Oregon SB1012 on The Shooting Wire

If you're not already subscribed to The Shooting Wire, you absolutely must, without delay, go here and subscribe. Do it now. We'll wait.

This is one of the most elegant 'newsletter' subscriptions avaialble anywhere. On a day-to-day basis you can go to their website and see the current issue ... but when a new issue comes out the entire content is replaced. I very much recommend that you get your own subscription, so you don't miss anything.

You've seen several articles extensively quoted on this blog, and you'll see them again. Generally, I look for the feature article (which I suspect, but can't prove, is written by the editor Jim Shepherd.) But I will no longer quote 'extensively'; if you don't have a subscription, you'll miss most of the point of this and future articles generated in response to something they have written about. The articles are copyrighted, and I am loath to infringe upon their rights to original content more than I have so far.

In this case, The Shooting Wire has picked up on the news of Oregon SB 1012, and the write-up is superior to mine.

However, assuming you have read the original SW article, there is one paragraph which is, in my opinion, a little misleading.

On the surface, the measure would seem to protect range owners from the irresponsible acts of shooters. Looking deeper, the owner, operator or lessee must be in compliance with all noise ordinances existing at the time construction of the rang (sic) began or noise control law that was existing and the allegation is from shooting activity between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m (with an exception for law enforcement training purposes) or the allegation did not result from activity on Christmas or Thanksgiving Day.

This statement is incorrect:

... the owner, operator or lessee must be in compliance with all noise ordinances existing at the time construction of the rang (sic) began or noise control law that was existing ...

In fact, the original law stated that the range complied with ordinances existing at the time construction of the range began. I have no argument with that, it seems a reasonable expectation.

The new law has changed that, and would require that the range is in compliance with noise ordinances existing at the time of the infraction.

That means that, instead of 'grandfathering' the law (accepting that the range was constructed to meet noise ordinance requirements when it was constructed), the range must now meet noise ordinances enacted after the range was constructed.

The implication is that a city or county (was: state) could enact ANY noice ordinance no matter now burdensome or difficult to achieve in compliance

A good example of the consequences is in another part of the bill. Now, range patrons are essentially prohibited from shooting on a range on Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day ... presumably (although it is not specifically stated) because it is 'noisy'. Before, the law regulating shooting ranges did not prohibit 'noisy' shooting on these holidays, so if a local, county or state law was enacted to effect this prohibition ... shooting ranges would have been excepted.

This is why we say that, when you write or phone your state senator, you should urge them to reject the entire bill, not just the obviously egregious Section 1 (which contains the requirement for a 'rangemaster', and the requirement to record personal information and firearms registration).

If Section 1 is deleted, but the rest of the bill is allowed to be enacted into law, it will still have the effect of imposing an intolerable burden on shooting ranges. No other endeavor, such as heavy manufacturing, is the target (sorry) of such narrow legislation at this time.

For those of you who are not conversant with the subject, you can see my original comments here.

For those of you who are not subscribers to The Shooting Wire, and have no access to their article ... please email me (my email address is at the bottom of every page) and I will forward my copy of the newsletter unless I receive more requests than I can reasonable be expected to accomodate. I don't think I'll receive that many requests, so don't be shy ... it really is a very well written article, and worth the reading. I regret that I can't quote it in full, but I have no way to request permission to do so.

Please include your full email address, and the URL for this article (cut&paste from your browser window) to facilitate your request.

DC Gun Ban Overthrown, as seen by The Brady Bunch

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence


In light of the recent (last week, as of this writing) Federal Court overthrow of the total gun ban in Washington DC, I had originally intended this article to present court decisions from this ("Parker" thank you "Arms & The Law") case and commonly referenced ("Miller" notes from guncite and FindLaw, including this reference to the findings and references citing this case; "Emerson", including this from UCLA Law School) decisions commonly cited in similar cases.

[Note the Washington, DC, is a city which has repeatedly either had the highest homicide/assault/violent crime statistics in the country, or has been a close contender. This is in spite of the fact that it also has had one of the most restrictive regulations concerning private ownership of firearms, which most Gun Grabbers proposed as the most effective way to reduce "gun crime".]

But somewhere along the line of research, I followed the trail of citations to the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence op-ed article regarding this "Parker" decision.

The comments submitted by readers of this article are almost universally condemnatory of the Brady Bunch official response. I only read the first 100+ notes, and it was completely pro-gun until the emotional "Kelli" popped up with a series of ad hominem statements which attacked the pro-gun folks personally instead of responding to their talking points.

I laughed, I cried, a shouted with joy because the Brady Bunch had presented their case against what they referred to as "Judicial Activism" -- and left their blog article open to comments from the public. The public responded appropriately, and in the process revealed the gun-control position (in the person of the sad "Kelli") as having no ability to present a believable case for their position.

I'll go read the entire list of comments (there are 475 of them to date, and you dare challenge me for "Geek-Length" writing?) as soon as I let you know that you really should go there and read that.

I'm only surprised that The Brady Bunch has left the comments about their thinly disguised hate-piece on the Internet.

But if they do take it down ... I have copied the page. No, I don't expect to ever post it; I'm pretty sure that there are some copyright issues if I publish THEIR blog article and the resulting comments under the auspices of MY internet connection.

I'm just keeping it for me. If The Brady Bunch lose heart and delete the whole thing, I still have my copy, so I can go back and reread the whole thing.

And I'll chuckle.

Stage Procedures in Theory and Practice

An incident which occurred at a local club this month prompts my comments on the Theory and Practice of Stage Procedures and Courses of Fire. The relevant sections of the old and new Rulebooks that I’ll be discussing are:

2.3 Modifications to Course Construction
3.2 Written Stage Briefings

Just for the record, the basic concept under discussion is fairness. Every shooter at a match has the expectation and right to course challenge equality with every other shooter. To insure that equality, the match organizers are required to establish the physical construction of the stage, and the written stage procedures prior to anyone shooting the stage. If modifications to the stage equipment or written requirements are subsequently made, for clarity, consistency, or safety [3.2.3], any change in competitive requirement must be negated by requiring earlier competitors to reshoot the stage, or, if that is impossible, the stage and all associated scores must be deleted from the match [2.3.4].

There are probably as many different ways to verbally describe a course of fire as there are ROs and shooters viewing it. The rules attempt to get stage designers to crystallize their concept of the stage by stipulating at least a minimum of information that must appear in the written stage briefing.

3.2.1 A written stage briefing approved by the Range Master must be posted at each course of fire prior to commencement of the match. This briefing will take precedence over any course of fire information published or otherwise communicated to competitors in advance of the match, and it must provide the following minimum information:

• Scoring Method
• Targets (type & number)
• Minimum number of rounds
• The handgun ready condition
• Start position
• Time starts: audible or visual signal
• Procedure

Note that Start Position and Procedure are the crux of a course of fire. These are often what makes or breaks a COF. Every shooter attempts to follow the written word, while gaining a competitive advantage if possible. In those cases where savvy shooters find a unique way to save time or increase shooting efficiency, they can produce hit factor results superior to the other shooters, and gain a competitive advantage. The course designer, for his part, tries to write the briefing to constrain the shooter to a pre-conceived set of options. These competing goals are an integral part of the game we play.

However, when one shooter does identify a competitive advantage, you can be sure that subsequent shooters will also use that method, if they have the equipment, physical ability and/or skills necessary to make it work. [E.g., a ‘sweet spot’ for an open shooter might be totally useless to a revolver shooter, because the open shooter might need the precision of optical sights and the bullet capacity of a 170 mm mag, while the revolver guy in the same spot would have to do multiple standing reloads and engage distant target with iron sights.]

This competitive advantage situation is the REASON that the rulebook includes restrictions requiring written stage briefings before anyone shoots the course, restrictions on modifications during the match, and stipulations to insure competitive equality if and when modifications are necessary.

Case Study of How Not To Run A Stage

[Note: While drawn from real life, the below scenario is fictional, as I wouldn’t want to characterize anyone with the derogative term “Range Nazi” undeservedly.]

The stage is a typical field course. We’re going to concentrate on the starting position and engagement of the first array after the start signal, concentrating on how the COF writeup started, how it evolved, and the concepts of fairness that were trashed along the way.


