At what point is it sweeping….

[motosapiens]

to add to the discussion...

There was a case where it was a table start and you started standing away from the table...i don't remember how far, but it's a few steps to get to the table to retrieve the gun. While the competitor was at the start position, a gust of wind blew the table over, resulting in the gun being on the ground. Some people thought it should be a DQ due to dropped gun. Final decision was that it is NOT a DQ because the competitor was not "handling" the gun.

no - I don't know the exact name and place or time...I think it was brought up during an RO or CRO class...

IMO. Has nothing to do with "NOT a DQ because the competitor was not "handling" the gun. You can't hold a competitior responsible or DQ for range equipment failue. The wind blew over the table and the competitor was in compliance with the WSB.

If at any time during the course of fire, or while loading, reloading or unloading, a competitor drops his handgun or causes it to fall, loaded or

not. Note that a competitor who, for any reason during a course of fire, safely and intentionally places the handgun on the ground or other stable object will not be disqualified provided:

10.5.3.1 The competitor maintains constant physical contact with the

handgun, until it is placed firmly and securely on the ground or

another stable object, and

10.5.3.2 The competitor remains within 3 feet of the handgun at all

times (except where the handgun is placed at a greater

distance, under the supervision of a Range Official, in order to

comply with a start position), and

10.5.3.3 The provisions of Rule 10.5.2 do not occur, and

10.5.3.4 The handgun is in the ready condition as specified in Section

8.1, or

If you want to bring that up...the competitor did not "intentionally" place the gun on the ground, did he??? that's why the discussion was that it was a dropped gun...

The ruling did not rule that it was NOT a DQ because he "placed the gun on the ground".

sounds like he intentionally placed it on an 'other stable object' (at least one that was presumed by all to be stable), as per the rule.

[Vlad]

If you holster your gun at make ready, then wave your hand under your holster before Stand By, is it sweeping?

[racerba]

If you holster your gun at make ready, then wave your hand under your holster before Stand By, is it sweeping?

no

[racerba]

to add to the discussion...

There was a case where it was a table start and you started standing away from the table...i don't remember how far, but it's a few steps to get to the table to retrieve the gun. While the competitor was at the start position, a gust of wind blew the table over, resulting in the gun being on the ground. Some people thought it should be a DQ due to dropped gun. Final decision was that it is NOT a DQ because the competitor was not "handling" the gun.

no - I don't know the exact name and place or time...I think it was brought up during an RO or CRO class...

IMO. Has nothing to do with "NOT a DQ because the competitor was not "handling" the gun. You can't hold a competitior responsible or DQ for range equipment failue. The wind blew over the table and the competitor was in compliance with the WSB.

If at any time during the course of fire, or while loading, reloading or unloading, a competitor drops his handgun or causes it to fall, loaded or

not. Note that a competitor who, for any reason during a course of fire, safely and intentionally places the handgun on the ground or other stable object will not be disqualified provided:

10.5.3.1 The competitor maintains constant physical contact with the

handgun, until it is placed firmly and securely on the ground or

another stable object, and

10.5.3.2 The competitor remains within 3 feet of the handgun at all

times (except where the handgun is placed at a greater

distance, under the supervision of a Range Official, in order to

comply with a start position), and

10.5.3.3 The provisions of Rule 10.5.2 do not occur, and

10.5.3.4 The handgun is in the ready condition as specified in Section

8.1, or

If you want to bring that up...the competitor did not "intentionally" place the gun on the ground, did he??? that's why the discussion was that it was a dropped gun...

The ruling did not rule that it was NOT a DQ because he "placed the gun on the ground".

sounds like he intentionally placed it on an 'other stable object' (at least one that was presumed by all to be stable), as per the rule.

If you want to go there and provoke the exception, then the competitor is DQ for 10.5.3.1, 10.5.3.2, 10.5.3.5, and possibly 10.5.3.3 and/or 10.5.3.6. mainly because he did not assist the gun to the ground.

The ruling was that he was not handling the gun.

