Nik Habicht Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Ever think about a true law? It's one you can't break. Somebody around here has a cool sig line that reads "Obey gravity. It's the law." If a gun falls, but doesn't hit the ground....something has stopped it. If that something is the human...then they have "caught" the gun. I don't think it matters if they use their lizard mutant tongue to do it or their hands. Caught is caught. They are holding that gun...defying gravity. There is absolutely no way a rulebook can anticipate every possible situation that might come up at a match, not even safety wise. (That's probably one of the reasons why Section 10.5 includes "Examples of unsafe gun handling include, but are not limited to:" as part of its opening language.) What the rules can hopefully do is to provide a framework, that allows the match staff to think through the particulars of a given situations, and to make the correct call. 10.5.1 refers to "handling" the gun -- and A3 provides a definition for that act. Now, some of the folks who had a hand in getting that definition written and approved by the BOD, tell me that their word choice was about clarifying that "hand on gun = dq," anything else might not necessarily be a DQ. I've seen a lot of silliness on the range over the years..... If the gun wasn't handled (as in touched with the hands) the situation becomes a lot less clear cut, and I'll need full particulars prior to issuing a DQ.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Hmmmm... It seems both George and Nik have changed their positions since '09. Hmmm, flunked reading comprehension, did you? :D I haven't changed my mind. This thread was about "catching" a gun. I don't know how y'all catch down in Georgia, but up here in the northeast, it generally involves hands --- which gets us right to two out of three words in the "handling definition" in Appendix A3. "The act of manipulating, holding, or gripping a firearm while the trigger is functionally accessible." I have a tough time reading that as being about anything else but "hand on gun" while the trigger is accessible. So in this case -- DQ under 10.5.1 for (catching) handling... Well.. down here, in Jawga, when a fella is standing there with his gun pinned against his leg, we figure he caught it. So ifn y'all Yankees wanna come down here and trap yer fallin gun agin yer leg and claim ya didnt catch it, weuns is prolly gonna point our fingers and laugh atcha. I don't know much about that thar "reading comprehension" (hell, I hada look it up. Throwin them $.50 words around ) but I do know this, ain't no dern gun gettin pinned against yer leg all by itself. Theys sum catchin gettin dun somewhars. You can go ta crawfishin all ya want, ifn its pinned agin yer leg, ya caught it. First that was funny...... Glad to see you haven't lost your sense of humor here..... To get back to one of your lines -- if I'm on the arb committee, you'll need to show up with more that "I came around the corner, and shooter had his blaster pinned to the table with his leg" or I came around the corner and the gun was setting on the shooter's foot...." Provide me with evidence that makes me believe the shooter had his gun in hand at some point, and I'll uphold that every day. I don't even need a lot of evidence -- but I do need a little more than "I just don't see how that could have happened without them handling the gun..... I've upheld dq's for competitors when the RO thought they might have committed a disqualifying offense, and when asked the shooter owned up to it. (And I'll say this point blank too -- I'll shoot with those competitors any day. They realized they made a mistake, that maybe this wasn't a good day for them to shoot, and they did the honorable thing, even though it was hard for them. I'm never happy about a DQ, but I especially hate those, when nice people own up to a mistake.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Now, some of the folks who had a hand in getting that definition written ... Ahhh... that explains a lot. They were using the wrong part of their body when crafting the rule. (just joking) ========================== If the gun wasn't handled (as in touched with the hands)...t Nik, I think the notion that you can only handle with "hands" ...is absurd. If the person writing the rules meant that, then he/she should have clearly wrote that into said rule... And, got that rule approved with that clarification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Last but not least, let's take a simple look at the rules: 10.5.1 Handling a firearm at any time except when in a designated safety area or when under the supervision of, and in response to a direct command issued by, a Range Officer. Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . .(As in “handling a firearm”) The act of manipulating, holding, or gripping a firearm while the trigger is functionally accessible. Now English is my second language, so I may be a little off here but if you were asked to define any of these four words here, what do you think their common meaning would be? Handling -- has hand as its root. Generally speaking handling something involves use of ones hands.... Manipulating has its root in the Latin word Manus, meaning, you guessed it "hand." When I was taking Latin and English I learned that the Latin word "manipulare" and the English word "manipulate" generally referred to moving something with one's hands.... Gripping -- General usage refers to hands, though it is possible to grip with other body parts. Specific to the sport usage -- what do we think of when someone asks for advice on their grip? Holding is a little tricky -- I'll concede right now that holding could refer to something other than hands. However, instructors keep telling me to exercise my brain, and considering holding in the context of the other three terms, I can see an inference toward holding with the hand.