At the back of the bay is a typical cafeteria table, with a soft floppy doll prop on it. To the left of the table about 5 feet is an L-shaped barricade, with the short leg parallel to the 180 with a port in it, and the long end headed downrange. From the table, you cannot see the array of 3 targets which are visible through the port. After shooting this array, the shooter is expected to drop the doll in a bin attached to the barricade, then travel further downrange through the gap between the table and the barricade. In that free fire zone, they engage additional targets and poppers, but that is extraneous to this discussion. For distance estimation, someone standing at the middle of the table is a good 10 feet from a point where you can see the 3 target array.

On Saturday, stages are being set up for the match, and the ROs plan to shoot the match, so they can handle the “regular” shooters on Sunday. For this particular stage, the written Start Position is: “Standing behind table A, holding doll prop in weak hand.” The Stage Procedure is: “Upon start signal, draw and engage array A [the 3 targets], then deposit doll in the bin, and proceed to engage remaining targets as they become visible.”


On Saturday, after the stages are set up for the match, the ROs begin shooting the match, and the first few shoot this stage by standing at the table, picking up the doll, and waiting there for the starting beep, then running over to the port to shoot the first array. Shooter C, who is a RM and experienced shooter from another club, has been helping this relatively new club’s match staff learn the ropes of putting on a match. When given the instruction to ‘Load and make ready’, he picks up the doll, and proceeds to walk over to a position with a clear view through the port in the barricade of the target array, but which is behind the rear edge of the table, where he indicates, “Shooter is ready”. [See green box in picture below, where a green line indicates the rear edge of the table.]

Of course, the RO says, “You can’t do that.” And likewise, Shooter C counters with the news that (1) he is behind [to the rear of] the table, and (2) nothing in the stage description says he has to be near the table, so (3) this is where he chooses to start the stage. There is an obvious time advantage to starting the stage from that point, as he can engage and shoot the array single-handed [as intended by the stage designer], and not have to spend precious time running from the table laterally to the port before starting to shoot. Needless to say, every subsequent shooter in the RO squad choose to start the stage in the same manner.


This is where we get into “fairness”, “equal competitive advantage”, and the rules governing changes in stage procedures. On Sunday, Shooter C is in attendance with several other shooters at this stage. The RO reads the stage description, and says the starting position is, “Standing behind table A, holding doll prop in weak hand, with strong hand touching paster.” And now there is a paster on the right rear corner of the table!

This is where the following hypothetical dialog [or reasonable approximation thereof] ensues:
Shooter C: “Excuse me, Mr RO, but hasn’t this stage description changed since yesterday.”

RO R.N.: “Yes, I decided to tighten up the course description to eliminate gaming the stage.”

Shooter C: “Oh, then I assume that all the ROs who shot the stage yesterday have already reshot it under the new course description.”

RO R.N.: “No. There wasn’t any need to do that.”

Shooter C: “Do you realize that there is a considerable competitive disadvantage to starting the stage from that location behind the table, compared to how it was shot by most of the ROs yesterday?”

R.N.: “Yeah. So what. This is how everybody is shooting it today.”

Shooter C: “Do you realize that the stage will have to be tossed from the match unless those ROs reshoot it under the same rules as everybody is forced to follow today.”

R.N.: “Nobody’s going to reshoot it. And this squad is going to shoot it the way I say they’re going to shoot it.”

Shooter C: “I would like to see the written stage description.”

R.N.: “You can’t see the stage description, I just told you the stage description.”

Shooter C: “But I just want to check that it says what you told us.”

R.N.: [A little heatedly] “You know what? There is no written stage description. What I tell you is what the stage description is.”

Shooter C: “O---kay”.

And in this squad is a left-handed shooter. When he gets up to the table, he innocently asks, “Don’t you think it’s a little unfair that I’m 2 feet further away from the port when I have my strong hand on that paster?” Whereupon RO R.N. slaps another paster in a spot roughly 2 feet to the left of the other paster for him.

What Have We Learned

Obviously, this stage should have been tossed from the match after the stage description was changed, unless the Saturday-shooting ROs reshot it with the “touching the paster” restriction. Barring that, the stage description should not have been changed from Sat to Sun. The new batch of shooters on Sunday might not recognize the time savings of starting in the area of that imaginary green box, but that would be their failing. The course description modification, as enforced, imposed a significant time penalty on all of the Sunday shooters, requiring 2.3.3 or 2.3.4 actions to restore equal competitiveness and fairness. If the Range Nazi took it upon himself to make the modifications to the written course description [as was possible], the Range Master and Match Director should have been called into the ‘discussion’. If the RM and MD were also involved in the change, and sanctioned it, then they need to have their duties and responsibilities pointed out by a higher authority. This might be best accomplished after the fact, in a calmer environment, such as at a sectional meeting of club officials.

Basically, the main lesson is that each club should have experienced shooters in the match crew, to evaluate each stage fully before the first shot is fired. They look for shoot-throughs, possible 180 traps, possible RO traps [where the shooter is forced to reverse course or back up, possibly threatening to collide with the RO, or turning with gun in hand toward the RO]. They look for unusual ways to approach the stage which might save a shooter significant time, either by traveling less distance than others, or finding a sweet spot that allows shooting a bunch of targets with little or no movement. It also means reading through the written stage description to eliminate ambiguity. The intent of the RO should always be to provide each shooter with an identical challenge, through consistent application of the rules.

After a while, stage designers learn what constitutes a bullet-proof starting position, and fair course procedures. Usually, you want everyone starting at the same location, in the same orientation, for the start. That means setting up fixed spots for “heels touching the marks”, or, facing uprange, “toes touching the marks”, or fixed hand positions, like “palms of hands on the Xs of the barricade”. Remember to accommodate right and left-handed shooters, not only in starting positions by also in presenting equal difficulty shots through the COF for each handedness. You are never going to be completely fair to both, but you should try.

Another Addition to the RuleBook

Since we’re discussing written stage descriptions, I noticed that the proposed rules include a new section, 3.2.5, reproduced below.

3.2.5 A written stage briefing must comply with the current USPSA rules.

You might think this rule is unnecessarily redundant. However, I want to tell you that many of the course changes I’ve seen at our club are taken in order to comply with the rules. And our stage designers have been doing this for a while. And many times, I’ll hear someone at another club say,

“We can do it any way we want, because this is just a Level I match. That may be happening now because of rule US1.1.5.1, which state “Level I matches are not required to comply strictly with the freestyle requirements or round count limitations.”

Note that this current rule does NOT say you can ignore all the rules, even though some people are interpreting it that way. Now [if passed], rule 3.2.5 makes it explicitly clear that the rules must be followed in all stages, and this will be mandatory for all levels of matches in the U.S. [Local, State/Section, and Area/Nationals]. Also, the proposed rules are much more explicit in the section 1.1.5, describing what “freestyle” means and what is allowed in Local matches.

Example: You can’t now or under the proposed rules have a stage that says, “Engage target array with 2 rounds each freestyle, perform a mandatory reload and engage target array with 2 rounds each strong hand only, perform a mandatory reload and engage target array with 2 rounds each weak hand only." Reason: Once you go from freestyle to strong hand only, it is assumed for the remainder of the stage that your “other” hand is disabled, so you can’t later use it for a “weak hand only” requirement.

In the proposed rules, if strong hand only or weak hand only is required, it can apply only to the last shots required in the COF, and to no more than 6 shots using that handicap.

GUEST COMMENTOR:
Stanley Penkala
A-44158

Geek Lite - The Movie

This video is probably of personal interest to perhaps 12 people in the world.

But is serves as an example of the way that IPSC competition can be enjoyed by shooters of all levels of experience and talent, with the possible exception of "Good Shooters".

Nobody in this movie is particularly good, but everybody in this movie was having a good time. Witness the surprising end of The Incredible Kevin, who chose to end the stage by dumping all 11 rounds from his Single-Stack 1911 at "the two difficult far targets hidden in the corner". To his joy, he managed to get four hits on one target, and five on the other.

And no, we didn't make him tape the targets.

It's also a good vehicle for WhiteFish to show off his new STI 4.5" Open Gun. He got a miss on one of "the two difficult far targets hidden in the corner", but when interviewed (?) after the stage, he acknowledged that the misses were not due to 'the previous owner left a couple of misses in the gun', but due to his own desire to wish the shots into the brown parts. He bought it, he owns it, in the truest sense.

This video, and two other videos from this match are (as usual) available from Jerry the Geek's Video Shooting Gallery ... although the other two videos are 12mb downloads, this one is 15mb to preserve the visual quality and to give full justice to the music.

The YouTube version is available now, here:



The neat part about this movie is you can watch it and imagine how you would have shot it better, faster, smarter ...

