September "The Brits Are At It AGAIN!"

In 1729, Dr. Jonathan Swift wrote a short essay titled "A Modest Proposal", which offered a solution to the proliferation of Irish children which their parents could neither support nor succor.

In short, he proposed that Irish Children being born to indigent parents should be nursed by their mothers for one year, paying particular attention to feeding them generously during the final month (to 'fatten them up'), and then sold to the butcher.

In short, the solution to the Irish population explosion was for the British to eat their (the Irish) babies.

Moving forward in time to September of 2007, the British Government has embraced the concept but with a modern twist: because the market for adoption of Caucasian children is so active, Tony Blair offered financial incentives for social workers to increase the number of British babies available for adoption.


As a small ... even insignificant ... consequence, the children of British mothers may arbitrarily be taken by the State for adoption.

The process includes a 'secret' court hearing (which may occur during the pregnancy) to establish the need to rip the children away from their natural parent(s) at birth. Following that hearing, if the mother discloses that the State assumption of Parental Authority is the result of the hearing, the parent is subject to a legal ruling of Contempt of Court.

That ought to shut the whiners up!

In the specific case (August 28, 2007), 5-month pregnant Fran Lyon has been deemed likely to indulge in the rare psychological condition of Manchausen's Syndrome by proxy, by a pediatrician whom she has never met.

She has no recourse to this ruling, even though no evidence of this Syndrome has been established (she has no older children, let alone children who have been adversely affected by her supposed affliction), and if she resists the will of The State she is subject, as mentioned before, to legal reprisal. Arbitrary, true; but still well within the bounds of reasonable jurisprudence as defined by ... The State.


The Telegraph (a dubious reference if ever there was one) describes the circumstances which established the drive to provide more adoptable babies. Thank you, Tony Blair.

In case you think I am alone in questioning the right of The State to take children from their natural mothers, I draw your attention to the estimable commentary presented here by the blogger known as "Small Dead Animals" (a useful coincidence, I think).

I encourage you to go to the original article and read the comments. You may discover that I am not the only reader who considers this a Draconian solution to an undefined problem.

(H/T: "The Castle of ARGGHHHH!")

September Blogmeat: Some People Just Don't 'get it'

I Don't CARE If You're Keeping 'At Risk Kids Off the Street; Just Don't Let Them SHOOT Anything!

MARIPOSA -- This is a mountain town where there's a Bible verse painted over a pizza parlor door and a local politician keeps a cardboard cutout of John Wayne holding a Winchester rifle in his office as proof of fealty to the NRA.

But a proposal to bring "Paintball for Jesus" to public land has some people riled.

Here's an interesting proposition: A church group has tried Paintball as a way to keep kids involved in activities 'off the streets'. They want access to unused public lands as a Paintball range. The locals are incensed, and chances are they will stop this thoroughly benign effort. Why? Because ...

"I'm sorry, maybe I'm missing something in my upbringing as a Methodist, but Paintball for Jesus? God help us all. Seriously, this teaches bad habits of shooting each other," said Mariposa County Supervisor Brad Aborn, 71, the John Wayne fan who is a former Vietnam War Navy helicopter pilot.

This is an IPSC blog, and we who indulge in Practical Shooting competition are accustomed to dealing with the criticism that we're "practicing to shoot at imitation people, with real guns!"

Now the problem is a church group which practices shooting at real people, with imitation guns.

It occurs to me that some people are altogether too wrapped up in themselves.
...

It's a Free Country, But Don't Speak Spanish in your Television Ad
Here's a Florida used-car dealer who has begun coaching his television advertisements in high-school Spanish. The locals are outraged, and consider his Spanish-language ads "un-American".

In fact, he has received some very accusatory comments on his blog, where he tries to make his readers understand that what he is doing is VERY "American".

He's not a "Latino Immigration Advocate", he's a Capitalist. As in: "You're here, you're earning, buy a car from me". What's so difficult about that? If he was offering to sell them a Big Mac, would it be any different? Why isn't Taco Bell, for that matter, catching a lot of heat from their "Run For The Border" ads?

Am I missing something?

...

Take off your clothes, or I'll blow you up. Oh, and Send Money!
Compare the previous story with this one:
"Bomb Threats Force Stores to Wire Money"

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Federal investigators are looking overseas for clues and suspects in a scam that uses bomb threats to extort money from banks and stores, law enforcement officials told CNN.

For the past week, banks and stores in at least 13 states have been hit by the scam, in which a caller claims there is a bomb on the premises that can be detonated if employees don't meet a demand to wire money to a specific account.

In one incident in Kansas, the caller ordered store employees and customers to take off their clothes, police said.

A source told CNN that investigators are looking for a suspect in Portugal who appears to be linked to an account number the caller uses in his demands. The source said it is believed to be either a single person or a small group tied to an account in Portugal.

At least $13,000 has been extorted, according to a law enforcement source.

Here's an entrepreneur!

My guess is, there's this bright, bored teenager in Portugal with a telephone card and a computer, who has just discovered the Wide, Wide World of Sheeple.
...
California Provides Health Care for Illegal Immigrants: Indigent Citizens Left Unfunded

And finally, from the Washington Times:

I found this story a little complicated, and confusing. As simply as I understand it:
Dr. Gene Rogers, the Medical Director for Sacramento (CA) County's medical Indigent Services program, saw that county medical funding was being expended in non-Emergency health care for Illegal Aliens to the extent that no money was available for Indigent Citizens ... the folks for whom the service was originally intended.

When he complained, County officials fired him from the job he had held for over a decade. And continued the policy.

And, although the budget was in jeopardy ... the County Commissioners cut the budget.

This leaves the County with less than enough money to care for the poorest of their citizens, but continued the practice of spending the money for "non-Emergency health care" for interlopers.

I can find no better explanation than "Political Correctness Gone Wild!"

Somewhere, somebody has to Show Me Your Tits!

New Blog: MD Creedmore

I've just added a new 2nd Amendment blog: Live-wire Right by MD Creedmore.

A prolific writer, and one not shy about posting the occasional rant, I recommend you spend some time reading what he has to say.

I've linked to him on the sidebar, under "Gun Bloggers Outside the PNW".

Croc Match, 2007

The (Croc) Dundee, Oregon IPSC club worked hard to present another Banzai Ballistic "You Got Bullets?" Match at the Chahalem Valley Shooters Club as they have for the past near-decade.

I admit, I don't have the statistics to tell you how many years this world-class High Round Count IPSC-type competition has been presented by CVSC, but I'm sure that Paul M., "Evil" Bill M. or Marty L. will let me know as soon as this article hits the Internet.

And they should be proud of their brain-child, because this 460-plus round (8 stages!) has been around long enough to achieve an international reputation as, if nothing else, an "Iron Man" test of equipment reliability, ability to make reloads quickly, accuracy, speed and pure competitor endurance.

