right. I just need the one shot!

So are you suggesting that no semi-autos be allowed period or just no hpr semi-autos?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 76chevy:
[QB] right. I just need the one shot!

That would never happen but it sure would be nice to have single shot limit. I think there would be a lot less pop shots and spray and pray type volleys. Knowing you only have one quick shot leads to patience for those who need patience.

Under the current bill this would be legal for deer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfeDusmoRXk

Me personally I would vote yes for this, but that is my personal opinion and I know it would never pass. It would minimize the multiple shot running/moving shots you hear neighbors taking across fields every year (yes it happens every year atleast for us on the one place). Eliminating semi's would in effect accomplish this to a point....ain't happening though.

Just HPR that seems to be where the fear maybe for some.
No need to invent the wheel again.

tynimiller Me personally I would vote yes for this, but that is my personal opinion and I know it would never pass. It would minimize the multiple shot running/moving shots you hear neighbors taking across fields every year (yes it happens every year atleast for us on the one place). Eliminating semi's would in effect accomplish this to a point....ain't happening though.

Brew Just HPR that seems to be where the fear maybe for some.
No need to invent the wheel again.


If you say all, then you get into the whole "well I've been hunting with a Remington 1100 for 30 years. Now you're telling me I can't hunt with it?"....

If you say only hpr centerfires, then you get into ..."I purchased an AR chambered in .450 bushmaster because I was told it's legal, now you're telling me I can't hunt deer with it?"


These are the type of things that need to addressed before any law passes so as to let people know exactly where they stand without confusion.

BTW, for the sake of transparency I gun hunt with a single shot .44 mag rifle.

One last point...unless amended, I believe this bill would apply only to private land.

Interesting ....

I agree jjas, as it currently is written it is far to non-specific in my opinion and as it is written I hope personally it doesn't pass. However, if it does my personal hunting won't be affected...however I know a few neighbors that are gonna be having a hayday with this if passed.

If I set my personal habits aside and just look at it as removed as I can be....

One of the biggest takeaways is okay the state is saying what is good to use on a 4 acre chunk of private property isn't good to use on a multi-thousand acre public property?

Also I still think logically it makes little sense to restrict bird hunters but not gun hunters with ammunition restrictions loaded in the firearm.

the AK is legal in kentucky, Missouri, and Wisconsin to deer hunt with right? Who actually hunts with one??

thank God we have the NRA to protect our rights to own stuff like this

First, I need to say no matter how this goes, it won't affect my personal hunting style. I've hunted deer with the same firearm for most of my life. It kills them just fine.
However, I want to caution everyone on opening the can of worms to do an "end run" around the IDNR and it's public input style of management using legislative action. Many times laws can be enacted by a loud minority, such as may be happening with this bill, I don't know. But what if it was a group wanting to allow 4 bucks killed per year, or run firearm season from Oct. 1st to the first Sunday in January? It can just as easily work against you, then for you.
It is my understanding that during the public opinion phase of the HPR rule, it was pretty much an even split for/against. Unless there is overwhelming support for a change, the IDNR usually will not implement it. As flawed as some people feel IDNR's approach to management is, it is better to leave the management of wildlife to the biologists that get paid very little and base their proposals on science than to a bunch of legislators who may only be trying to garner some votes.
Sorry for my long winded post, I will try to keep them shorter if I post in the future.

The bump-fire stock is available for the AR platform, as well...so it can already be used for the 458 SOCOM, 450 Bushmaster, 50 Beowolf...etc. All of these are already legal, but yet, you don't see people out there with them. Why would this rule all of sudden change that?

Remember the AK, just like an AR, is simply a platform. I am not advocating anything by saying that, just remember not to get caught up in the "evil" looks mindset because they don't fit what a traditional hunting rifle looks like.

In actuality, the 7.62x39 round (typical of an AK 47) is not a bad deer hunting round. It is similar to a 30-30 in terms of ballistics. You would want to pick a good bullet and not a surplus round, but it would make a good deer hunting round if one were to go about it properly. There are a lot of guys that deer hunt with the SKS rifle in states where the round is legal. If you were to work within the accuracy limits of an AK and chose the right bullet, then it would be no worse than many other rifles out there for deer hunting. And no one says you have to put a 30 round mag in one either, or even load that mag up completely.

I'm not a rifle hunter. But I own many rifles in both traditional rifle looks as well as probably way too many that look "evil" including AK's. We need to be careful when we say that a rifle of a certain look shouldn't be allowed for hunting. If we do that then we are no better than those who want gun rights restrictions based on the looks of a gun.

I have no dog in the fight when it comes to rifle hunting. I have my opinions but they are irrelevant anymore and honestly would just promote further fighting among us as hunters. But I do want to remind us to be careful if we try to attack the rifle being hunted with because it doesn't fit what we perceive to be a true hunting rifle. We can go after calibers and magazine limits with good science as we move forward in whatever direction this goes.

