Dropped Gun

[ima45dv8]

As an aside, any speculation as to what drove the idea that once a firearm is dropped, a second individual must become the responsible party in the retrieval process?

I think the rationale is that it prevents the competitor who dropped the gun from handling it outside of a safety area or while under the direct supervision and command of an RO, which of course would an immediate DQ.

[Sarge]

These threads are great conversations. So lets expand it a little. Why was it decided that an RO must pick up a dropped gun? I can see being DQ'd for just willy nilly dropping one and picking it up. But why was it not decided that an official must be summoned and observe the gun being picked up and cleared and re holstered instead of actually doing it himself. I think it could be argued that an RO who is shooting the match would in fact be a competitor and could be subject to DQ if he dropped a gun or had an AD while handling. I know it is not rocket science but lets say for the sake of argument an RO is not fluent in any particular type of gun would it not be safer for the owner of said gun to handle it while following commands from the RO instead of the RO trying to figure it out on the fly. I know this a reach but it is possible right? And no easy answers allowed such as RO's should know everything about every gun or Don't let RO's shoot a match they work. Somehow I don't think we would have any RO's if that happened.

I want to stress that I am not taking any particular stance here just wondering.

[Nik Habicht]

I've got a couple of thoughts on the subject --- letting the competitor pick up the gun under RO supervision is fine in theory; most of us could manage that safely. Could the new competitor who's still figuring out exactly how his gun works, accomplish that safely? Could the person who's getting an adrenaline rush on every stage?

I'm guessing that the thinking was that we want people who are experienced enough to adapt to whatever the possible situation turns out to be to handle the gun -- i.e. a little bit of critical thinking ability is required....

[shred]

..it's also part of the double-check. A third-party checking the pistol is clear and no other rules were broken prevents a whole host of possible problems.

Say the owner picks it up but notices the loaded chamber indicator is lit for some reason. They'd be highly incented to sneak off and clear it.

[dex]

These threads are great conversations. So lets expand it a little. Why was it decided that an RO must pick up a dropped gun? I can see being DQ'd for just willy nilly dropping one and picking it up. But why was it not decided that an official must be summoned and observe the gun being picked up and cleared and re holstered instead of actually doing it himself. I think it could be argued that an RO who is shooting the match would in fact be a competitor and could be subject to DQ if he dropped a gun or had an AD while handling. I know it is not rocket science but lets say for the sake of argument an RO is not fluent in any particular type of gun would it not be safer for the owner of said gun to handle it while following commands from the RO instead of the RO trying to figure it out on the fly. I know this a reach but it is possible right? And no easy answers allowed such as RO's should know everything about every gun or Don't let RO's shoot a match they work. Somehow I don't think we would have any RO's if that happened.

I want to stress that I am not taking any particular stance here just wondering.

Sandman has hit the nail on the head with this. I would add that if one bothered to read the manufactures directions that comes with a new firearm, you will likely find a warning stressing that you must fully understand the operation of said firearm before attempting to use it. That being said, how many RO's have read and fully understand the operation of each firarm they are likely to encounter? Does the "liability" transfer to the RO handling the firearm? While there may be some concern to the shooters ability to properly clear a firearm due to adrenaline, excitement, fear or any other condition, I would submit that we as competitors handling our personal firearm are far more qualified to clear our own dropped firearm than any one else. Obviously this process would be done under the direct supervision of an RO and all penalties would remain in effect.

Still the question remains, What drove the rules to require another person to "retrieve" a dropped firearm as opposed to the owner/operator?

[IL-SIG]

I think if the decision was left up to the RO, that should be acceptable. RO's know many of the shooters they are supervising and know the shooter's level of gun-handling skills. If the corrective action (picking up the gun) is at the direction of an RO, all should be good.

This is just my $.02 and not in accordance with the rules that say the RO must pick up and clear the gun.

[Nik Habicht]

That being said, how many RO's have read and fully understand the operation of each firarm they are likely to encounter? Does the "liability" transfer to the RO handling the firearm? While there may be some concern to the shooters ability to properly clear a firearm due to adrenaline, excitement, fear or any other condition, I would submit that we as competitors handling our personal firearm are far more qualified to clear our own dropped firearm than any one else.

First, we don't see that many different firearms at most matches. Most of us shoot --- and shoot a fair number of guns. We may have as much or more experience than you do with your particular blaster. Second, nothing prevents us as ROs from either asking the owner of the blaster a question, or from simply securing the scene, and asking someone to fetch another RO who happens to shoot that brand of blaster.....