(Note that the match is probably the "Brain Child" of either Jonathan Umfleet or Tom Chambers, both of whom are past presidents of the club and both of whom should receive full credit for their contribution which took this small club from a local "plinking and pre-hunting-season sight-in-your-rifle" club to one which regularly presents some of the most challenging and difficult matches in America. Yes, I expect updates to follow from the current Club President and /or Evil Stage Designer.)


The hallmark of this match is "You Got Bullets?" Each stage requires at least 50 hits to complete, some of them over 60 rounds.

In case you get the impression that it is a 'hoser match', please allow me to disillusion you.
Although there are plenty of 4-target arrays which encourage you to stand and deliver 8 rounds as quickly as you can, it's not all a matter of unloading magazines ten times quicker than you can load them. There are plenty of 10" plates at distances calculated to test your accuracy. Plate racks, the "Evil Oregon Star," and Pepper Poppers engaged through the 12" hole in a steel 'donut' reward a moment's inattention with, at best, a miss. At worse, the donut rings resoundingly, signaling to all observers that your Pepper Popper engagement was far off the mark.

It's always a surprise to realize that Revolver shooters put their six-round limitations to the test at this match. Coincidentally, six revolvers were used in this 2007 version of the famous Croc Match.

Here are the Top 30 of 106 competitors:

Place Name Cls Div. Cat Points Match%

1 Shepherd, Rob GM Open 2014.0487 100.00%

2 Tyler, Keith GM Open 1879.5676 93.32%

3 McGee, Bobby GM Open 1788.8717 88.82%

4 Lee, Yong GM L-10 1788.5253 88.80%

5 Bright, Norman M Open 1767.4391 87.76%

6 McDonald, Chad A Open 1764.3736 87.60%

7 Schmidt, Carl M Open Sr 1713.3135 85.07%

8 Hodsdon, Kevin A Open 1693.5543 84.09%

9 Fague, Scott B Open 1678.3901 83.33%

10 LeRoux, Scott A Open Sr 1675.5745 83.19%

11 McDonald, Casey B Open 1640.2551 81.44%

12 Tomasie, Squire M Open SS 1601.0319 79.49%

13 Bright, Zac B Open Jr 1564.0208 77.66%

14 Suh, Al B Open 1563.3510 77.62%

15 Loo, Bob A Open SS 1557.9321 77.35%

16 Paek, Peter A L-10 1454.0014 72.19%

17 Ott, Trevor M L-10 1445.6568 71.78%

18 Kies, Alan M L-10 Sr 1423.6767 70.69%

19 Marrs, Bill B Open Sr 1422.9178 70.65%

20 Fuller, Dennis A Open 1403.2551 69.67%

21 Blosser, David A L-10 1392.6748 69.15%

22 Newquist, Doug M Prod 1388.9763 68.96%

23 Stachour, Mike A L-10 1382.7855 68.66%

24 Shepherd, Caryn B Open Ldy 1365.2078 67.78%

25 Lee, Jimmy A Open 1344.6474 66.76%

26 Hockens, Ernie B Open 1308.5619 64.97%

27 Rogers, Jim B L-10 1287.6702 63.93%

28 Falkner, Eric C Open 1282.9813 63.70%

29 Hoang, Vinh B L-10 1267.5958 62.94%

30 Dickinson, Jim B L-10 SS 1267.4100 62.93%

(Sorry, this probably doesn't align correctly in your browser. For a complete listing of the results, go here.)

Jungle Run
One of the most popular features of this match is the infamous "Jungle Run". The Oregon Rain Forest Climate has blessed Dundee with a fast-running creek bed, bounded by minor ridges, forming a perfect shooting bay. The entire range is sited on the side of a high hill (in the SE portions of America, it would be considered a mountain), and the heavy annual rainfall plus the creek runoff combine to populate this restricted area with ferns, bushes and trees. This provides the perfect combination of awkward terrain and dense foliage in which to hide targets. A plethora of branching trails serves to confuse the shooter, because there are typically very few clues to help the competitor decide which branch of the trail to take as they run through the woods shooting at cardboard targets as they become available. While you're shooting at one target, it's easy to glide past another target hidden in the foliage on the other side of the trail.

This year, the branching trails were deliberately not marked. More than one shooter expressed a wish that they were, because as they headed down the wrong trail they were treated to a loudly expressed admonition by Range Officer Loren O. to "Get Back On The Trail!"

Did I mention that this is a "Surprise Stage?"

If the shooter errs, the best he can expect is a verbal correction from the RO. There are no reshoots because the competitor didn't understand the stage instructions, or because the RO hollered at him ... causing the competitor to stop in confusion because the thought there was a more serious problem than that he went down the wrong trail.

One competitor was vociferous about his complaint that the 'right' trail was not obviously marked. He was right, it wasn't fair.

Another competitor was careful, in an interview, to make the point that the Jungle Run was the most fun stage in the match, but because it was a 'surprise stage' the results should not be counted as part of the match.

They were both right, but both competitors (although they are both Locals and have both shot this match for as long as they have been competing locally) missed the point.

The Croc Match is determinedly and deliberately "Not Fair".

Not Fair!
It's not FAIR that the Jungle Run is a Surprise Stage, not chance for a reshoot, you aren' t given enough information to know where all the targets are before you shoot the stage, or that reshoots just ... aren't ... part of the game.

It's not FAIR that if you make a random mistake on the Jungle Run, you can't buy a reshoot.

It's not FAIR that six-round-limited Revolver Shooters must engage a large number of 8-round arrays with a rich selection of 'optional' targets, that other shooters can engage because they have more ammunition loaded.

It's not FAIR that there is no forgiveness in the entire match, and than if you make a mistake you will pay heavy penalties.

Here are some other considerations:
This match use to be scheduled in May, when the weather was much cooler ... but usually rainy.
To encourage attendance, it was deliberately rescheduled for Labor Day Weekend, when the sun was (usually) still out ... but it is HOT! The temperature in this period is typically in the mid-to-high Nineties, so this match is in more than one way an "Endurance contest".

Why does this match find itself scheduled over the Labor Day weekend? Because more people can find free time to shoot a 2-day match, leaving another day for travel.

Sun and Heat are a factor:
I shot this match several years ago, the first Labor Day Weekend it was scheduled. I finished the match in the Rifle Bay (3 bays, actually) where there is no shade except, late in the day, on the targets. Great, you get to engage targets in the shade after you have spend most of your pre-shooting time in the sun. Getting hot. The first few targets you often can't see clearly, because while you're in the sun you're looking at targets in the shade. Decidedly Not Fair.

At that match, it was the last stage my squad had to shoot.

The "Rifle Bay" is situated at the lowest part of the range. There's a steep hill to climb to get back to where the rest of the range (and the Stats Shack, and the cars, and the shade) are located.

I and another competitor were so drained of energy that we simply did not consider it feasible possible to climb the hill. We found a place where shade was available by virtue of being under an erected tarp, and we found chairs there. We sat and drank warm water until the match staff arrived to take down the tarp. They were not listening to our protests that we needed the stage, so we sat in the hot sun until we decided that we HAD to move back up to the main range if only to get out of the sun.

