unsafe gun handling for taking safety off while drawing

[teros135]

I have never heard of a DQed shooter being allowed to continue for no score. Not good.

It appears in BE threads here and there. Another one is the "stage DQ", where you're DQd for the stage but not the match. Geez.

[Sarge]

I have never heard of a DQed shooter being allowed to continue for no score. Not good.

It appears in BE threads here and there. Another one is the "stage DQ", where you're DQd for the stage but not the match. Geez.

Thats 3 gun crap. They do stage DQ's I guess. But I don't recall anyone worth a damn as an MD/RM ever saying they let DQ'ed shooters keep shooting. Especially not on enos.

[Skydiver]

I've seen it on Enos, but it was typically people in the IDPA section. There are times when they will freely swap the term DQ and "shoot for no score". Often I have to look closer and realize that somebody's equipment didn't pass the regulations and so they are shooting for no score, but people will colloquially say that they DQ'ed.

[rowdyb]

If you could get DQ-ed for taking the safety off while you're in the act of drawing and before the gun is horizontal then I would be DQ-ed every match. Just saying...

[remoandiris]

Let's say this was a DQable offense (which apparently it isn't), how many warnings do you get for committing DQable offenses?

There aren't supposed to be warnings.

So you've never heard an RO say MUZZLE!! or FINGER!! or any other "safety" warnings?? You just hear them say STOP!! ?? What about an AD in a "safe direction" that was declared NOT an AD?? How about an RM overruling a DQ for finger in the triggerguard or an AD??

I've seen all of them happen.

[Nghthwk1911]

8.6.1 is the most MIS-USED, and abused rule in the book! It is there to allow for SAFETY warnings, This is then translated to MUZZLE or Finger, or my favorite, you are about to shoot someone in the crowd. (Yes this was heard.)

It is ridiculous, if the RO is doing their job and watching the shooters gun, there should be no question, they either did something that violated Section 10.5, or they did NOT.

All to often shooters are given warnings under 8.6.1 on stages at local matches and never learn because it is just a warning, then they get to a bigger match and sneak through a few stages with "Buddy warnings" and then get popped for doing what they do all the time, and they don't understand why they did not get ANOTHER warning!!

Do your self and your friends a favor, if it is call it, if it's not don't.

[motosapiens]

I've seen it on Enos, but it was typically people in the IDPA section.

I saw it at a major IDPA match. Even the shooter's clubmates thought it was a bad idea.

I think many of us are too lenient at our local club matches. I've seen a couple pretty blatant 180 violations that the RO wasn't in a position to see because we just don't take it as seriously as RO-ing at a major match. This is something I would like to change locally. It's bad enough for someone to get away with it and then get dq'd at a major, but there are worse things that can happen too.

[motosapiens]

Let's say this was a DQable offense (which apparently it isn't), how many warnings do you get for committing DQable offenses?

There aren't supposed to be warnings.

So you've never heard an RO say MUZZLE!! or FINGER!! or any other "safety" warnings?? You just hear them say STOP!! ?? What about an AD in a "safe direction" that was declared NOT an AD?? How about an RM overruling a DQ for finger in the triggerguard or an AD??

I've seen all of them happen.

Warnings are supposed to be if you're close, or if the RO can't tell for sure. If you are definitely past the 180 it should definitely be a dq, no warnings no nuthin'.

[remoandiris]

Let's say this was a DQable offense (which apparently it isn't), how many warnings do you get for committing DQable offenses?

There aren't supposed to be warnings.

So you've never heard an RO say MUZZLE!! or FINGER!! or any other "safety" warnings?? You just hear them say STOP!! ?? What about an AD in a "safe direction" that was declared NOT an AD?? How about an RM overruling a DQ for finger in the triggerguard or an AD??

I've seen all of them happen.

Warnings are supposed to be if you're close, or if the RO can't tell for sure. If you are definitely past the 180 it should definitely be a dq, no warnings no nuthin'.

Yep.

[Fuelie777]

I would totally ignore the RO. If he persisted, I would ask for another or go request the RM. On the draw, impossible to gage. Also the rule deals with it holstered. The draw is unholstering the firearm, and the act of drawing the gun is bringing it to the target, where is the line of where that is.

[teros135]

I would also respectfully ask the RO what rule states when one must (or may not) release the safety, including a rule that speaks to the specific action that he's citing (in this case, "taking the safety off before the gun went horizontal"). You *should* be able to have a civil conversation about it, but if he/she gets huffy he would have to respectfully take the issue to the RM and ask for a ruling. The RM, of course, should also be able to cite a specific rule.

(Just as an aside, whenever there is a disagreement with an RO, it is exceedingly impolite and unsportsmanlike to lecture an RO, especially in front of the squad, about his decisions, deportment, behavior, or whatever. If there is a problem, one should go aside with the RO and calmly discuss the issue, and if that doesn't work out go find the RM and calmly and privately have the discussion with him. I've seen it done the other way, and it's pretty ugly and undermines the ability of the RO to maintain order and safety, which he should retain until relieved by the RM, if that becomes necessary.)

