Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Rule Change


BootStrap Phil

Recommended Posts

As posted last night from Pale Wolf, this should be fun.

 

Proposed rule change:
Eliminate the automatic Stage DQ penalty for leaving the loading table with a cocked rifle.
In such instances, the shooter will be directed to point the rifle safely into the back berm, bring the hammer to full cock if it is in the half-cock/safety position, then pull the trigger.

If no round is fired, the shooter will be directed to finish staging firearms in order to start the stage (No Call).
If a round fires when the shooter pulls the trigger, the shooter will be assessed a Stage DQ and directed to proceed to the unloading table.

 

PASSED by vote of the Territorial Governors.
YES - 208 (75.3%)
NO -- 68 (24.6%)

Effective January 2020

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply
 

I would have voted to keep the rule as it is.  I don't like changing gun safety rules, it's a disaster waiting to happen.

 

It's a done deal now.  The horse is dead.  No point in beating him further.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I would have voted to keep the rule as it is.  I don't like changing gun safety rules, it's a disaster waiting to happen.

 

Is it? I have seen many times where someone got a stage dq for having the hammer back going to the line, and have heard of it happening hundreds of times at least in the last 5 years all across the country. I have yet to hear of one single time where the hammer back caused a disaster. I fail to see how removing the penalty would have caused a disaster in any of those instances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

They why is it still a SDQ if my shotgun closed between the LT and the firing line???????

 

The rule change only applies to RIFLES 

The applicable rule is a SDQ for:

Changing location/moving with a live round under a cocked hammer or firearm with the hammer down on a live round.

 

Regarding shotguns closing from the LT to the stage, it depends on what type shotgun.

An external-hammer SxS or single-shot shotgun would be a "no call" if the hammer(s) are down on empty chamber(s). (Same condition a rifle is brought from the LT...simply open the shotgun before staging).

 

A hammerless SxS, single-shot, 1897, or 1887 which is cocked on opening that closes would be a SDQ.

Changing location with a long gun with the action closed and the hammer cocked. 

SHB p.23 - Stage Disqualification

Best practice is to immediately STOP and open the shotgun (assisted if necessary).
or
Learn to carry the shotgun in a manner which doesn't cause it to close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The rule change only applies to RIFLES

It only applies to Rifles from the LT to the staged position.

 

Moving with a closed, cocked rifle during the course of fire or from the stage to the ULT will also still be a SDQ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just more "dumbing down" of safety rules that have been in place as long as I've been shooting SASS. If someone can't pay attention or doesn't care to pay attention to a simple rule like hammer down on the rifle before proceeding to the line, what makes anyone think they care any other safety rules? I guess this rule change is so someone doesn't get their feelings hurt and go home. To that, I say tough toenails......pay attention. This is a unnecessary and bad rule change.

 

YMMV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This IS the rule change.  There was ample time to debate it and let your feelings known to your TG.  If you did not, then you have no room to complain. 

If your TG didn't bring the issue up before the club to find out how you wanted him/her to vote, then perhaps it is time for a different TG.

If your TG voted a different way than the majority of the club wanted him/her to vote, then perhaps it is time for a different TG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This is just more "dumbing down" of safety rules that have been in place as long as I've been shooting SASS. If someone can't pay attention or doesn't care to pay attention to a simple rule like hammer down on the rifle before proceeding to the line, what makes anyone think they care any other safety rules? I guess this rule change is so someone doesn't get their feelings hurt and go home. To that, I say tough toenails......pay attention. This is a unnecessary and bad rule change.

 

YMMV

68 TGs agreed with you. 

208 disagreed.  

End of trail. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

68 TGs agreed with you. 

208 disagreed.  

End of trail. 

