Local rules vs. USPSA rule book

[gng4life]

... but one poster on here suggested it was more of a local rule--which again is not allowed."

Hi Troy, just a question on your statement above...how do we not follow a host range safety rule if they are the ones allowing us to shoot our matches at their range. For example, my host range has rules and set legal precedents for shooters intentionally shooting/destroying property (props included). If a shooter "takes a shortcut" and decides to intentionally shoot a prop to activate a swinger or open a port, could that be considered an FA action or DQ(such as Unsportsmanlike) or would we just ignore it since it's not in our rulebook and risk our own punishment? Would the rule 3.3 (Applicability of Rules) come into play at all or is that only for legal mag restrictions, etc.? Not getting off topic as this applies directly to the OP's question. Thanks for the help...

[Nik Habicht]

Basically, the hosting range agrees to utilize USPSA rules to run matches -- so there are no local rules.

A few years ago, my local club decided that it would no longer allow rounds to impact the bay floors -- i.e. all rounds had to impact between the base and top of the berms. That didn't change anything for competitors -- no one was disqualified for sending a miss into the bay floor; it did impact stage designers, who could no longer use poppers in the middle of the pits, or utilize angled low targets....

So typically, there's a way to balance both concerns....

[gng4life]

Well, yes, there are local rules under 3.3:

"...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..."

Now that's what I was getting at partially...if the host can has prosecuted or taken legal action against an individual and the courts upheld it, is that not a precedent? If there is a willful destruction of property and there is legislation against that action, does that satisfy this exception? If not, what then? Thanks...

[Poppa Bear]

Some of our local rules are no drawing from a holster, no one in front of the common firing line, no cross lane shooting. USPSA safety record being what it is and our desire to keep things safe according to USPSA rules meant that we received permission to disregard these rules and run the matches according to our rules. The big rules we cannot disregard are all rounds must impact the backstop so no shooting the range surface, and at the indoor range steel must have a shroud to contain splatter. This is not a problem because USPSA does not have a rule for or against either of these local requirements.

[Sarge]

Well, yes, there are local rules under 3.3:

"...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..."

Now that's what I was getting at partially...if the host can has prosecuted or taken legal action against an individual and the courts upheld it, is that not a precedent? If there is a willful destruction of property and there is legislation against that action, does that satisfy this exception? If not, what then? Thanks...

I think that is geared towards such things as magazine restrictions in certain states etc. It's talking about jurisdictions not clubs.

[ac4wordplay]

... The big rules we cannot disregard are all rounds must impact the backstop so no shooting the range surface ...

What happens when this is violated? Penalties/repercussions?

[Poppa Bear]

We could lose the ability to shoot there.

Mistakes happen, but intentional acts could lead to us losing the range, or the shooter losing their range privileges. In the latter case it would not be us saying they cannot compete. It would be the range saying they are not allowed on the property.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Poppa Bear

[Nik Habicht]

We could lose the ability to shoot there.

Mistakes happen, but intentional acts could lead to us losing the range, or the shooter losing their range privileges. In the latter case it would not be us saying they cannot compete. It would be the range saying they are not allowed on the property.

So it sounds like you address it mostly with stage design -- so that shots that are aimed at targets, impact in the proper place?

[gng4life]

Poppa, same here, mistakes are just that and no one will fault anyone for that here or anywhere I know of. It's the intentional acts to find a loophole in a stage which then causes damage or violates a range rule is what I am mostly concerned with. If someone does that, even if I can't find a DQ'able offense, they would have to leave the range since I'm responsible for it during match time. I'm not trying to find a way to DQ someone but if I felt it was complete and utter intentional damage, that local law and local range rule would kick in and they would not be shooting there anymore.

Nik, correct, good stage design goes a long way and that's something I'm still trying to get better at every day.

[Poppa Bear]

We could lose the ability to shoot there.

Mistakes happen, but intentional acts could lead to us losing the range, or the shooter losing their range privileges. In the latter case it would not be us saying they cannot compete. It would be the range saying they are not allowed on the property.

So it sounds like you address it mostly with stage design -- so that shots that are aimed at targets, impact in the proper place?

Correct. We all have to design our stages according to the bays layout and applicable safety rules no matter where we shoot. Keeping all bullets inside the bay keeps everyone safer.

[Flexmoney]

Poppa, same here, mistakes are just that and no one will fault anyone for that here or anywhere I know of. It's the intentional acts to find a loophole in a stage which then causes damage or violates a range rule is what I am mostly concerned with. If someone does that, even if I can't find a DQ'able offense, they would have to leave the range since I'm responsible for it during match time. I'm not trying to find a way to DQ someone but if I felt it was complete and utter intentional damage, that local law and local range rule would kick in and they would not be shooting there anymore.