Geek Lite - CCS Points March, 2007 Points Match at TCGC

After a fortnight of serious blogging about USPSA rules and the Oregon Senate's attempt to shut down Shooting Ranges state-wide, it's a pure pleasure to relax and enjoy describing a simple local Points Match.

I use the term "Points Match" from time to time. It simply defines a club match in which the match-points accumulated can be used to award the best shooters with an invitation to attend next year's USPSA Nationals without having to pay the Premium Price. Every club is awarded a certain number of 'slots' (match entry at the lowest possible fee) to the USPSA Nationals. In the Columbia Cascade Section, Match Points earned at one match per month determines which competitors are offered this premium entry. It's not really a big deal, except it gives us a reason to try extra hard to shoot well, once a month. Points Match are typically attended by more than the usual number of competitors. I'm not sure why, because here in Oregon we're an insular bunch and sometimes 'slots' are returned un-used for redistribution to sections which have more people able to invest the time and money to travel to a National Match.

The Tri-County Gun Club has experienced a change in leadership this year. Last Year's Club Representatives have moved on, and Norm The Ungrateful and Potty-Mouth Shaun have taken over the helm at this club for the 2007 Competition year.

I've lambasted both co-Match Directors in their first two matches because of flaws in their stage designs. They didn't like it, and I don't blame them a bit. I understand that match administration is a difficult and onerous task, and it would be a lot more fun for the people who contribute their time and effort to just ... let them put on a match, for goodness sakes!

But we need to be aware of the way in which stage designs are dictated by the USPSA Rule Book, so sometimes I'm less forgiving in my criticism than a friendly person ought to be.

After Norm and Shaun both responded as gentlemen in January and February matches (their respective turns as MD), they combined their efforts this month as co-MDs and produced a superlative match. Norm is recently returned from a Florida match, and brought with him stage designs from that experience.

There is much to be said in favor of cross-polination of stage design theory between sections, and this match benefitted from Norm's experience. At least two of the Major Stages were either influenced or direct steals from that match, and we who competed today at TCGC are grateful for the innovative designs which tested our skills.

Stage 5: "In The Round" was based on a Florida Stage. The original stage featured 30 targets requiring one hit per target. Norm didn't have enough target stands to present the original design, so he used 15 targets and scored the best two hits.

Stage 6: "Florida Sunshine" featured a lot of vision barriers, a hefty handful of 8 Pepper Poppers, two fast swingers initiated by stepping on a 'foot trap' box, and both near far static IPSC targets.

Stage 6 offered a neat half-dozen ways to shoot it; stage 5 could be shot at least 60 different ways, although our squad found that we could shoot the first four or five targets from positions near the starting position, then (for hi-cap magazines) shoot all the rest of the targets from a fortuitous 'sweet spot.

Our squad discovered the hard way that there were hidden 180 traps in Stage 5. If you lost track of the 180, you earned a trip to Dairy Queen ("DQ") by engaging targets just a little bit past the 180 line. We lost two squad members in five minutes this way.

One of the DQ's just packed up his gear and went home. The other stayed for the whole match and helped RO, score and tape. I have no criticisms to offer for either reaction. I've DQ'd three times and never managed to stick around for the end of the match. Some people just have a lot more character than I do. I recognize it, I applaude it, but I haven't yet managed to emulate it.

We lost those two squad members (one way or the other) on the second stage of the day, Stage 5, and the rest of the match went without serious incident.


Geek Lite incidents of the day:

• WhiteFish brought his new STI Open Gun to the match. I have spent the past ten years trying to talk him into using an STI in favor of his (old) Para Open Gun, or his (recent) Glock Open gun, and he finally caved in and got a decent STI shorty a couple of months ago. The trigger had way too much slack, as the previous owner swapped triggers as a favor but failed to set it up in the best way. Fish got Major Nyne gunsmith Rob S. to walk him through an adjustment, and the gun ran clean and smooth all day. The only drawback is that the .38 Super Comp is Major Obnoxious. I RO'd him for two stages, and had to stay well behind him to preserve the fillings in my teeth. As a consequence, he bought three pounds of VV 3N37 powder from Bobby the Vendor after the match, in support of his declared intent to be even more obnoxious to Range Officers in future matches. I tried to steel his new powder and throw it away, but he was too quick for me and easily retrieved it from the back of my truck.
• Harold the Barbarian is back! Harold has been a near-charter member of The Usual Suspects Squad, but due to a new job and family pressures hasn't been able to go to IPSC matches for the past six months. His job has settled down enough that he could come play with us today, and he was able to enjoy the unseasonably balmy Winter-In-Oregon weather. He's a little rusty, but he had a couple of very good stages and added some continuity to the squad mix and a lot of levity to our day.
• ah, this post is already too long. You don't want to hear about the minutiea of a local match, and I don't want to bore you with it. It's enough to say that the sun was shining, the rain was off-and-on but easy to ignore, the stages were challenging and fun (thank you Norm and Shaun!), and we all learned a few things about shooting challenging stages ... which we'll forget before the next match because we're old and because we're less concerned about being 'competitive' than we are about having a good day at the range.

One thing deserves to be mentioned. During the walk-through, The Hobo Brasser took two minutes to discuss Oregon's SB 1012 and the way it has been designed to impose such administrative and financial burdons on Shooting Ranges in Oregon that it would be impossible for them to continue ... raised such an outcry among the 67 registered competitors that MD Norm was hard pressed to get us all back to the original focus of shooting the match.

NOTE: Photos (and, evenually, Videos) of this match are available here.

New Blogger: A Schadenfreude Opportunity

Google's "Blogspot" software has been beta-testing a "New Blogger" software version for the last few months. They have encouraged all participants in their free service (for which I have been grateful during the last 28 months of my participation) to convert their blogs to "The New Blogger" as soon as they, in their opinion, have moved past the Beta-Testing phase.

Reports from other bloggers (eg: LawDog) have been less than reassuring. I have been reluctant to convert to The New Blogger.

When I attempted to sign on today, I found that it was absolutely and totally imposible to access my account without accepting The New Blogger software.

After spending over an hour in attempts to access my account in the manner in which I originally signed on to use, I have reluctantly accepted their new terms of service. I have far too much content invested in this blog to throw it all away without at least making an effort to continue under the new Terms of Service.

I note that the software vendor never announced that acceptance of the new software version would become mandatory. If the consequences of this transition includes interruption of service (noted by early converts) or the less frequent posting from this source, I apologize ahead of time.

When you use a free service, one which has provided adequate support to date, it is not advisable to arbitrarily and unilaterally drop it ... even though this describes the manner in which the provider has chosen to implement the change.

If it is not immediately apparent to the casual reader that I am in a state of High Dudgeon in response, please don't be shy.

I don't like being forced to take a course of action which I would not have chosen in any less draconic scenario.

The worst part of it is, I don't even know if this post will be published.

Well, maybe it will be all right. Maybe there won't be an interruption of service. Maybe ... as likely as it now seems to me ... the new features will ever work; first time every time.

I don't expect it, but it could happen. I suppose. Although, if the software upgrade is really as good as they think it was, it would have remained an "Opt In" version and would sell itself because those who tried it really liked it. As opposed to the reports which we have received so far.

IF this note actually posts, I will be trying the 'options' which Blogger has touted so relentlessly.

Please be patient. If this stuff doesn't kill me several times in the coming weeks, I will be pleasantly surprised. And I'll say so, here.

Otherwise ... well, you can indulge in your own personal Schadenfreude as you watch me twist and turn in the wind.

Range Nazi -- Oregon SB1012

The Oregon Senate is considering a new bill (SB 1012) which will regulate the way in which shooting ranges are organized, administered and regulated.

(Pay special attention to that last word -- 'regulated'. It's not in the bill as a word, but it's all over the intent of the bill.)

You can read the contents of the bill here. Note that it's not a new law, it actually amends (changes, adds) four existing laws. The changes are ... draconian.

Here is the main body of the ammendments:

A BILL FOR AN ACT

Relating to shooting ranges, creating new provisions; and amending ORS 166.171, 166.172, 166.180 and 467.131.

Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
SECTION 1.

1. As used in this section, "shooting range" means a public or private shooting range, shooting gallery or other area designed, built or used for the purpose of targets shooting.
2. The Department of State Police shall establish by rule safety procedures for shooting ranges. The rules shall include policies and procedures for the certification of rangemasters.
3. Shooting ranges should shall:

• (a) Control gunfire so that bullets or other projectiles do not cross the plane of the shooting range boundary and do not enter property adjacent to the shooting range, absent consent by the owner or occupant of the adjacent property;
• (b) Ensure that gates and doors are secured sufficiently to prevent unauthorized entry onto the premises, and
• (c) Ensure that local noise ordances are observed.

