Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Archived

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

evil dogooder

Wtc

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, Griff said:

Au Contraire... Buckaroos and Buckarettes don't have to knock down KD targets, but I don't find the same exclusion for Junior Boy/Girl competitors.   Refer to page 5, Shooter's Handbook, Ver 24.1, Jan., 2020.

Junior was as in not an adult.  The shooter is 13 but I wasn't going to go into details

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, John Barleycorn, SASS #76982 said:

Please tell me where you found this information.

SASS ROIII, If it doesn't leave the barrel, how can you check fps. It's an ammo failure not illegal ammo. Show me where it's written it's illegal.

The SASS ROII manual says, "Multiple squibs by a shooter will be cause for the TO to request the shooter
change ammo." It does not say penalize the shooter for not meeting power factor.

Unless, and until, the round can pass through a chronograph, it can't be tested therefore does not meet the definition for ammo not meeting power factor.

Now, if they are mousefart loads, not squibs (and you can tell the difference), then you test them. Don't say "I don't think those meet power factor, you're DQ'd" without testing them. If your club doesn't have the equipment, scale/bullet puller/chronograph, don't call the ammo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Following your argument to its logical conclusion is that ammo that cannot be chronographed because it can’t clear the barrel would not be able to be deemed illegal because it fails to meet power factor, and if it’s not illegal then it can be used. I contend that if it doesn’t have enough gas to clear the barrel, then it de facto doesn’t meet power factor, and thus illegal. I’m no lawyer but I have stayed at a Holliday Inn a few times lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Flying W Ramrod said:

The SASS ROII manual says, "Multiple squibs by a shooter will be cause for the TO to request the shooter
change ammo."

If the shooter declines that request the TO could, and in my opinion should, decline to run the timer for him. If no TO will run the timer for the shooter the shooter gets a DNF.

 

If the TO says STOP and the shooter continues and ‘shoots it out’ MDQ.

 

“Cease Fire” or “STOP!” – The command called out by the CRO/TO or any witnessing Range Officer/Match Official at any time an unsafe condition develops. The shooter must stop shooting and stop moving immediately. Willful failure to comply to a Cease Fire or Stop command given by, and while under the control of the CRO/TO will result in a Match Disqualification penalty assessment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, John Barleycorn, SASS #76982 said:

I hear your argument, but I contend that if it doesn’t have enough gas to clear the barrel, then it de facto doesn’t meet power factor. I’m no lawyer but I have stayed at a Holliday Inn a few times lol.

A Squib in any gun is an ammunition malfunction. RO1 page 23.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

A Squib in any gun is an ammunition malfunction. RO1 page 23.

No argument there. I simply contend that the power factor rule can be used to remedy repeated squibs, if a shooter refuses to change ammo, which I don’t think would happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

REF: SHB pp.26-27 - "Power Factor / Blackpowder Smoke Testing"

 

Quote

If the average velocity of the four rounds meets or exceeds the calculated power factor of 60 AND the minimum velocity of 400 fps, the loads will be considered legal.  If the loads do not meet the 60 power factor OR the minimum velocity of 400 fps, the competitor will be assessed a 30 second Spirit of the Game (SOG) penalty for the last stage completed.  Any subsequent stages completed with the illegal ammunition will result in the SOG penalty being assessed for those stages.  Two SOG penalties will result in a Match DQ

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, John Barleycorn, SASS #76982 said:

No argument there. I simply contend that the power factor rule can be used to remedy repeated squibs, if a shooter refuses to change ammo, which I don’t think would happen. 

I respectfully disagree.


Shotgun ammo isn’t subject to the power factor.

 

Even if it was subject to the minimum fps requirement and a squib counted as a zero, the remaining three rounds would only need to be traveling at 534 FPS for the average speed to exceed the minimum. Not to mention you would need to average a squib every four rounds to have much chance of catching it.

 

If the shooter repeatedly has squibs and refuses to, or can’t, change ammo it will be self correcting due to the penalties he picks up for unfired rounds. 
 

