lawboy Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 We disagree. Assembly and manufacture are not synonymous. But I now see where we are missing one another. In any event, as you point out, time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pseudonym Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 (edited) We disagree. Assembly and manufacture are not synonymous. But I now see where we are missing one another. In any event, as you point out, time will tell. That is fine, but if you do in fact live in California, please do sign up on CalGuns if you are not already a member. Just for the 2nd amendment issues and updates it is a free resource that invaluable. If you wish to talk further on PM please feel free to do so as the mods typically do not like this back and forth disagreement. I just want to be clear under the PC it is a felony, if you get caught, so understand what else you will be giving up. *Edit* I had been looking for this letter from the CA DOJ on this subject and finally found it. Lawboy please read.http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/DOJ-large-cap-magazines-2005-11-10.pdf Edited October 22, 2013 by Pseudonym Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outerlimits Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 guess i won't be traveling back to my former state to shoot any matches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jluther820 Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 I read the rule and I dont see how it cant apply to Ca. There are lots of suggested interpetations from "authoritative" sources, but nothing authtoritative from the orginzation that would indicate the rule wont apply. Besides if the rules are designed to promote the concept of fairness, how can it not apply? How is it fair that older guys can claim they have always owned the magazine, while young guys cant reasonably make that claim without the risk of being a felon. And one more thing...if there is such a thing as "open10" How is the guy that loads the 11th round in his mag not guilty of cheating and subject ot DQ for unsportsman like conduct? Surely unable to count to 10 is not a legitimate defence as if you cant count to 10 accurately, you are surely not safe enough for this sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 ...the rule applies to California. No matter how you look at it it applies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmca Posted March 19, 2014 Author Share Posted March 19, 2014 ...the rule applies to California. No matter how you look at it it applies. If you throw out the reasoning, "to level the playing field" or having magazines that are exempt does not equate to a competitor who's exempted, it becomes easier to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted March 20, 2014 Share Posted March 20, 2014 ...the only "reasoning" required is that new competitors can not acquire standard capacity magazines and to assemble standard capacity magazines from parts kits renders the owner/assembler in violation of State law. USPSA has no choice but to go this route as it would be a PR disaster to have competitors arrested and charges with violations of State laws. NY State is in the same boat as California and I understand the frustration of those who shoot Open and Limited Division along with Multi-Gun competitors, Open 10 as a short term solution would be something I would support either as a stand alone divison or a category within Open divisiomn due to my belief that once the SCOTUS finally takes up a standard magazine capacity and AWB ban and strikes it down as they are in clear violation of the Heller decision with regards to firearms "in common use" then Open 10, Limited 10, and the capacity limits in Production could be removed by USPSA if they chose to do so. USPSA will eventually need to review Multi-Gun rules with regards to capacity and create categories within Multi-Gun to deal with capacity restrictions as well. In the meantime...we struggle on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jluther820 Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Regardless of what the authorities here say, the words are official and what has been given and the words mean that it applies to California. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Smith Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 I understand the reasoning here, but there may be no end to this attempt to make things equal. To take this to the extreme... To make things even for classifiers nationwide, there may come a time when it's decided that the limit is the lowest legal limit of all the states. So, if one state decides that the legal limit is going to be 7 rounds, that will become the new limit nationwide for all classifiers in all divisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmca Posted March 21, 2014 Author Share Posted March 21, 2014 I understand the reasoning here, but there may be no end to this attempt to make things equal. To take this to the extreme... To make things even for classifiers nationwide, there may come a time when it's decided that the limit is the lowest legal limit of all the states. So, if one state decides that the legal limit is going to be 7 rounds, that will become the new limit nationwide for all classifiers in all divisions. No need to do that, just make the classifiers 6 round neutral (thinking revolver division here). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 I understand the reasoning here, but there may be no end to this attempt to make things equal. To take this to the extreme... To make things even for classifiers nationwide, there may come a time when it's decided that the limit is the lowest legal limit of all the states. So, if one state decides that the legal limit is going to be 7 rounds, that will become the new limit nationwide for all classifiers in all divisions. No need to do that, just make the classifiers 6 round neutral (thinking revolver division here). There is no need to do either. 3.3.1 addresses conditions within a capacity restricted State. It is NOT a nationwide policy. The 7 round example does not apply nor did it ever apply. The 7 round capacity limit for NYS was for concealed carry and home defense only and exemptions existed for match use and range use where shooters could load full 10 rounds of ammo into their 10 round magazines. The 7 round limit was struck by a Federal District Court as unconstitutional and no longer applies nor did it ever apply for range and competition purposes. There need ne NO changes to the classification system or existing or newly created classifier stages. If say a classifier requires 12 rounds to complete, those in capacity restricted States would need to perform a reload. At no time should USPSA apply ANY changes to the classification system to accomodate capacity restricted States. 