4. All shooting ranges shall employ a rangemaster, who shall be certified by the department and shall be physically present at the shooting range at any time that firearms or other weapons are being discharged. The rangemaster shall insure that:

• (a) Weapon safety rules are prominently posted and are followed by all members and visitors on the premises of the shooting range.
• (b) All visitors to the shooting range provide identification and that their names are recorded in a log.
• (c) Alcoholic beverages are not consumed or posssessed by anyone on the premises; and
• (d) All firarms or other weapons that are brought onto the premises are recorded in a log book. The rangemaster shall cause to be recorded at least the following information:
• (A) The make and model of the weapon;
• (B) The caliber of the weapon;
• (C) The name and address of the person bringing the weapon onto the premises; and
• (D) The date and time that the weapon is brought onto the premises.

(There are other rules and amendments in this bill, but for the sake of brevity -- and because they aren't as egregious as the provisions already presented -- I'll ignore them for now. The above provisions are, except for minor typgraphical and formatting errors, a reasonable representation of this section of the bill.)

I have a few objections to the proposed provisions.

First: Non-differention of Public vs Private Range
This is the least important of my objections, except that it doesn't establish funding (from State budget) for a rangemaster for any 'Public' ranges. As far as I know, there are no 'Public' (ie ... owned and administered by state, county or local authority) ranges in the state of Oregon. However, there are two types of 'Private' ranges:

1. Ranges owned and operated by private citizens who charge a fee for single-usage.
2. Ranges owned and operated by 'clubs', which restrict admission to club members (who have paid an annual fee for membership), invited individual guests, and 'club guests' who are authorized entry and usage by virtue of entering a competition and paying a match fee, or spectators who pay a fee for the privilege of observing a competition or demonstration.

The first type is a for-profit private venture.
The second type is a non-profit (usually) venture which applies fees toward administrative, range-improvement and other operational expenses.

Having no 'Public' ranges, Oregon (as represented by its legislature) obviously can find no reason why it should not impose expenses on the operators of shooting ranges. I only mention this because it seems so disengenuous.

I admit, if Oregon did support and operate Public Ranges I would still complain because the cost of supporting a 'rangemaster' would impose a finance burden on the state budget.


Second: Financial burden on range owners/administrators

I know of no "club" range in the state which maintains either a daily or permanent employee, although at least one other range provides volunteer 'staff' in the form of people who patrol the range from time to time, usually on the weekends when formal activities (matches) may be expected to be scheduled.

Thus, the requirement to have a permanent employee available to act as 'rangemaster' (as defined by the bill) imposes a significant financial burden on every range ... which would probably be sufficiently expensive to discourage most ranges from attempting to continue operation.

This is a blatant attempt to discourage the continued operation of 'Private' club ranges by imposition of excessive expenses attendant upon daily range operation.

Third: De Facto Registration

Read again Section 1, subsection 4 (d).
Subsections 4(a) through 4(c) are just camouflage ... although according to subsection 4(c), if you intend to meet friends after the match and have a bottle of wine in your vehicle, you are in violation of that rule.

4(d) requrires the rangemaster to record personal and private information about the people who visit the range, including a list of firearms in their posession -- make, model and serial number caliber.

This is a matter of firearms registration.

There is no enforcement clause included in the PRESENT form of the bill, which makes me suspicious . Any time you have a rule without an enforcement clause, you can bet that if this one somehow passes the smell test, the next step will to be imposition of a penalty for failure to follow instructions.

After registration comes confiscation.

Trust me. We see the camel's nose under the tent. As soon as some subterfuge is used to require a PUBLIC record of possession of a firearm at any point in time, another rule will be imposed to enforce the rule.

Next comes a rule to require maintenance ... the records must be maintained for x number of years.

After that, reporting to a supposedly benevolent State agency (the Department of State Police has already been mentioned .. any bets that the State Police will become the agency tasked with receiving and maintaining these records?)

At this point, Rule of Law is no longer necessary. It's only an administrative step to providing this information to other agencies ... which may be allowed, encouraged or even required.

Note that current law prohibits the Bureau of Alcohol, Taxes, Firearms and Explosives from retaining records of firearm sales transactions vetted through their agency for the sole purposes of determining that the potential purchaser of a firarm is not legally prohibited from said ownership.

There is currently no prohibition on BATFE acquisition and retention ... and use ... of firearms ownership records received from state agencies 'for other purposes', said records having been acquired according to local, county or state law.

And BATFE can do anything they want with those records.

Including breaking into your home in the dark of night to terrorize your family, arrest you, and confiscate your property.

All because you went to the range to enjoy a peaceful, perfectly legal day shooting your personally owned firearm of choice.

Yeah.

What else is in this bill?

Sections 2 and 3 of the bill remove from current law, exceptions to firearms regulations when the firearms owner is "A person discharging a firearm on a public or private shooting range, shooting gallery or other area designed and built for the purpose of target shooting".

These changes allow either a city or a county to "... adopt ordinances to regulate, restrict or prohibit the dischange of firearms ..." within their boundaries. In other words, it allows both county and municipal governments to outlaw shooting ranges, unilaterally and arbitrarily. Oh sure, the gun club or shooting range is still allowed to function and to invite the public or private members; but visitors just can't shoot on the shooting range.

Section 4 amends the opening clause of ORS 166.180 to read:

"Any person who, as a result of failure to use ordinary care under the circumstances, wounds another person or damages another's property with a bullet of shot from any firearm ... shall be punished by imprisonment ... or by a fine ... or both."

The bold part ("or damages another's property") would be added to the existing law by this proposed bill.

Granted, it is generally considered to be a very bad thing to fire a round which may leave the premises of a shooting range. Competition rules, range rules, general safety rules, construction of berms and barriers and safety areas ... all of these steps are taken by shooting ranges and gun clubs to minimize the danger of a round leaving the range.

Supposing the unthinkable happens and a round leaves the range, what happens? Previously, if another person is injured the shooter is subject to imprisonment and/or fine. However, under the provision added by this bill the shooter is subject to same penalties for mere property damage. The term "damage", by the way, is not defined. If a round strikes a brick wall and chips a brick, is that punishable? If it strikes a tree and chips off some bark, is that punishable? If it lands in a fresh-mown lawn and digs a furrow or divot, is that punishable?

Why is property damage resulting from a round leaving a shooting range not recoverable through the civil courts, the same as property damage resulting from your neighbor's kid hitting a hardball through your living room picture window? Is the damage more egregious because it was caused by an Evil Firearm? I suspect so.

Section 5 of this bill deals with "noise polution". While this seems the mildest provision of the entire bill, this is the part which is most likely to put your local shooting range out of business.

Let's look at what it says:

ORS467.131 exempts shooting ranges (etc) from "... civil or criminal liability based upon an allegation of noise or noise pollution so long as ...

(2) The owner, operator or lessee [complied] is in compliance with any applicable noise control law or ordinance [existing at the time that construction of the shooting range began or no noise control law or ordinance was then existing]; [and]

There are two more clauses to look at, but let's evaluate the changes in this clause.

The formatting conventions are in the original bill and faithfully reproduced here. Text which is in [italics] was in the original law and is being removed by this bill. Text which is shown in bold is new text to be added to or inserted into the existing law, as shown.

The result of the changes to the existing law is that shooting ranges were originally only required to be in compliance with the noise control laws or ordinances which existed when the range was built. Ranges enjoyed the protection of 'grandfather' when, for example, developers extended new home construction until it encroached on the area immediately adjacent to a pre-existing shooting range. Keep that thought in mind as you read on.

Also in Section 5:

(3) The allegation results from activity on the shooting range between the hours of 7am and [10] 7 pm or conducted for law enforcement training purposes[.] ; and
(4) The allegation does not result from activity on the shooting range on Christmas or Thanksgiving.

Looking back at the format ruiles, we see that this changes the legitimate hours of operation of a shooting range from 7am to 10pm TO 7am to 7pm. It also prohibits (essentially) the use of a shooting range on Christmas and Thanksgiving. (Well, you can be there, you can even shoot ... but if your new neighbors complain, you are subject to whatever penalties are defined in your friendly local noise ordinance.)


