What's the call?

[Chief Rick]

Shooter loads pistols and rifle at loading table and places pistols in holsters.

 

As shooter is walking to starting position, the buckle on the pistol belt slips out of the belt and allows the pisol belt, with loaded pistols in holsters to fall to the ground.

 

What's the call?

[BLACKFOOT SASS #11947]

whatever

 

Lafitte

[Widder, SASS #59054]

I 'think' that is a No call, if pistols maintained their holstered position.

 

 

..........Widder

[Appalachian Alan]

Are pistols still in holster ? or did they come out ?

no call if IN, MDQ if Out

[C0ckr0ach, SASS #26100]

Yes - MDQ

[Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217]

Are pistols still in holster ? or did they come out ?

no call if IN, MDQ if Out

PWB has posted agreement with this call many (well more than a few) times.

[Branchwater Jack SASS #88854]

If any part of the barrel of both pistols are still in holster, No Call.

 

If either pistol is completly out of the holster, MDQ.

[Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217]

PS p.15 of the ROI, "A holstered revolver (loaded or empty) with the hammer fully down on an empty chamber or expended case is considered safe and may not be interpreted as sweeping another shooter while safely secured in the holster."

[Chief Rick]

All of pistols, in this instance, did remain in holsters.

[Branchwater Jack SASS #88854]

REF: SHB p.21 / RO1 p.15 (#2)

 

http://sassnet.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=206683&page=3#entry2660579

[C0ckr0ach, SASS #26100]

O K - but where is this stated in the Rules. All I have found is rule about dropped gun. In holster or out, the gun is still dropped. I have no issue with "No Call" in holster.

[C0ckr0ach, SASS #26100]

The referenced rule does not cover dropped guns. Perhaps the stated reference should have that added.

[Cheyenne Culpepper 32827]

read the last 6 words again.....

[Chief Rick]

O K - but where is this stated in the Rules. All I have found is rule about dropped gun. In holster or out, the gun is still dropped. I have no issue with "No Call" in holster.

Agree.

 

RO1, Appendix A, Page 15, #2 does state: A holstered revolver (loaded or empty) with the hammer fully down on an empty chamber or expended case is considered safe and may not be interpreted as sweeping another shooter while safely secured in the holster.

 

But immediately afterwards states: Failure to manage safe muzzle direction, even though no individual is swept, is grounds for Stage Disqualification, and for repeated offenses, Match Disqualification.

 

Then under Match Disqualifications on Page 25: Dropping a loaded firearm.

[Brother King, SASS #69031]

NO CALL... check buckle at ULT.

 

Next shooter.

[Jefro, SASS#69420]

NO CALL... check buckle at ULT.

 

Next shooter.

Next shooter

[C0ckr0ach, SASS #26100]

The rule certainly covers wearing holsters that point rearward and sweep someone. But a dropped gun is different than sweeping. I have no problem with this being a "No Call" - just that it is not explicit in this rule. Just think "dropped guns" should be added to the rule to be clear. Or change the "dropped gun" rule to say "except when secured in holsters". Rules should be clear and unambiguous, as possible.

 

Not debating what the Call should be.

[Branchwater Jack SASS #88854]

ROI Page 29

• Dropped firearm – a firearm that has left the shooter’s control and come to rest at a location or position other than where it was intended.

 

The loaded pistols are intended to be in the holster.

 

ROI P 15

 

A holstered revolver (loaded or empty) with the hammer fully down on an empty chamber or expended case is considered safe and may not be interpreted as sweeping another shooter while safely secured in the holster.

 

Neither rule states where the holster has to be...

[Flying W Ramrod]

Time to switch dead horses. If the revolvers are in the holster it's a no call.

[C0ckr0ach, SASS #26100]

I do not believe it was intended to be in the holster on the ground. It was intended to be in the holster which is secured to the shooter's body.

 

Lets just make the dropped gun rule clear not to include "in the holster".

[Cheyenne Culpepper 32827]

amen!!!!!!!! whoops, am I allowed to say that?