If the shooter WILLFULLY attempts to shoot it out that would fall under unsafe gun handling.

 

If the shooter ignores a stop/ceasefire command he gets an MDQ.

 

If the TO and/or spotters feel the shooter is unsafe they can refuse to TO or spot.

 

4 minutes ago, PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L said:

REF: SHB pp.26-27 - "Power Factor / Blackpowder Smoke Testing"

 

 

As I stated above I don’t believe this would be effective unless the shooter was getting a squib every other round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

Sweeping your hand isn't making the firearm safe or continuing with the next firearm.   SDQ for trying that one, if unloaded.  MDQ if loaded.  

 

 

I don't think so.  Unless it's changed, it's been said on the wire that you cannot be called for sweeping yourself. 

 

OP said the TO plucked out the wad, which kind of made me cringe.  But again, it would still be no penalty for sweeping because the TO moved his hand in front of the barrel, the shooter didn't move his barrel to the TO's hand.  We've also had clarifications on the wire that say if people are where they're not supposed to be and get swept when the 170 isn't being broken, it's their fault not the shooters. 

 

I agree you gotta be more careful if you're going to pluck out the wad, which is why I suggested alternative methods.  But if it's sticking out, that's what people are gunna do and I don't see how it's any less safe on the firing line than at the unloading table (or at the truck, or at home).  In all cases you need to make sure the gun is unloaded and maintain control of the barrel. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

I respectfully disagree.


Shotgun ammo isn’t subject to the power factor.

 

...

 

As I stated above I don’t believe this would be effective unless the shooter was getting a squib every other round.

 

My reference to the PF/MinVel testing section was in support of that position.

 

Suggest those who disagree READ the entire two pages (SHB pp. 26-27)

1) It only applies to R/P ammo.

2) The testing procedure involves pulling ammo from the firearm already loaded at the LT (imposible with an empty SG).

3) The continued use of R/P ammo that has failed the testing procedure is an SOG (x2=MDQ)

4) A squib (in any firearm) is an ammunition malfunction. The handling procedures are codified in the SHB, RO1, & RO2 

 

The ROC will soon be posting a statement regarding acceptable methods of making a SHOTGUN safe in a "squib" situation.

("shooting it out" is NOT an option)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ramblin Gambler said:

 

I don't think so.  Unless it's changed, it's been said on the wire that you cannot be called for sweeping yourself. 

 

OP said the TO plucked out the wad, which kind of made me cringe.  But again, it would still be no penalty for sweeping because the TO moved his hand in front of the barrel, the shooter didn't move his barrel to the TO's hand.  We've also had clarifications on the wire that say if people are where they're not supposed to be and get swept when the 170 isn't being broken, it's their fault not the shooters. 

 

I agree you gotta be more careful if you're going to pluck out the wad, which is why I suggested alternative methods.  But if it's sticking out, that's what people are gunna do and I don't see how it's any less safe on the firing line than at the unloading table (or at the truck, or at home).  In all cases you need to make sure the gun is unloaded and maintain control of the barrel. 

 

Look in SHB under penalties:

. Sweeping ANYONE with an unloaded firearm =SDQ

. Sweeping ANYONE with a loaded firearm=MDQ.   

(Pages 22 and 23 of version 23.2.  which is what I have here and handy.  I doubt it changed in the new version.) 

As is common, what you read here on the WIRE, or hear conversationally isn't always correct.  Shooters and Range Officials need to KNOW THE RULES.  The SHB is the correct source to consult.  

 

This one seems like a no brainer.  Recall the First NRA Gun Safety Rule:  Always keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction.  A blown off finger or hand will certainly ruin your CAS times for a while.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, John Barleycorn, SASS #76982 said:

As I already mentioned Squibs don’t meet power factor as they evidently are going 0 feet per second. If they cannot meet power factor there are procedures and penalties in place to be applied appropriately. 

