|
Post by M4Madness on Mar 29, 2016 12:06:01 GMT -5
Mine says "360" on it. I can just say I'm dyslexic. Lol!
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 29, 2016 12:12:18 GMT -5
Should be really popular with the LEO's ... they just love chasing their tails.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Mar 29, 2016 12:12:50 GMT -5
I know the individual who will be writing this for the guide. I can guarantee you all that it will be in there as written in the law - nothing less or more...
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Mar 29, 2016 12:14:54 GMT -5
I know the individual who will be writing this for the guide. I can guarantee you all that it will be in there as written in the law - nothing less or more... I would still think hilarious if the DNR said okay, law states we have to make a season for them.....1 hour on opening firearm day....noon - 1PM. hahaha!
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 29, 2016 12:16:55 GMT -5
With the exception of the bungled up wording I suspect many at the DNR are not too upset over the inclusion .....
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Mar 29, 2016 12:18:47 GMT -5
With the exception of the bungled up wording I suspect many at the DNR are not too upset over the inclusion ..... I'd tend to agree....only thing they have legit concern over is the process it went through to get here if I were to guess.
|
|
|
Post by medic22 on Mar 29, 2016 12:23:26 GMT -5
-FIFY-DNR is currently recognizing the bill as written to be calibers cartridges and not cartridges calibers per the facebook page of all the districs LE division. That gave me a headache -FIFY- Even dissecting the wording of that post I still feel they are going by diameter. The reference to cartridge was saying how many you can possess in the field. It says "rifles" and then goes on to list the wording of the law which is not cartridge specific. Big ol mess it is right now ..... I hope they dont clarify it. I plan to buy a 7mm-08 and have .308 engraved on the barrel. They went on to say in the comments that they are accepting bullet diameter, so 300 includes win mag, ultra, blackout, etc etc.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Mar 29, 2016 12:24:04 GMT -5
Didn't someone say Senator Crider only voted nay on the bill because it didn't match the wording of last year's DNR proposal?
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Mar 29, 2016 12:40:30 GMT -5
Didn't someone say Senator Crider only voted nay on the bill because it didn't match the wording of last year's DNR proposal? "IF" I were a Senator and "IF" I were for HPRs, that is exactly the only way I'd have voted yay for this bill. The DNR have proper steps to govern fishing and hunting...I in no way want to step away from that but if I had to I would want their wording.
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Mar 29, 2016 12:42:13 GMT -5
With the exception of the bungled up wording I suspect many at the DNR are not too upset over the inclusion ..... I'd tend to agree....only thing they have legit concern over is the process it went through to get here if I were to guess. Many people have wanted hpr inclusion for years, so if I were the DNR and after the endless crap they've endured from a few select groups over the last several years, it might be a relief to see this passed by the legislature so they don't have to catch h*ll over it passing.
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Mar 29, 2016 12:44:20 GMT -5
I'd tend to agree....only thing they have legit concern over is the process it went through to get here if I were to guess. Many people have wanted hpr inclusion for years, so if I were the DNR and after the endless crap they've endured from a few select groups over the last several years, it might be a relief to see this passed by the legislature so they don't have to catch h*ll over it passing. But THEY have to put up with all the morons trying to skirt the rule as written...which is terribly. Time will tell...I do agree some within the DNR are relieved...gets the "select few" off their freaking backs crying bloody murder about being unable to use certain firearms.
|
|
|
Post by throbak on Mar 29, 2016 12:44:27 GMT -5
I Think the NRA said it best and what I like the least !!We are now More Accessable ,,Bring it on !!!! I think this is exactly why this was pushed This through !
|
|
|
Post by subzero350 on Mar 29, 2016 13:33:19 GMT -5
I think you guys are taking my opinion as a challenge...it isn't. In my opinion yes, I know many a person, I've watched many come into the gun shop and walk out with semi-auto rifles that have no business hitting the woods with them, but they will. If you'd force these folks to slow down, yes without a doubt in my mind it would help. Work in a gun store for a month or so and you QUICKLY learn just what kind of company us firearm owners have....anti's are not all stupid for feeling the way they do depending who they have met. <snip> I've always thought semi-autos encourage bad habits in the hunting world...still do...and in 20 years still will. I want my hunting firearms centered around the one shot mentality (whether a single shot or not) and not know I can instantly send another round down range as fast as my little finger can make it happen. <snip> I understand the point you are trying to make. I can see how you would think that putting a semi-auto anything into the hands of an idiot is going give them more potential to be more dangerous. I get it. But the point I'm making is these people have already been allowed in the woods, for years now, with as much ammo as they could carry (not a 10 round limit) using a multitude of previously-legal semi-automatic firearms under the old laws. So what has changed with this new law, really? Are you more worried about HPRs being legalized than the action of the gun being used?
