USPSA BOD Meeting

[Rob Boudrie]

Marketplace offerings have far more to do with potential litigation than true suitability, IMO.

True, but the policy also said "near out of box". If the policy is wrong, it should be changed, not ignored.

[Justsomeguy]

So my point is the limitations the Board of Directors came up with it just the opposite of what reasonable people would expect. If the point of Production is to allow people to "run what they brung", then any action type should have been allowed. If you allow any action type, you have to allow modifications to the trigger pull of one kind or another to make up for what one manufacturer or another does to their particular trigger assembly to make it better, because that is what any sane person who will shoot a gun with any knowledge will do to it. Seeing as how Production Division is limited to several action types (I mean really... Glocks and XD's are double action... Puuulllleeessse!), then what an owner does to the trigger parts should be nobody's business except if they are unsafe. I could understand the restriction of not allowing 1911/2011 types 11 years ago as they were very much better in the trigger department at that time. Given the factory and aftermarket parts available today for other types I don't see that anymore, and for the sake of progress and to encourage the use of any produced product and for the manufacturers to make them better as well, it seems arcane. Still, if you wish to exclude 1911/2011 types because you feel the others cannot compete, then they never will because there is no incentive to make a $500-$750 gun shoot as well as a $1200-$2500 gun, except that today they do if you allow trigger mods.

Following your the logic that any action type should allowed, and any modifications are allowed, then somebody can pick up a stock CZ-75B or Beretta 92FS which are DA/SA and on the approved list, and convert it to SA only without making externally visible changes, and it should still be legal in Production since the latest PDF of the rules has accidentally omitted the "No prototypes. No single action pistols." rule. Granted that there maybe a disadvantage with starting with the hammer down and having to manually cock the hammer for the first shot, but that's something that can't be overcome with training.

Ah... but further up I said if it were produced that way... a type of action that is a production gun from the manufacturer. Thus single action types should, to my mind, also be allowed like EAA single actions or even 1911/2011 types as well as double/single, double only, single only, striker fired etc...

[Gary Stevens]

^^^ you won't get DQ'ed, you'll just get bumped to open instead.

I don't get this either... If you have an open sight (iron sight) gun it would be reasonable to be bumped to Limited or Limited 10, but Open... WHY???

Check your rulebook. Failure to meet equipment requirements requires a move to Open Division if one is available.

[wgnoyes]

on a more serious note, when it comes to parliamentary procedure, didn't anyone have the gumption to shout "POINT OF ORDER!" and make a motion to table the discussion until the next BOD meeting, especially when 3 guys are getting replaced?

The BOD is not going to wait around until new people take office. We have elections every year. Should we shut down for the last 3 months and not do anything? ..

Well frankly yes you should. This wasn't an immediate pressing crisis that HAD to be resolved right now. You have 2 new AD's coming in and a new president. Your current configuration makes you a lame duck BoD and you might have gotten a different result with the new folks in place. All we can hope is that the next BoD will repeal this. They have a year to work on it. We as members need to encourage our 2012 AD's and president in no uncertain terms (but polite nonetheless) that we do NOT want this.

So Bill, if we're a lame duck BOD, and shouldn't pass rules when all but one of the new people coming on board was at the meeting, when would it be permissible by you to pass rules? ...

I'm saying that when you have something that can have such far reaching implications as this change (which you voted against and thank you for that) and it's not a pressing crisis (this one obviously wasn't since you set an implementation date of 13 months away) and you're within weeks of a major personnel change on the board, in my opinion you hand it off to the next board so there can be NO possibility of backlash because you're an out-going official.

[Chills1994]

since I am in Illinois which as you all know is a NON-CCW state, I really don't get or rather don't like making the production division the guns that are suitable for "carry". I know for a fact a few Missourians who carry 1911's cocked and locked.

there are other states out there with so called "CCW laws", but you either have to know somebody or be filthy rich to get a CCW permit in those states. that issue seems to get glossed over when people point and laugh at Illinois.

