Nik Habicht 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. Then riddle me this: Since gripping is a pretty specific definition of holding (typically involving the hands, and certainly having a meaning that is specific to this sport) and since it is impossible (let's leave virtual manipulation out of this discussion) to manipulate something without holding it, why then were those two words included in the rule? By your reading of it, they could have been dropped -- and hey, touching could have been substituted for holding, and it would be much clearer..... 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..... 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. So the trick is that the shooter didn't move? O.K., I'll play: Shooter is scratching his leg below the holster. Someone bumps his blaster out of the holster and it lands on the shooter's fingers -- I guess that's not a DQ either. right ? 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. So the trick is that the shooter didn't move? O.K., I'll play: Shooter is scratching his leg below the holster. Someone bumps his blaster out of the holster and it lands on the shooter's fingers -- I guess that's not a DQ either. right ? Does the gun stop in the shooters fingers without him using any hand muscles to stop the drop? 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. 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..... Shooters foot, is he holding, manipulating or gripping the gun. No. It's just sitting there. Where it fell without interaction from the shooter. No DQ Shooters at a safe table. Well he's in a safe area. I don't really care if he drops his gun or not. He's in a safe area, pick it up and put it away. Now, let me answer your next question with my mystical powers. He's walking the stage and does the same thing at the start table. If the shooter stops and calls for an RO, whatever position he was in when the gun became dislodged, no DQ. If the gun tips forward and bumps the table, but the shooter doesn't grab, hold or manipulate it, it's not a DQ. If the shooter takes action, shoving his body against the table, or moving something in a way to stop the motion of the gun, that's manipulating it and it's a DQ. Yep, seems clear to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperman Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 I've been told there was a time that if the gun came out of the holster it was a DQ. I'm not sure I want to go back to that rule, but it would eliminate a lot of grey area. (Obviously this excludes being under the direction of an RO, or at the safe area.) 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..... Shooters foot, is he holding, manipulating or gripping the gun. No. It's just sitting there. Where it fell without interaction from the shooter. No DQ Shooters at a safe table. Well he's in a safe area. I don't really care if he drops his gun or not. He's in a safe area, pick it up and put it away. Now, let me answer your next question with my mystical powers. He's walking the stage and does the same thing at the start table. If the shooter stops and calls for an RO, whatever position he was in when the gun became dislodged, no DQ. If the gun tips forward and bumps the table, but the shooter doesn't grab, hold or manipulate it, it's not a DQ. If the shooter takes action, shoving his body against the table, or moving something in a way to stop the motion of the gun, that's manipulating it and it's a DQ. Yep, seems clear to me. Yeah, this is pretty much where I'm at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Anderson Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 I've been told there was a time that if the gun came out of the holster it was a DQ. I'm not sure I want to go back to that rule, but it would eliminate a lot of grey area. (Obviously this excludes being under the direction of an RO, or at the safe area.) The NRA still has this rule. At least at the Bianchi Cup. Not sure on their other matches. I can tell you if I was at Bianchi and a gun fell out, a lot of people would do everything they could to hide that fact. Snatch it off the ground and stuff it back in the holster. Fish it out of the porta potty, whatever. That's the reason USPSA switched to the current rule. It's much safer to just call a clear range, move everyone out of the way of the muzzle and safely retrieve the gun. Heck they even took out the safety areas at the range this year (a horrible decision, I saw an awful lot of guns in the parking lot that I didn't see last year). I know I don't want to go back to that rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schutzenmeister Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 The NRA still has this rule. At least at the Bianchi Cup. Not sure on their other matches. I can tell you if I was at Bianchi and a gun fell out, a lot of people would do everything they could to hide that fact. Snatch it off the ground and stuff it back in the holster. Fish it out of the porta potty, whatever. That's the reason USPSA switched to the current rule. It's much safer to just call a clear range, move everyone out of the way of the muzzle and safely retrieve the gun. Heck they even took out the safety areas at the range this year (a horrible decision, I saw an awful lot of guns in the parking lot that I didn't see last year). I know I don't want to go back to that rule. Huh? What match? I would think that at a USPSA match 2.4 requires safety areas. 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. Then riddle me this: Since gripping is a pretty specific definition of holding (typically involving the hands, and certainly having a meaning that is specific to this sport) and since it is impossible (let's leave virtual manipulation out of this discussion) to manipulate something without holding it, why then were those two words included in the rule? By your reading of it, they could have been dropped -- and hey, touching could have been substituted for holding, and it would be much clearer..... That I'll agree with you on. I honestly don't know why those words were chosen - most likely it went through a couple iterations where gripping was the first - then they realized it would get picked apart, added manipulating - realized that would get picked apart, and so on. I really shouldn't have to think about what the thought process was in the creation of the rule in order to enforce it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Anderson Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 The NRA still has this rule. At least at the Bianchi Cup. Not sure on their other matches. I can tell you if I was at Bianchi and a gun fell out, a lot of people would do everything they could to hide that fact. Snatch it off the ground and stuff it back in the holster. Fish it out of the porta potty, whatever. That's the reason USPSA switched to the current rule. It's much safer to just call a clear range, move everyone out of the way of the muzzle and safely retrieve the gun. Heck they even took out the safety areas at the range this year (a horrible decision, I saw an awful lot of guns in the parking lot that I didn't see last