|
|
|
Post by Jamie Brooks 1John5:13 on Mar 29, 2016 14:22:19 GMT -5
I still don't see any problem. I have a 30-06 and two 300s, so I'm good. Until specified, I'll hunt with any 300 I want. When they specify, so will I. It is that simple.
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 29, 2016 14:41:56 GMT -5
I know the individual who will be writing this for the guide. I can guarantee you all that it will be in there as written in the law - nothing less or more... I would still think hilarious if the DNR said okay, law states we have to make a season for them.....1 hour on opening firearm day....noon - 1PM. hahaha! The wording was changed in an amendment to allow these rifles during the regular firearms seasons, instead of creating a new season.
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Mar 29, 2016 15:58:07 GMT -5
I think you guys are taking my opinion as a challenge...it isn't. In my opinion yes, I know many a person, I've watched many come into the gun shop and walk out with semi-auto rifles that have no business hitting the woods with them, but they will. If you'd force these folks to slow down, yes without a doubt in my mind it would help. Work in a gun store for a month or so and you QUICKLY learn just what kind of company us firearm owners have....anti's are not all stupid for feeling the way they do depending who they have met. <snip> I've always thought semi-autos encourage bad habits in the hunting world...still do...and in 20 years still will. I want my hunting firearms centered around the one shot mentality (whether a single shot or not) and not know I can instantly send another round down range as fast as my little finger can make it happen. <snip> I understand the point you are trying to make. I can see how you would think that putting a semi-auto anything into the hands of an idiot is going give them more potential to be more dangerous. I get it. But the point I'm making is these people have already been allowed in the woods, for years now, with as much ammo as they could carry (not a 10 round limit) using a multitude of previously-legal semi-automatic firearms under the old laws. So what has changed with this new law, really? Are you more worried about HPRs being legalized than the action of the gun being used? What changed is now you can us a .243, .308, 30-06, .300 and 30-30 in long gun form in Indiana in your pursuit of whitetail deer...really nothing else. Doesn't, didn't and won't affect my opinion of semi-autos one bit...I get what you're saying, been dealing with idiots for years around some of my properties...does it make me feel better they have HPRs, no but caliber/catridge use has zero bearing on my opinion of semi's is all.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Mar 29, 2016 16:10:47 GMT -5
Didn't someone say Senator Crider only voted nay on the bill because it didn't match the wording of last year's DNR proposal? Nope... Not what he told me.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Mar 29, 2016 16:23:16 GMT -5
Didn't someone say Senator Crider only voted nay on the bill because it didn't match the wording of last year's DNR proposal? Nope... Not what he told me. I think Steve (boman) said it previously.
|
|
|
Post by boman on Mar 29, 2016 16:58:54 GMT -5
Nope... Not what he told me. I think Steve (boman) said it previously. That's not what he told me either. What I think you're remembering is a response to a post over on the other site I frequent in response to a post from somebody wanting to know who the 12 nay voters were where I pointed out the 9 democrats and 3 republicans and gave my opinion as to wether they were pro gun or not. Mike got a pro-gun vote, Perfect and Glick got an anti-gun vote and of course the 9 democrats voted along party lines. Steve
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Mar 29, 2016 17:38:15 GMT -5
I think Steve (boman) said it previously. That's not what he told me either. What I think you're remembering is a response to a post over on the other site I frequent in response to a post from somebody wanting to know who the 12 nay voters were where I pointed out the 9 democrats and 3 republicans and gave my opinion as to wether they were pro gun or not. Mike got a pro-gun vote, Perfect and Glick got an anti-gun vote and of course the 9 democrats voted along party lines. Steve If it was not you, or if I misunderstood, then you have my sincere apologies. I just received an e-mail from my representative: "The DNR has been getting a lot of questions, and they do have authority to clarify without additional legislation. We will, however, continue to monitor it."
|
|