|
Post by arlowe13 on Mar 31, 2016 13:47:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by nfalls116 on Mar 31, 2016 13:59:57 GMT -5
That could happen, if there are any accidents/property damage caused by H.P.R. used for Deer. So one should be extra careful where they hunt & shoot. Certainly everyone should be careful shooting a firearm, regardless of the type. There is no excuse for anything less. That said, even an accident involving a HPR shouldn't be grounds for banning them from deer hunting. We've had countless accidental shootings with slug guns in Indiana (at least one last season), and slug guns are still legal for deer. Heck, people have been shot with bows. I'm just not sure if any happened in Indiana. I believe there was a father who shot his son with a bow around here when I was young
|
|
|
Post by throbak on Mar 31, 2016 14:12:34 GMT -5
Or they could shut it down after "Trial " If nothing negative happens in the next five years, they won't have a leg to stand to deny making it permanent. Have you forgotten the way this was run through ??You think that works just for things you want ??Guess again !! A presidence has been set that has absolutely nothing to to with "Having a leg to stand On ", The Same legislature that gave you what you wanted ,can kick that leg right out from under you !!!!
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Mar 31, 2016 15:05:58 GMT -5
If nothing negative happens in the next five years, they won't have a leg to stand to deny making it permanent. Have you forgotten the way this was run through ??You think that works just for things you want ??Guess again !! A presidence has been set that has absolutely nothing to to with "Having a leg to stand On ", The Same legislature that gave you what you wanted ,can kick that leg right out from under you !!!! I'm talking about the DNR this time. I'm hopeful that by the 2020 deer season that the DNR will have legalized HPR's on its own, rendering any bill sunset as a moot point. We don't need the legislature renewing it. As for a precedent being set, that ship sailed long ago. This isn't the first hunting bill passed by the Indiana General Assembly, nor will it be the last. I'd be more afraid of the NRC. Since they are not elected, they can do what they want with no recourse -- we can't vote them out.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Mar 31, 2016 15:37:05 GMT -5
Have you forgotten the way this was run through ??You think that works just for things you want ??Guess again !! A presidence has been set that has absolutely nothing to to with "Having a leg to stand On ", The Same legislature that gave you what you wanted ,can kick that leg right out from under you !!!! I'm talking about the DNR this time. I'm hopeful that by the 2020 deer season that the DNR will have legalized HPR's on its own, rendering any bill sunset as a moot point. We don't need the legislature renewing it. As for a precedent being set, that ship sailed long ago. This isn't the first hunting bill passed by the Indiana General Assembly, nor will it be the last. I'd be more afraid of the NRC. Since they are not elected, they can do what they want with no recourse -- we can't vote them out. I don't believe the DNR has any plans at this time to have a rule put forth to either clarify or add any rifle cartridges to the list. I don't think the DNR is any too happy about this whole mess...
|
|
|
Post by varmint101 on Mar 31, 2016 15:38:44 GMT -5
I really wanted the 270 as well if they were going to do rifles. My TC Encore pistol is in 270. Bummer. Anyone want to buy a TC Encore pistol is 270 let me know lol.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Mar 31, 2016 15:45:44 GMT -5
I don't believe the DNR has any plans at this time to have a rule put forth to either clarify or add any rifle cartridges to the list. I don't think the DNR is any too happy about this whole mess... I was talking more along the lines of passing something a few years from now. After they see that all the hoopla surrounding rifles was nothing, I see no reason why there wouldn't be a continuation. I'm sure that you remember just as well as I all the public comments 9 years ago regarding PCR's and how people in subdivisions were going to be riddled with bullets, etc. Every bit of the fearmongering had no basis in fact. I still have all the public comments from that saved on my computer. I need to track down the HPR comments and save them for future reference as well.
|
|
|
Post by varmint101 on Mar 31, 2016 15:54:53 GMT -5
By the way, I would've had 223 and up legal if it were up to me. There are some well constructed bullets for that caliber that would work just fine.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Mar 31, 2016 16:22:39 GMT -5
I don't believe the DNR has any plans at this time to have a rule put forth to either clarify or add any rifle cartridges to the list. I don't think the DNR is any too happy about this whole mess... I was talking more along the lines of passing something a few years from now. After they see that all the hoopla surrounding rifles was nothing, I see no reason why there wouldn't be a continuation. I'm sure that you remember just as well as I all the public comments 9 years ago regarding PCR's and how people in subdivisions were going to be riddled with bullets, etc. Every bit of the fearmongering had no basis in fact. I still have all the public comments from that saved on my computer. I need to track down the HPR comments and save them for future reference as well. Maybe, but I doubt it. They certainly won't do it with the Adminstrative Rule Process coming up.. Even though the "non-safe" angle has been disproved many times over it doesn't matter as perception can become reality to some. I do believe that some areas will be shut off to hunting because of the HPR being legal.. It is not just the legislature that decides that one can use HPRs but also many local governments. Some have already passed no discharge rules for their localities and this could spur more...and that could include all firearms and not just HPRs ...
