|
Post by M4Madness on Oct 10, 2017 10:46:25 GMT -5
Instead of writing your representatives and asking them to fix this, put your wants aside and ask them to repeal it. Why do that when the law can simply be fixed? The General Assembly has already done what the DNR was too nervous to do, so any "hard feelings" won't be erased with a repeal. This whole thing may hinge on a single person's interpretation of the bill as it is, meaning that there may not even be a problem with it as written. The DNR may come out and say that there is no conflict between the two laws and that things are just as they were last season. Who knows?
|
|
|
Post by fishinbrad on Oct 10, 2017 11:07:16 GMT -5
It was written on the DNR website as an explanation of 2016 rifle laws Correct, but no wording in the law has changed except the included calibers. The DNR was wrong when they posted that last year. Correct, but all they need to do this year is to specifically name those cartridges that ARE legal on public land, the same as they did last year.
|
|
|
Post by fishinbrad on Oct 10, 2017 11:14:09 GMT -5
Instead of writing your representatives and asking them to fix this, put your wants aside and ask them to repeal it. Why do that when the law can simply be fixed? The General Assembly has already done what the DNR was too nervous to do, so any "hard feelings" won't be erased with a repeal. This whole thing may hinge on a single person's interpretation of the bill as it is, meaning that there may not even be a problem with it as written. The DNR may come out and say that there is no conflict between the two laws and that things are just as they were last season. Who knows? When I spoke to the DNR just now, I was told that NO RIFLES OF ANY KIND are legal on public land. The guy (can't remember his name) admitted that the wording was "botched", but that we (the hunters) would just have to live with it this year. He said that a clarification will be coming via the DNR website this week.
|
|
|
Post by medic22 on Oct 10, 2017 12:14:15 GMT -5
Instead of writing your representatives and asking them to fix this, put your wants aside and ask them to repeal it. Why do that when the law can simply be fixed? The General Assembly has already done what the DNR was too nervous to do, so any "hard feelings" won't be erased with a repeal. This whole thing may hinge on a single person's interpretation of the bill as it is, meaning that there may not even be a problem with it as written. The DNR may come out and say that there is no conflict between the two laws and that things are just as they were last season. Who knows? Because they have had TWO chances at it and screwed it up both times. You think theyll magically get it right the third time?
|
|
|
Post by schoolmaster on Oct 10, 2017 13:17:33 GMT -5
I just talked with a very polite gentleman at the law enforcement division and he said that legal shotguns, muzzleloaders, and handguns are ok to use at my upcoming deer reduction hunt at chain-o-lakes state park. Pistol caliber rifles are not legal at this time.
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Oct 10, 2017 13:22:20 GMT -5
Why do that when the law can simply be fixed? The General Assembly has already done what the DNR was too nervous to do, so any "hard feelings" won't be erased with a repeal. This whole thing may hinge on a single person's interpretation of the bill as it is, meaning that there may not even be a problem with it as written. The DNR may come out and say that there is no conflict between the two laws and that things are just as they were last season. Who knows? When I spoke to the DNR just now, I was told that NO RIFLES OF ANY KIND are legal on public land. The guy (can't remember his name) admitted that the wording was "botched", but that we (the hunters) would just have to live with it this year. He said that a clarification will be coming via the DNR website this week. How about the go the easy route? Establish that the DNR allow the use of rifles .243 and up, give case length specifications, and say DNR is to implement any further rules.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Oct 10, 2017 13:28:32 GMT -5
Looks like I will be regulated to use my 12ga. Oh well!
Not this makes anything better but trust me WV Politicians are about stupid! We had no Sunday hunting so they decide its time we moved out of the stone age and joined other states that allow Sunday hunting! But they screwed that up. Oh I can hunt on Sunday now in WV but on Private Property Only! No Sunday hunting in WV on Public Properties! I'm like WHAT? But it is what it is at least for now in WV.
Leave Hunting up to Politicians and the outcome won't be good. I'll be remembering the WV Legislators come election time with a big fat vote against them. If they can't get simple things right I cannot trust them to get important things right!
I've been all over the U.S. and always felt Hoosiers and Mountaineers are the closet to being alike. I ask my Hoosier friends about Pence prior to voting and their opinions mattered to me. Still do for that matter!
I'll just deal with it and I'll survive, I had no problem with carrying the big 12 before PCR's, I only switched over due to recoil issues but I'll be ok! Couple shots to check zero and then just go hunt and enjoy my time hunting. I've fired the grand total of 2 shots in 18yrs in Indiana I can manage another one!
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Oct 10, 2017 13:34:34 GMT -5
Lead Sled will help take a lot of the recoil out of it when sighting in .... every little bit helps. Im not recoil sensitive, at all, but I dont think anyone enjoys having their teeth kicked in off a bench.
|
|
|
Post by jackryan on Oct 10, 2017 14:00:34 GMT -5
Meh, what ever.