Somehow, we found the energy to drag ourselves out of the low basin and back to the shade. We decided that we were getting too old for this stuff.

Still, I showed up to watch the 2007 match, even though I wasn't prepared to shoot the match. It's No FAIR that you can't brass. No match rules against it, but it's simply too hot to brass and besides, there's usually another squad waiting to shoot the stage. More important, after the first two stages you (I) usually don't have the energy to pick up your brass. This becomes a major factor in deciding to shoot the match, when .38 Super brass costs over $170 a thousand and you're dumping about 500 rounds of brass on the range.

No FAIR.

No Fair:
Here's the bottom line. If you are looking for Fairness, don't shoot the Croc Match.

If you can't afford to drop 500 rounds of brass on the range, don't shoot the Croc match.

If you think it's outrageous that you will be called upon to shoot a Surprise Stage, with no recourse when Things Go Wrong, don't shoot the Croc Match.

But if you're up for the toughest challenge in IPSC competition, if you don't care what it costs, if you just want to measure yourself against the American Standard of "Iron Man" competition ... you can't afford to miss the 2008 Crocodile Dundee Banzai Ballistic "You Got Bullets?" match.

Coming next year, reserve your Labor Day Weekend for this most unfair match in America.

PS: USPSA can't sponsor or encourage this match, because it does not adhere strictly to USPSA standards. (Sometimes, the match requires more than 9 rounds from a single shooting position. Not this year, but in previous years.) However, CVSC scrupulously pays Match Fees to USPSA, so it's possible that USPSA will allow articles about this match to be published in the Front Sight magazine. You haven't seen it yet, but one these days I'm going to write an article about this match for the Front Sight.

Feedback?

PPS: Watch This Site for pictures and videos of the match. In the meantime, EVERY picture and video is currently available at Jerry the Geek's Video Shooting Gallery.

I'll be editing videos for the next week, and some smaller (read: viewable here without waiting for ten minutes to see what you have downloaded) videos may become available in the meantime.

If you have videos from this match, please contact me at the email address cited at the bottom of this page. I will host videos, or link to videos, as they become available.

YouTube Video version of this stage:

(Available here as a download on Jerry the Geek's Video Gallery)

Red's Trading Post: Red for Congress?

Probably because I have written a couple of articles about Red's Trading Post, I have found myself on the mailing list for Red's owner and GM, Ryan Horsley.

Just a few minutes ago, I received the following email from Mr. Horsley. (Do check the links; much more information is available there):

We will be showing the Premiere of David T. Hardy's Documentary in Twin Falls:

I have received several phone calls and e-mails from people calling on me to fill Senator Craig's seat if he resigns, Tony from Liberty Sphere offers his opinion:

The State of Idaho has always held the Second Amendment in very high regard, as do I. I am not sure what Senator Craig's plans entail but I am just pleased with the overwhelming support that I have received in this fight with the ATF.

Again thank you for your thoughts and prayers, it really means a lot.
Thank You,
Ryan

(Note: webpage addresses originally included as text have been converted to links for convenience.)
In light of Idaho Senator Craig's recent embarrassment, Idaho ma soon be looking for a new Senator. Given the gun-friendly culture of the state and Horsley's recent POSITIVE press, it's conceivable that "Red" may in fact turn out to be a viable candidate.

Horsley may not turn out to be the 21st Century's answer to Davie Crockett, but our country was founded on the premise of a legislature comprising citizen volunteers, not professional politicians.

I don't live in Idaho, but it's clear that we can do worse than for a state to be represented in the Senate by a Ryan Horsley. Demonstrably, Idaho has been represented by worse!

How bad would it be if all of the professional politicians in the House and the Senate were replaced by "Mister Smith"?

I'm thinking of Massachusetts, California and New York, specifically. You can add your own state's representatives. You know who you are.

I'm just saying -- how bad could it be to have a the Senate include an FFL holder here and there?

Here's Horsley's latest article asking "Does (the) ATF Acting Director Deserve to be Confirmed?"


Think about it.

"Courage Still Counts"

Michael Yon in Iraq



I try not to make a big thing about it, because the war in Iraq is not directly related to the main theme of this blog.

But I have encouraged you to read Michael Yon before, and I will continue to do so for many reasons. It's not just that the man is, in my mind, the Ernie Pyle of the 21st century, but because he's damn readable.

Mostly, I read Yon and I think you would want to because he writes the stories that we need to read.

It's impossible to cherry-pick individual stories, and it's difficult to navigate his archives. He doesn't have an index of his stories. What you do is, you find ONE story in his current links list, read it, and then start following the links which are embedded in almost every story.

I've been reading his "Ghosts of Anbar" four-part series, and this is as good a place as any to start. He just published Part III of IV. It took me probably 15 minutes to read, but I spent over an hour following the embedded (you should excuse the expression) links to earlier stories. You can search for "Ghosts" in his website search engine, but it isn't available from current articles and you need to learn the keywords to know what you're looking for.

I'll save you the trouble. In his "Ghosts of Anbar" series, Yon just published Part III, which you find here (August 30, 2007), but you probably want to read Part I (August 22, 2007) and Part II (August 27, 2007) first.

No word on when Part IV will be published. (UPDATE: read PART IV now!) As you read the articles, you will intuit that quality writing takes a lot of time; putting it together with pictures, and captioning the photos, takes even more time.

Give him a week, you won't be disappointed.

And while you're there, contribute to his fund. It's the best use you'll ever find for a PayPal account.

Iraq, here, looks a lot like Vietnam.

Code Red

The things you learn from reading Other Bloggers.

The Geek With A .45 (no relation) doesn't write nearly as often as he should, because he is an excellent writer and he does his homework.

Today, he wrote about a Virginia resident who wore an open-carry pistol to a park and was, as a result, arrested -- despite a state law which makes his actions entirely legal.

(If you read RKBA bloggers often, or World Net Daily -- daily -- you probably have already read the original story.)


The bottom line is, the Norfolk, Va. city council attempted to impose draconian Gun Control laws, to the point that they violated Virginia State Law. The arrestee was vindicated when that fact was pointed out and eventually confirmed. This article discusses the unrest when Virginia RKBA supporters attended a Norfolk City Council meeting and, essentially, were very clear in making the point that a City can't violate State law with impunity.

Word is, one City Council member stomped out of the meeting, muttering something about protesting their protest ... which was characterized as "rowdy".
_____________________________________
That's just the surface of the issue.

GWA45 also links to Joe Jeff "Alphecca.com" Soyer Sawyer, a well-known Gun Blogger, who has REALLY done his homework.

Apparently, while the well-attended Norfolk protest was going on, Gun Control Advocates across the nation were using the 44th Anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I Have A Dream" speech as an excuse to protest the Second Amendment and civilian ownership of firearms everywhere.

Here's where Alphecca's homework pays off.

Alphecca first links to a Seattle Post Intelliger (a major Liberal rag) article describing the protest in Washington State, where a gun-control protest was attended by ... TWO protesters.

