|
Post by swilk on Mar 29, 2016 17:49:03 GMT -5
I find it curious that they have the authority to change the wording of law....not sure the courts would agree but that's not stopped folks before. Pretty much the reason we have a courts system.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Mar 29, 2016 18:19:06 GMT -5
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." That's the exact opposite of what the DNR has told Woody... Sounds like someone's facts are mixed up! (Go back to page 30)
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Mar 29, 2016 18:37:49 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 Steve, I found your post: "The Nay votes included 9 democrates who voted along party anti-gun lines as expected. Republicans who voted nay were, Perfect, was against the bill because he feared someone would get shot on his farm, Glick, who heads up the Nat. Resources committee and who was against this bill from the get go, not real clear why; and Crider, who was formerly head of LE at the DNR. He opposed the bill primarily because it didn't mirror the DNR's proposal last year I suspect, definitely in favor of rifles for the most part though. Perfect and Glick get a "fail" as pro-gun republicans in my book. Steve" ingunowners.com/forums/great-outdoors/405447-hb1231-passes-house-centerfire-rifles-deer-hunting-58.htmlI guess it was more of a suspicion than him actually telling you.
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Mar 29, 2016 18:46:08 GMT -5
Perfect voted no partly because of our talk and me asking him to kill it any way possible, and because he owns Perfect North Slopes and has thousands of people on on those Slopes every year.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Mar 29, 2016 19:03:31 GMT -5
I can tell you that he was against it.
He wasn't in committee the day it passed out 5-4. He was presenting some of his bills at a different committee meeting. He says a Democrat flipped his vote and the chair person was sorry that she even allowed a vote on it.
|
|
|
Post by boman on Mar 29, 2016 20:44:50 GMT -5
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 Steve, I found your post: "The Nay votes included 9 democrates who voted along party anti-gun lines as expected. Republicans who voted nay were, Perfect, was against the bill because he feared someone would get shot on his farm, Glick, who heads up the Nat. Resources committee and who was against this bill from the get go, not real clear why; and Crider, who was formerly head of LE at the DNR. He opposed the bill primarily because it didn't mirror the DNR's proposal last year I suspect, definitely in favor of rifles for the most part though. Perfect and Glick get a "fail" as pro-gun republicans in my book. Steve" ingunowners.com/forums/great-outdoors/405447-hb1231-passes-house-centerfire-rifles-deer-hunting-58.htmlI guess it was more of a suspicion than him actually telling you. confusion builds suspicion just don't let it turn into paranoia, then they can "certify" you. you all good now? Steve
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Mar 30, 2016 4:42:49 GMT -5
I guess it was more of a suspicion than him actually telling you. confusion builds suspicion just don't let it turn into paranoia, then they can "certify" you. you all good now? Steve I was always good with you. I just knew that I wasn't dreaming when I read that you said that Crider opposed the bill since it didn't mirror last year's DNR proposal. I just missed your "I suspect", and assumed you'd talked to him and that it wasn't a suspicion on your part. My quote above was talking about your suspicion, not mine. Lol!
|
|
|
Post by boman on Mar 30, 2016 8:49:29 GMT -5
confusion builds suspicion just don't let it turn into paranoia, then they can "certify" you. you all good now? Steve I was always good with you. I just knew that I wasn't dreaming when I read that you said that Crider opposed the bill since it didn't mirror last year's DNR proposal. I just missed your "I suspect", and assumed you'd talked to him and that it wasn't a suspicion on your part. My quote above was talking about your suspicion, not mine. Lol! I haven't "physically" talked with Mike in a few years. Must be an internet thing . I think the last time was at a Friends of NRA Banquet in Shelbyville and that could have been Mark Reiter as tnat was 2-3-several years ago. If its in important to you, I looked and did save a series of 5 or 6 emails we flipped back and forth; beginning right after the Bill passed out of the Senate committee till right after the final vote in the senate passing the final version, that I can forward to you. Just pm me over on the other site with your e-mail address. Steve
|
|
|
Post by esshup on Mar 30, 2016 21:00:40 GMT -5
I got a Rem. 742 semi-auto in 30-06. Might have to play with it this season. Been sitting in safe for years. Its not a black gun. . Ditto. IIRC 1974 vintage??
|
|
|
Post by bullseye69 on Mar 30, 2016 22:39:59 GMT -5
I got a Rem. 742 semi-auto in 30-06. Might have to play with it this season. Been sitting in safe for years. Its not a black gun. . Ditto. IIRC 1974 vintage?? Its a commemorative 1976 I think, but I shoot it anyways. They are for shooting not looking at.
