Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Production Mag Rules


SRD

Recommended Posts

With my understanding of these rules, you can still be bumped to open for this infraction. The NROI ruling here - http://www.uspsa.org/uspsa-NROI-ruling-details.php?indx=51 states:

a magazine may be retrieved from a front pocket to facilitate loading before the start signal

To me, this means the following:

If you get the 'make ready', retrieve a magazine from your front pocket and insert into your gun, then holster, etc, etc, buzzer, etc, etc, you should be OK.

If you get the 'make ready', retrieve a magazine from your front pocket and insert into your gun, rack the slide, then RETURN the mag to your FRONT pocket, if that magazine is there after the buzzer you should be moving to open.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 202
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

We will get to do this all over again when the "separate magazine holders" issue goes in to effect (unless there has been a clarification on this). If I have two magazines in a rear pocket, they are sharing the same "holder", am I in violation of the rules?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you get the 'make ready', retrieve a magazine from your front pocket and insert into your gun, rack the slide, then RETURN the mag to your FRONT pocket, if that magazine is there after the buzzer you should be moving to open.

That is true. As soon as the buzzer goes off, welcome to Open.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We will get to do this all over again when the "separate magazine holders" issue goes in to effect (unless there has been a clarification on this). If I have two magazines in a rear pocket, they are sharing the same "holder", am I in violation of the rules?

Here's the reply I got from Amidon on that after that scenario was posited by GrumpyOne.

Hi Cullen' date='

It was not the BOD’s intent to disallow the back pockets as it would conflict with 5.2.4. I will check with the BOD to be 100% sure, but I do believe I am correct with their intent.

John

From: Cullen C.

Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 8:35 PM

To: dnroi@uspsa.org

Subject: 1/1/13 Production Mag Pouch Restriction Clarification

Hello Mr. Amidon,

I wanted to clarify a question that arose out of the restriction on magazine pouches that the BOD passed at the December 2011 board meeting:

"Motion: Production and Single Stack Appendix will have the following added: Each magazine must be contained individually within the magazine pouch. Magazines may not be retained through magnetic means. Effective January 1, 2013"

What I'm interested in is the effect on utilizing the back pocket as additional magazine storage (say for a barney mag and an extra "just in case" mag). Carrying two or more magazine in a back pocket would seem to violate the letter of the rule, if the pocket is considered a "magazine pouch". Is that how you would interpret the rule, or would the back pocket be exempted since it is not a "magazine pouch"?

I hope back pocket use wouldn't run afoul of the new addendum as my understanding is that the restriction was meant to disallow the use of spring-loaded magazine carriers like this one: http://shop.ehobbyasia.com/tmc-kydex-molle-spring-loaded-pistol-magazine-carrier.html

As another hypothetical, just because it's in the same vein: using some sort of dump pouch for magazine storage would violate the rule, correct? http://www.brownells.com/.aspx/pid=21711/Product/MAGAZINE-DUMP-POUCH

Thank you for your time.

Best regards,

Cullen Clutterham

USPSA No. L-2672

5.2.4

During the course of fire, after the start signal, unless stipulated otherwise in the stage procedure, spare ammunition, magazines and/or speed loading devices shall be carried in retention devices attached to the competitor's belt and specifically designed for that purpose. Unless specifically prohibited in the Written Stage Briefing, a competitor may also carry additional magazines or speed loading devices in apparel pocket(s) and retrieve and use them without penalty, providing that the location of the apparel pocket does not violate the requirements of Appendix D, Item 12 (subject to the provisions of Rule 6.2.5.1).

Bottom line is that pockets are pockets and pouches are pouches and never the twain shall meet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That rule is just poorly drafted. Does "shall" in the first sentence mean "should" or "must"? If the former, then it's consistent with the next sentence. IF the latter (which is generally what "shall" means!), then this rule conflicts with itself by telling us that we must carry in pouches, and then that we "may" carry them in pockets.

Changing it to say that we "should" use pouches but that we "may" use pockets that comply with the division requirements would make the rule more clear.

Sorry if this sounds like lawyer-speak, but the word "shall" is one of the most abused and leads to much confusion. If "shall" does not mean "must," it should not be used at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We will get to do this all over again when the "separate magazine holders" issue goes in to effect (unless there has been a clarification on this). If I have two magazines in a rear pocket, they are sharing the same "holder", am I in violation of the rules?

Give me better wording on that one. We have a meeting coming up, quick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We will get to do this all over again when the "separate magazine holders" issue goes in to effect (unless there has been a clarification on this). If I have two magazines in a rear pocket, they are sharing the same "holder", am I in violation of the rules?

Give me better wording on that one. We have a meeting coming up, quick.

Simple: cross reference 5.2.4.