The demonstration didn't take long at all. In fact, it might have been the shortest in recent local history.

It might have been the smallest, too.

Two activists showed up. They stretched out on the ground for 32 seconds. Then they rolled up their banner -- www.protesteasyguns.com -- and headed for the parking lot.

Good choice, when your 'protest' is outnumbered by the press.


Alphecca goes on to cite a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania "Inquirer" article describing a protest held there last Tuesday night. (Click on the image to see it full size. See the sign in the background.)

This is where I stop following the tracks of Blogger homework, and pay attention to what they turned up. This article is well-written, and deserves some special attention:

Organizers said the gathering of about 200 people at 10th and Spring Garden Streets was held a few doors from Colosimo's gun store to emphasize the problem of straw purchasers of guns, those who buy firearms legally and transfer hem to criminals who are forbidden by law from possessing them. But they said Colosimo's was not involved in any illegal activity. (Emphasis added.)

Two hundred people showing up for a rally addressing a public-safety issue isn't bad. Philadelphia can't have more than a million or two people living there, and although its gun-control laws are among the toughest in the nation they obviously think they need MORE gun-control laws.

Interesting that the protesters chose to hold their rally in the near vicinity of a gun store, to protest straw purchases, which are illegal, even though they admit that the gun store "was not involved in any illegal activity".

You say "Geek, why did they chose that location for their rally? After all, the gun shop was admittedly abiding the law."

Answer: because they hate the idea of guns, any gun, and just 'obeying the law' isn't sufficient justification for their existence. This mind-set isn't based on any recognizable logic system. It's all emotion.

"Criminologists are telling us that as long as we have a high volume of illegal firearms in our community we cannot expect the homicide rate go down," said Minister Rodney Muhammad of Muhammad's Mosque Number 12 in Philadelphia.

What does he want Philadelphia to do? Make a law against breaking the law? Might as well ask "How you gonna solve a problem like Maria?"

"We have one underlying problem," ( City Councilman Darrell) Clarke said. "We have too much violence in Philadelphia. We can no longer prosper as a city if the news always leads off with someone being killed."

He added that it was critical that the state Legislature allow Philadelphia to establish its own gun laws.

Clarke and other speakers stressed that the gun violence in Philadelphia and other cities was fueled by a lack of jobs for young black and Latino men.

Here's another Useful Idiot who instinctively believes that the Evening News on Channel 11 defines his culture. Shouldn't the media reflect the community? This idiot doesn't seem to think so ... instead, he's trying to live up to the image presented by a bunch of 9-2-5 Suits.

In two short sentences, he wants the city to lead the state legislature to pass even more restrictive gun laws which don't make a difference, and he blames others for the "lack of jobs".

I can't help wonder how many of these young men submitted a job application this week. America is the Land of Opportunity, but it won't come knocking on your door. You have to go looking for it, as did the people who now have jobs. This guy is riding the coat-tails of "Gun Control" to further his personal agenda of Victim-ocracy.

Stories like this just make me see red.
__________________________________-
UPDATE: 03-SEP-2007:
Cowboy Blob notes that the author of Alphecca.com is "Jeff Soyer", not "Joe Sawyer". I have corrected that misinformation in the text. Thanks for the correction.

If YOU find an error here or in other Cogito Ergo Geek articles, I invite you to submit corrections either in the COMMENTS section or by mailing me directly (see the email address at the end of every Geek webpage.) I will appreciate it, and will respond as soon as I learn of my errors.

USPSA Elections, Part 2 - Literally!

On August 20, 2007, I posted an article discussing the USPSA Presidential and (for some areas) Area Director elections.

In a jovial mood, I discussed the problem of "The Dog Ate My Ballot", and was appropriately informed by "USPSA does *not* send replacement ballots to individuals".

Today, SWMBO suggested that I check my mailbox, which I did. What I discovered is that "USPSA does *not* send replacement ballots to individuals", but USPSA does send replacement ballots to ... everybody. (Except for Foreign Addresses, which had originally been sent ballots via First Class Mail.


What I found in my mailbox was a new ballot, yellow in color, and carefully designated "New USPSA Ballot" along with an advisory that I should

"See the enclosed letter for an explanation of this ballot. Additional information is available in the members area at www.upsa.org

If you're a member of USPSA, you should go to the webpage, sign on to the Members Area, and look at the top entry, "Ballots sent via USPS First Class Mail".

Click on the "Additional Details Here" link to get the whole story.

Here's the short version:
The mailing service which shipped out the original ballots mistakenly sent them out "bulk rate" instead of "first class". This caused a delay, resulting in some members perhaps not having as long as USPSA had intended for them to vote.

The USPSA BOD met and decided that they should extend the voting period. For reasons which are not clear to me (I'm a Geek, folks don't expect much from me) USPSA decided that they should send Replacement Ballots to all members. I'm guessing that the deciding factor was that "bulk mail" doesn't get the same respect that "first class mail" gets, so some ballots may have legitimately gone astray.

Your dog may never had had a nibble. Neither may you.

The "New Ballots" (referred to as the "First Class" Ballots) are printed on yellow paper, and they include the verbiage printed in green, above. That's so simple, even a Geek could understand it.

So you have, potentially, two chances to vote. What happens if you do?

Each ballot is numbered, so the auditors Know Who You Are. They are tasked with the onerous job of collecting and evaluating all of the ballots. (Which means they hired an Office Temp for a half-day. Cost to them: approximately $40.)

If they receive only one ballot with your ballot number, that vote counts.
Of they receive TWO ballots with your ballot number, only the Yellow ballot (the "First Class" ballot) will be counted.

Only ballots , of either shade (white or yellow), which are received before the October 1, 2007, deadline will be counted.

If I'm wrong about this, may Dave Thomas strike me ... no, let me rephrase that. I hope Dave will let me know so I can correct my misinterpretation.
___

Dave doesn't get the whole credit for this, but National Elections probably fall within his Area of Responsibility so we should probably recognize his professional approach to the administrative boondoggle which was NOT HIS FAULT!

Also, please note that the entire USPSA Board of Directors voted on this approach, and unanimously determined that this was the right approach.

Let me add my vote, and I hope you agree, that USPSA has gone beyond the minimal limits of responsibility in ensuring that all members have been provided with sufficient opportunity and time to vote for the candidates of their choice.

Me?

I'm not changing my vote.

Michael McCarter for President!

USPSA 2008 Rule Book: General Observations 3

This is the last in a 3-part series of "General Observations" (usually informational, sometimes explanatory, occasionally critical) regarding the new USPSA rule book. It is preceded by General Observations 1 and General Observations 2.

In our examination of the USPSA-specific differences between the new USPSA rule book and the previous IPSC/USPSA rule (January, 2004), it seems appropriate to mention the general differences between the current USPSA rule book and the 2004 version.

(IPSC is the International Practical Shooting Confederation. It is the world-wide ruling body charged with maintaining the rules used for International competition. The rule book published by that organization is often used without change by many regions for Local/Regional competition, and is mandatory for use in International competition.)