What's this all about?
When you ask yourself who would want these changes made, and who would have the political pull to get the new bill onto the senate floor, you end up asking who would best be served by removing shooting ranges. Note these don't control guns directly (although, if enacted, they would have a chilling effect on private firearms ownership).

The result of Sections 2 through 5 are that neighbors of shooting ranges are provided with weapons with which to nit-pick shooting ranges to death. A new gated community can enact whatever local ordinances it wants, and impose its will on its neighbors. Previously, shooting ranges in Oregon were protected by the Grandfather clause; that goes away immediately if this bill is voted into law.

Who would benefit from this?

Land developers. For years, Oregon gun clubs have been beset by nuisance complaints and lawsuits from developers who want to build houses near or adjacent to pre-existing shooting ranges, but the owners or lessees of the shooting ranges (rather, their lawyers) could point to existing laws which remove noise ordinances and incidental property damage from the tool-box availble to the developers.

The clauses being removed from existing law are EXACTLY the laws which protect the existance of shooting ranges, and as such are the REAL reason why this bill has been introduced.

Section 1 is a Red Herring. We are intended to look at that huge mass of obviously unacceptable NEW laws, with the hopes that we will overlook the 'minor, administrative' changes to the OLD laws. Sure, you're going to write to your state senator and talk about how Section 1 is terrible and serves no purpose. They may listen to you and vote to change the bill by removal of Section 1.

As bad as it is, the mere removal of Section 1 will not serve to protect shooting ranges from crippling lawsuits and loss of patronage. If you go to a shooting range and are sued by their neighbors because your kid wants to try his or her new noisy rifle on Christmas Day, you are probably not going back to that shooting range again (even though these laws apply to ALL shooting ranges, public and private, in Oregon).

This entire bill is a threat to the future existance of A Place To Shoot in Oregon, and I don't mean just the private indoor shooting range in North Portland but every place which has been designed, constructed and provide as a place where you can safely and legally take your private firearms for the purpose of shooting them.

If this bill passes, you might as well sell your reloading press because you won't be using a lot of ammunition any more.

Write Your Legislator:
I'm writing my state senator to complain about the low-down, underhanded way my representatives are trying to drive shooting ranges out of business (and sneak records of my private firearms ownership to the gun-grabbers.)

If you're an Oregon resident, I encourage you to write your State Senator as well. It wouldn't hurt to write your State Representative to the House, as well. If we don't stop this nasty thing at the Senate level, we'll have to rely only on our Congressmen to protect our rights.

But emails are often ignored. If you really want to be noticed, write a letter and send it by snail-mail. This is MUCH more effective and more likely to generate a reply.

If you don't know the name of your Oregon legislator (State Senate or House), you can go here to look him up. enter your street address and zip, it will return the names of both state and federal representatives.

Then, using that information, you can go here to get full contact information for representatives

Here you can get a PDF with mailing labels for all Oregon State Senators (and there's no reason why you should only write your own State Senator to register your disapproval), or you can get individual state senator information here.

One more thing:
When you write your representitive ... be nice. They may not be aware that this is a High-Profile issue yet. No need to beat them up when they haven't even had a chance to think about it.

You can beat them up later, in the elections, if they ignore your perfectly reasonable protest.

Thanks to SWMBO, and Peter, for bringing this issue to my attention. Thanks also to Mac who corrected some errors and out-of-date misinformation, and who is working to combat this new attack on the Shooting Sports.

UPDATE: Match 17, 2007
REMOVED text of my letter to my representative
REMOVED erroneous description of Oregon range employees
ADD information on contacting your State of Oregon representative, including non-email address
ADD comments about other, less obvious provisions of this bill.

AS OF THIS DATE, here are a list of firearms-rights and shooting sports websites which do NOT have any information on this bill:
Oregon Association of Shooting Ranges
Oregon State Shooting Association
Citizens Comittee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Second Amendment Foundation
GUNLAWS.COM (Oregon State Firearms Information)
National Rifle Association
NRA Institute for Legislative Action
... anybody else

UPDATE: March 21, 2007
The Shooting Wire has picked up this bill. See here.

UPDATE: March 22, 2007
* In Section 1, Item 3: Replaced the word should with 'shall'. This corrects a typo in the original draft of this article, it is not verbiage found in the bill, and the strike-through has been hi-lited in an effort to emphasize this point.

* Added sub-item designations, such as (a) and (A), to conform with the item designations found in the original bill text.

* Replaced the phrase "Ipsco Facto" with "De Facto" in a paragraph heading, for correct usage.

* Corrected a few unfortunate spelling errors in the commentary.

Sunny Saturday in Albany

March in Oregon, and it's a sunny, dry day.

Where did we go wrong? How will we redeem our "Great Pacific NorthWet" reputation?

I don't care.

I had a REAL good time.



I realize that the "Stroker Ace" theme music seems a bit self-aggrandizing, but it conveys the feel of an excellent club match.

This 12mb video, and (eventually) videos of all members of the squad, can be seen in much higher resolution at the Video Shooting Gallery album for this match.

Match results here.

300

On February 1, 2007, I announced that Stephen Hunter's excellent first-offering in his "Bob the Nailer" series would be available on March 16, 2007.

In that article, I offered a note that "300", a movie based on Frank Miller's Graphic Novel, would be appearing in theaters on March 9.

Today I went to see the movie. It was indeed "Graphic", as well as "novel".

I admit, I've never read a "Graphic Novel", but I read a lot of comic books as a child (until my tastes matured to the point where I learned to appreciate that much of the appeal of written fiction lies in the much richer imagery we create in our own minds as we read actual books.)

Still, I must also admit that I have a great affection for movies based on comic book characters, many of those movie titles having some variation of the word 'man' in the title.

eg: Superman, Spiderman, Batman.


Not to mention the Wonder Woman TV series. Yum Yum.


I also very much enjoyed "Dick Tracy", "Blade" and whatever that Ben Afleck movie was where he portrayed a blind super-hero with a skin-tight costume. ("Daredevil", also a later Frank Miller treatment.) Not that I was attracted by the skin-tight costume, it's just that I had been conditioned by years of comic book reading to equate skin-tight costumes with super powers. ("Catwoman", with Halle Berry, affirmed the rightness of this prediliction.) Daredevil later spawned another movie about his nemisis, Electra.

I sure wish someone would make a movie about Mighty Mouse, and The Blackhawks.

All of this is misdirection, of course. None of these (essentially cheerful and update) 'graphic' publications would have prepared me for The 300.

Richard Egan stared in the 1962 effort to present the story of The 300 Spartans, but it was a pallid affair at best. Bloodlest and without fury, it completely failed to depict the confusion and horror of war at any level, especially war waged at arm's length with spear, sword and shield. There were not even any carrion birds in the hygienic scenes of the battlefield.

This is NOT a misdirection: in at least one reference, Frank Miller is said to have viewed this movie and to have been inspired by it.

The reference is vague, and I can only assume that he was inspired by the story, if not the treatment.

The 300 is overly populated by bizarre characters and monsters, but it does prominently feature one factor which is not present in the 1962 version: dirt.

Do you remember the original Star Wars movie? I do. The thing which impressed me the most is when the rebel alliance were preparing their fighters and we saw them as dirty, worn, aged and imperfect machinery.

That's what The 300 managed, what '300 Spartans' failed to do: show the reality of war in its back-stage manifestation of warriors who cannot go to war without ... getting dirty.

This was parlayed against the inevitable necessity to make every scene look as if was drawn from the guts of a "graphic novel" ... or comic book, if you will. Every shot was perfect, which is inevitable in a movie created with such slavish dependence on CGI (Computer Generated Imagery).

In the "Production Notes" on the movie website, you can read background material which described the genesis of the movie.

Personally, I've read it and it seems palid in comparison to the end result.

I understand that star Gerard Butler, who played King Leonidas, has a certain following among the ladies (one lady at my place of employment said she took her 17 year-old daughter to the movie just to see "The Greek With A Scots Accent" because they liked him. I didn't recognize him as the guy who played Beowulf in the 2006 "Beowulf and Grendel", but I was very impressed by both that movie and the actor. Who knew he was a sex symbol? And how did I forget to blog about that movie?)

Never mind if you recently saw the PBS special on The Battle of Thermopylae, you must go see this movie. It earned seventy MILLION dollars in box-office returns the opening weekend, which makes it one of the biggest earners in recent history.

There must be a reason for this.

And it must be the "my friend told me I MUST SEE this movie" factor. It hasn't been especially well publicized, if you haven't visited the Internet website or read the Graphic Novel.

