping the safety off on a loaded holstered handgun

[twodownzero]

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.

The rules do not need to "allow" a behavior in order to prevent a DQ. The burden is on the Range Officer to establish a rules-based reason why he is issuing a disqualification. The competitor is under no duty to establish that his conduct is within the rules--that is automatic if the Range Officer can't show otherwise.

My gun is in the holster with the safety off for almost all of the time that I am at a match, as is every other competitor's who competes with a single action gun. In fact, the rules require this, because the hammer must be down and the safety can't be applied with the sear in its way.

There is nothing in the rules yet demonstrated that makes manipulating the safety of a holstered gun a DQ. No matter how many times you state otherwise, without bringing forth any evidence or a reason to support that statement, you're not getting any closer to agreement nor adding anything to the discussion by making that statement.

[Jim Norman]

Your gun is in the holster with the safety OFF most of the time, True enough, however it is as you state also UNLOADED. Once the gun is loaded the only way it can be placed in your holster is with the safety on. Any other way, Safety Off, is a Match DQ. If you legally holster your gun, then flip the safety off and it is noticed that the safety is off, it will rightfully be assumed that you holstered illegally. If you flipping your safety while the gun is LOADED and in the holster, then it will likewise be assumed that you must have holstered the gun with the safety off and having realized it, you tried to sneak it on.

It is an unsafe practice. I strongly suggest you do not do it. Di not let me catch you doing it. If you insist on doing it, and I catch you you will be DQ'd and if you start a row over it, you may find yourself banned for a range.

Sorry to be draconian, but you shoot yourself through stupidity I don;t really care, but you just might get our range closed and that I care deeply about.

[Singlestack]

There is nothing in the rules yet demonstrated that makes manipulating the safety of a holstered gun a DQ. No matter how many times you state otherwise, without bringing forth any evidence or a reason to support that statement, you're not getting any closer to agreement nor adding anything to the discussion by making that statement.

I suggest the same applies to you.

I did show the rule I believe applies and you disagree. That does not mean I did not "bring forth evidence". It just means you don't like my evidence. You keep saying the same thing so how does that add to the discussion?

[Gary Stevens]

While I am no longer privy to the NROI discussions that most often lead to rules, I believe that when the term "inert" was adopted it was when a gun is either empty or has "all" of the necessary safety features engaged and there is no access to the trigger. I am sure someone will be along from NROI to correct me shortly if I am wrong.

[wgnoyes]

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.

Yes, and they can lose, too. But please go right ahead. NROI needs the $100.

[Skydiver]

Chances are that Bill maybe right about the shooting losing the arb because 11.5.9 only requires a majority vote within the committee. It need not be unanimous. Even if the MD disagrees and returns the decision to the committee under 11.6.1 telling the committee to reconsider, I'm guessing that after some debate the same decision will still comeback.

I've added a poll to this thread. It mostly to try to confirm my guess that it'll be a low probability of forming a committee that will have 2/3rd agreeing that the wording "holstering" should be treated as a verb.

[sperman]

...If you insist on doing it, and I catch you you will be DQ'd and if you start a row over it, you may find yourself banned for a range.

Jim,

I'm curious what qualifies as "starting a row." Would asking for the RM, or filing an arbitration get a shooter banned, or would it have to go beyond that?

[Jim Norman]

I'd say that starting 'Row' over it would be along the lines of a tantrum or in the current vernacular, a 'hissy fit'. In other words be a sportsman. Conduct yourself with proper decorum on the range. No asking for the RM and even filing an Arb would not get you into any trouble. Being an A$$ will.

Edited August 17, 2011 by Jim Norman

[twodownzero]

Your gun is in the holster with the safety OFF most of the time, True enough, however it is as you state also UNLOADED. Once the gun is loaded the only way it can be placed in your holster is with the safety on. Any other way, Safety Off, is a Match DQ. If you legally holster your gun, then flip the safety off and it is noticed that the safety is off, it will rightfully be assumed that you holstered illegally. If you flipping your safety while the gun is LOADED and in the holster, then it will likewise be assumed that you must have holstered the gun with the safety off and having realized it, you tried to sneak it on.

