Illegal Production Trigger Mods

[XRe]

Now we are at a place where I did not want to go.

Based on posts in this thread, and private conversations w/ some BoD members, I definitely don't feel like this was some sort of intentional "slip it in the back door while they're not looking" kind of thing. In fact, if anyone cares to read them, I still have a copy of the original, watermarked draft of the 2008 rules that was presented to the membership. It bears the exact same "Exchange of minor components (springs, safeties, slide stops, guide rods)." wording as the version that was finally published. The implications of this seemingly innocuous change just got missed in all the other debating. So, it was out in the open from the beginning.

[XRe]

I had a half-dozen local shooter bring their Glocks to my place a few weeks back. I gave a basic class on how to do your own trigger job.

I probably made all of their gun illegal.

If all you did was the 25 cent "polish existing components" trigger job, they're all right...

[ima45dv8]

This situation is going to be re-evaluated in a few days.

All may not be lost, but if you care, your AD needs to hear from you.

Area 5, no need to reach out, I'm already here.

Gary

And on this the director from Area 6 agrees. To say it simply, I believe the BOD wrote a rule poorly worded in the new book which did not relect the intent of what we actually wanted to do and we need to revisit that decision. I can not in good concious allow those who had guns in compliance with our old rule book have to go out and buy a new one now after the rules were revised. My intention was to allow what was previously allowed under the old rules to be allowed under the new rules.

I also want to say that I have had a busy day today hearing from a number of members on this issue and the other hot button matter of team selection. I very much appreciate all of the communication I have today receieved. If for any reason I did not respond in a timely matter to anyone, it was simply becaause your email, im, or pm got lost in this record setting communication day. I have had not a single message from any shooter which suggests that production modifications be tightened to the extent it is now being stated as is provided in the newest rule book. So I have heard your marching orders and I wil gladly obey.

Charles

Charles, I'm happy you're my Area Director.

If your AD isn't Charles or Gary, they might need a nudge in the right direction. It would be good to let 'em know politely what you think about these issues.

[Gary Stevens]

This situation is going to be re-evaluated in a few days.

All may not be lost, but if you care, your AD needs to hear from you.

Area 5, no need to reach out, I'm already here.

Gary

And on this the director from Area 6 agrees. To say it simply, I believe the BOD wrote a rule poorly worded in the new book which did not relect the intent of what we actually wanted to do and we need to revisit that decision. I can not in good concious allow those who had guns in compliance with our old rule book have to go out and buy a new one now after the rules were revised. My intention was to allow what was previously allowed under the old rules to be allowed under the new rules.

I also want to say that I have had a busy day today hearing from a number of members on this issue and the other hot button matter of team selection. I very much appreciate all of the communication I have today receieved. If for any reason I did not respond in a timely matter to anyone, it was simply becaause your email, im, or pm got lost in this record setting communication day. I have had not a single message from any shooter which suggests that production modifications be tightened to the extent it is now being stated as is provided in the newest rule book. So I have heard your marching orders and I wil gladly obey.

Charles

Charles, I'm happy you're my Area Director.

If your AD isn't Charles or Gary, they might need a nudge in the right direction. It would be good to let 'em know politely what you think about these issues.

Hey Mark, Can I be your Foster Area Director? Kentucky is South of the Mason Dixon line.

Gary

[VegasOPM]

Wow, this thread has legs...

[jobob]

My AD has posted on this thread. Unfortunately it doesn't sound like he supports the vast majority of Production shooters on this. He seems to want either no internal trigger mods, OR a trigger pull weight limit, with a preferance for the latter. I want neither. Most Production shooters want neither. The '04 rule book had neither, and all was well before the rule was re-written for the '08 book. Hope this gets worked out and common sense restored!

[BlackSabbath]

This situation is going to be re-evaluated in a few days.

All may not be lost, but if you care, your AD needs to hear from you.

Area 5, no need to reach out, I'm already here.

