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

Production Division Compliance


beltjones
 Share

Recommended Posts

Can I ask, what is the point of clarifying the verbiage on the form if there is no mechanism (or willingness, seemingly) to enforce it?

Probably because if the form is clarified, then there will be a reason for creating a mechanism for checking compliance. At the moment, there doesn't seem to be any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I ask, what is the point of clarifying the verbiage on the form if there is no mechanism (or willingness, seemingly) to enforce it?

Very true. Even with clarity, couldn't a manufacturer still just sign off on it with any proof? And when suspicions arise, the answer will be the same as before. They signed it, that's all that's required, its legal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I ask, what is the point of clarifying the verbiage on the form if there is no mechanism (or willingness, seemingly) to enforce it?

Probably because if the form is clarified, then there will be a reason for creating a mechanism for checking compliance. At the moment, there doesn't seem to be any.

It's kind of a chicken or the egg thing, although before drafting new legislation, I'd like to see the powers that be enforce the laws we have. Or at least try to enforce them, and respond with changes if they prove unenforceable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I ask, what is the point of clarifying the verbiage on the form if there is no mechanism (or willingness, seemingly) to enforce it?

This one is pretty simple. First, don't assume there is no willingness. More likley ;) ...there are varying degrees of willingness and much debate. For example... Some might feel "available to the general public" is fairly clear. Others might believe that terminology is satisfied with LEO, MIL & Foreign availability. And, perhaps others see the 2k produced as meeting the requirement.

Obviously, there is some lack of clarity somewhere.

Often, I find the lack of consensus between well minded individuals often boils down to a difference in the fundamental idea of a thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I ask, what is the point of clarifying the verbiage on the form if there is no mechanism (or willingness, seemingly) to enforce it?

This one is pretty simple. First, don't assume there is no willingness. More likley ;) ...there are varying degrees of willingness and much debate. For example... Some might feel "available to the general public" is fairly clear. Others might believe that terminology is satisfied with LEO, MIL & Foreign availability. And, perhaps others see the 2k produced as meeting the requirement.

Obviously, there is some lack of clarity somewhere.

Often, I find the lack of consensus between well minded individuals often boils down to a difference in the fundamental idea of a thing.

That clarifies things. However, what will be the mechanism for enforcement? Even with clarified language and agreed-upon intent, won't the outcome be the same as the status quo if someone ever breaks the rule (again)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That clarifies things. However, what will be the mechanism for enforcement? Even with clarified language and agreed-upon intent, won't the outcome be the same as the status quo if someone ever breaks the rule (again)?

What do you suggest? I have some thoughts. But, we need to have a consensus on what we want, before we can enforce it.

[edit]

Let me add to that...

You bring up a good point, there needs to be a mechanism in place for enforcement if* the rule is broken.

* if, not "again".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That clarifies things. However, what will be the mechanism for enforcement? Even with clarified language and agreed-upon intent, won't the outcome be the same as the status quo if someone ever breaks the rule (again)?

What do you suggest?

I don't see a problem with crowd-sourcing the auditing of the forms. There are obviously those among us who like to be the watch dogs... Maybe it's just a matter of publishing the forms online, and letting the membership vet the numbers.

That leads us to penalties. Seeing as how, currently, the penalty for violating the rules of Production are pretty severe (eg, bump to open for pretty much any infraction), I think the penalty for filing a "false" form should be severe as well. I'd like to see match scores vacated for shooters who use a gun that is on the list due to a falsely filed "2000 units" form. It's pretty much only sponsored shooters who get these one-off guns anyway, so it's not like anyone would have to track down hundreds of shooters using the illegal gun. USPSA would simply zero the scores for the shooter after the fact, and it would be up to the shooter to return any prizes or prize money he or she may have won. I strongly doubt this will happen very often for a couple of reasons: 1) even with zero enforcement it still doesn't happen very frequently; 2) the risk of vacating match scores will hopefully deter any sponsored shooters from shooting a questionable gun.

Just my first brain storms, but you asked for ideas, so...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This still happens in other sports, particularly in motor sports, where the item produced for the "company/sponsored team" bears very little resemblance to what is available to the "general public". The other item of the number of production units made begs the question of what does made mean? My personal opinion is that at the very least the number should be units shipped to distributors or sold direct to the public outside of any MIl/Gov/LE/Foreign contracts i.e. units that shipped to the showroom floor as it were. Verification should be available via FFL transfer records and at least at major events there should be some sort of "tech inspection" akin to what is done in motor sports. (Sorry for all the motor sports references but I grew up a 1/2 mile from a NASCAR shop and used to know some of the team guys so I heard a ton about their rules).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know if we got rid of production we wouldn't have this issue!?!?!

(sarcasm)

You should run that by your Area Director. I am sure that would help cement the value of your input.