It is an unsafe practice. I strongly suggest you do not do it. Di not let me catch you doing it. If you insist on doing it, and I catch you you will be DQ'd and if you start a row over it, you may find yourself banned for a range.

Sorry to be draconian, but you shoot yourself through stupidity I don;t really care, but you just might get our range closed and that I care deeply about.

Your post didn't specify loaded or unloaded. It just said, "Holstering with the safety off is a DQ." This is a false statement even though it is partially true. Under the right circumstances, holstering a loaded pistol is a DQ. There are also circumstances where holstering a gun with the safety off is NOT a DQ, like holstering an unloaded gun, or a double action gun with the hammer down, etc. To categorically state "Holstering with the safety off is a DQ" is part of the problem. That's just painting with too broad a brush, and that's why we have to cite a rule when we issue a DQ.

If your evidence at arb was that you saw the gun in the holstered condition, assumed the competitor holstered with the safety off and was trying to "sneak" it on, I would overrule your DQ call. Unless you can honestly state that you saw the competitor holster a single action, loaded firearm with the safety off, your observation does not satisfy the rule. If you did claim to have observed the competitor holster a loaded, single action gun with the safety not applied, I would not need to know anything else to affirm your DQ. But if you, as a range officer did not state that you actually observed the action required to satisfy the rule, your DQ should not stand. The burden is on the Range Officer, not the competitor.

There is nothing in the rules yet demonstrated that makes manipulating the safety of a holstered gun a DQ. No matter how many times you state otherwise, without bringing forth any evidence or a reason to support that statement, you're not getting any closer to agreement nor adding anything to the discussion by making that statement.

I suggest the same applies to you.

I did show the rule I believe applies and you disagree. That does not mean I did not "bring forth evidence". It just means you don't like my evidence. You keep saying the same thing so how does that add to the discussion?

Keeping a consistent position on the interpretation of the same rule isn't "saying the same thing." I've pointed out repeatedly how those who cite other rules are incorrect, or aren't citing the rules at all. I can respect a reasonable difference of opinion on an interpretation of a particular rule.

I do think you're incorrect on your interpretation of 10.5.11, but I don't disagree with your method. You're willing to cite a rule and explain your actions. Jim Norman is saying, 'it's a DQ because the rules don't specifically allow it,' which I disagree with categorically, because that is shifting a burden that belongs on the Range Officer to the competitor.

In other words, disagreeing about the rules is far more understandable than disagreeing about the entire procedure as to how a competitor is DQed. I think the procedure works so well that it should be accepted by all of us. That procedure requires that the RO observe a DQable action, cite a specific rule that was violated, and if necessary, be able to articulate specific facts--a specific observation--that satisfies that rule cite. If not, there should be no question--the competitor is back in the match. This is not to say that a disagreement about the observation should be resolved in favor of the competitor. I do believe that Range Officers' observations should be taken as given. But the RO must be able to substantiate his DQ with a specific observation that violates a rule.

Edited August 17, 2011 by twodownzero

[sperman]

I'd say that starting 'Row' over it would be along the lines of a tantrum or in the current vernacular, a 'hissy fit'. In other words be a sportsman. Conduct yourself with proper decorum on the range. No asking for the RM and even filing an Arb would not get you into any trouble. Being an A$ will.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Skydiver]

Hmmm. With the current 9 uphold, and 11 deny poll results, it looks like there is a possibility of successfully arbitrating.

[Nik Habicht]

Hmmm. With the current 9 uphold, and 11 deny poll results, it looks like there is a possibility of successfully arbitrating.

Maybe. You'd have to know which group the match directors fall into though.....

