Dropped and caught gun after "Range Clear"

[Dowter]

This is what happened.  I had just fired the last shot of the last stage of a major match and all I have to do is holster my darn gun to complete a match that I shot with zero penalties.  I unload and show clear - am given the hammer down and holster and I do so.  The RO says "Range Clear" and *POP* out comes the gun which I catch at about half way down my thigh with the muzzle pointing about 1 foot UP range.  I quickly bring the gun back into my holster and make DAMN SURE it locks into place this time.  The RO (who saw everything) gives the "Range Clear" command again.

At this point I'm psyching my self up to get my first IPSC DQ and to take it like a man and not whine about it.  I was guilty and it was time for me to take the long drive home back to Pennsylvania.

Lo and behold though, the RO (who didn't miss anything - we talked about it afterwards) decided that what I did was not a DQ.  I forget the argument that he gave me as to why what I did was not a DQable offense - I was more focused on the net result and wasn't motivated to convince the RO otherwise.  So I can't give you his perspective.

Here is mine.  There are two possible perspectives on this (IMHO) and both lead to DQ.

1.  The range clear command was given and the shooter was handling a firearm after that command therefore it was unsupervised handling of a firearm- DQ.  If the shooter had let it drop then there are procedures for that and that would not have been a DQable offense BUT the shooter caught the gun and when the shooter caught the gun he was handling it unsupervised.

(I've been told before by people that to catch the gun if you want the DQ more than the potential damage to the gun.)

2. The second perspective is that the RO shouldn't have given the command "Range Clear" because the shooter wasn't done holstering, therefore it shouldn't be the shooters fault that he was handling the firearm after "range clear"  But remember when the gun dropped it broke the 180 (slightly, but still) and that would mean that during the course of fire the 180 was broken and there are no exception for unloaded guns.

I think that I should have been DQ'ed but the RO thought otherwise.  Sometimes its better to be lucky than good.

The reason I'm bringing this up is that if I was ROing and I saw a shooter do what I did I would have DQed him.  It sounds hypocritical but I can't exactly let shooters get away with stuff just because a mistake was made and I got away with something that I shouldn't have.  

I'm interested in others perspectives.

[Vince Pinto]

The way you described what happened, your gun fell out of the holster after the "Range Clear" command was given. If so, then the accident ocurred outside of a COF (See Rule 8.3.7).

However, strictly speaking, by catching (i.e. handling) the gun, you were clearly in breach of Rule 10.3.16 and should you have been DQd, however I guess the RO considered your handling of the gun to be under his supervision, as described in Rule 10.3.3.

You got off lightly, so consider this as part of your learning curve.

[Flexmoney]

My take.

Range clear would mean the COF is over...can't break the 180 then.

After the course...it is the RO's judgement as to if you where "under his supervision".  You state that he saw everything...so there may be a valid argument that you were, indeed, under his supervision.

?

[Vince Pinto]

Flex,

As you are probably aware, the "under RO supervision" wording became an issue recently in the US when one competitor was DQ'd for drawing his gun on the line before the "LAMR" command was issued by the RO.

This resulted in references to, er, "poultry droppings".

In an effort to remove doubt, the handgun rules committee is now considering the following proposed change to Rule 10.3.3:

From: "Handling a handgun at anytime except when in a designated safety area or on the firing line under the supervision of a Range Officer."

To: "Handling a handgun at anytime except when in a designated safety area or when under the supervision of, and in response to a direct command issued by, the officiating Range Officer.".

Note the words "on the firing line" have been removed from the proposal to allow an RO to authorise handling of a gun at other times.

[Flexmoney]

I think the "handling" term is the iffy part.

I would think that  restricting "handling" was to keep people from playing with their gun or showing off their new blaster anywhere on the range.  (seems logical)

For the shooter that is trying to catch their gun before it contacts earth...maybe that shouldn't be called handling (maybe it should?)  Obviously the intent in this case if to keep a gun from flying/bouncing all over the range.  (it may be safer to catch the gun?)

This is kind of a catch-22.  The shooter doesn't get DQ'ed if he lets the gun tumble to the ground (and maybe bounce around), but if the shooter stops the gun...

hmmm...

[Vince Pinto]

"Handling" means, well, "handling".

The most fundamental tenet of IPSC shooting is that you never touch your gun unless you're in a safety area or under the direct command of an RO.

So, if you're walking around a range and your gun gets bumped out of it's holster, let it fall to the ground. Don't try to catch it on the way down and never attempt to pick it up without the approval of an officiating RO.

If you don't want your gun to fall, there are three simple solutions:

1. Get a decent holster that will properly retain your gun; or

2. Apply the locking device (or tighten the tensioner) it already has; or

3. Bag your gun in the safety area when you don't need it.

There really is no excuse for a gun falling out of a holster, which is considered to be safety device.