[Vlad]

If you holster your gun at make ready, then wave your hand under your holster before Stand By, is it sweeping?

no

Because 10.5.5.1 says the handgun being holstered the rule doesn't apply. And thats the key part here. The handgun on the table is NOT holstered and thus not covered by any of the of the exceptions of 10.5.5.1. This is simple. If you placed the mag in front of the gun with finger tips straddling the muzzle line, you are fine. If you put your hand in front it, you are not.

[motosapiens]

to add to the discussion...

There was a case where it was a table start and you started standing away from the table...i don't remember how far, but it's a few steps to get to the table to retrieve the gun. While the competitor was at the start position, a gust of wind blew the table over, resulting in the gun being on the ground. Some people thought it should be a DQ due to dropped gun. Final decision was that it is NOT a DQ because the competitor was not "handling" the gun.

no - I don't know the exact name and place or time...I think it was brought up during an RO or CRO class...

IMO. Has nothing to do with "NOT a DQ because the competitor was not "handling" the gun. You can't hold a competitior responsible or DQ for range equipment failue. The wind blew over the table and the competitor was in compliance with the WSB.

If at any time during the course of fire, or while loading, reloading or unloading, a competitor drops his handgun or causes it to fall, loaded or

not. Note that a competitor who, for any reason during a course of fire, safely and intentionally places the handgun on the ground or other stable object will not be disqualified provided:

10.5.3.1 The competitor maintains constant physical contact with the

handgun, until it is placed firmly and securely on the ground or

another stable object, and

10.5.3.2 The competitor remains within 3 feet of the handgun at all

times (except where the handgun is placed at a greater

distance, under the supervision of a Range Official, in order to

comply with a start position), and

10.5.3.3 The provisions of Rule 10.5.2 do not occur, and

10.5.3.4 The handgun is in the ready condition as specified in Section

8.1, or

If you want to bring that up...the competitor did not "intentionally" place the gun on the ground, did he??? that's why the discussion was that it was a dropped gun...

The ruling did not rule that it was NOT a DQ because he "placed the gun on the ground".

sounds like he intentionally placed it on an 'other stable object' (at least one that was presumed by all to be stable), as per the rule.

If you want to go there and provoke the exception, then the competitor is DQ for 10.5.3.1, 10.5.3.2, 10.5.3.5, and possibly 10.5.3.3 and/or 10.5.3.6. mainly because he did not assist the gun to the ground.

The ruling was that he was not handling the gun.

You have an interesting way of looking at things. The wind blowing over the table is pretty irrelevant to the sweeping issue, which seems pretty cut and dried, but maybe you can get an RM or arb board to agree with you. I'm not going to rely on that. I'm just going to not put any magazines down in front of my muzzle.

Edited July 8, 2014 by motosapiens

[racerba]

Because 10.5.5.1 says the handgun being holstered the rule doesn't apply. And thats the key part here. The handgun on the table is NOT holstered and thus not covered by any of the of the exceptions of 10.5.5.1. This is simple. If you placed the mag in front of the gun with finger tips straddling the muzzle line, you are fine. If you put your hand in front it, you are not.

We are not talking about holstered handguns...nor the exception of sweeping while handling the gun to/from the holster.

"10.5.5.1 ...This exception is only for holstered handguns..."

10.5.5.1 is talking about sweeping while you are handling the gun...and how it doesn't apply to holstered handguns. 10.5 talks about Unsafe Gun Handling...

[racerba]

You have an interesting way of looking at things. The wind blowing over the table is pretty irrelevant to the sweeping issue, which seems pretty cut and dried, but maybe you can get an RM or arb board to agree with you. I'm not going to rely on that. I'm just going to not put any magazines down in front of my muzzle.

I didn't say I would put the mag down in front of the muzzle either...but the question was asked. I believe we covered this in the RO or CRO class...hence the example of the wind-blown table and handling issue.

NROI may rule it differently, I don't know. I've seen ruling reversed before...

Edited July 8, 2014 by racerba

[lcs]

to add to the discussion...