The OP stated “shot dribbling out of the barrel” Shotguns are exempt from power factor other than the prohibition of magnum/high velocity rounds. If he had said squib in pistol or rifle AND you had a chronograph available to measure the average velocity of the next rounds loaded in the firearm following the procedure on page 26 of the SHB and the ammo failed then you could penalize for illegal ammo, otherwise  I would ask where would I find the rule you are following and it’s associated penalties?

 

Just Curious 

 

:FlagAm: :FlagAm: :FlagAm:

 

Gateway Kid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve explained my position twice, and that I was referring to center fire ammo as the discussion later evolved to what to do about repeated squib ammo. PW has spoken, so my solution of a de facto power factor ruling evidenced by bullets not clearing the barrel is not acceptable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, John Barleycorn, SASS #76982 said:

Following your argument to its logical conclusion is that ammo that cannot be chronographed because it can’t clear the barrel would not be able to be deemed illegal because it fails to meet power factor, and if it’s not illegal then it can be used. I contend that if it doesn’t have enough gas to clear the barrel, then it de facto doesn’t meet power factor, and thus illegal. I’m no lawyer but I have stayed at a Holliday Inn a few times lol.

Often, a squib will eject the shot, but not the wad.  To meet a power factor of 60, a 1 oz. load only has to go out at 137 fps.  (that's about the same as a 90 mph fastball pitch).  So it might be possible (albeit pretty unlikely) for some squibs to reach PF and still leave a wad in the bore, particularly on a tightly choked gun.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

We've also had clarifications on the wire that say if people are where they're not supposed to be and get swept when the 170 isn't being broken, it's their fault not the shooters. 

Even If the gun was a side by side, and it was open and empty of fired or unfired cases, I believe the TO was still required to instruct the shooter to make the gun safe and continue with the next gun.  The rules don't say anything to allow the TO to clear squib wads.  I don't envision "Safely assisting the shooter through the stage" to include a TO handling a gun to remedy a firearm malfunction on the stage.  Those tasks need to be done at the ULT, under ULTO supervision. 

 

But convolute this a step further.  If the CRO/TO improperly plucked out the stuck wad, causing his own hand to be swept, did he/she technically interfere with the shooter, causing an MDQ? (no call and reshoot?) 

I am just asking.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

Look in SHB under penalties:

. Sweeping ANYONE with an unloaded firearm =SDQ

. Sweeping ANYONE with a loaded firearm=MDQ.   

(Pages 22 and 23 of version 23.2.  which is what I have here and handy.  I doubt it changed in the new version.) 

As is common, what you read here on the WIRE, or hear conversationally isn't always correct.  Shooters and Range Officials need to KNOW THE RULES.  The SHB is the correct source to consult.  

 

This one seems like a no brainer.  Recall the First NRA Gun Safety Rule:  Always keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction.  A blown off finger or hand will certainly ruin your CAS times for a while.  

 

It was the Powers What Be who said that, not just some random people on the wire.  If I misremember, I'm sure the Powers What Be will break out the blue ink and correct me. 

 

As I recall, the Powers What Be (we'll just call them PWB for short from now on) said "You cannot sweep yourself" during a WTC on some topic I don't rightly remember (it probably had to do with holstering).  This caused some confusion, as some people interpreted it as it being illegal to sweep yourself, and others interpreted it as being impossible.  After a few pages of some very heated and entertaining arguments, someone finally figured out there were 2 possible meanings for the phrase and The PWB clarified that they meant it was impossible. 

 

As for your last post, I will defer to someone who has actually taken RO2 to comment on what the TO is required or allowed to do.  In the question I asked, I wasn't talking about a 13 year old Jr shooter, I was asking about what a full grown adult could do within the rules to save their clean match because that's my goal when I shoot.  People who wanna shoot fast think about things like transitions.  People who wanna shoot clean think about ways to recover from malfunctions (both mechanical and mental). 