"Nothing in this rule limits the use of apparel pockets as described in 5.2.4."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dumb...dumb. Question here, but instead of bumping a shooter to open, how about a procedural penalty for each shot fired after a magazine is accidentally retrieved from a front pocket during a CoF?

I'm sorry, maybe I'm just dense, but I don't get how having a magazine completely hidden away in a front pocket gets a shooter some perceived advantage.

Is having a separate loose Barney round in your pocket verboten too?

this rule would make me want to have just specific match day pants/shorts where I have the left side pickets sewn shut.... makes me glad I shoot Limited (minor).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We will get to do this all over again when the "separate magazine holders" issue goes in to effect (unless there has been a clarification on this). If I have two magazines in a rear pocket, they are sharing the same "holder", am I in violation of the rules?

Give me better wording on that one. We have a meeting coming up, quick.

I can live with diehli's addition. But Amidon talking about "intent" of the BOD's decision - just remember the brouhaha over production when people were trying to recollect "intent". Let's not reference intent, let's spell it out nice and clear. Remember, most RO's are not staying up on the production and single stack rules unless they are production and SS shooters, and sometimes not even then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's obviously lots to deal with with "intent", but this seems like a less important use of it (and it was only invoked to answer my question, not as some larger—and contentious—defining/driving principle).

More importantly and specifically, there is already a rule that defines "apparel pockets" as distinct from magazine retention devices or pouches. As Amidon pointed out, a competitor should only need to point to 5.2.4. A pocket is not a pouch. A pocket may be used to retain a magazine or magazines (as long as such retention complies with other Divisional retention position requirements and the WSB), but it remains an apparel pocket and does not become a magazine retention device.

Incidentally, a pouch is a subset of "magazine retention device"... and only pouches are allowed as magazine retention devices in Production and Single Stack. </thread spiral initiation>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of points that I feel compelled to make in 3 different contexts in this thread:

1. Intent plays NO part in the stage and how it's supposed to be solved. Intent means nothing as the rules are applied to the match. Intent does, however, have a role to play in rules, the interpretation of the rules by those required to clarify them, and creation of corrections, does matter. We need to be able to avoid the application of intention to a stage or a match, but we are required, when discussing the validity of the rules, and their purpose, to evaluate intent, understand if it really accomplishes the intent - or whether after application, that intent is being achieved or even a valid one.

2. The issue of procedural vs. bump to open - while it seems like it's a decent resolution, opens a huge pandora's box in the application of equipment rules. Right now, it's simple. Bust equipment rules, the remedy is open. Equipment rule for production is "ammo in front of hipbones" Simple. We start down the road of trying to codify the use of ammo from in front of the hipbones, we start down a rather lengthy process of implementation, verbage, opening wholes that don't exist today for a favorable return for a select few that have a risky procedure of using front pockets for charge/barney mags when plenty of other less risky options exist. The recent clarification fixes the before the start signal omission that was ridiculous. But as we are allowed to use apparel to retain ammunition, it's in front of the hip after the buzzer, I'm sorry, but the remedy fits. Stop using front pockets.

3. This has nothing to do with apparel pockets. The question of whether they could be used is moot point when referring to bump to open for prod/ss - it's where the ammo sits that's the issue. For the same reason, I could care less if a competitor wants to load from their available rear pockets. Why would you insist on attempting to penalize them when they are penalizing themselves already. I'm still a lowly B guy, and while GMs reloading from all pockets will probably trounce me - they already know that there is no way to be faster by grabbing from their rear pocket. If another B level guy wants to run from his apparel. Please, by all means do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intent is not relevant to any implementation of the rules. It is relevant if there is an arbitration and the rules do not provide a clear answer. That is why we should seek to fix the language of any unclear rule.

There is no role for discussing intent when talking about this rule. The rule is objective and plain. Magazine in front pocket after the buzzer=open. It doesn't matter if you use it, or if it was the intent of the rule drafters to make it a disadvantage to reach to your back pocket, or if the magazine is empty or even if you did it in self defense. Facts are what matter, not intent.

The quickest way to turn a rules discussion into one about guidelines that have no objective meaning is to start talking about 'intent.'

As an organization, we need to either decide that the plain meaning of our rules means something or we will have nothing but a book of guidelines. Competitive equity demands that we have a book of rules, and accordingly, we should avoid any discussion of so-called intent. If the board enacts a rule that has unintended results, it just demonstrates how broad their power is to modify the rules.

It's also debatable that a board of people can even have an "intent" in any event.

Either way, intent does not matter. This is a freestyle sport. Either the rules were violated or they weren't.

Edited by twodownzero
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intent is not relevant to any implementation of the rules. It is relevant if there is an arbitration and the rules do not provide a clear answer. That is why we should seek to fix the language of any unclear rule.

