Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!
Sign in to follow this  
CHA-LEE

Is a "Range Member Only" USPSA match legal?

Recommended Posts

OK I'll bite. We shoot USPSA March-October and charge $15 to shoot 5 great stages. I think that's $120 per year to shoot at my match. Matches are open to ALL, not just uspsa members.

Steel matches are $3 and they shoot all year I think. But I am only concerned with uspsa since that is what we are talking about in the thread.

If you join our club for the purpose of wanting to practice on your own It's 200 initiation plus 95 the first year then 95 per year thereafter. But if you have a place to practice there really is no need to join because ANY organized match at our club is open to the public.

So simple math is $120 to shoot my matches all year. If we forced them to join the club our match would die because it currently takes a year and a half just to get into orientation. But if it managed to survive it would cost $415 the first year then $215 per year after that vs. $120 to come and shoot our matches. This way they can spend another $120 per year to shoot at the club 30 minutes up the road and another $120 at the club 30 minutes up the OTHER road, etc.....

We need to keep it somewhat consistent for now, we can break out Uspsa only next. Assume you will get 9 Uspsa match's in.

Also need to know if you charge more to non members. Is $15 for everyone sarge?

Right now you are at

9 Uspsa @$15 = $135

20 steel @$3. = $60

Total $195 for sarge

Please keep some numbers coming in so we can get a good feel for normal a baseline can we say.

We only shoot 8 matches per year. Yes $15 for all. Steel is tough because in the summer months we shoot one a month on Saturday, one every wednesday night and maybe one every Wednesday morning for the retirees.

Around here all matches are between 15 and 20 bucks.

So if I go to 10 matches that cost $20.00 each it would cost me $200.00 I joined my club for $150.00 and shot 10 matches at my club at $5.00 each I am at $200.00 so it comes out the same. Yes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Affiliated Clubs are autonomous in nature and are specifically allowed to conduct club business according to their own local, State and Federal laws, club bylaws, and/or business practices.

Affiliated club (USPSA) and host range. It is up to the USPSA club to operate with in the rules of the host range!

...

This has been an interesting discussion.

Would you use this argument to defend a club that...

  • had club bylaws prohibiting muzzles from being oriented over a berm (think "USPSA reload"), violation resulting in DQ/ejection from the property
  • and held USPSA matches
  • and DQd competitors for every "muzzle over the berm orientation" orientation

Hey, it's in the club's bylaws, right? And you've quoted a sentence from USPSA bylaws 4.8 that seems to support the practice, right? So it must be fine, right?

Are the two arguments similar? Why (or why not)?

Respectfully,

ac

So yes this can be done. So how does this apply to the Affiliation agreement? Our host range did not change any rule or enforce any local rule.

3.3 Applicability of Rules:

USPSA matches are governed by the rules applicable to the discipline. Host organizations may not enforce local rules except to comply with legislation or legal precedent in the applicable jurisdiction. Any voluntarily adopted rules that are not in compliance with these rules must not be applied to USPSA matches without the express written consent of the President of USPSA. All local rules allowed under these provisions will be documented at USPSA HQ

Edited by bkeeler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And why can't you come and shoot a match at my club? Who is stopping you?

If you can't read your own writing, I can't really help you.

Vlad, for some reason you seem to think that it will be helpful to this discussion for me to give my personal opinions about various situations (including "rights" which seems odd in this case). There is an argument tactic along those lines, in which a person who can't support their argument in a debate based on logic instead attempts to alter the argument into a discussion of the people arguing. It is a logical error then, just as it is now.

Simple point of this entire thread: The affiliation agreement is an agreement signed by a club saying they will do certain things. If you aren't going to do those things, it seems odd to sign the agreement. If you sign the agreement, you should do those certain things. Yes?