Gary

And on this the director from Area 6 agrees. To say it simply, I believe the BOD wrote a rule poorly worded in the new book which did not relect the intent of what we actually wanted to do and we need to revisit that decision. I can not in good concious allow those who had guns in compliance with our old rule book have to go out and buy a new one now after the rules were revised. My intention was to allow what was previously allowed under the old rules to be allowed under the new rules.

I also want to say that I have had a busy day today hearing from a number of members on this issue and the other hot button matter of team selection. I very much appreciate all of the communication I have today receieved. If for any reason I did not respond in a timely matter to anyone, it was simply becaause your email, im, or pm got lost in this record setting communication day. I have had not a single message from any shooter which suggests that production modifications be tightened to the extent it is now being stated as is provided in the newest rule book. So I have heard your marching orders and I wil gladly obey.

Charles

I'm thankful we have Area Directors listening to the shooters and will act in the best interest of the sport. Cheers to Charles and Gary!

[ima45dv8]

Hey Mark, Can I be your Foster Area Director? Kentucky is South of the Mason Dixon line.

Gary

You already are, Gary.

[bgary]

My AD has posted on this thread. Unfortunately it doesn't sound like he supports the vast majority of Production shooters on this. He seems to want either no internal trigger mods, OR a trigger pull weight limit, with a preferance for the latter.

Yup, I have posted here. And I support the majority of Production shooters in that I'm trying to defend the division against the slippery slope of "anything goes." I think I have demonstrated that I am open to ideas, and am more than willing to take good ideas to the Board room. The problem is that I haven't yet seen anyone come up with an enforceable way to write the rule that *solves* the problem. I want common sense restored, too. But "anything goes" isn't it, for the *production* division, IMHO. The rules have *never* said "you can do anything you want inside the gun". Never.

trigger pull weight limit, with a preferance for the latter

Have *never* said I prefer a trigger pull weight. In fact, in a number of places I've plainly said I'd like to avoid it. The *only* thing I think is valid about a trigger pull is that it is measurable. But I strongly believe it would create unwelcome pressure on the types of guns which are "competitive" in the division, and that goes against my goal of having a play-place for any non-single-action-only gun to play. Please don't put words in my mouth... it doesn't help the discussion.

If you *have* ideas about where we can draw the line, so that competitors can make "reasonable" mods to their guns, but draws the line in some enforceable and objective way, I'm totally open to that discussion. Always have been. In fact, *I* recently asked the Board to *not* make NROI's ruling official, but instead asked that the full Board discuss Production issue in an upcoming [informal] conference call so we can toss this around the table and come up with a better solution than that.

That's where "your AD" stands, quite firmly: I want a rule that makes sense. Not just for the 20 or 30 members who post here, but for the thousands of others who shoot the division.

Bruce

Edited January 22, 2009 by bgary

[Ben Stoeger]

If you *have* ideas about where we can draw the line, so that competitors can make "reasonable" mods to their guns, but draw the line in some enforceable and objective way, I'm totally open to that discussion.

Bruce,

Thank you for taking the time to come on here and talk with us, even if some people are hostile. I have a suggestion about how to draw the line on trigger jobs in Production. In D4 in the rulebook we have 2 clauses in the “Authorized Modifications” that seem to apply.

First, we have:

•Internal throating and polishing to improve accuracy,

reliability and function

This rule suggests that I am allowed to polish trigger components. If it could be clarified that this is indeed allowed by the rules, that would be great.

The other clause is this:

•Exchange of minor components (springs, safeties,

slide stops, guide rods).

I suggest adding the language “etc.” after guide rods to allow for minor parts to be swapped as is commonly done during a trigger job. If the BOD feels that this allows for too much wiggle room, than the alternative is simply to list all the components that you are allowing people to swap. The connectors and pins and such that the BOD feels it is ok to change would need to be listed.

I can’t really say that this is enforceable. It would take an expert on any individual platform doing a complete tear down to make sure the guns are compliant. BUT, I think it is no less enforceable than what we have now. It would just keep us from really pissing off the membership.

