New rule 3.3.1 for 2014 rulebook.

[JAFO]

Californians cover the storage unit costs, and we'll store them all for you in Texas until you straighten things out.

[sperman]

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.

I assumed that when a Board member starts a thread on the USPSA forums asking for member comments, that they will read those comments and I don't need to e-mail my AD directly. It sounds like you did that. Hopefully the rest of the Board Members did the same.

As far as the revolver shooters, we all know their just a little bit special.

[Flexmoney]

I assumed that when a Board member starts a thread on the USPSA forums asking for member comments, that they will read those comments and I don't need to e-mail my AD directly. It sounds like you did that. Hopefully the rest of the Board Members did the same.

Hmmm... squeaky wheel get the grease.

[JonSnow]

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.

Chuck, thanks for the update, I hadn't heard that.

[frag316]

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?

Seriously? Yes, it is a stretch, and I'll tell you why:

If you look at any of the nationwide mainstream gun control groups, you'll notice they STILL fail to grasp fundamental firearms concepts. Do you really think Lisa Madigan and company are going to be any better researched or more versed in the intricacies of USPSA scoring to understand what constitutes a DQ or what your hit factor actually says about your ability to shoot?

If it really were that big of a deal, then you'd see this pop up in their literature, citing how bad it is to DQ or how many misses shooters have, etc. But it hasn't. The reason why it hasn't is because these idiots are constrained by their own talking points. They claim they're not against competition, and looking at USPSA scores and using them to bolster their arguments would reveal them to be liars in a very public and not-deniable way.

Hell, even in NY, they came up with a consideration for competitive shooters allowing them to keep their 10-round mags and load them to full capacity at matches once it became clear there weren't 7-round mags for anything but 1911s (And, before you start--yes, I think it's a shitty law. It's so shitty, in fact, that the law did apply to law enforcement guys, even when they were actively involved in law enforcement tasks [e.g., in uniform on patrol]. If they overlooked that, then they rushed to pass a bad law. All we can do now is work with the poor folks in NY to get it overturned or repealed.).

I think you're looking for a problem that doesn't exist.

[frag316]

One thing on the LE side--I haven't been able to get the text of NY's law, but it would seem to me that any cops who wanted to flout the mag restrictions would have to do so with duty weapons. I don't believe the law was written to allow them to own high-capacity magazines for personally-owned/recreational firearms.

Anyone have a copy of the text they can link to? I haven't been able to find it.

[motosapiens]

One thing on the LE side--I haven't been able to get the text of NY's law, but it would seem to me that any cops who wanted to flout the mag restrictions would have to do so with duty weapons. I don't believe the law was written to allow them to own high-capacity magazines for personally-owned/recreational firearms.

Anyone have a copy of the text they can link to? I haven't been able to find it.

They cant do it even with duty weapons, even while on duty. That's a good thing imho, since the whole law sucks stale dogbathwater.

[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?

Seriously? Yes, it is a stretch, and I'll tell you why:

If you look at any of the nationwide mainstream gun control groups, you'll notice they STILL fail to grasp fundamental firearms concepts. Do you really think Lisa Madigan and company are going to be any better researched or more versed in the intricacies of USPSA scoring to understand what constitutes a DQ or what your hit factor actually says about your ability to shoot?

If it really were that big of a deal, then you'd see this pop up in their literature, citing how bad it is to DQ or how many misses shooters have, etc. But it hasn't. The reason why it hasn't is because these idiots are constrained by their own talking points. They claim they're not against competition, and looking at USPSA scores and using them to bolster their arguments would reveal them to be liars in a very public and not-deniable way.

Hell, even in NY, they came up with a consideration for competitive shooters allowing them to keep their 10-round mags and load them to full capacity at matches once it became clear there weren't 7-round mags for anything but 1911s (And, before you start--yes, I think it's a shitty law. It's so shitty, in fact, that the law did apply to law enforcement guys, even when they were actively involved in law enforcement tasks [e.g., in uniform on patrol]. If they overlooked that, then they rushed to pass a bad law. All we can do now is work with the poor folks in NY to get it overturned or repealed.).

I think you're looking for a problem that doesn't exist.