My personal opinion about what should be done (after) or my opinion on what rights or entitlements people have is immaterial to this discussion. I suggest that you instead keep to the discussion at hand, though of course you are welcome to write whatever you like. Attempting to make it about my opinions, however, will not change the discussion itself.

bkeeler, I won't pick up you and take you to any matches where I shoot. Transportation is up to you. But our matches are open to any legal gun owners who can follow USPSA's safety rules, even if they aren't members of our gun club. And our match fees are the same for members and non-members. Feel free to stop by and shoot a match--we have a USPSA match this Sunday, a Multigun match in two weeks, and a Steel Challenge match the week after that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And why can't you come and shoot a match at my club? Who is stopping you?

If you can't read your own writing, I can't really help you.

Vlad, for some reason you seem to think that it will be helpful to this discussion for me to give my personal opinions about various situations (including "rights" which seems odd in this case). There is an argument tactic along those lines, in which a person who can't support their argument in a debate based on logic instead attempts to alter the argument into a discussion of the people arguing. It is a logical error then, just as it is now.

Simple point of this entire thread: The affiliation agreement is an agreement signed by a club saying they will do certain things. If you aren't going to do those things, it seems odd to sign the agreement. If you sign the agreement, you should do those certain things. Yes?

My personal opinion about what should be done (after) or my opinion on what rights or entitlements people have is immaterial to this discussion. I suggest that you instead keep to the discussion at hand, though of course you are welcome to write whatever you like. Attempting to make it about my opinions, however, will not change the discussion itself.

bkeeler, I won't pick up you and take you to any matches where I shoot. Transportation is up to you. But our matches are open to any legal gun owners who can follow USPSA's safety rules, even if they aren't members of our gun club. And our match fees are the same for members and non-members. Feel free to stop by and shoot a match--we have a USPSA match this Sunday, a Multigun match in two weeks, and a Steel Challenge match the week after that.

So I said you couldn't come to our USPSA match?

Well transportation is up to me,well that's not right. So your matches are open, as long as I have transportation to the match. Ok fair enough!

The club agrees that all USPSA matches shall be open to any person eligible for USPSA membership or are members of other IPSC regions.

Still don't see where I ever told or said someone CAN't shoot our USPSA sanctioned matches. Did I?

Edited by bkeeler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thomas you seem to refuse to answer a question because it leaves down an uncomfortable path. Let me do that for you anyway.

My first question to you was what if an exemption is applied for and denied? Should the match be closed down? There are only two possible answers, yes and no, but both come with significant implications.

If the answer is yes, you just told 50 or whatever number of USPSA members who weren't hurting anyone and paying their fees to USPSA that their fun must go away because some theoretical people who may or may not exist can not play along with them. That's a rather shitty thing to do, IMHO. It doesn't help USPSA and it doesn't help the shooters. If I was a match director forced in that position I'm not sure I would want to take the chance to ask for an exemption and not receive it, ending up with closing the doors.

If the answer is no, then why bother with the process.

So, given that context, I ask you again, should the match be closed down if an exemption is not granted? This isn't a theoretical question, it is an attempt to get you to think on consequences of ones actions instead on pounding on a rule book.

That is exactly the same reason why I asked about entitlements. To me, this entire conversation steams from the notion that paying $40 a year for a USPSA membership somehow grants on the right to participate in any USPSA competition on any private property, with the private property owners signing away a lot of their property rights to meet USPSA rules. I have a problem with that, no matter what the USPSA rules say about it. I think if you put yourself in the shoes of property owners faced with that choice you might realize that if USPSA decided to be a hard case about these issues there would be a lot fewer USPSA matches and a lot fewer clubs willing to even start one.

There is this line of thought that USPSA's rules are somehow sacrosanct (never mind we change them with disturbing regularity) and superseding all other. I think that is a good goal to preserve competitive equity and we should never compromise those rules for L2 and above matches, but asking for those ADMINISTRATIVE rules to be enforced without exceptions at L1 matches is asking to be ignored and made irrelevant. We are not talking about competitive differences, safety differences, or social or racial exclusion here.

It seems to me that wisely USPSA isn't actually making that big of an issue about these things so far. Pushing the issue might be a mistake.

Edited to add: and consider this, if an exemptions is applied and granted, we now might as well remove that language from affiliation contract, as it is meaningless.

