Gary Stevens Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 And then the defense will get to point out that they not only produce the same gun with out the "mag safety" but will remove it for you if you send it back to the factory. All this talk about what a jury will do or not do is just speculation. Anyone who tells you they know exactly what a jury will do is full of it, and you should run away with your hands over your ears, screaming at the top of your voice. The best way to deal with juries is to not get in front of one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Bond Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 And then the defense will get to point out that they not only produce the same gun with out the "mag safety" but will remove it for you if you send it back to the factory.All this talk about what a jury will do or not do is just speculation. Anyone who tells you they know exactly what a jury will do is full of it, and you should run away with your hands over your ears, screaming at the top of your voice. The best way to deal with juries is to not get in front of one. There are two rooms where you do not want to be, the court room and the operationg room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 I have suggested that we let the box be the determining factor in the magazine issue... I thought the new rules said the Shooter had to prove his innocence.... This is the review period. If Gary's suggestion is taken, then the shooter would "prove his/her innocence" by using the box. It's probably a good suggestion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morphire Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 I have suggested that we let the box be the determining factor in the magazine issue... I thought the new rules said the Shooter had to prove his innocence.... This is the review period. If Gary's suggestion is taken, then the shooter would "prove his/her innocence" by using the box. It's probably a good suggestion. Check out the Board Minutes, Flex, and see if you see what I'm seeing. It appears that the BOG has already approved the new rules. There was a unanimous vote to approve them and release them. The review period appears to be nothing more than a chance for us to read them. After the 30 days (April 6th) then the BOG will decide on an effective date. I'm under the impression that any clarifications at this point would require the NROI to make a ruling and have it be published. I'm still pretty new to the politics of this USPSA beast though so I could be misunderstanding. Gary, could you offer any clarification? Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 I talked with Gary on the phone a while back. He asked me for opinion about the revamped Production rules. I only came up with one blurb worth of feedback to give him. It was something that jumped out at me a bit, but I shrugged it off...then it was mentioned here by a handful of people, so I passed that along. Gary then sent a note to the BOD on that point. (No worries folks...it's more semantics..not anything of measurable substance.) My impression was that they were open for constructive feedback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 I think technically this is a 30 day review period. A chance for the members to familiarize themselves with the changes that are incorporated in the document. There is no scheduled point where we will take all of this in, discuss it, and vote on changes. However, that doesn't mean that it won't happen either. If a legitimate issue arrises, I would expect that to be addressed and changed. Time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimel Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 I would urge the BoD to take up Gary's suggestion of letting the box solve the magazine issue. The rules *MUST* be enforceable at any range regardless of resources beyond those approved devices such as the mag gauge, box and our original issue Mark I eyeballs. Unless USPSA plans on putting together some sort of enormous book detailing the specifications of this gun vs. that gun and this mag vs. that mag, 99% of the Range Officers trying to enforce a rule will not be able to differentiate things well enough to clear up any challenge. This will only lead to confusion, bad blood, or total disregard for the rule(s) at the club level; none of which is good for the sport. At Nationals it has happened that industry representatives have had to be contacted to clear up an issue. A lot of us don't even have cell coverage at our ranges let alone phone numbers of industry reps to help us clear things up. Example: Joe Newbie is at a gun show and sees a box full of used Blastenboomer mags. He needs more mags because he wants to start shooting USPSA and asks "will these fit my Blastenboomer 22" and the guy behind the table says "Sure". Joe buys several and plans to attend the local USPSA match the next weekend. Ahhh...but they aren't Blastenboomer 22 mags but were originally made for the Blastenboomer 20. Now poor Joe is in violation of a rule when he shows up at the match so Jim Analretentitverulenazi challenges his mags. In disgust Joe leaves and never comes back to a USPSA match, ever. Is that what we want? Gary's "let the box decide" is simple, elegant and repeatable enforcement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morphire Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Well with all the discussion of safeties I thought it would be interesting to see what NROI/USPSA used as a definition for determining what is a "safety". I have heard many arguments that a mag safety isn't a "real" safety. It would seem this definition is different from how some manufacturer's