Nik, correct, good stage design goes a long way and that's something I'm still trying to get better at every day.

You don't have to allow your props to get shot up, etc.

If I had a conflict that I couldn't resolve through the rule book, and couldn't allow, I'd pull the stage from the match. I'd design it better next time. Lesson learned.

[gng4life]

Flex, as we all know, there are some shooter that just have to game a stage - I'm referring to those individuals. Case in point about a Level II match that had the possibility of port covers shot out instead of pushed out. Is it a great stage? Absolutely. Would it be pretty crappy to shoot out the covers, damaging props? Yes. Is there a rule that would allow the RO to stop the shooter or DQ? Not directly.

You are right, I don't have to allow it and I won't...thanks

[StealthyBlagga]

Flex, as we all know, there are some shooter that just have to game a stage - I'm referring to those individuals. Case in point about a Level II match that had the possibility of port covers shot out instead of pushed out. Is it a great stage? Absolutely. Would it be pretty crappy to shoot out the covers, damaging props? Yes. Is there a rule that would allow the RO to stop the shooter or DQ? Not directly.

You are right, I don't have to allow it and I won't...thanks

The rule book gives the RM considerable flexibility to deal with willful behavior. In the specific example given above, I would escalate as follows:

1) Better stage design to avoid such problems.

2) Declare it a forbidden action for safety reasons (can't be sure where the bullet will go) per rule 2.3.1.1

3) DQ for an AD if the circumstances fit per rules 10.4.1 (stipulate "unsafe direction" in WSB) or maybe 10.4.6 (if moving)

4) DQ for unsportsmanlike conduct per rule 10.6.1 (if willfully ignoring RO instructions/WSB)

[ac4wordplay]

We could lose the ability to shoot there.

Mistakes happen, but intentional acts could lead to us losing the range, or the shooter losing their range privileges. In the latter case it would not be us saying they cannot compete. It would be the range saying they are not allowed on the property.

This response makes it ("... The big rules we cannot disregard are all rounds must impact the backstop so no shooting the range surface ...") sound more like a request that you try to satisfy, rather than a rule. (I'm not being argumentative - just trying to fully understand for purposes of discussion.)

A club in this area has recently adopted a 'no muzzle over the berm' rule for loaded firearms (development/housing is sprouting up all around the club). It's a 'big rule we cannot disregard'. What happens if/when it's violated? DQ. Shooter mistake or unintentional action? Doesn't matter - still a violation, still a DQ. That's the club requirement, and the events I've seen have enforced it. Because of this rule, and 3.3 (the host club requested presidential consent but was denied), the club can't host USPSA matches. Unfortunate. I do understand the club's safety/liability concerns.

With continued development, it seems that these issues will be increasingly common.

[gng4life]

1) Better stage design to avoid such problems.

In most instances, I agree - I'm not talking about most instances, just the extremes and when it is willful.

2) Declare it a forbidden action for safety reasons (can't be sure where the bullet will go) per rule 2.3.1.1

This is a good way to deal with it but still, let's say you have a willful destruction of club property, they want action and not an FA.

3) DQ for an AD if the circumstances fit per rules 10.4.1 (stipulate "unsafe direction" in WSB) or maybe 10.4.6 (if moving)

Nope, if they are not moving and the targets are directly behind the port, can't use this one.

4) DQ for unsportsmanlike conduct per rule 10.6.1 (if willfully ignoring RO instructions/WSB)

This is what I believe is the best course of action. This allows the shooter know there actions are outside of the gamesmanship of our sport and gets them off the range. This shows the club that I took action and abiding according to the bylaws.

Thanks for the response!

[Poppa Bear]

We could lose the ability to shoot there.

Mistakes happen, but intentional acts could lead to us losing the range, or the shooter losing their range privileges. In the latter case it would not be us saying they cannot compete. It would be the range saying they are not allowed on the property.

This response makes it ("... The big rules we cannot disregard are all rounds must impact the backstop so no shooting the range surface ...") sound more like a request that you try to satisfy, rather than a rule. (I'm not being argumentative - just trying to fully understand for purposes of discussion.)

A club in this area has recently adopted a 'no muzzle over the berm' rule for loaded firearms (development/housing is sprouting up all around the club). It's a 'big rule we cannot disregard'. What happens if/when it's violated? DQ. Shooter mistake or unintentional action? Doesn't matter - still a violation, still a DQ. That's the club requirement, and the events I've seen have enforced it. Because of this rule, and 3.3 (the host club requested presidential consent but was denied), the club can't host USPSA matches. Unfortunate. I do understand the club's safety/liability concerns.

