HB 4283 use of rifle in shotgun zone

[Leader]

It's "Et up with the Yankee Dumbass". Light caliber pistol ammo like the.380 and .38s are not what I'd call acceptable deer rounds. I wouldn't use either. If folks go into the field with them, there's going to be wounded deer. I wish they'd leave the regulations to people with a clue rather than politicians.

Pete

I guess the next question is.... Would you use a .380 or .38s on a humans?

[Roundballer]

So what's the chances this time?

How much weight will they put on the DNR saying it will cost more, and be harder to enforce?

Bill Analysis-House 2013-HLA-4283

FISCAL IMPACT:

House Bill 4283 would have an indeterminate fiscal impact on the Department of Natural Resources. Any fiscal impact would be related to additional law enforcement costs. Under the provisions of the bill, areas of the state which lie within the limited firearms area would now be open to the use of certain specific rifles during the firearm deer season, whereas, under current law, the use of all rifles in these areas is prohibited.

According to the department, the provisions of the bill may make firearm regulations harder to enforce in the part of the state below the current rifle/shotgun zone boundary since under current law, there is a clear prohibition against all rifles in these areas during the firearm deer hunting season. Currently, only shotguns, muzzle loaders, and certain hand guns may be used during the firearm deer season below the rifle/shotgun zone boundary line. Any additional enforcement costs to the DNR would be dependent upon any increased law enforcement activities under the bill's provisions and any additional complaints that conservation officers might be called upon to investigate.

Which is total BS, because you can not readily tell the difference between a .410 w/sights and a rifle at a distance. If there is question, they would have to approach the person any way.

[Divegeek]

How much weight will they put on the DNR saying it will cost more, and be harder to enforce?

Bill Analysis-House 2013-HLA-4283


Which is total BS, because you can not readily tell the difference between a .410 w/sights and a rifle at a distance. If there is question, they would have to approach the person any way.

Or even better stop worrying about what someone shoots the deer with, and just make sure that they have a tag. Hunting and fishing regs in this state are ridiculously out of control.

[Kaeto]

The original idea behind the shotgun only zone is that the area for shotguns only is more densely populated. So there is more danger when using rifles due to their longer maximum range.

[art]

The original idea behind the shotgun only zone is that the area for shotguns only is more densely populated. So there is more danger when using rifles due to their longer maximum range.

The cartridges listed in the bill have no more range than current muzzle loader or modern shotgun loads.....some far less.....

[LibertyComrade]

I guess the next question is.... Would you use a .380 or .38s on a human?

Most grown humans are bigger then adult deer.

Off-topic, but I think this is a bit like comparing apples to oranges. If I'm lawfully using something like a .38s on a person it's going to be in self-defense. So my interest is to stop the threat not necessarily to kill the person immediately. Often that is the way one must stop the threat, but it's not the intended outcome necessarily.

However, when hunting the intent is to kill your target, not just stop them. If we accept the moral premise that we should reduce suffering where we can, then it would lead to a desire for a more lethal round to be used for hunting than to be potentially used for self-defense.

Not saying that those rounds should be unacceptable for hunting, I think it should be up to the hunter to decide what they think is best and/or ethical. But I'm not sure comparing self-defense to hunting is really a valid comparison. They have quite different fundamental aims.

[petemi]

I disagree entirely. If life is threatened, I'm grabbing the biggest weapon closest at hand and shooting for the center of the mass to kill. I'm not giving a two legged predator a second chance to take me out. They do not deserve the humane treatment accorded game animals. There is no comparison. Besides, killing him may save me being sued in civil court for ruining his day.

Pete

[45/70fan]

I disagree entirely. If life is threatened, I'm grabbing the biggest weapon closest at hand and shooting for the center of the mass to kill. Pete

I do believe that is considered premeditated murder, you only want to shoot to stop the threat, if the SOB dies: OH Well, they started it.

[petemi]

I don't see it as premeditated murder. It's called self defense. So I'm a lousy shot and blew up his heart....oh well. Sorry about that. A while back I read about an elderly black lady in a wheel chair on the street and had a thug grab for her necklace. She shot him with her licensed handgun. No charges filed, and that wasn't life threatening.

Pete

[45/70fan]

I don't see it as premeditated murder. It's called self defense. So I'm a lousy shot and blew up his heart....oh well. Sorry about that. A while back I read about an elderly black lady in a wheel chair on the street and had a thug grab for her necklace. She shot him with her licensed handgun. No charges filed, and that wasn't life threatening.

Pete

If you set out to kill a person whether in SD or otherwise that is premeditated, you have the right idea just phrasing it wrong.