Empties in Pistol after test firing

[Lead Foot Luke]

Read the scenario and tell me what's that call.

 

At a large match a shooter completes a stage and is cleared at the unloading table. One pistol seems a little sticky, so the shooter goes to an unmanned bay designated for repairs and test firing. While test firing the pistol a bystander stops and asks if he can help. The conversation distracts the shooter and he fails to unload all the used brass from his pistol.

When the shooter catches up with his posse and goes to the loading table he finds that he has empty brass from the test firing in his pistols.

Does the shooter get a penalty even though he was cleared correctly at the prevous stage of the competition?

 

I know what the handbook says, but is there any wiggle room for this type of scenario?

[Hoss]

That's a tough one. Every bone in my body would want to allow a little wiggle room, but ROI says "Arriving at the designated loading area with uncleared firearms after completing a stage

within the same day (assessed on the previously completed stage)." Based on that, I'm thinking SDQ on previous stage. But I would sure hate to make that call.

[Goody, SASS #26190]

Nope, no wiggle.

[Grizzly Dave]

As Blackjack Zac would say, 'it sucks to be them'

[Cheyenne Culpepper 32827]

he adhered to all ULT regs,,,,,, I am most likely wrong but I wud let it go as a no call.... he didn't arrive from the last stage that way,,,,

[Grouchy Spike]

That's an unusual situation, but the shooter didn't arrive on that stage from yesterdays match. He was participating in today's match so he must have arrived from the last stage.

 

Penalty applies.

[Widder, SASS #59054]

Something tells me this type situation was address here on the Wire a few years back BUT, the situation was where a shooter was testing his pistols during the lunch break. And as fate would have it, he forgot to unload the empties before coming to the first stage after lunch.

 

If I remember correctly, it was a No Call because there was proof that he adhered to the unloading table procedures from his Last Stage.

 

NOTE: I have been known to misremember stuff.

 

 

..........Widder

[Rance - SASS # 54090]

Tough one but ya got a call it..

Cowpoke wasn't payin' attention...

What if he'd started the conversation with the guy watchin and he had a loaded round still in there..

 

Rance

Thinkin' like Grizz said "Suck to be them"

[Blastmaster]

RO I; page 28; appendix D

 

"Arriving at the designated loading area with uncleared firearms after competing a stage within the same day....."

 

SDQ

[Arcadia Outlaw, SASS 71385]

cant wait to hear this one, I'd give the guy a break since he did adhere to rules to begin with

 

AO

[Grizzly Dave]

 

Page 25 - RO 1 under SDQs

•

Arriving at the designated loading area with uncleared firearms after completing a stage

within the same day (assessed on the previously completed stage).

 

 

I can understand wanting to cut the guy a break, but did he arrive at the LT with empties, yes, had he shot a stage that day, yes.

[Griff]

Adhering to the rules 99% of the time doesn't cut it. A failure to adhere earns the requisite penalty.

[Muleshoe Bill SASS #67022]

He did not go from one stage to another, there was an intermediate stop between stages. He did not arrive at a stage from another. He arrived at stage from a test area, not another stage. Sheeze everyone wants to penalize someone.

[Widder, SASS #59054]

This would be my discussion point (not my point of argument)

 

He did not arrive at the next stage with empties after completing the previous stage. He arrived at the next stage after testing his pistols in an approved manner.

 

No Call.

 

 

..........Widder

[Grizzly Dave]

He did not go from one stage to another, there was an intermediate stop between stages. He did not arrive at a stage from another. He arrived at stage from a test area, not another stage. Sheeze everyone wants to penalize someone.

 

No, we just want to apply the rules as fairly and uniformly as we can based on what is actually in the books without judging the intent of those who wrote the rules or the shooter.

 

As to the discussion points of it being after, the book just says after, not directly after, or immediately after. Either of which would leave room for an intermediary step to alleviate the penalty.

[Griff]

Sheeze everyone wants to penalize someone.

There's a difference between "wanting to penalize someone" and recognizing that they've earned a penalty. Wanting to penalize someone would be putting those empties in there for him! But... that's not how it happened, is it?