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Nik, what do you run your accelerator pedal in your car with ? When you carry a popper, is it just with your hands? Somehow my shirt and shorts get dirty when doing so. Here in a little bit, I will probably hit an elevator call button with my elbow. And to top things off... Ta Daaaa... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Nik, I think the notion that you can only handle with "hands" ...is absurd. I don't think it's absurd. See post above. Nor I do think holding a gun with a body part too large to activate the trigger is a problem -- and that's why I advocate looking at the situations very carefully and thoroughly before making a call. (I'll equate that investigation to the same care that we exercise when scoring a target, knowing that the outcome will not only affect the shooter but his competitors as well....) If the person writing the rules meant that, then he/she should have clearly wrote that into said rule... Again -- I don;t know if it's the "English as a second language" education, or the time spent in journalism classes and editing various articles, parsing sentences for meaning, and spending much time thinking about word origins and "defined versus conventional usage meaning" of words, but when I see three words out of four that specifically refer to "hands" and when the fourth word can also refer to "hands" it's pretty clear to me.... Why do I suspect that what's really the root of the problem here is the failure of DNROI to report to NROI members on changes recommended to, and approved by the BOD for inclusion in the rulebook? I truly believe that the range officers, as well as all USPSA members deserve such a report. I'll mention it to my area director. I want the folks doing the teaching involved in the rules making process -- we'd be fools not to avail ourselves of their experience and their institutional knowledge -- subject to BOD approval. I also believe that expanded minutes of the portions of the instructor's conference, together with an indication of how the material will be taught in classes, should be published in Front Sight annually. And I'd suggest since we're paying someone to run DNROI, that that function might fall within their scope of responsibility -- though at the moment the bylaws are silent on this particular issue.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Nik, what do you run your accelerator pedal in your car with ? When you carry a popper, is it just with your hands? Somehow my shirt and shorts get dirty when doing so. Here in a little bit, I will probably hit an elevator call button with my elbow. And to top things off... Ta Daaaa... Typically I depress the accelerator with my foot. When I use my hand, I can't see out the windshield -- and that's dangerous..... I might occasionally manipulate my cruise control with my fingers/hand.... When I carry a popper, often it is just with my hands, to keep my shirt and shorts from getting dirty. When I use other body parts to assist, "handling the popper" is only part of what I'm doing -- and that part is limited to my hands.... And an elevator call button has what to do with a dropped gun? And how does an elbow fit in? You may be hitting that elevator button with your elbow, but you're certainly not manipulating it.... Thank you for making my point -- that words have specific meanings. Carry, hold and handle all have some overlap, but they are not identically interchangeable.... And to top it off -- the picture title "su-keren-women-carrying-basket-on-head-antigua-guatemala" refers to carrying. Funny how that word doesn't appear in either the rule or the definition of handling..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Nor I do think holding a gun with a body part too large to activate the trigger is a problem -- Done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Nor I do think holding a gun with a body part too large to activate the trigger is a problem -- Done. Done with the discussion? Done, as in that phrase in an NROI interpretation would satisfy you? What am I missing? Explain it to me in basic terms..... On second reading, I might change the wording to: "Nor I do think holding a gun with a body part too large to activate the trigger is necessarily always a problem" In other ways, I think we're spending a lot of time on very rare occurrences. Typically these things are pretty cut and dry -- either the shooter allowed the gun to fall, or he caught it/tried to get a hand on it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztecdriver Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Nor I do think holding a gun with a body part too large to activate the trigger is a problem -- Done. Done with the discussion? Done, as in that phrase in an NROI interpretation would satisfy you? What am I missing? Explain it to me in basic terms..... On second reading, I might change the wording to: "Nor I do think holding a gun with a body part too large to activate the trigger is necessarily always a problem" In other ways, I think we're spending a lot of time on very rare occurrences. Typically these things are pretty cut and dry -- either the shooter allowed the gun to fall, or he caught it/tried to get a hand on it.... Let me paraphrase - you used - and highlighted again, holding a gun with a body part. - the key word is HOLDING. Let me rephrase the question in a yes or no question. Does that phrase meet the definition of "Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . .(As in “handling a firearm”) The act of manipulating, holding, or gripping a firearm while the trigger is functionally accessible." I think that was the whole point of the discussion. Edge cases are important because it's the edge cases that people try to drive trucks through. Next thing you know, someone will have it trapped with the heel of their hand and state that it's not the fingers so its not holding/grasping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Done, as in...you acknowledges that a gun can be held with a body part that is not the hand. ... And done, as in...you switch over to "activating the trigger" as being somehow part of this discussion. I feel you are trying to mold the words to fit what somebody told you in a class. I believe that is fundamentally wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Anderson Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 So if I go to a safety area and put the unloaded gun between my knees, can I walk around the range like that? I'm not handling it? This just doesn't seem like that difficult of a concept to grasp. The gun stays in the bag or holster until under the direction of a range officer or in a safety area. If it is not in one of those two locations, bag or holster, and you're not under the direction of an RO or in a safety area, and you're somehow preventing that gun from hitting the deck, whether it's pinning it to something with a leg, playing hacky sack with it, or rapidly tying the bunch of helium balloons you were carrying to the trigger guard, it's a DQ. I've seen dozens of guns in mid air. Most as an LE trainer, a few as an RO. I've never seen one caught that didn't somehow point at a body part. And I've never seen someone catch it with enough sense to keep their finger clear of the part that makes the gun go bang. I've seen them caught but the grip, barrel, and pretty much everything between. The most recent one was a guy who caught it with his pinkie finger in the trigger guard, muzzle pointed at his face. I'm all for gaming every stage I can. Get every bit of advantage I can out of the rules and stage description. But I'm not going to try and skirt a safety rule. Whether it's a rule book safety rule or one of the four primary ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperman Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Nor I do think holding a gun with a body part too large to activate the trigger is a problem -- Done. Done with the discussion? Done, as in that phrase in an NROI interpretation would satisfy you? What am I missing? Explain it to me in basic terms..... On second reading, I might change the wording to: "Nor I do think holding a gun with a body part too large to activate the trigger is necessarily always a problem" In other ways, I think we're spending a lot of time on very rare occurrences. Typically these things are pretty cut and dry -- either the shooter allowed the gun to fall, or he caught it/tried to get a hand on it.... Nik, I'm not sure where it was decided that it was OK to hold the gun with a part of the body that is too large to activate the trigger. Even if that is the current standard, don't you think it's entirely possible for part of your holster, or your clothes to activate the trigger while you are pinning the gun against your body with your arm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Nor I do think holding a gun with a body part too large to activate the trigger is a problem -- Done. Done with the discussion? Done, as in that phrase in an NROI interpretation would satisfy you? What am I missing? Explain it to me in basic terms..... On second reading, I might change the wording to: "Nor I do think holding a gun with a body part too large to activate the trigger is necessarily always a problem" In other ways, I think we're spending a lot of time on very rare occurrences. Typically these things are pretty cut and dry -- either the shooter allowed the gun to fall, or he caught it/tried to get a hand on it.... Nik, I'm not sure where it was decided that it was OK to hold the gun with a part of the body that is too large to activate the trigger. Even if that is the current standard, don't you think it's entirely possible for part of your holster, or your clothes to activate the trigger while you are pinning the gun against your body with your arm? Sure. And that's why I'd want to evaluate the totality of the situation before making the call..... As far as I'm concerned, the most valuable thing we do for the sport as range officers is to think..... I ran a club match for five years, and when I stepped down from the primary responsibility of that, I remained as one of the assistants. I haven't done that for almost eight years combined, without thinking about safety before, during, and after every match. I always kept in mind that if anything were to happen, not only would it be possible for me to get sued, but that almost assuredly a large number of my friends would also get named in a lawsuit. Protecting them from litigation is part of my responsibility on the range. The best way to do that is to keep the safety rules in mind when designing, building, and inspecting the match, and while officiating the match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztecdriver Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Sure. And that's why I'd want to evaluate the totality of the situation before making the call..... As far as I'm concerned, the most valuable thing we do for the sport as range officers is to think..... [snip] Where are you getting this? There is nothing to think about with this rule. You even said it yourself, holding means HOLDING - and I won't go back and quote it because it was done several times. There's nothing to think about here - this isn't whether the shot passed through a piece of paper and you are trying to determine if it was a miss or not. This one is pretty straight forward. Holding, 10.5.1, done. There is no leeway for circumstance in that rule. Show me where it says anything about being able to activate the trigger and the size of my body parts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Sure. And that's why I'd want to evaluate the totality of the situation before making the call..... As far as I'm concerned, the most valuable thing we do for the sport as range officers is to think..... [snip] Where are you getting this? There is nothing to think about with this rule. You even said it yourself, holding means HOLDING - and I won't go back and quote it because it was done several times. There's nothing to think about here - this isn't whether the shot passed through a piece of paper and you are trying to determine if it was a miss or not. This one is pretty straight forward. Holding, 10.5.1, done. There is no leeway for circumstance in that rule. Show me where it says anything about being able to activate the trigger and the size of my body parts? How are you eliminating words from the definition -- refusing to read the entire thing, and to think about it? I'm simply having a discussion here. I strongly suspect that on the range it would have to be a "one in a million" incident where you and I would disagree on the actual call.