Get back to me when you have match directed for a while and state contract employees pressure you for the EZWinScore laptops, so "they can learn the scoring software."

[whitedog]

What state is sending minions for lap tops?

[frag316]

Whatever, dude. Jumping from someone on contract with the shooting complex at Sparta, IL wanting to look at the laptops to Lisa Madigan wanting to use USPSA scores as part of a broad-based gun control effort is big time black helicopter, "Aliens stole my baby dingo from Roswell and took it to Area 51," tinfoil hat stuff.

That'll be my last on this, as we're getting away from the OP's intent.

[Chills1994]

And here I thought in that strongly worded PM you sent me that you weren't stalking me from thread to thread.

Maybe you should just put me on ignore if what I wrote seems so far out there and black helo-ish.

[Pseudonym]

I wanted to clarify some of the information that has been posted about the magazine capacity allowed here in Kalifornia. Continued possession of large-capacity magazines (able to accept more than 10 rounds) that you owned in California before January 1, 2000, is not prohibited. However as of January 1, 2000, it is illegal to buy, manufacture, import, keep for sale, expose for sale, give or lend any large-capacity magazine in California except by law enforcement agencies, California peace officers, or licensed dealers. So any magazine of capacity of greater then 10 rounds acquired after 2000 is not legal, except for the previous mentioned exceptions. Now for the so called magazine kits, those are legal, for the time being (until 01/01/14 when importation will be illegal) until they are assembled in the state, at which point you are committing a crime (manufacture). You can keep them to use and assemble once you travel out of state, and then disassemble before you return to Kalifornia. The CA Penal Code for magazines can be found here ( 19-29 http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/4/2/1/2/s12020
If you have any questions www.calguns.net is a good resource for information on CA gun laws.

From deep behind enemy lines, Pseudonym

P.S. Chuck Anderson, I just want to make sure this is clear, from reading your earlier posts. If a shooter in Kalifornia has acquired and uses a magazine of greater then 10 round capacity after the year 2000 in Kalifornia, they are in fact committing a crime. I may have missed some other information you provided, or am wrong as to my understanding of the rule, I just wanted to make sure you are aware of the law here.

Edited October 16, 2013 by Pseudonym

[Chills1994]

What state is sending minions for lap tops?

Just for the record, I did not say that people asking me for the laptops (or the EZWinScore software discs) were anyone's minions.

I will have poke around the internet some more to find the bill that was introduced or proposed that would shut down all other ranges in southern Illinois, and make the IL DNR run World Shooting Complex the only place you could shoot at.

[kneelingatlas]

I'm very much against USPSA getting involved in this matter; the membership is better served by the Board presenting options to deal with new laws, rather than eliminating options.

Yes given CA's new ban on rebuild parts for pre-ban mags, Limited will eventually die and Open will eventually morph into Open 10, but why not just let that happen organically? Forcing the issue only serves alienate a whole bunch of Limited/Open shooters.

I suggest creating Open 10 as an option for shooters who live in restricted states and don't own pre-ban equipment, then all bases are covered and no one is prohibited from using their legally owned equipment.

Edited October 16, 2013 by kneelingatlas

[frag316]

Duh, I'm not "stalking you." If I were, you'd know it, dude.

But that doesn't mean I'm not going to throw a bullshit flag when I see anyone post something I think is blatantly wrong on an issue or if I think I can contribute to the discussion in some other way. Just because I happened to throw a flag on your post doesn't mean I'm stalking you.

You have an overinflated notion of your worth in my universe.

[ChuckS]

Hey Chills and Frag: Take it to PM please...

[D.Hayden]

I suggest creating Open 10 as an option for shooters who live in restricted states and don't own pre-ban equipment, then all bases are covered and no one is prohibited from using their legally owned equipment.

I agree, that's probably going to have to happen for a few states.. might as well get it started

[Pseudonym]

I'm very much against USPSA getting involved in this matter; the membership is better served by the Board presenting options to deal with new laws, rather than eliminating options.

Yes given CA's new ban on rebuild parts for pre-ban mags, Limited will eventually die and Open will eventually morph into Open 10, but why not just let that happen organically? Forcing the issue only serves alienate a whole bunch of Limited/Open shooters.