[elenius]

Chris Endersby, area 2 director, replied and said the BOD will address this in a phone meeting next week. He also said he doesn't shout Production, but he didn't otherwise give any clue as to where he stands.

[George Jones]

I don't know if this will help or not, but I feel obliged to give you my recollections and perspective on this issue.

During my time on the Board, I was involved in the development of two rulebooks - 2004 and 2008. I was heavily involved for the 2008 version which was a much more comprehensive project. During the many discussions which took place, both formal and informal, the hundreds of e-mails which were exchanged, and the multiple draft versions, it was never decided to specifically restrict or control internal parts. The fundamental underlying premise was that internal inspections of any gun, in any division, was not a reasonable method of enforcement. It was agreed that there were simply too many pitfalls. The line was drawn at external modifications, as evidenced by the Vanek ruling several years back.

When the wording of Production was refined for 2008, at least by my understanding, it was under the impression that the internal aspects were still unenforceable and would remain unrestricted. Now, in retrospect, due to some of the other wording changes, I certainly agree that this should have been made clear. The only alibi I can give is that rulebook review/rewrite is a lot like trying to pick out one off-color snowflake in a blizzard. As much as we try to perform detailed reviews, at some point your eyes just blurr to what you've read countless times before. Although there were (theoretically at least) a greater number of eyes on the division rules, no one spotted this omission. But I want to be very clear here: I do not recall any decision to prohibit internal work.

A dry reading of the current rules (without benefit of the development discussions) would certainly explain a strict interpretation disallowing change of internal components. But that is not what was decided in 2006/2007.

As to my personal opinion - I do not believe we can or should restrict internal components for the simple reason that enforcement is imposiible. Why restrict something that can't be enforced? If we were starting from scratch, expecting all shooters to abide by the honor system on their brand new guns, well...... OK... maybe. But we have hundreds of modified triggers out there and would be aknowledging that many shooters would be relegated to knowingly competing with now illegal equipment. That's not reasonable.

Also, what's wrong with technological improvements in design? This sport has always been about finding better ways and improved products. Why exclude Production from the very same potential developments. I respect Bruce in the utmost, but do not agree with his concerns here. If a manufacturer can design and build a blaster with DA/SA trigger as good as a 1911, well, that's ingenuity and free enterprise at work. The better mouse trap should be more popular.

[sfinney]

So after all these pages we are still back to the intent of this phrase, by the BOD :•Exchange of minor components (springs, safeties,

slide stops, guide rods).

Is it an inclusive restrictive list, or an example of the type things that can be done and needs to clarified with the word "etc." at the end of the phrase.

This should be a very easy fix, and based on what most of the posters here have said about not intending to restrict internal mods, sounds like it should be changed to say "etc."

This is how I read it the first time I saw it, and makes the most common sense (at least to me). But as I pointed out in a previous post (and got flamed for it for my choice of wording!), there is always someone who will read a plain english statement in the rule book and interpret it 100% literally - when in reality its just badly worded as to leave vagueness. The writer KNOWS what he is trying to say.... the reader can only go by the words on the page.

Can't they just fix the wording?

[Gary Stevens]

The former Area 8 Director has once again hit a home run. His recollection matches 100 percent with my recollection.

Now that I think about it, that is kind of scary.

Gary

Edited January 22, 2009 by Gary Stevens

[ciscoip]

So after all these pages we are still back to the intent of this phrase, by the BOD :•Exchange of minor components (springs, safeties,

slide stops, guide rods).

Is it an inclusive restrictive list, or an example of the type things that can be done and needs to clarified with the word "etc." at the end of the phrase.

This should be a very easy fix, and based on what most of the posters here have said about not intending to restrict internal mods, sounds like it should be changed to say "etc."