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztecdriver Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Sure. And that's why I'd want to evaluate the totality of the situation before making the call..... As far as I'm concerned, the most valuable thing we do for the sport as range officers is to think..... [snip] Where are you getting this? There is nothing to think about with this rule. You even said it yourself, holding means HOLDING - and I won't go back and quote it because it was done several times. There's nothing to think about here - this isn't whether the shot passed through a piece of paper and you are trying to determine if it was a miss or not. This one is pretty straight forward. Holding, 10.5.1, done. There is no leeway for circumstance in that rule. Show me where it says anything about being able to activate the trigger and the size of my body parts? How are you eliminating words from the definition -- refusing to read the entire thing, and to think about it? I'm simply having a discussion here. I strongly suspect that on the range it would have to be a "one in a million" incident where you and I would disagree on the actual call.... Sorry - I am as trying to have a discussion as well, I'm just not seeing where you are coming from at all. I wasn't even going to get into this discussion - but the more I read - the more your opinion is losing me, and I can't grasp where this is coming from. Trust me - I'm trying desperately to understand it. This isn't one of those "it's not what it looks like" scenarios. You know the ones - Someone robs the bank. Police are looking for the guy and suddenly there's someone running down the street with a money bag. They jump out and he says "officer, it's not what it looks like". Meanwhile, he just beat the snot out of the robbers and was returning the money. This doesn't apply here. The act of trapping it - for any reason, is the infraction. I'm failing to see the ability for us as officials to investigate anything here - again, it's just what we witnessed. I don't know what words I am eliminating from the definition of handling - I'd be glad to entertain the question again if you were to point out which words I'm eliminating. There's two parts to the definition - one, the act - holding, manipulating or grasping and two, the condition - trigger accessible. What is there to think about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Aztec, you appear to be eliminating the words "gripping" and "manipulating" from your thinking about the rule, and fixating on the word "holding....." Do you suppose that the folks who wrote that definition decided to be verbose or redundant? Or is it more likely that they wanted to clarify what they meant, by utilizing multiple similar words? Words mean something -- I firmly believe that you need to read and consider all of the words in the definition. To put it another way -- I can certainly hold something with my armpit, my leg, between or behind my knees, in the crook of an elbow, in my lap, or in my hand. What I can't do with any of those places, other than the hand is to manipulate or grip the item. Manipulating or gripping will always require a hand.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztecdriver Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . .(As in “handling a firearm”) The act of manipulating, holding, or gripping a firearm while the trigger is functionally accessible. I wasn't eliminating - they're irrelevant to the specific situation. This is a comma separated list that specifically uses the word "or" to separate. It means that any one of those 3 words can suffice to be affirmatively committing the act - put another way, it is equivalent to 3 separate statements "The act of manipulating, the act of holding, or the act of gripping a firearm while the trigger is functionally accessible." meets the definition of handling. If you disagree with this standard English interpretation - we are definitely at an impasse in the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twodownzero Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Last but not least, let's take a simple look at the rules: 10.5.1 Handling a firearm at any time except when in a designated safety area or when under the supervision of, and in response to a direct command issued by, a Range Officer. Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . .(As in “handling a firearm”) The act of manipulating, holding, or gripping a firearm while the trigger is functionally accessible. Now English is my second language, so I may be a little off here but if you were asked to define any of these four words here, what do you think their common meaning would be? Handling -- has hand as its root. Generally speaking handling something involves use of ones hands.... (snip) I hate to disagree with you about something so petty, but I think you're going about this process of "rules construction all wrong." The dictionary or common definitions of words are not appropriate for terms that our rule book's glossary defines. They are like the legal definition of a "firearm." Most reasonable people would not think that the grip frame of a 1911 or the lower receiver of an AR 15 is a firearm, but the law regards them as one. Similarly, "handling" is defined in the rule book, and it may include some situations that are counter to an intuitive analysis of the concept. Using common or dictionary definitions when the rules contain definitions is a recipe for disaster. I would expect the plain or common meaning to control in most other cases, but not in a situation where we have a