DQ or a WARNING

[blacklab]

On ‎8‎/‎30‎/‎2018 at 12:57 PM, DKorn said:

As Range Officers, a large part of our job is to make calls per the rules.

DKorn,

I've been thinking about this over the past few days. I agree if someone violates the rules and the penalty per the book is a DQ then yes it should be a DQ. But I am questioning some of the rules and how they are worded. There is nothing in the rule book that says I can't drop a handgun and picked it up as long as it is in a bag. There is also nothing in the rule book that says I can't put my handgun under my right arm and wave my left hand in front of it in the presence of a RO as long as its in a bag. Not that I would do any of these things, but if I wanted to I could according to the book. Now if I dropped an un bagged firearm and picked it up or did sweeping with un bagged handgun there would be hell to pay. Its the same gun and no one knows if its loaded or unloaded while its in the bag but it only becomes a safety concern after its un bagged.  So if we go back to the original post the lady got a DQ for sweeping her hand while un bagging her handgun. The problem I have with the RO's call (or the rule) is, what magically happened in the 3 second time span from the time the gun was in the bag and considered safe to the time the case was unzipped and considered unsafe? As we all know in a .22 steel match chamber flags are required in all firearms. So how did things go from safe to unsafe just by unzipping a bag? There was no possible way for the firearm to discharge. Is it bad habit to sweep yourself? Yes. But humans do make mistakes. That's why I feel for the first offence there should have been a warning not a DQ. If there would have been a second offence then yes a DQ because then she would be showing she was just careless. I also pointed out before that in other shooting sports what she did would have been considered a non offence. Trap shooters get swept with guns that have the actions broke open and no one bats an eye. People sweep themselves or other people while uncarting their firearms with chamber flags at 3 gun matches and not a word is said. Its not done intentionally but it does happen sometimes. So why do people feel the need to swing the pendulum so far in this sport? Why is what is considered safe in another sport not considered safe in this sport? It seems to me that rules can be pushed too far and even though they are in place to make the sport more positive they could have an adverse effect and put a negative spin on the sport by pushing new shooters away or pushing seasoned shooters away simply because the rules became too hard to abide by. But that's just the way I see things.

[perttime]

On bagged vs. unbagged:

While the firearm is in a bag or case, it is virtually impossible for it to go off, whatever its condition. As soon as you put your hand on the firearm itself and/or start moving it out of, or into, the bag the chances of discharge increase. Still unlikely but the probability is higher, with many things being wrong at the same time.

 

Sweeping while uncarting or unbagging is not acceptable. If you do it, there is something seriously wrong with what you are doing.

[IHAVEGAS]

8 hours ago, blacklab said:

That's why I feel for the first offence there should have been a warning not a DQ. If there would have been a second offence then yes a DQ because then she would be showing she was just careless.

 

A warning for a soft sweep (say something during load and make ready that seemed pretty harmless) and a warning for a hard sweep as well (somebody with a 1.5-2lb trigger brings the gun fully across his weak arm while moving and opening a door as fast as he can during a stage & as an r.o. it scares the snot out of you)?

 

If different penalties for high risk sweep versus low risk sweep is there a way to write the rules so they are crystal clear?

 

Other thing, as r.o. I've been the recipient of a high risk sweep to my center mass a couple of times (when it happens it seems like it is always a 45 that looks like a frigging cannon barrel), if I could not have dq'd the person I would have gone home myself.  

Edited September 1, 2018 by IHAVEGAS

[DKorn]

9 hours ago, blacklab said:

DKorn,

I've been thinking about this over the past few days. I agree if someone violates the rules and the penalty per the book is a DQ then yes it should be a DQ. But I am questioning some of the rules and how they are worded. There is nothing in the rule book that says I can't drop a handgun and picked it up as long as it is in a bag. There is also nothing in the rule book that says I can't put my handgun under my right arm and wave my left hand in front of it in the presence of a RO as long as its in a bag. Not that I would do any of these things, but if I wanted to I could according to the book. Now if I dropped an un bagged firearm and picked it up or did sweeping with un bagged handgun there would be hell to pay. Its the same gun and no one knows if its loaded or unloaded while its in the bag but it only becomes a safety concern after its un bagged.  So if we go back to the original post the lady got a DQ for sweeping her hand while un bagging her handgun. The problem I have with the RO's call (or the rule) is, what magically happened in the 3 second time span from the time the gun was in the bag and considered safe to the time the case was unzipped and considered unsafe? As we all know in a .22 steel match chamber flags are required in all firearms. So how did things go from safe to unsafe just by unzipping a bag? There was no possible way for the firearm to discharge. Is it bad habit to sweep yourself? Yes. But humans do make mistakes. That's why I feel for the first offence there should have been a warning not a DQ. If there would have been a second offence then yes a DQ because then she would be showing she was just careless. I also pointed out before that in other shooting sports what she did would have been considered a non offence. Trap shooters get swept with guns that have the actions broke open and no one bats an eye. People sweep themselves or other people while uncarting their firearms with chamber flags at 3 gun matches and not a word is said. Its not done intentionally but it does happen sometimes. So why do people feel the need to swing the pendulum so far in this sport? Why is what is considered safe in another sport not considered safe in this sport? It seems to me that rules can be pushed too far and even though they are in place to make the sport more positive they could have an adverse effect and put a negative spin on the sport by pushing new shooters away or pushing seasoned shooters away simply because the rules became too hard to abide by. But that's just the way I see things.