define a safety even. So instead of me trying to say that this is a safety or that isn't, can the NROI/BOG come up with a definition of what a safety is and then we just apply that safety definition to anything on the gun and then use that to determine what is and isn't a safety?How 'bout it. Can you come up with a safety definition that covers all the safeties you want to keep and doesn't eliminate the ones you say we can get rid of? The most basic safety definition I can come up with is that when engaged, it keeps a loaded gun from going bang when you pull the trigger (active) or drop the gun (passive). Am I missing anything? BOG??? Board of Guys??? Bunch of Guys??? Board Old Guys??? I think I like this one. Cute I guess but I was trying to be serious and take on what I believe is a miscalculation in the rulings. So I'm clear on this. My concern is not one safety or another being allowed or disallowed. My concern is the arbitrary exclusion of one safety to the exclusion of all others. The new ruling now states unequivocally that all safeties are to remain in the gun and functional. This is not an arbitrary statement. All safeties of all types are included. Yet right after that, the ruling is that one particular type of safety is removable and doesn't follow the above ruling. That is the very definition of the board arbitrarily deciding what constitutes a safety by defining a particular type of safety and adding an exception to the original rule. If it were the reverse and all FPB could be removed yet all mag safeties had to stay it would still be an arbitrary ruling. Why allow one type of safety and disallow others? What made that one type of safety be allowed to be removed? Why was it arbitrarily singled out as not being a safety? I say that because the ruling first states that all safeties must remain in the gun and operational. So to allow the mag safety to be removed, it must therefore not be a safety in the eyes of the board. I keep asking why the board thinks a mag safety isn't a safety and all I get is that it's not a "real" safety. Well it prevents the gun from firing when engaged and the manufacturer explicitly calls it a "safety". That sounds exactly like a safety to me. So why does the board think it isn't a safety and rules that it can be treated accordingly? Yes I keep asking this question and some may think it's not constructive but I've yet to receive an answer. There were obviously a ton of hours and effort put into these new rulings and clarifications. So I'm guessing that nothing in them was ever taken lightly or without forethought. I'm just trying to figure out what that thought was because I for one can't see it making much sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 I believe the answer you are seeking has been provided to you. Obviously you do not agree with it, but I doubt that the FBP issue is going to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Adamson Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 As the new kid on the block, with *no* dog in this hunt... I do feel compelled to offer one comment. While there are obviously strong feelings around various parts of the new proposed (tongue in cheek mind you) Productions rules changes. I do wish to applaud and thank all those on both sides of decision. This conversation could have gone right in the crapper very soon after it's start, but it hasn't. It's been waged pretty professionally, perhaps with some jousting back and forth, but again... Thanks to both sides! I'd like to see the outcome be such that those that have used a gun that has been "previously" allowed under prior rules to continue without significant dollar contribution to make said gun fit the new proposed rules. I don't know if that will happen however. With that said... Joust on, I'll set back with more popcorn. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Alan you make very good points. We did not want to trash the investment a member had made in his gun, and I think we did a fair job of protecting the members investment. It seems that the entire dust up is about a firing pin block. The process would be that if your gun was produced with a FPB, and you have removed it, you need to put it back in. This does not incurr a major expense and keeps the gun in good standing. If you have a gun that was not produced with a FPB then you need to do nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ciscoip Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Alan you make very good points. We did not want to trash the investment a member had made in his gun, and I think we did a fair job of protecting the members investment.It seems that the entire dust up is about a firing pin block. The process would be that if your gun was produced with a FPB, and you have removed it, you need to put it back in. This does not incurr a major expense and keeps the gun in good standing. If you have a gun that was not produced with a FPB then you need to do nothing. I disagree . . . that's only part of what the dust up is about. Part of it is also about USPSA, rather than remaining silent on the issue, expressly stating a requirement of all safeties working in one division and its failure to do so in other divisions, possibly opening USPSA up to a claim of gross negligence if someone shooting in a division other than Production with a disabled safety injures himself or others. For the board members on here, when USPSA consulted lawyers regarding this issue, what did they have to say? Or is USPSA choosing not to consult a lawyer and instead waiting until a lawsuit happens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 (edited) Folks, I think this is how it works out in the