Edited by Vlad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No to your credit you said we can shoot the first, second and third matches and then we must become a member to shoot any more.

post-39566-0-79283600-1414687623_thumb.j

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, I have a reason why I'm involved in this conversation beyond the hypothetical. That agreement says that matches should be open to anyone ELIGIBLE to a USPSA membership.

First of all, as a match director I have no way to verify who is eligible or not. Heck I don't think I even have access to a list of people explicitly banned from USPSA competition, but lets leave that aside.

Secondly, I have real life examples why that a completely broken requirement. Both of the clubs I am involved with have banned people from their property for reasons that have nothing to do with USPSA or USPSA membership eligibility. If the affiliation agreement was to be taken as an inflexible requirement, then the logical conclusion would be that if one of the people banned from USPSA wanted to attend an USPSA match on a property they were banned from the match director would have one of 3 options: a) allow them and be in conflict with the property owners, B) disallow them and be in conflict with USPSA or c) get an exemption from USPSA whenever someone gets banned by the property owners which may involve communicating to USPSA things they are not allowed to divulge because of legal proceedings or other privacy issues. All of that seems rather odd, specially if the person in questions is not even a USPSA member.

I was personally involved in the banning of 2 people from the club property, both of which used to shoot USPSA matches. I informed USPSA about the clubs decision, but not asked for their permission. I suppose technically I'm in violation of my agreement with USPSA.

Edited by Vlad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally some valid points!

Unless we hear from USPSA HQ that we are no longer an affiliated club, we will continue to have USPSA matches at our host range. So all of you are welcome to come out and shoot with us!

Like I posted earlier there are a lot of clubs in a similar situation as we are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name="Vlad" post="2270511" timestamp="

To me, this entire conversation steams from the notion that paying $40 a year for a USPSA membership somehow grants on the right to participate in any USPSA competition on any private property, with the private property owners signing away a lot of their property rights to meet USPSA rules. I have a problem with that, no matter what the USPSA rules say about it. I think if you put yourself in the shoes of property owners faced with that choice you might realize that if USPSA decided to be a hard case about these issues there would be a lot fewer USPSA matches and a lot fewer clubs willing to even start one.

There is this line of thought that USPSA's rules are somehow sacrosanct (never mind we change them with disturbing regularity) and superseding all other.

.

Card carrying USPSA members in good standing ARE entitled to shoot any sanctioned USPSA match.

Clubs are not forced to sign the affiliation application. They are more than welcome to shoot any outlaw matches they choose. But once they do sign it they should abide by it. If there is doubt then don't sign saying you will hold USPSA rules sacred.

I can't imagine visiting a club and being told I can't reload with the gun up and pointed over a berm, etc. I can clearly see the reasoning behind the agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sarge, that's not really the point here is it? We are not talking about game changing local rules.

Also I'll point that the affiliation doesn't say USPSA members in good standing, it says people ELIGIBLE to be USPSA members. There is a difference between those.

But again, you and I discussed this elsewhere and we've disagreed before on the notion that USPSA can realistically hold it's rules above those property owners and hope to survive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally some valid points!

Unless we hear from USPSA HQ that we are no longer an affiliated club, we will continue to have USPSA matches at our host range. So all of you are welcome to come out and shoot with us!

Up until the fourth match. Then we can't anymore. Yes? There we go.

What you posted earlier in reply:

So I said you couldn't come to our USPSA match?

Well transportation is up to me,well that's not right. So your matches are open, as long as I have transportation to the match. Ok fair enough!

The club agrees that all USPSA matches shall be open to any person eligible for USPSA membership or are members of other IPSC regions.

Still don't see where I ever told or said someone CAN't shoot our USPSA sanctioned matches. Did I?

....made no sense, so I'll be ignoring it.

YOU said there are additional requirements to shoot USPSA matches at your club. Everything you've said since hasn't changed that fact---your matches are not open to "any person eligible for USPSA membership or are members of other IPSC regions" unless they ALSO fulfill other requirements for you.

