New rule 3.3.1 for 2014 rulebook.

[Chuck Anderson]

This may have already been covered by something someone said, but I want to make sure I understand. A match is held in a state that has a 10 round mag limit but permits pre-ban ownership. So some residents may legally have a 20 round mag and others may not. The state also allows people from out of state to bring high cap mags.

At a match, 10 people show up to shoot limited:

1. The MD must set the capacity limit at 10, regardless.

2. The MD must set the capacity limit at 10, but only if there is at least one person who cannot legally own a larger mag.

3. The MD can leave the the limit alone and tell anyone with restricted mags to shoot L10

At the same match, 10 people show up to shoot open:

1. The MD must set the capacity limit at 10, regardless.

2. The MD must set the capacity limit at 10, but only if there is at least one person who cannot legally own a larger mag.

If the law allows pre-ban, it is legal to shoot preban mags. The rule wouldn't apply. If the law doesn't allow preban, preban aren't allowed and the rule would apply. There is no provision for restricting it because someone chooses not to buy preban mags.

[Mark R]

Well now I'm confused. If the <Edit add: state> law says 10 is the limit, then shouldn't the limit be 10? Pre-ban is for ownership only I thought???

Edited October 10, 2013 by Mark R

[Flexmoney]

Flex,

Did you read this thread on the USPSA forums? There were a lot of people questioning 3.3.1 over the last 90 days.

I did. And, I just re-read it again (I should be working) with special respect to this rule. To be honest, some of the beef there was when we gun owners were getting beat up in the news media...and, that factored into how I read some of it. Yet, there were some tweaks made from some of the points brought up. (That is why it is a line item in the meeting minutes.)

I can say this, not one person contacted me directly (AD5) about this rule, whereas I probably heard from every revolver shooter at least 4 times.

Perhaps the horse has let the barn on this, but give me better wording. I'll run it up the flag pole, if appropriate. Maybe the ink isn't dry yet.

[Vlad]

Here is how I would have written 3.3.1

In jurisdictions where competitors are restricted by law from purchasing or acquiring magazines over a certain capacity, the maximum capacity allowed in the contest, per division, will be the lesser of said law limitations or division limitations. Individuals exempt from the law restrictions must still comply with this section. Any such limitations must be made known to all competitors by the Match Director/Range Master before the start of the match.

That takes care of the grandfathering and fairness bits. If a new shooter entering the division can not buy the magazines the rest of the shooters own, it shouldn't matter if the rest of the shooters legally own those magazines. It sucks, but that is the only fair way to cover that one without telling new shooters to play in traffic or break the law.

The second part that needs fixing is 6.2.5.1

However, if a competitor fails to satisfy the equipment or other requirements of a declared Division during a course of fire, the competitor will be placed in Open Division, if available, otherwise the competitor will shoot the match for no score. If a competitor fails to satisfy the equipment or other requirements of Open division (regardless of initially declared division) the competitor will shoot the match for no score.

This solves the problem of not meeting the requirement of open, if this is how you chose to deal with it.

Personally, I would think this is a bit harsh, but so be it, my suggestion would be procedurals or zero stage score when capacity is thing you broke the rules on. Of course that would require a more substantial change so I'm not even going there now. It would break the precedents under which all the limited capacity division have been operating for years. But think about it, having more bullets in the mag then you should have is logically for more akin to failing a mandatory reload of taking shots from outside the free fire zone, it grants and temporary advantage for the shots made in excess of the official limit, unlike say a red dot on production gun which would give you an advantage for every shot fired in the match. If you never fire those extra shots in the mag, they provide no advantage in the entire match.

Edited October 10, 2013 by Vlad

[Chuck Anderson]

Well now I'm confused. If the <Edit add: state> law says 10 is the limit, then shouldn't the limit be 10? Pre-ban is for ownership only I thought???

Do you mean to say that people who legally own magazines, like say in Cali, shouldn't be able to use them based on this? The rule is geared at states, like New York, New Jersey and Hawaii, where there are no preban magazines allowed. The limit is 10, period, unless you are LE. Many states, Cali, Colorado, and I'm sure there are others, prohibit the purchase of new hi cap mags but any of them millions of mags owned prior ot the ban date are perfectly legal. This is not aimed at those states.

[Vlad]

Well now I'm confused. If the <Edit add: state> law says 10 is the limit, then shouldn't the limit be 10? Pre-ban is for ownership only I thought???

Do you mean to say that people who legally own magazines, like say in Cali, shouldn't be able to use them based on this? The rule is geared at states, like New York, New Jersey and Hawaii, where there are no preban magazines allowed. The limit is 10, period, unless you are LE. Many states, Cali, Colorado, and I'm sure there are others, prohibit the purchase of new hi cap mags but any of them millions of mags owned prior ot the ban date are perfectly legal. This is not aimed at those states.

