DNR Public Input on Proposals Hearings

[avboiler11]

Farking pathetic.

Fear is a compelling motivator, especially when paired with ignorance.

 

[midget]

The DNR withdrew the rifle proposal. It is officially dead.

it will be back in a different form in the next year or two.

Do you have a link?

 

[bobjones223]

The DNR withdrew the rifle proposal. It is officially dead.

it will be back in a different form in the next year or two.

Well that sucks! One of these days a decision will be made based on intelligence and facts instead of misplaced fear without evidence.

Well time to got home, drink away my sorrows, and start cleaning the guns that were to be used in the fall. They will be heart broken that they will not be seeing any action in the fall other that squirrels, rabbits, racoons, crows, fox, and coyote. The frogs are still safe unless I can get some 7.62 birdshot.

I think there is a song about this...."There's a tear on my deer because I am missing you my dear."

 

[Willie]

Do you have a link?

No.'it is not posted yet but that info was from someone who was at the meeting..

 

[M4Madness]

I think what killed it was too many people thinking it was a shoe-in and not bothering to send comments in. I personally know a lot of people who were in favor of it, but never bothered to send in a comment. These people openly discussed their support, yet I never found their names when I searched the comment pdf. That's why we were outnumbered by the opposition. Hopefully this will be a valuable lesson learned and all will comment next time.

 

[oldpink]

I think what killed it was too many people thinking it was a shoe-in and not bothering to send comments in. I personally know a lot of people who were in favor of it, but never bothered to send in a comment. These people openly discussed their support, yet I never found their names when I searched the comment pdf. That's why we were outnumbered by the opposition. Hopefully this will be a valuable lesson learned and all will comment next time.

I definitely sent in a comment.
The thing is that I had to dig like crazy on the DNR site to find where to do it.
I doubt that many pro-centerfire folks found it, but the anti-centerfire folks (likely assisted by the famously well organized anti-gun people) were probably given the link and told to comment against in force.
There's even a letter to the editor in the Indianapolis Star that magically coincides with this subject, even though the connection isn't explicit.
Stray bullet shatters sense of security

 

[bstewrat3]

So how does that work with the Thompson Contenders? You can flip flop those back and forth all day?

You can only change back and forth if the receiver was sold as a receiver only or as a pistol originally. If the receiver was sold as a complete rifle you can not change it to a pistol legally. Having said that, if you have someone looking into how your Contender or Encore left the factory you have already messed up.

 

[Willie]

I think what killed it was too many people thinking it was a shoe-in and not bothering to send comments in. I personally know a lot of people who were in favor of it, but never bothered to send in a comment. These people openly discussed their support, yet I never found their names when I searched the comment pdf. That's why we were outnumbered by the opposition. Hopefully this will be a valuable lesson learned and all will comment next time.

I tried to get folks interested and to give input...

 

[ChrisK1977]

I would like to read what all the dnr said when it comes out. Pretty bummed.

 

[davedolli]

Bummer big time!

 

[Ward250]

And the price of Indiana legal wildcats begins to bounce back! I bet those niche builders and smiths are relieved.

 

[sgt1968]

anyone wornding if the bill passed or not well i jst got off the phone with dnr it did NOT pass .....

 

[Willie]

I would like to read what all the dnr said when it comes out. Pretty bummed.

No reason given here but this is official..

NRC adopts fees, drops rifle and sunfish proposals - 5/19/2015 - State of Indiana

Basically they said it was a "social issue" and since they got more negative than positive pieces of input they decided to drop it.

 

[chipbennett]

A Large number of Comments were in opposition to the proposal for reasons that include:
· Public safety (particularly with the flat topography in the central and northern part of the state);
· Potential reduced hunter access with landowners or towns/cities further restricting the use of firearms because of increased concerns about safety;
· Amount of equipment that is already legal to use to take deer; and
· deer over-harvest.

Well, it looks as if DNR has provided the talking points to be refuted in the next go-around. If this is the best they can come up with, then it shouldn't be that difficult.

