|
Post by M4Madness on Jan 13, 2008 15:02:58 GMT -5
Seems to me like a lot of hypothetical questions about nothing. We can "what if" any laws and regulations. h.h. It seems pretty cut and dried to me. Indiana classifies ANY firearm with a barrel less than 16" as a handgun. As far as I am concerned, the IDNR must use the same definition of a handgun as the State of Indiana (since the codes are tied together). I've got a letter to both the IDNR and to someone who interprets Indiana law on a daily basis for clarification on this issue. It appears 100% legal, but I wouldn't attempt it without covering all the bases first.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2008 15:36:18 GMT -5
Sounds like all you have to do is vfind a CO that thinks the same way as you do. That often is a problem when a particular law comes down as a officers choice while in the field? Good luck, I believe you'll need it.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Jan 13, 2008 15:48:05 GMT -5
Sounds like all you have to do is vfind a CO that thinks the same way as you do. That often is a problem when a particular law comes down as a officers choice while in the field? Good luck, I believe you'll need it. I wouldn't trust a local Conservation Officer's interpretation of the law. I've seen too many LEO's who don't know the law. It's nothing personal against them, it's just that there's too much info out there for them to absorb it all. I'd rely on someone higher up the chain of command to make a ruling. Unless I'm overlooking something on this, it's pretty cut and dried. The whole reason I've asked about it here is to see if anyone could find any little reason why it wouldn't be legal. So far, no one has come forward with anything. As far as running into a CO in the field, all you'd need to do is carry a copy of the section of Indiana Code that states that any firearm with a barrel less than 16" is considered a handgun in Indiana, and you'd be good to go. It'd also be wise to carry a photocopy of your Form 1 to verify that your SBR is legal. I wouldn't expect the floodgates to swing open and hundreds of people suddenly choose this route. But it is a step for those who already legally own an SBR to be able to hunt with it. Trust me, the numbers of those who would hunt with an SBR would be way smaller than those who hunt with a high-powered pistol.
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Jan 13, 2008 18:17:33 GMT -5
I think you are going to find out its not legal. Why not buy a Savage Striker and be legal without all the hassle. h.h.
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Jan 13, 2008 19:08:28 GMT -5
M4, I think you are correct in your interpretation but I see no need to go poking this particular hornet's nest. I'm guessing that the DNR will move quickly to close the loophole, if it does indeed exist, once it is brought to their attention.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Jan 13, 2008 19:31:03 GMT -5
M4, I think you are correct in your interpretation but I see no need to go poking this particular hornet's nest. I'm guessing that the DNR will move quickly to close the loophole, if it does indeed exist, once it is brought to their attention. I won't lose any sleep over it if they do close this loophole, as my .458 SOCOM does all that I need it to do. But I can tell you that it will take a legislative act by the General Assembly to get it removed. Indiana has some reason for wanting firearms with barrels less than 16" to be classified as handguns. Whether or not that they change that definition depends on which has the greater consequences: allowing people to have firearms with barrels under 16" that are NO LONGER classified as handguns, or allowing the few who have them legally hunt with them. I guess what I'm saying is: Will the state feel a greater threat by removing that text from their definition? I'm fairly certain that the IDNR is bound by the state's definition of a handgun, and cannot use their own definition at will.
|
|
|
Post by indianahick on Jan 13, 2008 20:02:57 GMT -5
Lets see I want to close the supposed loop hole quickly and simply. Okay. Any firearm that has an attached stock (factory or add-on) that touches the shoulder and/or uses said shoulder for an anchor point no matter what the barrel length is not to be considered of as a handgun.
amendment number as needed.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Jan 13, 2008 20:12:09 GMT -5
Lets see I want to close the supposed loop hole quickly and simply. Okay. Any firearm that has an attached stock (factory or add-on) that touches the shoulder and/or uses said shoulder for an anchor point no matter what the barrel length is not to be considered of as a handgun. amendment number as needed. Yes, but by doing so, the state loses the right to call a stocked rifle with a barrel less than 16" a handgun anymore, which is what they want to call it for some reason. They HAD a reason for doing so when they wrote up the law, otherwise they would have just written it to read "pistol grip".
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Jan 13, 2008 20:23:18 GMT -5
Note in 312 IAC 9-3-3 (hunting deer with firearms) that the DNR's rule conforms to the requirements of IC 35-47-2. The section right before IC 35-47-2 (IC 35-47-1) gives the definition of a handgun, so that that definition can be used in the code following it, which is IC 35-47-2.