First, it was authored by the USPSA Board of Directors, plus the USPSA President (Michael Voigt) with input from John Amidon, the USPSA Vice-President and leader of the National Range Officer Institute (NROI). USPSA has previously used the IPSC rule book, but had received a dispensation to publish a USPSA version which included special variants of certain rules to reflect the culture, the preference, and the less-intrusive laws regulating the possession and use of firearms. Because this rule book is an entirely American publication, there are no rules which refer to IPSC competition in the International sense.

Second, early in 2007 the rules which were proposed by the authors were presented to the USPSA membership in a Draft form, and the members were encouraged to submit critical comments and suggestions for change. USPSA member suggestions were accepted until the end of March, 2007, and many of the comments and suggestions were used by the authors to present a truly superior set of competitive rules.

This is a milestone in IPSC competition in America, because for the first time in two decades American competitors are allowed to ignore rules, regulations, targets and divisions which have no bearing on competition within their own home Region. In fact, this happy situation is due to an outreaching by the USPSA President and Board of Directors to IPSC in a sincere effort to continue the mutually supportive relationship between the American and the International bodies, while allowing USPSA to retain the flavor of local competition. Special thanks are due to Bruce Gary, Director of Area 1, who spearheaded this effort.
___________________________________

Enough of the background. In General Comments 2, we left off with Chapter 6: Match Structure.

We'll continue with

Chapter 7: Match Management
Adds the post of "Tournament Director" (TD).
This is specifically important to USPSA because of the increasing popularity of Multigun and 3-gun competitions, where Pistol, Rifle and/or Shotgun stages are included. The distinction between a Match and a Tournament are uniquely important in USPSA, because this level of competition is not typical of IPSC (International) Practical Shooting competitions.

Chapter 8: The Course Of Fire
Rule 8.3.1 changes the Range Officer Command "Load and Make Ready" to "Make Ready". This is a convenient way to avoid the confusion when a stage specifies that the competitor must start the stage with an unloaded firearm.

We can expect an awkward learning curve, after generations of Range Officers have become accustomed to instructing shooters to "Load and Make Ready". However, when the 2004 Rule Book was introduced we learned to say, at the competitor's obvious conclusion of a stage, "IF clear, hammer down, holster" instead of "Gun clear, hammer down, holster". We can learn this one, too.

A valuable corollary to this is rule 8.3.1.1, which specifically forbids the Competitor from moving away from the start position after the firearms has been loaded, without the Range Officer's specific permission. This scenario has been encountered during actual competition, which suggests that this rule is not without justification. That is, it meets the Geek criteria of "A Good Rule" in that it addresses a previously defined problematic situation.

Many of the rules which have been considered "excessive" in the 2004 manual have been omitted from this version. Competitors may take sighting pictures with a loaded weapon, and may take sighting pictures on as many targets as they deem advisable. Competitors are still restricted from walking a stage or 'playing with' the props and/or targets without the Range Officer's permission, but the egrigious 'procedural penalties' are absent. USPSA expects all competitors to be responsible. The only remaining penalty is a Match DQ for "Unsportsmanlike Conduct" if the competitor is specifically instructed by the RO to "STOP DOING THAT", and ignoring the RO command.

Rule 8.6.1 specifically allows coaching in Level I ("Club Match") competition under certain conditions. One assumes that this would be applicable to new shooters, who haven't the experience to make the kind of judgments which come with experience. However, any shooter may receive coaching, at the RO's discretion, by requesting it. (Frankly, I think this rule has been included to help make the New Shooter experience more fun and rewarding. Nobody expects them to win the match; they're just trying to survive. It only enhances the competitive experience when the RO is legally permitted to suggest that when a target has been shot at so many times that a reload is neccesary, the competitor might consider 'moving on' to another target.)

Chapter 9: Scoring
Rule 9.1.7 define target stand 'sticks' as "neither hard cover or soft cover", so if a shot goes through a stick ... you own it.

Rules 9.4.1 and 9.4.2: EVERY hit on a paper or steel no-shoot target will be counted as a penalty of twice the point-value of a maximum scoring hit. This removes the "no more than two penalties may be scored on a no-shoot, no matter how many times it has been hit" rule which had been egregiously added to the 2004 rule book. Thank you, USPSA, for removing this bizarre rule which is rumored to have been imposed in order to make the 'new shooter' feel more 'comfortable'. If one may editorialize a primary concept of Practical Shooting is that "if you shoot it, you own it, and rules which undermine this principle are detrimental to the game.

NOTA BENE: The "Radial Tears" Rule 9.5.4.1 (defining the circumstances under which an 'enlarged hole in a paper target' would be considered a hit) has been removed from the final version. The Draft version required the RO to look for a 'grease mark, striations or a crown' to determine the legitimacy of a 'hit'. That this sub-rule has been removed is evidence of the authors listening to the members, who prefer that the Range Officer use his own experience to determine whether a hit is justified.

Rules 9.9.3 and 9.9.4 referencing "Scoring of Moving Targets":

9.9.3 Moving scoring targets will always incur failure to shoot at and miss penalties if a competitor fails to activate the mechanism which initiates the target movement.

9.9.4 Level I matches only - If the written stage briefing prohibits the engagement of certain targets prior to activation, the competitor will incur one procedural penalty per shot fired at such targets prior to operating the activating mechanism, up to the maximum number of available hits (see Rule 2.1.8.5.1).

I think this is an important rule because it is part of the mechanism which allowed removal of the confusing version of rule US1.5.1 (regarding "Freestyle" competition) which stated only:

US1.5.1 - Level I matches are not required to comply strictly with the freestyle requirements or round count limitations.

This rule was so confusing that it caused a lot of frustration and bad feelings on the part of both the competitors and the stage designers (and Match Directors) when a stage design approved by the MD was not readily accepted by the competitors. We're glad that rule has been eliminated from the 2008 USPSA rule book. Instead, we see this verbiage which is much more understandable and much less confusing:

2.1.8.5 Appearing scoring targets must be designed and constructed to be obscured to the competitor (during the course of fire) prior to activation.

2.1.8.5.1 Level I matches are encouraged but not required to strictly comply with this requirement. The written stage briefing may prohibit competitors from engaging certain target(s) which may be visible prior to activation until the operation of the activating mechanism has been initiated (see Rule 9.9.4).

Chapter 10: Penalties
During the Draft Review period, one rule was subjected to much criticism. It was confusing, and the justification was not obvious.

Essentially, it was typified by a course of fire which required a competitor to negotiate an area which in part included a 'lane' or path which was defined by 'boundaries'. This proposal would have prevented the competitor from leaving the lane to shot-cut to a more advantageous shooting place, by penalizing the competitor one procedural (5 points) for each STEP taken outside the boundaries!

The response of the USPSA membership, during the Draft Review process, was apparently overwhelming and certainly vociferous.

The details of the protests are many and, essentially, unimportant. The results are very important.

