Reload without allowing muzzle over the berm

[Chuck Anderson]

Is it a verified FACT that the USPSA President will NOT give a club/range a waiver that permits the club/range to enforce a

"no muzzle pointing over the berm" rule in a USPSA match?

It's a case by case situation. It's not a hard and fast rule. The rule book leaves it to the President's discretion.

I talked to the current president (for 15 more days) about ranges in the section we're talking about instituting this rule. It is a fact his answer to me was, "not only no, but hell no." Not saying he can't change his mind, not saying he wouldn't have a different opinion with different circumstances, not saying Phil will have the same opinion. It is a fact that if Phil asked my opinion I'd tell him to say no.

[remoandiris]

Is it a verified FACT that the USPSA President will NOT give a club/range a waiver that permits the club/range to enforce a

"no muzzle pointing over the berm" rule in a USPSA match?

It's a case by case situation. It's not a hard and fast rule. The rule book leaves it to the President's discretion.

I talked to the current president (for 15 more days) about ranges in the section we're talking about instituting this rule. It is a fact his answer to me was, "not only no, but hell no." Not saying he can't change his mind, not saying he wouldn't have a different opinion with different circumstances, not saying Phil will have the same opinion. It is a fact that if Phil asked my opinion I'd tell him to say no.

In your experience, how does the exception request get to the president? Does it come from the local MD with a recommendation to approve or not, to the section coord with a reccomendation to approve or not to the area director then to the pres?

Does it come from the range BoD to the USPSA pres?

Or is there no set way for the request to get to the pres?

I'm just curious.

[Chuck Anderson]

Is it a verified FACT that the USPSA President will NOT give a club/range a waiver that permits the club/range to enforce a

"no muzzle pointing over the berm" rule in a USPSA match?

It's a case by case situation. It's not a hard and fast rule. The rule book leaves it to the President's discretion.

I talked to the current president (for 15 more days) about ranges in the section we're talking about instituting this rule. It is a fact his answer to me was, "not only no, but hell no." Not saying he can't change his mind, not saying he wouldn't have a different opinion with different circumstances, not saying Phil will have the same opinion. It is a fact that if Phil asked my opinion I'd tell him to say no.

In your experience, how does the exception request get to the president? Does it come from the local MD with a recommendation to approve or not, to the section coord with a reccomendation to approve or not to the area director then to the pres?

Does it come from the range BoD to the USPSA pres?

Or is there no set way for the request to get to the pres?

I'm just curious.

I've had a couple requests that have come through the SC's, to the AD and then AD to Pres. I would imagine the individual club could petition the president just as easily if they wanted to get around the AD. I'd also imagine the president would come back to the AD for info on what's going on with that club (not in a bad way, just trying to get input).

[Nik Habicht]

I've thought about this a bit -- and there's an option beyond disqualifying the competitor from the match. The host range could simply revoke the competitor's permission to shoot that match. Not a DQ, so scores stand as shot, classifier results go in if the member completed the classifier.....

I could see a scenario of:

1. Warning
   
2. Sorry, you're no longer allowed to shoot here today.
   
3. Sorry, you've done this twice this year, you won't be able to come to back until next year.
   

Perfectly legal, doesn't require a rules variance, though it should be very carefully considered and advertised.......

I don't know what the answer is. A match DQ is out, without a variance. Telling the club to go away/letting it drift away due to a lack of creatively thinking about the problem, and implementing a solution that addresses everyone's concerns also strikes me as problematic.

Perfectly legal under what?

Under everything. Ranges retain property rights, even while holding USPSA matches.....

If someone is being disruptive, they can be asked to leave the range (and the match) by a member of the hosting facility's Board of Directors, for instance.....

[Nik Habicht]

I've thought about this a bit -- and there's an option beyond disqualifying the competitor from the match. The host range could simply revoke the competitor's permission to shoot that match. Not a DQ, so scores stand as shot, classifier results go in if the member completed the classifier.....

