PCC handling ?

[Sarge]

7 hours ago, driver8M3 said:

10.5.1 provides a clue to what Troy might say.

Clear to me and you but not to others.

[Boomstick303]

NROI already has a blog post about this very topic.

 

https://nroi.org/rules-insights/where-can-pcc-casing-uncasing-occur/

[SGT_Schultz]

I love range lawyers

[SGT_Schultz]

4 hours ago, pjb45 said:

I wonder if Troy will respond in Front Sight like he did for RO Downrange thread.  

 

You can spend your time at Dairy Queen waiting for it

[IVC]

4 hours ago, pjb45 said:

Just a small point of contention: "direct supervision" does not necessarily mean 'telling', it means the RO is communicating with the shooter, verbally or non-verbally in a manner that is clearly understandable to the shooter and RO.  

 

To me, the main conflict of this thread centers around the concept of direct supervision.  Obviously there is room for various interpretations of those words.  Some officials may be more restrictive whereas others more flexible.  But all are concerned about the safety of the stage.

You can't draw your gun before "Make Ready" even though you're under a direct supervision of the RO. However, if he tells you (for whatever reason) to take the gun out while you're under his supervision, you can do it. This goes for all sorts of gun manipulations such as handling a dropped (unloaded) gun, where the RO can allow you to holster on the spot under his supervision but you can't just do it by yourself (rule 10.5.14). 

 

I would not interpret that "direct supervision of an otherwise safety violation" means anything but a direct command of the RO. Do it on your own and it's like breaking the 180 - the RO "supervises you" to a DQ. 

[pjb45]

1 hour ago, IVC said:

You can't draw your gun before "Make Ready" even though you're under a direct supervision of the RO. However, if he tells you (for whatever reason) to take the gun out while you're under his supervision, you can do it. This goes for all sorts of gun manipulations such as handling a dropped (unloaded) gun, where the RO can allow you to holster on the spot under his supervision but you can't just do it by yourself (rule 10.5.14). 

 

I would not interpret that "direct supervision of an otherwise safety violation" means anything but a direct command of the RO. Do it on your own and it's like breaking the 180 - the RO "supervises you" to a DQ. 

You proved my point; Direct Supervision is key.

 

 

[pjb45]

1 hour ago, SGT_Schultz said:

You can spend your time at Dairy Queen waiting for it

I was being kind.  

Actually, Troy did call be back when a hurricane was approaching LA and people were preparing for it. 

I have found John A and Troy M to be very responsive.  Neither wanted to shoot from the hip without understanding the implications of their responses.

 

In reality all laws and rules can be interpreted differently, hence them taking the time to not only understand what is being written in the rule book but also has it can be misinterpreted honestly and accurately.  

 

[IVC]

16 hours ago, pjb45 said:

You proved my point; Direct Supervision is key.

 

 

I'm not sure we agree here... "Direct supervision" allows ROs to issue commands and handle various situations, but it doesn't mean that a shooter can on his own just commit a safety violation, then claim it was under "direct supervision of the RO."

 

Yes, there are things that can be done under "direct supervision of the RO," but just because an RO is around and looking at you doesn't mean you can do things the same as if he told you to do them. 

[pjb45]

7 hours ago, IVC said:

I'm not sure we agree here... "Direct supervision" allows ROs to issue commands and handle various situations, but it doesn't mean that a shooter can on his own just commit a safety violation, then claim it was under "direct supervision of the RO."

 

Yes, there are things that can be done under "direct supervision of the RO," but just because an RO is around and looking at you doesn't mean you can do things the same as if he told you to do them. 

Why on earth would you add this: it doesn't mean that a shooter can on his own just commit a safety violation, then claim it was under "direct supervision of the RO."  That is a non sequitur 

Your following statements are exactly what direct supervision does not allow.  Gee Whiz.  You are usually better than this.

 

[IVC]

We must be talking about different things  Either way, looks like we agree on the actual issues...