From 312 IAC 9-3-3 (Deer hunting with firearms):
(f) A person must not hunt deer with a firearm under this section except as follows: (2) A handgun must: (A) conform to the requirements of IC 35-47-2; (B) have a barrel at least four (4) inches long; and (C) fire a bullet of two hundred forty-three thousandths (.243) inch diameter or larger. All 38 special ammunition is prohibited. The handgun cartridge case, without bullet, must be at least one and sixteenhundredths (1.16) inches long.
|
|
|
Post by danf on Jan 13, 2008 22:44:45 GMT -5
Seems that the "loophole", if you will, has existed for some time. I'm sure they are aware of it... Without looking up the dates in the codes, I'm guessing the "loophole" has existed since the handguns were first allowed.
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Jan 14, 2008 8:32:53 GMT -5
Interesting, it sounds like it may well be legal. I'm inclined to agree with those who believe they would be few and far between even if more widely known as a Contender or Encore handgun shot supported will handle IN just fine and would be less expense and involves less paperwork.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jan 14, 2008 8:53:55 GMT -5
Great debate...
Some time back a question was asked of a CO (maybe on here) about putting a stock on a handgun and he said that was not legal to do that.
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Jan 14, 2008 10:26:28 GMT -5
I dont think a SBR will meet the requirements for handgun hunting unless you want a barrel of 5-6" and how many want a centerfire rifle with a 5-6" barrel. Even if its falls into the length limits its still classified as a rifle with a short barrel and not a handgun. I think you will find out its illegal to use one. h.h.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Jan 14, 2008 10:31:01 GMT -5
I emailed one of the law enforcement offices in the back of the hunting guide and they told me as long as it had a barrel less than 16" and overall less than 26" it was ok. I then posted the same question on here to the CO's and they said no way is it legal.
|
|
|
Post by jkd on Jan 14, 2008 15:27:57 GMT -5
I think M4 is spot on... and the question isn't one of practicality, but rather of legality...
This loophole has been around since the Remington XP-100 and TC Contender became popular, and the reg was specifically written to allow these types of weapons for deer hunting, so the story goes, because a couple of IDNR employees had them and wanted to deer hunt with them.
What I've never understood is how these firearms/calibers are considered "safe" for Indiana deer hunting, but a rifle with a stock and 20-something inch barrel is considered unsafe... if an XP-100 in 7mm-08 is legal, then IMO, a Winchester Model 70 in .30-06 or .308 should be legal too... what's good for the goose and all that...
This is why I think the reg should deal with where you can and can't hunt with rounds like these, e.g. public versus private ground or hill/hollers versus flat farmland, rather than saying one firearm is short range and allow others which are clearly not...
|
|
|
Post by indianahick on Jan 14, 2008 15:35:31 GMT -5
Just make all HPR calibers illegal. End of problem. Who cares what Larry W. likes to shoot.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Jan 14, 2008 16:08:28 GMT -5
Seems that the "loophole", if you will, has existed for some time. I'm sure they are aware of it... Without looking up the dates in the codes, I'm guessing the "loophole" has existed since the handguns were first allowed. Probably so.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Jan 14, 2008 16:17:01 GMT -5
I dont think a SBR will meet the requirements for handgun hunting unless you want a barrel of 5-6" and how many want a centerfire rifle with a 5-6" barrel. Again, it does NOT have to have BOTH an overall length of less than 26" and a barrel length less than 16". It ONLY needs to have one or the other. An SBR can have a 15" barrel and still be classified as a handgun. A stocked firearm that has a barrel less than 16" is classified as a handgun by the State of Indiana. A stocked firearm that has an overall length of less than 26" is classified as a handgun by the State of Indiana.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Jan 14, 2008 16:18:16 GMT -5
Great debate... Some time back a question was asked of a CO (maybe on here) about putting a stock on a handgun and he said that was not legal to do that. It WOULD be illegal, unless you registered the firearm with the BATF as an SBR first.
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Jan 14, 2008 16:18:37 GMT -5
It does seems pretty silly doesn't it. I've heard the reasoning a few times (and not from anyone who counts) that people who own the T/C's, Xp's etc. are more likely to be serious shooters so there isn't as much of an issue; take that for what it's worth. (Which isn't much)
|
|