There was a case where it was a table start and you started standing away from the table...i don't remember how far, but it's a few steps to get to the table to retrieve the gun. While the competitor was at the start position, a gust of wind blew the table over, resulting in the gun being on the ground. Some people thought it should be a DQ due to dropped gun. Final decision was that it is NOT a DQ because the competitor was not "handling" the gun.

no - I don't know the exact name and place or time...I think it was brought up during an RO or CRO class...

IMO. Has nothing to do with "NOT a DQ because the competitor was not "handling" the gun. You can't hold a competitior responsible or DQ for range equipment failue. The wind blew over the table and the competitor was in compliance with the WSB.

If at any time during the course of fire, or while loading, reloading or unloading, a competitor drops his handgun or causes it to fall, loaded or

not. Note that a competitor who, for any reason during a course of fire, safely and intentionally places the handgun on the ground or other stable object will not be disqualified provided:

10.5.3.1 The competitor maintains constant physical contact with the

handgun, until it is placed firmly and securely on the ground or

another stable object, and

10.5.3.2 The competitor remains within 3 feet of the handgun at all

times (except where the handgun is placed at a greater

distance, under the supervision of a Range Official, in order to

comply with a start position), and

10.5.3.3 The provisions of Rule 10.5.2 do not occur, and

10.5.3.4 The handgun is in the ready condition as specified in Section

8.1, or

If you want to bring that up...the competitor did not "intentionally" place the gun on the ground, did he??? that's why the discussion was that it was a dropped gun...

The ruling did not rule that it was NOT a DQ because he "placed the gun on the ground". The discussion was whether he dropped the gun provision of 10.5.3. Sub-rules 10.5.3.1-6 did not play a part since he did not place the gun on the ground.

Your missing the applicable part.

....other stable object will not be disqualified provided: 10.5.3.4 The handgun is in the ready condition as specified in Section

8.1, or

The competitor placed the gun on a stable object and doing so was in compliance with the WSB per 8.1........ So the competitor cannot be DQ for complying with the rules. There is no rule to justify a DQ because the wind blew over the table. You can't say "He was not handling the gun as the reason for not DQing him..That is my point.

Edited July 8, 2014 by lcs

[racerba]

Your missing the applicable part.

....other stable object will not be disqualified provided: 10.5.3.4 The handgun is in the ready condition as specified in Section

8.1, or

The competitor placed the gun on a stable object and doing so was in compliance with the WSB per 8.1........ So the competitor cannot be DQ for complying with the rules. There is no rule to justify a DQ because the wind blew over the table. You can't say "He was not handling the gun as the reason for not DQing him..That is my point.

I did not missed the applicable parts...actually the applicable parts are part of my point that you missed:

...provided:

10.5.3.1

AND

10.5.3.2

AND

etc...

As I pointed out, the provided parts "and/or" was not followed...and would be a DQ. However the ruling was that the competitor was not handling the gun, therefore the competitor did not "dropped" the gun.

Not my ruling or interpretation...BTW

Edited July 8, 2014 by racerba

[motosapiens]

As I pointed out, the provided parts "and/or" was not followed...and would be a DQ. However the ruling was that the competitor was not handling the gun, therefore the competitor did not "dropped" the gun.

Not my ruling or interpretation...BTW

Wait, what? which provided parts were not followed? Maybe I missed something. Can you elaborate. It sounds to me like in the situation with the the table blowing over, the provided parts *were* followed.

[lcs]

Your missing the applicable part.

....other stable object will not be disqualified provided: 10.5.3.4 The handgun is in the ready condition as specified in Section

8.1, or

The competitor placed the gun on a stable object and doing so was in compliance with the WSB per 8.1........ So the competitor cannot be DQ for complying with the rules. There is no rule to justify a DQ because the wind blew over the table. You can't say "He was not handling the gun as the reason for not DQing him..That is my point.

I did not missed the applicable parts...actually the applicable parts are part of my point that you missed:

...provided:

10.5.3.1

AND

10.5.3.2

AND

etc...

As I pointed out, the provided parts "and/or" was not followed...and would be a DQ. However the ruling was that the competitor was not handling the gun, therefore the competitor did not "dropped" the gun.