(sarcasm)

Edited by Flexmoney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honest question here - how does IPSC verify that a gun is legal? Do they just take a manufactures word?

I can't say I know the solution but there has to be some sort of checks and balances for verifying that the information on a form is accurate and truthful.

The BOD / NROI / USPSA HQ then needs to not be afraid to upset a vendor by denying a request, asking for proof, or revoking status when information is found to be incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honest question here - how does IPSC verify that a gun is legal? Do they just take a manufactures word?

I can't say I know the solution but there has to be some sort of checks and balances for verifying that the information on a form is accurate and truthful.

The BOD / NROI / USPSA HQ then needs to not be afraid to upset a vendor by denying a request, asking for proof, or revoking status when information is found to be incorrect.

There must be a way to find a middle ground between zero enforcement and going full Pinto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would prefer not to see sanctions. I think it would be better to insure enforcement up front.

How about the gun isn't approved until 90 days after the form is submitted. This would give the BOD time to confirm availability, and if needed, allow the guns time to work through the pipeline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like that idea - however - the BOD actually needs to confirm availability.

This is extreme but the BOD meets in person what twice a year? What about only doing approvals twice a year - forms must be submitted 90 days prior to BOD in person meeting and they MUST be discussed and vetted at the meeting in order to get on the list.

This would insure they are brought up for discussion. Also post the guns pending approval on the website so members have 90 days to find out if the statements are truthful and can email their AD in advance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would prefer not to see sanctions. I think it would be better to insure enforcement up front.

How about the gun isn't approved until 90 days after the form is submitted. This would give the BOD time to confirm availability, and if needed, allow the guns time to work through the pipeline.

I'm 99% sure this means that suppliers would simply submit the form 90 days early, hoping to have the guns to market by the time the gun became legal. This would make the problem worse, not better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My rambling ideas in an easy to read format:

  • Company must submit production request form 90 days prior to BOD IN PERSON meeting
  • List of guns seeking approval posted on USPSA website for members to see and verify if they wish (at least 60 days prior to IN PERSON meeting)
  • BOD actually discusses EACH gun at IN PERSON meeting
  • ONLY THEN will the gun become legal

This would mean that only twice a year would guns be able to be added to the list. It would give the members a chance to verify info in advance and bring any issues up with their AD. It would also require the BOD to discuss each gun and therefore they are likely to bring up issues that members have voiced to them.

It would suck from the having to wait standpoint but it would insure that more is done to verify the information is correct rather than just taking the vendors word

Edited by bsdubois00
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would prefer not to see sanctions. I think it would be better to insure enforcement up front.

How about the gun isn't approved until 90 days after the form is submitted. This would give the BOD time to confirm availability, and if needed, allow the guns time to work through the pipeline.

I'm 99% sure this means that suppliers would simply submit the form 90 days early, hoping to have the guns to market by the time the gun became legal. This would make the problem worse, not better.

not if "This would give the BOD time to confirm availability" and not sign off if unavailable

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also think the more than NROI needs to do the sign off - this needs to be taken out of the hands of 1 person. JA seems very busy with approving stages, rule changes, etc etc - why not get him some help and take this off of his plate. Get his input on conformity to the rules but leave the ultimate sign off to the BOD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would prefer not to see sanctions. I think it would be better to insure enforcement up front.

How about the gun isn't approved until 90 days after the form is submitted. This would give the BOD time to confirm availability, and if needed, allow the guns time to work through the pipeline.

I'm 99% sure this means that suppliers would simply submit the form 90 days early, hoping to have the guns to market by the time the gun became legal. This would make the problem worse, not better.

not if "This would give the BOD time to confirm availability" and not sign off if unavailable

They can't seem to confirm anything now, what makes you think they will be able to in the future? And at what point have we piled too much on their plates?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Sanctions - No Penalties to shooters. Period

If the approval process gets tightened up, once it is on the list then gun can be used. The problem we have now is the method to get approved is based entirely on the statements of the manufacture and inspection of gun by NROI with no verification as to the truthfulness of the manufactures statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • BOD actually discusses EACH gun at IN PERSON meeting

This would mean that only twice a year would guns be able to be added to the list. It would give the members a chance to verify info in advance and bring any issues up with their AD. It would also require the BOD to discuss each gun and therefore they are likely to bring up issues that members have voiced to them.

I think that is a great idea. This way the BoD is empowered to make sure that the process is followed and nothing gets rushed through at the last minute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The manufacturer should present the actual firearm to the Director-NROI and if it meets specs, put it on the approved list.

"Numbers" mean very little and cannot be easily verified anyway.

Nothing worse than a rule that cannot be readily enforced.

Trying to "make Production what it should be" is a waste of time and a fool's errand.

Someday we will learn our lesson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...