And yes, if there were to be a lawsuit following a discharge, I'd expect the RO to get named in the suit --- whether he's the person handling the gun or supervising. Since that's most likely the case --- if I'm going to have to expose myself to liability for the shooter's error, then I'll also assume responsibility for fixing it in the manner I deem best to avoid such a discharge and the subsequent lawsuit.

[dex]

That being said, how many RO's have read and fully understand the operation of each firarm they are likely to encounter? Does the "liability" transfer to the RO handling the firearm? While there may be some concern to the shooters ability to properly clear a firearm due to adrenaline, excitement, fear or any other condition, I would submit that we as competitors handling our personal firearm are far more qualified to clear our own dropped firearm than any one else.

First, we don't see that many different firearms at most matches. Most of us shoot --- and shoot a fair number of guns. We may have as much or more experience than you do with your particular blaster. Second, nothing prevents us as ROs from either asking the owner of the blaster a question, or from simply securing the scene, and asking someone to fetch another RO who happens to shoot that brand of blaster.....

And yes, if there were to be a lawsuit following a discharge, I'd expect the RO to get named in the suit --- whether he's the person handling the gun or supervising. Since that's most likely the case --- if I'm going to have to expose myself to liability for the shooter's error, then I'll also assume responsibility for fixing it in the manner I deem best to avoid such a discharge and the subsequent lawsuit.

While there would be no doubt that everyone involved would be named in a lawsuit, my guess is that the person handling the firearm at the time of injury would have most of the blame laid at their feet. Litigators love it when they can get you, the defendant, to admit that your action was based on what you "deemed best". Before this turns into a discussion of legalese, back to the question of what drove the decision to require a RO to retrieve a dropped firearm as opposed to having the owner retrieve it while under the supervision and guidance of a RO?

[ima45dv8]

Before this turns into a discussion of legalese, back to the question of what drove the decision to require a RO to retrieve a dropped firearm as opposed to having the owner retrieve it while under the supervision and guidance of a RO?

The original inquiry was, "As an aside, any speculation as to what drove the idea that once a firearm is dropped, a second individual must become the responsible party in the retrieval process?"

You've gotten a good number of speculative responses thus far, and unless Troy or one of the more seasoned Board members checks in to answer, that may well be all you'll get here. In the meantime it might be worth an email to DNROI for some definitive background on the dynamics of that decision. Please post any replies you receive here so we all can learn the answer.

[dex]

Before this turns into a discussion of legalese, back to the question of what drove the decision to require a RO to retrieve a dropped firearm as opposed to having the owner retrieve it while under the supervision and guidance of a RO?

The original inquiry was, "As an aside, any speculation as to what drove the idea that once a firearm is dropped, a second individual must become the responsible party in the retrieval process?"

You've gotten a good number of speculative responses thus far, and unless Troy or one of the more seasoned Board members checks in to answer, that may well be all you'll get here. In the meantime it might be worth an email to DNROI for some definitive background on the dynamics of that decision. Please post any replies you receive here so we all can learn the answer.

I posed this question to the NROI early last week and have not received any response.

[Nik Habicht]

Before this turns into a discussion of legalese, back to the question of what drove the decision to require a RO to retrieve a dropped firearm as opposed to having the owner retrieve it while under the supervision and guidance of a RO?

The original inquiry was, "As an aside, any speculation as to what drove the idea that once a firearm is dropped, a second individual must become the responsible party in the retrieval process?"

You've gotten a good number of speculative responses thus far, and unless Troy or one of the more seasoned Board members checks in to answer, that may well be all you'll get here. In the meantime it might be worth an email to DNROI for some definitive background on the dynamics of that decision. Please post any replies you receive here so we all can learn the answer.

I posed this question to the NROI early last week and have not received any response.

Given that Amidon is undoubtedly getting ready for Nationals, it may take some time to get an official answer....

[dex]

Before this turns into a discussion of legalese, back to the question of what drove the decision to require a RO to retrieve a dropped firearm as opposed to having the owner retrieve it while under the supervision and guidance of a RO?

The original inquiry was, "As an aside, any speculation as to what drove the idea that once a firearm is dropped, a second individual must become the responsible party in the retrieval process?"

You've gotten a good number of speculative responses thus far, and unless Troy or one of the more seasoned Board members checks in to answer, that may well be all you'll get here. In the meantime it might be worth an email to DNROI for some definitive background on the dynamics of that decision. Please post any replies you receive here so we all can learn the answer.

I posed this question to the NROI early last week and have not received any response.

Given that Amidon is undoubtedly getting ready for Nationals, it may take some time to get an official answer....

Still waiting for a response......

[Gary Stevens]

Well I'll take a swing at this one, although I am sure at least one person will disagree....