 

I know you and I agree that it was a bad move on the part of the TO, and I assume almost everyone in the thread does too.  Especially if he didn't make sure the gun was open and empty first.  Even if you're of a mind that he's an adult and he can choose to take that risk if he wants, what if the gun was loaded and the kid had pulled the trigger.  That's an awful lot you're potentially putting on that kid's conscience.  Seems like people have a bad habit of breaking the rules to help out newbies and children.  I can support that to a certain extent as long as they don't break basic tenets of gun safety. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don’t know for sure and can’t look.  However, in my mind, a squib is a miss.  So, I don’t think a legitimate  “clean stage” was “going” after the first squib round was fired.

Handling firearms is serious business.  Codling or babying younger shooters as regards to rules and standards that adults must follow is a mistake, insults the young person, and can lead to dangerous circumstances, in my view.

Comments??  
 

Cat Brules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Cat Brules said:

Don’t know for sure and can’t look.  However, in my mind, a squib is a miss.  So, I don’t think a legitimate  “clean stage” was “going” after the first squib round was fired.

...

 

RE: SHOTGUN targets: "Shotgun targets may be re-engaged until down, unless otherwise specified by the stage description." (SHB p.16)

RE: REVOLVER targets...If a shooter has a squib in a revolver, that (and subsequent) shots may be made up by reloading the functional revolver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve had a shotgun wad stick. Finished stage using other barrel. 

Dad was wrong. Should get a talking to. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just my thoughts on question to the original O.P.:huh:

"Sorry young cowpoke.. Your shooting here is done today..

Because of your fathers tantrum (comments)"..

Both shooter and Dad might have realized their errors..

 

Rance ;)

Thinkin' just my thoughts.. Both problems solved..

also my thoughts.. "Safety issues galore":wacko::blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

Look in SHB under penalties:

. Sweeping ANYONE with an unloaded firearm =SDQ

. Sweeping ANYONE with a loaded firearm=MDQ.   

There is no penalty for sweeping yourself. Crossdraw shooters often sweep themselves. Non crossdraw shooters often sweep their own feet. As RG stated this has been addressed on the Wire before (more than once).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

Even If the gun was a side by side, and it was open and empty of fired or unfired cases, I believe the TO was still required to instruct the shooter to make the gun safe and continue with the next gun. 

 


This is incorrect. This issue is currently before the ROC and a determination has not been made.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Captain Bill Burt said:


This is incorrect. This issue is currently before the ROC and a determination has not been made.

 

I can accept that a review is in process.  I'm just reading the CURRENT rules.  They're pretty clear on the TO procedure:  

SECTION 4-RANGE OPERATIONS AND SAFETY RULES

 

Subheading ---STAGE CONVENTIONS

(Item #6) 

"In the case of a suspected squib, the CRO/TO will instruct the shooter to make the firearm safe and continue with the next firearm.  If the barrel is later determined to be clear, the shooter will receive a reshoot." 

 

That doesn't imply any TO discretion---- and this is a" Stage Convention"-level safety rule. 

 

The current ROC review is fine.  But while the rule is in the process of being reviewed, but is not yet changed, are you saying it is incorrect to follow the rule as written NOW?  That doesn't seem very operative, given that most SASS members have no way to know about the ongoing review. 

There has to be a rule that we can read and understand, without needing to be being clairvoyant.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

There is no penalty for sweeping yourself. Crossdraw shooters often sweep themselves. Non crossdraw shooters often sweep their own feet. As RG stated this has been addressed on the Wire before (more than once).

Do we go by the Wire, or the SHB? SHB pretty cleay says "Sweeping anyone with... ". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, irish ike, SASS #43615 said:

Dusty

As stated by PWB there is no power factor for shotgun loads!.

My point was that it a PF on shotgun would be moot, because any 1-oz load would pretty easily exceed it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

Do we go by the Wire, or the SHB? SHB pretty cleay says "Sweeping anyone with... ". 