I think once you venture down this path, and fairness is invoked you HAVE to cut down the number to what a new shooter can legally acquire. Otherwise whats the point of saying this rule makes things fair?

[Chuck Anderson]

Not sure I agree that is the fairest solution. There are 4 Divisions new shooters can participate in without needing PreBan equipment. Let them shoot one of those. Heck the only difference really is Open. Is it really fair to make 60 existing shooters change for one new? Now if those 60 shooters are breaking the law to play, that's a different matter. In this case they are completely legal. It's also not a fair match if those 60 shooters are restricted to 10 rounds, and an LEO comes in with a 29 round big stick and smokes everyone in Open. (Ok, we all know LE can't shoot, but still).

[Vlad]

Well look it, there was up there on the shelf in the back offices at Sendro a very dusty can. When the offices moved, the can was neatly packed up and moved along with the paper work. It has been now sitting on a shelf for over two decades, patiently gathering dust, but apparently some recently picked it up, smeared the dirt off the label and exclaimed "Invertebrates? Why wonder if the worms are still alive in there!", Well once that can gets opened and the worms are all alive and wiggly now you have to go fishing.

You (the board you, not you you) can't come up with a rule like this and say it is because of fairness but then ignore that any new shooter we may attract gets kicked in soft bits if you allow grandfathering. You can't say they can go shoot another division (except you know in NY where they can't because NY is all sorts of inbred special now) because they could have done that before the rule too. If you (again board you) say that this rule is needed then you can't use the argument that they could have shot in a different division because then the rule wouldn't be needed. You could just say suck it up kids, shoot in the division you can shoot in. If the cop with 29 rounds want to play in open then he can play against other cops or whoever was grandfathered, whats the problem?

Edited October 10, 2013 by Vlad

[outerlimits]

i predict this thread will either become epic, or closed in a couple days.

[CHA-LEE]

I understand why/how some people feel that there may be a need for a rule like this.

But my primary concern is that this rule basically puts the responsibility of policing the legal use of whatever capacity magazines on the shoulders of the match staff. Do we really want to dump this legal burden onto the match staff? Some states have very clear and concise definitions of the magazine limitation laws, others don't. For example, in Colorado the 15 round magazine capacity limit law that was just past is so vague and subjective that even the law enforcement officials don't know the proper way to enforce it. If the state or local level law enforcement officials don’t even know how to properly enforce the law how on earth can we expect a USPSA club to do so?

This is a very slippery slope. Where does this "Law Enforcement" policy stop? What additional liability do the USPSA clubs take on by attempting to enforce these laws? There currently isn't a USPSA rule stating that a competitor must be able to legally own or posses a firearm in the State/City/County that the match is being held. From a pure liability perspective the Match Staff not validating that convicted felons are in possession of firearms and attending a USPSA Club match would be a lot bigger issue than magazine capacities. Do we really want to go down the road of requiring competitors to pass background checks before they can attend a match? This is an extreme example, but it is the path we are traveling down. Do we really want to go there?

As a match director myself, there is no way that I can effectively enforce the new 15 round magazine capacity law. How the law is currently written, its too subjective and there are too many loop holes. If the state and local law enforcement can’t even properly enforce the law due to the issues in how its written, I am not going attempt to enforce it either. So I am choosing to run our matches as if there isn’t a 15 round magazine capacity law. If at a later date, the law gets updated or rewritten to make it totally clear what is or isn’t legal then I will make the appropriate change for the local USPSA matches.

[Flexmoney]

If at a later date, the law gets updated or rewritten to make it totally clear what is or isn’t legal then I will make the appropriate change for the local USPSA matches.

I think that is the whole point. USPSA isn't going to know all of the laws that are on the books in every jurisdiction. Who is? The local guy will know his laws, right?

This doesn't make a Match Director enforce a law (which is a silly concept), it allows a MD to adjust the division rules on capacity to fit in with whatever BS law they are saddled with in their locale.

[Mark R]

Well now I'm confused. If the <Edit add: state> law says 10 is the limit, then shouldn't the limit be 10? Pre-ban is for ownership only I thought???

Do you mean to say that people who legally own magazines, like say in Cali, shouldn't be able to use them based on this? The rule is geared at states, like New York, New Jersey and Hawaii, where there are no preban magazines allowed. The limit is 10, period, unless you are LE. Many states, Cali, Colorado, and I'm sure there are others, prohibit the purchase of new hi cap mags but any of them millions of mags owned prior ot the ban date are perfectly legal. This is not aimed at those states.

