Givo08 Posted June 14, 2014 Author Share Posted June 14, 2014 Frame weights have been legal in limited for a year and a half. Flashlights are illegal in limited. All Amidon did was clarify that as long as the weapon light is no longer capable of emitting light, it can be used as a frame weight without violating the flashlight rule. This seems like common sense, why all the outrage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Round_Gun_Shooter Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 (edited) Frame weights have been legal in limited for a year and a half. Flashlights are illegal in limited. All Amidon did was clarify that as long as the weapon light is no longer capable of emitting light, it can be used as a frame weight without violating the flashlight rule. This seems like common sense, why all the outrage? I think the problem is more that there is no place we all have access to that lists these clarifications. There has been recent discussion about the USPSA forums. How difficult would it be to list these clarifications and exceptions to the rules on that forum? Notify the membership it is being done and from that point, there is a venue for a RO, CRO, or Match Director to read the decisions. It would also eliminate these lengthy discussions. Which may be good or bad Edited June 14, 2014 by Round_Gun_Shooter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kneelingatlas Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 I like that idea round gun shooter, but I would rather see a subforum in the USPSA rules section here where members simply cut and paste email responses from John. Here's a slightly different idea: what if there was a request for ruling email form on the USPSA website and answers would be given in a solt of FAQ section? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jadeslade Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 (edited) Rick88. I tried. Thanks anyway. Edited June 14, 2014 by Jadeslade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Round_Gun_Shooter Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 I like that idea round gun shooter, but I would rather see a subforum in the USPSA rules section here where members simply cut and paste email responses from John. Here's a slightly different idea: what if there was a request for ruling email form on the USPSA website and answers would be given in a solt of FAQ section? Since this is NOT an official USPSA site and the USPSA Forum is, I think maintaining listings there would be more appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckS Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 I like that idea round gun shooter, but I would rather see a subforum in the USPSA rules section here where members simply cut and paste email responses from John. Here's a slightly different idea: what if there was a request for ruling email form on the USPSA website and answers would be given in a solt of FAQ section? Since this is NOT an official USPSA site and the USPSA Forum is, I think maintaining listings there would be more appropriate. Yup, and the rules support it: "11.8.3 All official USPSA interpretations of the rulebook published on the USPSA website (www.uspsa.org) will be deemed to be precedents and will be applied to all USPSA matches commencing on or after 7 days from the date of publication. All such interpretations are subject to ratification or modification at a regular or special meeting of the USPSA Board of Directors." Unfortunately, this rule does not bound the source of interpretations. I wish it limited to ONLY the website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 I admit, I don't care about this discussion in the slightest, but it's still curious to me that many folks believe that items can never be converted or recycled into something else. A flashlight without batteries and bulb is as much a flashlight as a beer keg that is cut in half and used for a boiling pot is still a beer keg...... i.e.... it's not. It still looks similar to a beer keg, but it can no longer fulfill the functions of a beer keg, so it seems clinton-esque to still pretend it's a keg. Same with the flashlight imho. I wonder how many of the folks on this thread were hoping to market a purpose-built handgun-weight that retails for $19.99 more than a flashlight by simply taking the batteries and bulb out of a flashlight and putting in a package that says 'weapon weight'. I guess Amidon has torpedoed your retirement plan, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kneelingatlas Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 What a terrible analogy Moto, a beer keg is a beer keg regardless of what you put in it. It's called reporposing not recycling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kneelingatlas Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 You might think this is a flashlight, but think again! This is my new coffee thermous, it holds two ounces of piping hot Starbucks mocha latte. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikerburgess Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 You might think this is a flashlight, but think again! This is my new coffee thermous, it holds two ounces of piping hot Starbucks mocha latte. If it has been modified from its original use (light emitting parts removed seal up so it doesn't leak and hopefully washed out) then it wold be a pretty cool cup and as a side affect of all that work it would no longer be a flashlight, I am willing to bet if I handed it to you full of a liquid of your choice you would not try to use it to illuminate anything. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 What a terrible analogy Moto, a beer keg is a beer keg regardless of what you put in it. It's called reporposing not recycling. nope, not if it's been modified so it can no longer hold beer under pressure. Then it's just a boiling pot made out of a beer keg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alma Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 It feels like this should go here: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Take the guts out of a Glock and walk into a courthouse. When you get your one call from jail let me know what they thought when you told them it was not a gun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 (edited) Take the guts out of a Glock and walk into a courthouse. When you get your one call from jail let me know what they thought when you told them it was not a gun That is due to a legal definition that is restricted to firearms only. Definitely doesn't apply to former flashlights. Take the motor off of a motorized bicycle and you can pedal it on a non-motorized trail. put the motor back on and you can not take it on a non-motorized trail even with the motor off. There are hundreds of other examples where modified objects are no longer treated like the objects they used to be. Edited June 16, 2014 by motosapiens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkCO Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 That is due to a legal definition that is restricted to firearms only. Definitely doesn't apply to former flashlights. Can you cite a legal precedent for your purported "legal definition"? Not trying to bust you up over this, but their are "precedents" and "statutes", not legal definitions. What an object "is" or "is not" falls under the reasonable man test, which does have precedence. If you read up, I think you will find you are not as correct as you think you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 (edited) That is due to a legal definition that is restricted to firearms only. Definitely doesn't apply to former flashlights. Can you cite a legal precedent for your purported "legal definition"? Not trying to bust you up over this, but their are "precedents" and "statutes", not legal definitions. What an object "is" or "is not" falls under the reasonable man test, which does have precedence. If you read up, I think you will find you are not as correct as you think you are. It seems that according to federal law, I *am* as correct as I think I am. The term “firearm” is defined in the Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Section 921(a)(3), to include (A) any weapon (including a starter gun), which will, or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; ( b ) the frame or receiver of any such weapon… This very specifically states in a legal definition that even if you take the guts out of a glock, it is still defined as a 'firearm'. Edited June 16, 2014 by motosapiens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkCO Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 So show that same path for a flashlight without a bulb not being a flashlight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 So show that same path for a flashlight without a bulb not being a flashlight. Why? the whole point is that there is NOT such a path. there is no legal definition (that I'm aware of) that explicitly states that a particular component of a flashlight is still a flashlight. However, there is a legal definition that explicitly states that a particular component of a gun is still a gun. Therefore, the flashlight/gun analogy is a poor one, and not relevant to this discussion. The only relevant definition we have about flashlights is mr Amidon's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkCO Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Untrue. The legal precedent is the reasonable man test. If you show someone a light, devoid of the bulb, will a reasonable man call it a light? Purely based on this discussion thread, the answer is no. That is how a good portion of legal precedents have been set in the legal system in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 (edited) Untrue. The legal precedent is the reasonable man test. If you show someone a light, devoid of the bulb, will a reasonable man call it a light? Purely based on this discussion thread, the answer is no. That is how a good portion of legal precedents have been set in the legal system in the US. Not sure what you're trying to argue. a reasonable man would agree with kneeling atlas that shadow upper on a sp01 frame is the same as an sp01 shadow. However our rules interpretation says differently. Many on this forum vociferously defend the precise interpretation of the rules. Here we have a ruling that is precise and makes sense. why not defend it too? Honestly, a 'reasonable man' would just change the rule to allow using a flashlight in limited as long as it's not turned on. Edited June 16, 2014 by motosapiens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkCO Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 I understand the ruling DNROI made, and it makes sense in one context, but it does not in the other. If the rules are to be stable, then the approach needs to be consistent and, part of what I am arguing, simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justaute Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 How funny...a grammar/legal wrangling on Enos. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alma Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 How funny...a grammar/legal wrangling on Enos. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Honestly, a 'reasonable man' would just change the rule to allow using a flashlight in limited as long as it's not turned on. THAT is the correct answer! A flashlight without a bulb and batteries is still a flashlight and the current rules state no flashlights permitted to be mounted in Open. When BV came through our stage everybody was kind of amazed that he was allowed to shoot with it. Of course most of those folks don't spend hours and hours on this forum like some of you losers so they had no idea there was a ruling made that allowed it. They simply pulled out a rule book and read the limited rules which says you can't mount a flashlight no matter whether it works or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38supPat Posted September 18, 2014 Share Posted September 18, 2014 I'm glad I shoot Open lol 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