[Singlestack]

Hmmm. With the current 9 uphold, and 11 deny poll results, it looks like there is a possibility of successfully arbitrating.

I disagree with the premise of your poll so I didn't vote.

[wgnoyes]

This is absurd. 7 pages of this nonsense over something that is SO obvious. No wonder we get called "DAMNED range lawyers"!

[spanky]

This is absurd. 7 pages of this nonsense over something that is SO obvious. No wonder we get called "DAMNED range lawyers"!

The obviousness was thrown out of the window when there became 7 pages of disagreement.

[twodownzero]

Hmmm. With the current 9 uphold, and 11 deny poll results, it looks like there is a possibility of successfully arbitrating.

It looks like my side still has some hope hanging on.

Hmmm. With the current 9 uphold, and 11 deny poll results, it looks like there is a possibility of successfully arbitrating.

I disagree with the premise of your poll so I didn't vote.

Can you explain this?

[sperman]

I've added a poll to this thread. It mostly to try to confirm my guess that it'll be a low probability of forming a committee that will have 2/3rd agreeing that the wording "holstering" should be treated as a verb.

I'm not speaking for John, but I'll offer my opinion.

The idea that 23 people on the Enos forums are at all indicitive of the potentiol makeup of an arbitration committee is a pretty big stretch. USPSA has thousands of active members. Of thoes many hundreds hold their RO cards. The vast majority are not reading this thread, or offering their opinion.

[Singlestack]

Hmmm. With the current 9 uphold, and 11 deny poll results, it looks like there is a possibility of successfully arbitrating.

It looks like my side still has some hope hanging on.

Hmmm. With the current 9 uphold, and 11 deny poll results, it looks like there is a possibility of successfully arbitrating.

I disagree with the premise of your poll so I didn't vote.

Can you explain this?

Sure. It is my opinion that it is not about "Holstering" being a verb or not.

[twodownzero]

Hmmm. With the current 9 uphold, and 11 deny poll results, it looks like there is a possibility of successfully arbitrating.

It looks like my side still has some hope hanging on.

Hmmm. With the current 9 uphold, and 11 deny poll results, it looks like there is a possibility of successfully arbitrating.

I disagree with the premise of your poll so I didn't vote.

Can you explain this?

Sure. It is my opinion that it is not about "Holstering" being a verb or not.

I'm somewhat with you on this, but can you expand about what it turns on, then?

[Skydiver]

Hmmm. With the current 9 uphold, and 11 deny poll results, it looks like there is a possibility of successfully arbitrating.

Maybe. You'd have to know which group the match directors fall into though.....

True since it's the MD that appoints the committee members (11.1.8, 11.2.1, 11.2.2). The MD can select committee members that already lean one way or another.

[Nik Habicht]

Hmmm. With the current 9 uphold, and 11 deny poll results, it looks like there is a possibility of successfully arbitrating.

Maybe. You'd have to know which group the match directors fall into though.....

True since it's the MD that appoints the committee members (11.1.8, 11.2.1, 11.2.2). The MD can select committee members that already lean one way or another.

That's my point. When it comes to arbitrating a safety call, I've got a pretty good idea of the type of member I'm looking to appoint to the committee.....

None of them are going to be looking to read "novel interpretations" into the rules.....

[Skydiver]

Just a quick follow up on this... I've noticed something that I feel will cause an Arbitration Committee to rule to deny the request any which way regardless of verb or state for "holstering":

11.1.9 Arbitration Committee's Duty - The Arbitration Committee is bound to observe and apply the current USPSA Rules and to deliver a decision consistent with those rules. Where rules require interpretation or where an incident is not specifically covered by the rules, the Arbitration Committee will use their best judgment consistent with the intent of the rules. The Committee must confer with the MD before changing or removing a course of fire from the match.

I think that we universally agree that the intent of the rule was for the safety to stay on because we all believe (know?) it is unsafe to switch it off while loaded and holstered.