Sure, you probably won't get DQd for simply placing your hand on the butt of your gun while it's holstered, provided you don't unlock or remove it, even slightly, but that's the only tolerance allowed.

However it's still a bad habit to do so because a slight brain fade may cause you to remove it, and then you're toast.

[jvinez]

At the time I was very limited in RO experience.  only ROed 4 0r 5 matches before Dowters mishap.  Should I have DQed him?  Maybe.   However I didn't.    Maybe while I was watching his gun falling I should have said to just let it fall and then use the procedure for picking up an unloaded gun.    

I am glad to see other peoples views on this so it is alittle clearer what to do the next time.

We did ask another RO at the match his opinion and he said he would have done the same thing.

Jason Vinez

[Flexmoney]

?  that was at the Ohio match...AND on my squad???  

I missed the whole thing.

Jason, I would have likely made the same call (though I don't disagree with what Vince posted...it in the shooters responsibilty to ensure they equipment is working as advertised.)

[jvinez]

yep it was your squad.  He was the last shooter and most all of you were starting to walk down the hill.  I feel I made the right call.

Jason Vinez

[A33435]

Something similar as described before happened to me this year during a qualifiermatch  I'wasn't given a  DQ btw.

Starting position an this stage was sitting in chair behind a table . Gun condition 3 on the table.

During the "walkthrough" i posted myself on the chair.

By doing that i unlocked my ghostholster, noticed that by the "click" i heart and locked it again but not with the gun in the correct position  While standing up from the chair the gun tumbled forward, but because i was standing behind it the gun bumped on the table.

In a reflex i tried to catch it (and maybe touched it)

but knewing it couldn't  fall hard and a DQ in mind i stopped al motion and asked the RO to get my gun.

Stopping your gun from falling to the ground or somewhere else and succeeding in that is gunhandling....... But it's hard not to do......

Adrie

[JeeDee]

He Adrie,

Did you really do that??? No touching? No handling, just let it drop. Lots of confidence then in your gun.

Glock rulez!

DVC

David  

(Edited by JeeDee at 4:16 pm on Nov. 20, 2002)

[A33435]

Well David, when i did touch/handle  the gun Cees should have give me a DQ at the match in Tilburg so i can only say i could have touched the gun.....

And yes Glocks rulez ! also in the Netherlands

DVC

Adrie

[Dowter]

---

Quote: from Flexmoney on 11:41 pm on Nov. 18, 2002

?  that was at the Ohio match...AND on my squad???  

I missed the whole thing.

---

It happened real quick and I didn't exactly wave my arms around yelling "look what I just did!"

The reason that the holster pooped out on me like that was that the hook that keeps the gun in was worn down to a nub.  I have replaced it since.

(Edited by Dowter at 3:19 pm on Nov. 22, 2002)

[Scooter]

Here's a twist on this.  This happened to someone I know.  The stage started with the shooter kneeling or something like that.  When the buzzer went off, the shooter stood up, but in the process the timer bumps the gun out of the holster.  The RO didn't DQ the shooter because it was his fault.  The MD was furious that the shooter got a reshoot instead of a DQ.  MD listen to the RO story and DQ the shooter anyways.  Is this a fair call?

[Vince Pinto]

The DQ call was correct.

Under Rule 8.6.3, if the RO interferes with the competitor, a reshoot may be offered by the RO unless the competitor commits a safety infraction.

Since the gun fell during a COF, Rule 10.3.5 prevails.

It's a sad situation, and I'm sure the RO felt really bad, but the DQ is correct.

(Edited by Vince Pinto at 4:47 am on Nov. 27, 2002)

[shred]

So if I'm RO-ing somebody I don't like, I can shove their arm past the 180 or trip them and then DQ them?  What fun!

And be extra careful trying to catch a dropped Glock.  Last year a not inexperienced guy dropped his Glock 21 and as he grabbed it, he hit the trigger and shot himself.  Bled out before help could arrive and died.   Let it drop!

(Edited by shred at 9:41 am on Nov. 27, 2002)

[ErikW]

shred, was this at a USPSA event?

[Duane Thomas]

"Under Rule 8.6.3, if the RO interferes with the competitor, a reshoot may be offered by the RO unless the competitor commits a safety infraction."

But it seems to me that in this case, the competitor didn't commit a safety infraction. The RO committed the infraction. The competitor didn't bump the gun out of his holster, the RO did it. Are we saying the competitor has to pay for it if the RO causes his gun to come out of the holster? That hardly seems fair.

[omnia1911]

---

Quote: from Vince Pinto on 3:54 am on Nov. 27, 2002

The DQ call was correct.