Chuck, I think there are two issues here...one is legally owning a hi-cap (pre-ban) magazine and the other is in a state that has a ban on the limit of ammo allowed in a mag. Shouldn't the limit be the same as the state law?

If a person owns pre-ban hi-caps in a state that has a 10 round limit (grandfathered or not), then in that state they should only be allowed to shoot the state law capacity limit, else they would be breaking the law (which USPSA does not want to happen).

Now if a person living in that 10 round limit state and has a grandfathered magazine and he/she elects to go into a neighboring state that has no capacity limit, then they should or will be allowed to use the pre-ban hi-cap mag there, but not in a state where a limit is imposed.

Am I missing something here or just totally confused?

[Chuck Anderson]

I understand why/how some people feel that there may be a need for a rule like this.

But my primary concern is that this rule basically puts the responsibility of policing the legal use of whatever capacity magazines on the shoulders of the match staff. Do we really want to dump this legal burden onto the match staff? Some states have very clear and concise definitions of the magazine limitation laws, others don't. For example, in Colorado the 15 round magazine capacity limit law that was just past is so vague and subjective that even the law enforcement officials don't know the proper way to enforce it. If the state or local level law enforcement officials don’t even know how to properly enforce the law how on earth can we expect a USPSA club to do so?

This is a very slippery slope. Where does this "Law Enforcement" policy stop? What additional liability do the USPSA clubs take on by attempting to enforce these laws? There currently isn't a USPSA rule stating that a competitor must be able to legally own or posses a firearm in the State/City/County that the match is being held. From a pure liability perspective the Match Staff not validating that convicted felons are in possession of firearms and attending a USPSA Club match would be a lot bigger issue than magazine capacities. Do we really want to go down the road of requiring competitors to pass background checks before they can attend a match? This is an extreme example, but it is the path we are traveling down. Do we really want to go there?

As a match director myself, there is no way that I can effectively enforce the new 15 round magazine capacity law. How the law is currently written, its too subjective and there are too many loop holes. If the state and local law enforcement can’t even properly enforce the law due to the issues in how its written, I am not going attempt to enforce it either. So I am choosing to run our matches as if there isn’t a 15 round magazine capacity law. If at a later date, the law gets updated or rewritten to make it totally clear what is or isn’t legal then I will make the appropriate change for the local USPSA matches.

No one is asking you, in Colorado, to do anything. However there are some very clear cut examples, that have been pointed out numerous times, where the law is clear. Take New York. There is a hard 10 round limit. No pre ban, no exceptions other than LE. That is what the rule is aimed at. Not Colorado. And I'm pretty sure I even used Colorado as an example of a state it doesn't apply to. There is no law in Colorado that prohibits possession of higher than 15 round mags. No reason the rule would apply in Colorado.

[Chuck Anderson]

Well now I'm confused. If the <Edit add: state> law says 10 is the limit, then shouldn't the limit be 10? Pre-ban is for ownership only I thought???

Do you mean to say that people who legally own magazines, like say in Cali, shouldn't be able to use them based on this? The rule is geared at states, like New York, New Jersey and Hawaii, where there are no preban magazines allowed. The limit is 10, period, unless you are LE. Many states, Cali, Colorado, and I'm sure there are others, prohibit the purchase of new hi cap mags but any of them millions of mags owned prior ot the ban date are perfectly legal. This is not aimed at those states.

Chuck, I think there are two issues here...one is legally owning a hi-cap (pre-ban) magazine and the other is in a state that has a ban on the limit of ammo allowed in a mag. Shouldn't the limit be the same as the state law?

If a person owns pre-ban hi-caps in a state that has a 10 round limit (grandfathered or not), then in that state they should only be allowed to shoot the state law capacity limit, else they would be breaking the law (which USPSA does not want to happen).

Now if a person living in that 10 round limit state and has a grandfathered magazine and he/she elects to go into a neighboring state that has no capacity limit, then they should or will be allowed to use the pre-ban hi-cap mag there, but not in a state where a limit is imposed.

Am I missing something here or just totally confused?

Not sure I've heard of state that allows you to possess a magazine higher in capacity than you are allowed to load into it at a match. New York is the closest with their, interesting, 7 only in a mag, unless you're at a range, then you can load 10, but it can't have a total capacity of more then 10, unless you're special, in which case you can have as many as you want, but if you're only allowed 7 and you're not on a range, then you better not load 8 or you're evil, statute.

Can you give me an idea of a state or law you're thinking of? Because I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Vlad]

No one is asking you, in Colorado, to do anything. However there are some very clear cut examples, that have been pointed out numerous times, where the law is clear. Take New York. There is a hard 10 round limit. No pre ban, no exceptions other than LE. That is what the rule is aimed at. Not Colorado. And I'm pretty sure I even used Colorado as an example of a state it doesn't apply to. There is no law in Colorado that prohibits possession of higher than 15 round mags. No reason the rule would apply in Colorado.

