- Location
- WMU248 near Edmonton
Canadian Army requests rule exemption for members shooting IDPA
- Thread starter bclinehand
- Start date
Storm this how I look at it, a big percentage of the shooters at our club are in law enforcement. They have the option of shooting wearing concealment or wearing their duty belt with all the fix'ns . This allows those shooters to "practice" with the same tools they need to keep themselves and us safe. (thanks BTW)
We also have shooters in the military (our club is smack dab in the middle between two bases). Until the exemption unless they were an MP they had to shoot concealed. Now they can wear their gear with all the fix'ns. This allows those shooters to "practice" with the same tools they need to keep themselves and each other safe. (thanks BTW)
There was a legitimate reason for the request and the exemption was put in place. A specific group requested a specific exemption. Because the exemption is so specific the NOTE in the OP was to let the rest of know they can, we can't, the exemption only applies to them.
I'm a civilian, I can't wear a duty belt. Does it bother me, not really. Could I get drop leg envy, sure. Will it make me walk away, nope.
WESTICLE THE BESTICLE said:
Where do you put the paddles?
Storm this how I look at it, a big percentage of the shooters at our club are in law enforcement. They have the option of shooting wearing concealment or wearing their duty belt with all the fix'ns . This allows those shooters to "practice" with the same tools they need to keep themselves and us safe. (thanks BTW)
We also have shooters in the military (our club is smack dab in the middle between two bases). Until the exemption unless they were an MP they had to shoot concealed. Now they can wear their gear with all the fix'ns. This allows those shooters to "practice" with the same tools they need to keep themselves and each other safe. (thanks BTW)
There was a legitimate reason for the request and the exemption was put in place. A specific group requested a specific exemption. Because the exemption is so specific the NOTE in the OP was to let the rest of know they can, we can't, the exemption only applies to them.
I'm a civilian, I can't wear a duty belt. Does it bother me, not really. Could I get drop leg envy, sure. Will it make me walk away, nope.
Where do you put the paddles?
Well put and thank you.
bclinehand
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Clearwater B.C.
Infractions for what ?
Off the top of my head rules #5 and 14 come to mind .
As for the logic behind the "NOTE" by which I assume you mean that IDPA members who are not part of the above "EXEMPTION" cannot use thigh rigs.........I am not the owner of IDPA international nor do I produce the rule book or write the exemptions or interpretations of the rules......but here goes seems pretty simple
THE RULES STATE THAT:
ALL COURSES OF FIRE SHALL BE SHOT USING A COVER GARMENT
LEO ARE EXEMPT FROM THE USE OF A COVER GARMENT PROVIDED THEY USE THEIR DUTY RIG
and now we have the exemption for service personel.
Regardless of what you or anyone else think about the rules they are part of the game we choose to shoot.
I don't shoot IPSC but I am sure there are rules there that I would not agree with(maybe not?) but I don"t ##### and complain about them for the simple fact that I don't shoot IPSC at this point and complaining about rules that do not affect me is pointless.
Fact of the matter is, and I would put money on it is that the only people complaining are guys who are:
A) Not IDPA members
B) Guys who are going to complain no matter what happens.
I like the fact that our men and women in uniform have another venue to enhance their handgun skills and train in the kit they will be wearing when they come into harms way.
Does it bother me that I cannot wear a thigh rig ........not at all .
I shoot IDPA to compete and I would not be the least bit competitive in the gear that the exemption requires.
- Location
- currently downrange
I think this is great. Thank you IDPA for making an exception to allow the CF to practice in our duty gear. I have steered away from competitive shooting organizations for years and this actually gets my interest up in trying IDPA.
I do not think anyone who shows up at an IDPA match in armour, helmet, and drop rigs gives a toss about whether they are competitive against the guy in a Tshirt but competition will drive a troop to excel and develop his skill. I also know that most soldiers will not bother to drag all their kit down to a match on their own time and spending their own dime if they were not also having a big bag of fun, and making empty casings is fun to any soldier worth their rations.