3.3.1. addresses the legal and liability concerns of USPSA with regards to its members being in violation of State law pertaining to standard capacity magazine possession and use. All that is required for USPSA to do now is determine whether they will institute an Open 10 division or Open 10 category and create reduced capacity categories for Multi-Gun competition to accomodate those effected by State regulations should they choose to compete outside of their respective States or Nationally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Smith Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 3.3.1 addresses conditions within a capacity restricted State. It is NOT a nationwide policy. You miss my point. Classifiers have impact on a national basis, not just on a match by match basis. If people in one state are shooting classifiers with one capacity limit and another state with another, then those scores are no longer equal (or at least have the potential of not being equal). If you are shooting a 14 round Comstock classifier in Limited or Open in a state with no mag limit, then you are going to have an advantage over someone in a state with a 10 round mag limit. I don't want to sound like some doom and gloom theorist, but if you don't think that this new rule fixes everything, then you are mistaken. Sooner or later, this is going to become a national issue. As it stands, states with limits are likely going to end up only shooting classifiers where the limit doesn't impact them. And that doesn't address the issue of people from states with limits going to matches in other states without limits and not having higher capacity mags to compete with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 (edited) 3.3.1 addresses conditions within a capacity restricted State. It is NOT a nationwide policy. You miss my point. Classifiers have impact on a national basis, not just on a match by match basis. If people in one state are shooting classifiers with one capacity limit and another state with another, then those scores are no longer equal (or at least have the potential of not being equal). If you are shooting a 14 round Comstock classifier in Limited or Open in a state with no mag limit, then you are going to have an advantage over someone in a state with a 10 round mag limit. I don't want to sound like some doom and gloom theorist, but if you don't think that this new rule fixes everything, then you are mistaken. Sooner or later, this is going to become a national issue. As it stands, states with limits are likely going to end up only shooting classifiers where the limit doesn't impact them. And that doesn't address the issue of people from states with limits going to matches in other states without limits and not having higher capacity mags to compete with. With all due respect.... I've lived in a capacity restricted State since 1994. I made A class in Open with a Single Stack Open gun, I made M in Limited and A in Limited 10 with a 10 round reduced capacity SV in 45acp. No one is asking USPSA to change the classification system for capacity restricted States and to say it's "necessary" to do so drives a wedge between the capacity restricted State members of USPSA and the rest ofthe country. For the lack of a better term not only is it counterproductive but it is inflamatory. You are correct that it effects those that travel to capacity restricted States and we in NYS have already begun to feel the pain of greatly reduced match attendance from shooters outside the State. We will most likely NEVER host another Area Championship until the issue of standard capacity magazine bans have been addressed and overturned by SCOTUS and for now at least we wait....for legal relief. Until then we have to deal with the new reality and 3.3.1 helps us do so from a legal and liability standpoint. The rest of the nation does not have to be effected one little bit because of what's happening in capacity restricted States. To ignore 3.3.1. and its intended purpose because some wish to "skirt" State laws and visit areas where standard capacity magaizines are deemed illegal is akin to "I have mine..too bad you don;t have yours" and that's as divisiive and inflamatory as stating "the rest of the country is effected by what you go through in NYS." USPSA took necessary steps to protect the brand, the organization, amd its membership. To apply any other reasoning and to institute roadblocks to the progress 3.3.1. has made in protecting the above isn't a prudent or well thought out action. This issue is over 20 years old now...going back to the creation of Limited 10 Division. It should be settled by now. Nowhere has L10 adversely effected USPSA nationally or required changes to the classification system. Open 10 division or category will prove no less obtrusive. We've already proven that capacity restricted States and the rest of the nation can be on equal footing with limited to no obstruction to the operation of USPSA and its classification system. I'm sorry California has been subjected to 3.3.1 but there is a GOOD reason for it.... Now...lets get on with the business of defeating these types of laws so we'd ALL be better off for our efforts. Edited March 21, 2014 by Chuck D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.Hayden Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 I'm sorry California has been subjected to 3.3.1 but there is a GOOD reason for it....Has this been decided by USPSA? Or your interstation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 (edited) I'm sorry California has been subjected to 3.3.1 but there is a GOOD reason for it....Has this been decided by USPSA? Or your interstation? If you read 3.3.1 AND you read the California Penal Law with regards to magazine capacity restrictions and possession restrictions, 3.3.1. applies. It's up to the member clubs in California whether they want to abide by 3.3.1 if required by USPSA or not. If you can't purchase "off the shelf" standard capacity magazines or obtain a standard capacity magazine with a pistol or rifle purchase (which in California you can't) then I woudl say Yes...it applies. 