Not my ruling or interpretation...BTW

I understand you did not make the ruling....no intent on my part that you did.

I agree the competitor did NOT DQ. I don't agree with the reason stated.- "He wasn't handling the gun" How would that logic apply if.... I set the gun on any object specified by the WSB and assume the start position (let's say facing uprange, wrists above shoulders) and the gun slides off the table.

DQ ? You bet. I was not technically "handling the gun", but because of my action or lack of action the gun hit the ground.

IMO, the reason/justification for not issuing a DQ in the table example is Range Equipment failure.

[frag316]

While I realize I'm quoting a different rulebook here, in USPSA, sweeping doesn't mean the competitor has to have the gun in his/her hand:

5.3.7 Allowing the muzzle to point at any part of the competitor’s body during a course of fire (i.e. sweeping). This includes passing in front of the muzzle of an abandoned firearm.

Page 24, USPSA Rifle, Shotgun, and Multigun Rules.

For purposes of discussion, an "abandoned" firearm is placed in a retention device and in a defined ready condition.

[racerba]

As I pointed out, the provided parts "and/or" was not followed...and would be a DQ. However the ruling was that the competitor was not handling the gun, therefore the competitor did not "dropped" the gun.

Not my ruling or interpretation...BTW

Wait, what? which provided parts were not followed? Maybe I missed something. Can you elaborate. It sounds to me like in the situation with the the table blowing over, the provided parts *were* followed.

You are saying that it was not a DQ because the competitor placed the gun on the table - a stable object...correct?

If that is your argument for when the gun hit the ground, well, according to the rule 10.5.3, the competitor is allowed to do that...PROVIDED 10.5.3.1 and/or up to 10.5.3.6 is compliance. Well, several of those were not in compliance. So the provided parts were NOT followed especially 10.5.3.2. The key situation in question was when the gun hit the ground...not when the gun is placed on the table per WSB.

So if you want to use the argument that he was handling the gun but he doesn't get DQ because he followed 10.5.3 - he didn't...therefore a DQ.

My argument is that he was not handling the gun so it is not a DQ.

[racerba]

I agree the competitor did NOT DQ. I don't agree with the reason stated.- "He wasn't handling the gun" How would that logic apply if.... I set the gun on any object specified by the WSB and assume the start position (let's say facing uprange, wrists above shoulders) and the gun slides off the table.

IMO, the reason/justification for not issuing a DQ in the table example is Range Equipment failure.

Not necessarily. It's a DQ because of your bad handling, which caused the gun to slide, because you did not secure it or you bumped the table or whatever. I would have to assess the situation as to why the gun slid before issuing a DQ. Once you placed the gun securely and walk away from it...it is out of your control.

REF can be grounds for a DQ. Let's say a wall falls as you are running and hits your gun causing you to break the 180...DQ even though it's a REF. In a recent discussion, a shoot through to a steel that was left standing and less than 23 ft. is a DQ even though it can be REF and bad stage design.

[motosapiens]

As I pointed out, the provided parts "and/or" was not followed...and would be a DQ. However the ruling was that the competitor was not handling the gun, therefore the competitor did not "dropped" the gun.

Not my ruling or interpretation...BTW

Wait, what? which provided parts were not followed? Maybe I missed something. Can you elaborate. It sounds to me like in the situation with the the table blowing over, the provided parts *were* followed.

You are saying that it was not a DQ because the competitor placed the gun on the table - a stable object...correct?

If that is your argument for when the gun hit the ground, well, according to the rule 10.5.3, the competitor is allowed to do that...PROVIDED 10.5.3.1 and/or up to 10.5.3.6 is compliance. Well, several of those were not in compliance. So the provided parts were NOT followed especially 10.5.3.2. The key situation in question was when the gun hit the ground...not when the gun is placed on the table per WSB.

So if you want to use the argument that he was handling the gun but he doesn't get DQ because he followed 10.5.3 - he didn't...therefore a DQ.

My argument is that he was not handling the gun so it is not a DQ.

