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

[M4Madness]

What date is day 8?

8 days after it was presented for his signature. This year's session ended on March 10, so I would assume that it was that day. I guess we will find out soon enough.

 

[M4Madness]

Governor Pence: 2016 Bill Watch

 

[Flinttim]

I don't see it changing much I do. I own my own land, but I just finished "wildcatting" my 45-70 Indiana legal loads and they are an absolute hammer. No where I hunt on our faerm can I see deer beyond 100 yds anyway so the 45-70 will be fine. Now what it does do for me is the fact that I bought my grandaughter a .243 two Christmas ago and now she can hunt on my place or her stepfather's place. A .243 seems a good round for a young lady to hunt with, over a shotgun or pistol caliber rifle. The only thing I question is the calibers they dreamed up. Almost seems the author of the bill has those 5 guns. LOL. The way the House and Senate done a run around play on the DNR I figure they will just throw their hands up and open it all the way up. It appears there will be some "clarification" by "someone" as to actual cartridges that you can use. Not sure how you say .300 WinMag and leave the other.300s out. And outside the .243, why all 30 cal ? Sort of a hodge podge , thrown together piece of legislation, but I am starting to accept that from our lawmakers.

 

[Mgderf]

8 days after it was presented for his signature. This year's session ended on March 10, so I would assume that it was that day. I guess we will find out soon enough.

I kind of wondered if it was 8 days, or 8 "working days", or 8 legislative days...
They never seem to make this stuff clear.

So we should be looking at somewhere around the 18th?
The suspense is killing me.

 

[M4Madness]

I kind of wondered if it was 8 days, or 8 "working days", or 8 legislative days...
They never seem to make this stuff clear.

So we should be looking at somewhere around the 18th?
The suspense is killing me.

From further reading, it appears that it goes to the Lt. Governor first, then back to House Secretary (or something like that), then to Governor. It doesn't look like the Lt. Governor has signed yet, so the count hasn't begun.

You can go to the bill's page, click "bill actions", and it will show each time it is signed.

 

[mistersmith]

I was lucky to watch the vote in the Senate live the day they passed this Bill. The vote was 38 for and 12 against. I would love to know the 12 who voted no and where they are located in the state. I would love to send these 12 a letter saying how dismayed I am with there stance.

 

[JKEdge]

YEA - 38
Alting, Eckerty, Long, Steele, Arnold, Ford, Merritt, Tallian, Banks, Grooms, Messmer, Tomes, Bassler, Head, (Miller, Pat), Walker, Becker, Hershman, (Miller, Pete), Waltz, Boots, Holdman, Mishler, Yoder, Brown, Houchin, Niemeyer, (Young, M), Buck, Kenley, Raatz, Zakas, Charbonneau, Kruse, Schneider, Delph, Leising, Smith

NAY - 12
Bray, Crider, Mrvan, Rogers, Breaux, Glick, Perfect, Stoops, Broden, Lanane, Randolph, Taylo

 

[BStarkey 46947]

My senator voted for in the first reading and against in the second reading. Crazy.

 

[JKEdge]

Mine voted against

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Governor Pence: 2016 Bill Watch

Just checked, according to his page it's not on his desk yet.

 

[M4Madness]

My senator voted for in the first reading and against in the second reading. Crazy.

Randolph?

 

[Willie]

I know one of the nays and he told me that the bill was totally flawed and he was right. He also said that this should never have been introduced in the legislature and should have went through the DNR/NRC Administrative Rules Process and he is right.

IMO - Gents, You're getting most of what you want, but at what cost? The politicians answer to many different people and money so the next time they meddle in Indiana game management might not be to your liking. A person or a group cant get what they want through the accepted and normal process? No, problem get the legislature to do it for them. This sets a terrible precedent.. It should be left to the DNR and NRC as it has been done in the past...

 

[Tom Threetoes]

I know one of the nays and he told me that the bill was totally flawed and he was right. He also said that this should never have been introduced in the legislature and should have went through the DNR/NRC Administrative Rules Process and he is right.

IMO - Gents, You're getting most of what you want, but at what cost? The politicians answer to many different people and money so the next time they meddle in Indiana game management might not be to your liking. A person or a group cant get what they want through the accepted and normal process? No, problem get the legislature to do it for them. This sets a terrible precedent.. It should be left to the DNR and NRC as it has been done in the past...

AMEN, Willie

 

[SteveM4A1]

I know one of the nays and he told me that the bill was totally flawed and he was right. He also said that this should never have been introduced in the legislature and should have went through the DNR/NRC Administrative Rules Process and he is right.

IMO - Gents, You're getting most of what you want, but at what cost? The politicians answer to many different people and money so the next time they meddle in Indiana game management might not be to your liking. A person or a group cant get what they want through the accepted and normal process? No, problem get the legislature to do it for them. This sets a terrible precedent.. It should be left to the DNR and NRC as it has been done in the past...

Left to the DNR to do nothing? Sure.

There is always the possibility that politicians will screw something up or do something I don't like. However, I vote for them to be in office, unlike the DNR. The idea that this is "a dangerous precedent" because we had to get elected officials involved to allow a way of hunting, which is allowed in almost every other state, is exactly the opposite. If the DNR refuses to listen to logic and reason, it is the job of our elected officials to set them straight. The DNR shouldn't hold all of the power to regulate how I like to hunt/fish/trap, especially when they go against scientific data.