[Johnny Dollar]

 

.........As to the discussion points of it being after, the book just says after, not directly after, or immediately after. Either of which would leave room for an intermediary step to alleviate the penalty.

 

Yep.... Grizzly is right. It would make a huge difference if the words "directly or immediately" were written in. It seems that it would be the same thing if the fellow stopped off at his cart or had to make a pit stop before the next stage.

 

Edit: except for the fact that the brass didn't come from the previous stage.

[Widder, SASS #59054]

Is the penalty assessed for arriving at the loading table with empties OR, is the penalty assessed because the shooter did not follow Unloading table procedures from previous stage?

 

 

..........Widder

[Grizzly Dave]

Widder - I totally understand your argument, and a good case can be made for that line of reasoning.

 

I look forward to hearing from PWB and or the ROC on the subject and would hope that the books will be clarified one way or the other.

[Goody, SASS #26190]

The penalty has a purpose. It is to encourage the shooter to clear the pistols after firing. The shooter tested their gun. The shooter then got distracted and failed to clear the gun. I don't see any difference in someone being shot directly after a stage or directly after test firing.

[Griff]

Is the penalty assessed for arriving at the loading table with empties OR, is the penalty assessed because the shooter did not follow Unloading table procedures from previous stage?

 

 

..........Widder

"• Arriving at the designated loading area with uncleared firearms after completing a stage within the same day (assessed on the previously completed stage)." Pg 20, RO1.

[Johnny Dollar]

Is the penalty assessed for arriving at the loading table with empties OR, is the penalty assessed because the shooter did not follow Unloading table procedures from previous stage?

 

 

..........Widder

 

Good question... it could be an either or but it also could be two separate issues couldn't it? Lets say the fellow comes to the first stage of the shoot to the loading table but still has empty brass from who knows when.

 

Another edit: book says same day doesn't it....

[Lightfoot]

My take would be, the testing of the revolver during a match, would be treated as a stage. All loading and unloading rules should be followed. IMHO

 

Happy Trails

[Griff]

...Lets say the fellow comes to the first stage of the shoot to the loading table but still has empty brass from who knows when.

 

Another edit: book says same day doesn't it....

From the wording in the RO1 book, it's clear that would be a "no call". From the same source, it's clear to this reader, it's a SDQ.

[Most Wanted]

Since the penalty is assessed to the stage that the pistol wasn't cleared after shooting and in this case the pistol was cleared after the last stage that he shot I'd have to say no call. He was on his time and under range rules. No different had he been practicing at home and showed up with empties in the gun. JMO

[Chili Pepper Pete 11917]

Ok, What is the purpose of the rule as it stands? Same situation but instead of all empties there is a live round. Then whats the call?

 

To me the point is not whether it happened after testing, after the last stage or the next day. I thought the purpose of the rule was to prevent the potential for a live round to be inadvertently left in a gun behind the firing line. Is my thinking about this rule flawed?

 

 

Best regards,

 

Chili

[Widder, SASS #59054]

O.K., now lets see what we have accumulated:

 

ROI pg 25 SDQ failure to adhere to loading/unloading table procedures.

 

ROI pg 28 SDQ Pocket RO Card: (post #2 above) Arriving at the designated loading area with uncleared firearms after completing a stage.

 

Sooooo, how can ROI pg 28 be assessed without the support of ROI pg 25?

 

 

It looks like there wasn't a failure to adhere to the unloading table procedures.

 

But there is NO DOUBT that the shooter arrived at the designated loading area.....BUT was it with unclear firearms from the previous completed stage?

 

 

Don't get too annoyed with me fellers because I'm eager to hear the correct call from PWB. We ALL learn from these items, especially when we can discuss varying points of view.

 

 

..........Widder

[Garrison Joe, SASS #60708]

Is the penalty assessed for arriving at the loading table with empties OR, is the penalty assessed because the shooter did not follow Unloading table procedures from previous stage?

 

 

..........Widder

 

The real root cause, big impact, problem these rules go after is, as far as I can tell is - no carrying of loaded firearms away from the firing "line".