This is how I read it the first time I saw it, and makes the most common sense (at least to me). But as I pointed out in a previous post (and got flamed for it for my choice of wording!), there is always someone who will read a plain english statement in the rule book and interpret it 100% literally - when in reality its just badly worded as to leave vagueness. The writer KNOWS what he is trying to say.... the reader can only go by the words on the page.

Can't they just fix the wording?

I don't think adding "etc" will solve the vagueness issue you point out. The rule would still be vague...what's the definition of "minor component?"

A definitions section for some key terms would probably help sort things out. I think most legal statutes start off with a definitions section.

[double_pedro]

In D4 in the rulebook we have 2 clauses in the “Authorized Modifications” that seem to apply.

First, we have:

•Internal throating and polishing to improve accuracy,

reliability and function

This rule suggests that I am allowed to polish trigger components. If it could be clarified that this is indeed allowed by the rules, that would be great.

Unless broad language is used (as was the case in the previous rules), a great deal of detail and definition is required since this statement encompasses nearly all allowed modifications. What is "internal throating"....is this about the chamber/barrel? If so, is the "polishing" part meant to apply (only) to the barrel as well? If it applies to trigger components, can I do more than "polish". Can I file? What are my options for fitting replacement parts? Can I weld-up material if the part is undersized?

If "broad language" is used (e.g. "internal action work", "internal modification"), you can skirt some of the detail required for a clear and complete rule, but admittedly you may have trouble excluding an item that is entirely internal. I have to say, the distinction drawn in the previous rules (external versus internal) was remarkably wise considering its simplicity and enforceability.

The other clause is this:

•Exchange of minor components (springs, safeties,

slide stops, guide rods).

I suggest adding the language “etc.” after guide rods to allow for minor parts to be swapped as is commonly done during a trigger job. If the BOD feels that this allows for too much wiggle room, than the alternative is simply to list all the components that you are allowing people to swap. The connectors and pins and such that the BOD feels it is ok to change would need to be listed.

I can’t really say that this is enforceable. It would take an expert on any individual platform doing a complete tear down to make sure the guns are compliant. BUT, I think it is no less enforceable than what we have now. It would just keep us from really pissing off the membership.

Amen to that, brother.

What about NROI Rulings?

The last thing I would suggest is including the applicable NROI rulings (since the last published set of rules) into the new description of the rules themselves so that a complete description of the rules resides in one place (at least until the next NROI ruling is made). That will not only be a service to the members, but also will help those writing the rules to keep things consistent across different pages. As it stands, the old (2004) rules no longer apply....do (any of) the NROI rulings made in the context of the 2004 rules still apply? If so, which ones? This needs to be considered and clarified, IMO.

Edited January 22, 2009 by double_pedro

[BR]

I'm trying to defend the division against the slippery slope of "anything goes." I think I have demonstrated that I am open to ideas, and am more than willing to take good ideas to the Board room. The problem is that I haven't yet seen anyone come up with an enforceable way to write the rule that *solves* the problem. I want common sense restored, too. But "anything goes" isn't it, for the *production* division, IMHO. The rules have *never* said "you can do anything you want inside the gun". Never.

Bruce

The discrete issue at hand is "trigger work" -- NOT "anything you want inside the gun" -- which was expressly, explicitly, and in black-and-white permitted by the prior rules. I am very curious about the basis for the slippery slope/anything goes argument. Is that what was happening for the past four years in Production before the BOD eliminated a previously permitted modification? If that was a legitimate concern, why would the BOD choose to allow additional modifications to the gun, including after-market slides, grip melting and plugs? By doing so, the BOD has encouraged "anything goes."

Simply incorporate the previously permitted "trigger work" back into the rule. Cheers.

-br

[BayouSlide]

Folks, as has been mentioned, the train has left the station and we face in/unintended consequences, one way or the other.

I personally like the rules as written pre-2008. Let 'em look stock on the outside, and basically tuning and modifications allowed inside. As has been stated, time and time again, if the rules require teardown for enforcement, they are bad rules and no reason for 'em, IMO. Anything done internally won't turn the world unside down, as long as all safeties remain functionally intact as the manufacturer intended. Let it be.