 

It was determined MANY years ago that there is NO PENALTY for "self-sweeping" (for the reasons CBB noted)...REF: RO3

There ARE penalties for breaking the 170 (e.g. when reholstering into a X-draw), unsafe firearm handling (e.g. staging a long gun in an unsafe manner for downrange movement)...REF also: GF category regs.

 

In reference to the T/O "plucking" a stuck wad from the end of a SG barrel, the shooter would not be penalized for the T/O's action.

It could theoretically be done SAFELY by the shooter (e.g. w/action open & cleared) 

 

The ROC review is focused on what the shooter should be allowed to do in order to "make the firearm safe".

(as well as a few related "WtC?" Q&A's)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

Do we go by the Wire, or the SHB? SHB pretty clea(rl)y says "Sweeping anyone with... ". 

Frankly, I'm not just "anyone", ergo, if I sweep myself while holstering or other such, I'm not sweeping "anyone".  Another case of applying rules that don't exist.  Or applying rules using incorrect definitions.

 

The "sweeping of one's self" has been adjudicated long before there was a "SASS Wire"... Sweeping "anyone" ELSE is a violation of basic safety tenants.  And has an appropriate penalty listed in the SHB.

 

I see PWB beat me while I was watchin' TV.... :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L said:

 

It was determined MANY years ago that there is NO PENALTY for "self-sweeping" (for the reasons CBB noted)...REF: RO3

There ARE penalties for breaking the 170 (e.g. when reholstering into a X-draw), unsafe firearm handling (e.g. staging a long gun in an unsafe manner for downrange movement)...REF also: GF category regs.

 

In reference to the T/O "plucking" a stuck wad from the end of a SG barrel, the shooter would not be penalized for the T/O's action.

It could theoretically be done SAFELY by the shooter (e.g. w/action open & cleared) 

Respectfully,

Will the SHB be revised or footnoted in the Penalties Overview Section to reflect the apparently long-standing ROC interpretation that "Sweeping anyone" does not include the shooter sweeping himself? 

 

Recommendation: 

I feel we need a SHB that has all of the rules and interpretations written down in one book, and organized logically so they can be understood clearly and applied properly and equally across the SASS landscape.   I would recommend a format with numbered sections and subsections, and an index, in order to maintain logical and concise organization, consolidate redundancy and existing tangential discussions, and make it easier to find and cite specific rules.  

 

A CRO/TO shouldn't have to look in three or four places or in different books or manuals to find the applicable rules and interpretations to situations.  All of the past interpretations, like the one you cited, ought to be visibly included, at least as errata notes or footnotes in the SHB. 

 

Not everyone has been historically involved in the rule evolution, and not all SASS shooters have read the WIRE over the past decade or so.  The SHB is really the only go-to resource they have to guide their on-the-clock shooting decisions. 

 

In taking the timer, we have to rely principally on the SHB.  The supplemental RO training and manuals help for those of us who have taken the classes, but the majority of shooters don't have that as support.  There needs to be a process for getting all of the rules and interpretations into one handbook that all of the SASS shooters can have and read. 

 

The above are just my suggestions.  Apply whatever value they are worth.  I do write this respectfully of the time, process, and sincere effort that is continuously spent by the ROC and TGs in addressing interpretation and clarification, not the least of which are your clarification efforts (and endless patience) here on the WIRE.  I honestly don't mean to insult or test that patience with these comments. 

 

I note that prior to retirement, I had 25 + years  experience in legislative code writing (California State Fish and Game Code, CA Water Code, and CA State Resources Code).  In those transactions, we couldn't have unfootnoted omissions, conflicting sections or cumbersome organization. To do so assured they would be ineffective, unfair to the public, and unenforceable.   With that as a qualification, I'm happy to be of service however I can be, toward producing a better organized and comprehensive SHB.  And again, thank you for the service which all of you energetically provide to our sport. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone could be assigned to sit the dad down and explain the problem.  The young junior shooter could also be involved.  Most of the time that will be all that is needed.  This doesn't involve mine by the way.  They are no longer juniors :D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L said:

 

RE: SHOTGUN targets: "Shotgun targets may be re-engaged until down, unless otherwise specified by the stage description." (SHB p.16)

RE: REVOLVER targets...If a shooter has a squib in a revolver, that (and subsequent) shots may be made up by reloading the functional revolver.