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Mar 31, 2016 16:51:16 GMT -5
I do believe that some areas will be shut off to hunting because of the HPR being legal.. It is not just the legislature that decides that one can use HPRs but also many local governments. Some have already passed no discharge rules for their localities and this could spur more...and that could include all firearms and not just HPRs ... I've always said that if an area is unsafe for HPR's, it's unsafe for firearms in general, with the possible exception of shotshells. Maybe we need for Senate Enrolled Act 292 to pertain to this issue as well.
|
|
|
Post by hatchetjack on Mar 31, 2016 18:28:10 GMT -5
I don't see an SEA 292 of 2016...
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Mar 31, 2016 18:39:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Mar 31, 2016 19:25:20 GMT -5
I'm talking about the DNR this time. I'm hopeful that by the 2020 deer season that the DNR will have legalized HPR's on its own, rendering any bill sunset as a moot point. We don't need the legislature renewing it. As for a precedent being set, that ship sailed long ago. This isn't the first hunting bill passed by the Indiana General Assembly, nor will it be the last. I'd be more afraid of the NRC. Since they are not elected, they can do what they want with no recourse -- we can't vote them out. I don't believe the DNR has any plans at this time to have a rule put forth to either clarify or add any rifle cartridges to the list. I don't think the DNR is any too happy about this whole mess... I bet they been getting calls every day about what is legal and what is not..... And it never going to end!!
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Mar 31, 2016 19:40:01 GMT -5
I don't believe the DNR has any plans at this time to have a rule put forth to either clarify or add any rifle cartridges to the list. I don't think the DNR is any too happy about this whole mess... I bet they been getting calls every day about what is legal and what is not..... And it never going to end!! OH YEAH!!!!
|
|
|
Post by boman on Mar 31, 2016 20:10:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by boman on Mar 31, 2016 20:16:47 GMT -5
I do believe that some areas will be shut off to hunting because of the HPR being legal.. It is not just the legislature that decides that one can use HPRs but also many local governments. Some have already passed no discharge rules for their localities and this could spur more...and that could include all firearms and not just HPRs ... I've always said that if an area is unsafe for HPR's, it's unsafe for firearms in general, with the possible exception of shotshells. Maybe we need for Senate Enrolled Act 292 to pertain to this issue as well. We won't have to if this gets approved. It will be added to the state constitution. On the November ballot, Indiana voters will be asked:
“Shall the Constitution of the State of Indiana be amended by adding a Section 39 to Article 1 to provide that the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife shall be forever preserved for the public good, subject only to the laws prescribed by the General Assembly and rules prescribed by virtue of the authority of the General Assembly to:
(1) promote wildlife conservation and management; and (2) preserve the future of hunting and fishing?"Steve
|
|
|
Post by throbak on Mar 31, 2016 21:08:37 GMT -5
Ever heard the saying cutting off you nose to spite your face ?? All this HPR , Deer Farms and canned hunting , might be all the rights we get this year
|
|
|
Post by drs on Apr 1, 2016 4:25:43 GMT -5
That could happen, if there are any accidents/property damage caused by H.P.R. used for Deer. So one should be extra careful where they hunt & shoot. Certainly everyone should be careful shooting a firearm, regardless of the type. There is no excuse for anything less. That said, even an accident involving a HPR shouldn't be grounds for banning them from deer hunting. We've had countless accidental shootings with slug guns in Indiana (at least one last season), and slug guns are still legal for deer. Heck, people have been shot with bows. I'm just not sure if any happened in Indiana. I agree with you concerning the amount of hunting accidents involving shotgun slugs. This fact shouldn't become [THE] reason to not permit high powered rifles for use in Indiana. However we're dealing with the general (non-hunting) population that will always blame high powered rifles, when such accidents happen. Actually, shotgun slugs, especially the "foster types" tend to ricochet more than high powered rifles.
|
|
|
Post by sakorifle on Apr 2, 2016 9:55:34 GMT -5
By the way, I would've had 223 and up legal if it were up to me. There are some well constructed bullets for that caliber that would work just fine. Excatky the reason why in Britian there is a minimum calibre of .240 and minimum muzzle energy of 1,700 foot pounds is the legal requirement. for roe deer and bigger. England and Wales For Muntjac and Chinese Water deer only- a rifle with a minimum calibre of not less than .220 inches and muzzle energy of not less than 1000 foot pounds and a bullet weight of not less than 50 grains may be used. For all deer of any species – a minimum calibre of .240 and minimum muzzle energy of 1,700 foot pounds is the legal requirement. Northern Ireland For Muntjac and Chinese Water deer only- a rifle with a minimum calibre of not less than .220 inches and muzzle energy of not less than 1000 foot pounds and a bullet weight of not less than 50 grains may be used. For all deer of any species – a minimum calibre of .236 inches, a minimum bullet weight of 100 grains and minimum muzzle energy of 1,700 foot pounds is the legal requirement. Scotland For roe deer, where the bullet must weigh at least 50 grains AND have a minimum muzzle velocity of 2,450 feet per second AND a minimum muzzle energy of 1,000 foot pounds may be used. For all deer of any species – the bullet must weigh at least 100 grains AND have a minimum muzzle velocity of 2,450 feet per second AND a minimum muzzle energy of 1,750 foot pounds. It must be stressed that all these figures are the minimum legal requirement. For all deer stalking the bullet must be of a type designed to expand/deform on impact. taken from the shooting website. Thats how it is done over here. regards Billy
|
|