definition given to us. There's also a good reason for the definition being given to us--to avoid disputes about what the common definition is, or whether a particular set of facts fit into it or not. It may be an imperfect system, but statutes include definitions of terms all the time. While there was once a time when courts frowned upon a legislature telling them what words meant, modern jurisprudence regards statutory definitions as part of the legislative function (i.e., part of the rule MAKING authority) rather than a judicial function (part of the interpretive authority). Keep in mind that I'm not a professional at this, I'm just making a point from my knowledge base. I'm not sure we disagree on the conclusion, but seeing as we disagree on the starting point, the analysis may look different. And when I met you, I would have never known English wasn't your first language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanky Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 (edited) I think by the definition stating "Manipulating, holding, OR gripping," that any of those three situations are considered handling. All kidding side, I think we all know that it's very well possible to "hold" something without using your hands. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hold None of these definitions of "hold" require the use of hands to fulfill the definition. If the definition stated "Manipulating, handling AND holding" then we would possibly not have a DQ if it was caught by an arm/wrist/foot, in my humble, uneducated noob opinion. Edited July 12, 2011 by spanky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Anderson Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Spanky hit the nail on the head. The OR is the part you're not reading right Nik. You don't have to do all three, just one of them. Holding it is enough, Manipulating it is enough, or gripping it is enough. You don't have to do all three. It was written that way to prevent the interpretation you have come up with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Spanky hit the nail on the head. The OR is the part you're not reading right Nik. You don't have to do all three, just one of them. Holding it is enough, Manipulating it is enough, or gripping it is enough. You don't have to do all three. It was written that way to prevent the interpretation you have come up with. So the gun that lands on the shooter's foot -- you're issuing a match DQ for that, right? Shooter's leaning on a safe table working on a buddy's gun, bumps his own blaster forward out of the lock on the holster -- you arrive to find him still leaning there, the muzzle still on the muzzle cup on the holster, the gun is also resting on the shooter's side, and on the edge of the table -- that's another match DQ for holding, right? Because it's incredibly clearcut..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 The dictionary or common definitions of words are not appropriate for terms that our rule book's glossary defines. They are like the legal definition of a "firearm." Most reasonable people would not think that the grip frame of a 1911 or the lower receiver of an AR 15 is a firearm, but the law regards them as one. Similarly, "handling" is defined in the rule book, and it may include some situations that are counter to an intuitive analysis of the concept. I'm more or less with you up to this point..... Using common or dictionary definitions when the rules contain definitions is a recipe for disaster. I would expect the plain or common meaning to control in most other cases, but not in a situation where we have a definition given to us. There's also a good reason for the definition being given to us--to avoid disputes about what the common definition is, or whether a particular set of facts fit into it or not. The problem here is that the rulebook defines handling, but fails to define holding, gripping or manipulating -- so we do need to necessarily refer to dictionary and common usage definitions, in order to understand what the BOD meant..... It may be an imperfect system, but statutes include definitions of terms all the time. While there was once a time when courts frowned upon a legislature telling them what words meant, modern jurisprudence regards statutory definitions as part of the legislative function (i.e., part of the rule MAKING authority) rather than a judicial function (part of the interpretive authority). Keep in mind that I'm not a professional at this, I'm just making a point from my knowledge base. I'm not sure we disagree on the conclusion, but seeing as we disagree on the starting point, the analysis may look different. And when I met you, I would have never known English wasn't your first language. O.K. -- and I suppose, Thank you. Being imported at age 11, and having previously learned some English at age 6 during an 8 month stay here, probably helped with that.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanky Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Spanky hit the nail on the head. The OR is the part you're not reading right Nik. You don't have to do all three, just one of them. Holding it is enough, Manipulating it is enough, or gripping it is enough. You don't have to do all three. It was written that way to prevent the interpretation you have come up with. So the gun that lands on the shooter's foot -- you're issuing a match DQ for that, right? Shooter's leaning on a safe table working on a buddy's gun, bumps his own blaster forward out of the lock on the holster -- you arrive to find him still leaning there, the muzzle still on the muzzle cup on the holster, the gun is also resting on the shooter's side, and on the edge of the table -- that's another match DQ for holding, right? Because it's incredibly clearcut..... Did the shooter catch the gun with his foot or did it land on his foot? If there is no proof or eye-witness to him physically catching it with his foot then no DQ. Same for catching it on the table with his body, IMO. 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