3.3.1 is in effect in NYS...of that I can "attest" to. Edited March 21, 2014 by Chuck D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outerlimits Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 There isn't aclub in california that is "abiding" by 3.3.1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.Hayden Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 (edited) I'm sorry California has been subjected to 3.3.1 but there is a GOOD reason for it.... Has this been decided by USPSA? Or your interstation? If you read 3.3.1 AND you read the California Penal Law with regards to magazine capacity restrictions and possession restrictions, 3.3.1. applies. It's up to the member clubs in California whether they want to abide by 3.3.1 if required by USPSA or not. If you can't purchase "off the shelf" standard capacity magazines or obtain a standard capacity magazine with a pistol or rifle purchase (which in California you can't) then I woudl say Yes...it applies. 3.3.1 is in effect in NYS...of that I can "attest" to. I was just wondering if USPSA has said it'll apply it to California Edited March 21, 2014 by D.Hayden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jluther820 Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 The guidance from the org is "read the book". If this rule is optional, than so are the rest. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmca Posted March 21, 2014 Author Share Posted March 21, 2014 After re-reading this thread, maybe having a Open-10 division is the correct answer. Where I live, it's not legal to get new high/standard capacity magazines, yet grandfathered magazines are okay. Open 10 would give a place for new shooters to play without the disadvantage of going against Open big sticks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 (edited) There isn't aclub in california that is "abiding" by 3.3.1 That's their option.... It will be interesting to see how USPSA addresses the matter, if it does. Edited March 21, 2014 by Chuck D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jluther820 Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Honest question chuck... How is it optional? Is it actually in the rules that it's optional? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 (edited) Honest question chuck... How is it optional? Is it actually in the rules that it's optional? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk I don't believe it to be optional...I think 3.3.1 applies. If California or Colorado or any other State for that matter chooses NOT to comply with 3.3.1 that is their decision and USPSA will need to address the issue as it sees fit. This is a divisive issue that I've been engaged in since 1994....and when debating this issue NO ONE comes out of the debate 100% happy. All I'm concerned with is that USPSA adequately protects itself against illegal activity on behalf of its member clubs and membership and that the "I have mine...too bad you don't or can't have yours" attitude that existed during the creation of Limited 10 division and the restriction of Production Division to 10 rounds only in a magazine doesn't experience a "revival." It's important to note that where standard capacity magaizines are legal for possession and use it's business as usual. Capacity restricted States are NOT seekiing changes to the classification system or seeking to require ALL competitors to suffer the same fate as we have. Yes...to travel to a capacity restricted State you may if you choose have to bring reduced capacity magazines with you or compete in a capacity restricted division but your ability to compete isn't curtailed in any way shape or form. At no time should USPSA or any member club encourage its membership to "skirt" State law to acquire equipment they feel they require to be competitive. It's as simple as that. Open 10 either in division or category form is the answer to providing a place for members in capacity restricted States to compete on a national basis. Every other division has been addressed already with the sole exceptions of IOpen Division and Multi-Gun competition. Edited March 21, 2014 by Chuck D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kneelingatlas Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Does IPSC have a rule like this? I know there are shooters in countries which limit mag capacity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 (edited) Does IPSC have a rule like this? I know there are shooters in countries which limit mag capacity. Canada and Australia have strict 10 round limits with regards to magazine capacity and Australia received approval from IPSC on a provisional basis top allow .357 Sig to be scored at the major power factor values because they have a maximum caliber restriction law where civilian possession of any caliber greater than .357 is prohibited. I suspect the regions effected by capacity restriction limitations notify IPSC of their unique requirements verses IPSC adopting their own version of 3.3.1 with the difference being the entire nation is effected verses individual States or Provinces. Edited March 22, 2014 by Chuck D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeRush Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 Where are all the frustrated CA "Open 10" shooters up in arms about this? I understand there are some who live in places with a hard 10 round limit who would love a national Open 10 division. That is a separate issue. If someone is serious about becoming competitive at the national level in Open, even someone in NY, there are ways you can store mags out of state and retrieve them when you go to a non restricted match. California has a Single Shot Exemption, which allows people to to purchase handguns that are not on the roster of "Safe Handguns". This provision has been attacked over and over again. If currently proposed legislation were to pass, there would be no legal way for a (non LEO) person to purchase a new STI, Gen 4, Glock, etc. Does that mean USPSA will tell everybody in CA they have to put away the STIs they legally own and start shooting something on the roster, because a new shooter couldn't purchase one? When the guns currently on the roster drop off because manufacturers grow weary of the fees, will we have a new "Microstamping" division? USPSA doesn't need to be a nanny telling people to put what they legally own away. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now