So here is what I don't understand about this line of thinking. Presumably this rule is there to make it fair to everyone who isn't a LEO and can't obtain a magazine over X. Now, if the state has grandfathering laws, what difference does it make to Timmy that Joe is an LEO who can buy a new big mag or dentist who owns a old big mag? Timmy only cares that he can't buy the same mag for himself, not the method by which it is legal for Joe to use one. From a competitive and fairness angle there is no difference between LEO mags and grandfathered mags. The net result is the same for Jimmy.

[Chuck Anderson]

One is based on a special status as an LEO. The other is based solely on the fact that they've been around long enough and have invested in the sport. Besides, I think most of the California contingent will tell you that if grandfathered mags or parts kits are allowed, it's not that hard for a new shooter to get them. Pretty sure I've seen more than one California shooter with a SureFire 60 round mag that didn't even exist when the ban went through. We're not trying to make anyone an expert on the law. But if there is a definite limit. And everyone at the match is shooting 10 round mags, it's kind of BS to have someone show up with a 29 rounder.

If you're running your match as a run what you brung capacity wise match, keep doing it. If you're stuck in a state where you aren't comfortable doing that, now you have a way, under the rules, to comply with the law. You guys are reading way too much into this. The sky is not falling.

[Vlad]

I'm actually quite sure the sky is ok , my actual primary concern is the "ok, so you have 16 in that mag, now what" part of the rule.

[whitedog]

Sweet Mary mother of convoluted thoughts, pray for us. 90 days went by for comments. Guess people missed that. Asking hypothetical questions is pointless. Take it as face value. If there is a mag or capacity limit where the match is held, everyone abides. The match announces it before hand. How is this even remotely difficult to understand? What ever you own, when you owned it don't matter. Match will announce the restrictions and that's that.

[Supermoto]

One is based on a special status as an LEO.

I bet LTC-B licensed shooters will think LTC-A lincesed shooter are special too. Lets just make uspsa 7 rounds so NY is not offended, as a bonus we lose 8-minor

[outerlimits]

Pretty sure I've seen more than one California shooter with a SureFire 60 round mag that didn't even exist when the ban went through.

That is difficult to believe...

[Gary Stevens]

Shoot Single Stack. Problem solved.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[Vlad]

Sweet Mary mother of convoluted thoughts, pray for us. 90 days went by for comments. Guess people missed that. Asking hypothetical questions is pointless. Take it as face value. If there is a mag or capacity limit where the match is held, everyone abides. The match announces it before hand. How is this even remotely difficult to understand? What ever you own, when you owned it don't matter. Match will announce the restrictions and that's that.

I guess you entirely missed the point on how breaking the same rule in production moves you open but breaking it in open or limtied means you shoot for no scores. But its ok, it is only a problem the first time you have explain it to a angry and confused shooter and some do it with a straight face telling them that them are the rules.

[motosapiens]

Well now I'm confused. If the <Edit add: state> law says 10 is the limit, then shouldn't the limit be 10? Pre-ban is for ownership only I thought???

Do you mean to say that people who legally own magazines, like say in Cali, shouldn't be able to use them based on this? The rule is geared at states, like New York, New Jersey and Hawaii, where there are no preban magazines allowed. The limit is 10, period, unless you are LE. Many states, Cali, Colorado, and I'm sure there are others, prohibit the purchase of new hi cap mags but any of them millions of mags owned prior ot the ban date are perfectly legal. This is not aimed at those states.

I think once you venture down this path, and fairness is invoked you HAVE to cut down the number to what a new shooter can legally acquire. Otherwise whats the point of saying this rule makes things fair?

I think if the production and L10 divisions didn't exist, you would be right. But they do exist, so I don't think you're right.

However, in my world, this would be a procedural rather than a death-penalty.

[Vlad]

Well, L10 and production and so one exit now anyway, if the answer to the "I cant get X" statement is go shoot something else, who cares why you can't get X or why someone can get it?

And yeah .. making it a death penalty equivalent is a real bad problem.

[motosapiens]

Well, L10 and production and so one exit now anyway, if the answer to the "I cant get X" statement is go shoot something else, who cares why you can't get X or why someone can get it?

And yeah .. making it a death penalty equivalent is a real bad problem.

well, for sure, I don't care in the slightest about this issue, because I only shoot L10 or production, even tho I can legally own machine-guns here. I just thought the pot needed a little stirring, lol.

As far as 'fair', I suspect that the L10 and production divisions are more popular and competitive in limited-capacity states than they are here in idaho and utah. I'm ok with that.