DDD,

That's true, roughly 1/3 voted against the rule change. The passage of the rule change doesn't mean that I can't disagree with it here on the Wire. When the State of California make a new asinine gun law in the "name of safety", do you have to like it and not let your thoughts be known? I sure do hope not. I have to wonder what the vote would have been if all current/paid up to date SASS members were to vote. Doesn't matter now, it is what it is. I will, as the TO, follow the new rule accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm disappointed it passed, but I'm floored  it passed by that much. Somebody walking to the line with a shotgun in one hand and a cocked rifle in the other, possibly with a live round in the chamber, seems to have bad idea written all over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This IS the rule change.  There was ample time to debate it and let your feelings known to your TG.  If you did not, then you have no room to complain. 

If your TG didn't bring the issue up before the club to find out how you wanted him/her to vote, then perhaps it is time for a different TG.

If your TG voted a different way than the majority of the club wanted him/her to vote, then perhaps it is time for a different TG.

What are you talking about? This is America. We are the best in the world at not voting and complaining about the results afterward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

DDD,

That's true, roughly 1/3 voted against the rule change. The passage of the rule change doesn't mean that I can't disagree with it here on the Wire. When the State of California make a new asinine gun law in the "name of safety", do you have to like it and not let your thoughts be known? I sure do hope not. I have to wonder what the vote would have been if all current/paid up to date SASS members were to vote. Doesn't matter now, it is what it is. I will, as the TO, follow the new rule accordingly.

And how has that been working out for you? Personally, when a new asinine comes out here, I find bitching about it on a web site to be a pretty futile effort.

 

By the way, in your analogy it's you that are lobbying for the "asinine gun law in the 'name of safety'"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I usually stay away from rule discussions being a new guy, but can some one explain why ifLearn to carry the shotgun in a manner which doesn't cause it to close." is a valid response to a SxS closing by accident and it is still a SDQ. Why wasn't "Learn to lower your rifle's hammer before loading it." the response to leaving the LT with a known loaded weapon with the hammer back? I'm not trying to be a smart a?? I would like to understand the logic of the decision.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Ok, I usually stay away from rule discussions being a new guy, but can some one explain why ifLearn to carry the shotgun in a manner which doesn't cause it to close." is a valid response to a SxS closing by accident and it is still a SDQ. Why wasn't "Learn to lower your rifle's hammer before loading it." the response to leaving the LT with a known loaded weapon with the hammer back? I'm not trying to be a smart a?? I would like to understand the logic of the decision.

 

The agenda item that was approved for a vote (and subsequently passed) only addressed moving with a cocked RIFLE from the LT.

That had been discussed "as is" for the past 2+ years; having been approved for a TG vote in 2018 and reiterated in 2019.
REF: 2018 EoT TG meeting & 2019 EoT TG meeting

There was no rule change proposed regarding SHOTGUNS (which are generally not loaded at the LT).

Closed shotguns from the LT had previously been addressed in a number of "WtC?" threads on the various SASS Wires over a year ago.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And how has that been working out for you? Personally, when a new asinine comes out here, I find bitching about it on a web site to be a pretty futile effort.

 

By the way, in your analogy it's you that are lobbying for the "asinine gun law in the 'name of safety'"

 

I fail to understand how I'm lobbying for the new rule in any manner. In case you didn't figure it out, I'm against the new rule. The rescinded rule has been in place for at least 22 years since I've been in SASS and has NOT resulted in any unintentional discharge that I'm aware of.  Perhaps, with your vast knowledge and experience, you can refer to an instance where the old rule caused any thing other than a stage DQ. 

 

As far as "bitching" about the rule change, I am permitted to voice my displeasure here on the Wire as long as I remain in the guidelines provided. Are suggesting that anyone with an opposing view point, other than your own, remain quiet or should be stifled? If so, I suggest a refresher course on the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. Maybe you're just used to having you rights trampled......I'm not.

 

As I stated, I'll abide by the new rule just as I did the old rule. I don't need you to tell me what I should post or which rules I should like or dislike. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow ... missed that. 

Not arguing ... just curious ... I know I am out of the loop most of the time but I didn't see anything about this in the October 2019 Chronicle ... Perhaps TG activities would make a good article there ... probably was there and I missed it. 

