Local rules vs. USPSA rule book

[gng4life]

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

Not to beat a dead horse but there a local rule - that is to comply with legislation or legal precedent. If there is an exception, that means the statement is not absolute. That would mean there is at least one rule since there is an exception.

I don't want to go in circles with this thing but basically it boils down to this; Rule 3.3 states that host organizations may not enforce local rules EXCEPT to comply with...yada yada yada. The question needing the most attention is how is this EXCEPTION satisfied? A precedent is nothing more than a ruling in a similar incident that can be used at a later time as a basis for ruling. If there has been a precedent set in this situation and a judicial body ruled that it was illegal, would that constitute the "precedent exception" in Rule 3.3?

Honestly, I think 3.3 should be re-written to better clarify what the intent was since I am pretty sure the intent was not something along these lines but that's the way it is.

And I do agree with you that no matter what USPSA club you go to, it should be run the same exact way but that would be in a perfect world and we are far from it. We just have to do the best we can. Thanks!

[JAFO]

I don't think a private range being able to bring charges against someone for willful destruction of their property is a legal precedent. The range is choosing to take legal action here. There is no federal, state, or local law that prohibits shooting props, it's the ranges private policy (and their right). Hence, there's no "legislation or legal precedent in the applicable jurisdiction" here. Unless you want to cite laws against destruction of private property, but they exist everywhere. DQ'ing someone for shooting a prop doesn't.

If your policy is to DQ someone for willfully shooting a prop to avoid getting the club kicked off the range, I think you'd need to state that explicitly in the shooter's meeting (and probably put it in the RO notes on every SD), and then DQ under 10.6. Maybe you already do this.

Edited May 17, 2013 by JAFO

[whitedog]

Yes...should be brought up at shooters meeting at least. Unless you already do this. In that case it sounds ok.

[Nik Habicht]

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

How do you distinguish between a shot through a wall, and a miss that results in a full diameter wall hit next to a port? Is 2 inches in ok, but two feet in a DQ? That's why DNROI is saying no DQ for shooting a prop....

[Nik Habicht]

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

DQ under what rule?

[professor]

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.

Stage descriptions written to specify "All walls and props are hard cover". Shoot through the cover on the port and hit a paper target, and it doesn't count for score. Hit a steel popper and the stage has to be reshot for Range Equipment Failure. Same goes for shooting through mesh walls of every type. As hard cover, any shot taken through them does not count for score or forces a reshoot. The only thing you can legally shoot through and score are the target sticks of paper targets.

[whitedog]

Hard cover....great solution I think. There would be no point in doing it if there was no advantage. Right?

[mactiger]

... 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...

I'm not sure I understand your question completely, but there are several of our rules that cover this kind of situation. While shooting a prop is not, in and of itself, a DQ, firing a shot when there is no target visible would be, under 10.4.6, or 10.5.10 possibly. But as Flex stated, good course design can prevent a lot of this. You could certainly declare it a Forbidden Action, and even a DQ under 10.6.1 (seems to me that "don't shoot that prop to activate..." are reasonable directions.

I realize that some host ranges put certain restrictions on the USPSA clubs that use their facilities; effort has to be made to comply with those restrictions while still staying within the USPSA rule book, otherwise you are not running a USPSA match.

[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

DQ under what rule?

See Troy's response above

[ac4wordplay]

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

...

... While shooting a prop is not, in and of itself, a DQ, firing a shot when there is no target visible would be, under 10.4.6, or 10.5.10 possibly. ...

"While shooting a prop is not, in and of itself, a DQ, firing a shot when there is no target visible would be, under 10.4.6, or 10.5.10 possibly."

Very interesting...

[JAFO]

Unfortunately, both 10.4.6 or 10.5.10 assume the shooter is moving to a position to see the targets. There doesn't seem to be a rule regarding the possibility of DQ'ing a shooter who accidentally fires a shot while standing still. The rules in 10.4 cover ADs that could be stationary during the draw (most often covered by 10.4.2), reloading (10.4.3), remedial action (10.4.4), or switching hands (10.4.5).

I RO'd one (shooter-admitted) AD from a shelf start on a stationary stage (Mini-Mart classifier). It wasn't covered by 10.4.2 because the shot hit the berm, and the gun was already loaded on the table, so it didn't fall under 10.4.3. He DQ'd himself, but had he not, I don't think I could have per the rules.