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It was put in the constitution to protect the people against the tyranny of government. If there is tyranny I want my gun to look evil.

Of course all my guns were lost in a tragic boating accident years ago. I just hunt with my bare hands now.

Your first line is kinda what I am getting at as well...the discussion of the NRA/2nd Amendment or any relation to gun discussions for hunting are separate in my opinion than discussing right to own and bear arms.

For hunting I personally don't see the need to have a ton of rounds loaded and would support a logical thought process of limiting capacity or action style similar to what they do now for waterfowl hunters. It doesn't hurt anyone that wants to use an HPR that currently isn't allowed (many HPRs can be used legally already here on different platforms).

People have hunted through the years with sporterized military rifles chambered in military calibers or re chambered to suit their needs 22 hornet to whatever they needed.

My generation hot rodded Camaros, Mustangs, Chevelles, etc. Now I see faster cars that I must admit don't trip my trigger but have seen turbo 4 cylinder Japanese or German cars that scream point a to point b and kids hot rod what they can get.

I'm too old to tell everyone how to hunt. I know how I like it, but a 12 ga, flintlock or wildcat? All dandy choices but right now with a Nov 22 opener next year, give me the Max and I can load in Lee 38 special dies. Nothing special. One of the best bang for buck IN setups imo. But, I got an old 7 mag remington 700 with gold ringer 3x9 that would some day be a hoot to shoot one long range with. I grew up reading about Jack O'Connor and the vaunted 270. Know people in other states that hunt with "normal" hpr's and they seem ok.

Correction.......Nov 12th opening day for next year and gun opening weekend should rock, Lord willing and some good weather.

passed House floor 94-0

So, now that DNR/NRC has someone looking over their shoulder maybe they will just let them bring all rules changes to the legislature? Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.

Haven't kept up with all this conversation but by the sound of the house vote this is gonna pass isn't it?

Sounds like it, I hope not.... Dosnt the DNR have any say in this at all ? They said no last year, leave it at that, why the heck get some dam politician involved ... sore losers I guess ...

And this could be the first slip down a very very slippery slope of having legislatures controlling what the DNR should be.

This isn't the first time that Indiana lawmakers have passed hunting bills, nor will it be the last, I assume.

This one feels different to me though...just last year the DNR/NRC said no...now this. You are not incorrect though, it will not be the last.

As long as conservation is a after Thot behind a money driven agenda expect it

There are some rules/laws that are in statute (the sound suppressor bill comes to mind). Those must go to the legislature to be changed. Some rule-making authority has been granted to the NRC. Approving weapons for deer hunting was one of those powers. This bill overrules the Governor-appointed NRC and makes a LAW which can only be changed by making another LAW. Slippery slope indeed.

I don't know much about the process but a democracy vote from the state congress seems less corrupt than an appointed rule-making authority but again I'm not vested in the process so that could be entirely inaccurate.

The NRC is "supposed" to be more in touch and understand things of this nature though, as that was their designed purpose.

Congress/Legislatures have proven time and time again to know very little about things, yet then proceed to make laws on them. Gun bans is the first obvious ones...different states or areas yes but same concept.

If you form a committee tasked with the responsibility of making decisions like this (NRC) yet then make a law in essence making them useless...all you did was waste time, money and thought process on forming the NRC.

Where does the Natural Resources Committee that passed this bill 11-0 get its input?

This thing passed 94-0. That shocks me.

Haven't been follow this topic, are we saying it will be legal in Indiana to hunt with HPR this fall?

Depends on if it passes in the Senate unchanged and is then signed into law by the Governor...

Had a you got to be kidding me moment on this last night Had the chance to talk to a house Rep last evening. I asked how in the world did this HPR bill pass 94 to 0 he informed me he was led to believe it was for a special MZL season not 243 and up inclusion HPR WTF

This thing has a long way to go before it's a law...

As it's written, hprs could only be used on private property (and please, someone correct me if I'm wrong), there isn't a specific season assigned for their use as it's written now.

In other words....I wouldn't run out and buy one based on what's going on....

If this representative can't take the time to read a short, one paragraph bill that plainly states ".243", then he needs to be voted out of office. Who knows what else he has voted to pass without reading?

Most legislators (both parties) just vote as their floor leaders tell them to vote. Why waste time reading a bill and trying to understand it when you are obligated to a party that will work to defeat you if you don't vote the correct way? Most bills that get defeated get defeated before ever going to committee or in committee. If you can get a bill out of committee, you're 90% home free. At least in Indiana.

HJ

That man's columns are always sour grapes. Lol! He definitely doesn't speak for half the state's hunters who want rifles.