Bagged or Not?

[JPro45]

An interesting question came up last weekend at the Area 2 match. If you had a holster that allowed the removal of a holstered gun and you had a zippered bag that was placed over the gun could you simply remove the gun while in the bag and place it in your range bag?

Some detatils:

The Guga Ribas holster has an adjustment knob for hieght. When loosened, the holster will slide off the belt leaving only the belt slide portion of the holster on the belt. SSI sells a zippered gun bag that fits over the holstered gun. The gun never leaves the holster, the trigger remains coverd.

My feeling is there is something not quite right about this, but others say there is nothing wrong about it. Of course the "others" are not RO's, so I appeal to the members here for a real answer.

It would be nice to be able to remove the gun in this manner, for example when it is raining, but I would hate to find out the hard way (DQ) that it is against the rules.

Thanks in advance for thoughts regarding this matter.

[Vince Pinto]

My feeling is there is something not quite right about this .....

You're not the only one who feels that way. The subject holster was physically demonstrated to the IPSC Rules Committee earlier this year and, as a result, the following was included in the official IPSC Handgun Rule Interpretations published on the IPSC website on 6 August 2004:

10.5.1 Handling a firearm at any time except when in a designated safety area or when under the supervision of, and in response to a direct command issued by, a Range Officer. The expression "handling a firearm" includes holstering or unholstering a firearm, whether or not the firearm is visible (e.g. while concealed by a protective cover, etc.) together with adding or removing a firearm to/from the competitor's person whether or not the firearm is wholly or partially holstered.

We have no objections to the holster, per se, but we do not like the idea that a (lazy) competitor could remove his gun from his belt and handle it, outside of a safety area, with impunity.

If you want to use the subject holster, no problem, but if you want to use the "bagging" feature, go to a safety area, because that's the only place competitors are permitted to handle their guns without direct supervision from an RO.

Hope this answers your question.

[AikiDale]

This is just too good to pass up.

Scene 1. Shooter asks the RO if he may bag his gun. RO agrees and supervises.

Shooter then takes the bagged gun directly to his car and puts it in the trunk.

Is this okay?

Scene 2. Shooter asks the RO if he may bag his gun. RO agrees and supervises shooter putting bag on GugaRibas holster. Shooter then removes bag from belt, still under supervision of RO, then takes the bagged gun directly to his car and puts it in the trunk.

Is this okay?

Scene 3. Shooter asks the RO if he may bag his gun. RO agrees and supervises shooter putting bag on GugaRibas holster. Shooter then takes the bagged gun directly to his car removes from belt and puts it in the trunk.

Is this okay?

[Vince Pinto]

Dale,

In all the examples you quoted above, the answer is "Yes, it's OK", because the handling was supervised by an RO.

[AikiDale]

Not so fast. In scene three there is no RO supervising the removal of the bagged gun from the belt. Shooter does not go to a safety area. Is he free to handle the bagged gun anytime after the RO supervises him 'bagging' the gun in place in the holster? If so, then the convenience of the GugaRibas is maintained by simply having the RO watch as you put the bag over the gun, thereby allowing you to handle the bagged gun?

[Vince Pinto]

Not so fast.  In scene three there is no RO supervising the removal of the bagged gun from the belt.

Oooops. Mea culpa. That's what happens when I'm rushing to get ready for an important lunch (it's almost midday here).

No, scene 3 is not acceptable. If you use the subject holster and you ask an RO to supervise bagging, merely placing the protective cover over your gun while it remains on your belt does not constitute bagging - it's merely placing a cover on your gun, and you don't need an RO to supervise that action.

The critical elements are when you remove the covered holster portion with gun from your belt and/or if you remove your belt from your body which still has a gun in the holster, both of which require RO supervision.

Anyway, I hope I clarified matters, coz I really gotta go, but I'll be back in a few hours ......

[JPro45]

Thanks for the replys. I too found this an interesting topic. Dale's 3rd example is exactly the one I was concerned about. If, a shooter wishes to bag or unbag under the supervision of an RO, I can understand that. My concern was with the individuals that thought this was a great idea because they could simply remove the covered, holstered gun from their trunk put it on there belt, at the car, and go to the match. That is what I thought was problematic.

I was assured that as long as the gun was bagged it was no cause for concern.

Once again, I am thankful for this forum.

[Chuck Anderson]

So the practice of holstering a Glock, going to the car and removing the holster and belt (CR Speed) and sticking it in the trunk is a DQ? We have several shooters who do this now. The gun is always holstered and not handled. This also happens alot with our LE shooters who show up with the gun in their duty rig and just put it on, gun and belt, at the same time.

[Nik Habicht]

So the practice of holstering a Glock, going to the car and removing the holster and belt (CR Speed) and sticking it in the trunk is a DQ? We have several shooters who do this now. The gun is always holstered and not handled. This also happens alot with our LE shooters who show up with the gun in their duty rig and just put it on, gun and belt, at the same time.