In the case of the stage in the thread this discussion was split from, the shooter was considering drawing and shooting the port covers (no targets visible) from the start position while standing still. I think this is a case that would have to have been declared a FA or stated as a reasonable instruction of a match official. Disregard of either (assuming flagrant disregard of the FA) would allow you to DQ under 10.6.

But if you went with FA and didn't declare it until someone actually did it, you couldn't DQ the first person who did. They get to reshoot per 3.2.6.1.

Edited May 20, 2013 by JAFO

[ac4wordplay]

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

...

... While shooting a prop is not, in and of itself, a DQ, firing a shot when there is no target visible would be, under 10.4.6, or 10.5.10 possibly. ...

"While shooting a prop is not, in and of itself, a DQ, firing a shot when there is no target visible would be, under 10.4.6, or 10.5.10 possibly."

Very interesting...

It seems reasonable to paraphrase that statement as:

firing a shot when there is no target visible would be a DQ under 10.4.6 (or possibly 10.5.10)

Really? Did I misunderstand the statement? If applied (as stated above) to a competitor, would this withstand a challenge/arbitration?

So, the RO needs to know if a target is visible at the instant a shot is fired? Visible to who... the competitor? As mentioned by JAFO, 10.4.6 and 10.5.10 have requirements that include movement. Is 'target visibility' listed as one of those requirements? A competitor who fires a shot at (for example) a moving target that isn't visible at the instant the shot is fired... is DQd?

Please help me out - I'm confused.

[ac4wordplay]

I'm still confused by the statement - anybody have thoughts?

[Poppa Bear]

My take on it is the visibility of any targets. As an example: The shooter is moving past an 8 foot wall that blocks ALL targets. A shot is fired. We have a good case for a dq for finger on trigger while moving. If the shooter fires several shots in an attempt to create a hole to shoot through we have an argument for illegal modification of stage props.

Now in the OP we have a stage where the targets are hidden behind a wall. Once the port covers are removed we have visible targets, but until then they are hidden so shooting the port covers is not engaging the targets because they are not visible.

[Joe4d]

if you dont want it shot, dont put it down range. Thats why we build props out of cheap, scrounged, and recycled materials. just assume its gonna get destroyed.
Sounds like this whole thread is sour grapes over bad stage design.

[gng4life]

if you dont want it shot, dont put it down range. Thats why we build props out of cheap, scrounged, and recycled materials. just assume its gonna get destroyed.

Sounds like this whole thread is sour grapes over bad stage design.

Not sour grapes, just trying to learn from a situation. We try to use recycled or rehashed materials but many times, that is not possible. It is expensive to build props and all the hard work that goes into it. There was no bad stage design unless you like stages without props and we can just have targets in the open field. This was looking into when a range rule may come into play versus a USPSA rule and it stemmed from a stage where a shooter could have shot up props intentionally, just to save a few tenths of a second. Not bad stage design but more of bad intentions from unsportsmanlike conduct.

[ac4wordplay]

My take on it is the visibility of any targets. As an example: The shooter is moving past an 8 foot wall that blocks ALL targets. A shot is fired. We have a good case for a dq for finger on trigger while moving. ...

I tried that too. I overlooked any mention of target "visibility" (or 'blocked targets') in the rulebook and certainly couldn't find it in 10.4.6 or 10.5.10, and there are the other obvious problems with applying that reasoning...

... so I thought there might be something else...?

[sperman]

if you dont want it shot, dont put it down range. Thats why we build props out of cheap, scrounged, and recycled materials. just assume its gonna get destroyed.

Sounds like this whole thread is sour grapes over bad stage design.

Not sour grapes, just trying to learn from a situation. We try to use recycled or rehashed materials but many times, that is not possible. It is expensive to build props and all the hard work that goes into it. There was no bad stage design unless you like stages without props and we can just have targets in the open field. This was looking into when a range rule may come into play versus a USPSA rule and it stemmed from a stage where a shooter could have shot up props intentionally, just to save a few tenths of a second. Not bad stage design but more of bad intentions from unsportsmanlike conduct.

Having shot the stage, I will concur that it was not bad stage design. I can't imagine anyone seriously considered shooting the windows open, but anything is possible.