end. For those who disagree, we have heard you. You disagree, I and I think others understand that. I think there might be some minor changes in some areas, but perhaps not. To put it bluntly, you can either accept the rules as written, or take other actions as you see fit. I have tried to explain, to the best of my ability why and how this all happened. I guess I have failed. Previously we didn't find out about rule changes until they appeared in the rulebook. Nobody really tried to include the membership in the process. One might argue that they were correct. All of this did you do this, and did you consider that, and did you consult whomever, is getting tiresome. I have spoken my last on this issue. Edited March 25, 2009 by Gary Stevens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sslav Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 The magazine disconnect safety...it is obvious and clear that it is spelled out that removing such is legal. And good riddance. There is no reason to continue on with that one unless you just want to argue a bit. I'm not arguing that they made an exception. That much is blatantly clear. I'm trying to find out why. Why allow one safety to be removed and require all others to remain? One good reason to get rid of it is to simplify the "If Clear Hammer Down" step. The part about not being able to tell if it was removed may have played a part. I refinished the slide on my wife's gun. I chose not to refinish the part of the slide where they have the legal mumbo-jumbo about not having a mag disconnect, but that was a choice made for aesthetic reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morphire Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 (edited) I believe the answer you are seeking has been provided to you. Obviously you do not agree with it, but I doubt that the FBP issue is going to change. Forgive me Gary, but this isn't about the FPB or any specific safety per se. I even tried to reiterate that once again in the post that you just replied to. It's about an arbitrary difference in how the "all safeties must remain in the gun" clause somehow then rules that one safety isn't a safety and can be removed. The ruling on the FPB is a secondary issue and is a different argument that I will ask the NROI to make a ruling on after the fact. Why did the board decide to make an immediate ruling that a safety installed by a manufacturer and called a safety and that functions as a safety when engaged, is somehow not a safety in the eyes of the ruling? I don't believe that question has been answered. The answer doesn't seem to be "because the gun is offered with and without the safety" because, by your own words "The process would be that if your gun was produced with a [safety], and you have removed it, you need to put it back in". That verbiage applies to thumb safeties, FPBs and other safeties. What makes the mag safety not a safety? **edited because even I couldn't understand what I was trying to say in that last paragraph. lol ** Edited March 25, 2009 by Morphire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgunz11 Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 I'd gladly put my mag disconnect safety back in my M&P, it's not really that big of a deal to pull an empty mag out of the pocket and drop the striker, if it made life easier on the BoD and Kevin. Then all safeties would work and function the way they were intended to from the factory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgunz11 Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 I think technically this is a 30 day review period. A chance for the members to familiarize themselves with the changes that are incorporated in the document.There is no scheduled point where we will take all of this in, discuss it, and vote on changes. However, that doesn't mean that it won't happen either. If a legitimate issue arrises, I would expect that to be addressed and changed. Time will tell. So when do the rules become effective and have to be enforced? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Adamson Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Alan you make very good points. We did not want to trash the investment a member had made in his gun, and I think we did a fair job of protecting the members investment.It seems that the entire dust up is about a firing pin block. The process would be that if your gun was produced with a FPB, and you have removed it, you need to put it back in. This does not incurr a major expense and keeps the gun in good standing. If you have a gun that was not produced with a FPB then you need to do nothing. Gary, Thanks for the kind words... I certainly know very little about all of this.... However - don't you love that word If you'll allow.... I do believe this discussion, while it started around FPB's, etc.... Has taken a twist that it may bode well for the BOD's to recognize and remedy. That being the "definition" of a safety, and the application of that definition across all valid divisions. (hope I'm using the right word here?). As a total layperson, it does seem strange that there seems to be opposing documentation around the definition and usage of the term, and the application of it's use. I don't think anyone would argue that if the above were done, and it caused changes, at least, those changes could be well understood as to the source that created them. To use terms like (paraphrasing) "because it's so", "its not really a safety", etc.... Just go to the actual root of the issue as I see it. To look at it another way. The rules as updated, will cause people who removed the FPB to put it back in, a safety mechanism that seems to now be required. Why not just make a simple statement that "any safety mechanism, included originally by the manufacture, by make and model, must be functional" and leave it at that. Altho, that statement will also encourage a brief definition of "what a safety" is. Those 2 things would go along way to put this issue to bed, give those that are seeking understanding the knowledge that they need and it will resolve once and for all the production need for FPB's, mag safety's, etc. Pretty simple approach if you ask me - but like I said, I don't have a dog in this hunt...and I'm not a lawyer by any sense of the imagination, so writing the "most preferred" words may be more difficult that it would appear? Just an observation. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ciscoip Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Alan, the language you propose sounds good, but I have my doubts about it solving the liability issue unless the same language is added to every division. Instead, I think the language that would solve the issue is to remove any specific mention of a type of safety, whether it is a magazine disconnect or a firing pin block and instead say something like, "Due to the wide variations in types of firearms, in all divisions, competitors are solely responsible for ensuring their firearms are safe to use in competition. USPSA encourages competitors to consult an experienced gunsmith if a competitor has any doubt as to the safe working order of their firearm." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SA Friday Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 (edited) If you'll allow.... I do believe this discussion, while it started around FPB's, etc.... Has taken a twist that it may bode well for the BOD's to recognize and remedy. That being the "definition" of a safety, and the application of that definition across all valid divisions. (hope I'm using the right word here?). Manufacturers define what they believe to be a safety on their firearms. Their opinions vary based on many different factors; lawyers, marketing, engineering, etc. USPSA deals with the whole spectrum, and I believe it would be impossible to resolve a definition encompassing all of them without getting just silly. I believe as an organization they can identify those mechanisms they see are NOT safeties and document this as they have recently done. Edited March 25, 2009 by SA Friday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr2e Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 (edited) To put it bluntly, you can either accept the rules as written, or take other actions as you see fit. this pretty much says it all as far as i am concerned. as soon as i saw the rulings i made the effort to get the parts necessary to comply with ALL the requirements. less than $20 later and some time on my part and all is good. this is even though i have a cz shadow as well as an sp-01. it was easier for me to make sure i am in total compliance then to try to buck the system 'till the cows come home. Edited March 25, 2009 by dr2e Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgunz11 Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Alan, the language you propose sounds good, but I have my doubts about it solving the liability issue unless the same language is added to every division.Instead, I think the language that would solve the issue is to remove any specific mention of a type of safety, whether it is a magazine disconnect or a firing pin block and instead say something like, "Due to the wide variations in types of firearms, in all divisions, competitors are solely responsible for ensuring their firearms are safe to use in competition. USPSA encourages competitors to consult an experienced gunsmith if a competitor has any doubt as to the safe working order of their firearm." Please leave the other Divisions out of your Production Division problems. The Open,SS, and Limited Divisions don't need to get involved in the STOCK offering race. Production rules are different than Limited, Lim 10, SS, and Open, though they share some commonalities with Revolver. The argument is not so much about a safety as it is returning the gun back to a factory offering, try not to confuse the 2. It has nothing to do with the other Divisions. We like our other guns just like they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManNamedJed Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 If the position is that prohibiting removal of a FPB is a SAFETY issue, as in preventing harm to competitors, then that philosophy should be applied to ALL divisions. Why should one division be be held to a higher SAFETY STANDARD than another? To look at it any other way is silly. However, if the position is that the restriction is intended to limit the amount of trigger work/tuning you can do, then that is another issue entirely. So now what if CZ (who seems to pay some attention to this) produces a SP01 (not designated shadow) without a FPB and does have a hole in the slide? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgunz11 Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 The whole thing about revisiting the Production Division rules is about modifications allowed to that specific Division. It has nothing to do with the safety features featured on guns allowed in other Divisions... some people are just trying to make it a safety issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricBudd Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 It has nothing to do with the other Divisions. We like our other guns just like they are. So did we.... Now, who is in favor of allowing 9mm Major in Limited! Eric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now