I'm still waiting for my survey card from KY, IL, OH, and MI soliciting what I thing about their laws. Probably about as much as IN since in 60 years of hunting it they've never once ask my opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2017 14:06:31 GMT -5
Meh, what ever. I'm still waiting for my survey card from KY, IL, OH, and MI soliciting what I thing about their laws. Probably about as much as IN since in 60 years of hunting it they've never once ask my opinion. Ohio surveys came about a month ago. I already started filling it out.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Oct 10, 2017 14:27:53 GMT -5
I did get an Indiana Survey to fill out in 2015, filled it out mailed in.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Oct 10, 2017 14:40:13 GMT -5
When I spoke to the DNR just now, I was told that NO RIFLES OF ANY KIND are legal on public land. The guy (can't remember his name) admitted that the wording was "botched", but that we (the hunters) would just have to live with it this year. He said that a clarification will be coming via the DNR website this week. How about the go the easy route? Establish that the DNR allow the use of rifles .243 and up, give case length specifications, and say DNR is to implement any further rules. The DNR didn't want HPR that why where at point where at now. If where going to have HPR it needs go though the correct rule process
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Oct 10, 2017 15:04:46 GMT -5
Why do that when the law can simply be fixed? The General Assembly has already done what the DNR was too nervous to do, so any "hard feelings" won't be erased with a repeal. This whole thing may hinge on a single person's interpretation of the bill as it is, meaning that there may not even be a problem with it as written. The DNR may come out and say that there is no conflict between the two laws and that things are just as they were last season. Who knows? Because they have had TWO chances at it and screwed it up both times. You think theyll magically get it right the third time? The easy fix would be to allow all rifles .243 and larger on both public and private land. Lol!
|
|
|
Post by fishinbrad on Oct 10, 2017 15:14:21 GMT -5
Because they have had TWO chances at it and screwed it up both times. You think theyll magically get it right the third time? The easy fix would be to allow all rifles .243 and larger on both public and private land. Lol! That would make too much sense!!!
|
|
|
Post by hornzilla on Oct 10, 2017 15:42:52 GMT -5
The easy fix would be to allow all rifles .243 and larger on both public and private land. Lol! [/quote] This is the post of the day. But just remember common sense isn't all that common.
|
|
|
Post by Squealy on Oct 10, 2017 15:59:21 GMT -5
One of the resolutions to this from DNR COULD be that NO rifles will be allowed this year..... I don't like that resolution, but that is a possibility.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Oct 10, 2017 16:15:05 GMT -5
Personally I'm waiting on the gent that said he would get back with me as soon as they reached a "resolution" this week before I throw in the towel..
|
|
|
Post by Squealy on Oct 10, 2017 16:24:29 GMT -5
I know my "little" group of hunting buddies who hunt almost exclusively public land have been on the phone with DNR people, state representatives, state senators and the state attorney general today. I believe we have rattled enough cages today that there will a resolution VERY VERY soon.
|
|
|
Post by cedarthicket on Oct 10, 2017 16:57:55 GMT -5
M4Madness wrote: This whole thing may hinge on a single person's interpretation of the bill as it is, meaning that there may not even be a problem with it as written. The DNR may come out and say that there is no conflict between the two laws and that things are just as they were last season. Who knows?
Thanks, M4Madness. I was wondering along those same lines.
Did allowing the PCR rifles to be used during firearm season come about strictly through the rule-making process? If so, perhaps the PCR rifles could still be legal to use on public ground as they were up through 2015 and 2016, subject always to what DNR wants to allow on which public lands (at least state-owned public lands). Perhaps in a strict legal interpretation of the 2016 and 2017 Indiana Code (IC) revisions the code actually defined an additional "class" of legal rifles that only applied to the "test period" and "test seasons" that the code specified. As such, those rifles are restricted to private lands as stated plainly (??) in the code revisions. The IC code revisions could possibly be interpreted to basically say nothing about any kind of restriction of PCR rifles (relative to use on private and/or public lands).
I am not a legal expert, and I did not stay at Holiday Inn last night. Just wondering, FWIW.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Oct 10, 2017 17:23:58 GMT -5
M4Madness wrote: This whole thing may hinge on a single person's interpretation of the bill as it is, meaning that there may not even be a problem with it as written. The DNR may come out and say that there is no conflict between the two laws and that things are just as they were last season. Who knows?Thanks, M4Madness. I was wondering along those same lines. Did allowing the PCR rifles to be used during firearm season come about strictly through the rule-making process? If so, perhaps the PCR rifles could still be legal to use on public ground as they were up through 2015 and 2016, subject always to what DNR wants to allow on which public lands (at least state-owned public lands). Perhaps in a strict legal interpretation of the 2016 and 2017 Indiana Code (IC) revisions the code actually defined an additional "class" of legal rifles that only applied to the "test period" and "test seasons" that the code specified. As such, those rifles are restricted to private lands as stated plainly (??) in the code revisions. The IC code revisions could possibly be interpreted to basically say nothing about any kind of restriction of PCR rifles (relative to use on private and/or public lands). I am not a legal expert, and I did not stay at Holiday Inn last night. Just wondering, FWIW. It boils down to intent...
|
|