Yup, it's considered gun handling.....

[bgary]

The expression "handling a firearm" includes holstering or unholstering a firearm, whether or not the firearm is visible (e.g. while concealed by a protective cover, etc.) together with adding or removing a firearm to/from the competitor's person whether or not the firearm is wholly or partially holstered

Really?

That "interpretation" pretty fundamentally changes the meaning of the rule.

I am wandering around the range, with a gun in my holster. No problem under the current rules. For whatever reason, I want to lighten my load. I go to my car, peel off my outer-belt (with holster and gun), and put it in the trunk of my car.

The gun has stayed in precisely the same configuration (in holster, on belt) that it was in when I was wandering around the range. I have not touched it. I have not "unholstered" it. I have not "concealed it from view".

But... according to this interpretation, I have "handled" it?

Does not compute...

Bruce

[JPro45]

From the January 2004 edition of the USPSA Rule Book:

10.5.1 Handling a firearm at any time except when in a designated safety

area or when under the supervision of, and in response to a

direct command issued by, a Range Officer.

There is no further definition of the expression "Handling a Firearm" I could not find a defintion of this expression anywhere in the new rule book.

This is more indepth then I thought it was at first. This may be one of those cases when you only find out you have broken the rule after you break it. It seems as if the MD or RO could have his/her own defintion which would resemble the defintion used by IPSC. On the other hand, they may not. One problem I see with this is if a shooter travels to matches around the country he/she might not be aware of the local practices regarding this.

After reading the above responses, this has drifted slightly from just a particular type of holster. Very interesting.

[Vince Pinto]

I go to my car, peel off my outer-belt (with holster and gun), and put it in the trunk of my car. The gun has stayed in precisely the same configuration (in holster, on belt) that it was in when I was wandering around the range.

No, it hasn't, because it was previously "in holster, on belt, attached to body". Using your argument, tell me why can't I handle my gun outside of a safety area? It's in the "same configuration" it was while I was in the safety area (e.g. unloaded), so what's the fundamental difference?

That "interpretation" pretty fundamentally changes the meaning of the rule.

When we were shown the subject holster, we had visions of competitors sitting under the competitor's shelter, sliding their holstered guns off the "carrier", and effectively handling them (i.e. holding them in their hands by their grips and waving them about).

If that's OK because the gun has a light protective cover over it, then what really is the difference if I did the same thing when the gun was not covered (e.g. just retained in a CR Speed or Safariland holster)? What about if I went to the safety area, attached a trigger lock to my gun, and then walked about with it in my hands?

Of course we were also aware that some people remove their belt, with all their gear attached, and place it in the trunk of their car. Now if that was always the end of the story, I guess it's not so bad, but it's been my experience that some competitors then stealthfully remove the gun from the holster and slip it into a gun rug, gun case or range bag, which is also located in their trunk, thereby self-declaring their trunk to be a safety area. Not so good.

And then there are guys who remove their belt with holstered gun attached, sling it over their shoulder and then walk about like Pancho Villa.

Now we could've created a menu of "yea and nay" gun handling practices but, at the end of the day, the conclusion was to adopt a simple catch-all, namely: "If you want to remove your gun, go to the safety area and bag it" (i.e. don't be a lazy SOB!).

[JPro45]

"Now we could've created a menu of "yea and nay" gun handling practices but, at the end of the day, the conclusion was to adopt a simple catch-all, namely: "If you want to remove your gun, go to the safety area and bag it" (i.e. don't be a lazy SOB!)."

That about sums it up! There is not interpretation of that needed.

Thanks again for clearing this up.

[Nik Habicht]

The expression "handling a firearm" includes holstering or unholstering a firearm, whether or not the firearm is visible (e.g. while concealed by a protective cover, etc.) together with adding or removing a firearm to/from the competitor's person whether or not the firearm is wholly or partially holstered

Really?

That "interpretation" pretty fundamentally changes the meaning of the rule.

I am wandering around the range, with a gun in my holster. No problem under the current rules. For whatever reason, I want to lighten my load. I go to my car, peel off my outer-belt (with holster and gun), and put it in the trunk of my car.

The gun has stayed in precisely the same configuration (in holster, on belt) that it was in when I was wandering around the range. I have not touched it. I have not "unholstered" it. I have not "concealed it from view".

But... according to this interpretation, I have "handled" it?

Does not compute...

Bruce

Bruce,

As long as your holster is on your hip, the gun's orientation to your body hasn't changed. The moment you remove your outer belt though, you have the ability to point the muzzle virtually anywhere, depending on what you do with the belt.....

[bgary]

With all due respect... baloney.