The last item mentioned in the TG Bulletin Archive is dated 2010 ... https://www.sassnet.com/TG-Archivet-001A.php

Do you have to be on facebook or something?? 

What else are they voting on ... or have voted on?? 

 

Edit: Never mind!! Found a pretty good accounting/agenda on the Dulzura Desperados website ... I should have know it would be right there ... :mellow:

http://www.dulzuradesperados.com/2017/03/notes-from-territorial-governors-meeting/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I fail to understand how I'm lobbying for the new rule in any manner. In case you didn't figure it out, I'm against the new rule. The rescinded rule has been in place for at least 22 years since I've been in SASS and has NOT resulted in any unintentional discharge that I'm aware of.  Perhaps, with your vast knowledge and experience, you can refer to an instance where the old rule caused any thing other than a stage DQ. 

 

As far as "bitching" about the rule change, I am permitted to voice my displeasure here on the Wire as long as I remain in the guidelines provided. Are suggesting that anyone with an opposing view point, other than your own, remain quiet or should be stifled? If so, I suggest a refresher course on the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. Maybe you're just used to having you rights trampled......I'm not.

 

As I stated, I'll abide by the new rule just as I did the old rule. I don't need you to tell me what I should post or which rules I should like or dislike. 

I didn't say you were arguing for a new rule. I said you were arguing for an "asinine safety rule", which is what you referred to as the gun laws in California, and the voting super majority feel about the cocked rifle rule.

 

Yes you can voice whatever opinion you like.  I never said you couldn't (though you might want to take that Constitution and Bill of Rights refresher course yourself and hopefully understand how your rights do not extend to private property). I merely asked how effective that has been for you in the past. SASS, for right or wrong, has a process in place in which you can use to change anything you don't like. The very same process that overturned this very rule in fact. Perhaps try that approach first would be my suggestion. Unless you can educate me on an instance in which bitching over the internet was actually effective in making a change. Then I will stand corrected while eating humble pie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 By in large keeping control over your muzzle and your finger off the trigger mitigates any potential danger when moving with a firearm.  As with most firearm rules and regulations the anti's hide behind and promote more layers of rules and regulations in the name of safety while failing to properly enforce and regulate rules already in effect.  What is actually dangerous when moving with a firearm?  Poor muzzle control and your finger on the trigger.  This is true from the loading table to the firing line, while firing and from the firing line to the unloading table.   The hammer back rule has bitten many folks mostly newer shooters but veterans as well.  The Marlin was by far the largest violator of half cock in my experience, for what ever that's worth.  I am often amazed and amused at how many folks get their shorts in a wad over things both large and small this is one of the small ones and one we could lose without any heartburn as your safety is already covered adequately by other rules.  The club I'm TG for voted to not change the rule, however, I was NOT polled and a quick check shows the TG change was not noted by SASS, our fault, my fault but in any event we didn't vote.  If I had it would have been not to change the rule.

12 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the answer PaleWolf. I was unclear on the process used for things like this. I have to say in the year and a half I've been doing this I don't recall ever seeing someone come to the line with a rifle hammer back, but good to know what the new rule is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, its bad Mo-Jo, and here is why.

 

I have seen dozens of 'No -Fires' on the 1st hammer strike because of high primers.

2nd hammer strike or sudden bump and 'BLAM' goes the round.   

 

Now, some of you who don't believe me just load some ammo up with a high primer, stick it

in your chamber, cock the hammer and pull the trigger.     Then share with all of us the results.

 

Dropping the hammer and getting no results IS NOT an indication that the chamber is empty.

 

Sorry fellers, that just how it is.

 

EDIT:  I was never crazy about the SDQ penalty for this infraction.   But to 'test' or check a firearm

to see if the chamber is empty or not by dropping the hammer ain't exactly a sure fire

test process.

 

..........Widder

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In my opinion, its bad Mo-Jo, and here is why.

 

I have seen dozens of 'No -Fires' on the 1st hammer strike because of high primers.