SWMBO and I went to see the movie Sunday afternoon. It was showing at one of the two theaters in Corvallis, with 3:40 and 3:50 show times. I said: "We'll show up at 3:30, and buy tickets for the 3:50 showing because the 3:40 will be packed and we want to find the good seats." She said "The battle of Thermopylae? In Corvallis? You must be kidding." I said "It's a college town. Trust me, it will be a sell-out."

It was a sellout, and for good reason.

After the movie, SWMBO asked me if I don't get tired of being right; but it was a no-brainer if you think about it. College students are all wanna be geeks and if I wanted to see it ... every (other) kid in town wanted to see it. And they did.

When was the last time you heard cheering in the theater? I'm old and grumpy, so I didn't join in. But I felt like saying "Yeah!"

You'll read many much more interesting revues of this movie, but it won't be from the MSM or The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. It'll be from the folks who sank a lot of money into producing a movie that resonates in the hearts of those who truly believe that accountants and moralists never won a war.

War is an immoral way to preserve freedom. It's also the only way to preserve freedom.

Besides, it was HOT!

Under Pressure - IPSC Video

There's no real justification for presenting a YouTube video version of this stage. It's not very interesting.

I just like shooting, filming what I'm shooting, and building videos of the action.

Besides, I was trying to find a video that went well with Queen's "Under Pressure". This was ... handy.

All videos from this February, 2007 match at Tri-County Gun Club can be downloaded here. The "Under Pressure" video is 10MB.

Guest Comments

Because of the excellence of the First Guest Comment by Stan Penkala, I am opening this Blog to guest comments from USPSA/IPSC members who would like to present their thoughts and opinons in an extended format, as a Guest Blogger.

How to Guest Blog:

1. Write your article as an MS-WORD document.
2. You may include illustrations (jpg, bmp, etc.) or videos (mpg, wmv, YouTube URLs, etc)
3. Send the document and illustrations as attachments to an Email sent to me, at the address provided at the bottom of this page ... the 'tailgate' address.
4. I reserve the right to edit your article, or to reject it if it seems inappropriate based on content, subject, or any other criteria which seems reasonable to me.
5. Be sure to let me know how you would like to be identified as the author. Your full name, your first name, your screen name ... all are acceptable. I will probably not include any other personal identification, except perhaps to establish your bona fides (eg: IPSC List member, USPSA member, etc.)
   

Restrictions (The Fine Print):
The subject should be restricted to USPSA/IPSC Competition, RKBA-related, or other shooting-sports topics. Depending on circumstances and content, I may make exceptions according to whim or whether I have had a good day at the office.

I reserve the right to reject any contribution without explanation.

Videos (such as may be hosted on YouTube) may be submitted. If you have a video which has not been hosted on the internet, I may host it for you under my subscription name of Jerry the Geek.

I retain full copyrights and also the right to edit the text/image/ video as and when I wish ... any content posted by me to the Internet becomes my personal property for whatever usage I choose. By submitting either text content or image/video content, you have agreed to relinquish any rights to that content.

This is intended to protect me from any consequences of your second thoughts, not to deprive you of your authorship. If you are not the sole owner of original content, please do not submit either unattributed text or images/video for inclusion here.

If I don't know you, if I can't confirm your identity as a legitimate contributor, if I doubt your authenticity or the authenticity of your contribution, or for any other reason I may choose not to post your article.

Commercial advertisements, or any articles which seem to be submitted for the purpose (however secondary) of advancing a product or service for profit MAY be rejected without comment. Exceptions may occur when the proferrer is known to me and when I am convinced that inclusion performs a public service, but that decision will be based on my personal experience and will be entirely arbitrary.

My apologies for these restrictions. I have no wish to become involved in legal battles as a result of my invitation to provide a forum for your contribution.


Note:
My intention is to expand the discussion of IPSC/USPSA/RKBA issues by including contributions from other authors. I hope to receive many contributions, but I don't expect it. In the unlikely event that more contributions are received than I can reasonably be expected to post, I may (reluctantly) fail to include your article, or delay publication until time and innui permit.

Having said that, I strongly encourage you to send me your articles. If what you have to say may be more appropriately included in the regular 'comments' section, I will cut and paste it there (probably with attribution) instead of creating a new article. I may also include more than one contribution in a single article, if that seems appropriate.

Long "Geek Length" articles are not likely to be rejected purely on the basis of word-count.

Anything else would be hypocritical.

USPSA 2.2.1 - Guest Comment

A few days ago I wrote about the rewrite of the USPSA rule book in regards to USPSA Rule 2.2.1, which cites fault lines which "extend rearward to infinity". I noted a couple of ways in which this verbiage could be problematical.

We had encountered these kind of problems a couple of years ago in the Columbia Cascade Section (NorthWest Oregon), and found that there were a couple of simple stage construction techniques which could be used to avoid the problems.

But I didn't mention them, because I chose to focus on the problem.
"Let someone else come up with a solution", I thought.

The solutions we found in my local section may not be the only, or the best, solutions. If other solutions were available, it seemed advisable not to stifle creative thinking by presenting both the problem AND the solution at the same time.

Happily Unofficial IPSC List member Stan Penkala saw the answer to all of the problems I had identified, and laid it all out for those of us who subscribe to The List.

I asked Stan if he would be willing to allow me to post his response here, and he not only agreed but included three pictures which he had composed to illustrate the situational variations.

This is our first Guest Blogger entry, and I'm delighted that it not only resolves all of the problems identified in the original article but represents the contribution of a thoughtful, experience and skillful writer.

Stan Pekala on USPSA New Rule 2.2.1:

There's nothing wrong with this rule


It allows stage designers to construct their creations without tremendous investment in unnecessary lumber, as you only need a 3 foot charge line running perpendicular to the 180, at either end of a COF, to prevent shooters from going around a barricade to shoot... given the stage command "Engage targets as they become visible from within the fault lines."



In cases where backing up is encouraged or necessary, the stage designer should create a fully enclosed shooting area with unbroken charge lines.







In cases where the stage designer wants to prevent the shooter from finding a sweet spot way up range, that can be prevented by putting 2 more fault lines... one on each side of the stage at the end of the side fault lines, so they point toward each other, or are angled rearwards and toward the center of the bay so that the projection of them meets at a reasonable distance behind the shooter. This would effectively place the imaginary continuation of these lines across the stage well before the sweet spot some shooter would otherwise be able to use. This situation would be clear to both the shooter and the RO. This is the situation that would negate the advantage used by several shooters in Jerry's video example.


Stan Penkala

_________________________________


About Guest Comments:

Sometimes, the comments you want to make just don't fit in the limited resources available in the usual 'comments' section provided by Haloscan. Stan noted that he had originally attempted to write much of these comments here, but the software 'disappeared' them when he hit the button.

As an alternative, he wrote the comment to The Unofficial IPSC List. I was so impressed that I asked him for permission to include the email as a separate article. Stan graciously allowed me to do so, and included the illustrations which he had created, and even allowed me to use his full name in the citation. I am grateful to Stan for his contribution and for his permissions.

I hope to present more extended Guest Comments in the future. If you are interested in contributing, look here for instructions.

USPSA RULES 2.2.1: "Extend Rearward To Infinity"

One of the 'general' changes applied to the (Draft - For Comment Only) "2007" version of the USPSA rule book is to remove all references to "Charge Lines" and replace them with "Fault Lines".

Historically, the term "Charge Line" was used to prevent the competitor from 'charging' the target, resulting in engagement at such close quarters that pasting tape was blown off the target due to the effects of muzzle blast. (This rendered the target "impossible to score", although in club matches .... especially during the Rainy Season which emcompases approximately nine months in Oregon ... the RO would often just give credit for whatever seemed likely. Decidedly, an argument in favor of Charge Lines in stage design and construction.)

The term "Fault Line" was generally used to refer to situations where the competitor was restricted to a shooting box, the outlines of which formed the physical limits of the shooting box, or to ground-barriers which were intended to restrict lateral movement.

Obviously these definitions are vague and subject to criticism, and it is with a sigh of relief that we unsaddle ourselves from the cumbersome, redundant, confusing (and vague) term "Charge Line".

If that was the only change made in Rule 2.2.1, there would be no need to comment except for the encouragement of a hearty "Atta Boy!"

However, there are other changes included in the rewritten Rule 2.2.1, and they deserve some attention.