Can you be specific and tell me what exactly was not in compliance at the point of the range equipment failure (table blowing over). I don't understand what you are trying to say.

[motosapiens]

In a recent discussion, a shoot through to a steel that was left standing and less than 23 ft. is a DQ even though it can be REF and bad stage design.

I'm no 3-gunner, but that appears to be a very bad call going by the letter of the rules.

[racerba]

In a recent discussion, a shoot through to a steel that was left standing and less than 23 ft. is a DQ even though it can be REF and bad stage design.

I'm no 3-gunner, but that appears to be a very bad call going by the letter of the rules.

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=198264&hl=

[CZinSC]

Racerba, It took me a while, plus I’m at work, to see the logic jump you are making. While I don’t agree with it, I now better understand what you’re saying. So correct me if I’m wrong:

Your contention is that rule 10.5.5 falls under 10.5 which is titled “Match DQ – Unsafe Gun Handling”. The key word being “handling”. The glossary further defines handling as “The act of manipulating, holding, or gripping a firearm while the trigger is functionally accessible.” So, since the word handling is defined as such, you are saying that as long as the gun is on the table prior to placing the mags, the competitor can put the magazine in position #4, without being DQ’d per 10.5.5, because he is not handling the gun?

If that is what you’re saying, I still disagree with that, and I’d point to the definition of Sweeping, and then to Rule 10.5.5 which says nothing about handling. Rule 10.5.7 says “wearing or…” and it’s in the gun handling section. I think you’re taking the title of the section too literally. In my opinion.

But let me ask you this, after Make Ready, if a competitor put an unloaded firearm down on a table, and then walked around the table 360 degrees ( my point being that at some point the muzzle would be pointing right at him ), that it would be fine because he wasn’t handling it? Would you say the same thing if the gun was loaded? Would you let a competitor, who places a loaded weapon down securely on a table, remains within 3 feet of the gun, doesn't allow the muzzle to break the 180, and he abides by rule 8.1 and it is in the proper Ready Condition, walk to the other side of the table, and stick his face right up to the muzzle, without touching it, and you still wouldn't DQ him? ( put aside for a second that the competitor is probably Bat-Sh*t crazy if he did that ). You’re saying that is not a DQ because he wasn't handling it?

[motosapiens]

In a recent discussion, a shoot through to a steel that was left standing and less than 23 ft. is a DQ even though it can be REF and bad stage design.

I'm no 3-gunner, but that appears to be a very bad call going by the letter of the rules.

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=198264&hl=

Yep, definitely a bad call the way the rules are currently written, but not really relevant to this thread.

[racerba]

As I pointed out, the provided parts "and/or" was not followed...and would be a DQ. However the ruling was that the competitor was not handling the gun, therefore the competitor did not "dropped" the gun.

Not my ruling or interpretation...BTW

Wait, what? which provided parts were not followed? Maybe I missed something. Can you elaborate. It sounds to me like in the situation with the the table blowing over, the provided parts *were* followed.

You are saying that it was not a DQ because the competitor placed the gun on the table - a stable object...correct?

If that is your argument for when the gun hit the ground, well, according to the rule 10.5.3, the competitor is allowed to do that...PROVIDED 10.5.3.1 and/or up to 10.5.3.6 is compliance. Well, several of those were not in compliance. So the provided parts were NOT followed especially 10.5.3.2. The key situation in question was when the gun hit the ground...not when the gun is placed on the table per WSB.

So if you want to use the argument that he was handling the gun but he doesn't get DQ because he followed 10.5.3 - he didn't...therefore a DQ.

My argument is that he was not handling the gun so it is not a DQ.

Can you be specific and tell me what exactly was not in compliance at the point of the range equipment failure (table blowing over). I don't understand what you are trying to say.

First of all - 10.5.3 deals with placing a gun down during the course of fire. If you want to invoke rule 10.5.3 and apply it to this situation...well:

1 - 10.5.3.1 the competitor did NOT assist the gun to the ground...even though he placed it on the then stable table...

2 - 10.5.3.2 was not followed since the competitor did not remain within 3 ft of the gun at all times

All i'm saying is that 10.5.3 did not come into play because the competitor was not handling the gun.