[mildot1]

The defintition of a drawn gun is as soon as I can see the trigger, do it while facing uprange and I will DQ you. So if you are facing downrange and draw to the point I can see the trigger and sweep the safety off the gun is drawn and no longer under the provisions of a holstered gun. How in the world could I issue a DQ? You however assume the responsibility for a AD if you do it.

Mildot

[mildot1]

I've seen it on Enos, but it was typically people in the IDPA section.

I saw it at a major IDPA match. Even the shooter's clubmates thought it was a bad idea.

I think many of us are too lenient at our local club matches. I've seen a couple pretty blatant 180 violations that the RO wasn't in a position to see because we just don't take it as seriously as RO-ing at a major match. This is something I would like to change locally. It's bad enough for someone to get away with it and then get dq'd at a major, but there are worse things that can happen too.

I see this more than I would ever want to! A level one match is still run under the same rules as any USPSA match. Yes there are some exemptions but the rules on safety and gear are the same.

Some RO's need to change their attitude because they are not doing the new shooters any favors by letting them slide when they should have been DQ'd.

At a match a couple years ago I saw a NEW shooter pull his pistol out of bag under the pavillon at the signup area and was yelling stop until I got him under control and the area safe. Another RO there said I was to rough on him because this was a level one match, I asked if it hurt less to get shot a a level one compared to a level two match?

Do we or should we let some things slide at a level one? Yes a new shooter shows up wanting to try the game and maybe his equipment is not the best for the game but is still safe and covers the trigger guard while holstered. Would I let him tuck away mag pouch flaps or a retaining strap on his holster, yes if I thought he could negotiate the course safely. I would rather have them thinking about shooting safely rather than worrying about getting a mag out.

Most new shooters are not members anyway and are shooting for no score, I will tell them what they are going to have to change before the next match but I don't want to run off a potential shooter over a equipment issue on the first match they shoot.

[frag316]

To address this and what moto said:

Part of the problem at a Level I match is that you don't always have the luxury of two ROs to run a stage. At Level II and higher, both the RO running the competitor and the RO with the clipboard/scoring device are certified. I've had times where I get newer competitors involved in all aspects of a match by asking them to keep score. They're not going to call something, just because they don't know what they're seeing.

Having said that, most clubs have enough guys who ARE certified ROs on the squads to watch the COF and ensure safety. I've been at a couple of matches where I've called STOP from the crowd, because I was in a position to see something the RO was not (in both cases, it was a 180 violation). If there's a disagreement from the competitor, then we all talk it out together, and I leave the decision up to the RO running the stage.

But there should never be a qualm about a guy in the squad who's an RO stopping a run for a safety violation, because of the ways a Level I generally operates.

[Onagoth]

Every time this discussion comes up...I always worry about 10.6.1 and what "failing to comply with the reasonable directions of a match official" means

Edited October 20, 2014 by Onagoth

[teros135]

One would guess the emphasis would be on "reasonable". Match officials can't make up rules, and there are rules covering this situation, as noted by posters above. In summary, those posting seem to feel that the gun is holstered (and under the rules for holstered guns) until drawn upward enough to reveal any part of the trigger, and is then under safety rules for shooting during the COF.

After the stage is done (after RIC) I might mention possible safety implications to the shooter if he/she seems to be removing the safety before the gun is fully drawn, but it still seems that it's their call. Not a DQ, just info, in case they aren't aware how quickly they're moving.

And, as others have noted, how fast are our eyes and ears, to see/hear *exactly* when the safety came off, relative to the draw stroke?

[gng4life]

This is probably legal, under the definition of "draw" in the Glossary (Appendix A3):

"The point at which a handgun is removed or disengaged from the holster so as to allow access to any portion of the interior of the trigger guard."

At the point the draw has begun (per above) you're no longer under 10.5.11.1 (above), where you have to have the safety applied when the gun is holstered in a loaded condition. It can't be both at the same time. So, as soon as the draw begins, you would be able to disengage the safety - but as was pointed out above, at the risk of an AD if you do it too fast.

I saw a guy with a Single Stack 1911 do just that at a Level I match, drew the gun and almost immediately fired. The bullet hit the ground only a couple of feet past his shoes. He was "DQd" but was allowed to finish the match, just not for score. Poor form, I believe.

Since then I've practiced releasing the safety after the gun leaves the holster and starts to get horizontal.

I have never heard of a DQed shooter being allowed to continue for no score. Not good.

+1

[2011supercomp]

Assuming the safety was applied when the gun was holster and still applied at the start signal I don't see a visit to DQ land for taking the safety "OFF" while drawing, there is no rule that address it. It's no different that starting with the gun staged on a barrel, if I grab the gun and immediately disengage the safety is it a DQ well no it's not.

Edited November 4, 2014 by 2011supercomp

[Gary Stevens]

When I RM I don't believe in overruling a safety DQ for the simple reason I didn't see it the RO did.

Now an exception to this would be if the call did not conform to the rules.

In the referenced topic I would strongly explain to the RO that it will be his job to convince the ARB committee that his call is in fact unsafe. Especially since every shooter, I would guess, does the same thing including those on the ARB committee.

I assume he/she would use unsafe gun handling as nothing else applies.

Edited November 4, 2014 by Gary Stevens

[chuckstur]

The citation was "should" not "shall"