But now, we can't role the clock back. Inexplicably, the 2008 rules allow a significant number of external mods to slides and receivers, some of which can't be reversed.

In fairness to those competitors who made those type of mods, allow 'em in fairness, and call it a day.

Let's learn from what happened here and try not to correct a mistake with more mistakes.

Curtis

Edited January 22, 2009 by BayouSlide

[bgary]

His recollection matches 100 percent with my recollection.

That's ...um... odd, because much of the discussion took place at the Dallas meeting (March 2007). That's where the "issues" with trigger-weight testing procedures came up, and it was decided to move away from that and towards a more precise set of explicitly-allowed internal modifications. Somewhere or another I've got a photo of the "whiteboard" that had all the decisions we landed on, I'll see if I can dig that out when I return from this trip.

But all of that is neither here nor there. There are two issues to me, that remain unresolved:

One is, what do we want Production division to be 5-10-15 years from now. Because the decisions we make *now* will affect how that comes out. I believe it is relatively undisputed that the division was created to be a place for guns you could "buy at a gunstore". The more modificaitons are allowed, the further we move away from that and the more Production becomes "just another division for highly customized guns". I *thought* the Board reached consensus, in 2007, that the rules should support the notion of "stock or nearly-stock guns". Am I wrong?

And, Two, it annoys the crap out of me to have members *repeatedly* yell that the 2008 rulebook "takes away" things that they were "always allowed to do". That's just bogus, no matter how many times it gets repeated. The Production rules have ALWAYS had some version of "modifications are strictly limited, here's the list of things you're allowed to do". *MY* plain-english, black-and-white readong of those two things is simple - if it isn't spelled out on that list, you're not allowed to do it. You may *imagine* it is on the list. You may *pretend* it is on the list. You may combine some words from different clauses and decide that 1 + 1 = 42. But that does not make it "allowed". The list of "allowed" things has always been very short, and the whole "anything goes" approach of swapping-out re-engineered parts has NEVER been on it.

I will fight to get a rule written that makes sense. That's what I do. I don't have any particular "agenda" here, I'm not trying to get "modifications killed off", my *only* goal is to make a rule that is clear and objective and enforceable, and that gives the Production division a viable future. If the Board decides that "anything goes" is the best choice, I'll support that, and I'm certain we'll find a way to make it clear. Until then, IMNSHO, if you're doing something to your gun and you can't point to a place in the rules where it says THAT PARTICULAR MODIFICATION is allowed... you're breaking the rules.

Bruce

PS - thanks, Ben. Good ideas.

[bgary]

I am very curious about the basis for the slippery slope/anything goes argument.

You've just answered your own question. The rules you cite, where you say trigger work "was expressly, explicitly, and in black-and-white permitted", got "creatively interpreted" by a lot of people.

The actual black-and-white language of the *whole* rule is:

Action work to enhance reliability (throating, trigger work, etc.) is allowed.

The plain reading of that rule is that you can do throating, trigger work, etc, in order to make your gun more reliable.

People read that rule and came up with all sorts of interpretations.

"oh, it says I can do trigger work, so I guess that means I can design a new disconnector to get rid of trigger take-up!"

"oh, it says I can do trigger work, so I guess that means I can design a whole new set of parts to give me a completely sweet trigger!"

"oh, it says I can do trigger work, so I guess that means I can drill holes and move pivot pins!"

"oh, it says I can do trigger work, so I guess that means I can add an overtravel stop!"

etc.

Nope.

NONE of those things were ever "expressly, explicitly, and in black-and-white permitted. People decided that the rules "meant" what they wanted them to mean, regardless of what they actually *SAID*. The rules NEVER said you could change the way your trigger feels, change the arc through which it swings, change the pivot points, change the geometry of the disconnector, etc. The rules said you were allowed to make it more reliable. Period.