I do not think anyone who shows up at an IDPA match in armour, helmet, and drop rigs gives a toss about whether they are competitive against the guy in a Tshirt but competition will drive a troop to excel and develop his skill. I also know that most soldiers will not bother to drag all their kit down to a match on their own time and spending their own dime if they were not also having a big bag of fun, and making empty casings is fun to any soldier worth their rations.
- Location
- Peace River, Alberta
IDPA and our new shooting friends
Bob,
I want to personally say thanks to making sure that our fellow citizens that protect our rights can come down and shoot and have a good time with us who belong to the IDPA family.
To those who want to argue this, ya whatever especially to those who don't even hold the gold card or don't ever intend to. I will be enjoying the day shooting with my new friends while the other that just don't get it sit on the sidelines and watch on.
Greg
Bob,
I want to personally say thanks to making sure that our fellow citizens that protect our rights can come down and shoot and have a good time with us who belong to the IDPA family.
To those who want to argue this, ya whatever especially to those who don't even hold the gold card or don't ever intend to. I will be enjoying the day shooting with my new friends while the other that just don't get it sit on the sidelines and watch on.
Greg
banskopivo
CGN Regular
- Location
- Sherwood Park AB
you know what I love about IDPA, I can shoot it wearing nothing but a raincoat as a cover garmet......
lets see you wieners keep up with that
EEWWWWW.....
(sorry John)
EEWWWWW.....
Dear God that vision is back again. I wonder if I can get to HQ before they print the next rule book revision. With my luck it is already at the printers...
Take Care
Bob
banskopivo
CGN Regular
- Location
- Sherwood Park AB
See "red speedo"...
Steve David
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Oshawa, Ontario
RePete and I are already working on this.
stormbringer
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- S.W. Ontario
If this is not directed at me please ignore the following.
It it is then of course it applies.
No I do not hold a "gold card"........well not an IDPA one at least. So no I do not currently shoot IDPA. That said I have shot various *DPAs in the past. I have considered shooting IDPA and even thought I might set it up at my club.
The only problem I ever had was the somewhat "s**tty" attitude that many of the IDPAer highter eschelon appear to have. This thread has confirmed much of that opinion. Of course the other problem of IDPA being privately owned is also a factor.
As it stands now I will not be sitting on the "side lines' as you suggest. Instead I think that I will keep on doing what I have been doing shooting and organizing IPSC matches, newbie shoots, expanding my clubs faciliities as well as acting as a liason between the club and the various police forces that utilize our facility. That is already enough to keep me busy.
The exemption does make sense but the disallowing of "civie" use of that exemption is problematic in my eyes. As I said before any rule that differentiates based on anything but proven skill level is patently wrong.
You obviously missed BClinehand's post or simply chose to ignore it, regarding why civies can't use leg holsters.
You also paid little attention to what 6gm6 had to say. Go back and read his post. It is typical of the emails and PM's I have received regarding this exemption. All our members, including the CF folks, enjoy shooting IDPA. Why? Well for self improvement, the fun of competition, and the comrade it brings out being with guys and gals who enjoy playing the game to name a couple. Oh ya, I almost forgot the 12 cent certificates and the five minute bragging rights rate right up there somewhere.
Despite your comments above, here is what you originally said, "I do not like the distinction of "us / them" that this iplies in IPSC. So I guess I am fair in not liking it in IDPA either."
Well from the comments from the IDPA shooters here and from those I have received via email and PM there is not one shred of evidence of "we/Them" in any of their comments. Just us and us are happy with that. You should be too.