Consequently, Rule 10.2.11, instead of looking something like this:

Unless specified otherwise in the written stage briefing, a competitor who, following the start signal, leaves the boundaries of the shooting area with at least one foot in contact with the ground and gains a significant advantage by advancing to a later part of the shooting area(s), such as taking a “short cut” to a later part of the defined shooting area (s), will receive 1 procedural penalty per step taken outside the shooting area.

... has been removed from the final version. Instead, we see only this rule:

10.2.1 A competitor who fires shots while any part of their body is touching the ground or while stepping on an object beyond a Shooting Box, a Fault Line or a Boundary Line or who gains support or stability through contact with an object which is wholly beyond and not attached to a Shooting Box, Fault Line, or Boundary Line, will receive one procedural penalty for each occurrence. However, if the competitor has gained a significant advantage on any target(s) while faulting, the competitor may instead be assessed one procedural penalty for each shot fired at the subject target(s) while faulting. No penalty is assessed if a competitor does not fire any shots while faulting. (Emphasis added.) (see UPDATE: 29-AUG-2007 at the bottom of this page.)

This is much more familiar, and complies with the original concept that penalties are not usually assigned when not in the act of shooting, except for Safety Violations. (Exceptions may occur, but I admit I can't think of any at the moment. Readers may choose to submit examples.)
______________________________________________

I have chosen NOT to include the subsequent chapters of the new rules in these General Observations, because as soon as we get into the Appendices the degree of minutiae is overwhelming.

I note in passing that there was some controversy in a rule which appeared to prohibit usage of the DOH holster in some Divisions. The Board of Directors have issued an unofficial statement to the effect that their appendicized regulations on holster position in Production class was not intended to forbid usage of this utilitarian holster, and they intended to make such changes as were necessary to permit it. I can't say whether this change has been completed. I'll leave it to others to read the new rules and determine the consequences of the final results.

One again, I emphasize that the purpose of this three-part series was NOT to provide a definitive comparison between the old rule book and the new. You can see by the extensive verbiage presented on these three articles that the changes are extensive, and often profound.

Instead, I only hope to familiarize the reader (presumably a practitioner of Practical Shooting Competition under the auspices of USPSA) with the more obvious changes. There may be a few subtle changes between the current 'final' version of the USPSA 2008 Rule Book and that which is actually printed. I have not control over that process.

My over all 'General' impression is that this version represents a break-through improvement over competitive rules which have been published for at least the past decade. Personally, I am extremely grateful to the USPSA Board of Directors for their diligence and determination to provide a superior set of competitive rules.

I think they have succeeded admirably.
___________________________________
UPDATE: 29-AUG-2007

I received an email from Bruce Gary, USPSA Area 1 Director (Board of Directors Member, and one of the authors of the new rule book) mentioning that rule 10.2.1 will not appear as cited above. One of their goals during the rewrite was to remove all mention of "Boundaries" and "Boundary Lines" from the rule book. This reference seems to have been overlooked.

Here's the full text of his message:

The last bit in your analysis should probably be edited. "Boundary Lines" are not in the final rulebook, they have been pulled out entirely, replaced by the "forbidden actions" language in the Board motion that passed in the same online meeting as the rulebook itself. ...

Tasco PP1

Do YOU own an obsolete Electronic Red-Dot sight?

If not, you may not be aware of the angst which accompanies the lack of documentation.

I received an email tonite:

I was looking at your site and noticed that you have an early model pro-point on one of your rifles. I have the same model scope on my Rem 7615 and it was working really well until I lost the battery (Took it our for storage) Anyway no one seems to be able to tell me what batttery the scope takes. I was wondering if you could help.

Mick from Melbourne

I replied:

As nearly as I can tell (I have the box around here somewhere, but I'm too lazy to trash the garage to find it), the scope is a PP1.

It uses two batteries, and they're different!

The first battery is an "LR50". I can't tell you the manufacturer offhand, but the one I have is made in China. Isn't everything? It's about 7/16" in diameter and 5/8" long. (All dimensions are estimates.)

The second battery is designated "LR52". Same diameter, but the OAL is less than the diameter. I would guess 3/8".

I can't give you the voltage (or wattage, ohms or whatever) and I don't know if it matters how you stack them ... I suspect not. I have been putting the longer LR50 in first (flat/positive side 'down') and the shorter LR52 on top (also flat/positive side down.)
...
I have just tested this by inserting the batteries in the opposite order. That is, I put the short (LR52) in first, then the long (LR50) on top. I couldn't get the dot to work. That may be because I messed up the very simple test, or else it may honestly indicate that it matters which battery you insert first.

I removed the batteries and put the LR50 in first and the LR52 on top, and the red dot was visible when I turned the scope on.

My conclusion is that it may NOT make a difference, but I can definitely say that if you put the long battery in first and the short battery in on top, the scope should work.

Just in case you were wondering ...

UPDATE: 26-AUG-2007
According to The Hobo Brasser, his Pro Points (obviously newer than my PP1) use the CR2032 battery. I'm thinking this is the same as the battery used by the OK Sight, which means it's about the size and shape of an American quarter.

I know, this description may be of limited value to Mick in Australia.

Just Lucky, I Guess

New t-shirt slogan:


Thank Goodness, I Was Born Before Roe v. Wade




Think about it.

USPSA 2008 Rule Book: General Observations 2

Continuing with the Geek Stream-Of-Consciousness commentary on the new USPSA rule book, I believe we left off with Chapter 3.

The next stop is --

Chapter 4: Range Equipment
The most prominent 'new thing' here is:

4.2.5 Hard cover (and overlapping no-shoots) must not hide the highest scoring zone(s) on a partially hidden target. The minimum requirements are specified in Appendix B

The previous version of rule 4.2.5 included: At least 50% of the highest-scoring zone must be available to all competitors from at least one location or view.

Appendix B refers to "Target Presentation" (and I have no idea why the illustrations use "Classic" targets, presumably this will be changed to feature 'Metric' targets.) One of the rules included in the 'forbidden actions' update is:

"At least 25% of the A-zone must remain visible around hardcover or overlapping no-shoots."

This, then, is the now notorious "25% Rule".

I find the organization of the rule to be cumbersome. Why is the 25% rule hidden in Appendix B? Again, we'll just have to wait and see, but I hope it is not too obscure to be widely recognized and acknowledged in all USPSA clubs.

Frankly, even the 50% version is new to me. My dying 'little grey cells' tell me that previous rules mandated that the highest-scoring zone must be completely visible, but that's a side issue and I won't bother to research it now. Perhaps later.

There is a question about WHICH A-zone must remain visible. If it is both A-zones, that's one thing. But if it's 25% of EITHER A-zone, we may find our self presented with only a 2" square in the middle of the B-zone to shoot at, which would be a travesty of fairness for competitors compelled to shoot minor power.

In "Approved Handgun Targets - Metal":
In passing, I note that rule 4.3.1.1 refers to "poppers", and rule 4.3.1.2 refers to "mini poppers". I believe these are what we previously referred to as "Pepper Poppers" and "USPSA Poppers", respectively.