 

Two comments:

1- I don’t disagree at all about your comment that the rules could be changed to add exceptions. Right now, if the exceptions are not written into the rules, then we have to enforce the rules as written. If we don’t like the rules, push to have hem changed. 

 

2- What is considered safe in this sport vs other sports is irrelevant in my opinion except when discussing rules changes. In some cases, I think we might go too far, probably because when the sport was new they were trying to appease people who were afraid of the whole “running around with loaded guns” thing. In other cases, I think we get it right and other sports (3 gun, clay sports) should probably have stricter safety rules). I’d love to discuss it more but think it should be a separate discussion. 

[blacklab]

1 hour ago, DKorn said:

Two comments:

1- I don’t disagree at all about your comment that the rules could be changed to add exceptions. Right now, if the exceptions are not written into the rules, then we have to enforce the rules as written. If we don’t like the rules, push to have hem changed. 

 

2- What is considered safe in this sport vs other sports is irrelevant in my opinion except when discussing rules changes. In some cases, I think we might go too far, probably because when the sport was new they were trying to appease people who were afraid of the whole “running around with loaded guns” thing. In other cases, I think we get it right and other sports (3 gun, clay sports) should probably have stricter safety rules). I’d love to discuss it more but think it should be a separate discussion

Thank you for taking the time to put some thought into it and give a fair and reasonable answer. I see your point that as of right now exceptions are not written into the rules and how/why the rules were put in effect in the first place. So I guess even though I didn't agree with the outcome I can see why the rule had to be enforced.

 

Again, thank you for a reasonable answer. 

[Sarge]

1 hour ago, DKorn said:

 

Two comments:

1- I don’t disagree at all about your comment that the rules could be changed to add exceptions. Right now, if the exceptions are not written into the rules, then we have to enforce the rules as written. If we don’t like the rules, push to have hem changed. 

 

2- What is considered safe in this sport vs other sports is irrelevant in my opinion except when discussing rules changes. In some cases, I think we might go too far, probably because when the sport was new they were trying to appease people who were afraid of the whole “running around with loaded guns” thing. In other cases, I think we get it right and other sports (3 gun, clay sports) should probably have stricter safety rules). I’d love to discuss it more but think it should be a separate discussion. 

Not to mention a gun is considered inert when bagged or holstered in USPSA. For all intents and purposed it’s not even a gun at that point. 

[blacklab]

3 hours ago, IHAVEGAS said:

If different penalties for high risk sweep versus low risk sweep is there a way to write the rules so they are crystal clear?

 

2 hours ago, DKorn said:

Two comments:

1- I don’t disagree at all about your comment that the rules could be changed to add exceptions. Right now, if the exceptions are not written into the rules, then we have to enforce the rules as written. If we don’t like the rules, push to have hem changed. 

 

2- What is considered safe in this sport vs other sports is irrelevant in my opinion except when discussing rules changes. In some cases, I think we might go too far, probably because when the sport was new they were trying to appease people who were afraid of the whole “running around with loaded guns” thing. In other cases, I think we get it right and other sports (3 gun, clay sports) should probably have stricter safety rules). I’d love to discuss it more but think it should be a separate discussion

 

42 minutes ago, Sarge said:

Not to mention a gun is considered inert when bagged or holstered in USPSA. For all intents and purposed it’s not even a gun at that point.

I think there is a lot that could be learned on seeing things from both sides of the fence. If I start another thread would you be willing to continue this conversation?

[Sarge]

1 hour ago, blacklab said:

 

 

I think there is a lot that could be learned on seeing things from both sides of the fence. If I start another thread would you be willing to continue this conversation?

Don't know about the others but I am always up for a good rules discussion

[99mpower]

Because this is the final result for sweeping yourself...