I also don't like how this conversation drifted into "What are cops carrying?" territory. Cops are not gun people. Basing what should be legal in our sport to what cops do invites all sorts of potential slippery slop can-o-worms fiascos that we shouldn't even go there.

[Gatekeeper]

The minutes show NO vote, yay or nay from the Area 8 director. What's up with that?

Been wondering about that myself. Someone asked on the Area 8 Facebook page why no representation for A8 on the issue and the response was

" Yes A8 was represented at the last BOD meeting. Its not 2013 yet. ALOT CAN HAPPEN between now and then."

Sent an e-mail asking for clarification on why no vote was recorded and where he stood on the issue, no response yet.

[sdm74]

There are several that make SA triggers sub 3 pounds. The rule that Mike proposed was 3 pounds for the first shot which for unloaded gun starts is going to be SA for the DA/SA crowd. I'm sure that's something that could be corrected later. It's the reason I wanted the additional motion passed about clarifying the Production rules.

The minutes show NO vote, yay or nay from the Area 8 director. What's up with that?

Been trying to find this out myself.

[Chills1994]

wgnoyes wrote:

I'm saying that when you have something that can have such far reaching implications as this change (which you voted against and thank you for that) and it's not a pressing crisis (this one obviously wasn't since you set an implementation date of 13 months away) and you're within weeks of a major personnel change on the board, in my opinion you hand it off to the next board so there can be NO possibility of backlash because you're an out-going official.

I might have brought that up already....something along the lines of using parliamentary procedure to table the trigger pull discussion and vote until the next BOD meeting.

[GrumpyOne]

Marketplace offerings have far more to do with potential litigation than true suitability, IMO.

True, but the policy also said "near out of box". If the policy is wrong, it should be changed, not ignored.

Define "near out of the box". Near is a subjective term unless you have a reference point. Florida is "near" Georgia, subjectively, but it is still 93 million miles from the sun, yet Florida is also "near" the sun when in relation to other galaxies. "Near" only means anything when you have something to measure it by. You have given us nothing "near" to measure it by, since no guns from different manufacturers are the same.

[Gary Stevens]

since I am in Illinois which as you all know is a NON-CCW state, I really don't get or rather don't like making the production division the guns that are suitable for "carry". I know for a fact a few Missourians who carry 1911's cocked and locked.

there are other states out there with so called "CCW laws", but you either have to know somebody or be filthy rich to get a CCW permit in those states. that issue seems to get glossed over when people point and laugh at Illinois.

I also don't like how this conversation drifted into "What are cops carrying?" territory. Cops are not gun people. Basing what should be legal in our sport to what cops do invites all sorts of potential slippery slop can-o-worms fiascos that we shouldn't even go there.

Hi Brad, while your "Cops are not gun people" is unfortunately generally true, I think Chuck, myself, and a few more might disagree with you

Happy New Year.

[Gary Stevens]

wgnoyes wrote:

I'm saying that when you have something that can have such far reaching implications as this change (which you voted against and thank you for that) and it's not a pressing crisis (this one obviously wasn't since you set an implementation date of 13 months away) and you're within weeks of a major personnel change on the board, in my opinion you hand it off to the next board so there can be NO possibility of backlash because you're an out-going official.

I might have brought that up already....something along the lines of using parliamentary procedure to table the trigger pull discussion and vote until the next BOD meeting.

You are correct about the table motion. I think Chuck was trying to find STFU in Roberts Rules of Order about that time

[Chuck Anderson]

The minutes show NO vote, yay or nay from the Area 8 director. What's up with that?

Been wondering about that myself. Someone asked on the Area 8 Facebook page why no representation for A8 on the issue and the response was

" Yes A8 was represented at the last BOD meeting. Its not 2013 yet. ALOT CAN HAPPEN between now and then."

Sent an e-mail asking for clarification on why no vote was recorded and where he stood on the issue, no response yet.

