DA/SA Production gun at Half Cock holstered with safety off = DQ?

[motosapiens]

If your first shot had to be double action, then your gun is not ready to fire until you lower the hammer...which makes it part of loading.

that's just silly. Obviously the gun is 'ready to fire' with the hammer still up. What it's not is in the ready condition to start the stage, as stipulated in the rules.

I think it's a mistake to jump to any conclusions about what 10.5.9 manual decocking exception means other than to clarify that you can manually decock if you don't have a decocker. If something more than that is intended, it otta be spelled out, especially when it concerns a potential dq for an imagined safety problem.

Barring a clearly written addendum to the rules, I would not dq someone for manually decocking a d-model, but I would ask them to use the decocker. Also would not personally dq someone for manually decocking to half-cock (in fact I had a shooter try that at A1). I would simply inform them of the rule and ask them to put the hammer all the way down before I start them.

Edited August 6, 2015 by motosapiens

[motosapiens]

Hmm. Those are excellent points. I may have to reconsider this.....Want to muddy it further? Why even have the exception listed in 10.5.9, if lowering the hammer occurs after loading is complete, per the definition?

i'm guessing that exception is to pacify overzealous rules nazis that get a woodman from dq-ing people for stuff that is not unsafe.

[JAFO]

Want to muddy it further? Why even have the exception listed in 10.5.9, if lowering the hammer occurs after loading is complete, per the definition?Loading ............................The insertion of ammunition into a firearm. Loading is completed when ammunition is inserted and firearm is in battery, (slide forward or cylinder closed), and ready to fire.

If your first shot had to be double action, then your gun is not ready to fire until you lower the hammer...which makes it part of loading.

Nik pointed out that, since the 2004 rules, the initial shot does not have to be DA. Plus, the loading definition is in play for the entire COF, not just make ready. So it applies to a reload mid-stage, when the gun stays in SA, as well as to the initial MR loading, when it must be decocked prior to the start.

[Sarge]

Hmm. Those are excellent points. I may have to reconsider this.....

Want to muddy it further? Why even have the exception listed in 10.5.9, if lowering the hammer occurs after loading is complete, per the definition?

i'm guessing that exception is to pacify overzealous rules nazis that get a woodman from dq-ing people for stuff that is not unsafe.

What defines a rules NAZI? Following rules to the letter does not make an RO a NAZI.

[Garmil]

If lowering the hammer was not considered to be during loading, reloading, or unloading then there would be no 10.5.9 exception. Seems pretty clear to me.

[JAFO]

I always treated it as such by inference. But after reading rules threads here for a while, I get the impression that if I have to make an inference or interpretation, it is best supported when I can also tie in another rule or definition. I just think it could be clearer. If 10.5.9 said, "...during make ready, loading, reloading, or unloading...," I doubt we'd be having the discussion.

[Blacksamwell]

If lowering the hammer was not considered to be during loading, reloading, or unloading then there would be no 10.5.9 exception. Seems pretty clear to me.

Following your thinking involves imagining a rule that is not explicitly written. Citing an explicitly written definition within the rulebook will always trump unwritten rules.

The definition of loading in the glossary explicitly defines when loading is complete as when the slide is in battery. That's it. No mention of the hammer at all.

What would happen if the definition of loading were updated to include dropping the hammer for DA/SA guns? Would a shooter need to drop the hammer after a reload since if they attempted the next shot without officially completing the reload they would earn themselves a DQ by having their finger in the trigger guard during the reload, right? For a stage with an unloaded start, would the shooter need to lower the hammer to complete the loading before addressing their first target? Surely you don't intend this, right?

[Blacksamwell]

I always treated it as such by inference. But after reading rules threads here for a while, I get the impression that if I have to make an inference or interpretation, it is best supported when I can also tie in another rule or definition. I just think it could be clearer. If 10.5.9 said, "...during make ready, loading, reloading, or unloading...," I doubt we'd be having the discussion.

Agreed. That would clarify the issue. But it would result in making dry-fire and sight pictures with a finger in the guard during make ready illegal. Probably not the end of the world, but to what purpose?

My preference would be to just remove the unnecessary exception language from 10.5.9.

[Garmil]

If lowering the hammer was not considered to be during loading, reloading, or unloading then there would be no 10.5.9 exception. Seems pretty clear to me.

Following your thinking involves imagining a rule that is not explicitly written. Citing an explicitly written definition within the rulebook will always trump unwritten rules.

The definition of loading in the glossary explicitly defines when loading is complete as when the slide is in battery. That's it. No mention of the hammer at all.

What would happen if the definition of loading were updated to include dropping the hammer for DA/SA guns? Would a shooter need to drop the hammer after a reload since if they attempted the next shot without officially completing the reload they would earn themselves a DQ by having their finger in the trigger guard during the reload, right? For a stage with an unloaded start, would the shooter need to lower the hammer to complete the loading before addressing their first target? Surely you don't intend this, right?

I'm not imagining a rule. It's more like inductive reasoning. There is an exception because without it a rule would be broken by lowering the hammer using the trigger.

Obviously the rules/definitions could be written better on the subject or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The obvious intent is to keep peoples fingers from being on the trigger unnecessarily.

You're right the loading definition says nothing about the hammer. So that does not prove that lowering it is included. It also doesnt prove that it's not included so I don't see the point there.

[Blacksamwell]

I'm not imagining a rule. It's more like inductive reasoning. There is an exception because without it a rule would be broken by lowering the hammer using the trigger.

What rule would this break?

Edited August 7, 2015 by Blacksamwell

[Blacksamwell]

You're right the loading definition says nothing about the hammer. So that does not prove that lowering it is included. It also doesnt prove that it's not included so I don't see the point there.

