2022 USPSA Nationals (all of 'em) Discussion

[Racinready300ex]

55 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

There is a big difference in how IPSC and USPSA funds the larger matches. 

 

Sponsorship for IPSC matches is (for the most part) a cash only affair. That money goes directly into the match, props, RO hotel fees and the like. With USPSA the vendors and sponsors mostly provide items for the prize table and not cash.

 

I've been to a few IPSC World Shoots as either a competitor or photographer; The presentation of a large IPSC match is head and shoulders above any large USPSA match in my opinion. If USPSA members want the larger more prestigious event then they will likely need to forego the prize table and have that sponsor money go into the match itself.

 

 

For the major IPSC matches, attendance is earned, not everyone gets to go to the big show, but there are options; When the World Shoot was held in Florida they left the stages up at the end of the match and had a second competition for other competitors and then unofficially merged the results so the competitors could see how they would have fared against the best in the world. 

 

No reason USPSA could not do the same thing; Have a single Nationals with attendees based on rank/performance, leave the match setup and with a fresh batch of RO's run the same match again for those that did not qualify for the first one.

 

 

 

I don't know that we need to do it up to IPSC levels with the non shooting stuff like banquets etc.

 

Overall I wouldn't have problems with any of that. 

[waktasz]

lol wut? The prize table is so laughable at any of these matches it's basically non existent. Nobody goes to matches based on thinking they are getting a fat prize table haul

 

Edited November 4, 2021 by waktasz

[motosapiens]

24 minutes ago, waktasz said:

lol wut? The prize table is so laughable at any of these matches it's basically non existent. Nobody goes to matches based on thinking they are getting a fat prize table haul

 

speak for yourself. After I spend $1500 in travel, entry, ammo, food and hotels, if I don't get a $50 cert for free bullets, I'm sure as hell not coming back. They OWE me!

[waktasz]

Sorry, that cert is reserved for the C class national champion. 

[Racinready300ex]

With the exception of one trip to Nat's, all the matches I've been to in 10 years have bee random prizes and I usually win a hat or springs to a gun I don't own. I did once win something cool from the staff prize table, and just recently won a tiny Ruger from a IDPA match. 

 

Really starting to pay off now. 

[PhilTerry]

33 minutes ago, waktasz said:

lol wut? The prize table is so laughable at any of these matches it's basically non existent. Nobody goes to matches based on thinking they are getting a fat prize table haul

 

I know that, you know that, but mention scrapping prize tables ......

[motosapiens]

15 minutes ago, waktasz said:

Sorry, that cert is reserved for the C class national champion. 

sadly not eligible for that anymore, but I do actually have a plaque for 1st C at nats somewhere. It's the only class 'trophy' I didn't immediately throw away because I thought it was so funny.

[BritinUSA]

I won a bore-snake, it lasted for years.

[Schutzenmeister]

On 11/3/2021 at 12:21 PM, RileyBowman said:

I think it would be interesting to explore the idea of a combined 2-Gun / PCC Nationals, that way people could choose whether to run 2 guns or just their PCC. And the stage design would be appropriate for both.

 

 

Sorry, but no.  A 2-Gun Match is designed and set up under the Multi-Gun Rules.  A PCC match is designed and set up under the Handgun rules. And no, you cannot run a PCC Only match under Multi-Gun rules (per the MG Rules.)

 

The stage design rules are a little different under each rule book.

[Sarge]

6 minutes ago, Schutzenmeister said:

 

 A PCC match is designed and set up under the Handgun rules. 

Oh the irony…..

[AverageJoeShooting]

17 hours ago, motosapiens said:

why do you think it's just revenue

Because there's 5 nationals and not just one like literally every other sport in the world

17 hours ago, motosapiens said:

and why do you think it's the 'fearless leaders'? 

have you been hallucinating the past few years? clearly theres a void in the leadership. they have the IT guy responsible for nats, they didnt have enough tolits, ran out of food, didnt have enough seats and tried to half ass the awards....