I could see a scenario of:

1. Warning
   
2. Sorry, you're no longer allowed to shoot here today.
   
3. Sorry, you've done this twice this year, you won't be able to come to back until next year.
   

Perfectly legal, doesn't require a rules variance, though it should be very carefully considered and advertised.......

I don't know what the answer is. A match DQ is out, without a variance. Telling the club to go away/letting it drift away due to a lack of creatively thinking about the problem, and implementing a solution that addresses everyone's concerns also strikes me as problematic.

Perfectly legal under what?

I think Nik is going here - and I completely disagree with him.

6.4.4 An individual may be barred from participating in a USPSA match, at the match director’s discretion, if the person:

a. has demonstrated an inability to safely complete courses of fire, or

b. has demonstrated behavior which would or may disrupt the match, or which would bring disrepute to the sport.

6.4.5 A Match Director enforcing Rule 6.4.4 must submit a detailed report to USPSA within seven days of the occurrence

1. What behavior is being demonstrated - how many DQs have they earned? Under what rule? --- right....

2. When the MD submits that report to USPSA - we're back to the original question. You implemented a local rule and used a match barring method to address it.

It still doesn't work.

I'm not going there at all. My home club -- Central Jersey Rifle and Pistol Club, MID01 -- is affiliated with both USPSA and the Mid-Atlantic Section. So certainly USPSA rules apply at matches -- but USPSA is only one of many disciplines using the range complex, on any given day. WE typically have some version of Highpower rifle matches occurring on the 300 yard range, some sort of scattergun competition on the Skeet and Trap fields, while out matches are going on in a portion of the pits, with members shooting in other pits......

Certainly the hosting facility -- that is the club I refer to -- retains property rights. The Board of Directors has restricted some individual members from participating in some activities. That is not a USPSA match decision, it is a club decision. The club can decide not to allow certain folks to set foot on the property, USPSA membership notwithstanding. (Think restraining order or trespass warning here.)

I will note this type of thing is extremely rare -- I've only heard of 3-4 cases within the Section in the last 10 years or so -- and they were the extreme exception.....

USPSA is normally shot on 180 degree ranges -- but there's actually no requirement for that, and some ranges need to adopt narrower angles of fire in order to be able to safely hold matches.

What I don't want to have happen is two things:

I don't want USPSA matches to go away, because of an inability to address host club's safety concerns

and I don't want USPSA matches to compromise to a point where they are no longer recognizable as USPSA matches.

Both points matter. The situations are complex and deserving of creative and thoughtful solutions. As always, the devil's going to be in the details....

If anyone has any bright ideas, I'm all ears. If all we're going to get is the old standby's of "better to disaffiliate the club" or "USPSA rules should be the only thing governing the conduct of shooter while on club property," that's not going to help.

[remoandiris]

Under everything. Ranges retain property rights, even while holding USPSA matches.....

If someone is being disruptive, they can be asked to leave the range (and the match) by a member of the hosting facility's Board of Directors, for instance.....

Being disruptive is one thing, performing a reload is completely different.

USPSA has no definition of "safe direction". If a local rule defines "safe direction", does the USPSA pres have to agree with the definition under 3.3 for it to apply during matches?

[Skydiver]

Under everything. Ranges retain property rights, even while holding USPSA matches.....

If someone is being disruptive, they can be asked to leave the range (and the match) by a member of the hosting facility's Board of Directors, for instance.....

Being disruptive is one thing, performing a reload is completely different.

USPSA has no definition of "safe direction". If a local rule defines "safe direction", does the USPSA pres have to agree with the definition under 3.3 for it to apply during matches?

Slight thread drift: Read 2.4 more closely. Admittedly, that is only with regards to the safety area.

[Skydiver]

I don't agree with having a rule that disallows the muzzle pointing over the berm during a reload.