I am fairly certain the omission is a mistake in the minutes. Harry was there. I don't remember him abstaining. And I know Gary and I were the only two no votes. I'm about 95% sure Harry voted yes, but I had other things on my mind by the time he voted.

[Chills1994]

since I am in Illinois which as you all know is a NON-CCW state, I really don't get or rather don't like making the production division the guns that are suitable for "carry". I know for a fact a few Missourians who carry 1911's cocked and locked.

there are other states out there with so called "CCW laws", but you either have to know somebody or be filthy rich to get a CCW permit in those states. that issue seems to get glossed over when people point and laugh at Illinois.

I also don't like how this conversation drifted into "What are cops carrying?" territory. Cops are not gun people. Basing what should be legal in our sport to what cops do invites all sorts of potential slippery slop can-o-worms fiascos that we shouldn't even go there.

Hi Brad, while your "Cops are not gun people" is unfortunately generally true, I think Chuck, myself, and a few more might disagree with you

Happy New Year.

Oh...sorry...I was just basing my opinion of cops not being gun people because it is rare to see cops attending and shooting at matches....and when they do they typically perform badly and never return. Granted there are exceptions to every rule, but that has just been my anecdotal evidence formed over about 5 or 6 years of shooting IDPA/USPSA matches.

Merry Festivus right back at you!

[Chills1994]

wgnoyes wrote:

I'm saying that when you have something that can have such far reaching implications as this change (which you voted against and thank you for that) and it's not a pressing crisis (this one obviously wasn't since you set an implementation date of 13 months away) and you're within weeks of a major personnel change on the board, in my opinion you hand it off to the next board so there can be NO possibility of backlash because you're an out-going official.

I might have brought that up already....something along the lines of using parliamentary procedure to table the trigger pull discussion and vote until the next BOD meeting.

You are correct about the table motion. I think Chuck was trying to find STFU in Roberts Rules of Order about that time

I thought Chuck had said somebody else, maybe the Prez???, gave him the STFU comment or look or both right before the vote.

At least I thought I read that...I am probably wrong...

[Chuck Anderson]

on a more serious note, when it comes to parliamentary procedure, didn't anyone have the gumption to shout "POINT OF ORDER!" and make a motion to table the discussion until the next BOD meeting, especially when 3 guys are getting replaced?

The BOD is not going to wait around until new people take office. We have elections every year. Should we shut down for the last 3 months and not do anything? ..

Well frankly yes you should. This wasn't an immediate pressing crisis that HAD to be resolved right now. You have 2 new AD's coming in and a new president. Your current configuration makes you a lame duck BoD and you might have gotten a different result with the new folks in place. All we can hope is that the next BoD will repeal this. They have a year to work on it. We as members need to encourage our 2012 AD's and president in no uncertain terms (but polite nonetheless) that we do NOT want this.

So Bill, if we're a lame duck BOD, and shouldn't pass rules when all but one of the new people coming on board was at the meeting, when would it be permissible by you to pass rules? ...

I'm saying that when you have something that can have such far reaching implications as this change (which you voted against and thank you for that) and it's not a pressing crisis (this one obviously wasn't since you set an implementation date of 13 months away) and you're within weeks of a major personnel change on the board, in my opinion you hand it off to the next board so there can be NO possibility of backlash because you're an out-going official.

That's great, but we can't do that. The USPSA BOD doesn't have the money, or need to meet every couple months. The 13 month implementation date was simply because of the need to post this to members (which BTW Pat, is how USPSA is required to announce rule changes. That way everyone who gets the Official Newsletter has them.) The issue of Front Sight won't go out till another 2-3 months (we just missed the publishing deadline) and we need another 3 months before any new rule takes effect. That would put us mid season for the change which no one wanted. This way there is time for the membership to make choices. If we waited until July for the vote (which is the next scheduled meeting) we might not have had it in place until mid 2013. It just doesn't make sense to keep putting things off. Particularly in this case where there really wasn't that much of a change in the make up of the BOD. Sorry, I just think this was a really good meeting to get things done at. I wish we had done other things, like not pissing off half the membership, but to continue to wait does no one any good.