|
|
|
Post by bullseye69 on Mar 31, 2016 17:16:47 GMT -5
I find it curious that they have the authority to change the wording of law....not sure the courts would agree but that's not stopped folks before. Pretty much the reason we have a courts system. I heard this on the radio today and did some research. A Bureaucrat can't make laws but can make regulations that don't need to be voted on by a senate etc. A bureaucrat is a member of a bureaucracy and can compose the administration of any organization of any size, although the term usually connotes someone within an institution of government. Some usages restrict the term so that it only embraces lower-ranked staff members in an agency, excluding higher-ranked managers, or so that it only signifies officials who perform certain functions, such as those who work "desk jobs" (the French word for "desk" being bureau, though bureau can also be translated as "office"). A law has to be voted on by senate , house etc. So the Bureaucrats can make regulations to that law without having to be voted on. Laws are the products of written statutes, passed by either the U.S. Congress or state legislatures. The legislatures create bills that, when passed by a vote, become statutory law. Regulations, on the other hand, are standards and rules adopted by administrative agencies that govern how laws will be enforced. So an agency like the SEC can have its own regulations for enforcing major securities laws. For instance, while the Securities and Exchange Act prohibits using insider or nonpublic information to make trades, the SEC can have its own rules on how it will investigate charges of insider trading. Like laws, regulations are codified and published so that parties are on notice regarding what is and isn't legal. And regulations often have the same force as laws, since, without them, regulatory agencies wouldn't be able to enforce laws. I think that's why we have "hunting regulations" book and not a "hunting law" book. - See more at: blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2015/10/whats-the-difference-between-laws-and-regulations.html#sthash.yIJK2fpg.dpuf
|
|
|
Post by sakorifle on Apr 1, 2016 14:23:03 GMT -5
greetings exactly bullseye, english law here says 243 up, my firms rule is 308. big difference between law making and rule making i said that in a previous post. Sounds to me like your dnr can make any rule they like within the statute law. thats my thinking anyway, everyone wanting to use a hpr better buy a bolt action 308 just to be on the safe side, lol regards Billy
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Apr 1, 2016 14:44:35 GMT -5
Like I said, thats why we have a courts system.
|
|
|
Post by Jamie Brooks 1John5:13 on Apr 1, 2016 15:15:50 GMT -5
I was raised to eat what was put on my plate and not complain about it. I think this has carried over into how I look at a lot of things.
|
|
|
Post by woody1071 on Apr 5, 2016 12:20:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rodney482 on Apr 5, 2016 12:24:51 GMT -5
Just saw the email sent to officers. Gonna be about 85 calibers
|
|
|
Post by hornzilla on Apr 5, 2016 12:55:41 GMT -5
It's a good list to choose from. I'm opinion. And it's just my opinion. Is the 35 rem, 444, 4570, and 270 should have been on the list of legal calibers.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Apr 5, 2016 13:18:19 GMT -5
The "wildcat" list should be interesting!
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Apr 5, 2016 13:37:34 GMT -5
Quite different from what most of us were thinking...
Event Description: The Department of Natural Resources has received numerous questions regarding recent legislation that legalizes certain rifles for deer hunting beginning later this year. Most questions have to do with calibers and cartridges allowed under the new law.
House Enrolled Act 1231 that was passed earlier this year by the Indiana General Assembly allows some additional rifle cartridges to be used only on private land during the firearms season.
The new legal cartridges include, but are not limited to, the .243 Winchester, .30-30 Winchester, .300 AAC Blackout, and .30-06 Springfield. Additional requirements are:
• The rifle must have a barrel length of at least 16 inches • The rifle cartridges must have a cartridge case length of least 1.16 inches • The rifle cartridge must fire a bullet with a diameter that is o .243 inches (or 6 mm); or o .308 inches (or 7.62 mm) • No cartridges with a bullet diameter between .243 and .308 are legal (such as the .270 Winchester) • A hunter may not possess more than 10 such cartridges while in the field
Rifles with pistol cartridges that have been allowed in previous years may still be used to hunt deer on both private and public land.
Additional cartridges that are legal under HEA 1231 include, but are not limited to, the following:
• 6mm-06 • 6mm BR Remington • 6mm PPC • 6mm Remington • .240 Weatherby • .243 Winchester • .243 Winchester Super Short Magnum • .30 Carbine • .30 Herrett • .30 Remington AR • .30-06 Springfield • .30-30 Winchester • .30-40 Krag • .300 AAC Blackout (.300 Whisper) • .300 H&H Magnum • .300 Remington Short Action Ultra Magnum • .300 Savage • .300 Weatherby Magnum • .300 Winchester Magnum • .300 Winchester Short Magnum • .300 Remington Ultra Magnum • .308 Marlin • .308 Winchester • 7.62x39mm • 7.62x54mmR
There are other cartridges that meet the law’s specifications, and there are others that do not. A partial list of cartridges that are not allowed under HEA 1231 includes the .270 Winchester, .38-55 Winchester, .444 Marlin, and .45-70 Government.
HEA 1231 is scheduled to expire after the 2020 deer season, at which time the DNR will submit an impact report to the Governor and the General Assembly.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Apr 5, 2016 13:38:20 GMT -5
So .... no clarification? No DNR deciding what is and what is not? Just a simple going by the letter of the law?
|
|