Here's the complete text of the rewritten Rule 2.2.1:

2.2.1 Fault Lines - Competitor movement may be restricted through the use of physical barriers or Fault Lines.
2.2.1.1 Fault Lines should be constructed of wooden boards or other suitable material, must be fixed firmly in place, and must rise at least 1.5 inches above ground level, providing both physical and visible references to competitors.
2.2.1.2 Fault Lines used to control lateral movement and force the competitor to shoot at targets from behind physical barriers may be positioned at any angle extending to the rear of those barriers, should be a minimum of 3 feet in length, and unless otherwise stated in the written stage briefing, are deemed to extend rearwards to infinity.

For clarity, and to provide a reference to specific changes, here is what the "Old Rules" (from the 2004 USPSA Rule Book) look like:

2.2.1 Charge Lines and Fault Lines - Competitor movement should preferably be restricted through the use of physical barriers, however, the use of Charge and Fault Lines is permitted. Charge Lines and Fault Lines should be constructed of wooden boards or other suitable material and should rise at least 2 centimeters (0.79 inches) above ground level. This will provide both physical and visible references to competitors to prevent inadvertent faulting. Fault Lines and Charge Lines must be fixed firmly in place to ensure they remain consistent throughout the match.
2.2.1.1 Charge Lines are used to restrict unreasonable movement by competitors toward or away from targets.
2.2.1.2 Fault Lines are used to force the competitor to shoot at targets from behind physical barriers. They may be positioned at any angle extending to the rear of these barriers. Fault Lines should be a minimum of 1 meter (3.28 feet) in length and unless otherwise stated in the written stage briefing, they are deemed to extend rearwards to infinity.

I started to show which words, phrases and concepts were changed by strike-outs on the old rule, but it soon became apparant that the changes were too extensive. Besides, most of them only served to removed the phrase "Charge Lines", or to remove redundant or awkward words & phrases..

Here's a convenient summary of the changes:

1. Remove "Charge Line" verbiage
2. Change minimum height of Fault Line from 0.79" to 1.4" (appropriate for a 2x4)
3. Change minimum length of Fault LIne from 1 meter to 3 feet (appropriate for US Measurements.)
4. There is no Point Four. That's all that changed.

Here's the thing:

There should be a Point Four. That should have been to remove the phrase:

"... are deemed to extend rearwards to infinity."

Well, maybe not. It's a nice idea, that we don't have to build fault lines back until they achieve absurd (and usually unhelpful) length.

I can appreciate the good intentions of the folks who wrote the original rule, and the folks who left it in the 2007 version. Unfortunately, in the actual event this may lead to competitor solutions to the shooting problem which are at least difficult or impossible for the RO to adjudicate, and in the worst cases render the stage 'illegal' under both current and proposed rules.

Remember those two phrases: "Difficult or Impossible to adjucate", and "Render the stage Illegal."

Here's why.

"Extend Rearward to Infinity" may make it Difficult or Impossible for the RO to adjudicate a Foot Fault":

Suppose there's a stage with two fault lines arranged in a "V" formation, with the point of the "V" downrange. Here are vision barriers arranged so that it is very difficult to see targets unless you are very close to the fault line on either side. The fault lines are only 10 (or 12 or 20 or 50) feet long, so you have to run from side to side to get around the vision barriers and see the targets.

Suppose a competitor realizes that he can position himself UPRANGE of the end of the fault line (which 'extends to infinity'), and engage all targets on one side; then he moves fleetly to the other side of the bay to engage all targets on the other side.

You are the Range Officer. You look at the fault lines and extend them to infinity with your Mind's Eye, and the competitor has obviously engaged the targets from a position on the wrong side of the line.

So, you're gonna ding him hard for a foot fault, per shot. Right?

Wrong.

Rule 2.2.1 clearly stages the physical dimensions of a Fault Line, and (not gratuitously) adds that the purpose of the Fault Line is to:

"...[provide] both physical and visible references to competitors."

Guess what? Where he is standing, there are no fault lines. He doesn't have a 'physical' reference to where they are (or should be), and you as the RO only have the Minds Eye view of where the fault lines would have been ... if they were physically extended 'to infinity'.

If I was the competitor and you were the RO that dinged me, we would meet again in the little sweaty stats-shack area reserved for the Arbitration Committee. You would invoke rule 2.2.1.2, I would invoke rule 2.2.1.1, and no matter what the outcome the match administrators would have gone to a lot of trouble and time to invoke an Arbitration Committee. More, a thoughtful Arbitration Committee would realize that if the stage designer/stage construction team really wanted to prevent me from shooting at that location, they would have made a few minor changes to the stage. But they didn't.

The results of this arbitration would be:

1. I 'cheat' and get away with it, or ...
   
2. I 'cheat' and don't get away with it ... but the report of the arbitration goes to USPSA where they have to justify it. But either way ...
   
3. The match is slowed down and a trumverate of competitors are pulled off the line and their match is enturbulated because they're spending an hour on an Arb Committee instead of working on their match ... which is the reason they paid the match fees, not to sit on committee.

Who do you think they'll be mad at?

Everybody. But the BOD will have to re-visit this rule, and maybe think about what they can do to prevent this from ever happening again.

Second case:
"Extend Rearward to Infinity" may Render the Stage Illegal":
Why "Illegal?" Because the stage design allows the shooter to move rearward to infinity until it was possible to engage all targets from a single position.

I entered a blog article about a specific example of this in January, 2007. I also provided a High-quality video of the stage, which I also provide in low-quality from YouTube here.



As you can see, at least one Open Division competitor managed to engage every target without movement from a single position. At least two other Open Division competitors did the same thing, taking only a single step to engage the last target .... but if they had move another step uprange, they wouldn't have needed to take that sidestep.

This is in clear violation of Rule 1.2.1, in both the 2004 and the 2007 versions of the rule book.

Admittedly, this is the consequence of stage construction problems. It was a good stage, it's just that it is illegal and will result in the stage being removed from the match as soon as one competitor manages to "engage all targets from a single location ...".

In either case ...

... there is a very good chance that the stage will ultimately be thrown out of the match. Why? The alternative is to change the stage(s) so that the next guy won't take advantage of "fault lines which are deemed to extend into infinity".

Remember, it's a game. If one competitor finds a superior solution to the shooting problem, every competitor who sees it will strongly consider applying the same strategic solution.

There won't be one person taking advantage of this hole in the stage design, there will be a LOT of them.




Call it "gaming", call it smart thinking, call it the Lemming Principle.

SUMMARY:

It may be impossible to find an elegant solution to this problem.

• We could remove the "extends to infinity" clause, but (until you review the consequences in detail) it looks like A Good Idea.
• We could include a reference to the rule (1.2.1) that precludes shooting all targets froma single location.
• We could ... well, I don't know. This is where you are invited to suggest our own solution.

Ultimately, this is a problem which can best be resolved by stage design and stage construction. It doesn't really suggest a good way to resolve it by writing rules. The above were the best ideas I could come up with, and if you have a better idea you should immediately write to your Area Director. Comments here are invited, and encouraged, but I don't really expect that the Board of Directors is going to monitor this site to discover the best way to correct the rule book.

Still .... where else are you going to find an extended discussion about the subtle flaws.

UPDATE: Guest Comment

Stan Penkala offers a solution to all of the problems identified.

USPSA new rule 1.2.1

The USPSA Draft of proposed new rules of competition serves four general purposes:

1. It removes all rules what are IPSC specific (that is, rules which are applicable to International competition under the provisions of the IPSC competition rules, buth which have not bearing on American competition. Example: Appendix D7 inclusion of the definition of "Modified" Division, which is not recognized in USPSPA.)
2. It clarifies rules allowing fair competion by people who are unable to perform some physical acts required by published stage procedures. A good example is the requirement for "weak hand" grip during classifiers. Some people are unable to fire a pistol with their "weak hand". The new rules identify the situations, and provide solutions which the RM can apply so that the shooter can continue to compete without either incurring unfair penalties, or incurring an unfair advantage over other competitors.
3. It removes rules which are not deemed suitable for USPSA competition because Americans simply deny that they are necessary. An example is the rule which penalize only the first to hits on a penalty target, no matter how many times it is actually hit by the competitor. Supposedly, this rule was imposed so that new shooters would not be discouraged by what they may consider 'excessive' penalties. Americans generally believe that you are responsible for your actions, and also that the rule was poorly written.
4. It removes or rewrites rules which, due to vague phraseology, were ambiguous and subject to misinterpretation.

