New rule 3.3.1 for 2014 rulebook.

[JAFO]

Since there's no ammunition limitation for Open in the rulebook, this condition only applies if the MD/RM impose it prior to the start of the match. But as nothing was added to the new rules concerning what to do if someone violates a potentially-imposed ammunition limitation for Open, 6.2.5.1 is the only rule in the book that applies. They would shoot for no score if they loaded 16 with an imposed limit of 15.

What do folks do about this who are currently running Open 10 in restricted states like Hawaii? Zero the stage? No score? Or does the RM decide on the penalty prior to the match, akin to the Special Penalty?

[JAFO]

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.

Defying equipment rules in Production has always bumped you to Open. Defying equipment rules in Open has always led to shooting for no score. With the exception of Limited being included in the latter, this doesn't seem that different.

Edited October 10, 2013 by JAFO

[whitedog]

Bumped to this. What happens that. Come on.

You get bumped to open or you shoot for no score. The bottom line is USPSA is attempting to interject common sense and perhaps keep someone from being charged with a felony...

We could have a 700 page rule book, and some people would still nitpick the snot out of it.

[Vlad]

And this is why I stopped giving much thought to what uspsa does. If I try to inject consistency people tell me to play it by ear and have rules that don't apply the same to different divisions. If I say screw it, make it up as you go along some comes by and says no you must follow the rules.

I give up, I'm going back to ignoring the uspsa rules process, it's been easier on my blood pressure then trying to make sense of it.

[Chuck Anderson]

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

I have no idea what your acronyms mean.

[whitedog]

Different divisions don't have the same rules. That's why they are called different divisions.

It's simple. The wording of the rule is also simple. The consequence of breaking the rule is also covered in the rule book. As well as possibly getting arrested. Not sure why the range lawyers can't see this.

[Nik Habicht]

Edited to add: Flex .... you are now at 37,536 posts which .. dude .. I don't think I've done anything that many times, possibly walking/breathing aside. I don't think I've peed that many times in 39 years.

You pee less than 2.636 times per day? That's bladder control, man! :D

[Nik Habicht]

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.

Simple -- follow 6.2.5.1 and move to open. Can't shoot in open because you violate those requirements too? Then it's no score. Need a rule to support it? Cite 6.2.5.1, and 3.3.1.

Note that 6.2.5.1 reads:

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 Open has the same capacity restriction as the originally declared division, Open is not available to receive the competitor.....

[Graham Smith]

This whole situation has gotten out of control. It shouldn't be necessary for MD to make arbitrary decisions about division capacity. If the USPSA found this to be a big enough problem then they needed to create an Open 10 division and be done with it. A match in a state with restrictions could limit divisions to O10 and L10 and everyone could compete on an equal footing regardless.

I should point out that the situation I laid out is what exists in MD (if I read the law correctly). I can legally go to MD from DE and shoot a match with my high cap mags. And someone from MD who only owns 10 round mags can go to PA and shoot a match. And in both places there would be a division they could shoot with what they legally own. Problem solved.

The whole issue of whether or not I can legally posses a particular magazine at a particular range is between me and the police. The MD shouldn't have to get involved with this.

[Flexmoney]

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.

No change there. That is the way it has always been. Always.

How are you hung up on that?

[Vlad]

No change there. That is the way it has always been. Always.

How are you hung up on that?

For one because it was always broken, for another because it is now even more broken, and because I have to explain to a bewildered shooter. If you don't live in a state where this rule applies, then the daily implications of it are of no consequence.

I'm not really hung up on it, I'm disappointed. But hey, i'm in the minority here so carry on, it really isn't worth arguing about it, as I said I'm really to back ignore the rules process. Its just not that important.

[motosapiens]

After thinking about it for a while, I just think it's a non-issue. bottom line for shooters is count your shots and plan your reloads. even if you have 17 in your mag accidentally, you should be planning to reload before you get to slide lock. I've worked 3 big matches and I have yet to see or hear of a production shooter getting moved to open for loading past 10, so I don't expect we'll be seeing waves of limited and open guys in joisey shooting for no score. Shooting production in open division really isn't a whole lot different from shooting for no score imho. You're not likely to win the motorhome that goes to the open division winner.

[Chills1994]

How does the whole thing work in EZWinScore (or I guess practiscore) to move a guy from production to open and then have him shoot for no score?

My point being is I wouldn't want my name (and scores) published to a publicly accessible website showing me as a DQ in Open. It might get people asking too many questions.

JIM: "See the results from Saturday's match yet?"

BOB: "Yeah, I did. Where was John Doe's scores? I thought he shot production."

JIM: "He got bumped to Open."

BOB: "yeah, I noticed the open scores too. What happened?"

JIM: "Well...."

To me anyways, this seems like so much of a solution in search of a problem.

how are those high hit factors coming along? Wasn't it like a year or two ago the BOD voted to do something with them?

[whitedog]

Public forum? Are we now worried about black helicopters and the NSA? It's a USPSA match for gods sake.

The rule is simple....maybe too simple obviously.

[Chills1994]

I wrote a publicly accessible website, not necessarily a forum.

IL state attorney general Lisa Madigan tried to force the Illinois State Police to release the FOID card database to her so the Chicago Tribune could print the names and addresses of all the FOID card holders. In other states, CCW permit holders have actually had their names and addresses published in the paper.