I would guess that someone who just dropped their gun, loaded or unloaded, but especially loaded, might just be a tad excited and or shook up. Allowing that person to retrieve their own gun, which they have just shown they don't have the ability to hold on to, could be considered dangerous and possibly negligent. If they dropped it once, perhaps they might drop it again.

The RO crew is in responsible for safe competitor actions on their stage. We hope, and train the RO's to be calm in these situations and perform a set series of procedures. Get everyone away from the muzzle of the gun. If possible, put their finger between the hammer and firing pin of the gun before picking it up. To get it down range, if necessary, as soon as possible. To unload the gun, and place it back in the shooters holster therefore making the gun inert at that point.

Allowing the already demonstrated unsafe shooter to accomplish all of those task is not reasonable. It is also why there is no such thing as a stage DQ. When you violate a safety rule, you are finished for the day.

[Nik Habicht]

I posed this question to the NROI early last week and have not received any response.

Given that Amidon is undoubtedly getting ready for Nationals, it may take some time to get an official answer....

Still waiting for a response......

John Amidon rarely posts here --- if ever.....

Have you sent him a follow-up e-mail?

[jmorris]

Allowing the already demonstrated unsafe shooter to accomplish all of those task is not reasonable. It is also why there is no such thing as a stage DQ. When you violate a safety rule, you are finished for the day.

I agree. It is also understood that you do what the RO tells you from start to finish.

[mountaincoulee]

Well I'll take a swing at this one, although I am sure at least one person will disagree....

I would guess that someone who just dropped their gun, loaded or unloaded, but especially loaded, might just be a tad excited and or shook up. Allowing that person to retrieve their own gun, which they have just shown they don't have the ability to hold on to, could be considered dangerous and possibly negligent. If they dropped it once, perhaps they might drop it again.

....

Allowing the already demonstrated unsafe shooter to accomplish all of those task is not reasonable. It is also why there is no such thing as a stage DQ. When you violate a safety rule, you are finished for the day.

I concur with the above. I believe that safety-related DQ-able actions or omissions might be an indicator that a competitor is having a bad day. And a bad day is not a safe day. Hence IPSC rule 10.5.3 DQ for unsafe gun handling due to dropped gun.

I guess the rule accepts that the shooter who drops a gun before his run starts (LAMR) or after it ends (ICHDH) is having a bad moment. Since dropping a gun outside the confines of a course of fire might be a sign the shooter is not fully focused on the task at hand, it makes sense that the RO -not the shooter- picks up the gun and clears it. The shooter is not forbidden from proceeding with the match, but I've no doubt it will be under the closest of RO scrutiny on all remaining stages.

What happens if a fellow drops his gun a second time on the same day, again outside his course of fire? Or the second gun drop outside a course of fire is on the second day of a two-day match? DQ or not? If that were to happen, I'd hope the shooter would be done for that day.

Edited November 18, 2009 by mountaincoulee

[ima45dv8]

Well I'll take a swing at this one, although I am sure at least one person will disagree....

I would guess that someone who just dropped their gun, loaded or unloaded, but especially loaded, might just be a tad excited and or shook up. Allowing that person to retrieve their own gun, which they have just shown they don't have the ability to hold on to, could be considered dangerous and possibly negligent. If they dropped it once, perhaps they might drop it again.

....

Allowing the already demonstrated unsafe shooter to accomplish all of those task is not reasonable. It is also why there is no such thing as a stage DQ. When you violate a safety rule, you are finished for the day.

I concur with the above. I believe that safety-related DQ-able actions or omissions might be an indicator that a competitor is having a bad day. And a bad day is not a safe day. Hence IPSC rule 10.5.3 DQ for unsafe gun handling due to dropped gun.

I guess the rule accepts that the shooter who drops a gun before his run starts (LAMR) or after it ends (ICHDH) is having a bad moment. Since dropping a gun outside the confines of a course of fire might be a sign the shooter is not fully focused on the task at hand, it makes sense that the RO -not the shooter- picks up the gun and clears it. The shooter is not forbidden from proceeding with the match, but I've no doubt it will be under the closest of RO scrutiny on all remaining stages.

What happens if a fellow drops his gun a second time on the same day, again outside his course of fire? Or the second gun drop outside a course of fire is on the second day of a two-day match? DQ or not? If that were to happen, I'd hope the shooter would be done for that day.

It seems fitting, but there doesn't appear to be a rule to support such an action.

[mactiger]

Having a gun fall before Make Ready or after Range is Clear is not a DQ, no matter how many times it happens. Typically, a gun will get knocked out of a holster somehow (competitor snags it on a chair, etc.), but I've yet to see this happen more than once. If it did, though, Mark is correct--as long as the competitor doesn't pick it up (handle it), it's not a DQ.

Troy