There is no role for discussing intent when talking about this rule. The rule is objective and plain. Magazine in front pocket after the buzzer=open. It doesn't matter if you use it, or if it was the intent of the rule drafters to make it a disadvantage to reach to your back pocket, or if the magazine is empty or even if you did it in self defense. Facts are what matter, not intent.

The quickest way to turn a rules discussion into one about guidelines that have no objective meaning is to start talking about 'intent.'

As an organization, we need to either decide that the plain meaning of our rules means something or we will have nothing but a book of guidelines. Competitive equity demands that we have a book of rules, and accordingly, we should avoid any discussion of so-called intent. If the board enacts a rule that has unintended results, it just demonstrates how broad their power is to modify the rules.

It's also debatable that a board of people can even have an "intent" in any event.

Either way, intent does not matter. This is a freestyle sport. Either the rules were violated or they weren't.

You are completely overlooking the point I attempted to make. There is intent behind the creation of the rules, otherwise there would be no reason to have them. When discussing the rules and changes to them, the intent of what the rules matters. To blindly state intent does not matter, is shortsighted. There is intent behind the course construction criteria, there's intent behind the scoring rules, and in this situation, there is intent behind the division requirements.

Where we agree, there is no intent discussion into the application of the rules. I agree, mag front pocket = open.

Where we don't seem to agree is that if we are going to discuss changes to a particular rule for a perceived problem, the intent is relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are completely overlooking the point I attempted to make. There is intent behind the creation of the rules, otherwise there would be no reason to have them. When discussing the rules and changes to them, the intent of what the rules matters. To blindly state intent does not matter, is shortsighted. There is intent behind the course construction criteria, there's intent behind the scoring rules, and in this situation, there is intent behind the division requirements.

Where we agree, there is no intent discussion into the application of the rules. I agree, mag front pocket = open.

Where we don't seem to agree is that if we are going to discuss changes to a particular rule for a perceived problem, the intent is relevant.

You are overlooking the difference between sticking my fingers in my ears versus reading what you typed and responding that it is irrelevant.

It doesn't matter what they intended. What matters is the language that they enact. That's what we must follow.

If we are going to discuss changes to a rule, the discussion should be about inconsistency in application or focus on drafting, not intent, unless by "intent," you actually mean, "goals of this particular change to the rules." And if so, the solution is to propose some language that meets that goal, not creating discussions about "intent."

In other words, don't say "an argument can be made." Just make the argument. That's how a system of rules operates, not through discussions of "intent."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

let me get this straight, similar to Jake's incident at the SS Nat's where his mags all jumped ship simultaneously and he inadvertently retrieved a mag off the ground and put it in his pocket and subsequently got the bump to open...

If a production or single stack shooter encounters the mother of all jams, has to comPletly clear the gun and has placed what he thinks is a bad magazine in his front pocket (instead of stuffing it into an empty mag pouch), does he

get the bump to open then/still?

I am thinking back to my law classes days. I thought there had to both be an overt act backed by intent to commit a crime.

A front pocket magazine not retrieved does not, in my opinion, an overt action or competitive advantage make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are overlooking the difference between sticking my fingers in my ears versus reading what you typed and responding that it is irrelevant.

It doesn't matter what they intended. What matters is the language that they enact. That's what we must follow.

If we are going to discuss changes to a rule, the discussion should be about inconsistency in application or focus on drafting, not intent, unless by "intent," you actually mean, "goals of this particular change to the rules." And if so, the solution is to propose some language that meets that goal, not creating discussions about "intent."

In other words, don't say "an argument can be made." Just make the argument. That's how a system of rules operates, not through discussions of "intent."

I'm sorry, the last time I checked a thesaurus, "goal" and "intent" are synonyms. If it would make you feel better to discuss the "goal" of the implementation or changing of any particular rule, then so be it.

I'm not apt to get into semantic arguments on this. We know the goals of a stage are not to be applied to the stage, merely the stage. We are not to apply the goal of the rule when applying said rule, just the rule. We should, however, discuss the goals of the rules when we argue for or propose either changes or new rules.

Does that work for you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

let me get this straight, similar to Jake's incident at the SS Nat's where his mags all jumped ship simultaneously and he inadvertently retrieved a mag off the ground and put it in his pocket and subsequently got the bump to open...

If a production or single stack shooter encounters the mother of all jams, has to comPletly clear the gun and has placed what he thinks is a bad magazine in his front pocket (instead of stuffing it into an empty mag pouch), does he

get the bump to open then/still?

I am thinking back to my law classes days. I thought there had to both be an overt act backed by intent to commit a crime.

A front pocket magazine not retrieved does not, in my opinion, an overt action or competitive advantage make.