year). I know I don't want to go back to that rule. Huh? What match? I would think that at a USPSA match 2.4 requires safety areas. At the Bianchi Cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schutzenmeister Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 The NRA still has this rule. At least at the Bianchi Cup. Not sure on their other matches. I can tell you if I was at Bianchi and a gun fell out, a lot of people would do everything they could to hide that fact. Snatch it off the ground and stuff it back in the holster. Fish it out of the porta potty, whatever. That's the reason USPSA switched to the current rule. It's much safer to just call a clear range, move everyone out of the way of the muzzle and safely retrieve the gun. Heck they even took out the safety areas at the range this year (a horrible decision, I saw an awful lot of guns in the parking lot that I didn't see last year). I know I don't want to go back to that rule. Huh? What match? I would think that at a USPSA match 2.4 requires safety areas. At the Bianchi Cup. Ahhh ... That explains the disconnect in my thought process! Still, I'm a little suprised and disappointed with the NRA on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Anderson Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 I think their thought process was since the safety table wasn't supervised by an RO that it was somehow unsafe. I think it lead to unintended consequences. Some of which fall in line with the other DQ or Not thread. For example, if I'm parked on the road outside the gate to the range, can I handle my gun? The NRA has their own rules and have made it very clear that they are not USPSA/IPSC and will not use those sports rules. Instead they seem hell bent to muddle through the same mistakes and growing pains that USPSA had. Not to slam the NRA but you'd be surprised at some of the stuff they pull at that match. It's not USPSA...and not in a good way either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schutzenmeister Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 I think their thought process was since the safety table wasn't supervised by an RO that it was somehow unsafe. I think it lead to unintended consequences. Some of which fall in line with the other DQ or Not thread. For example, if I'm parked on the road outside the gate to the range, can I handle my gun? The NRA has their own rules and have made it very clear that they are not USPSA/IPSC and will not use those sports rules. Instead they seem hell bent to muddle through the same mistakes and growing pains that USPSA had. Not to slam the NRA but you'd be surprised at some of the stuff they pull at that match. It's not USPSA...and not in a good way either. No arguments there ... But one would assume the NRA should, by all rights, be the "older and wiser" organization. I suppose everyone is occasionally entitled to less than perfect decision making processes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Rader Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Why is it a DQ to catch his gun at a safe table watching his buddy work on his? Where else are you supposed to handle it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Hefta Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Why is it a DQ to catch his gun at a safe table watching his buddy work on his? Where else are you supposed to handle it? I have to agree with this comment, you are at the safety table you can handle the gun, hand it to your buddy, take it apart but you can't catch it if you are a little clumsy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanky Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Why is it a DQ to catch his gun at a safe table watching his buddy work on his? Where else are you supposed to handle it? I have to agree with this comment, you are at the safety table you can handle the gun, hand it to your buddy, take it apart but you can't catch it if you are a little clumsy? I think Nik was just being a little too stretchy on the scenarios and threw up an invalid one. Replace "safe area working on a buddys gun" with "leaning on a bench/table/shed chit-chatting with your buddies." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Hefta Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Why is it a DQ to catch his gun at a safe table watching his buddy work on his? Where else are you supposed to handle it? I have to agree with this comment, you are at the safety table you can handle the gun, hand it to your buddy, take it apart but you can't catch it if you are a little clumsy? I think Nik was just being a little too stretchy on the scenarios and threw up an invalid one. Replace "safe area working on a buddys gun" with "leaning on a bench/table/shed chit-chatting with your buddies." Sure, then you try to catch it and get caught off to DQ for a Blizzard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 I thought of an old thread I saw on here awhile back regarding dropped guns. I'm sure there is some talk somewhere of a gun getting knocked loose from the holster but the shooter had a shower cap on the gun to keep it dry so the gun was being held in the shower cap. Is that a dropped gun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Why is it a DQ to catch his gun at a safe table watching his buddy work on his? Where else are you supposed to handle it? It's not. I initially thought about a safety table, had the same realization, changed it mentally to range or registration table, but by the time I got to the computer had apparently reverted.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schutzenmeister Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Why is it a DQ to catch his gun at a safe table watching his buddy work on his? Where else are you supposed to handle it? It's not. I initially thought about a safety table, had the same realization, changed it mentally to range or registration table, but by the time I got to the computer had apparently reverted.... DQ for Unsafe Fingering of the Keyboard ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Failure To Keyboard Right? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Jones Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 I see that there has been speculation as to the intent of the rule writer for this rule. I can provide some insight. When the definition of handling was being discussed (early 2010), some language was proposed. I suggested something else which turned out to be the version adopted by the BOD for the 2010 updates. I know what I meant it to say. I meant it to say that the hand was involved. That is why I particularly used the word manipulate. Whether the BOD read it the same way or not, I have no clue. I was not involved in their discussions, I just saw it in the rulebook update. Commas and "or" aside, it was all about the hand. Later that year, the RMI group was discussing the dropped gun (off the COF) scenario. The published definition of handling (and the "hand" part) played a (perhaps significant) role in the consensus which was reached on no DQ if the gun was not handled. That's my story. 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