Take Care
Bob
actually Bob I'm going to disagree with a part of your comment. There is a distinct "Us" and "Them" hence the need for this exemption. I don't look at it as a "Us" vs "Them", because, in my opinion, the separator is simply their job. It's not a fight or even a competition between gear, it's simply a difference in gear. that's it. They get to use the same gear they use in real life, just like the CCW aspect of IDPA, born from the USA, expects civilian members to conceal. Were the mass majority of people the USA allowed to open carry, or if we could in Canada, then I would assume the rules would be such to allow people to shoot in IDPA with rigs suited to that purpose. This isn't dividing people or singling them out as seems to be suggested by some, but in fact is bringing competitors together. As I've stated, I wish IPSC would apply their limited exemption the same way.
stormbringer
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- S.W. Ontario
Bob, in fact I did read both BClinehand and 6gm6's posts on the subject in great detail.
They fact give great example of why the exemption was considered and why it was applied to the Military and LEOS..
Of course that is pretty much a useless point in this "debate" such as it is because as I have pointed out several times I have ZERO problem with the idea/concept of encouraging participation by any people be they military, police, brownies, etc in any sort of shooting sport.
None of their posts................or anyone elses posts to date have acutally addressed in a logical manner the WHY of the exemption from the exemption of non military or police competitors. Well aside from the predicably mind numbing.........."thems the rules" replies.
Now as to the US/THEM concept, that might be a bad choice of words on my part. I was using it simply exemplify the fact that this creates two classes of shooters. There are those to which this exemption applies. If there are two groups then there are those who are "in one group" of which I apply and thus ascribe the US moniker and there are those who are in the other group of which I am not a member. It is therefore defacto that they must be the "them" of which I speak.
Now I should have realized the negative connotations of my choice of the "us/them" concept as it is normally ascribed to areas of conflict which of course this is patently not one.
In my mind there are nothing but artificial reasons why this course of action was taken by the owners of IDPA. I have no problem what so ever in them deciding what ever they want in their product. Likewise I should be free to question the efficacy of said positions which is exactly what I have done.
In my ever so perfect world a new class of "trooper" or some other would have meant the best of both worlds allowing serving people the chance to try a dynamic game and gain training at the same time allowing those civilians who wish to participate under the same constraints.
They fact give great example of why the exemption was considered and why it was applied to the Military and LEOS..
Of course that is pretty much a useless point in this "debate" such as it is because as I have pointed out several times I have ZERO problem with the idea/concept of encouraging participation by any people be they military, police, brownies, etc in any sort of shooting sport.
None of their posts................or anyone elses posts to date have acutally addressed in a logical manner the WHY of the exemption from the exemption of non military or police competitors. Well aside from the predicably mind numbing.........."thems the rules" replies.
Now as to the US/THEM concept, that might be a bad choice of words on my part. I was using it simply exemplify the fact that this creates two classes of shooters. There are those to which this exemption applies. If there are two groups then there are those who are "in one group" of which I apply and thus ascribe the US moniker and there are those who are in the other group of which I am not a member. It is therefore defacto that they must be the "them" of which I speak.
Now I should have realized the negative connotations of my choice of the "us/them" concept as it is normally ascribed to areas of conflict which of course this is patently not one.
In my mind there are nothing but artificial reasons why this course of action was taken by the owners of IDPA. I have no problem what so ever in them deciding what ever they want in their product. Likewise I should be free to question the efficacy of said positions which is exactly what I have done.
In my ever so perfect world a new class of "trooper" or some other would have meant the best of both worlds allowing serving people the chance to try a dynamic game and gain training at the same time allowing those civilians who wish to participate under the same constraints.
Steve David
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Oshawa, Ontario
The bottom line here is that the Military and specialized units of LE are now permitted to use their duty gear to compete in IDPA. The question as to why has been answered several times, there is no need to further answer the question. I have also had several e-mails and PM's since this was announced last night from Mil/LE who do in fact employ these rigs and they have been nothing but positive and grateful that this was the direction IDPA chose to move forward in. As far as not addressing in a "LOGICAL MANNER" why this was done, well yes it was answered in a logical manner and we are getting nothing but positive feedback about it.
