Reload without allowing muzzle over the berm

[remoandiris]

O.k. Sniper, so let's say a range has this rule and a round leaves the range anyway. In court, the lawyers will ask how was the rule enforced. What will the range's answer be? Each shooter is responsible for themself? Or maybe they have paid ROs or volunteer ROs patrolling. Either way, the enforcement WASN"T ENOUGH!!! So no matter what you do, the range faces the possibility of being shutdown.

A RULE DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING IF THERE IS NO IMMEDIATE ENFORCEMENT!!!

And if a range doesn't controll access (chainlink fence is a good method to keep kids on bikes away), the range has bigger problems to contend with.

[Chills1994]

remo wrote:

(chainlink fence is a good method to keep kids on bikes away),...

well, there is this legal theory called "attractive nuisance". because the fence is there, kids will want to climb over, under, around, or through it just to see what is on the other side.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance

[JKSNIPER]

Remoandiris,

Not trying to be argumentative here.

In a perfect world.....the rules would solve all the problems.

Obviously even with rules some get broken anyway.

The range staff would have to show it made a REASONABLE effort to enforce the rules governing muzzle direction.

The ROs would HAVE to DQ or otherwise penalize/warn you for infractions of this rule.

If the shooter does not comply after being warned then he'd probably get a DQ from the range staff or be banned from that range for failing to comply with that facilities rules.

If you're making a reasonable effort to enforce the rules and a round leaves the range anyway can you still be sued?

You bet. There is NO shield from lawsuits BUT if you make good safety rules, enforce them, and keep up with recognized standards of safety for ranges everywhere then I'd say you have a good chance of the jury being sympathetic to you as a range director/owner/whatever.

If the plaintiff's attorney can show through copies of news articles and forum postings/ blogs etc...that there was a definite problem with rounds leaving ranges and this particular range or organization chose to ignore the problem and refused to make a simple rule that would have saved poor dear little Jimmy from being shot by those out of control people?

The plaintiff has already won the lawsuit....just a question of how many zeros are going to be on the check that the club/range/etc...has to write.....oh and their range will probably be shut down by local govt as unsafe.

You have to remember...the jury for a lawsuit will NOT be chosen from a pool of USPSA members. They will be members of the general public of whom over 90% of them have never shot a gun and probably most of them have never even seen a gun except on TV and we all know how great the TV is at education of the masses.

[remoandiris]

remo wrote:

(chainlink fence is a good method to keep kids on bikes away),...

well, there is this legal theory called "attractive nuisance". because the fence is there, kids will want to climb over, under, around, or through it just to see what is on the other side.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance

That is an interesting theory. For over 2 decades I worked in/at places with chainlink to keep people out. Now I see some lawyer has turned it into a way to get away with climbing over/cutting thru/digging under. Kinda like telling home owners they have to retreat into the far reaches of their home if a bad guy comes in. Our justice system can be kinda jacked up sometimes.

[Seeker]

This thread has become what I feared it would become, a discussion of implied liability.

I read the Attractive Nuisance entry and in a nut shell it states.

Conditions

According to the Restatement of Torts standard, which is followed in many jurisdictions, there are five conditions that must be met for a land owner to be liable for tort damages to a child trespasser as a result of artificial hazards. The five conditions are:

The place where the condition exists is one on which the possessor knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass, and

The condition is one of which the possessor knows or has reason to know and which he realizes or should realize will involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to such children,

The children, because of their youth, do not discover the condition or realize the risk involved in inter-meddling with it or in coming within the area made dangerous by it

The utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight as compared with the risk to children involved, and

The possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise to protect the children

(See Restatement of Torts §339)

While putting up a sign to warn children regarding the danger of the land may exempt the landowner from liability, it will not work in all situations.[citation needed] This is particularly true when the child cannot read the sign. Usually the landowner must take some more affirmative steps to protect children.

Anyone who lives in Florida or another area with a proliferation of Swimming pools knows the importance of a solid fence. Maybe the resident lawyers can provide information, but I was informed that a solid fence is sufficient to avoid liability from unwanted/uninvited guest issues.