I am not arguing to the point of compliance with the WSB. I agree what he did up to the point the table got blown over was all legal. What the competitor did prior to anything illegal was and is legal. A competitor pointing a gun down range is legal up until the second he points the gun past the 180.

The argument was whether the competitor "dropped" the gun or not when the wind blew the table over. The ruling was that the competitor did not drop the gun because the competitor was not handling the gun. You can argue all you want but that was the ruling and the reason was given.

[racerba]

Racerba, It took me a while, plus I’m at work, to see the logic jump you are making. While I don’t agree with it, I now better understand what you’re saying. So correct me if I’m wrong:

Your contention is that rule 10.5.5 falls under 10.5 which is titled “Match DQ – Unsafe Gun Handling”. The key word being “handling”. The glossary further defines handling as “The act of manipulating, holding, or gripping a firearm while the trigger is functionally accessible.” So, since the word handling is defined as such, you are saying that as long as the gun is on the table prior to placing the mags, the competitor can put the magazine in position #4, without being DQ’d per 10.5.5, because he is not handling the gun? Correct

If that is what you’re saying, I still disagree with that, and I’d point to the definition of Sweeping, and then to Rule 10.5.5 which says nothing about handling. Rule 10.5.7 says “wearing or…” and it’s in the gun handling section. I think you’re taking the title of the section too literally. In my opinion.

The point to 10.5.7 that puts the rule in 10.5 is the "use" part. The wearing is just part of the rule that happens to apply.

But let me ask you this, after Make Ready, if a competitor put an unloaded firearm down on a table, and then walked around the table 360 degrees ( my point being that at some point the muzzle would be pointing right at him ), that it would be fine because he wasn’t handling it? Would you say the same thing if the gun was loaded? Would you let a competitor, who places a loaded weapon down securely on a table, remains within 3 feet of the gun, doesn't allow the muzzle to break the 180, and he abides by rule 8.1 and it is in the proper Ready Condition, walk to the other side of the table, and stick his face right up to the muzzle, without touching it, and you still wouldn't DQ him? ( put aside for a second that the competitor is probably Bat-Sh*t crazy if he did that ). You’re saying that is not a DQ because he wasn't handling it?

I would obviously stop hem before he walks around. But if it gets beyond that point, yes, I would not DQ him for the same reason. If he decides to put his face in front, then probably unsportsmanlike conduct would apply or maybe 10.7 would better apply in that situation.

[motosapiens]

As I pointed out, the provided parts "and/or" was not followed...and would be a DQ. However the ruling was that the competitor was not handling the gun, therefore the competitor did not "dropped" the gun.

Not my ruling or interpretation...BTW

Wait, what? which provided parts were not followed? Maybe I missed something. Can you elaborate. It sounds to me like in the situation with the the table blowing over, the provided parts *were* followed.

You are saying that it was not a DQ because the competitor placed the gun on the table - a stable object...correct?

If that is your argument for when the gun hit the ground, well, according to the rule 10.5.3, the competitor is allowed to do that...PROVIDED 10.5.3.1 and/or up to 10.5.3.6 is compliance. Well, several of those were not in compliance. So the provided parts were NOT followed especially 10.5.3.2. The key situation in question was when the gun hit the ground...not when the gun is placed on the table per WSB.

So if you want to use the argument that he was handling the gun but he doesn't get DQ because he followed 10.5.3 - he didn't...therefore a DQ.

My argument is that he was not handling the gun so it is not a DQ.

Can you be specific and tell me what exactly was not in compliance at the point of the range equipment failure (table blowing over). I don't understand what you are trying to say.

First of all - 10.5.3 deals with placing a gun down during the course of fire. If you want to invoke rule 10.5.3 and apply it to this situation...well:

1 - 10.5.3.1 the competitor did NOT assist the gun to the ground...even though he placed it on the then stable table...

2 - 10.5.3.2 was not followed since the competitor did not remain within 3 ft of the gun at all times

All i'm saying is that 10.5.3 did not come into play because the competitor was not handling the gun.

