HB1231 passes in house- (Centerfire rifles for deer hunting)

[Expatriated]

The rest of the committee needs appointed ... they have a few days - meet, discuss, amend, - then
A)Committee votes - FOR - sign off - send back to full house and full senate - they both vote. if both houses approve - then on to the gov.
B)Don't get that done or an unsuccessful vote - Ends it.

Good explanation! Thanks!!!

 

[Expatriated]

Um...they already do. The only season that is separately entirely is Muzzleloader season when it comes to firearms. Like I said the NRA article makes it seem as if it will be an entirely different season...my hunch is if it passes it will go right along with the already in place Firearm Season (where any legal firearm can be used).

I'm not sure I understand your response. Or maybe I wasn't clear. Personally, I don't like the separate seasons. And I don't understand them. I would like to see a start date and and end date. And you shoot with whatever you want to shoot with during those dates. Longbow, crossbow, compound bow, muzzleloader, flintlock, rifle, pistol, whatever's legal. I sort of understand the bow hunting thing because you need to be closer so camo comes into play and then the rifle shooters might not see you, etc. I can buy that.

What baffles me is 2 weeks for shotgun, 2 weeks for muzzleloader, (can you use muzzleloader during shotgun?) and now maybe a different season for rifle. Just throw up a 4 or 5 week "gun season" and let everyone use whatever firearm they want for the entire season.


To your other question, I think IN DNR is unnecessarily complicated. There are much more hunting-friendly states out there than IN (and yes, there are some that are less hunting-friendly, so my comment was sort of sarcastic). As I pointed out longer seasons, less complicated rules such as the cartridge length craziness, higher bag limits, longer youth days, less nickel and diming you with the different licenses. I'm simply comparing this to other places I've lived.

However, I will say that IN at least is making strides in the right direction. Although to be fair, this current fix to the rifle debacle is in spite of the DNR, not because of it.

I think IN is improving. I don't want to seem like I hate IN. I'm hopeful that it continues.

 

[AGarbers]

I'm not a lawyer but the way I read it was that the new regulations would take effect for a maximum of four hunting seasons/years, and then the IDNR decides what effect it had. They did this with the "Assault Weapon" ban back in the 90s.

 

[Mgderf]

The North/South division just plain sucks.

It's discriminatory I tell you. Who says the people up north can't be as safe as the people in the southern part of the state?
Yep, discrimination plain and simple.

 

[gunselman]

The North/South division just plain sucks.

It's discriminatory I tell you. Who says the people up north can't be as safe as the people in the southern part of the state?
Yep, discrimination plain and simple.

I agree it's really silly. Especiallysince the way it's written anyone north of indy won't be able to hunt with the PCR's they used last year!

 

[Tynimiller]

Expatriated...thanks for the response. I think part of the confusion is you called the firearm season Shotgun Season. Indiana unlike say Illinois for example does not have a Shotgun Season.

We have a Firearm Season which many different firearms can be utilized like shotguns, muzzleloaders, HPRs in pistol form, HPR wildcat rounds like the .358 Hoosier through long Guns as well as pistol caliber Guns like .44s or .357s and others.

The only gun specific season we have is the muzzleloader season. This was more or less originally designed for the more primitive style, not the modern style in lines and smokeless powder versions utilized nowadays. However, this is a great example of how it is very tough if not IMPOSSIBLE to revert or take back anything.

My hunch is if this bill passes it will simply broaden the acceptable and legal firearms for firearm season (where outlined legal in the bill)

 

[Expatriated]

I just used shotgun as the description to distinguish from muzzleloader season. Since thats the only season you can use a shotgun it seems the most apt description. Rifle doesnt seem right since that might be the new season.

Why is there a muzzleloader only season? Why can you use muzzleloader during firearms but not firearms during muzzleloader?

I dont particulary car for muzzleloders but i did buy one this past season just so that i can hunt longer. I dont think it's fair to force someone to buy a new gun if they want to hunt longer than the 2 weeks. (Or the additional bonus). So my hope is that the rifle introduction also expands the length you can hunt with non-muzzleloader firearms.

But as others said, baby steps. Ill take what i can get.

 

[Paul30]

the 10mm thing is handgun only, not rifle. 10mm case length is 0.992" so it won't be allowed for rifle hunting.

Sounds like a caliber inclusion, if they do not specify, then a 16 inch carbine barrel meets the requirement of "longer than 4 inches". After all, other pistol caliber carbines like the lever action 44 magnum is used. I would not build or buy a wildcat for hunting deer, but a 10mm carbine, now that would be very cool regardless of hunting. If they did require it be a pistol, well, there is always the sig arm brace in the same model.

K10 - Pistol Cal 10mm

 

[HuntMeister]

I agree it's really silly. Especiallysince the way it's written anyone north of indy won't be able to hunt with the PCR's they used last year!

I do not believe this will change anything that is already legal.