I've personally witnessed an AD with the shot going over the berm during a table start as the competitor picked up the gun and moved away from the table. Does that mean that once the "problem" of shots going over the berm during is "solved" by disallowing the muzzle to point over the berm, then next the muzzle isn't allowed to point over the berm while picking up a gun during a table start?

How about the case when a shooter is dealing with a malfunction? The muzzle should also not point over in the berm in that case since there is also a possibility on an AD as well that will send a bullet out of the range? Consider what is the most common and instinctive technique when dealing with a double feed to kick out the cartridge that is partly in the chamber.

In the two cases I've cited so far, the common thing that a reasonable person would point out is that it's not the reload, or the picking up the gun, or the dealing with malfunction which is itself dangerous. It's the shooter having their finger in the trigger guard while reloading, or moving, or while dealing with the malfunction which is dangerous. It seems to me that our current USPSA rulebook already covers these cases.

[rgkeller]

How about a club rule that states "no shooter shall permit the muzzle of his loaded firearm to point over the berm while his finger is in the trigger guard?"

USPSA compliant?

Edited December 17, 2011 by rgkeller

[Chuck Anderson]

How about a club rule that states "no shooter shall permit the muzzle of his loaded firearm to point over the berm while his finger is in the trigger guard?"

USPSA compliant?

No. And really a bad rule. How about a shooter with a .44 Mag? Not common at USPSA matches but certainly several at our range during non matches. The muzzle frequently goes over the berm during recoil and the finger is on the trigger.

The solution in this case was a rule for the club that said the finger had to be off the trigger when reloading or clearing malfunctions. It's already a USPSA rule and alleviated the clubs concern.

[rgkeller]

I don't care about 44 mag shooters. They don't shoot USPSA.

Why would my proposed rule not be OK with USPSA?

What actions in USPSA shooting would such a rule prohibit?

[Nik Habicht]

Under everything. Ranges retain property rights, even while holding USPSA matches.....

If someone is being disruptive, they can be asked to leave the range (and the match) by a member of the hosting facility's Board of Directors, for instance.....

Being disruptive is one thing, performing a reload is completely different.

USPSA has no definition of "safe direction". If a local rule defines "safe direction", does the USPSA pres have to agree with the definition under 3.3 for it to apply during matches?

No to 3.3. See 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 -- essentially the matter is handled by stage design/RM approval.....

....in much the same way, that stages are designed, built, and shot with multiple intersecting 180s in some clubs 270-350 degree pits.....

[Nik Habicht]

I don't agree with having a rule that disallows the muzzle pointing over the berm during a reload.

I've personally witnessed an AD with the shot going over the berm during a table start as the competitor picked up the gun and moved away from the table. Does that mean that once the "problem" of shots going over the berm during is "solved" by disallowing the muzzle to point over the berm, then next the muzzle isn't allowed to point over the berm while picking up a gun during a table start?

How about the case when a shooter is dealing with a malfunction? The muzzle should also not point over in the berm in that case since there is also a possibility on an AD as well that will send a bullet out of the range? Consider what is the most common and instinctive technique when dealing with a double feed to kick out the cartridge that is partly in the chamber.

In the two cases I've cited so far, the common thing that a reasonable person would point out is that it's not the reload, or the picking up the gun, or the dealing with malfunction which is itself dangerous. It's the shooter having their finger in the trigger guard while reloading, or moving, or while dealing with the malfunction which is dangerous. It seems to me that our current USPSA rulebook already covers these cases.

I'm on that page, and Chuck makes some good points about how to have that conversation.....

[Chuck Anderson]

I don't care about 44 mag shooters. They don't shoot USPSA.

Why would my proposed rule not be OK with USPSA?

What actions in USPSA shooting would such a rule prohibit?

Because I see women, juniors and smaller stature shooters do exactly the same thing with .40 and .45 caliber guns. It also puts a lot more subjective discretion in the hands of RO's. It's hard enough at times determining the lateral 180. Then to try and add another variable angle ( is the berm 10 degrees or 15 degrees, what about as the shooter gets further or closer to the berm?).