You haven't ever refuted this. Which makes sense, because you can't. After all, they are your club's rules.

You keep saying that it is open to folks---and yet, it isn't. Unless they also fulfill OTHER requirements that you've set.

If you think that means the same thing, then you are okay with (in a similar mode) saying "Yes, anyone can come shoot our matches but first they must contribute money to the LGBT awareness fund." After all, ANYONE can do that, so it must be all right!

No? What, we can't add extra conditions to the "open to anyone..." requirements of the affiliation agreement?

Oh right---we aren't supposed to. That's what the affiliation agreement is about.

It interests me how people are more involved with defending something obviously incorrect than simply saying "Yeah, we do this, we don't like it, the board makes us,we've been trying to change it but haven't been able to do it."

...because while bkeeler (and even ExtremeShot) has said "we don't like it, the board makes us, we've been trying to change it but haven't been able to do it" they still aren't admitting to the "yeah, we aren't able to follow the affiliation agreement" part.

If range membership is a prior requirement to shooting a USPSA match at a particular club, then said USPSA match is not open as it should be.

Vlad of course said:

Thomas you seem to refuse to answer a question because it leaves down an uncomfortable path. Let me do that for you anyway.

....again attempting to make this about me. As you have no concept of my emotional state, your statement is obviously ridiculous.

And again, what you are saying is not the point at hand. Your attempt to turn a factual discussion into a hypothetical is up to you, but it doesn't mean I have to respond, as I'm interested in the factual discussion at hand.

I will note two things:

To me, this entire conversation steams from the notion that paying $40 a year for a USPSA membership somehow grants on the right to participate in any USPSA competition on any private property, with the private property owners signing away a lot of their property rights to meet USPSA rules.

Isn't that rather the point of the affiliation agreement? And if you don't want to allow certain things, don't sign the agreement? After all, no one forced your club to sign the agreement.

And also:

Both of the clubs I am involved with have banned people from their property for reasons that have nothing to do with USPSA or USPSA membership eligibility.

Doesn't USPSA already have something that covers this? I believe I read something about it awhile back, which solved this problem. I also recall that in the rules, a particular person can be barred from competing in a specific match/club/area without losing actual membership, though some paperwork to HQ is required.

So---yeah, don't see the problem.

Again, in the end: It interests me that people who are clearly not following the affiliation agreement won't simply admit it, but instead are attempting to claim that really, seriously, no really, this is open to anyone.

After all, I even said earlier:

I'm sorry to hear that your BoD is comprised of people who hate action shooting sports---I know how that feels. We are lucky enough at our range to have (in the last 10 years) managed to slowly get more and more people on the board that care about ALL shooting sports, and thus our action sports have flourished. Hope you can get that to happen over time, too.

{snip}

I'm glad you have local shooters who support the sport. And having a dedicated crowd of folks to help out and hold matches it great.

{snip}

I see your situation---BoD actively against action shooting, your bylaws apparently allow proxy voting (ours doesn't---must be at the annual meeting for bylaw changes), but the good part is that apparently your yearly fee is low, and the 3-times-first is at least a good start.

I personally am not saying you guys should be shut down. I am simply saying that what you are doing (which indeed may be the best that you can actually do at this time) is not what the affiliation agreement seems to require.

Hope that in the future, you get more power on the BoD at your club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't see the problem? Sorry man, I don't know who to explain it to you better. One of the clubs I belong to has 3000 members, they probably ban 10 people per year or more for some reason or another. You want me to file paper work for all those folks even if they are not USPSA members?

You really seem to think that USPSA is some form of higher power instead of a partner in a three way relationship between land owners, match organizers and USPSA. I'm not really making this about you, but I'm encouraging you to follow through the logic of what you are asking for. I can tell you that in my experience usually it isn't the land owner who signs and agreement with USPSA, it is a third party that has to play monkey in the middle. Make that monkey's life difficult and quickly you will notice fewer clubs.

You seem to think my arguments are hypothetical but they are concrete examples of the bkeeler's club and mine, for different reasons. Heck, I tell people all the time they can't shoot at my club, because I don't believe they know how to handle a gun. I have no idea if USPSA approves of that, and some are even USPSA members that signed up before they even shot a match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally some valid points!