[Rob Boudrie]

there are other states out there with so called "CCW laws", but you either have to know somebody or be filthy rich to get a CCW permit in those states. that issue seems to get glossed over when people point and laugh at Illinois.

There are many "shall issue" states, plus that are loads of people in some of the "may issue" states that have CCW permits. I do not know anyone, and not filthy rich (or even modestly rich) and getting a CCW in MA was a very straightforward process.

Unfortunately, there are indeed more than a couple of states that issue CCW permits in theory only unless you are an individual of considerable privilege, power and influence. I would personally rather see a state ban carry for everyone than create a system that privately grants CCW access to only "special" people - since those "special" people will only vote with us when treated like us.

I thought Chuck had said somebody else, maybe the Prez???, gave him the STFU comment or look or both right before the vote.

There was one point where MV told everyone to be quiet (I do not remember the exact words used - it may very well have been those quoted), as a couple of "side conversations" started to de-focus the meeting. He did not refuse to recognize any person who wished to be heard, and his comment was absolutely not an attempt to suppress any particular viewpoints.

[Chuck Anderson]

Prevailing thought by who? Rob, no offense, but I've carried a gun professionally for quite a few years. I've trained well over a thousand individuals, through my agencies, Academy, USPSA and locally on the range. I've come to the albeit unscientfic conclusion that the trigger weight doesn't matter on a carry gun.

First off, I do not carry a gun professionally so I will start with my lack of qualification in that regard.

The policy statement said near out of box and suitable for carry. It is more the totality of marketplace offerings, rather than thoughts an opinions, that lead to my conclusion that sub 3lb triggers are not "Reasonably out of the box" features on guns sold as carry weapons by major manufacturers. Can you point to a gun where a sub 3lb trigger is "reasonably out of the box" for a gun marketed as a carry piece?

But, as I have mentioned, I am willing to approach the trigger pull issue with an open mind, and I don't have to be convinced that major manufacturers are indeed selling 2.5lb triggers for carry in order to be convinced that a reversal of policy would be in the best interests of USPSA.

I am confident that everyone on the board will understand that our job at this point is to do what is best for the membership and the organization, and not to get defensive about the recent vote. I offer my comments only to explain the logic I used to arrive at the vote I did and why, given the policy at the time, it was consistent with past board actions.

Okay, I'll quit harping on it and follow my own advice. I know you voted with what you thought, honestly, was best for USPSA and everyone. I don't mean to keep picking on you in particular.

As far as a gun marketed as a carry piece. The Glock 34/35 series was sold and marketed very heavily as a Law Enforcement gun. More were sold for that purpose than for Compeition. It has normally shipped with the - connector, which Glock originally said was a 3.5 pound connector (although they finally changed that and said it was 4.5) With a very minimum amount of effort and a $10.00 set of Wolff springs I can take that trigger well below 3 pounds. So yes, I would say $10.00 and 15 minutes is reasonably out of the box. Certainly more so than aftermarket barrels, stippling, milled sights etc.

Rob, I honestly appreciate you taking the time to talk about this. Please don't quit posting because I'm being a douche. I get a bit...passionate at times.

[Chuck Anderson]

wgnoyes wrote:

I'm saying that when you have something that can have such far reaching implications as this change (which you voted against and thank you for that) and it's not a pressing crisis (this one obviously wasn't since you set an implementation date of 13 months away) and you're within weeks of a major personnel change on the board, in my opinion you hand it off to the next board so there can be NO possibility of backlash because you're an out-going official.

I might have brought that up already....something along the lines of using parliamentary procedure to table the trigger pull discussion and vote until the next BOD meeting.

You are correct about the table motion. I think Chuck was trying to find STFU in Roberts Rules of Order about that time

I thought Chuck had said somebody else, maybe the Prez???, gave him the STFU comment or look or both right before the vote.