 

The rules would have a great big loophole in it if for any reason, including a test firing or a clearing of a malfunctioning gun, the shooter carried around a loaded gun away from the line.

 

Based on what we are trying to keep from happening (an accidental shooting), the answer to Widder's question would seem to be: a safety penalty should assessed for arriving at the loading table with empties (and a major safety penalty for arriving there with loaded rounds).

 

Regardless of whether or not the shooter last passed through an unloading table inspection to get there.

 

But that probably makes too much sense to apply here.

 

There are SASS rules to make competition fair and even. There are SASS rules to keep the shooters safe. This one is one of the later. And, in my view, that makes it a rule that you DON'T want to leave loopholes open for the bay lawyers to try to wiggle around.

 

(And, yes, that means I would even penalize the arriving at the first loading table of any day with either loads or empties in any of the guns - I think that rule is kind of important). But that is not what our rules say today as written, so breathe a little easier, pards.

 

Just MHO. GJ

[Cheyenne Ranger, 48747L]

I would asses the penalty

 

cr

[Kid Drover]

The word "Safety" is nicely sanitized and is politically unobtrusive. However, the other word that is not mentioned that the

first word has been shortened to mean is "Violation" - "Safety Violation". The purpose of having all the cases unloaded and double checked by an unloading officer is to stop a shooter from walking around with a loaded gun with 20-30-40-50 people surrounding

them. You let one fly plinking by yourself because you were careless, you more than likely would only hit your car (be my luck,

any way). But, you let one fly surrounded by people and more than likely you are going to ruin someone's day. There should be no "break" given for a Safety Violation. The "Book" doesn't have to stipulate the gun shot was shot on a "stage" for it be checked and properly unloaded. If a shooter loads a gun during the day and shoots it, it has to be handled with the same care and safety anytime a gun is shot. Stage DQ

 

KCD

[Sinola Kid]

Unless it is the first stage of the day, it is a penalty.

 

Sometimes I find it weird that these penalties are debated. Gun rights people always say we don't need more guns laws, just to enforce the ones we have. Seems like many of the shooters, who are likely gun rights people, won't enforce simple penalties while shooting our sport. Seems a bit hypocritical.

[Rio Brazos Kid]

Obviously, the guns were shown clear at the ULT. And then the shooter was given permission (or should have first been given permission), to test fire on a vacant stage.

 

In conveying that permission, it then became the SHOOTERS obligation to clear the guns before returning to the LT at the next stage.

 

Failing that obligation, he earned the penalty SDQ for empties, and MDQ for live rounds. Slack???? Where did he earn any slack???? Commit the infraction, suffer the penalty. Take it like a grown-up and move on.

 

RBK

[Russ T. Sites]

The reason for the rule is to make sure there are no live rounds , if you go to the loading table with fired brass what's to say you don't have a live round . I'd expect to get a penelty does it really matter when they got there

[Mack Hacker, #60477]

OK, I got to do it.

 

Shooter shoots stage 1, somehow managing to bypass the unloading table.

 

Shooter hangs pistols on gun cart and shoots stage 2 which is an all shotgun stage.

 

Shooter retrieves pistols and shows up at stage 3 loading table with brass in both.

 

On which stage does the shooter get the SDQ?

[Widder, SASS #59054]

Unless it is the first stage of the day, it is a penalty.

 

Sometimes I find it weird that these penalties are debated. Gun rights people always say we don't need more guns laws, just to enforce the ones we have. Seems like many of the shooters, who are likely gun rights people, won't enforce simple penalties while shooting our sport. Seems a bit hypocritical.

 

Its never weird to discuss penalties because not only should we know about the penalty but the reasons behind assessing them.

 

There have been MANY penalty definitions discussed on the Wire where the majority of the Wire parts had it wrong. It happens.

 

Plus, there is often some discussions where a penalty was given a shooter when in effect, NO Penalty actually exist.

 

There is nothing hypocritical about knowing, understanding and applying the right calls on our shooting Pards.

 

 

..........Widder