Yes. Only the act is required, no intent. Once the buzzer sounds, if you stick a mag in a pocket forward of your hip bone, welcome to open. It doesn't matter if the mag is empty, if you never retrieve it, or any other "what if" scenarios.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it says if you have a mag in your front pocket, not if you placed it there after the start signal. What about this; I have a CZ SP 01, and an old P9. One is 9mm (the SP01), the other is 40S&W. The mags look identical. What if I find a 40 mag on my belt in the middle of a stage ( I know, its extremely unlikely) when I'm shooting the 9mm. I pull it off my belt and stuff it in my front pocket. The ammo nor the mag fits the gun I currently have on my belt/in my hand. Do I get bumped to open? For something that in no way can be considered an advantage? Or you just happened to pick up the previous shooters mag, and you were supposed to be on deck, and the match was running fast, so you just put it in your front pocket not thinking...Bump to open? For a mag that doesn't even fit your gun?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

let me get this straight, similar to Jake's incident at the SS Nat's where his mags all jumped ship simultaneously and he inadvertently retrieved a mag off the ground and put it in his pocket and subsequently got the bump to open...

If a production or single stack shooter encounters the mother of all jams, has to comPletly clear the gun and has placed what he thinks is a bad magazine in his front pocket (instead of stuffing it into an empty mag pouch), does he

get the bump to open then/still?

I am thinking back to my law classes days. I thought there had to both be an overt act backed by intent to commit a crime.

A front pocket magazine not retrieved does not, in my opinion, an overt action or competitive advantage make.

Yes. Only the act is required, no intent. Once the buzzer sounds, if you stick a mag in a pocket forward of your hip bone, welcome to open. It doesn't matter if the mag is empty, if you never retrieve it, or any other "what if" scenarios.

Then call it a strict liability crime if you prefer. There is no necessary mental state to violate the USPSA rules (with possible rare exception not relevant here).

It doesn't even matter if you put the mag in your pocket because at a later date you were going to gift it to Mother Theresa. The minute you put the mag in your front pocket, welcome to open.

Well, it says if you have a mag in your front pocket, not if you placed it there after the start signal. What about this; I have a CZ SP 01, and an old P9. One is 9mm (the SP01), the other is 40S&W. The mags look identical. What if I find a 40 mag on my belt in the middle of a stage ( I know, its extremely unlikely) when I'm shooting the 9mm. I pull it off my belt and stuff it in my front pocket. The ammo nor the mag fits the gun I currently have on my belt/in my hand. Do I get bumped to open? For something that in no way can be considered an advantage? Or you just happened to pick up the previous shooters mag, and you were supposed to be on deck, and the match was running fast, so you just put it in your front pocket not thinking...Bump to open? For a mag that doesn't even fit your gun?

Same as above. Even if your excuse is that you put the magazine in your pocket because your mother told you to, welcome to open.

As a range officer, I do not accept arguments about objective rules. If I did, most 180 breaks I've had (besides one) would have not resulted in a DQ. Fortunately, putting someone in danger or doing something "unsafe" isn't the required act--breaking the 180 is complete as soon as you do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Production and Single Stack equipment locations are NOT intended to complicate loading before the start signal or unloading. (e.g. – a magazine may be retrieved from a front pocket to facilitate loading before the start signal or while unloading at the end of a COF without penalty).

Putting a mag in my pocket isn't dangerous or unsafe and has no competitive advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it says if you have a mag in your front pocket, not if you placed it there after the start signal. What about this; I have a CZ SP 01, and an old P9. One is 9mm (the SP01), the other is 40S&W. The mags look identical. What if I find a 40 mag on my belt in the middle of a stage ( I know, its extremely unlikely) when I'm shooting the 9mm. I pull it off my belt and stuff it in my front pocket. The ammo nor the mag fits the gun I currently have on my belt/in my hand. Do I get bumped to open? For something that in no way can be considered an advantage? Or you just happened to pick up the previous shooters mag, and you were supposed to be on deck, and the match was running fast, so you just put it in your front pocket not thinking...Bump to open? For a mag that doesn't even fit your gun?

Same as above. Even if your excuse is that you put the magazine in your pocket because your mother told you to, welcome to open.

As a range officer, I do not accept arguments about objective rules. If I did, most 180 breaks I've had (besides one) would have not resulted in a DQ. Fortunately, putting someone in danger or doing something "unsafe" isn't the required act--breaking the 180 is complete as soon as you do it.

That's right, the argument is for the RM. And what I'd tell the RM is that a 40 mag in my front pocket is no more useful or a part of my equipment than the pocket knife is that is in my other pocket, and as such, the rules of having a speedloading device in front of my hipbone don't apply. It's got to be part of your competitive equipment to be a violation OF the provisions of the equipment.

I often keep my carry gun extra mag in my little pocket in front of my 511s. It's a 1911 - if I am shooting production with a Glock 34, am I bumped to open for having it there? I don't believe so.

Edited by aztecdriver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...