You know what amuses me? People that are so dense that even when others, smarter than them, try to educate them and still can't seem to get through to them.Folks who are stuck on technical terms from Indiana hunt guide such as: "high-powered Rifles" as distinct from "center-fire" Rifles amuse me...................ha,
The problem is that there is NO IC that dictates PCRs are legal on public property, that was previously a NRC decisions through administrative rules. IC trumps administrative rules, so when new IC is written that does not distinguish between "pistol caliber rifles" (as termed by NRC) and "rifles" (as written in the Indiana Code), but fails to define what "rifle" means in that specific section of code NRC/DNR must defer to the definition of a "rifle" elsewhere in the code. Rifle, as defined elsewhere, encompasses the PCRs previously allowed by NRC admin rules. And therefore, the code, intended to permit high-power rifles on private property, inadvertently prohibits rifles on public property, without distinguishing a difference between the PCR and "rifle".And somebody in the DNR took a line from that and claimed PCR was off the table for public land.
I think this is where you're wrong. Typically, intent of a law, regardless of how it is written, is something that is decided in court. While individual officer discretion can be used to decide on citing a person, when giving general guidelines to and entire department of LE, there is less room for discretion. As I said earlier, the DNR could have chose to go with intent, but they decided to take the more conservative approach and go with "as written" and let the officer discretion and courts figure it out. That may sound like a terrible way of doing it, and it may get a lot of people butt-hurt, but it's also the best approach from a strictly legalistic point of view. It's covering the bottom of everybody involved with the hope that if a person is charged, the courts will take the law as intended.IMHO they are wrong. The lawmaker politely took one on the chin, accepted blame.........and restated that PCR removal from
public was NEVER the intent.
You're correct, they screwed up last year and DNR is just now figuring it out...The legislature screwed up last yr, not this yr.
Maybe some hunters on public land are too stupid to be trusted to use a HP rifle............heck, most of them can't seem to understand how a law came about or what it means.
what I failed to understand is they can restrict the caliber you can use on private land? So if i owned 100 acres and went out hunting i couldnt use any caliber i wanted? is DNR really going to show up on my land and try to enforce caliber restrictions?
Maybe some hunters on public land are too stupid to be trusted to use a HP rifle............heck, most of them can't seem to understand how a law came about or what it means.
what I failed to understand is they can restrict the caliber you can use on private land? So if i owned 100 acres and went out hunting i couldnt use any caliber i wanted? is DNR really going to show up on my land and try to enforce caliber restrictions?
I've never been sold on the cutting down of cartridges to 1.8" . The gun is still capable of shooting the correct cartridge .
what I failed to understand is they can restrict the caliber you can use on private land? So if i owned 100 acres and went out hunting i couldnt use any caliber i wanted? is DNR really going to show up on my land and try to enforce caliber restrictions?
again showing my ignorance, but if i was on my own property, and took down a deer, why would i report it? Why not just drag it home, process and eat it. Move on with my life......
Conservation Officers carry a "gauge" which specifically measure 1.8 inches just like they carry a magnet to detect "steel (iron)" shotshells which are legal for waterfowl.
Non toxic shot is also mandated for dove on F&W areas.
Magnet aint gonna pick up bismuth though.
Hopefully you do realize that some of us have been at this stuff a while and don't need the spoon feed.