Holstered gun...during fall

[Flexmoney]

Jim, I admire the lengths you are willing to go to for the sport (oh...my mistake...reading your post...I now see that the stick is in the holster lol )

Seriously, this seems to be a pretty vaild question.

As Nik pointed out, we have a few USPSA classifers that fit this bill...as well as stages at matches all over the country.

I can't believe that we would want to take the practical aspect of "sitting with a holstered gun" out of our bag of tricks?

[Vince Pinto]

I stated that the section titles are merely to be used as an indicator for the reader, but that the rules must be followed litterally.

Precisely. The chapter headings are, well, just chapter headings - they are not rules.

Moreover, in case it's not already apparent to you, the Rules Committee did some reshuffling last time, and we used Section 10.4 to group all DQ offences which involve a gun going "bang", and Section 10.5 to group all DQ offences which do not involve a gun going "bang".

[Vince Pinto]

Vince, that's dandy --- but there's a few smart people in USPSA too --- and they managed to approve classifiers that start the shooter seated and holstered.

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree, and at no time did I suggest otherwise.

Moreover, I did not suggest that chair starts with a holstered gun are illegal. What I explained was that my SOP for chair starts is to have the gun on a table or another object, and the primary reason is actually to minimise the risk that a competitor in Open Division with a "crotch rocket" will be sweeping himself while he's waiting for the Start Signal or on the draw.

To me, it's simply not worth taking easily avoidable risks with safety, and it's most definitely not worth the aggravation, because competitors and ROs have enough things to worry about without having to risk a match DQ, or having to move or change their holsters, or to cancel a stage, just because of an ill conceived start position.

Tell me, what percentage of stages in a typical match in the USA use seated starts, and would it mean the end of IPSC as we know, or would it cause those stages to be less fun or less challenging if the gun was placed on a table?

Anyway, the images above depict a guy with a rearward canted holster, who apparently must double-over as if he has a severe case of cramps when rising. In my experience, I've never witnessed any competitor adopting such a launch position from a "regular" chair, but I guess it's possible, and this is why I answered the question posed as I did.

Nevertheless, the key issue in this thread is Rule 10.5.2, which does not have an exemption for pointing a loaded and holstered gun uprange beyond the 1 metre "wiggle zone". This is a fact which cannot be disputed. Flex then asked if anybody would support such an exemption being included, and the answers thus far have been 100% "Nay".

However if, after all I've said, you'd like to vote "Yea", I'll still love you like a brother and buy you a beer or three when we finally meet.

[Nik Habicht]

Nevertheless, the key issue in this thread is Rule 10.5.2, which does not have an exemption for pointing a loaded and holstered gun uprange beyond the 1 metre "wiggle zone". This is a fact which cannot be disputed.

QUOTE (Garfield @ Nov 19 2004, 03:15 PM)

I stated that the section titles are merely to be used as an indicator for the reader, but that the rules must be followed litterally. 

Vince wrote:

Precisely. The chapter headings are, well, just chapter headings - they are not rules.

Actually, since you wish us to interpret the rules literally, if we follow 10.5.2 we shall have to disqualify anyone who uses a holster that points the muzzle of a handgun past the 180 at any time. 10.5.2. is in direct conflict with 10.5.6 --- which is not cited as an exemption to 10.5.2. 10.5.2. also appears to be in conflict with 5.2.7.3. Is that what you guys on the rules committee had in mind? 'Cause you seem to be saying that it's unacceptable to ever point the muzzle past the 180 in one place, and then a couple of paragraphs down you've got a different rule that suggests that during the draw or reholster, it's only a problem if you break the 180 past a specific standard.

Because of that conflict, and the fact that all of the Dq'able offenses listed in the 10.5 section with the exception of 10.5.12 and 10.5.13 require the shooter to be actively handling the gun, if I were ever to be DQ'd for falling and having the muzzle of my holstered blaster break the 180, I think I'd have an argument for arbitration by suggesting that an Unsafe Gun Handling DQ requires me to actually handle the gun as I break the 180. In other words, I'd argue that I can't be DQ'd for falling down and having the muzzle passively break the 180 while the gun remains in the holster.

Of course, realizing that the 10.5 rules are intended as possible examples, and not as the definitive list of every way to handle a gun unsafely, I probably wouldn't file the arb ---- because I'd almost guarantee it would be a loser. Seems to me though, that on the next rules re-write 10.5.2 and 10.5.6 should be considered for consolidation and integration......

I'd be happy to buy you a beer --- you'd get off with buying me fancy bottled water though....

[Vince Pinto]

Nik,

As I stated on an earlier page, Rule 5.2.7.3 is indeed an exception to Rule 10.5.2, and even one of my regular sparring partners (the upside down one from Ohio who didn't need to finance his gun!) agrees with me (which is why I bought a lottery ticket today). However, for the avoidance of doubt, my "To Do" list of proposed handgun rule improvements which I'll be submitting to my Rules Committee colleagues today (in advance of our meeting next week in Bali), includes the following:

10.5.2 If at any time during the course of fire, a competitor allows the muzzle of his handgun to point rearwards, that is further than 90 degrees from the median intercept of the backstop, or in the case of no backstop, allows the muzzle to point up range, whether the firearm is loaded or not (exception: see Rule 5.2.7.3).