[rgkeller]

Well, personally, I have no problem with a club barring shooters who cannot control the recoil of their firearms sufficiently that the muzzle of a loaded firearm stays pointed at the berm.

Seems like that would go a long way toward keeping all rounds within the range - something that the USPSA rules require.

[Chuck Anderson]

Well, personally, I have no problem with a club barring shooters who cannot control the recoil of their firearms sufficiently that the muzzle of a loaded firearm stays pointed at the berm.

Seems like that would go a long way toward keeping all rounds within the range - something that the USPSA rules require.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I don't see a problem with shooters who let the gun recoil. It's not unsafe or against the rules. Next time you go to a match actually watch the muzzles on some of the other competitors guns. I think you'll find that's it's a bit more common than you seem to think.

[remoandiris]

a reasonable person would point out is that it's not the reload, or the picking up the gun, or the dealing with malfunction which is itself dangerous. It's the shooter having their finger in the trigger guard while reloading, or moving, or while dealing with the malfunction which is dangerous. It seems to me that our current USPSA rulebook already covers these cases.

What makes a reasonable person? There are some members of ranges/clubs that think USPSA shooters are "fast and loose". They can't do what we can, so we MUST be unsafe.

Yeah, the underlined words in my reply have been used to depict USPSA shooters at my club. The person who said them is completely ignorant of our rules, ignores out safety record, and has no interest in understanding what we do or how we do it. We're just fast and loose.

Edited December 18, 2011 by remoandiris

[remoandiris]

Under everything. Ranges retain property rights, even while holding USPSA matches.....

If someone is being disruptive, they can be asked to leave the range (and the match) by a member of the hosting facility's Board of Directors, for instance.....

Being disruptive is one thing, performing a reload is completely different.

USPSA has no definition of "safe direction". If a local rule defines "safe direction", does the USPSA pres have to agree with the definition under 3.3 for it to apply during matches?

No to 3.3. See 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 -- essentially the matter is handled by stage design/RM approval.....

....in much the same way, that stages are designed, built, and shot with multiple intersecting 180s in some clubs 270-350 degree pits.....

I think you are being overly simplistic in thinking 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 will prevent a person who is performing a typical USPSA reload from allowing the muzzle to be pointed over a berm. 2.1.2 specifices "safe angles of fire". During a reload, one never intends to fire. Hence, 2.1.2 doesn't apply.

Next time you put up a stage, walk around the shooting area and perform reloads. I am willing to bet you will find a few spots where the muzzle points over a berm...unless the reload happens right against a 20+ foot berm.

[Nik Habicht]

Under everything. Ranges retain property rights, even while holding USPSA matches.....

If someone is being disruptive, they can be asked to leave the range (and the match) by a member of the hosting facility's Board of Directors, for instance.....

Being disruptive is one thing, performing a reload is completely different.

USPSA has no definition of "safe direction". If a local rule defines "safe direction", does the USPSA pres have to agree with the definition under 3.3 for it to apply during matches?

No to 3.3. See 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 -- essentially the matter is handled by stage design/RM approval.....

....in much the same way, that stages are designed, built, and shot with multiple intersecting 180s in some clubs 270-350 degree pits.....

I think you are being overly simplistic in thinking 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 will prevent a person who is performing a typical USPSA reload from allowing the muzzle to be pointed over a berm. 2.1.2 specifices "safe angles of fire". During a reload, one never intends to fire. Hence, 2.1.2 doesn't apply.

Next time you put up a stage, walk around the shooting area and perform reloads. I am willing to bet you will find a few spots where the muzzle points over a berm...unless the reload happens right against a 20+ foot berm.

Safe angles of fire can be used to restrict muzzle movement to less than 180 degrees. Since the 180 is a defined plane, anything less than that will of necessity be a partial cone -- partial because it the cone is bisected by the plane of the ground.....

