New Rules Posted for Member Comment

[motosapiens]

I can't find anything that says the "Make Ready" location has to be the same spot as the start position. It is up to the CRO on the course of fire.

Good point. I hadn't thought of that and simply *assumed* that they were the same, but that's a great thing for the CRO to think about on some stages.

[Poppa Bear]

I posted on USPSA about adding a statement to the effect of: Range Officials are permitted to use a "Make Ready" location separate from the "Start location"

[beltjones]

Someone help me out here.

I didn't see a mention of the Paint-in-the-magwell thing for production. Have they dropped this, or will it still be prohibited?

[beltjones]

Also, procedurally, do all the old rulings on the website and interpretations in Front Sight expire once a new rule book comes out?

[Bunchies95]

Someone help me out here.

I didn't see a mention of the Paint-in-the-magwell thing for production. Have they dropped this, or will it still be prohibited?

Didn't that fall under refinishing of the frame for a competitive advantage?

Also, procedurally, do all the old rulings on the website and interpretations in Front Sight expire once a new rule book comes out?

I would expect that they have to as the rulings pertain to that particular rulebook. Besides, all the rulings that I quickly looked at were incorporated into the new rule book.

[beltjones]

Someone help me out here.

I didn't see a mention of the Paint-in-the-magwell thing for production. Have they dropped this, or will it still be prohibited?

Didn't that fall under refinishing of the frame for a competitive advantage?

Also, procedurally, do all the old rulings on the website and interpretations in Front Sight expire once a new rule book comes out?

I would expect that they have to as the rulings pertain to that particular rulebook. Besides, all the rulings that I quickly looked at were incorporated into the new rule book.

Ah. There it is. It wasn't red or highlighted or anything.

[Tim/GA]

... Wish they hadn't removed the round count exemption for level I matches (though I understand it). Maybe they could put a process to get a waiver in for special matches (Colorado 300 comes to mind) so they could still be shot under the USPSA banner.

I don't read it that they removed the ability to have long courses with more than 32 rounds in Level 1 and 2 matches (not sure what the Colorado 300 is rated as but I assume Level 2). There is a period after the round count sentence so the added "At any level match" applies to the 8 round part, not the max rounds.

[caspian guy]

... Wish they hadn't removed the round count exemption for level I matches (though I understand it). Maybe they could put a process to get a waiver in for special matches (Colorado 300 comes to mind) so they could still be shot under the USPSA banner.

I don't read it that they removed the ability to have long courses with more than 32 rounds in Level 1 and 2 matches (not sure what the Colorado 300 is rated as but I assume Level 2). There is a period after the round count sentence so the added "At any level match" applies to the 8 round part, not the max rounds.

Good point... I missed the position of the period.

[kmca]

When are these new rules scheduled to go into effect?

[sperman]

When are these new rules scheduled to go into effect?

Did you read post #1 in this thread?

[kmca]

When are these new rules scheduled to go into effect?

Did you read post #1 in this thread?

Yes I did. Maybe I'm not understanding but it says "2013 (2014?)", after a 90 day comment period, some tweaking and then the board vote. So does that mean it's effective 1/1/2014 or some other date?

[wgnoyes]

When are these new rules scheduled to go into effect?

Did you read post #1 in this thread?

Yes I did. Maybe I'm not understanding but it says "2013 (2014?)", after a 90 day comment period, some tweaking and then the board vote. So does that mean it's effective 1/1/2014 or some other date?

You don't know. I don't know. After we hash it out for 3 months, they'll go back and consider changes and then have a final approval vote sometime after that, to become effective sometime after that. Depends on how fast things move after the 3 months. Since it isn't specifically written down, any guess as to an effective date is complete guesswork. So bottom line, when do they go into effect? You don't know.

Edited July 11, 2013 by wgnoyes

[Poppa Bear]

When are these new rules scheduled to go into effect?

Did you read post #1 in this thread?

Yes I did. Maybe I'm not understanding but it says "2013 (2014?)", after a 90 day comment period, some tweaking and then the board vote. So does that mean it's effective 1/1/2014 or some other date?

You don't know. I don't know. After we hash it out for 3 months, they'll go back and consider changes and then have a final approval vote sometime after that, to become effective sometime after that. Depends on how fast things move after the 3 months. Since it isn't specifically written down, any guess as to an effective date is complete guesswork. So bottom line, when do they go into effect? You don't know.

Being as the 90 days is up around the beginning of October, if you had to guess would you go for a 2014 effective date or 2015?

[Jaxshooter]

Some time in 2014.

[sperman]

I would hope they would have them ready to go no later than 1/1/2014, but that may be a bit optimistic.