Unfortunately, Rule 4.3.1.3 refers to "Pepper Poppers and Classic Poppers".

This is obviously an oversight, and I'm sure the 'final final version' of this rule book will correct this minor deficiency.

Here's an interesting rule:

4.3.1.8 Metal no-shoots must, if hit, be repainted after each competitor ends their attempt at the course of fire, failing which subsequent competitors must not be penalized for hits visible on their surface.

There is no provision for Level I matches here. However, with Metal scoring targets, Level I matches are not required to repaint between competitors.

Rule 4.5.1.1 specifically allows the competitor "... to move stone, sand or other loose material at the starting position for the purposes of achieving level and stable footing."

Finally in this chapter, there's an expansion of previous rules:

4.6.1 Range equipment must present the challenge fairly and equitably to all competitors. Range equipment failure includes, the displacement of paper targets, the premature activation of metal or moving targets, the failure to reset moving targets or steel targets, the malfunction of mechanically or electrically operated equipment, and the failure of props such as openings, ports, and barriers.

That seems familiar, but this is new:

4.6.1.1 The declaration and/or use of any loaded (see Rule 10.5.13) or unloaded firearm as "range equipment" is prohibited.

What this means, I think, is that if the host club provides a firearm for every competitor to use 'in common' ... if the gun don't work, you eat the penalties.

I've seen this in a club match, once or twice. Typically, it's a firearm which gets a lot of use with little or no maintenance between shooters and is subject to jams due to, if nothing else, powder fouling. Good idea to avoid this, I think, since it can kill your match score when the gun jams on you.


Chapter 5: Competitor Equipment

This chapter distinguishes between "Open Sights" and "Optical/Electronic Sights". The difference involves "... electronic circuitry and/or lenses".

I don't know whether a scope which uses magnifying lenses, such as (for example) a Burris 4x sight with no electronic circuitry (not a 'red dot') would be considered an "Open" or "Optical/Electronic" sight.

But I do think that a clearer definition is definitely in order here. Even though we don't see a lot of Burris 4x optical sights in Practical Pistol, we should bear in mind that these rules are the basis for Multigun competition rules.

It may save some future problems if USPSA could review this section and work to resolve the inherent confusion.

...

5.1.8 A competitor who substitutes or significantly modifies a handgun during a match without the prior approval of the Range Master will be subject to the provisions of Section 10.6.

Is this new? I don't recognize it. Regardless, this rule does require the competitor who needs to use a 'backup gun' (due to problems with the gun he started out with) to secure prior approval of the Range Master before switching guns. The consequences are an Unsportsmanlike Conduct Match Disqualification.

Chapter 6: Match Structure
There are no changes to the rules of particular interest to this summary.
_____________________________________________________

I remind the reader that this commentary is not intended to be all-inclusive, nor to identify all changes in the competitive rules. The competitor is strongly encouraged to read the entire published version(s) of the USPSA 2008 Rules and familiarize himself with the differences between the current and the 'new' versions.

This is intended to be a logical extension of the article titled "USPSA 2008 Rule Book: General Observation".

USPSA 2008 Rule Book: General Observations 1

I started to take notes while reading through the 'final' (not 'final final') version of the new USPSA rules, but then Bill Noyes commented that he had created a version with the 'forbidden actions' already added.

That makes it so easy to read, I decided to just write a stream-of-consciousness commentary here, as I read through the 65-page document.

Chapter 1: Course Design
When you start reading the new rules, the FIRST thing you find (on page 2) is that the "Course Design" chapter begins with "General Principles of Course Design". Anybody who started shooting IPSC before the international rule book began to de-emphasize the Principles of Practical Shooting will recognize this section as an effective reiteration of the original Principles. This version segues neatly into rules regulating course design, but it marries the two concepts into a presentation which demonstrates that course design should, and can, evolve directly from the original Principles.

Chapter 2: Course Construction and Modification
'Minimum Distance' for engagement of steel targets is 23 feet (no more euro-centric meters!), with fault lines to be set at 26 feet so that a competitor who inadvertently faults the 26 foot line should not fault the 23 foot minimum distance. Rule 10.5.17 applies, which mandates a match DQ for 'unsafe gun handling' as a consequence of engaging steel targets within the minimum distance. That absolves us of the wishy-washy rules in the most recent rules which are not, to my mind, sufficient to make the point that SAFETY is the primary consideration.

The companion rule on 'Target Locations' reinforces the concept of SAFETY.

There is also an admonition to witness targets and place Pepper Poppers in such a way that they don't have to be repeatedly re-calibrated during the match as the base, for example sinks into the surface of the bay every time the heavy metal target hits the base. And one to place steel and cardboard targets so that there is not too much damage to the cardboard caused by 'splatter' from the steel. Not rules, just a helpful reminder.

A note for the vilifiers of the "Hanging Ninja" rule: Static 'Classic' targets may not be presented at an angle greater than 45 degrees from the vertical. No such restrictions on static 'Metric' target, thank you very much.

The oft-confusing rule about "Level I matches are not required to strictly abide by" some rules ... not identified ... has been reworded to, here, refer only to a rule that appearing targets must be obscured to the competitor prior to activation. Nicely done, USPSA!

In "Course Construction Criteria", the term "boundary lines" is replaced by "off-limits lines". Shooting Boxes and Fault Lines (but not 'charge lines') are still there, so we don't have to worry about what to call a line which restricts lateral or to-the-rear movement. "Off-limits lines" are waist-high and intended to keep the competitor (or other people on the stage) from wandering into an area where shots may be directed, if I understand this correctly.

As I mentioned in an earlier article, the egregious 'Fault Lines Extending Rearward' are still 'deemed to extend rearward to infinity'. This rule is, in my opinion, problematic. We'll just have to wait and see.

Here's a big improvement, a rule which cautions stage designers/construction teams from using shooting boxes at prone shooting positions. In the past, I've seen shooting boxes used at a location where the only way to engage the targets was in a prone position, and the shooting box was so small (8 feet long, 4 feet wide) that some competitors were penalized for a 'foot fault' when one foot flopped outside the box.

Worse, some Range Officers have been known to erroneously assign per-shot penalties for this foot fault, when it was obvious that no advantage was gained. It's still possible that a stage design might need a shooting box at a prone location, but perhaps they will all be big enough that big people can fit into them without overflowing. So to speak.

In Modifications to Course Construction, we see the direct reference to 'forbidden actions'. Essentially, a dangerous situation (or unfair competitive advantage) may be found to exist during the match. Rather than change the stage construction, this rule (2.3.11) allows the Range Master to 'explicitly forbid certain competitor actions'.

I've seen this in a recent club match where the competitor was required to climb up onto a railed platform to engage a target array. Some competitors climbed up on the railing to engage a second target array, rather than dismount the platform, run around to the side of the bay and engage the targets through a low port. This saved significant time on the stage, but was decidedly dangerous.

