USPSA MultiGun rules

[ac4wordplay]

10.5

At a major USPSA MG match I witnessed certain events that made me curious.

• A competitor, unbagging his rifle, pointed his rifle directly in the center of another competitor's chest. The distance was 1 - 2 feet.
• A competitor, unbagging his rifle, slowly swept his rifle directly through the center of an RO's body. The distance was 2 - 3 feet.
• A competitor, unbagging his rifle, slowly swept his rifle directly through the center of the same RO's body.

Unsafe gun handling? 10.5?

Edited April 22, 2016 by ac4wordplay

[outerlimits]

I'm curious what Troy's take on this would be. But I can tell you, at non-USPSA multigun matches, when slinging is involved, sweeping happens regularly. Still hate that.

[MarkCO]

I would issue DQs for those offenses. Slinging and unslinging on the clock...yes it does happen, and I do not like it at all, BUT, an RO has independently checked to ensure the rifle is clear. In the case of the OP, a gun out of the bag has not been checked by an RO.

[ac4wordplay]

I would issue DQs for those offenses. Slinging and unslinging on the clock...yes it does happen, and I do not like it at all, BUT, an RO has independently checked to ensure the rifle is clear. In the case of the OP, a gun out of the bag has not been checked by an RO.

The RO who was muzzled (observed by stage CRO) requested that the issue be addressed. The RM was called (he's a current NROI RMI) and the RM decided no action should be taken: such muzzling isn't considered unsafe (?!), and isn't a violation of 10.5 (?!), and the RO wasn't supported.

[outerlimits]

Interesting. Wonder if you replace the word "rifle" with "pistol", at a regular USPSA handgun match, whether the outcome would have been different?

[MarkCO]

I would issue DQs for those offenses. Slinging and unslinging on the clock...yes it does happen, and I do not like it at all, BUT, an RO has independently checked to ensure the rifle is clear. In the case of the OP, a gun out of the bag has not been checked by an RO.

The RO who was muzzled (observed by stage CRO) requested that the issue be addressed. The RM was called (he's a current NROI RMI) and the RM decided no action should be taken: such muzzling isn't considered unsafe (?!), and isn't a violation of 10.5 (?!), and the RO wasn't supported.

So, for lack of enforcement of a potential safety issue, we may have lost another RO? I was not there, but you were. I would suggest an email to the USPSA President, DNROI and copy your AD. There may be a flaw in the rules, there may be a mistake by the RM. IMHO, we can point fingers and get riled up (I would be if I was the RO) as to a mistake, but a solution is a better path. Seems to me that Mike Foley and Troy McManus have been working hard to correct some issues in USPSA and I would give them the respect and opportunity to address this issue in a proactive manner.

[teros135]

I would issue DQs for those offenses. Slinging and unslinging on the clock...yes it does happen, and I do not like it at all, BUT, an RO has independently checked to ensure the rifle is clear. In the case of the OP, a gun out of the bag has not been checked by an RO.

That still violates Rule 1 (and Rule 2) of sage gun handling, and the cavalier attitude about "well, it wasn't loaded, so what's the problem?" that we often hear doesn't make it any better.

[MarkCO]

I would issue DQs for those offenses. Slinging and unslinging on the clock...yes it does happen, and I do not like it at all, BUT, an RO has independently checked to ensure the rifle is clear. In the case of the OP, a gun out of the bag has not been checked by an RO.

That still violates Rule 1 (and Rule 2) of sage gun handling, and the cavalier attitude about "well, it wasn't loaded, so what's the problem?" that we often hear doesn't make it any better.

I agree, and there are better ways to handle gun transitions.

[jrswanson1]

Were said violators using chamber flags?

[Bhayden]

Were said violators using chamber flags?

Flag or no flag, I would call it unsafe gun handling and I wouldn't work a match with that RM again.

[teros135]

Amen. This is one reason it's difficult to want to shoot local multigun and am less than enthusiastic about ROing PCC. It's the prime indicator that someone isn't taking safety seriously - "duh, it's not loaded, dude". Even with a chamber flag, the person has relaxed his vigilance and would also be likely to do that without the chamber flag. (I view chamber flags and safety levers the same way - they're nice but create overconfidence. The best safety mechanism is good 'ole safe gun handling practices.

Can't help it. Looking into muzzles makes me nervous.