So, "black helo" comment aside, is it really that far of a stretch that Lisa Madigan's minions are already browsing the posted scores on club websites?

[aztecdriver]

I'm missing out how codifying an existing possibility for added clarify to assist Match Directors is a problem. I admit, not reading all 90 posts directly, but keep in mind:

3.3 Applicability of Rules:

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. Any voluntarily adopted rules that are not

in compliance with these rules must not be applied to USPSA matches without

the express consent of the President of USPSA.

One could argue that an MD for a match in restricted state could create a limit for open as required, as it would not behoove him to host a match that requires competitors to break the law to compete. The hooks were there in the first place, to be legitimate. It's just more straight forward now. If I'm missing something, which I could be, please feel free to help me out.

[Chills1994]

Additionally, in those states that now have mag restrictions, even moreso those that have no grandfather provisions, who is to say some rabidly anti-gun person isn't surfing the Open and Limited division scores from last year?

"A-ha! I see Bob Smith won Limited and John Q. Public won Open most off the time at the Albany club last year. I wonder if they still have their hi-cap mags. Better send some sheriff deputies over to check."

Edited October 11, 2013 by Chills1994

[pkm]

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.

That is not really a true statement. It is illegal to possess a "High Capactiy" magazine (one that hold more than 15 round) if it was purchased after 7/1/13. All of us that had them prior 7/1 are grandfathered but the new USPSA rule says that all competitors must comply even if we are exempt. Althought I could just be reading this wrong it doesn't sound like MDs have the option of enforcing it or not.

HB-1224

LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINE MEANS:

(I) A FIXED OR DETACHABLE MAGAZINE, BOX , DRUM , FEED STRIP , OR SIMILAR DEVICE CAPABLE OF ACCEPTING , OR THAT IS DESIGNED TO BE READILY CONVERTED TO ACCEPT , MORE THAN FIFTEEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION

18-12-302. Large-capacity magazines prohibited - penalties - exceptions.

(1) (a) EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION , ON AND AFTER J ULY 1, 2013, A PERSON WHO SELLS , TRANSFERS , OR POSSESSES A LARGE - CAPACITY MAGAZINE COMMITS A CLASS 2 MISDEMEANOR

(2) (a) A PERSON MAY POSSESS A LARGE - CAPACITY MAGAZINE IF HE OR SHE : (I) O WNS THE LARGE - CAPACITY MAGAZINE ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION ; AND

(II) M AINTAINS CONTINUOUS POSSESSION OF THE LARGE - CAPACITY MAGAZINE

USPSA RULE

In jurisdictions wher e competitors are restricted by law to maximum magazine 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 c ompetitors by the Match Director/Range Master before the start of the match.

Edited October 11, 2013 by pkm

[JonSnow]

Quick California update, Gov Moonbeam signed AB 48 into law today, making it illegal to possess mags larger than 10 rounds, regardless of acquisition date. Law goes into effect July 1st, 2014.

[CHA-LEE]

Sucky for CA shooters

[UFO]

Quick California update, Gov Moonbeam signed AB 48 into law today, making it illegal to possess mags larger than 10 rounds, regardless of acquisition date. Law goes into effect July 1st, 2014.

Ok found that he did sign it, but all that it does is outlaw magazine repair kits. Currently possessed magazines are still ok as they were before. The most damaging part is the ammo reporting to DOJ

Edited October 11, 2013 by UFO

[whitedog]

The black helicopter people already know. Shooting sports have been around for a long time....and watched by ATF just as long.

The rule says follow the law where the shoot is. Follow the lowest denometer of the law. You have grandfathered mags, supercool. That does not mean you can use them if the other 90% of the shooters don't. Think Clinton ban and 3 gun. If during the ban joe had them, but you don't, how does that work. Same as this rule. A lot of outlaw and underground subgun matches did the same then.

[ChuckS]

Quick California update, Gov Moonbeam signed AB 48 into law today, making it illegal to possess mags larger than 10 rounds, regardless of acquisition date. Law goes into effect July 1st, 2014.

Ok found that he did sign it, but all that it does is outlaw magazine repair kits. Currently possessed magazines are still ok as they were before. The most damaging part is the ammo reporting to DOJ

Stand by. Incoming news from a DA buddy of mine....

Apparently, the possession part of this bill was linked to another that did not make it. So, for now, we are still good to go.

Edited October 11, 2013 by ChuckS

[UFO]

Quick California update, Gov Moonbeam signed AB 48 into law today, making it illegal to possess mags larger than 10 rounds, regardless of acquisition date. Law goes into effect July 1st, 2014.

Ok found that he did sign it, but all that it does is outlaw magazine repair kits. Currently possessed magazines are still ok as they were before. The most damaging part is the ammo reporting to DOJ

Stand by. Incoming news from a DA buddy of mine....

Apparently, the possession part of this bill was linked to another that did not make it. So, for now, we are still good to go.

It's tied to SB396 which has not made it through the process yet.. Very confusing, read SB396 and all the surrender part is crossed out

[UFO]

Anyone really think if it passes, that a bunch of hi-caps are going to be turned in or sold....

Heard that NY's ban was being challenged and may be overturned.........