Drawing from a holster September 3, 2013

[chizzle]

Understood, I was responding to the mention that all rule changes required someone to volunteer update the printed rule book.

I have never liked reluctance to update the rule book as a reason not to consider changing the rules

I understand your point. Please be as kind as possible to SingleSix; he currently volunteers on the Board, at Friday Night Steel, and at Trap. I've been off the Board for a while now, but if I had to guess I would say he volunteers about 80 hours (two work weeks) per year. As somebody who handled that grind for ~5 years, I can understand not wanting to add even more work to his load. I am not saying that the work isn't important, just that more help achieving our goals is always appreciated.

Just an FYI (not trying to argue or persuade), editing rulebooks and sending copies to our members costs MCFG about $1500. While we talked about using only a digital version, many older members require a paper copy. When we didn't update the paper copies after some rule changes, we were inundated with safety concern forms, questions, and complaints. Printing and sending new books helped minimize that burden.

 

[WebSnyper]

I understand your point. Please be as kind as possible to SingleSix; he currently volunteers on the Board, at Friday Night Steel, and at Trap. I've been off the Board for a while now, but if I had to guess I would say he volunteers about 80 hours (two work weeks) per year. As somebody who handled that grind for ~5 years, I can understand not wanting to add even more work to his load. I am not saying that the work isn't important, just that more help achieving our goals is always appreciated.

Just an FYI (not trying to argue or persuade), editing rulebooks and sending copies to our members costs MCFG about $1500. While we talked about using only a digital version, many older members require a paper copy. When we didn't update the paper copies after some rule changes, we were inundated with safety concern forms, questions, and complaints. Printing and sending new books helped minimize that burden.

Understood on the thankless job. I appreciate everyone who makes it possible to have a club as great as MCF&G.

Maybe on the next renewal, folks could opt in if they need to have a paper rule book delivered and the default could be electronic delivery for those that did not state they needed a paper copy. I'm all for saving money on this kind of thing so it can be used on things more directly related to the range facilities.

Again, really appreciate the work all the volunteers, including the board members put in to make it all possible.

 

[chizzle]

Thank you for understanding. I think your idea regarding the Rule Book "opt out" section in the renewals is a good idea.

 

[Cameramonkey]

No big deal, but for what it's worth... I'm a former MCFG member that now drives to Atlanta to shoot. The MCFG ban on drawing from a holster was my whole reason for leaving MCFG to join Atlanta.

Im not a member, and this is one VERY minor reason I havent considered joining. While its not a deal breaker, it doesnt encourage me to want to be a member. After all, I want a range where I can practice ALL (OK, MOST) of my skills. Not just trigger control. Just an outsider's

 

[Wolverine6G]

I cannot attend on Tuesday. I am not a board member so there is no count in my vote.

I would however greatly appreciate it if this is passed.

 

[chizzle]

I think it would be a good idea to have a Board-approved USPSA RO on-site (or equivalent) whenever people are drawing, to serve the following purposes:

1) Instruction
2) DQ if necessary
3) Head off issues before they can result in a round leaving the range
4) Medical attention (dialing 911, etc.)

While I'm not worried about the seasoned USPSA competitor (folks like Coach, Chad, etc.), I could see new folks having potential issues. I think having a seasoned RO on-site would be a good idea while folks are practicing under match-like conditions. To me, I can't rationalize having an RO for a match, but not when folks are practicing under match-like conditions at MCFG. I know as a competitor, I'm a lot more likely to practice at my maximum speed (often to failure) but I reign it in at a match to keep my hits in check. If folks are less safe in practice (and we know we're DQ'ing people in matches), then I think we need some experienced supervision.

In the end I think it comes down to this. If you thought of all the folks that got DQ'ed from USPSA, Steel Challenge, and Friday Night Steel, would you want them practicing by themselves with nobody to reign them in? Would you want them practicing at your personal range? This isn't just for their safety, this is also for the liability of our club.

[video=youtube;zYvAxLX6OzE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYvAxLX6OzE[/video]

 

[chizzle]

Also, I forgot to say something to everybody involved:

THANK YOU!

I've seen a lot of instances at other clubs (and even at our own club in the past) where issues like this turn into heated battles. I really appreciate everybody discussing this issue professionally. While we'll never get 1100 members to agree on issues 100%, the fact that we can respectfully debate an issue, let the Board vote, and move ahead without hard feelings is a great sign for our club. Whatever happens, here's to a lively, friendly discussion at the Board meeting, and to the continued improvement of our club.

 

[chezuki]

I think it would be a good idea to have a Board-approved USPSA RO on-site (or equivalent) whenever people are drawing, to serve the following purposes:

1) Instruction
2) DQ if necessary
3) Head off issues before they can result in a round leaving the range
4) Medical attention (dialing 911, etc.)