 

[M4Madness]

Well, it looks as if DNR has provided the talking points to be refuted in the next go-around. If this is the best they can come up with, then it shouldn't be that difficult.

Yep.

· Public safety (particularly with the flat topography in the central and northern part of the state). This one can be beat by the simple fact that most hunters use treestands and aim at a downward angle. And if they are sitting on flat ground shooting out across a field, their barrel will probably be 30" off the ground when held horizontal. A .308 rifle on a 100-yard zero will put the bullet in the dirt at somewhere around 450 yards. There shouldn't be any steep upward angle shots on the flat topography that the detractors are citing in their excuse.

· Potential reduced hunter access with landowners or towns/cities further restricting the use of firearms because of increased concerns about safety; This one can be beat by simply hunting with whatever the landowner allows and continue hunting there. If a high-powered rifle is unsafe in the area of a city/town, then ALL firearms in that area are unsafe and should be prohibited.

· Amount of equipment that is already legal to use to take deer. Rifles are already legal for deer hunting, so adding more calibers doesn't change the amount of equipment.

· deer over-harvest. People are going to shoot the number of deer that they want and no more. The type of firearm has no bearing on the number killed. Even if it did allow more deer to be killed, the state can simply reduce the bag limit to control that.

 

[Willie]

Yep.

· Public safety (particularly with the flat topography in the central and northern part of the state). This one can be beat by the simple fact that most hunters use treestands and aim at a downward angle. And if they are sitting on flat ground shooting out across a field, their barrel will probably be 30" off the ground when held horizontal. A .308 rifle on a 100-yard zero will put the bullet in the dirt at somewhere around 450 yards. There shouldn't be any steep upward angle shots on the flat topography that the detractors are citing in their excuse.

· Potential reduced hunter access with landowners or towns/cities further restricting the use of firearms because of increased concerns about safety; This one can be beat by simply hunting with whatever the landowner allows and continue hunting there. If a high-powered rifle is unsafe in the area of a city/town, then ALL firearms in that area are unsafe and should be prohibited.

· Amount of equipment that is already legal to use to take deer. Rifles are already legal for deer hunting, so adding more calibers doesn't change the amount of equipment.

· deer over-harvest. People are going to shoot the number of deer that they want and no more. The type of firearm has no bearing on the number killed. Even if it did allow more deer to be killed, the state can simply reduce the bag limit to control that.

Agreed...Every one of these excuses were repeated over and over again with PCRs and crossbows. The sky did not fall...

 

[cschwanz]

Get that logic and common sense out of here. The Internet is no place for that kind of language.

 

[singlesix]

Yep.

· Public safety (particularly with the flat topography in the central and northern part of the state). This one can be beat by the simple fact that most hunters use treestands and aim at a downward angle. And if they are sitting on flat ground shooting out across a field, their barrel will probably be 30" off the ground when held horizontal. A .308 rifle on a 100-yard zero will put the bullet in the dirt at somewhere around 450 yards. There shouldn't be any steep upward angle shots on the flat topography that the detractors are citing in their excuse.
.

First you have to convince them the earth isn't flat. No amount of facts will overcome some people's fears.I remember that telecheck in would lead to increase poaching.

 

[I.A.]

I'm really disappointed to hear this. I was hoping to be able to hunt with my grandfather's 30-06 that I inherited... I had even purchased an old stock to throw on it so i didn't ding up the original. Here's to hoping the proposal comes back again in the next few years...

 

[Cerberus]

I think what killed it was too many people thinking it was a shoe-in and not bothering to send comments in. I personally know a lot of people who were in favor of it, but never bothered to send in a comment. These people openly discussed their support, yet I never found their names when I searched the comment pdf. That's why we were outnumbered by the opposition. Hopefully this will be a valuable lesson learned and all will comment next time.

I tried to give my input and support in favor for modern rifle cartridges, and I could not for the life of me get the web page work and send mine. After several tries I gave up. I bet it worked perfectly for the antis