Unless we hear from USPSA HQ that we are no longer an affiliated club, we will continue to have USPSA matches at our host range. So all of you are welcome to come out and shoot with us!

Up until the fourth match. Then we can't anymore. Yes? There we go.

What you posted earlier in reply:

So I said you couldn't come to our USPSA match?

Well transportation is up to me,well that's not right. So your matches are open, as long as I have transportation to the match. Ok fair enough!

The club agrees that all USPSA matches shall be open to any person eligible for USPSA membership or are members of other IPSC regions.

Still don't see where I ever told or said someone CAN't shoot our USPSA sanctioned matches. Did I?

....made no sense, so I'll be ignoring it.

YOU said there are additional requirements to shoot USPSA matches at your club. Everything you've said since hasn't changed that fact---your matches are not open to "any person eligible for USPSA membership or are members of other IPSC regions" unless they ALSO fulfill other requirements for you.

You haven't ever refuted this. Which makes sense, because you can't. After all, they are your club's rules.

You keep saying that it is open to folks---and yet, it isn't. Unless they also fulfill OTHER requirements that you've set.

If you think that means the same thing, then you are okay with (in a similar mode) saying "Yes, anyone can come shoot our matches but first they must contribute money to the LGBT awareness fund." After all, ANYONE can do that, so it must be all right!

No? What, we can't add extra conditions to the "open to anyone..." requirements of the affiliation agreement?

Oh right---we aren't supposed to. That's what the affiliation agreement is about.

It interests me how people are more involved with defending something obviously incorrect than simply saying "Yeah, we do this, we don't like it, the board makes us,we've been trying to change it but haven't been able to do it."

...because while bkeeler (and even ExtremeShot) has said "we don't like it, the board makes us, we've been trying to change it but haven't been able to do it" they still aren't admitting to the "yeah, we aren't able to follow the affiliation agreement" part.

If range membership is a prior requirement to shooting a USPSA match at a particular club, then said USPSA match is not open as it should be.

Vlad of course said:

Thomas you seem to refuse to answer a question because it leaves down an uncomfortable path. Let me do that for you anyway.

....again attempting to make this about me. As you have no concept of my emotional state, your statement is obviously ridiculous.

And again, what you are saying is not the point at hand. Your attempt to turn a factual discussion into a hypothetical is up to you, but it doesn't mean I have to respond, as I'm interested in the factual discussion at hand.

I will note two things:

To me, this entire conversation steams from the notion that paying $40 a year for a USPSA membership somehow grants on the right to participate in any USPSA competition on any private property, with the private property owners signing away a lot of their property rights to meet USPSA rules.

Isn't that rather the point of the affiliation agreement? And if you don't want to allow certain things, don't sign the agreement? After all, no one forced your club to sign the agreement.

And also:

Both of the clubs I am involved with have banned people from their property for reasons that have nothing to do with USPSA or USPSA membership eligibility.

Doesn't USPSA already have something that covers this? I believe I read something about it awhile back, which solved this problem. I also recall that in the rules, a particular person can be barred from competing in a specific match/club/area without losing actual membership, though some paperwork to HQ is required.

So---yeah, don't see the problem.

Again, in the end: It interests me that people who are clearly not following the affiliation agreement won't simply admit it, but instead are attempting to claim that really, seriously, no really, this is open to anyone.

After all, I even said earlier:

I'm sorry to hear that your BoD is comprised of people who hate action shooting sports---I know how that feels. We are lucky enough at our range to have (in the last 10 years) managed to slowly get more and more people on the board that care about ALL shooting sports, and thus our action sports have flourished. Hope you can get that to happen over time, too.

{snip}

I'm glad you have local shooters who support the sport. And having a dedicated crowd of folks to help out and hold matches it great.

{snip}

I see your situation---BoD actively against action shooting, your bylaws apparently allow proxy voting (ours doesn't---must be at the annual meeting for bylaw changes), but the good part is that apparently your yearly fee is low, and the 3-times-first is at least a good start.