[Poppa Bear]

I think if we do our part and critique the revised rules properly, to include revision language that clarifies our concerns, that the process would be as simple as approving those revisions. Even if the books are not ready to be printed by 1/1/2014, I would hope that a pdf could be published on the web by then.

[Tim/GA]

One thing about when they go into effect, some already are (if I am correct) as they were the ones already voted on and put out by the board. They are included in this rule book.

[Nik Habicht]

I would hope they would have them ready to go no later than 1/1/2014, but that may be a bit optimistic.

It probably is. Let's look at both what Troy said, and then the requirements as laid out in the USPSA bylaws:

Rules are up for a 90 day member comment period -- I think that's fabulous. Then the board needs to vote on them, and I don't think that will happen on day 91, as there will likely need to be some board discussion. Assuming that the Revolver Division proposed changes get folded in, the bylaws require that changes to division equipment need to be published in Front Sight three months prior to becoming effective. I assume there's a bit of lead time required to get the changes published.

If the Revolver changes aren't folded in, and just the language from the interpretations regarding divisional equipment are incorporated into the rulebook, I think a strict reading of the bylaws still requires Front Sight publication, followed by three months before the rules become effective.

By that reasoning 01/01/2014 is impossible. 02/01/2014 is probably too tight, somewhere around March or April is probably the earliest the rules could be effective....

[Sarge]

Rules are up for a 90 day member comment period -- I think that's fabulous.

Agreed. What a great organization!

[sperman]

I would hope they would have them ready to go no later than 1/1/2014, but that may be a bit optimistic.

It probably is. Let's look at both what Troy said, and then the requirements as laid out in the USPSA bylaws:

Rules are up for a 90 day member comment period -- I think that's fabulous. Then the board needs to vote on them, and I don't think that will happen on day 91, as there will likely need to be some board discussion. Assuming that the Revolver Division proposed changes get folded in, the bylaws require that changes to division equipment need to be published in Front Sight three months prior to becoming effective. I assume there's a bit of lead time required to get the changes published.

If the Revolver changes aren't folded in, and just the language from the interpretations regarding divisional equipment are incorporated into the rulebook, I think a strict reading of the bylaws still requires Front Sight publication, followed by three months before the rules become effective.

By that reasoning 01/01/2014 is impossible. 02/01/2014 is probably too tight, somewhere around March or April is probably the earliest the rules could be effective....

I forgot about the 90 days required for division changes. You're timeline makes sense.

[davidwiz]

I had a battleaxe at the Nationals one year call the RM on me b/c I used my fingers as ear protection (I was in the on-deck squad watching). She didn't notice that the CRO on the next shared stage was doing the same thing (who was the same person who instructed my RO class) Can we get 5.4.1 to address this issue?

[MoNsTeR]

... Wish they hadn't removed the round count exemption for level I matches (though I understand it). Maybe they could put a process to get a waiver in for special matches (Colorado 300 comes to mind) so they could still be shot under the USPSA banner.

I don't read it that they removed the ability to have long courses with more than 32 rounds in Level 1 and 2 matches (not sure what the Colorado 300 is rated as but I assume Level 2). There is a period after the round count sentence so the added "At any level match" applies to the 8 round part, not the max rounds.

The Rocky Mountain 300 has always been run as a Level I. The new wording would seem to imply we could apply for Level II as long as we strictly complied with the 8-rounds-per-position rule.

[caspian guy]

... Wish they hadn't removed the round count exemption for level I matches (though I understand it). Maybe they could put a process to get a waiver in for special matches (Colorado 300 comes to mind) so they could still be shot under the USPSA banner.

I don't read it that they removed the ability to have long courses with more than 32 rounds in Level 1 and 2 matches (not sure what the Colorado 300 is rated as but I assume Level 2). There is a period after the round count sentence so the added "At any level match" applies to the 8 round part, not the max rounds.

The Rocky Mountain 300 has always been run as a Level I. The new wording would seem to imply we could apply for Level II as long as we strictly complied with the 8-rounds-per-position rule.

Yep... I went back and looked at it. I think you are right.

[ss+P]

ok i am trying to log onto the USPSA forums, but my computer isn't lett me do so. So i will post here. Cha-Lee you brought up 8.1.2.4 change and i agree with what you said. i also think they need to add something about after you un-load and show clear the hammer is down and the safety will not engage. i know that common sense tells us that everyone knows that, but i don't think they do. Just as the rule about magazine position was mis-interpreted in the production division and you could be moved to open if it was in your front pocket at the load and make ready command.

I just don't want to see anyone get DQed for not haveing the safety on when the safety won't even go on. probably won't happen, but it could so just a little word change could keep it from happening.

[sperman]

You have to create an account on the USPSA forums. It will not use your USPSA website login, or the old Deadeye - Opportunity login.