It just got passed in the house 84 yeas 5 nays. now on to the senate where it could run into trouble.
I emailed the committees and my own legislators and told them to vote no. the way this is set up is a step to the side and 2 backwards ... copy of letter? ask. I'll post it. ...
Getting close. So, if it passes senate, it's just a governors signature left?
Ruger Scout will hopefully see some action this fall!
Not to be a Negative Nancy or anything, but you do know if this bill fails, the chances of either the DNR or the Legislature bringing up the HPR issue again in the future is almost nonexistent, don't you?. This is more than likely our only shot. I say get the danged thing passed and amend it later.
you don't think this could be brought up before 2020? and if that is so, it would be just as unlikely (IMO) to get amended before the study period ends. ... or returned to the list of proposals then.
I'd support it, if it made sense, even as a baby step forward. I get the idea of baby steps.
Part 1 - the wording on cartridges is dumber than the current rules with what it allows and does not -
... and I have a 243 that I could use ... if I had private land ... I guess I can't be ethical about a shot on public land though.
nor is it clear how this effects the current rules on CF rifles (generally in 'pistol calibers') ... that are not on the list. legal? not? whut?
remember this state law and overrides IAC and DNR Rules.
Part 2 - opens the door for .40 S&W ... technically, yes, it does - which is an in appropriate round to hunt deer with;
also most (not all) 10mm auto ammo is down loaded to 40 levels; Full power 10 mm auto is fine.
I see no need to rush and DNR has been progressing this direction anyway.
Sorry, Just IMO. ... feel free to write and express your own ... that's the way it is supposed to work.
it goes w/ my opinion in general of our government at most levels - stagnation is exactly something that is part of the process;
because a government that cannot 'progress' is prevented from progressively taking your rights.
I understand your frustration, but I don't think it could pass with public land included at this time. It seems like much of the opposition last year came from public land hunters and northerners. The DNR could most certainly come back if this bill passes and change it to full inclusion of both all rifles over .243" and public ground via the administrative process.
Both my Senator and Representative are strong supporters of this bill, so I am good to go without contacting them to ask for support. Did your Representative vote yeah or nay today?
geesh. if I have to wait for them to add cartridges by name I'll be 90 years old before they even consider the 7-08 I own........
Well - the senate was a closer vote to begin with; so tomorrow will tell the tale.
and as to the vote - it was par for the course:
no one I contacted on the H side voted the way I asked. ... so normal. Must be Tuesday. or any other day that ends in a "Y".
Rumor has it that some of the previous Senate nays were due to the now-removed "purple paint" portion, so I'm hoping for a stronger majority this time.
Rumor has it that some of the previous Senate nays were due to the now-removed "purple paint" portion, so I'm hoping for a stronger majority this time.
the "INGO" rule was silly; but when you look at it from cost to mark perspective ... well it is cheaper (than signs that get shot ever __ feet) but then again ... I dunno ...
I envision purple forests, and violet trees; and uni-corn deer. ... wait ... LOL ... (sorry Not good at purple, myself.) ...
It falls where it does, and we move forward. It just seems like it will end up "Ok we've appeased this; so now its a non issue for a few years." ... and instead of doing it correctly, let's make it more confusing.
C'est La Vie.