Thanks very much.  I’m glad you are following this topic.

 

Cat Brules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

 

Not everyone has been historically involved in the rule evolution, and not all SASS shooters have read the WIRE over the past decade or so.  The SHB is really the only go-to resource they have to guide their on-the-clock shooting decisions. 

 

This is why you should:

1. Take RO classes (the SHB is NOT your only resource)

2. Use common sense when interpreting the rules. If your interpretation results in half the people shooting picking up a DQ you're probably not getting it right

3. Refrain from stating what the rules ARE and instead state what you BELIEVE them to be unless you are absolutely SURE

 

 

There's nothing wrong with some back and forth about the rules on a WTC thread, but if you're making incorrect statements about what the rules ARE you're a part of the problem, not the solution and you'll end up being publicly corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

Respectfully,

Will the SHB be revised or footnoted in the Penalties Overview Section to reflect the apparently long-standing ROC interpretation that "Sweeping anyone" does not include the shooter sweeping himself? 

 

Not likely

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Captain Bill Burt said:

This is why you should:

1. Take RO classes (the SHB is NOT your only resource)

2. Use common sense when interpreting the rules. If your interpretation results in half the people shooting picking up a DQ you're probably not getting it right

3. Refrain from stating what the rules ARE and instead state what you BELIEVE them to be unless you are absolutely SURE

 

 

There's nothing wrong with some back and forth about the rules on a WTC thread, but if you're making incorrect statements about what the rules ARE you're a part of the problem, not the solution and you'll end up being publicly corrected.

 If the majority of shooters in our sport can only be sure of what THEY BELIEVE  the rules to say, and only a select few can really know "what the rules actually ARE", then the writing of the rules is obviously inadequate.   The "select few" need to share their background and knowledge through more comprehensive and clearly organized rule writing. 

 

You can't run a fair or safe shooting organization with everyone having a different belief of what the rules mean or require.  If it's a RULE, it needs to have ONE intended meaning, and be crisply written to avoid the kinds of debate and misunderstanding we seem to get here on the WIRE over each of these WTC threads.  

 

Rule Book #1 should not have conflicting content to Rule Book #2.  When a published rule in our SHB  says that to "Sweep anyone" is a violation, then it has to mean ANYONE -- not anyone except some obscure exceptions known to a few, and scattered through a couple of other training manuals.  If those exceptions exist, they need to be footnoted and called out where the principal rule is printed.  That's especially true in shooting, if the exceptions allow unexpected things or things that do not follow common sense, like pointing firearms in unsafe directions, as in sweeping ones self (which BTW, is entirely avoidable, even during drawing/holstering if done with due diligence). 

 

Rules need to state what is allowed, required or prohibited.  There should not be overlapping or conflicting language in different sections or in different books, enabling different readers to have divergent or partial understanding  of what is meant.   Anyone should be able to read the SHB and KNOW (not just believe) what the actual rules ARE.  PWB very often simply cites the rules in responding here.  Any CRO/TO or any new shooter should be able to do the same and be correct.  The written rules should enable that by being concisely arranged, properly footnoted and clear.

 

I do realize that there will always be differing or new interpretations.  Some will point us toward valuable additions or revisions.  Others come from people with ill intent who TRY to bend rules to mean new things to their particular advantage.  The current Impeachment fiasco is an example or the latter.  Infringement on the clearly written Second Amendment is another.  But those I'll intended efforts need to be refutable by the clarity of the  written rules themselves.   (e. g.,  "shall not be infringed").  And the rules need to be arranged and indexed so they can be easily and quickly located.  The content of our SHB is really pretty logical and comprehensive, but nothing there is very easy to find, even if you routinely read the material over and over and over, as many of us here do.  You have to look at multiple places for nearly everything.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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