 

[motosapiens]

5 hours ago, AverageJoeShooting said:

Because there's 5 nationals and not just one like literally every other sport in the world

have you been hallucinating the past few years? clearly theres a void in the leadership. they have the IT guy responsible for nats, they didnt have enough tolits, ran out of food, didnt have enough seats and tried to half ass the awards....

 

Odd that you ignored my questions about revenue. Sorry your experience at nationals was so bad. Mine was pretty good this year.

[obsessiveshooter]

On 11/4/2021 at 1:11 PM, waktasz said:

lol wut? The prize table is so laughable at any of these matches it's basically non existent. Nobody goes to matches based on thinking they are getting a fat prize table haul

 

I'd be lying if I said I didn't care at all though.  One match I regularly shoot, I know that I'll get random prizes and maybe cash back for finishing that is worth well over what I paid in the entry fee.  I think A3 is the same way.  People love driving home with a new red dot or DAA backpack. 

 

When and where is open registration for 2022 Nats announced?  With it in Colorado, I'm going to do all I can to be there for my first Nationals.  

[GeneBray]

Early in this thread, there was a lot of discussion about Colorado's magazine capacity law. I wrote a fairly long post and discovered last night a significant portion of the post was either never made the post or was deleted.

 

Many people are unaware of what transpired after the laws were rammed through the Democrat-controlled state houses and signed by the Democrat governor.  Fifty-four of the state's sixty-four sheriffs joined a law suit to overturn the law.  Eventually, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the sheriffs had no standing in the case, thus ending their legal challenge. My understanding is three of the seven sheriff's departments that did not join the suit were Denver, Boulder, and Arapahoe.  Most of the Denver metropolitan area and Boulder county and city governments are notoriously anti-2nd Amendment, in my opinion. Others in the state picked up the challenge and in 2019 the case was being heard and 30 of 64 state sheriff's departments filed a brief in the case.  

 

Two things occurred since the governor signed the initial law and the state supreme court ruling in 2020.

 

1) One of the courts hearing the case issued what I believe was a stay of enforcement pending the final outcome of the case.  That court asked the state attorney general to provide interim guidance on what should be done pending the outcome of the suit. The Republican AG basically said the proper thing to do was to apply the state law prior to the ban.  The court agreed. So, from 2013 until the state supreme court ruling in June 2020, it was legal to purchase/possess/etc mags greater than 15 rounds.

 

2) My understanding of the June 2020 state supreme court ruling is the 15 capacity limit was legal. It did not say a word about the attorney general's guidance or all the hicaps purchased from 2013 until June 2020.  Failing to do so leaves those magazines legally purchased and therefore grandfathered. IMO, this is despite the law's clear wording that the magazine had to be owned prior to July 1, 2013.

 

None of the above addresses those who have legitimate ethical issues concerning their worn oath and legitmacy of the law.  To my knowledge, the state supreme court ruling was not appealed. If it was, it did not go far enough to be overturned.

 

Since the law's inception, only about 12 have been charged under the law.  All were in association with other more serious crimes.  I cannot locate a single case of someone being charged with violating the law without other more serious charges.

 

Personally, I believe one of the reasons there are not more prosecutions with regard to the law is that it is so poorly written that city/county/state prosecutors are afraid to charge under the law except as a lessor included offense.  Additionally, facts do support the ban had little or no effect on crime in the state like the law's proponents clearly and repeatedly stated with basis in fact for their assertions.

Edited November 7, 2021 by GeneBray
readability

[twodownzero]

I'm really looking forward to the open-8 division nationals in New York in 2023.

[ltdmstr]

On 11/6/2021 at 8:44 PM, GeneBray said:

Early in this thread, there was a lot of discussion about Colorado's magazine capacity law. I wrote a fairly long post and discovered last night a significant portion of the post was either never made the post or was deleted.

 

Many people are unaware of what transpired after the laws were rammed through the Democrat-controlled state houses and signed by the Democrat governor.  Fifty-four of the state's sixty-four sheriffs joined a law suit to overturn the law.  Eventually, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the sheriffs had no standing in the case, thus ending their legal challenge. My understanding is three of the seven sheriff's departments that did not join the suit were Denver, Boulder, and Arapahoe.  Most of the Denver metropolitan area and Boulder county and city governments are notoriously anti-2nd Amendment, in my opinion. Others in the state picked up the challenge and in 2019 the case was being heard and 30 of 64 state sheriff's departments filed a brief in the case.  

