HB 4283 use of rifle in shotgun zone

[Tallbear]

HB 4283 of 2013 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2013-HB-4283)
Natural resources; hunting; use of certain firearms during firearm deer season; allow. Amends sec. 43526 of 1994 PA 451 (MCL 324.43526).
Last Action: 2/19/2013 referred to Committee on Tourism

[Divegeek]

looks about the same as last year. It has the stupid 1.16-1.8" cartridge length regulation in there. Which means that a .380/9x17mm Walther PPK/S would be acceptable, but a 9x19mm from a carbine with a 16" barrel isn't "powerful enough".

It is an improvement over what we have now, but still ridiculous.

[klijewski]

looks about the same as last year. It has the stupid 1.16-1.8" cartridge length regulation in there. Which means that a .380/9x17mm Walther PPK/S would be acceptable, but a 9x19mm from a carbine with a 16" barrel isn't "powerful enough".

It is an improvement over what we have now, but still ridiculous.


WAT? .380 is shorter than 1.16.

What they need to do is open it up to all leaver action rifles or at least make the length longer to include the 45-70. This does include the .357 mag and 44mag though.

[sasquatchpa]

Who should we e-mail/call ? Who are the committee members? List them and I will call...

[klijewski]

looks like rep. Matt Lori introduced the bill
124 N Capitol Ave Lansing, MI 48933
(517) 373-0832

[Roundballer]

Who should we e-mail/call ? Who are the committee members? List them and I will call...
Tourism:

Peter Pettalia (R) Committee Chair, 106th District
Ken Goike (R) Majority Vice-Chair, 33rd District
Hugh D. Crawford (R) 38th District
Bob Genetski (R) 80th District
Bruce Rendon (R) 103rd District
Dave Pagel (R) 78th District
Robert Kosowski (D) Minority Vice-Chair, 16th District
Charles Brunner (D) 96th District
John Kivela (D) 109th District
_____________________________
Joy Brewer, Committee Clerk
517-373-8474
_____________________________


Maybe suggest that the lower length be moved to 0.75 to include .38sp and 9x19, and still keep the .380 out.

This same bill, introduced by the same rep, passed the house last year 106 to 2. The bill died in the Senate.

[Walther]

And the .30 M1 Carbine. I can use it or my Blackhawk in .30 Carbine up north, neither one down here. This is an opportunity to include it in the handgun listing as well.

There are so few cartridges that meet the criteria it'd be simpler just to list them instead of using caliber and Min/Max length.

What is included here? Common ones would be 9mm, .38 special .357, .40 Smith, .41 mag, .44 special, 44 mag, .45 ACP, .45 Colt, what am I missing? Not sure you could even find a long gun for .38 or .44 spec, never looked. Maybe I'll get an Auto Ordinance Thompson, that'd be fun to hunt deer with....

[sasquatchpa]

Walther--H&R makes a handi-rifle in .357 and .44

[MrSmithMSU]

Walther - there are .357 leverguns that will use .38spl - I wonder if some of the .44Mag leverguns will accept .44spl as well.

[Crow Buster]

The reality is this has little to do with ballistics, and much to do with safe gun handling/shooter education and responsibility. A knucklehead with a .22 is much more dangerous than your typical sportsman with a 30-06. The Pennsylvania study is the only scientific data that deals with the subject; it clearly shows that rifle, shotgun, and ML are very similar when it comes to downrange dangers.

I live in the middle of a state game area, and every season there are a couple of folks that give me cause for concern, but it never has anything to do with what gun they are carrying. Some folks would be dangerous running around with a stick in their hands.


CB

[Walther]

Walther--H&R makes a handi-rifle in .357 and .44

Several companies make them. I was wondering more about the .38 and .44 specials, not magnums.




Walther - there are .357 leverguns that will use .38spl - I wonder if some of the .44Mag leverguns will accept .44spl as well.

Thanks. I'm going to ask around, not that I'd have either one, just out of interest.

[Divegeek]

WAT? .380 is shorter than 1.16.

You are correct .380 is shorter than 1.16", but there is not a restriction on cartridge length out of a pistol, only the new part about rifles chambered in pistol cartridges. So therefore, as the proposal is written, you can hunt deer with a .380 pistol, but not a .380 rifle. (not that I have seen too many rifles in .380) Same goes for 9x19mm. I could hunt with a Glock 19 if I plugged the mag to hold less than 8rnds, but I couldn't hunt with a carbine chambered in the same 9x19mm.