I am not arguing to the point of compliance with the WSB. I agree what he did up to the point the table got blown over was all legal. What the competitor did prior to anything illegal was and is legal. A competitor pointing a gun down range is legal up until the second he points the gun past the 180.

The argument was whether the competitor "dropped" the gun or not when the wind blew the table over. The ruling was that the competitor did not drop the gun because the competitor was not handling the gun. You can argue all you want but that was the ruling and the reason was given.

After reading the rules carefully, i think perhaps that reasoning is just a confusing choice of words. Reggarding the table blowing over, the way I would express it is that the competitor did not drop the gun, and the competitor did not cause it to fall, so 10.5.3 doesn't even apply. There does not appear to be any rule that allows a dq for a table blowing over with a gun on it. I think it is a mistake to make any connection to the word 'handling' in the rule heading.

It gets a little fuzzier if the gun ends up pointing uprange at some point, because 10.5.2 applies if the competitor 'allows the muzzle of his handgun to point rearwards'. 'allows' is a totally different meaning than 'causes'. I would probably tend to argue that once the competitor has placed the gun in accordance with the wsb, he can't be held responsible for external acts of god or weather, but someone could certainly accuse me of making up rules, lol.

But that's the table blowing over. Muzzling yourself is different. The rule says 'allowing the muzzle of a handgun to point at any part of the competitor's body'. If you put yourself in front of the muzzle, you are certainly allowing it, so it's a dq. period.

Edited July 8, 2014 by motosapiens

[CZinSC]

Racerba, It took me a while, plus I’m at work, to see the logic jump you are making. While I don’t agree with it, I now better understand what you’re saying. So correct me if I’m wrong:

Your contention is that rule 10.5.5 falls under 10.5 which is titled “Match DQ – Unsafe Gun Handling”. The key word being “handling”. The glossary further defines handling as “The act of manipulating, holding, or gripping a firearm while the trigger is functionally accessible.” So, since the word handling is defined as such, you are saying that as long as the gun is on the table prior to placing the mags, the competitor can put the magazine in position #4, without being DQ’d per 10.5.5, because he is not handling the gun? Correct

If that is what you’re saying, I still disagree with that, and I’d point to the definition of Sweeping, and then to Rule 10.5.5 which says nothing about handling. Rule 10.5.7 says “wearing or…” and it’s in the gun handling section. I think you’re taking the title of the section too literally. In my opinion.

The point to 10.5.7 that puts the rule in 10.5 is the "use" part. The wearing is just part of the rule that happens to apply.

But let me ask you this, after Make Ready, if a competitor put an unloaded firearm down on a table, and then walked around the table 360 degrees ( my point being that at some point the muzzle would be pointing right at him ), that it would be fine because he wasn’t handling it? Would you say the same thing if the gun was loaded? Would you let a competitor, who places a loaded weapon down securely on a table, remains within 3 feet of the gun, doesn't allow the muzzle to break the 180, and he abides by rule 8.1 and it is in the proper Ready Condition, walk to the other side of the table, and stick his face right up to the muzzle, without touching it, and you still wouldn't DQ him? ( put aside for a second that the competitor is probably Bat-Sh*t crazy if he did that ). You’re saying that is not a DQ because he wasn't handling it?

I would obviously stop hem before he walks around. But if it gets beyond that point, yes, I would not DQ him for the same reason. If he decides to put his face in front, then probably unsportsmanlike conduct would apply or maybe 10.7 would better apply in that situation.

Yes, but in 10.5.7 you don't have to handle the gun to get a dq, Just wearing a second gun is a dq. Same with sweeping, you don't have to be handling it to sweep yourself.

[racerba]

Yes, but in 10.5.7 you don't have to handle the gun to get a dq, Just wearing a second gun is a dq. Same with sweeping, you don't have to be handling it to sweep yourself.

Agree to the 10.5.7 part...but if that was the only clause, it might have been put elsewhere or not. But the "use" part of the rule definitely falls under the handling part. IMO.

Edited July 8, 2014 by racerba