[ac4wordplay]

Amen. This is one reason it's difficult to want to shoot local multigun and am less than enthusiastic about ROing PCC. It's the prime indicator that someone isn't taking safety seriously - "duh, it's not loaded, dude". Even with a chamber flag, the person has relaxed his vigilance and would also be likely to do that without the chamber flag. (I view chamber flags and safety levers the same way - they're nice but create overconfidence. The best safety mechanism is good 'ole safe gun handling practices.

Can't help it. Looking into muzzles makes me nervous.

To be clear, the events in the OP weren't at local match - it was a major USPSA MG match. The RM wasn't a mid-level RO performing RM duties - he's an NROI RMI.

[mike_pinto]

There will be an area that is designated as a bag/unbag only area in the future as well as a table for "RO cleared" firearms that is pointed at the berm. This way, folks can ensure that their guns were indeed cleared prior to putting them back in the bag. This will also eliminate the bagging and unbagging of long guns in the middle of a common area.

Although it didn't help for the incident listed in the OP, at the minimum it was a point of discussion that will be handled for the future.

[ac4wordplay]

There will be an area that is designated as a bag/unbag only area in the future as well as a table for "RO cleared" firearms that is pointed at the berm. This way, folks can ensure that their guns were indeed cleared prior to putting them back in the bag. This will also eliminate the bagging and unbagging of long guns in the middle of a common area.

Although it didn't help for the incident listed in the OP, at the minimum it was a point of discussion that will be handled for the future.

Interesting. Thanks for contributing.

Unfortunately it doesn't address the RM's (RMI's) position that pointing a firearm at someone isn't unsafe gun handling, that it isn't 10.5, and that the RO who was directly and obviously muzzled (twice) wasn't supported by senior staff.

[mike_pinto]

Yeah, I went all politician and didn't opine on that issue..

[ac4wordplay]

Yeah, I went all politician and didn't opine on that issue..

Can you tell us any more about the discussion? Did anyone speak to represent the rule book, safety, and staff?

[MarkCO]

Although it didn't help for the incident listed in the OP, at the minimum it was a point of discussion that will be handled for the future.

Thanks for your service Mike.

[mike_pinto]

Yeah, I went all politician and didn't opine on that issue..

Can you tell us any more about the discussion? Did anyone speak to represent the rule book, safety, and staff?

All I can say is that I was approached about creating a recommendation in the ruleset for areas to bag and unbag long guns, akin to a safe area but separate. I think this approach would cover everything from rules, to safety, to staff. As far as what happened with the RM, I am not privy to those discussions.. I know Carl did a fantastic job and safety is his highest concern. I know nothing about the incident in the OP..

[ac4wordplay]

Yeah, I went all politician and didn't opine on that issue..

Can you tell us any more about the discussion? Did anyone speak to represent the rule book, safety, and staff?

All I can say is that I was approached about creating a recommendation in the ruleset for areas to bag and unbag long guns, akin to a safe area but separate. I think this approach would cover everything from rules, to safety, to staff. As far as what happened with the RM, I am not privy to those discussions.. I know Carl did a fantastic job and safety is his highest concern. I know nothing about the incident in the OP..

A recommendation is a nice idea. Warm and fuzzy.

One concern is that RMI teach (both formally, and by example). In this case an RMI is teaching staff and competitors that pointing a rifle at an RO isn't unsafe gun handling, isn't a 10.5 violation, isn't actionable, and that staff and competitors must accept being muzzled. That doesn't seem consistent with the best interests of staff/competitors, safety, or the USPSA organization. It doesn't seem consistent with the USPSA rule book either.

[JayWord]

Yeah, I went all politician and didn't opine on that issue..

Can you tell us any more about the discussion? Did anyone speak to represent the rule book, safety, and staff?

All I can say is that I was approached about creating a recommendation in the ruleset for areas to bag and unbag long guns, akin to a safe area but separate. I think this approach would cover everything from rules, to safety, to staff. As far as what happened with the RM, I am not privy to those discussions.. I know Carl did a fantastic job and safety is his highest concern. I know nothing about the incident in the OP..

I like Mike was not a witness or party to the incident(s) note by the OP. However, if you review our current USPSA MG Rules, any reference to sweeping only applies during the COF. One of the ongoing problems we have with MG in all its variations is some competitors think a long gun as just a stick. Even if a DQ was issued and I'm not saying as described it is safe gun handling in any way, it would not hold up in arbitration. Do I think that is right, no. I would also be very uncomfortable and I think the rules need cleaning up, but....

This is only my opinion.

Jay

[ac4wordplay]

Yeah, I went all politician and didn't opine on that issue..

Can you tell us any more about the discussion? Did anyone speak to represent the rule book, safety, and staff?