 

Two things occurred since the governor signed the initial law and the state supreme court ruling in 2020.

 

1) One of the courts hearing the case issued what I believe was a stay of enforcement pending the final outcome of the case.  That court asked the state attorney general to provide interim guidance on what should be done pending the outcome of the suit. The Republican AG basically said the proper thing to do was to apply the state law prior to the ban.  The court agreed. So, from 2013 until the state supreme court ruling in June 2020, it was legal to purchase/possess/etc mags greater than 15 rounds.

 

2) My understanding of the June 2020 state supreme court ruling is the 15 capacity limit was legal. It did not say a word about the attorney general's guidance or all the hicaps purchased from 2013 until June 2020.  Failing to do so leaves those magazines legally purchased and therefore grandfathered. IMO, this is despite the law's clear wording that the magazine had to be owned prior to July 1, 2013.

 

None of the above addresses those who have legitimate ethical issues concerning their worn oath and legitmacy of the law.  To my knowledge, the state supreme court ruling was not appealed. If it was, it did not go far enough to be overturned.

 

Since the law's inception, only about 12 have been charged under the law.  All were in association with other more serious crimes.  I cannot locate a single case of someone being charged with violating the law without other more serious charges.

 

Personally, I believe one of the reasons there are not more prosecutions with regard to the law is that it is so poorly written that city/county/state prosecutors are afraid to charge under the law except as a lessor included offense.  Additionally, facts do support the ban had little or no effect on crime in the state like the law's proponents clearly and repeatedly stated with basis in fact for their assertions.

 

None of that changes the fact that out of state shooters who travel to CO with LCMs are in violation of CO law and are at risk of prosecution.  Seems some here feel the risk of getting caught is low (or nonexistent), and others simply don't care.  But to say there's no risk, or that the risk is inconsequential, is incorrect.  It's also pretty questionable judgment for the leadership of USPSA to put its members in a position of having to decide whether to violate state law if they decide to come and shoot their National Championship with LMCs as others will be doing, or to comply with the law and shoot with a competitive handicap.

 

[CHA-LEE]

As a Colorado Resident and avid practical shooter, I am yet to see the "Magazine Police" show up to any gun store or match and start charging people for possessing, selling or purchasing magazines with a capacity beyond 15 rounds. ALL of the local gun stores I have been to openly stock and sell high capacity magazines to anyone with $$ to buy them. Every match I have been to (50+ local club matches a year) have great attendance in the high capacity divisions with zero "Legal" restrictions. 

 

This High Capacity Magazine ban is a passed law in Colorado. But its also ignored by virtually all law enforcement unless you are a deadbeat committing real crimes and they want to stack up all possible charges against you. If you like to commit crimes and live life as a degenerate then don't have High Capacity magazines as your risk of getting charged with it are high. If you are an upstanding citizen who respects law enforcement and enjoys the shooting sports, then enjoy your High Capacity magazines with very little risk of enforcement.

 

I also find it entertaining that most of the people on this thread whining about "BREAKING THE LAW" by having High Capacity magazines in Colorado likely exceed the speed limit regularly. Or carrying your concealed weapon into locations or businesses which is deemed illegal to do so. Or break any number of other laws on a regular basis because doing so is more convenient than not doing so. You make law breaking decisions every day and more often then not willingly choose to do so because its convenient to do so. These are liability risk decisions that we all make every day. This Colorado High Capacity Magazine ban law is no different. Accept the risk and attend. Or don't accept the risk and don't attend. The match will go on with or without you. 