 

 

this is a dead horse! it's been answered several times......the guns weren't dropped the holsters were!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Branchwater Jack SASS #88854]

Time to switch dead horses. If the revolvers are in the holster it's a no call.

 

Hey now, it has been six months almost to the day. The smell is way down by now!

[Branchwater Jack SASS #88854]

I do not believe it was intended to be in the holster on the ground. It was intended to be in the holster which is secured to the shooter's body.

 

Lets just make the dropped gun rule clear not to include "in the holster".

 

I kind of thought along the same lines when we went through this the last time...

 

But you got to call 'em as they are and try to keep up with how they are interpreted.

[Straight Arrow Hombre]

I guess some folks need a whiff of the rotting equine every so often.

[Cowboy Rick, SASS #49739L]

This one is past smelling, just an old hide and some skin. Wonder how many more ways to say "No call" will be requested?

 

CR

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

NO CALL...the OP clarified that the revolvers remained holstered (post #9)

 

REF: the previous 4-page discussion linked in post #10

[C0ckr0ach, SASS #26100]

I do not believe anyone has questioned the Call since Allie's Post #6.

 

The call is "No Call" !

 

The comments after Post #6 are that the Call does not seem to flow unambiguously from the written Rules and required interpretation.

[Krazy Kajun]

what if....what if....what if (trying to get a little more life out of this dead horse ).....when the shooter is walking to the line from the loading table and his gunbelt and holsters falls down to this ankles and the shooter trips and he drops his rifle and shotgun on the way to the line??

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

what if....what if....what if (trying to get a little more life out of this dead horse ).....when the shooter is walking to the line from the loading table and his gunbelt and holsters falls down to this ankles and the shooter trips and he drops his rifle and shotgun on the way to the line??

 

MDQ.

[PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L]

I do not believe anyone has questioned the Call since Allie's Post #6.

 

The call is "No Call" !

 

The comments after Post #6 are that the Call does not seem to flow unambiguously from the written Rules and required interpretation.

 

The 'interpretation' has been stated previously as it applies to the OP situation.

 

REF: post #90

[Matthew Duncan]

4 misses

[Cheyenne Culpepper 32827]

This BTW is why I don't wear Brag buckles on my gunbelt, it didn't fall off of my hips but I felt it loosening while shooting the rifle, last time I wore a buckle that only had a post instead of a regular buckle type like the Quakers wore... can I say Quakers?

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

This BTW is why I don't wear Brag buckles on my gunbelt, it didn't fall off of my hips but I felt it loosening while shooting the rifle, last time I wore a buckle that only had a post instead of a regular buckle type like the Quakers wore... can I say Quakers?

OH GREAT!!!!!

 

Now we're bring in the QUAKERS...What's next???????

 

[Branchwater Jack SASS #88854]

Pilgrims!

[Cat Brules]

Perhaps a different topic that doesn't ask, "What's the Call" is in order(?).

 

I understand why this issue continues to be debated. These aren't stupid people arguing what the rules state or what PWB's Wire forum call is or challanging PWB's capacity to make such a call. I think everyone respects PWB's oracle status and understands what the call is here, with PWB even referring back to the earlier topic. So, I don't believe that the debate has anything to do with the call.

 

As I see it, the debate is this:

Given the scenario that: A gunbelt with loaded weapons, hammer down on a supposedly empty chamber, disengages and falls off the shooter's body and strikes the ground with the muzzels pointed haphazardly.

 

Then, the question is: Why are penalties not imposed in this scenario, while penalties are imposed in other scenarios, which are equally or even less dangerous than this scenario?

 

The debate has nothing to do with the rules, in my mind, because the rules have been cited and the call has been made ... several times. It simply seems to me (and apparently others) that there are gaps in the logic of the rules or the interpretation of those rules (which in this case are for safety), as they relate to this real or hypothetical scenario. That's what should be addressed and resolved, in my mind ---EDIT--- rather than being shouted down. As I stated, I think this should be debated in another topic that is not concerned with, What's the Call. We know what the call is.