Chuck D 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. The firearms you speak of aren't "banned" meaning although you won't be able to purchase new generations of Glock pistols for example, the ones currently in circulation and the firearms that continue to be "on the roster" are still available for purchase. If we take the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as an example, they possess a handgun roster where Gen4 Glocks are omitted but Glock has seen fit to supply the Massachusetts market with refurbished Gen3 pistols for civilian consumpion. The same policy and procedures can't be applied to standard capacity magazine possession. Standard capacity magazine possession are "banned" meaning they are not available for civilian consumption in ANY form. Please correct me if I'm wrong but as I've been able to determine they can not be purchased and assembly of "repair kits" are violations of State law and therein lies the difference as there is no remedy or "work around" as they're currently exists with handgun rosters. I understand your frustration....minus the handgun roster, we are in the same boat but to offer the solution of "storing magazines out of State?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jluther820 Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 If the ORG were trying to CYA by issuing a poorly written rule, they surely shouldnt have board members on this forum telling people that the rule doesnt really apply, that woud go quite a ways to negate any CYA provided by the rule. The open and limited shooters in states like CA are keeping their mouth shut and head down because they already have theirs. If you are a USPSA club, you support the ORG by following he rules they put out, not cherrypicking just the ones you like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pseudonym Posted March 22, 2014 Share Posted March 22, 2014 (edited) The way the rule is written and the language used, would seem to leave very little room for interpretation. 3.3.1 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. If you read in this thread about Colorado's new magazine law, both CHA-LEE and MarkCO have claimed to have seen an e-mail from Amidon on this rule and its impact on Colorado. The interpretation Amidon has conveyed in this e-mail is that if possession is not a crime then the rule does not apply, this is my understanding from an e-mail between Mark and myself. http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=189737 Now please understand Kalifornia and Colorado laws are very different in their language, and currently how Colorado's law is being interpreted by the state Attorney General. I find it beyond odd that USPSA makes this rule, and has not published publically their own interpretation of this rule from state to state. I am wondering if USPSA is concerned about possible litigation down the road if they do in fact make a ruling about this in states where magazine capacity is restricted by law. Then I have to ask myself why would USPSA be so stupid as to step on their own dick, and make a rule like this in the first place. Hawaii has been shooting USPSA with 10 round magazine limits for a long time and this subject has never come up or a rule made that I can recall. Canada and IPSC have been under this 10 round restriction as well. Edited March 22, 2014 by Pseudonym Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Round_Gun_Shooter Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 2014 (edited) 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. If we take the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as an example, they possess a handgun roster where Gen4 Glocks are omitted but Glock has seen fit to supply the Massachusetts market with refurbished Gen3 pistols for civilian consumpion. They have?????? Only for replacement of defective firearms. Not for general sale. AND the replacement is a rare occasion also. Be very careful when writing about Massachusetts laws. They are so convoluted no one understands them....... Not even those tasked at enforcing them. Edited March 23, 2014 by Round_Gun_Shooter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted March 23, 2014 Share Posted March 23, 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. If we take the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as an example, they possess a handgun roster where Gen4 Glocks are omitted but Glock has seen fit to supply the Massachusetts market with refurbished Gen3 pistols for civilian consumpion. They have?????? Only for replacement of defective firearms. Not for general sale. AND the replacement is a rare occasion also. Be very careful when writing about Massachusetts laws. They are so convoluted no one understands them....... Not even those tasked at enforcing them. Glocks manufactured before 1998 are legal for Mass dealers to sell to the general public. This was information derived directly from the Mass State Police. A simple Google search will provide you with dealers that possess pre-1998 Glocks in inventory that are for sale allbeit not for "reasonable" prices. Another search of northeast shooters forums provide another list of dealers that can provide pre-1998 Glocks. I was also told by the Mass. State Police that used Glocks post 1998 can be acquired from outside the state but I'm not certain as to the legal logistics of making this happen. The reason I am aware of this is I am an FFL dealer and I've received inquiries as to whether I can supply pre-1998 Glocks to Mass State residents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 It has been brought to my attention that the legality of pre-1998 manufacturered Glock pistols in Mass. may not be correct. I reconfirmed my information with the Mass. State Police this morning and I was again provided with the very same information I was originally provided with and relied upon in my previous postings. I will defer to Roundgunshooter on this matter and I caution anyone that the info I had been given may not be correct and that information was not intended to be given falsely in an effort to make my point about 3.3.1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pseudonym Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 With this ruling, does anyone think it might be time to revisit how this rule is going to be interpreted for Kalifornia? I realize it is just one city, but we all know how things go in this state. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/CA9-fyock-sunnyvale-decision.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atbarr Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 With this ruling, does anyone think it might be time to revisit how this rule is going to be interpreted for Kalifornia? I realize it is just one city, but we all know how things go in this state. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/CA9-fyock-sunnyvale-decision.pdf Dead link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pseudonym Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Odd works for me. Well try this one, it goes to CalGuns website and can link from there. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1046357 Or the San Jose Mercury News http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_27641047/gun-rights-showdown-sunnyvale-restrictions-upheld-by-appeals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jluther820 Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 No need to revisit, those divisions are only for the elderly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kneelingatlas Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Let sleeping dogs lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pseudonym Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 You are right. After all, it is in the part of the rulebook marked "OPTIONAL". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kneelingatlas Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 The national office was overreaching, it was rejected by the area directors and it was forgotten; it's call nullification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pseudonym Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 The national office was overreachingCorrect. it was rejected by the area directors and it was forgotten; it's call nullification.Is this also in the rule book or USPSA bylaws under optional? If it was indeed nullified it is no longer in the rulebook, but last time I checked it still is in the rulebook, therefore they are ignoring the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Anderson Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Not sure where it was rejected by the ADs. I remember a majority thinking it was a good idea. That's how it was passed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pseudonym Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Not sure where it was rejected by the ADs. I remember a majority thinking it was a good idea. That's how it was passed. Chuck there has been some messages back and forth between people on this subject that have not been publicly posted in this thread, and others spilled over to the impact of this rule in Colorado. I have not personally seen the e-mails, but the information in the messages was e-mailed to me so take it at that value. Chris has indicated that because possession of these magazines is allowed in CA, the rule does not apply. He does not take into account however that legally obtaining these magazines in CA was illegal after the year 2000. Amidon has also said the same thing to the shooters in Colorado, with regards to the application of this rule in their state. Keep in mind however the Colorado law is written differently then the CA law. I know you are no longer an AD, but was your thought process when this came up for voting, and how would you interpret the rule? We all have a lot invested in guns, magazines, and equipment, Atlas probably more so because he has a thing for those eye-tal-yon blasters, but at some point something is going to have to give here in CA. I could be like most people are and say well I have mine so screw everyone else, but I look around and none of us are getting any younger sadly, but thankfully I see a lot of young and junior shooters coming up. USPSA passed this rule, I would think and hope to try to keep a level playing field for the shooters behind enemy lines, but unless it is applied it is pointless. I know there are some different circumstances this will not apply to, but please be open minded. New shooters in CA are basically limited to shooting in production or L10, unless they had magazines before the ban or they were obtained illegally. I am not going to make further public comment on what I know people have done or do that shoot open or limited here in CA, lets just say L10 is not as popular as one would think. If a new shooter or junior wants to shoot open without breaking the law they are going to be doing so with 10 round magazines, and at a severe disadvantage. Should the rule be modified to where everyone at a match in open loads down if a shooter shows up with only 10 round magazines, or should the rule be applied as written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Anderson Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 I was very leery of that rule when it came up. There was probably more discussion on it than anything else. I also don't think the language of the rule is what is being followed. The intent was to keep LE officers from having an advantage at matches. Basically, showing up at a match in a 10 round everything is restricted from everyone but LE state and shooting a 30 round big stick. Personally I don't think that's what the rule they passed states and I think that's where the confusion is coming from. The ruling on what the rule means is that it doesn't apply unless its in a state that does ban everything, even possession prior to the ban. At least that's my recollection of what John said. I don't think there are any states like that now (Jersey?) CA and CO are not that way, and that's why the rule doesn't affect them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 New Jersey has a hard cap of 15 rounds per mag with no grandfathering for handgun mags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jluther820 Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 http://www.uspsa.org/bodminutes/20131009.pdf Highlights (not official, just a brief summary): - USPSA Revolver division will be changed to allow 8-shot guns in Minor Power Factor (along with 6-shot guns that can score Major). - New 2014 rule book approved. IIRC, no major changes from what has been out there for review. We did keep in a couple of the Level I match exemptions that were slated to be taken out (mover presentation and painting steel). Plus, a rule for where ammo capacity is restricted by law. - New guns for the Production gun list will have a new form with some clarity added. - For Steel Challenge, a division was added. Open Revolver. - For Steel Challenge, a bit of clarity was added saying that you can paint the post of the stop plate to differentiate it as the stop plate. - Practiscore was approved as an official scoring program. ** The new rule book and division change (Revo-Minor8) will start on February 01, 2014 (Florida shooters take note. You will have one major match in January and another in February.) Why not start it in the 1st day of the year? ...timing of the announcement per the by-laws. We have to get the division change into Front Sight Magazine, then it needs 3 months. That is just a quick summary from memory (my notes are at home). If you have any specific question, please start a new thread on the specific topic. Sorry, I posted this question on the Revo Forum before I saw this. Can you explain this a little more, will Limited and Open not be able to be shot in my home State of California as currently written. "Plus, a rule for where ammo capacity is restricted by law." Have you read the rule and the rest of the thread?Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pseudonym Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 It is time for NROI to address 3.3.1 for Kalifornia again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmca Posted July 1, 2016 Author Share Posted July 1, 2016 It is time for NROI to address 3.3.1 for Kalifornia again. Why? It's pretty clear at this time, since California got rid of grandfathered magazines. LEO or other exempt individuals cannot use "high capacity" magazines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckS Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 (edited) It is time for NROI to address 3.3.1 for Kalifornia again. Why? It's pretty clear at this time, since California got rid of grandfathered magazines. LEO or other exempt individuals cannot use "high capacity" magazines. Yup, O-10 and PCC-10 for all... Edited July 1, 2016 by ChuckS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmca Posted July 1, 2016 Author Share Posted July 1, 2016 This just makes me wonder where I can carry spare magazines for 3 gun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted July 2, 2016 Share Posted July 2, 2016 This just makes me wonder where I can carry spare magazines for 3 gun? A long time ago, in a similar situation, my belt was set up like this from front left to rear: Blade Tech AR mag pouch with ten rounder mag with rubber ranger loop to keep it from sinking down to deeply in the pouch; drop leg mag pouch attachment for two more ten rounders on my thigh, Double Glock pistol mag pouch, two more Blade-tech AR mag pouches. Need to shoot shotgun too? 8 rounds in a traditional sidesaddle, 6 more on the fore-end, 6 additional shells on my belt, in front of my pistol holster, in Wilson Combat double shell belt holders, 9 more in the gun to start. Not enough ammo? With a loaded rifle that gave me sixty rounds in six mags; with a loaded pistol it gave me 45 rounds in three mags. If I need more-- well, pockets..... Shot gun -- that load out was good for 29 rounds total; if I needed more, Bandolier with another 24 or 28 shells...... I know there are better solutions out there in ancillary equipment now...... 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