Sorry for the drift.

If a loaded firearm's muzzle can never be pointed above the berm at any time because there is no guarantee that a round will not be discarded, then I will reiterate that no skeet or trap shall be performed because there is no guarantee that the shooter has not inadvertently chambered a slug.

[remoandiris]

I am fine with a club making a rule that muzzles can't point over the berm...unless they negatively impact a shooting sport. If a recognized sport doesn't require it, the competitions should be exempt. And, clubs should NOT pick and choose which sports are negatively impacted by the rule and which are not.

Not to mention training could also be negatively impacted. Not just sports training, but combat and CCW training. And that training could mean life and death in a shootout. Yes, that is a bit far-reaching, but so is a club prohibition when the national safety record shows different.

[SmurfJet]

I am fine with a club making a rule that muzzles can't point over the berm...unless they negatively impact a shooting sport. If a recognized sport doesn't require it, the competitions should be exempt. And, clubs should NOT pick and choose which sports are negatively impacted by the rule and which are not.

Not to mention training could also be negatively impacted. Not just sports training, but combat and CCW training. And that training could mean life and death in a shootout. Yes, that is a bit far-reaching, but so is a club prohibition when the national safety record shows different.

Is this national safety record you speak of documented somewhere? I came across this thread doing some research in connection with a revision of the rules at my club. I'm specifically interested in DQ rates, ideally broken down by type of violation.

Minimizing the impact to recognized shooting sports necessarily ranks below clubs' responsibility to their general membership and their neighbors in the community. Our club, once fairly isolated, is now surrounded on all sides by human habitation well within the range of an errant round. Keeping one from leaving the property is a top priority. Though it's not the proximate cause, a muzzle elevated above the berm is a necessary condition for this to happen.

[pskys2]

There was a rule at the World Shoot in the Philippines that disallowed that activity.

So it's been done, and sanctioned by IPSC.

If you have homes around your range, or it is in a densely populated area it may be a legal requirement.

It's actually a good idea to not get into the habit of doing it.

I've DQ'd competitors for touching off a round with the muzzle above the berm. And when the competitor argued with me I also reminded him that this was the least of his worries depending on where the bullet may have gone.

Since I do shoot revolvers it is problematic, and underscores the reason the rule isn't popular. A Loaded Weapon pointing over the berm is a possible danger. But a Revolver is rarely in a potential discharge mode when it is pointed up. Yet if it's a range rule I'd have to adapt.

[aztecdriver]

There was a rule at the World Shoot in the Philippines that disallowed that activity.

So it's been done, and sanctioned by IPSC.

If you have homes around your range, or it is in a densely populated area it may be a legal requirement.

It's actually a good idea to not get into the habit of doing it.

I've DQ'd competitors for touching off a round with the muzzle above the berm. And when the competitor argued with me I also reminded him that this was the least of his worries depending on where the bullet may have gone.

Since I do shoot revolvers it is problematic, and underscores the reason the rule isn't popular. A Loaded Weapon pointing over the berm is a possible danger. But a Revolver is rarely in a potential discharge mode when it is pointed up. Yet if it's a range rule I'd have to adapt.

I'd just like to remind you there are two legitimate ways of doing this with USPSA matches. 1. If it's a local legal rule requiring it - ie., there is a LAW making it a reality - not the the possibility of an issue and creating a rule to avoid muzzles over the berm to keep from rounds leaving the range. 2. If you wish to impose a local rule against a match, you must have the expressed consent of the president of USPSA.

3.3 Applicability of Rules:

USPSA matches are governed by the rules applicable to the discipline. Host organizations may not enforce local rules except to comply with legislation or legal precedent in the applicable jurisdiction. Any voluntarily adopted rules that are not in compliance with these rules must not be applied to USPSA matches without the express consent of the President of USPSA.

Your other choice, don't run a USPSA match but your own version of it.