All I can say is that I was approached about creating a recommendation in the ruleset for areas to bag and unbag long guns, akin to a safe area but separate. I think this approach would cover everything from rules, to safety, to staff. As far as what happened with the RM, I am not privy to those discussions.. I know Carl did a fantastic job and safety is his highest concern. I know nothing about the incident in the OP..

I like Mike was not a witness or party to the incident(s) note by the OP. However, if you review our current USPSA MG Rules, any reference to sweeping only applies during the COF. One of the ongoing problems we have with MG in all its variations is some competitors think a long gun as just a stick. Even if a DQ was issued and I'm not saying as described it is safe gun handling in any way, it would not hold up in arbitration. Do I think that is right, no. I would also be very uncomfortable and I think the rules need cleaning up, but....

This is only my opinion.

Jay

Jay,

Thanks for weighing in. I appreciate your comments.

As you state, the current USPSA MG rules only reference sweeping within the context of a CoF. What I would point to is (current USPSA MG rule book):

10.5 Match Disqualification

Unsafe Gun Handling

Examples of unsafe gun handling include, but are not limited to [emphasis added]:

If pointing a rifle at a competitor/staff doesn't qualify as unsafe gun handling, then I'm shocked and disappointed in the organization. A 10.5.10 violation (10.5.8 in the handgun book), where the muzzle is safely pointed into a berm (and within the 180) results in a DQ for unsafe gun handling, yet it seems to be considerably less unsafe than pointing a rifle at a competitor/staff.

Respectfully,

ac

[ac4wordplay]

Were said violators using chamber flags?

Flag or no flag, I would call it unsafe gun handling and I wouldn't work a match with that RM again.

I understand your sentiment. With your stated position, it looks like there are at least a few RMI that you wouldn't work a match for.

[StealthyBlagga]

This issue certainly needs attention in USPSA MG Rules. Under IMA rules, there is a "catch all" provision that would give the RM teeth:

2.4.7 Pointing a firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, in any direction deemed by Event Officials to be unsafe.

With this said, we (USPSA) need to reach consensus on how we regard a long gun with a chamber flag installed.

If we deemed a chamber flag to be the equivalent of a holster, then we would presumably treat flagged long guns the same as holstered handguns - they would be considered to be "inert". We don't DQ people for bending over to tie their shoelace with a holstered handgun on their belt, and so sweeping someone with a flagged long gun would arguably be exactly the same situation (uncomfortable as we might all feel if we were the sweepee).

If we deem a chamber flag to be something less than a holster, then I can see a rationale for adding more restrictions on gun handling.

I personally would like to encourage the highest standards of gun handling by having a rule mandating that all bagging/unbagging be done pointing into a berm or other designated safe direction. However, we should NOT mandate that this be done only in a traditional Safety Area, because Safety Area real estate is often in short supply, and because competitors often handle ammo at the same time (e.g. inserting a shotshell in a sidesaddle, grabbing a rifle mag etc.)

Edited April 21, 2016 by StealthyBlagga

[ac4wordplay]

I've seen people come to the line with loaded rifles and shotguns (prior to any "make ready" command or pre-load procedure). We know that an RO has "cleared" (please note that the word is in quotes - there's a reason) a competitor's shotgun, and released it to the competitor, who brought it to the next stage... but the RO hadn't actually cleared the SG - it had ammo in it.

Slightly tongue in cheek - please have your humor hat on prior to reading.

USPSA/NROI: "We're a really safe organization/activity and have great safety procedures."

interested party: "That's great. So you don't allow guns to be pointed at people, do you?"

USPSA/NROI: "Well, actually we do. We allow rifles and shotguns to be pointed at staff, competitors, and observers.. Come out and observe our match - we'll let people point rifles and shotguns at you, your wife, and at your children too. You may not even notice or be able to avoid it because it could happen behind your back. Our best-of-the-best-of-the-best RMI will claim that it's not unsafe gun handling, and that it's not a violation of our rules."

interested party (sarcasm): "Wow, you really do have great safety procedures. I want to get my wife and kids involved in this activity."

Edited April 22, 2016 by ac4wordplay

[jrswanson1]

If we deemed a chamber flag to be the equivalent of a holster, then we would presumably treat flagged long guns the same as holstered handguns - they would be considered to be "inert". We don't DQ people for bending over to tie their shoelace with a holstered handgun on their belt, and so sweeping someone with a flagged long gun would arguably be exactly the same situation (uncomfortable as we might all feel if we were the sweepee).

This is what I was hinting at when I asked about the chamber flag.