-:and I hope this helps.

[Jim Norman]

My personal feeling is this:

IF the gun meets the stated critreria for muzzle angle and position, then as long as the gun is holstered and the competitor has not started to remove hte gun from the holster, then there is no DQ.

Some one else commented that the exemption actually needs to be much broader. If my holster points FORWARD, there is no concern, however what happens in a back tothe berm start? I would again stat that I think the current rules need only a clarification that as long as the draw has not begun, then there is no foul.

If we are trying to eliminate all risk, we will soon be playing our game witih our fingers pointing at targets shouting bang. We play a game that uses guns and athletics combined. THere is a risk involved, albeit not a great one, I was in much more danger rock climbing or during my involvement racing motorcylces or teaching TeaKwonDo.

Lets not add anymore rules. Lets apply a little bit of common sense to what we have. I would amend the muzzle angle rule as follows:

The muzzle of a holstered gun must point towards the ground finin 1 meter of a point directly below the gun when worn in the position that it will be worn in during the competition, this measurement when and if taken will be made with the shooter standing naturally erect. If at any time the muzzle of the gun breaks the 1 meter line past the 180 except while the gun is still fully holstered a match DQ will result.

As an aside, how many of you have a gun in a drawer, drop safe or holster loaded and ready to go, have had said gun for years and think nothing of it. Do you live in fear it will go off when you pick it p? or walk past it or bup your nightstand while vacuuming?

Jim Norman

Jim Norman

[Vince Pinto]

Well folks, I'm done with this topic, because the same arguments are just being restated, so these are my final comments:

Some one else commented that the exemption actually needs to be much broader. If my holster points FORWARD, there is no concern, however what happens in a back tothe berm start?

Yes, there is, because Rule 5.2.7.3 does not use the word "rearwards", so the 1 meter allowance applies in all directions, regardless of which way the competitor is facing.

If we are trying to eliminate all risk, we will soon be playing our game witih our fingers pointing at targets shouting bang.

No. What we have repeatedly stated is that having the muzzle of a loaded gun pointed directly uprange in excess of the existing allowance is unacceptable, regardless of the circumstances, and I don't think I can state it any clearer.

And I now bid thee farewell from this topic .....

[Nik Habicht]

Nik,

As I stated on an earlier page, Rule 5.2.7.3 is indeed an exception to Rule 10.5.2, and even one of my regular sparring partners (the upside down one from Ohio who didn't need to finance his gun!) agrees with me (which is why I bought a lottery ticket today). However, for the avoidance of doubt, my "To Do" list of proposed handgun rule improvements which I'll be submitting to my Rules Committee colleagues today (in advance of our meeting next week in Bali), includes the following:

10.5.2 If at any time during the course of fire, a competitor allows the muzzle of his handgun to point rearwards, that is further than 90 degrees from the median intercept of the backstop, or in the case of no backstop, allows the muzzle to point up range, whether the firearm is loaded or not (exception: see Rule 5.2.7.3).

-:and I hope this helps.

Vince,

for clarity's sake I think you need to mention 10.5.6 in the same place, as an exemption, or you've got to make it go away. My preference would probably be for incorporation --- since it deals with a specific action by the shooter, as does 10.5.2.

[Jim Norman]

The point that the one meter exemton is not direction based is not really that critical. If I am facing down range and I draw, my muzzle is not going to break past any line that will get me DQ'd, whereas if I am using a holster that points slightley rearward or even straight vertical, the simple act of sitting down or rising from seated could easily have the muzzle of my still holstered gun point uprange. The old rule book had 10.3.8 which specifically addressed the muzzle of a loaded firearm WHILE holstering or drawing. As long as the competitor was not drawing the gun he was OK. I would say that that is what we need to go back to.

The other problem I am having is the semantical portion of the discussion, We allow, but don't allow a 180 break. Some are saying that under no circumstances can the muzzle ever point past the 90/180 while in the same paragraph they allow for the muzzle to point past while standing erect.

Now do we really want to make the 180 a carved in stone, line in the sand, drop dead line?

Think real hard on this. If we do, then all vertical holsters are disallowed and all rearward canted holsters are definately disallowed. The one meter rule would need to be changed to read "in front of the competitor". A vertical holster worn on the hip will break 180 with only a slight bend. Now we can either allow this or we have to make a radical change to the sport. You cannot have it both ways.

I am in favor of the following:

The muzzle of the holstered gun may not point at a point more than one meter beyond a point directly below the attachment point of the holster to the gunbelt in any direction while the shooter is standing naturally erect with hands at sides. No competitor shall be disqualified from a match if the muzzle of his still holstered gun points beyond this point in any direction during the COF while the competitor is assuming the start position or moving from the start position to the shooting position. A competitor may not begin his draw while the gun is pointing UPRANGE beyond the one meter cirlce exemption.

Some of you rulebook writers can clean up the language a bit. but this allows us to actually move with our gun on and continue to enjoy the type of starts that we have all come to know and love.

Jim Norman