If I sit in the lunch tent with a holstered gun, I'm probably sweeping half the other diners. If I recline in a beach chair while waiting my turn behind the line, I'm probably sweeping most of my squad-mates. If I bend over to pick up my empty brass off the ground (try to avoid the mental image), I'm certainly sweeping every one behind me.

In all cases, my gun has the potential to be pointed "virtually anywhere", but.. because it is in a device that we have deemed safe (the holster), in a condition which we have deemed safe (unloaded and empty), these things are not deemed to be problems.

So... if I take off my belt, while the gun is still in that same condition, held securely in that same safety-retention device, how has the situation changed?

I would argue that it is not different in any *meaningful* way. It may make us "feel" better, but the fact of the matter is that - functionally - there is no difference. I'm not "handling the gun", and there is no more "safety issue" with taking off my belt than there is in... well, in bending over while wearing it. ;-)

Bruce

ObNote: I assert that our rules should have two standards for relevance:

1) is this a safety issue? If so, it should be a DQ.

2) is this a competitive issue? If so, Procedural.

IMHO, rules that attempt to "guide" competitor's behavior, on issues that pertain to neither safety nor competitive issues, have no place in the rulebook. My two cents.

[Singlestack]

So... if I take off my belt, while the gun is still in that same condition, held securely in that same safety-retention device, how has the situation changed?

It has changed because while the gun is in the trunk, it is not in your control. When you take a drink or bite your sandwich or go take a leak, it could get loaded.

When I see somebody at a match with a holstered gun I assume it has been in their control since it was placed there in a safe area where no ammunition can be handled.

[bgary]

I hate to be obstreporous (really), but... my answer to that is the same question.

How is it any different?

I can put my gun in a side pocket of my range bag and carry it around all day long, and can choose to put the range bag in my trunk if I want... with the gun still in it.

How is that *any* different from putting carrying my gun around in the holster all day long, and then putting it in my trunk if I want... with the gun still in it.

It isn't a safety issue. And it isn't gun-handling. Or... let me put it another way: if we have a problem with a gun (in a holster) being put in the trunk of a car, then we should *seriously* consider whether we should allow people to walk around with a gun in their holster. Either the holster is a "safe place to keep a gun"... or it isn't.

Please try and understand... I am not anti-safety. I am just philosophically opposed to adding more and more rules to the rule book that don't actually *do* anything. I see this as a solution to a complete NON-problem.

When I see somebody at a match with a holstered gun I assume it has been in their control since it was placed there in a safe area where no ammunition can be handled

I agree. If someone wants to put their gun in a holster, they gotta do it in a safety area. If someone wants to take their gun out of the holster, they gotta do it in a safety area. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about whether a holster is a "safe place to carry a gun" *only* when it is on your person, or whether it is *still* a safe place to carry a gun, even when it is off your person. I can't think of a single meaningful way in which they are different.

Bruce

[rhino]

I agree with bgary.

[AikiDale]

Me too!

Of course, I was brought up to be safe on a hot range and find all this slightly amusing.

[Vince Pinto]

How is that *any* different from putting carrying my gun around in the holster all day long ......... And it isn't gun-handling.

Bruce, help me understand your views. Is it correct to say that you have no objection to a competitor walking around anywhere in a range where an IPSC match is being held while he's holding a holstered gun by it's grip in his hand without it being attached to a belt?

I ask this question because you seem to be saying "A holster is a safety device at all times, even when not on a belt attached to your torso".

[IPSCDRL]

Bruce, please ask the VP of USPSA and head of the NROI what he thinks about this practice.

I know because he wrote up this exact situation in Front Sight a couple of years back and he most decidedly agreed with Vince on this practice. Verboten!

Please understand I am not stating my own personal preference but the BOD has made John the final word on such things so I go by what he prints in FS.

[bgary]

walking around anywhere in a range where an IPSC match is being held while he's holding a holstered gun by it's grip in his hand without it being attached to a belt

I'd ask again... in what substantive way is that different from walking around an IPSC match holding a *bagged* gun by its grip?

In fact, I'd actually argue that your example is "safer" - because, in fact, while your hypothetical shooter is waving his holstered gun around, all can see that the magwell is empty, and the person cannot manipulate the trigger because of the holster. Think of it as a form of "trigger lock". On the flip side... a shooter who is willy-nilly waving a bagged gun around, how do I know it is empty? How do I know that he can't pull the trigger thru the material of the bag? How do I know it is safe?

And that's the crux of this thing for me. I am not adopting the "I want to take my belt off with the gun still on it" argument as my holy quest. My holy quest is about "rules that don't enhance the sport.

I am a relatively black-or-white guy. I think, as I have stated before, that there should be two types of rules:

-- safety violations (which result in DQ)

-- competitive violations (which result in procedural penalties)

Over the past couple of years, there has been an accelerating trend to add a THIRD type of rule: Rules about appearances, or preferences, or nuances.