I personally am not saying you guys should be shut down. I am simply saying that what you are doing (which indeed may be the best that you can actually do at this time) is not what the affiliation agreement seems to require.

Hope that in the future, you get more power on the BoD at your club.

Are your matches free? No you mentioned that before. So you have additional requirements as well. Again it says open,not free, or without any additional requirements. Apparently you don't understand the USPSA bylaw 4.8 either.

Sarge: Some clubs have changed the rules to fit the clubs rules. All legal! There are ranges that have the rule about muzzle over the berm....and they have an exemption for that rule! That was brought up already.

All I can say is it is a good thing neither of you two have anything to do with the USPSA decisions,because you would both destroy USPSA as an entity!

As of right now our club is in good standing with USPSA and WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE SANCTIONED USPSA MATCHES!

Thanks for all the info! I learned a few things hope others did as well!

Good Day!

BK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know. Maybe I am flat wrong on all of this. But when my club threatened to bar a competitor for an AD I told them straight up that they can't keep her from shooting Uspsa matches and if they tried I would step down. Not likely anybody else would step up so chances are good the match would go away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair I don't think you are flat wrong, I actually think under ideal circumstances you are correct. Unfortunately not everyone gets to have the ideal circumstances. In fact, if my club BOD posed to me the same issue as they did to you I would probably also threaten to quit, the big problem of course is that in my case the BOD would most likely say "Its been nice knowing you, someone would love to have the range that weekend".

The thing I keep trying to get across is that every place is different, around my armpit of the woods (we are in NJ after all) there are a LOT of matches and a lot contention over any available time slot on the few ranges we have. The clubs would probably not suffer greatly if USPSA went away, something else would quickly take our place.

Edited by Vlad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... Both of the clubs I am involved with have banned people from their property for reasons that have nothing to do with USPSA or USPSA membership eligibility. If the affiliation agreement was to be taken as an inflexible requirement, then the logical conclusion would be that if one of the people banned from USPSA wanted to attend an USPSA match on a property they were banned from the match director would have one of 3 options: a) allow them and be in conflict with the property owners, B) disallow them and be in conflict with USPSA or c) get an exemption from USPSA whenever someone gets banned by the property owners which may involve communicating to USPSA things they are not allowed to divulge because of legal proceedings or other privacy issues. All of that seems rather odd, specially if the person in questions is not even a USPSA member.

I was personally involved in the banning of 2 people from the club property, both of which used to shoot USPSA matches. I informed USPSA about the clubs decision, but not asked for their permission. I suppose technically I'm in violation of my agreement with USPSA.

All of this is covered by 6.4.4 and 6.4.5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of this is covered by 6.4.4 and 6.4.5.

The part where I make the decision based on safety, yes. The part where the club bans someone from the property for non-uspsa reason, not really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair I don't think you are flat wrong, I actually think under ideal circumstances you are correct. Unfortunately not everyone gets to have the ideal circumstances. In fact, if my club BOD posed to me the same issue as they did to you I would probably also threaten to quit, the big problem of course is that in my case the BOD would most likely say "Its been nice knowing you, someone would love to have the range that weekend".

The thing I keep trying to get across is that every place is different, around my armpit of the woods (we are in NJ after all) there are a LOT of matches and a lot contention over any available time slot on the few ranges we have. The clubs would probably not suffer greatly if USPSA went away, something else would quickly take our place.

+1

Wish it was always black and white,but the truth of the matter is,it is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rooting out and getting the clubs that are violating their agreement with a USPSA to comply or get thrown out would be a good job for the new USPSA Club Coordinator.

A good start would be a warning article in Front Sight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ROFL. Yep, you go ahead and suggest that to him. I'm sure his first action should be pissing off as many clubs as possible, that would show everyone who is boss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clubs that are knowingly violating their written agreements with USPSA have no room on the high moral ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clubs that are knowingly violating their written agreements with USPSA have no room on the high moral ground.

And which clubs are those?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...