It demonstrates conclusively that loading is complete when the slide is in battery. Status of the hammer is irrelevant.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Blacksamwell

[Garmil]

You're right the loading definition says nothing about the hammer. So that does not prove that lowering it is included. It also doesnt prove that it's not included so I don't see the point there.

It demonstrates conclusively that loading is complete when the slide is in battery. Status of the hammer is irrelevant.

It would break 10.5.9

You're right the loading definition says nothing about the hammer. So that does not prove that lowering it is included. It also doesnt prove that it's not included so I don't see the point there.

It demonstrates conclusively that loading is complete when the slide is in battery. Status of the hammer is irrelevant.

Well the people wrote the rules think the exception is needed. And if it's needed then there is a different interpretation in that case.

Maybe they don't consider the gun "ready to fire" while your fingers are in front or grabbing the hammer. No evidence of that just a thought.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Garmil

[Blacksamwell]

It would break 10.5.9

10.5.9 Failure to keep the finger outside the trigger guard during loading, reloading, or unloading. Exception: while complying with the “Make Ready” command to lower the hammer of a gun without a decocking lever, or while initially loading a revolver with a spurless hammer.

We've already established that loading is complete once the slide is in battery. Please explain how placing your finger in the trigger guard after loading is complete violates 10.5.9.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Blacksamwell

[Garmil]

See above.

Please explain to me with only facts why the exception exists then? It goes both ways.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Garmil

[Blacksamwell]

Well the people wrote the rules think the exception is needed. And if it's needed then there is a different interpretation in that case.

As the rules are currently written the exception language in 10.5.9 references a prohibition that does not exist and therefore cannot be enforced. It is not reasonable to attempt to enforce rules that don't explicitly exist based on any individual's guess as to what the rule writers intended.

Have you watched shooters take a sight picture during make ready and dry-fire while doing so? Were they DQ'd for this?

[Blacksamwell]

See above.

Please explain to me with only facts why the exception exists then? It goes both ways.

No, it doesn't.

Whether the exception language was mistakenly added, just poorly worded, or the original prohibition was removed with a previous revision, it matters none.

At this point you have an exception to a prohibition that is not there. It makes the exception language unnecessary and superfluous but does nothing to change the actual prohibition language.

[Garmil]

I have watched shooters take a sight picture and dry fire before beginning loading. I have not seen anyones finger inside the trigger guard other than a da/sa without decocker after inserting a magazine. Maybe I should load my sa gun and do a sight picture while feeling the take up in my trigger since its not against the rules right?

Do you think Uspsa wants shooters fingers near the trigger after loading? Or do you think they don't want that? Disregard all the rules just answer that question.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Garmil

[Blacksamwell]

I have watched shooters take a sight picture and dry fire before beginning loading. I have not seen anyones finger inside the trigger guard other than a da/sa without decocker after inserting a magazine. Maybe I should load my sa gun and do a sight picture while feeling the take up in my trigger since its not against the rules right?

Then you've watched shooters put their finger in the trigger guard during make ready while they were not loading, unloading, reloading, or moving. The same rules that apply BEFORE loading also apply AFTER loading. Just as long as the finger doesn't go into the trigger guard during loading.

Yes, that would be correct. You would be within the rules right up to the point that your gun fires. Then you'd be violating a different rule and would earn a DQ.

[Nik Habicht]

See above.

Please explain to me with only facts why the exception exists then? It goes both ways.

No, it doesn't.

Whether the exception language was mistakenly added, just poorly worded, or the original prohibition was removed with a previous revision, it matters none.

At this point you have an exception to a prohibition that is not there. It makes the exception language unnecessary and superfluous but does nothing to change the actual prohibition language.

Let me guess -- you've read the rulebook, but you haven't attended a Level 1 NROI seminar? Because this rule -- 10.5.9 and how its taught by NROI isn't exactly new.......

It's been around since 2008. Maybe it's not the ROs you're debating who are wrong......

[Gary Stevens]

Truly amazing.

[bret]

How about the RO doesn't start the shooter until they are in the proper hammer fully down condition.

Once the gun is loaded and holstered, at half cock, it's a D.Q.

Too many R.O.'s are lax on rules like this, while others are strict, how do you have a fair match when there are officials not following the rules?

[alma]

http://www.uspsa.org/uspsa-NROI-ruling-details.php?indx=30

Created: 3/06/08

Updated: 6/02/14

Rule Number: Appx D4 Spec

Ruling Authority: John Amidon

Question: Does the CZ decocker or others similar, lower the hammer sufficiently to comply with Production division, and if not, how would they comply with the wording in 10.5.9 without being DQ'd?

DNROI Answer: Manufacturers have installed decockers to take the hammer safely to a position that is deemed safe, therefore; the term fully decocked is the position that the hammer rest at once the decocker has been used. Altering a factory installed decocker to bring the hammer to rest at less than a half cocked position is not allowed.

Return to Listing of NROI Rulings

Edited August 8, 2015 by alma

[alma]

[alma]

[motosapiens]

Hmm. Those are excellent points. I may have to reconsider this.....

Want to muddy it further? Why even have the exception listed in 10.5.9, if lowering the hammer occurs after loading is complete, per the definition?

i'm guessing that exception is to pacify overzealous rules nazis that get a woodman from dq-ing people for stuff that is not unsafe.

What defines a rules NAZI? Following rules to the letter does not make an RO a NAZI.

making up rules makes an RO a nazi.

For example, dq-ing someone for manually decocking a non-decocker cz. there appears to be nothing in the rules to support that dq, but it was still deemed necessary to put a clarification in there. Why? I suspect rules nazis making up rules.