 

[brotherbill3]

This isn't pertinent to this session or bill specifically, but gives a little insight into the "technical correction" process.

What is technical corrections day at the Indiana General Assembly? - IN The Briefing Room

Thanks - this is very good info. infact the link also belongs in the legislative sub-forum!

 

[Willie]

Left to the DNR to do nothing? Sure.

There is always the possibility that politicians will screw something up or do something I don't like. However, I vote for them to be in office, unlike the DNR. The idea that this is "a dangerous precedent" because we had to get elected officials involved to allow a way of hunting, which is allowed in almost every other state, is exactly the opposite. If the DNR refuses to listen to logic and reason, it is the job of our elected officials to set them straight. The DNR shouldn't hold all of the power to regulate how I like to hunt/fish/trap, especially when they go against scientific data.

The DNR and NRC has in place the Administrative Rules Process where they take input from any and all of the state's hunters that care to give input. The politicians have in place a process where they listen to a few well connected individuals (most times with campaign donations) and as this bill/act pointed out know next to nothing about guns and/or hunting..

Like I said you got your way this time but next time the shoe might be on the other foot...and you might not like the results..

Let the hired professionals manage out wildlife resources...

 

[SteveM4A1]

The DNR and NRC has in place the Administrative Rules Process where they take input from any and all of the state's hunters that care to give input. The politicians have in place a process where they listen to a few well connected individuals (most times with campaign donations) and as this bill/act pointed out know next to nothing about guns and/or hunting..

Politicians generally know very little on what they are voting (at least in my opinion), so this is no different than any other bill. The DNR/NRC has had plenty of time to get something similar to this put into effect, but they have failed to do so. It was time for the GA to step in and push this issue, and thankfully, they were able to get something passed that derestricts our abilities as hunters.

Like I said you got your way this time but next time the shoe might be on the other foot...and you might not like the results..

I didn't get my way, but this is certainly a step in the right direction. A direction that the DNR/NRC can hopefully build upon. I am very pessimistic about liking any future results from the DNR/NRC or GA, so this has very little bearing on that.

Let the hired professionals manage out wildlife resources...

While I appreciate the hard work the DNR puts in on our wildlife resources, I can hardly act like I am thrilled about their results sometimes. I am not a wildlife professional, have no formal education on the subjects, so my opinion means very little. However, the DNR could certainly look at other states as examples on how to manage the resources in our state so that we could get more out of them at times.

 

[Expatriated]

I guess I'm not seeing the distinction. To me, it's just different layers of the same state government. Some claim that for some reason DNR is in a better position to make these decisions because theoretically they know more about guns or about hunting or whatever. But, I don't really see any evidence of that. If they were the ones responsible for these crazy caliber rules that existed prior to the legislature getting involved, I don't see that as instilling confidence that they have some sort of uniquely qualified logical ability to make decisions.

I will agree that the bill is flawed, but it's no more flawed than what existed prior to the bill. I think it's an improvement, albeit a roundabout one. Most importantly, it's a step in the right direction.

I guess my point is I don't really care who's making the decisions--DNR or legislature. If anything, the legislature has shown the tendency to expand gun rights, not only for hunters, but for those that carry, etc. I don't see that same commitment from DNR.

 

[boman]

YEA - 38
Alting, Eckerty, Long, Steele, Arnold, Ford, Merritt, Tallian, Banks, Grooms, Messmer, Tomes, Bassler, Head, (Miller, Pat), Walker, Becker, Hershman, (Miller, Pete), Waltz, Boots, Holdman, Mishler, Yoder, Brown, Houchin, Niemeyer, (Young, M), Buck, Kenley, Raatz, Zakas, Charbonneau, Kruse, Schneider, Delph, Leising, Smith

NAY - 12
Bray, Crider, Mrvan, Rogers, Breaux, Glick, Perfect, Stoops, Broden, Lanane, Randolph, Taylo

The Nay votes included 9 democrates who voted along party anti-gun lines as expected. Republicans who voted nay were, Perfect, was against the bill because he feared someone would get shot on his farm, Glick, who heads up the Nat. Resources committee and who was against this bill from the get go, not real clear why; and Crider, who was formerly head of LE at the DNR. He opposed the bill primarily because it didn't mirror the DNR's proposal last year I suspect, definitely in favor of rifles for the most part though. Perfect and Glick get a "fail" as pro-gun republicans in my book.

Steve

 

[boman]

The DNR and NRC has in place the Administrative Rules Process where they take input from any and all of the state's hunters that care to give input. The politicians have in place a process where they listen to a few well connected individuals (most times with campaign donations) and as this bill/act pointed out know next to nothing about guns and/or hunting..

Like I said you got your way this time but next time the shoe might be on the other foot...and you might not like the results..

Let the hired professionals manage out wildlife resources...

Willie, You're starting to sound like Doug Allman and Joe Bacon when the Ind deer hunters assoc. stirred up all the controversy over high fence hunting 15 years ago. LOL

Steve