I suggest creating Open 10 as an option for shooters who live in restricted states and don't own pre-ban equipment, then all bases are covered and no one is prohibited from using their legally owned equipment.

I wish I had made my post more concise, but if in fact the rule is interpreted as I am reading it, they are in fact basically making Open-10 in Kalifornia. I know the law allows a shooter who had their "normal" capacity magazines to use them, but will they be allowed to load them to maximum capacity according to the new rule? Just for example let us say a shooter has an open pistol, and never had magazines before 2000, he will be stuck using 10 round magazines, and loading them to 10 rounds. Then for example the shooter who has had their magazines before 2000, be restricted to loading 10 rounds, or will they be allowed to load to max?

Edited October 16, 2013 by Pseudonym

[D.Hayden]

California - no changes you have a big stick for 30 rounds - you can use 30 rounds... since they're still legal, like it has for the last 10 years

New York is really the issue, no grandfathered mags (if I follow all that right)

[Pseudonym]

California - no changes you have a big stick for 30 rounds - you can use 30 rounds... since they're still legal, like it has for the last 10 years

New York is really the issue, no grandfathered mags (if I follow all that right)

Possession of magazines of greater then 10 rounds is not a crime, but there is no legal way, post 2000, for someone to acquire a magazine of greater then 10 rounds, assemble and use that magazine in California legally except for the previous mentioned exceptions. That is why I asked my question, if a new shooter comes into the sport post 2000, wants to shoot open, and did not have magazines prior to 2000, legally they are going to be using 10 round magazines or they will be committing a crime, if in California.

Edited October 16, 2013 by Pseudonym

[kneelingatlas]

In jurisdictions where 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 competitors by the Match Director/Range Master before the start of the match.

It seems pretty clear to me that CA residents are restricted by law and the exempt individuals would be those who owned their mags prior to the ban. What am I missing?

[frag316]

I really think the issue for CA is those guys who choose to ride the ragged edge of illegality. I've never understood how Kali will enforce this particular regulation, since I've never seen a magazine that's date stamped or serial numbered. (I suspect, as with most of these laws, people are considered guilty by mere possession and would have to prove their innocence.) It's likely that USPSA would rather not be associated with someone getting busted for breaking the law ("But, officer, I only have the magazines to shoot my Open gun!").

The better route would be to create the Open 10/15 and Limited 15 Divisions (although I'd argue you could get away with Lim 10) and let MDs who want to use them in place of the standard divisions do so.

[whitedog]

Illinois is really trying to shut down all the ranges? Did not know that. Sorry. Has any entity tried to access any USPSA scoring programs or shooter classifications in the state? Or is this a worry of what's to come?

[Pseudonym]

In jurisdictions where 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 competitors by the Match Director/Range Master before the start of the match.

It seems pretty clear to me that CA residents are restricted by law and the exempt individuals would be those who owned their mags prior to the ban. What am I missing?

It seems clear to me as well, but from what both Chuck S., Chuck A., and D. Hayden have posted it would seem their interpretation, is that since a group of shooters had "normal' magazines prior to 2000, that open will still be open in California, and not limited to 10 round magazines, or loading to 10 rounds maximum.

I really think the issue for CA is those guys who choose to ride the ragged edge of illegality. I've never understood how Kali will enforce this particular regulation, since I've never seen a magazine that's date stamped or serial numbered. (I suspect, as with most of these laws, people are considered guilty by mere possession and would have to prove their innocence.) It's likely that USPSA would rather not be associated with someone getting busted for breaking the law ("But, officer, I only have the magazines to shoot my Open gun!").

There is no real way to enforce it, they would have to be able to prove how the magazines were obtained, which is why possession is not a crime. The state had at some point reorganized some of the penal codes and wording was added to the effect of them being a nuisance. I think it was Los Angeles city, that had used that as a means of confiscation from individuals, but I am not able to locate the source of that information at the moment.

Edited October 16, 2013 by Pseudonym

[kneelingatlas]

I hope so. I sent am email to my AD this morning, so I guess well all see how this shakes out.