While I'm not worried about the seasoned USPSA competitor (folks like Coach, Chad, etc.), I could see new folks having potential issues. I think having a seasoned RO on-site would be a good idea while folks are practicing under match-like conditions. To me, I can't rationalize having an RO for a match, but not when folks are practicing under match-like conditions at MCFG. I know as a competitor, I'm a lot more likely to practice at my maximum speed (often to failure) but I reign it in at a match to keep my hits in check. If folks are less safe in practice (and we know we're DQ'ing people in matches), then I think we need some experienced supervision.

In the end I think it comes down to this. If you thought of all the folks that got DQ'ed from USPSA, Steel Challenge, and Friday Night Steel, would you want them practicing by themselves with nobody to reign them in? Would you want them practicing at your personal range? This isn't just for their safety, this is also for the liability of our club.

[video=youtube;zYvAxLX6OzE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYvAxLX6OzE[/video]

Personally, none of the DQ's I've seen at matches have been draw related. I've seen several 180 violations, and a couple bangs after "if clear, hammer down", but nothing on the draw. I don't see how the draw is inherently "less safe" than rapid fire and shooting on the move, both of which are allowed in the bays. I've also seen ND's during reloads which are allowed as well. I'm not saying ND's on the draw are impossible, I just haven't seen it happen whereas I have seen them happen with other allowed practices.

 

[Coach]

You make great comments about the tone that we should have at the meeting this evening.

Requiring an RO or equivalent to be on site for this is just another way of saying no. It will either make it cost prohibitive, or impossible for the shooter to schedule, or create crowded conditions at certain times. We have to trust the members with guns on there own. It is done other places. People being Dq'ed in competitions are getting Dq'ed for infractions in many cases long before it gets really dangerous, and that is the way it should be. If there is an element of shooters who are members that are scaring the leadership about this decision then something should be done to root those people out of the membership, because they are unsafe no matter the rules.

 

[chizzle]

Sorry I wasn't able to make it tonight; I am anxious to hear how everything turns out.

 

[MontereyC6]

Sorry I wasn't able to make it tonight; I am anxious to hear how everything turns out.

Same here. I got hung up at a soccer game. Anyone have an update on how the meeting went?

 

[pudly]

I generally attend one MCFG meeting/year and this one reminded me why I don't like watching the sausage being made. There were statements both for and against holster draw. All really do want the best for the club and safety, despite their differences.

Bottom line:

• The proposed rule change is not currently in a form that can be voted on and inserted into the club rules. A committee has been started to more concretely define the rule change.
• No one currently knows what this might do to insurance rates. That is being investigated.
• Once proposed language is constructed, the board will make an effort to get the info out to the membership for comment. I consider this step a positive lesson learned from the range officer snafu this last year.
• After comment and possible updates, then the rule change will be put up for a board vote.
• Given all of these steps, I'd be surprised if any change happens before the new year, if then.

Some related issues raised at the meeting: People expressed legitimate concerns about "marginal safety" of some members. Also, there were concerns because a misfire related to holstering will most likely go down and possibly ricochet off of the concrete on the main firing line. A question was also raised about how this might affect training requirements. Real concerns were expressed about shoulder holsters and sweeping people. My opinion is that the proposal will end up restricting all holster fire to the bays were there is far less likelihood of serious incidents. There may also be some changes needed to satisfy insurance (higher berms, baffles, training, etc).

 

[chizzle]

I generally attend one MCFG meeting/year and this one reminded me why I don't like watching the sausage being made. There were statements both for and against holster draw. All really do want the best for the club and safety, despite their differences.

Bottom line:

• The proposed rule change is not currently in a form that can be voted on and inserted into the club rules. A committee has been started to more concretely define the rule change.
• No one currently knows what this might do to insurance rates. That is being investigated.
• Once proposed language is constructed, the board will make an effort to get the info out to the membership for comment. I consider this step a positive lesson learned from the range officer snafu this last year.
• After comment and possible updates, then the rule change will be put up for a board vote.
• Given all of these steps, I'd be surprised if any change happens before the new year, if then.

Some related issues raised at the meeting: People expressed legitimate concerns about "marginal safety" of some members. Also, there were concerns because a misfire related to holstering will most likely go down and possibly ricochet off of the concrete on the main firing line. A question was also raised about how this might affect training requirements. Real concerns were expressed about shoulder holsters and sweeping people. My opinion is that the proposal will end up restricting all holster fire to the bays were there is far less likelihood of serious incidents. There may also be some changes needed to satisfy insurance (higher berms, baffles, training, etc).

Thank you for summarizing. I have good friends on both sides of the debate, and I'm glad to see that the Board decided to get some feedback from membership and create a concrete plan before moving this issue to a vote. One of my biggest challenges when I was on the Board was keeping interested members informed, and it sounds like the Board is doing a better job than I ever did. Thanks to everybody for keeping a cool head and discussing this important issue.