Most of the new/rewritten rules are carefully considered and crafted, and the reason why the changes have been made are obvious to the experienced USPSA competitor.

However, there are other changes which may have escaped the attention of some readers. The purpose of these rules may not be immediately obvious.

Rewritten rule 1.2.1, defining 'General Courses of Fire', is a good example:

1.2.1 General Courses of Fire:
1.2.1.1 "Short Courses" must not require more than 8 rounds to complete and no more than 2 shooting locations.

1.2.1.2 "Medium Courses" must not require more than 16 rounds to complete and no more than 3 shooting locations. Course design and construction must not require more than 8 scoring hits from any single location or view, nor allow a competitor to shoot all targets in the course of fire from any single location or view.

1.2.1.3 "Long Courses" must not require more than 32 rounds to complete. Course design and construction must not require more than 8 scoring hits from any single location or view, nor allow a competitor to shoot all targets in the course of fire from any single location or view.

In reading this rule, we are struck by the changes which have been made. In the 2004 rule book, the definition of the Medium and the Long COF included this verbiage:

Course design and construction must not require more than 9 scoring hits from any single location or view, nor allow a competitor to eliminate a location or view in the course of fire by shooting all available targets at an earlier location or view.

The high-lighted clause dissallowing compeitotors to 'eliminate' locations or views is confusing at best. In its most extreme interpretation, it would require competitors to engage at least one target from every shooting box, and through every port ... even though the presence of several ports or boxes had been intended to allow the competitor to determine his own "best solution to the shooting problem", which is the essence of the Free-Style Principal of IPSC competiton.

Several years ago I emailed John Amidon, USPSA Vice President and head of the National Range Officers Institute asking for a clarification of this IPSC rule. Mr. Amidon focused on the last part of the clause: "... shooting all available targets at an earlier location or view", and determined (officially) that the intent and effect of this rule is that, in Medium and Long COFs, the competitor may not 'shoot at all targets from a single location or view'.

This is effectively an imposition on the stage designers and the match set-up crew. If they fail to set up at least one target which can only be engaged from a different location or view from another target, the stage is not acceptable in USPSA competition.

(NOTE that there is no penalty applied to the individual competitor who finds a way around this rule. However, if that happens in a match the stage must be thrown out of the match. Alternatively, it must be re-built to deny this access and everyone who has already shot this stage must be required to reshoot it for score. It is usually more productive, although still disappointing, for the match administrators to remove the existing scores from the match standings and disallow any more participants to shoot the stage.)

The new rule version is much more clearly stated, and the confusion described above has been eliminated. The consequences of bad stage design or stage construction has not changed, but since the rule is easy to understand it lessens the probability that stages which violate this rule will be inadvertently presented.

This is one of the Ten Good Reasons To Rewrite The Rule Book. (Actually, there may be many more ... even if we only consider nonsensical, arbitrary and/or inapplicable rules. Perhaps this is a valid subject for a future article.)

While I support the rewrite as presented, there is another change inserted into the rule which has been a Forum Topic on the USPSA Members Forum:

Course design and construction must not require more than 8 scoring hits from any single location or view

The 2004 rules were a bit more generous (or problematical, depending on your point of view) in that they limited stage design to 9 scoring hits from any location or view.

So why the change?

Before we start the discussion, we need to define some terms.

A Location is a physical, geographic spot on the ground. If you shoot at ('engage') a target from one place, that's a 'location'. When you take a stop, you have arrived at another 'location'.

A View refers to either shooting through a port, or any other physical restriction on your view of the target(s). Note that this may be accomplished by changing your stance ... standing, squatting, sitting, kneeling, prone.

The difference between one location or view and another is that a certain amount of time must be expended in movement of the body, rather than movement of the firearm.

The purpose of such a distinction is generally accepted to allow a person using a limited-capacity firearm to reload without incuring a time-penalty. That is, you have to spend time moving anyway, so you can reload during that second or two which is already invested in movement.

Reloading without any change in position or view is called a "Standing Reload", which sometimes occurs no matter what the stage design allows or mandates. This most often occurs when the competitor misses a shot, thereby wasting ammunition.

The generally accepted reason for this "required hit-count limitation" is that it doesn't force limited-capacity competitors to make a standing reload, even if no targets have been missed. Since match participants who are competiting in the Limited-10 and Production Divisions can have no more than 10 rounds in their magazine (plus one in the chamber, hopefully), a nine-round limitation has not been deemed to constitute a hardship on these competitors.

After all, they have the option of reloading before they begin to shoot from this location or view, so they probably have 11 rounds in their gun. If they miss more than two shots they will have to make a Standing Reload, but that's just part of the game -- the Conventional wisdom is: Don't Miss!

So why make the change from 9 scoring hits to 8 scoring hits required?

USPSA Members on the USPSA FORUM have suggested that it is an accomodation to the Proposed Single-Stack Division. Ignoring any other theories, this makes the most sense to me.

Unlike Limited-10 and Production divisions, Single-Stack Division competitors are limited to 8-round magazine. Adding the one round up the spout, that gives them a maximum of 9 rounds in their pistol before they have to make a Standing Reload, assuming they miss a couple of shots.

Perhaps this hit-count limitation was reduced to encourage the new division?

We don't know. Nobody has told us yet.

But if that was the intent, there are a couple of reasons why some people may consider the justification insufficient.

First, the Provisional Single-Stack Division is, well, 'provisional. USPSA is allowing people to shoot matches while declaring that they are competing in that division, but it's not yet official. The new rule book includes that Division definition in Appendix D7, but as of the date of this writing it has not been officially accepted. It's unclear whether this is the unofficial official acceptance of this division, or whether it is a matter of USPSA positioning itself so that the official rule book is ready if and when it is officially accepted.

Very confusing levels of officiality, granted. My guess, in this limited context, is that USPSA is ready to accept the new division, but has not due to something like "we said we would give it a 12 month trial run" (or however long) and they can't legitimately accept until the trial period has been completed.

Let's leave that point for a moment, and get on to the other reason why some people may consider this inadequate justification for the hit-limitation change:

Revolvers.

Revolvers may be the Cat's Pajamas for you hard-core ICORE folks (Jerry V., I'm talking about you) but for most of us they are, sorry, the Red-Headed Stepchild of IPSC competition.

Revolvers are available which hold 8 rounds. However, the USPSA rules mandate that, if an 8-round capacity Revolver is used, it must be declared as Limited-10, Production, Limited or Open Division.

Here's the rule in the Proposed (Draft) rule book:
Appendix D5: Revolver Standard Division

16. No limit on cylinder capacity, however, a maximum of 6 rounds to be fired before reloading. Violations will incur one procedural penalty per occurrence

. Rule 6.2.5 reads:

6.2.5 Where a Division is unavailable or deleted, or where a competi­tor fails to declare a specific Division prior to the commencement of a match, the competitor will be placed in the Division which, in the opinion of the Range Master, most closely identifies with the competitor’s equipment. If, in the opinion of the Range Master, no suitable Division is available, the competitor will shoot the match for no score.

So what we have here is ... failure to communicate.

USPSA is doing a great job on this rules update, what with making the draft available to the membership for comment. Unfortunately, not all of the comments are going to fall into the "Yeah! You guys ROCK!" category. This is one of them.

I would like to know why this hit-count limitation has been changed, and whether it's really necessary. Also, whether USPSA thinks it's fair and necessary. After all, they have no compunction about ignoring the Revolver Division capacity limitations, why should they treat Single-Stack any different?

Note that I care.

I'm shooting in Open Division. I have a handful of 170mm magazines into which I can stuff 26 rounds of .38 Super ammunition, and one up the spout. I can load 'er up on Saturday and shoot for three weeks, including misses. I'm a Big Cheater, and I'm just proud to be here.

Well, actually I do care.

I want the rules to be fair, and consistent, and if any changes are to be made I want to know the reason before I buy into them. It doesn't really matter if the rules apply to me. What matters is that rules are not made or changed carpriciously, without any justification.

This is a problem which we have had to contend for the last two versions of the IPSC rule book, and it has caused a lot of hard feelings over the years.

We have a New Beginning, a New Hope (forgive the Star Wars references), and it would be best if we can reliably expect that rules changes are based in reality, driven by improvement and resolution of defined problems.

It would be less helpful, and the results less acceptable, if the perception continues that the rule-making process is capricious and arbitrary.

We've already done that, been there, own the T-shirt. That's the reason why USPSA has distanced itself from IPSC rules.




.