[belus]

On 11/19/2021 at 12:43 PM, ltdmstr said:

None of that changes the fact that out of state shooters who travel to CO with LCMs are in violation of CO law and are at risk of prosecution.  Seems some here feel the risk of getting caught is low (or nonexistent), and others simply don't care.  But to say there's no risk, or that the risk is inconsequential, is incorrect.  It's also pretty questionable judgment for the leadership of USPSA to put its members in a position of having to decide whether to violate state law if they decide to come and shoot their National Championship with LMCs as others will be doing, or to comply with the law and shoot with a competitive handicap.

 

 

On 11/19/2021 at 3:11 PM, CHA-LEE said:

These are liability risk decisions that we all make every day. This Colorado High Capacity Magazine ban law is no different. Accept the risk and attend. Or don't accept the risk and don't attend. The match will go on with or without you. 

The risk is more than just getting caught in the state which those with some legal education are trying articulate.

 

This is one way for our 'leadership' to keep all the international competitors away though. Attending is a type of activity that can put your current legal status in the US in jeopardy or prevent you from being able to ever enter the country again in the future.

 

Doesn't USPSA employ a general counsel that could have flagged these issues for them? Maybe that relationship should be revisited too.

Edited November 21, 2021 by belus
to clarify immigration issues mean entry to the country

[Brooke]

This thread has gone on for far too long. It is impossible to believe that USPSA would hold a national championship match in an area where most of the competitors would be in violation of the current law regardless of the enforcement situation in either local or state wide circumstances.

 

At the very least there should be in writing from a governor or attorney general (preferably both) that competitors in the match will be exempt from the existing law while competing or preparing to compete.

 

With all this publicity its entirely possible, or even likely, that some political group will put excessive pressure on law enforcement to uphold this law literally. I'm betting on it. What better way to make a point!

 

If the state would officially put in writing that competitors will be exempt, it might make sense but I'd still be nervous about a court case where the court says politicians can't exempt some people from state law.

 

How on earth could this occur? Is USPSA trying to become a junior NRA by challenging laws? That might be the dumbest thing to ever do. Even the USPSA rules state that USPSA will hold competitions under existing law at the competition site. This is unbelievable>

 

 

 

 

Edited November 21, 2021 by Brooke

[Paul B]

Agree Brooke. Incredible faux pas by USPSA to not even address this problem.

The muzzle loading nationals are in Friendship Indiana and several years ago the state police actually set up roadblocks to check for gun violations -the competitors didn't just carry vintage arms. At that time you actually had to have a permit to carry outside your home (but with the permit you could carry concealed almost anywhere including bars). Never heard the outcome or how many were cited - maybe none but it did occur.

 

All it would take in Colorado is for an anti-gun group to raise enough stink with the state police to start something up like this.

 

Don't blame the state or those people who will surely ignore the law but what a testament to USPSA leadership.

[rowdyb]

I'll go. I'm more irritated Prod is mixed in with those divisions and that it's 4 days of shooting.

[belus]

9 hours ago, Brooke said:

Even the USPSA rules state that USPSA will hold competitions under existing law at the competition site.

I'm really curious about this part too.

 

Does it just take a limited shooter blocking their mags to 15 and then challenging anyone who shoots more in a string? Has Troy spoken up about whether 3.3.1 is going to be enforced? Does USPSA take on any liability if they provide an official opinion contrary to state law in following 3.3.1?

 

How did it get to the point where Nationals let's us throw out both state law and our own rule book?

[ltdmstr]

1 hour ago, belus said:

I'm really curious about this part too.

 

Does it just take a limited shooter blocking their mags to 15 and then challenging anyone who shoots more in a string? Has Troy spoken up about whether 3.3.1 is going to be enforced? Does USPSA take on any liability if they provide an official opinion contrary to state law in following 3.3.1?

 

How did it get to the point where Nationals let's us throw out both state law and our own rule book?

 

Yes.  No. Yes.  Incompetence. 

[BritinUSA]

10 hours ago, Paul B said:

All it would take in Colorado is for an anti-gun group to raise enough stink with the state police to start something up like this.

And 2022 is a State election year in Colorado.

[Nolan]

All it takes is one local DA like Thomas Binger with political aspirations to make this match a legal nightmare for anyone with any magazine that holds more than 15 rounds.

 

Nolan