There's your slippery slope.

Bruce

Edited to add: Oh, and note that the 2004 rules didn't allow swapping out internal parts AT ALL. It was an NROI ruling which allowed you to swap out internal parts with other OEM parts that were available on another approved model. But swapping in (for example) a canyon-creek part was *not* one of the listed/allowed modifications.

Really want to go back to the pre-2008 rules?

Edited January 22, 2009 by bgary

[rgkeller]

One wonders why, then, the BOD in their Vanek Trigger ruling (http://www.uspsa.org/rules/nroi_rulings.php?action=edit&indx=22) made such a distinction between internal and external modifications and did not ban all Vanek Trigger jobs since all of them modify internal components. (http://www.vanekcustom.com/3.html)

[driver8M3]

And, Two, it annoys the crap out of me to have members *repeatedly* yell that the 2008 rulebook "takes away" things that they were "always allowed to do".

you say that quite often, so let's look into this a bit.

the NROI ruling against the vanek trigger said that it was illegal b/c the trigger modification was visible externally.

the original vanek trigger had a few internal modifications as well. the NROI decision didn't mention one of them. the only thing it mentioned was the externally-visible modification of the trigger itself. that led me to believe that all i had to do was get rid of the externally-visible modification to make my gun legal again. is that an incorrect assumption? if so, why didn't the NROI ruling also mention the internal modifications?

and if those modifications were indeed legal then, then indeed things that were once legal are now NOT legal.

[bgary]

I wonder that, too.

*my* opinion is that the ruling (NROI made it, not the Board) was made based on the "most obvious" problem, the fact that it was an external mod.

Just like in a court of law, a case is often built on a sequence of facts. If I'm trying to sue my neighbor for encroaching on my property, I have to

-- first, establish my property line,

-- second, prove that something encroaches on it

-- third, prove that my neighbor did it.

If I can't prove my property line, none of the rest of that matters. Whether or not my neighbor did anything will never get heard, because my case gets thrown out at that point.

My *guess* is that's what happened with the Vanek ruling. It might have had three or four issues to it, but it got thrown out on the first one, and after that the rest of them (if they were in fact issues) became irrelevant.

That's just a guess. I've never talked with NROI about it in depth.

I would also note (as you've obviously been able to discern from this thread) that there is *not* consensus on the Board about whether internal mods are allowed or not, and if not where the line is drawn. My *guess* is that rather than making a ruling that would drag NROI into a whirlpool, NROI chose to make the "obvious" ruling, and leave the bigger rules issue to be resolved by the Board. Kinda like an appeals court kicking a flawed case back to a lower court <g>

Bruce

[BR]

For your slippery slope argument to have any merit, the BOD would have to assume that NONE of the subject trigger work "enhances reliability." What is the evidence, or even the basis, for that assumption? The rule plainly states that we ARE [were] permitted "trigger work", which on many guns includes a change in connectors, use of new/different parts, move holes, etc... if it "enhances reliability." That is what the rule said.

Your interpretation is creative, because there is NO prohibition whatsoever about "change the way your trigger feels, change the arc through which it swings, change the pivot points, change the geometry of the disconnector, etc." as long as the trigger work is internal and is done in order to "enhance reliability." You elected to read those proscriptions into the rule.

-br

Edited January 22, 2009 by joker22

[bgary]

led me to believe ...<snip>... incorrect assumption?

Yup.

In my opinion, if the rules say "here's the list of things you are allowed to do", and you make an assumption based on the *lack* of explicit prohibition in a ruling, and you interpret it to mean "hey, he didn't say it is illegal so it must be OK" but you can't point to a specific place in the rules where it says your mod is allowed.... yeah, that's probably a bad assumption. Just my opinion.

B

Edited to add: can anyone point to an NROI ruling where an aftermarket internal part or internal modification (eg, changing the shape of a part) was *specifically* ruled "OK"?

Edited January 22, 2009 by bgary