This rule is a useful and powerful tool to enforce SAFETY measures which competitors, in the heat of competition, are not always able to recognize.

In Safety Areas, we see that they must now be clearly identified by a sign. This is now a rule (albeit one without penalty) and will help avoid the confusion between a table which is provided to support range bags and a Safety Table. We see that at some ranges. Not all.

Also, Safety Areas must include 'boundaries'. One can only assume that this is a line on the ground which delineates the extent of the Safety Area. We often see people handling ammunition, for example, in the near proximity to a 'Safety Table'. The addition of 'boundaries' will be a small expense, and less small inconvenience, to host ranges. However, I think it's an idea which is long overdue.

This new rule book also includes another long overdue concept: an 'unloading/loading station'. This is an area where competitors or visitors who arrive at the range while carrying a loaded firearm (by virtue of a 'concealed handgun license' or other such license) may safely and legally unload their concealed firearm upon arrival, and re-load it prior to departure. In light of the now-wide spread state regulations allowing Concealed Carry, this allows free exercise of American 2nd Amendment rights. I am in hearty approval of this rule, and I hope that every range in America will promptly provide such facilities. Again, it is a new expense and may cause some grumbling by Range Administrators. Well, they will just have to catch up with the times, won't they.


Chapter 3: Course Information
New rule 3.2.5.1 continues with the 'forbidden actions' definitions. If a competitor engages in a 'forbidden action', he will be required to reshoot the stage.

Here's a bit of confusing terminology:

"Subsequent violations by any competitor will be subject to the provisions of rule 10.2.11"

Rule 10.2.11: A competitor who commits a forbidden action (See rules 2.3.11 and 3.2.5) will be stopped immediately and receive a zero score for the stage. Flagrant or intentional violation may be subject to disqualification (see Rule 10.6)

[Geek NOTE: 10.6 is a Match DQ for 'Unsportsmanlike Conduct.]

I THINK I understand the intentions of Rule 3.2.5, but the verbiage is a little confusing and, perhaps, subject to mis-interpretation.

I THINK that what they are trying to say is, a repeated violation of the same 'forbidden action' by the same competitor is subject to the provisions of rule 10.2.11.

But that's not what it says. Let's look at the rule again:

"Subsequent violations by any competitor will be subject to the provisions of rule 10.2.11"

The actual verbiage suggests that, once a 'forbidden action' has been posted, if ANY competitor violates it, that constitutes the "I told you once, this is your final warning" condition for the entire match. After one person violates it, the next competitor who violates the 'forbidden action' ... even if it's another competitor ... they will be DQ'd.

Here's a suggested way of saying the same thing, and consistent with my first interpretation:

"A repeated violation of that 'forbidden action' by the same competitor will be subject to the provisions of rule 10.2.11"

That makes more sense to me, but it may NOT be the intention of the rule. Until we receive a clarification, your guess is as good as mine.


That's enough for one article. I'll continue summarizing in the
Geek General Observations 2.

Forbidden Actions: "Extend Rearward To Infinity"

[sigh]

I've had the "Forbidden Actions" addendum to the 2008 USPSA rules for, what, an hour? AlreadyI find that I have a serious problem with one of the new rules.

2.2.1.4 Fault Lines extending rearward (uprange) (sic) should be a minimum of 3 feet in length, and unless otherwise stated in the written stage briefing, are deemed to extend rearward to infinity.

This is, admittedly, one of my hot buttons when it comes to stage design.

Here's the short version:

A fault line must consist of a physical barrier which is discernible (either visually or by touch) by the competitor. However, if the fault line ends sufficiently far downrange of the location from which the competitor is engaging targets, the competitor has not the ability to definitively determine whether he is to one side or the other of the virtual ("deemed to extend rearward to infinity") fault line.

And in all fairness, the Range Officer can't definitively determine whether the shooter's location is within the bounds of a 'legal shooting area', either.

So when a competitor does engage targets from far up range of the stub of a rearward-pointing fault line, the Range Officer finds himself in a quandary. Not only can the RO not prove that the competitor was engaging targets from an 'illegal' location, there is no reason to expect that the competitor can tell if he was shooting from an 'illegal location.

If the RO forces (under what justification?) the competitor to reshoot the stage, the competitor is completely justified in engaging the same targets from the same spot. In the case of an unrecalcitrant competitor who knows the rules, this could go on all day with no change until the competitor is forced to request arbitration in protest of the Range Officers arbitrary and unjustifiable imposition of multiple reshoots.

There is no scenario providing a mutually satisfactory result for both the competitor and the Range Officer.

________________________

The Long Version:

I've talked about the concept of a "fault line which is deemed to extend rearward to infinity" ( in excruciating detail) four times.

Most recently, on March 25, 2007, I discussed the folly of 'fault lines extending to infinity' in the context of the lack of a 'rear fault line' ... video included to shot the advantage of providing a rear fault line, or not.

A couple of weeks earlier, on March 8, 2007, I hosted a Guest Commentator (Stan P.) who demonstrated stage design/construction priorities which would 'idiot-proof' stages which might have required a rear fault line. This was in reference to the special case of requiring the competitor to shoot around a vision barrier. But Stan's article also offered suggestions on how to construct a stage so that it would be obvious when the competitor would 'violate' the fault line. Basically, Stan's theme was that sometimes you CAN rely on a 3' stub of wood to define a legal shooting area, but more often you need a more complete delineation of the legal shooting area.

A bit earlier than that, on March 5, 2007, I offered another Geek-Length article (complete with a video demonstration) explaining that a competitor, especially when shooting an Open Pistol for increased accuracy on medium-targets, may gain a competitive advantage when a rear fault line is not constructed on the stage.

In fact, my protests about this 'fuzzy rule' go back as far as January 24, 2005, when I described a stage which relied on 'fault lines deemed to extend rearward to infinity' in the context that when the competitor is standing FAR behind the end of the 3' stub of a rearward-extending fault line, it is something between 'difficult' and 'impossible' for a Range Officer to definitively state that the competitor is within, or not within, the virtual boundaries of a fault line which may end 20 feet away from the geographic location of the competitor as he engages targets not available from a huge area closer to the targets.

________________________

Summary:

This is A Bad Rule. As long as match administrators (and stage construction teams) depend upon the "extends rearward to infinity" rule to justify the lazy way to build stage fault lines, that long will matches be delayed, and requests for arbitration be proliferated to the resulting frustration of all concerned.

I do understand the priorities for brevity in the rule book which results in this shorthand version of a reasonable rule. And I accept that in some situations it may be adequate and sufficient.

Unfortunately, the very existence of this rule is bound to cause delays in matches and dissatisfaction for competitors and Range Officers alike.

I've not been able to develop a rewarding of this rule which will be satisfactory in all situations. I suspect that an improvement on the rule is not possible.

Given that the rule is not subject to improvement, I suggest that it be deleted completely and match administrators allow themselves to be forced to clearly define all legal shooting positions.

Sure, it require more 'wood' to define a legal shooting area.

But it's more fair to both the competitors and the Range Officers.




.