 

[Coach]

I generally attend one MCFG meeting/year and this one reminded me why I don't like watching the sausage being made. There were statements both for and against holster draw. All really do want the best for the club and safety, despite their differences.

Bottom line:

• The proposed rule change is not currently in a form that can be voted on and inserted into the club rules. A committee has been started to more concretely define the rule change.
• No one currently knows what this might do to insurance rates. That is being investigated.
• Once proposed language is constructed, the board will make an effort to get the info out to the membership for comment. I consider this step a positive lesson learned from the range officer snafu this last year.
• After comment and possible updates, then the rule change will be put up for a board vote.
• Given all of these steps, I'd be surprised if any change happens before the new year, if then.

Some related issues raised at the meeting: People expressed legitimate concerns about "marginal safety" of some members. Also, there were concerns because a misfire related to holstering will most likely go down and possibly ricochet off of the concrete on the main firing line. A question was also raised about how this might affect training requirements. Real concerns were expressed about shoulder holsters and sweeping people. My opinion is that the proposal will end up restricting all holster fire to the bays were there is far less likelihood of serious incidents. There may also be some changes needed to satisfy insurance (higher berms, baffles, training, etc).

I recall that insurance is not an issue after a quick look online. But a call was to be made to be certain.

 

[chezuki]

Sorry I couldn't make it, the wife had other plans for me on her day off. Thanks Coach and others for getting the ball rolling.

 

[BravoMike]

Well I wouldn't have made it to the meeting anyway because of work, but I just saw this thread and would have been interested in attending this meeting if I could.

I also support a rule change to allow drawing from the holster. I would understand if it was limited to the bays. The rules already emphasize that all bullets must hit the backstop. We trust people to take 100 yard shots and there is no limit on how fast you may fire.

Thank you for understanding. I think your idea regarding the Rule Book "opt out" section in the renewals is a good idea.

I too think this is an excellent idea that may help save money. I would opt out and if needed, I would print the rules myself. I don't know how possible it is with our current website, but I would also be in support of paying renewals online and no physical mailings would be required.

 

[nad63]

Thank you for summarizing. I have good friends on both sides of the debate, and I'm glad to see that the Board decided to get some feedback from membership and create a concrete plan before moving this issue to a vote. One of my biggest challenges when I was on the Board was keeping interested members informed, and it sounds like the Board is doing a better job than I ever did. Thanks to everybody for keeping a cool head and discussing this important issue.

For such a hot topic there were few people it attendence at the meeting. I believe there were 11 total not includind board members and new people wanting to join.
The board will be making the decision whether or not to allow drawing from a holster (4 votes needed). The wish to get feedback from members regarding this matter which seems to be a weak link in the system right now. I imagine a flyer of some sort will accompany the annual renewel paperwork when it is sent out. No immediate resolution is likely (plus a definitive proposal is to be provided oulining what is acceptable under 'drawing from a holster' curtesy of Chris Pope/Coach and all/any volunteers interested in contributing).
The feeling I got was some people will automatically vote against it because it's new/change/progressive and probably have absolutely no intention of drawing from a holster but feel inclined to deny others the opportunity under the guise of safety.
I also got the feeling that the board was still open minded enough to listen, gather more information and objectively review and vote on the proposition once it is completed.
This issue is not dead by any means and any momentum that can be gained by either side will likely decide it's fate.
I am in favor of allowing drawing from a holster and having a safe place to shoot and they are not mutually exclusive.

 

[cosermann]

No big deal, but for what it's worth... I'm a former MCFG member that now drives to Atlanta to shoot. The MCFG ban on drawing from a holster was my whole reason for leaving MCFG to join Atlanta.

+1

Im not a member, and this is one VERY minor reason I havent considered joining. While its not a deal breaker, it doesnt encourage me to want to be a member. After all, I want a range where I can practice ALL (OK, MOST) of my skills. Not just trigger control. Just an outsider's

It was a litmus test for me. Again, not a MCFG member, but it ended my consideration of joining.

Hope this all works out well for the MCFG folks.

 

[chizzle]

+1



It was a litmus test for me. Again, not a MCFG member, but it ended my consideration of joining.

Hope this all works out well for the MCFG folks.

Do any other ranges within Marion County (indoors or outdoors) allow drawing from a holster?

 

[singlesix]

Do any other ranges within Marion County (indoors or outdoors) allow drawing from a holster?

I know Eagle Creek Pistol Range doesn't allow drawing from the holster. That being said really doesn't matter what other ranges allow or don't allow this is a matter for MCFG. No matter what is decided some people will take their ball and not play anymore. I remember people were upset when the automatic gate went into place.