At least I thought I read that...I am probably wrong...

No, you read it wrong. Before the vote it was a pretty decent dialouge. After the vote I got a bit heated resulting in the STFU. Not saying I didn't have it coming. I was interrupting another member and was certainly out of order. Just saying what happened.

[George Jones]

Finally, Mark. I'll take my lumps for not stopping or tabling this decision. To be honest, I misread the BOD. When Mike proposed it I honestly thought it was a, "this is such a stupid idea, lets just vote on it so we can get it on the record there is no support for it," vote. You should have seen my face when your AD voted yes. Numbers wise she was the passing vote, 7 and 8 were just lumping on. I was completely stunned. I don't think it was a good idea to have voted for the trigger pull limit or to have voted at the time. My only defense of the action was that I know my fellow BOD members did not just pull this out of their butts without any member input. It absolutely could have done better (although I suspect if it had been done better it wouldn't have been done at all). Believe me, it's a weird place to be to support an action you completely don't agree with. But I will. If I continue to be in the minority on this and we have to institute a trigger pull limit, I'm going to do everything I can to make sure it's as workable as possible. Being on a BOD is an interesting job. You argue your point during the meeting, you can even argue it after, but if the vote doesn't go your way, you still need to support it.

Oh, that brings back so many memories.....

[Chills1994]

wgnoyes wrote:

I'm saying that when you have something that can have such far reaching implications as this change (which you voted against and thank you for that) and it's not a pressing crisis (this one obviously wasn't since you set an implementation date of 13 months away) and you're within weeks of a major personnel change on the board, in my opinion you hand it off to the next board so there can be NO possibility of backlash because you're an out-going official.

I might have brought that up already....something along the lines of using parliamentary procedure to table the trigger pull discussion and vote until the next BOD meeting.

You are correct about the table motion. I think Chuck was trying to find STFU in Roberts Rules of Order about that time

I thought Chuck had said somebody else, maybe the Prez???, gave him the STFU comment or look or both right before the vote.

At least I thought I read that...I am probably wrong...

No, you read it wrong. Before the vote it was a pretty decent dialouge. After the vote I got a bit heated resulting in the STFU. Not saying I didn't have it coming. I was interrupting another member and was certainly out of order. Just saying what happened.

Okie...doke...I stand corrected then. Thanks for clearing that up. By the way, I wasn't trying to say any one in particular was trying to railroad this through.

[wgnoyes]

[...

That's great, but we can't do that. The USPSA BOD doesn't have the money, or need to meet every couple months. The 13 month implementation date was simply because of the need to post this to members (which BTW Pat, is how USPSA is required to announce rule changes. That way everyone who gets the Official Newsletter has them.) ...

Oh I understand the 13 month lag completely; it just bears the added proof that this wasn't a crisis decision that had to be made RIGHT NOW.

But the fact is you DO meet many more times than twice a year now. There have already been a great many rules changes made in phone meetings and electronic meetings. And especially, the platform on which electronic meetings run is wholly owned and hosted by uspsa.org and therefore costs nothing to use, so budgetary considerations do not apply here.

[Nik Habicht]

^^^ you won't get DQ'ed, you'll just get bumped to open instead.

I don't get this either... If you have an open sight (iron sight) gun it would be reasonable to be bumped to Limited or Limited 10, but Open... WHY???

I can think of a few reasons: It's very hard to not have a gun be suitable for Open. The rule probably dates back to when Limited was created. You need to have some place for Limited shooters to go, if they bust their divisional guidelines, and consistency (all divisions move to open) makes sense. In the event that a competitor is cheating, the move to open is punitive. In the event the competitor is not cheating, and just made a good faith error, well, the move to Open will be memorable, and will ensure there's no repetition....