The poster child of this trend is the whole set of warnings introduced in the most recent rulebook. The things given warnings are not "safety" things (if they were, they should be given DQs). They are not infractions that affect the competitive equity of the match (if they were, they should be given procedurals). No, rather, they are things that people "didn't like". And because someone "didn't like" something does NOT constitute justification for a new rule, IMHO.

Now, granted, that position is probably what got me not-invited-back to the next round of IPSC handgun rules discussions, but... I think our rules process should be about the *game*, not about institutionalizing a set of random preferences from around the world (which have, ultimately, no bearing on either safety or competition) and then imposing those preferences on the entire world in the form of rules.

This issue (taking belt off while gun is still on it) is just such an issue. IMHO, if the holster is adequately holding the gun while it is on the person, nothing magical happens that makes it all of a sudden UNsafe to hold the gun while it is off the person. That just defies logic.

But logic is not the device being employed here. What is going on is that someone says "I don't like that"; someone else says "hey, lets write a rule to prohibit it"; and the next thing you know, that rule is binding on everyone in the sport, the rulebook is a little thicker, and.... well, I just think that's a Really Bad Trend.

I would prefer to get back to "first principles". Rules should be about SAFETY and COMPETITIVE FAIRNESS. So, to bring this back to the topic at hand, if someone can help me understand how taking my belt off - with gun still in holster - is an unsafe act, or unfairly affects the outcome of the competition, I'll support a rule in the US. Until then, I have to believe that it has no place in the rulebook.

Bruce

PS to Michael - I'll try to find that. I know that in recent conversations (i.e., over the 2002-2003 rules cycle, I discussed this with him and did not come away with that impression, but as you note, what gets printed in FS is the official word. If you have a pointer to year/issue, that'd be great. Thanks!

[Chuck Anderson]

This is about gun handling right? So if I take the belt off without touching the gun, I'm not handling it right? We're going to rule ourselves out of existence if this keeps up. How is putting the gun, in holster, in the car any different than putting it in the car while it is in a gun rug? Or what about the shooters that just slide their gun into a pocket into their gun bag?

I'm sorry but the argument that if you leave you gun, in the holster, in the car, someone could load it while you're away? First off, we treat every gun as if it is loaded anyway so there should be no problem. Worst case, someone goes to load and make ready and a live round pops out. Second, who goes around loading other peoples guns in their cars at an IPSC match? And again, how is it different in a holster than in a bag.

We're all responsible people, although I wonder at times. I'm just really surprised that this is this big of an issue.

[rhino]

Bruce, please ask the VP of USPSA and head of the NROI what he thinks about this practice.

I know because he wrote up this exact situation in Front Sight a couple of years back and he most decidedly agreed with Vince on this practice. Verboten!

Please understand I am not stating my own personal preference but the BOD has made John the final word on such things so I go by what he prints in FS.

I've seen this mentioned before, but did anyone ever actually find the actual issue in which this ruling appeared? Nothing personal, but until I see the cite, it doesn't mean anything to me.

[Jim Norman]

Bruce,

The argument you make regarding tha addition of rules for the sake of a new rule is exactly the point I have been trying to express for so long. THank you for saying so much better than I.

I agree that there shouold be only two classes of rule, Safety and Competition. Violate a safety rule and Go Home. Violate a Competition RUle and gat proceedurals or if we need to go the whole route to USC, then go home as well.

The question of whether a gun in a holster is safe or not is being debated on the falling with a holstered gun thread.

My question mirrors this one, IF the gun is in the holster is it safe? If the answer is yes, then bending over so the gun points uprange down range or up someones ancestry is moot. If it is not safe in a holster, then we have to address many things. Is it a particular holster that will not safely retain a gun? Or do we really want to DQ shooters that break the 180 while the gun is still holstered? With out the shooter touching the gun. Either a holstered gun is safe or it is not. Decide.

I agree that a bagged gun while assumed to be unloaded and SAFE, may not really be. It is an assumption we make. A holstered gun on or off the person is a holstered gun, the trigger is covered, the magwell is empty. Anyother condition is a problem.

I am not advocating allowing you to unbag and holster at your car, that would entail actually handling an UNHOLSTERED gun. Nor am I advocating allowing you to bag at your car if that entails removal of your gun from the holster. That also entails handling an UNHOLSTERED gun. Both of those actions are already addressed, you can only do this at either a safety area or under the direct supervision of an RO.

But, taking my gunbelt off with the gun in the holster to go to the head rather than traipsing to the opposite end of the range to a safety area with my range bag then running back to the head hoping not to crap my pants because I can't take my HOLSTERED gun off my person is assinine.

My opinion.

Jim Norman