With continued development, it seems that these issues will be increasingly common.

Sorry to hear that.

Edited to add:

You can't fix stupid but we all pay for it. At our indoor range during open shooting we had a guy place a target at normal height and then take a head shot while kneeling. We discovered it because the light fixture had a hole in it that pointed to the baffle behind it. Line the two up and you know what he did.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Poppa Bear

[Flexmoney]

Flex, as we all know, there are some shooter that just have to game a stage - I'm referring to those individuals.

You are right, I don't have to allow it and I won't...thanks

Gaming I am OK with. But...

If I have to pull a stage because somebody is being a dick, I will pull the stage. I will also bring them and the incident up and every shooter's meeting for a year or two.

We all need our ass kicked every now and then...some of us are overdue.

[whitedog]

I believe the host club rules (if reasonable) should be followed. A muzzle over the berm? Tough how we reload, however I understand the logic behind it. If a round goes over the berm the letter from the attorney won't say " Dear Mr. USPSA shooter ". They will go after the range. Happened in Ohio.

Local rules are usually there for a reason, and if people are told of them, and break them, well use any rule that fits to solve it. We don't need to lose more ranges.

[remoandiris]

3) DQ for an AD if the circumstances fit per rules 10.4.1 (stipulate "unsafe direction" in WSB) or maybe 10.4.6 (if moving)

Nope, if they are not moving and the targets are directly behind the port, can't use this one.

Help me understand your thinking on this one. If someone shoots a port cover (was in the original example from a level II match), meaning the port is NOT open and the target is NOT visible thru the port, how is it NOT a DQ offense? The shooter is NOT shooting at a target, they ARE shooting at a port cover. In other words, they are intentionally shooting a prop. IMO, that is a DQ offense.under 10.5. They intentionally shot a prop, not a target.

[gng4life]

3) DQ for an AD if the circumstances fit per rules 10.4.1 (stipulate "unsafe direction" in WSB) or maybe 10.4.6 (if moving)

Nope, if they are not moving and the targets are directly behind the port, can't use this one.

Help me understand your thinking on this one. If someone shoots a port cover (was in the original example from a level II match), meaning the port is NOT open and the target is NOT visible thru the port, how is it NOT a DQ offense? The shooter is NOT shooting at a target, they ARE shooting at a port cover. In other words, they are intentionally shooting a prop. IMO, that is a DQ offense.under 10.5. They intentionally shot a prop, not a target.

I'm with you here but I went over this with an RM and also contacted DNROI and I was told that is not the case. If it is going in a safe direction and happens to go through a prop with a target on the other side of it...nada. Also, there is no rule about shooting a prop, use to be a long time ago but not now...

[JAFO]

I understand that position if the shot happens to go through a prop on the way to a visible target, but what you are talking about is akin to shooting at a target through a solid wall when the target is not visible. Just because you know the target is there because you can see the stand underneath the wall doesn't mean you can purposefully shoot at it. That's an AD.

Edited May 17, 2013 by JAFO

[whitedog]

Yer allowed to shot through stuff? Really? I did not know that. I thought that would not be allowed. Unsafe gun handling I thought.

[gng4life]

Yer allowed to shot through stuff? Really? I did not know that. I thought that would not be allowed. Unsafe gun handling I thought.

Depends...if it's a wall that has no access to the targets behind it, that would be a DQ. This situation is a technically a prop that needs to be pushed out of the way to open the port in a wall with a target right behind it. I was told in that situation, no.

JAFO, I agree

[remoandiris]

I understand that position if the shot happens to go through a prop on the way to a visible target, but what you are talking about is akin to shooting at a target through a solid wall when the target is not visible. Just because you know the target is there because you can see the stand underneath the wall doesn't mean you can purposefully shoot at it. That's an AD.

This reminds me of another thread from many months ago. Shooter engaged a target thru an orange snowfence wall. RM would have to declare FA and shooter would have to reshoot the stage. I think it is BS. Shooter is NOT engaging a target, they are engaging a prop, or hardcover, but not a target. That is how I see it. NROI has the final say, so I am wrong.

[EkuJustice]

There arnt local rules. If its something like the no reloads over the berm etc and uspsa will not grant a variance which they haven't been then sorry to say but the option is to give up the uspsa status and hold outlaw matches and make up whatever rules you want but it shouldn't be a uspsa match. Someone should be able to walk into any club in the country and shoot a uspsa match and be able to shoot the same way with the same rules. 3 gun does all sorts of outlaw matches which can sometimes lead to issues as while somewhat similar there are several different rules about what mags can or can't be used shotgun round count etc but if someone attends a match labeled as uspsa there should be zero confusion