And lastly -- as mentioned above -- it's required by 6.2.5.1

[Nik Habicht]

So my point is the limitations the Board of Directors came up with it just the opposite of what reasonable people would expect. If the point of Production is to allow people to "run what they brung", then any action type should have been allowed. If you allow any action type, you have to allow modifications to the trigger pull of one kind or another to make up for what one manufacturer or another does to their particular trigger assembly to make it better, because that is what any sane person who will shoot a gun with any knowledge will do to it. Seeing as how Production Division is limited to several action types (I mean really... Glocks and XD's are double action... Puuulllleeessse!), then what an owner does to the trigger parts should be nobody's business except if they are unsafe. I could understand the restriction of not allowing 1911/2011 types 11 years ago as they were very much better in the trigger department at that time. Given the factory and aftermarket parts available today for other types I don't see that anymore, and for the sake of progress and to encourage the use of any produced product and for the manufacturers to make them better as well, it seems arcane. Still, if you wish to exclude 1911/2011 types because you feel the others cannot compete, then they never will because there is no incentive to make a $500-$750 gun shoot as well as a $1200-$2500 gun, except that today they do if you allow trigger mods.

Following your the logic that any action type should allowed, and any modifications are allowed, then somebody can pick up a stock CZ-75B or Beretta 92FS which are DA/SA and on the approved list, and convert it to SA only without making externally visible changes, and it should still be legal in Production since the latest PDF of the rules has accidentally omitted the "No prototypes. No single action pistols." rule. Granted that there maybe a disadvantage with starting with the hammer down and having to manually cock the hammer for the first shot, but that's something that can't be overcome with training.

Ah... but further up I said if it were produced that way... a type of action that is a production gun from the manufacturer. Thus single action types should, to my mind, also be allowed like EAA single actions or even 1911/2011 types as well as double/single, double only, single only, striker fired etc...

There are already four divisions where the Single Action auto is either dominant or not competitively disadvantaged. Your argument makes as much sense as suggesting we allow them in Revolver....

[moverfive]

[...

That's great, but we can't do that. The USPSA BOD doesn't have the money, or need to meet every couple months. The 13 month implementation date was simply because of the need to post this to members (which BTW Pat, is how USPSA is required to announce rule changes. That way everyone who gets the Official Newsletter has them.) ...

Oh I understand the 13 month lag completely; it just bears the added proof that this wasn't a crisis decision that had to be made RIGHT NOW.

But the fact is you DO meet many more times than twice a year now. There have already been a great many rules changes made in phone meetings and electronic meetings. And especially, the platform on which electronic meetings run is wholly owned and hosted by uspsa.org and therefore costs nothing to use, so budgetary considerations do not apply here.

Exactly Bill, for the reasons you just listed, these are EXCUSES as opposed to legitimate reasons for passing this rule without membership input and doing so far in advance of its actual implementation.

If the BOD was serious about having legitimate discussions, giving the membership time to provide feedback - there could be a proposal made via an electronic meeting (or some similar form), the proposal could then be made public via meeting agenda (allowing for some initial feedback or areas of concern to be asked), and then the proposal could be discussed at the next actual BOD meeting where all points could be debated, then the issue could be presented to the membership for final feedback, and then a final vote via electronic means. Given the schedule of the actual meeting, that entire process could take as little as 3 to 4 months from start to finish, with no extra costs, and no extra meetings (other than electronic ones potentially).

What I would like to see (as many have also suggested) is the BOD coming up with procedures to allow more membership input, especially for such issues as rule changes...as opposed to reasons for lack of it. And when the BOD continues making missteps, like this 3lb rule change, it erodes the confidence membership has in USPSA's leadership and thus the feeling of actually being involved......and then we wonder why we only have a 30% response rate in elections.

[38SuperDub]

So I've been lurking and reading a lot. I do not shoot production but have a question.

What happens to all the current classifiers? Is if fair that the 100% mark for the specific classifiers were maybe made with a gun and trigger that I'm not allowed to have? Although it may have not made a difference I wouldn think to be fair you have to get new standards for production classifiers.

Just my .02