2nd hammer strike or sudden bump and 'BLAM' goes the round.   

 

Now, some of you who don't believe me just load some ammo up with a high primer, stick it

in your chamber, cock the hammer and pull the trigger.     Then share with all of us the results.

 

Dropping the hammer and getting no results IS NOT an indication that the chamber is empty.

 

Sorry fellers, that just how it is.

 

..........Widder

 

 

If/when that happens (while resolving a cocked rifle situation), ejection of the unfired round when the rifle is levered to begin the shooting string would result in the same SDQ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I fail to understand how I'm lobbying for the new rule in any manner. In case you didn't figure it out, I'm against the new rule. The rescinded rule has been in place for at least 22 years since I've been in SASS and has NOT resulted in any unintentional discharge that I'm aware of.  Perhaps, with your vast knowledge and experience, you can refer to an instance where the old rule caused any thing other than a stage DQ. 

 

 

FWIW - The rescinded rule was NOT universally applied throughout the SASS community for that length of time.

It was only added to the SHB in 2009 (see item #21).

 

Previous to that, there were Regional variations (including the rule as changed).

The ROC (at that time) discussed the two primary applications and voted to standardize and codify the rule.

(That vote was not unanimous, BTW)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

FWIW - The rescinded rule was NOT universally applied throughout the SASS community for that length of time.

It was only added to the SHB in 2009 (see item #21).

 

Previous to that, there were Regional variations (including the rule as changed).

The ROC (at that time) discussed the two primary applications and voted to standardize and codify the rule.

(That vote was not unanimous, BTW)

 

 

 

I stand corrected, I was mistaken. You DO have vast knowledge and experience and I sure do appreciate that. Thank you for all that you do for SASS and the rest of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I didn't say you were arguing for a new rule. I said you were arguing for an "asinine safety rule", which is what you referred to as the gun laws in California, and the voting super majority feel about the cocked rifle rule.

 

Yes you can voice whatever opinion you like.  I never said you couldn't (though you might want to take that Constitution and Bill of Rights refresher course yourself and hopefully understand how your rights do not extend to private property). I merely asked how effective that has been for you in the past. SASS, for right or wrong, has a process in place in which you can use to change anything you don't like. The very same process that overturned this very rule in fact. Perhaps try that approach first would be my suggestion. Unless you can educate me on an instance in which bitching over the internet was actually effective in making a change. Then I will stand corrected while eating humble pie.

 

I'm really not not try argue with you, however.....

 

My rights DO extend to private property. Not applicable in this case but reread the 7th Amendment.

 

Bitching on the internet? Why do you think this rule got changed? It sure wasn't by local bitching, think SASS Wire, Facebook, Twitter and the like.

 

As far as further comment on this between you and I, please PM me with your phone number and I'll be happy to converse about out differences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

DDD,

That's true, roughly 1/3 voted against the rule change. The passage of the rule change doesn't mean that I can't disagree with it here on the Wire. When the State of California make a new asinine gun law in the "name of safety", do you have to like it and not let your thoughts be known? I sure do hope not. I have to wonder what the vote would have been if all current/paid up to date SASS members were to vote. Doesn't matter now, it is what it is. I will, as the TO, follow the new rule accordingly.

I encourage everyone here to speak their mind and I will continue to enjoy and learn by reading your posts.  In this case, I agree with most of your points.  But when the horse is outside the barn, he is much harder to catch.  And this horse is now long gone.  I just don't have the energy or time to stand and fight on this one.   

 

I will continue to make sure my hammer is fully down on an empty chamber.  I'm sure you will too, as will probably all of us.  There is no time or other advantage afforded by doing otherwise.  So it was probably never an intentional violation by anyone.  Despite the existence of the Rule, it still occasionally happened. 

 

But we can all continue to practice safety without the threat of a DQ, as incentive, can't we?  I really don't see the rule change affecting much.  Most of us have made the mistake and earned the penalty once in the past.  And after that experience, few if us will ever do it again, rule or no rule.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.