[aztecdriver]

Safe angles of fire can be used to restrict muzzle movement to less than 180 degrees. Since the 180 is a defined plane, anything less than that will of necessity be a partial cone -- partial because it the cone is bisected by the plane of the ground.....

Completely disagree. Safe angles of fire is a course construction criteria - not a definition of the line to which you can be DQ'd if your muzzle breaks. There is either 90-degree to the mean intercept or, if there is NO backstop - uprange. You either have a backstop and the 90-degree median, or you have no backstop and it's simply uprange. Regardless of your lateral issue to a reduced angle to the side - You are not going to get the vertical to be anything less than 90-degrees up.

Edited December 19, 2011 by aztecdriver

[aztecdriver]

I'm not going there at all. My home club -- Central Jersey Rifle and Pistol Club, MID01 -- is affiliated with both USPSA and the Mid-Atlantic Section. So certainly USPSA rules apply at matches -- but USPSA is only one of many disciplines using the range complex, on any given day. WE typically have some version of Highpower rifle matches occurring on the 300 yard range, some sort of scattergun competition on the Skeet and Trap fields, while out matches are going on in a portion of the pits, with members shooting in other pits......

Certainly the hosting facility -- that is the club I refer to -- retains property rights. The Board of Directors has restricted some individual members from participating in some activities. That is not a USPSA match decision, it is a club decision. The club can decide not to allow certain folks to set foot on the property, USPSA membership notwithstanding. (Think restraining order or trespass warning here.)

I will note this type of thing is extremely rare -- I've only heard of 3-4 cases within the Section in the last 10 years or so -- and they were the extreme exception.....

USPSA is normally shot on 180 degree ranges -- but there's actually no requirement for that, and some ranges need to adopt narrower angles of fire in order to be able to safely hold matches.

What I don't want to have happen is two things:

I don't want USPSA matches to go away, because of an inability to address host club's safety concerns

and I don't want USPSA matches to compromise to a point where they are no longer recognizable as USPSA matches.

Both points matter. The situations are complex and deserving of creative and thoughtful solutions. As always, the devil's going to be in the details....

If anyone has any bright ideas, I'm all ears. If all we're going to get is the old standby's of "better to disaffiliate the club" or "USPSA rules should be the only thing governing the conduct of shooter while on club property," that's not going to help.

The club does have the right to not allow a person or persons on their property. I would hope that would have specific and documented reasons for doing so - especially when hosting USPSA Sanctioned events. If the club were to have a simple, we don't like this guy because he's xxx, so he's banned. I'm assuming it's a safety issue, they're unstable, violent or what have you. It's simple, submit the report when you deny him entry to the property, as quoted in the rules I have provided.

Fact of the matter is I, as a member, have paid my dues to the national organization. The host club has signed an agreement that says members can come, pay a fee and shoot a sanctioned match. If the host club wants to be discriminatory and disallow USPSA members based on one premise - they don't have to because it's their property - why bother hosting a USPSA match. Don't fly the banner I paid for and keep me from shooting.

I hear what you are saying - I know most of those people that would be disallowed from competing are either dangerous or disruptive. Report it to the organization to protect everyone from discrimination claims and be done with it.

The solution to the conundrum? Elect people that understand the balance between having a decent club - and a decent relationship with national organizations. Working with Area Director's and Section Coordinators in proactive productive conversations with clubs that feel differently, and when all else fails and they continue down the restriction path - pull the sanction. Just like has been done in other places around here for years.

My response to those clubs that find themselves in the precarious position of needing to implement these types of rules. IF you are SO concerned that one round leaving the range will cause a lawsuit to shut you down, then you might as well go ahead and close the doors - because sooner or later, one is either going to leave the range - or someone else is going to launch one around the neighborhood and blame you.

First it's muzzles above the berm, then it's let's get rid of real bullets and require all plastic ammo, afterall, it's just targets were shooting at. While we're at it - it's just targets, only .22LR - then we'll not have to worry about big bullets, and then pretty much - let's just use bows and arrows and shotguns.