[EkuJustice]

I agree if its not approved by the president of USPSA then its a no go. If it comes down to do the rule or no matches then choice is really, loose the match or loose the USPSA name and call it whatever you want and run it like an outlaw match. I would even go as far as to say any classifiers shot a club with that rule needs to be thrown out as invalid just the same as if the classifier is not set to spec. The classifier is ment as an equal way to juge preformance ie same layout, same rules, shot "straight up, no gaming" etc. To compare someone reloading muzzle up or how he sees fit and someone required to keep it down is not comparing apples to apples.

[seanc]

it'd be a huge loss for a club to no longer be able to use it.

It depends on the club. If annual dues are $100 and 90% of the club's members do NOT shoot USPSA, there is NO huge loss to the club if the small minority leave.

I agree. It is very likely a rare club indeed that lives and dies by its USPSA program.

[Skydiver]

There was a rule at the World Shoot in the Philippines that disallowed that activity.

So it's been done, and sanctioned by IPSC.

I believe that decision was made because of the apartments directly downrange at the top of hill/cliff that was the backstop for the range. Lots of spectators were watching out of their balconies and windows.

I don't know what rulebook looked like then, but the current IPSC rule book now allows designating safe angles/elevations and conditions.

2.1.2.1 Subject to the direction and approval of the Regional Director, stage(s) or range specific muzzle angles (reduced or increased) may be permitted. Violations are subject to Rule 10.5.2. Full details of the applicable angles and any conditional factors (e.g. a reduced vertical muzzle angle only applies when a finger is inside the trigger guard),must be published in advance of the match and must be included in the written stage briefings (also see Section 2.3).

And as noted previously, the USPSA rulebook has no such provision. So if you have 270 degree bay and you want to full utilize it, you need to stretch the rules a little bit by declaring two or more backstops for that bay.

Edited August 21, 2012 by Skydiver

[mactiger]

There was a rule at the World Shoot in the Philippines that disallowed that activity.

So it's been done, and sanctioned by IPSC.

I believe that decision was made because of the apartments directly downrange at the top of hill/cliff that was the backstop for the range. Lots of spectators were watching out of their balconies and windows.

I don't know what rulebook looked like then, but the current IPSC rule book now allows designating safe angles/elevations and conditions.

2.1.2.1 Subject to the direction and approval of the Regional Director, stage(s) or range specific muzzle angles (reduced or increased) may be permitted. Violations are subject to Rule 10.5.2. Full details of the applicable angles and any conditional factors (e.g. a reduced vertical muzzle angle only applies when a finger is inside the trigger guard),must be published in advance of the match and must be included in the written stage briefings (also see Section 2.3).

And as noted previously, the USPSA rulebook has no such provision. So if you have 270 degree bay and you want to full utilize it, you need to stretch the rules a little bit by declaring two or more backstops for that bay.

Show me that rule.

Troy

[Skydiver]

That's why I said "stretch". :-)

The few times I've shot in a 270 bay, the first time being at at a Level II Area 1 match, the way it was explained to me was: "While standing in this area, that berm there is considered the backstop. When you are in this other area, that other berm is the backstop." I just nodded since I as far as I know, there didn't have to only be one backstop for a given stage. Must have been hell for the staff, though, and I was glad I wasn't working that match.

[aztecdriver]

That's why I said "stretch". :-)

The few times I've shot in a 270 bay, the first time being at at a Level II Area 1 match, the way it was explained to me was: "While standing in this area, that berm there is considered the backstop. When you are in this other area, that other berm is the backstop." I just nodded since I as far as I know, there didn't have to only be one backstop for a given stage. Must have been hell for the staff, though, and I was glad I wasn't working that match.

I've seen this before at a Level II State Match in 2009. Not saying it's right - just saying it's what was.

[mactiger]

10.5.2 doesn't seem to allow for multiple backstops; there is no "stretching" here, only breaking, both the 180 and the rules.

Troy

[Skydiver]

LOL! Excellent pun on multiple levels!

Anyway, I'll be sure to point this out to a club that often utilizes its 270 bay when I show up for their match.

[cyprant]

My club technically doesnt allow it, but I havent seen a DQ yet even though most every one does it.