9x19 Major voted down by USPSA BOD

[bgary]

Oh, *last* "last thought"...

Someone mentioned that if the Board had been doing their homework, we should have consulted with a lawyer before the meeting.

I suppose that would be valid if we knew before the meeting that all the criteria for getting rid of the ban had been met, and all we were doing was working through the details.  

But, in this case, the meeting was the first time that many of the Board members had seen the data (many had seen the data Chris Grubbe provided, but other data was presented as well), and it was the first opportunity to discuss the issue with that data in hand and decide what the next appropriate action was.  It would have been a waste of money, in my opinion, to have engaged a lawyer to word-smith the removal of the ban before we even knew whether we were going to remove the ban at all.

$.02

Bruce

[Carlos]

Sounds to me like Bruce is on our side (pro-9mm major) and that he worked to approve major9.  He appears committed to approving major9 in the future. Thanks Bruce. I would also like to thank him for his patience in explaining what happened and why, although I am disappointed with the final BOD vote. His response indicates to me that there are several BOD members who are open minded about this issue.

Now that it appears that the sticking point has been narrowed to legal liability surrounding the 1990 resolution, perhaps we could discuss a way around that. Surely, I am not the only lawyer in USPSA. How much time do we have until the next BOD meeting? D.

[EricW]

So, we're basically down to playing the "chicken or the egg" game.  The Board can't vote Yes to 9 Major because they can't determine and/or mitigate their legal liability.  And we can't determine/mitigate our legal liability until the vote is Yes.  

The intentions are good, but the logic is flawed here.  

Eric

[Chriss Grube]

Bruce,

Thanks for the explaination of your decision. I would just add that now more than ever USPSA needs to get a waiver or language written that clearly puts the liability of all ammo on the shooter. As I said before I deal with attorney's on civil cases from crashes daily. If they file a suit they will subpeona all the BOD records including the minutes on the discussion relating to 9mm major along with the posts here and on other sites. I'm sure from what you have posted, that the "We know .40 and supers are loaded over SAMMI specs" is going to appear somewhere in there. Talk about a case of condoning unsafe loading. This whole discussion just opened a great big can of worms. The liability is now there for all calibers. The smart thing to do would have been to vacate the ban due to the reduced PF and the new rule book and be done with it. It could have been argued that since the 175 PF doesn't exist anymore that the ban does not apply. Now with all this talk of liability that chance was lost. I would suggest that a liability waiver be drawn up ASAP(read that as yesterday!)and sent out to all members and affiliated clubs. A signed copy must be on file prior to shooting a USPSA affiliated match. This could be designed to cover everything we do from equipment to steel splatter and running with a loaded gun. The ski resorts, bungee jumps, sky diving schools etc. all have this type of waiver. I don't think this is something that should wait until the next BOD meeting. I think this would be a easy solution to the whole problem. I don't like to complain about a problem without giving a viable solution.

[ErikW]

Didn't we sign such a waiver when we joined USPSA? Or was it just that silly, "I promise not to use the skills I learn in this sport to rob banks and commit terrorism."

[bgary]

Chris...

I recognize your point, and think it is largely valid.  Just by talking about a potential liability angle, we may well have created a liability angle.  Definitely a Catch-22.

The point I was trying to make is, that USPSA has successfully disavowed responsiblity for every other round that has ever been fired in USPSA competition, and so far that has been effective (i.e., nobody that I know of has sued USPSA because they blew up their own gun, and while they could sue us for anything, it would be tough to assign negligence to USPSA)

In this case, *my* goal is to find a way to put 9x19 major back in the category of every other round - I mean, the ideal solution would be to vacate any language that we've ever used that put 9x19 in some "special" category, and make it just another cartridge, which shooters use at their own risk, without USPSA having any position at all on whether it is safe or unsafe (other than in rule 5.5.4)

Bruce

[jhgtyre]

Has USPSA ever taken an official stance, that was published, on handloaded ammunition?  If not then make a statement about it.  Publish a simple addendum to the rule book that makes it clear that USPSA is in no way an advocate of handloaded ammunition and that competitors use handloads at their own risk.  Also issue a statement that for any load to be considered major it has to be produced in xxxx quantities by a manufacturer or meet the same specifications as ammo produced by a manufacturer.

[bgary]

The first of those things is precisely what we're trying to have a lawyer put together for us.

The second thing?  My preference would be to stay away from production thresholds and such.  Again, we don't do that now for any round, and setting such limits would open a whole 'nother can of worms that we'd probably have to undo later, anyway.

Bruce

[Chriss Grube]

Bruce,

I was looking back through the old BOD minutes, back in 1990 they passed a resolution on the super  and other 9x's about a minimum bullet weight involving an unsupported chamber. I know the legal climate has changed in the last 12 years, but that was done with the advise of the attorney. I'm sure something similar could be done now. Nothing is going to prevent a lawsuit being filed, but I think it could be defended by a simple resolution or waiver stating that it is USPSA's position that this sport has risks and that the safety of reloaded ammo, equipment etc. is the responsibility  of the shooter. The reloading industry puts out data, the gunsmith's build the guns, I don't see them getting sued out of exisistence. I truely believe that this is getting blown way out of proportion. A simple waiver or cautionary warning like in the reloading manuals can solve this whole issue. The safety of the 9x19 has been established, if this is truly just the concern over a potential liability problem that can be fixed in about an hour with a properly worded resolution.

[bgary]

Exactly.

The issue is not a lack of desire to get this done.  The issue is that none of the people around the table have the skill (or legal expertise) to write something that is worth the paper it is written on.  I took a couple of swings at it, but none of them were, in the opinion of the group, good enough to hold water.

Hence the effort to get a real lawyer involved.  I expect this will happen as soon as the office is done with the annual audit (going on right now).

Bruce

[Chriss Grube]

Sounds like a plan to me! I agree stay away from production limits etc. A KISS resolution should cover it. I think people get to wrapped up in making things sound like it was written by a supreme court judge. The simple wording is important. If it would ever come up in court you want the jury to understand what it means. You don't need a bunch of wherefore and the named party etc. crap. If a 10 cent word will due why put in a 5 dollar one. Most jurors are common people with a normal education, get the facts out and don't confuse the heck out of them.

[Carlos]

Seems that the lowering of the PF to 165, combined with 9x19 factory loads that make major and guns specifically marketed as being safe with +p+ factory ammo, would be a clear way out of the 1990 resolution.  How could USPSA be held liable for the use of a cartridge/firearm that the firearm and factory ammunition industries have declared safe? Is the Board saying that their 1990 resolution (drafted in light of a power factor that no longer exists) would hold up in Court against current industry/ SAAMI standards? I find that scenario doubtful at best, although I agree that some liability reduction would not hurt the USPSA (for example: disavowing any responsibility where a competitor chooses to use reloaded ammunition of any caliber since the reloading process is beyond the control of USPSA). Moreover, if a competitor were injured with a factory stock 9mm, using factory loaded 9mm major ammo, any resulting lawsuit I would file would name all involved parties (including USPSA).  Generally, failing to name a defendant during an initial filing waives the un-named party from later impleader.   However, in a theoretical lawsuit, my focus would be on those with the greatest responsibility and in light of those with the deep pockets; i.e., the manufacturers. Both you and your client receive no financial benefit by winning monetary damages against a defendant who lacks the ability to pay. USPSA would come in a very distant third place in terms of both their culpability and their ability to pay.

However, the results of the BOD are in and the decision has been made for now. Assuming we shore up the liability exposure of USPSA (a good idea in any event),  I see no reason why the vote will not go the other way next time.  Regards, D.