 

[Mgderf]

The 10mm inclusion for pistols would be o.k., and I have a 10" barrel for my Thompson Contender, but I'd much rather use my .30-30 or .45/70govt in a rifle platform.

 

[Willie]

Conference tomorrow...

Indiana General Assembly, 2016 Session


9AM tomorrow morning Room 156-C. Should be televised if you can't make it.

 

[cedarthicket]

Because the House and Senate-passed versions differ, the Bill goes to a Conference Committee to try and work out the differences. That committee meets tomorrow morning at 9:00 AM in Room 156-C. Should be very interesting. You can see the proceedings in person, and may be able to see them on a live webcast.

Indiana General Assembly, 2016 Session

Whoops! Willie beat me to the draw.

 

[Tynimiller]

Just for the record no one forces anyone to buy a gun...or hunt more.

I am in the middle with the HPRs but just feel like sometimes we paint the DNR or the state unjustly as the enemy.

 

[Mgderf]

Just for the record no one forces anyone to buy a gun...or hunt more.

I am in the middle with the HPRs but just feel like sometimes we paint the DNR or the state unjustly as the enemy.

I don't consider them the enemy, but I don't think they're the smartest people on the block sometimes.
Their inane, capricious, and archaic rules serve to bolster this perception...

 

[Hookeye]

Maybe the state has a perception of hunters, since so many can't figure out what current regs mean.

 

[oldpink]

Maybe the state has a perception of hunters, since so many can't figure out what current regs mean.

And, of course, Hoosiers are uniquely unqualified to understand them.

 

[Expatriated]

Just for the record no one forces anyone to buy a gun...or hunt more.

I am in the middle with the HPRs but just feel like sometimes we paint the DNR or the state unjustly as the enemy.

I'll agree with this. No one even has to hunt ever. But if I wanted to hunt more and I didn't have a muzzleloader or a bow, I've pretty much forced to go get one-the only options I have is not hunt or get another tool to hunt with. That's the only point I'm making.

And while I agree that DNR doesn't force anyone to hunt, it doesn't really seem like they ENCOURAGE anyone to hunt either. But, then again, maybe they don't see that as one of their responsibilities. I'm not sure I understand what DNR's mission is. Maybe they are fulfilling their job requirements perfectly?

I will say this: My hat's off to IN government (at whatever level) in the sense that they will at least consider new things and try to make it better. There are probably states out there where changes aren't even an option so we're ahead of them. And at least it's not as expensive as going out West to hunt! Wow. My brother lived in Colorado and now in Montana and I was thinking of going hunting with him. No way. Nuts! I can hunt for years in east coast states and get dozens of deer for the cost of one or two trips out west.

 

[Tynimiller]

I don't consider them the enemy, but I don't think they're the smartest people on the block sometimes.
Their inane, capricious, and archaic rules serve to bolster this perception...

I am not for a second putting them on the same level but if archaic nature rules is something you dislike are you a fan of the constitution or bill of rights? The bible? The golden rule?

Again don't think for a minute I am saying they are perfect or infallible...their inability to blanket allow or disallow HPRs was a mess from the start (if legal through a pistol, then should be legal through a rifle...if illegal through a rifle then should be illegal through a pistol...wait..)

Me personally I'd like to see the bill die but not because I personally feel they shouldn't be allowed but for a couple reasons;

#1 This is not the proper procedure. I don't want the legislatures making fish and game laws...while our DNR yes is understaffed and yes may not be everything we want it to be, I personally feel they are way more in touch with the state's sportsman then legislatures...that was the whole idea behind the creation of the DNR. I understand many disagreed with the DNR denying them last year due to "social issues" when all they had to say was it was far to split in opinion to approve it at this time.

#2 The private vs public ONLY discussion is ridiculous. Either make them legal across the board or not at all. This to me is similar to the concept of "Yes, you can use a 30-06 for deer hunting in Indiana....but only through a pistol...not a rifle."

#3 (Personal one more than the other two) I believe deer hunting does not require multiple/numerous rounds of ammunition. I'd love to see them approve HPR's for single shots only...however I acknowledge that is more personal thing and would be unfair across the board. That is why I'm more in favor of mimicking the waterfowl laws and limiting loaded rounds of ammunition to 3...waterfowlers been doing it for years I'm fairly certain us common deer hunters can handle that as well. It still allows someone that quick follow up shot that some people swear they need and even an extra one if you are the type to launch consecutive shots at a running deer (me personally would never do).

#1 and #2 are my biggest beefs with the bill though...be curious to see what comes of the committee today.

 

[Willie]

I missed the meeting video as I thought it was 9 CST.

From what I am reading on my website from the folks that did watch it it came out this way..

They have opened it back up to state wide, no height requirement, 243,30-30, 300,30-06, 308 caliber's only, private ground. Ten rounds of ammo in magazine.

No purple paint either...

Don't ask me why they cherry picked just those calibers???

 

[avboiler11]

If lawmakers truly did limit allowable calibers to only 243 and a handful of 30s then yes, that will be a spectacular fail.