Under Rule 8.6.3, if the RO interferes with the competitor, a reshoot may be offered by the RO

unless

the competitor commits a safety infraction.

Since the gun fell during a COF, Rule 10.3.5 prevails.

It's a sad situation, and I'm sure the RO felt really bad, but the DQ is correct.

(Edited by Vince Pinto at 4:47 am on Nov. 27, 2002)

---

This must be a new version of 8.6.3. I don't see the unless part in my rule book.

10.3.5 says if "a competitor drops his handgun or causes it to fall", not the RO. Vince, are you actually admitting that the shooter is responsible for his handgun "at all times"?

(Edited by omnia1911 at 8:03 pm on Nov. 27, 2002)

[Vince Pinto]

OK, I plead insanity. Read my disclaimer, and you'll understand.

Bottom line, I quoted the wrong damn rulebook, however it's the same outcome: a DQ.

Under current IPSC Rule 8.6.3, there is no specific reference to a DQ, however I believe Rule 10.3.5 prevails because there is no exception if the gun falls due to RO interference.

So, you think it's not fair, huh ?

Say the competitor looks like his finger is in his trigger guard while he's moving, so the RO assists the competitor by yelling out "Finger" (under 8.6.3).

If the competitor brain fades and turns to face the RO and breaks 90 degrees in the process, what would you do?

(Edited by Vince Pinto at 9:32 pm on Nov. 27, 2002)

[Vince Pinto]

Omnia,

Gee, I wonder whether you're alluding to a discharge on "GC, HD, Holster"?

The issue is not "Who is responsible for the gun?". Under IPSC rules, the DQ/no DQ decision is based on where the shot goes under AD rules.

If the shot hits the back berm, no problem. If it meets the AD criteria, the guy hits the showers.

This policy applies everywhere else in the COF, right?

[omnia1911]

---

Quote: from Vince Pinto on 9:24 pm on Nov. 27, 2002

OK, I plead insanity. Read my

disclaimer

, and you'll understand.

Bottom line, I quoted the wrong damn rulebook, however it's the same outcome: a DQ.

Under current IPSC Rule 8.6.3, there is no specific reference to a DQ, however I believe Rule 10.3.5 prevails because there is no exception if the gun falls due to RO interference.

So, you think it's not fair, huh ?

Say the competitor looks like his finger is in his trigger guard while he's moving, so the RO

assists the competitor

by yelling out "Finger" (under 8.6.3).

If the competitor brain fades and turns to face the RO and breaks 90 degrees in the process, what would you do?

(Edited by Vince Pinto at 9:32 pm on Nov. 27, 2002)

---

We now have come full circle back to the holster issue. Are some of the holsters that we use simply unsafe???? The gun would have never been knocked out of a real holster, especially by a minor encounter with a timer.

Take another Prozak Vince.

(Edited by omnia1911 at 9:49 am on Nov. 28, 2002)

[Vince Pinto]

There are two schools of thought on holster tests:

Group 1 thinks they are unnecessary because if a gun falls, loaded or unloaded, we have other rules to deal with the situation and it's up to the competitor to ensure his holster is safe enough.

Group 2 thinks we should have holster tests because modern holsters tend to be small and lighter and are only safe when locked,which is not their condition after been loaded on the line.

Both groups agree that the current holster test needs to be revampes, if we're going to conduct holster tests.

[Duane Thomas]

"So, you think it's not fair, huh ?

Say the competitor looks like his finger is in his trigger guard while he's moving, so the RO assists the competitor by yelling out "Finger" (under 8.6.3)."

That's a totally different situation, and doesn't apply to what we're discussing here. The RO knocked the shooter's gun out of the holster. The competitor did nothing wrong, the RO screwed up. The competitor then gets DQed? For RO interference? Isn't the procedure, ideally at least, that shooters get reshoots for RO interference during the COF? But they get DQed for RO interference if it knocks the gun out of the holster before the competitor can draw? Seems like a contradiction to me.

And I have to ask, in the situation described above, why did the RO have the timer next to the gun? Isn't he supposed to have the timer close to the shooter's ear on the shooting hand side during/after "Stand by," i.e. nowhere near the gun? Sounds like this particular RO really screwed up. His fault all the way around, not the shooter's.

(Edited by Duane Thomas at 9:07 pm on Nov. 29, 2002)

[Vince Pinto]

Dropping a gun during a COF, for any reason, gets the competitor a DQ, and if you read rule 8.6.3, it's crystal clear.

And the competitor did indeed do something wrong. His holster was not able to retain his gun, and that's the risk you take if you don't apply the lock or tighten the tensioner.

Which brings us back to the question of holster tests .....