[Nik Habicht]

Safe angles of fire can be used to restrict muzzle movement to less than 180 degrees. Since the 180 is a defined plane, anything less than that will of necessity be a partial cone -- partial because it the cone is bisected by the plane of the ground.....

Completely disagree. Safe angles of fire is a course construction criteria - not a definition of the line to which you can be DQ'd if your muzzle breaks. There is either 90-degree to the mean intercept or, if there is NO backstop - uprange. You either have a backstop and the 90-degree median, or you have no backstop and it's simply uprange. Regardless of your lateral issue to a reduced angle to the side - You are not going to get the vertical to be anything less than 90-degrees up.

There's precedent -- granted under a much earlier version of the (then joint) IPSC rules, specifically affecting the world shoot in Cebu, The Phillipines -- where apartment highrises towered over the back berms....

Y'all can stick your heads in the sand as much as you desire -- and this might harder for the competitors from the western half of the country to grasp -- but there is unrelenting urban/suburban encroachment on many ranges in the East and especially in the Northeast. All I'm really suggesting is that we start a dialogue, with the goal of hopefully brainstorming our way to a solution that allows USPSA to thrive all across the country, for years to come.....

Having matches go outlaw doesn't help any of us.....

Of course neither does diluting USPSA to the point where it's unrecognizable. I'm looking for that middle ground.....

[Nik Habicht]

The club does have the right to not allow a person or persons on their property. I would hope that would have specific and documented reasons for doing so - especially when hosting USPSA Sanctioned events. If the club were to have a simple, we don't like this guy because he's xxx, so he's banned. I'm assuming it's a safety issue, they're unstable, violent or what have you. It's simple, submit the report when you deny him entry to the property, as quoted in the rules I have provided.

Actually the rules don't require reporting to USPSA if the hosting facility's Board of Directors makes a decision. The requirement exists (rightly) when one person, namely the match director, exercises his discretion. I'm speculating that the requirement exists so that the Area Director, Section Coordinator, or USPSA HQ aren't totally surprised when the member complains.....

[Chuck Anderson]

Safe angles of fire can be used to restrict muzzle movement to less than 180 degrees. Since the 180 is a defined plane, anything less than that will of necessity be a partial cone -- partial because it the cone is bisected by the plane of the ground.....

Completely disagree. Safe angles of fire is a course construction criteria - not a definition of the line to which you can be DQ'd if your muzzle breaks. There is either 90-degree to the mean intercept or, if there is NO backstop - uprange. You either have a backstop and the 90-degree median, or you have no backstop and it's simply uprange. Regardless of your lateral issue to a reduced angle to the side - You are not going to get the vertical to be anything less than 90-degrees up.

There's precedent -- granted under a much earlier version of the (then joint) IPSC rules, specifically affecting the world shoot in Cebu, The Phillipines -- where apartment highrises towered over the back berms....

Y'all can stick your heads in the sand as much as you desire -- and this might harder for the competitors from the western half of the country to grasp -- but there is unrelenting urban/suburban encroachment on many ranges in the East and especially in the Northeast. All I'm really suggesting is that we start a dialogue, with the goal of hopefully brainstorming our way to a solution that allows USPSA to thrive all across the country, for years to come.....

Having matches go outlaw doesn't help any of us.....

Of course neither does diluting USPSA to the point where it's unrecognizable. I'm looking for that middle ground.....

But that precedent from Cebu is specifically why that rule was removed from the USPSA rule book. So that we wouldn't have the CF that resulted from that rule.

[Reshoot]

How many of you shoot at outdoor clubs that forbid the muzzle from pointing over the berm? I'm talking about finger outside of the trigger guard and putting a mag in while you're looking at the magwell. Of course the muzzle can't point over the berm when actively shooting.

If you shoot in a quarry with 200 ft berms, you probably don't worry about it.

I shoot at more than a couple of ranges, and the issue has never came up.