[Leader]

The reality is this has little to do with ballistics, and much to do with safe gun handling/shooter education and responsibility. A knucklehead with a .22 is much more dangerous than your typical sportsman with a 30-06. The Pennsylvania study is the only scientific data that deals with the subject; it clearly shows that rifle, shotgun, and ML are very similar when it comes to downrange dangers.

I live in the middle of a state game area, and every season there are a couple of folks that give me cause for concern, but it never has anything to do with what gun they are carrying. Some folks would be dangerous running around with a stick in their hands.


CB

What study is that? I didn't know one existed .
I would like to read it.

[Crow Buster]

I believe this is the summary:

http://lbfc.legis.state.pa.us/reports/2007/168fs.PDF


CB

[art]

Any real chance this year, or is it doomed again....

[Roundballer]

Any real chance this year, or is it doomed again....
Yes, there is always a chance. We have until Dec, 2014 to get this bill the way we want it, and convince our Reps and Senators to pass it.

Write your Rep and Senator, and tell them your thoughts.

[petemi]

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

[Tallbear]

HB 4283 of 2013 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2013-HB-4283)
Natural resources; hunting; use of certain firearms during firearm deer season; allow. Amends sec. 43526 of 1994 PA 451 (MCL 324.43526).
Last Action: 4/24/2013 Analysis File Added

[buckey]

So what's the chances this time?

[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 human?

Most grown humans are bigger then adult deer.

[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 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/billanalysis/House/htm/2013-HLA-4283-B7A08DA1.htm)

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 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/billanalysis/House/htm/2013-HLA-4283-B7A08DA1.htm)


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.

[LibertyComrade]

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.

Exactly, it's the intent. Justified self-defense only requires you to stop the threat, not kill your attacker.

For example if you were a martial artist and you disabled a mugger that attacked you with a grapple and then someone saw you snap their neck intentionally anyway, that's murder and not self-defense. It's just harder to prove that with a shooting usually.

If a man breaks into your house and you shoot him and he dies as a result of his wounds, that's still self-defense. But if you've shot the guy and he's laying on the floor bleeding to death and is clearly no longer a threat and you walk over and put a round in his head while he's on the ground, that's not self-defense.

[45/70fan]

If you post on a forum that your intent is to kill someone if you have to shoot them in self defense that constitutes intent because you intended to kill and not just stop the threat.

The difference is choosing between remaining a free person vs. doing life for premeditated murder/homicide.

[Quaamik]

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

Yeah, that would be nice. Problem is that everyone seems to think their opinions on the subject, or old stories from deer camp, or what they know as "common knowledge" should be given the same weight as sceintific measurable data.

Just because you wouldn't go into the field with a .38 for deer, doesn't mean its an unnacceptable choice. The reality is that even a .380 produces more energy, deeper penetration and (provided the right bullet it chosen) potentially more damage than some broad head hunting arrows. Knowledge of your weapon, shot placement and the willingness to do what will be needed to recover game is the determining factor on wounded vs recovered deer - not the power of the cartridge.

Personally, I think the bill is fataly flawed as written. I agree with the DNR - it would be a nightmare to enforce. Say a game warden comes across a person carrying a revolver and a rifle, both in .357 mag. The revolver is loaded with .357 mag ammo, the rifle is unloaded, and he has loose .357 mag ammo and loose .38 special +P ammo in his pocket. Did he break the law? What if they find him with a rifle in .357 mag that's loaded, should they force him to unload it (or unload it themselves) and check each round to verify its a .357 and not a .38? What if he has a rifle in .357 mag, loaded with .357 mag, and in the loose shells he has in his pocket he has one .38?

The diameter restrictions in the current law are enough of a PIA. Adding in minimum and maximum cartridge lengths would make field decisions on legal / illegal more difficult and would not endear the officers to hunters.

[Tallbear]

House Standing Committee Meeting

Tourism, Rep. Peter Pettalia, Chair

DATE: Thursday, May 09, 2013

TIME: 9:00 AM

PLACE: Room 327, House Office Building, Lansing, MI

AGENDA:
HB 4283 (Rep. Lori) Natural resources; hunting; use of certain firearms during firearm deer season; allow.

HB 4284 (Rep. Johnson) Highways; local; off-road vehicle shoulder access on state trunk line highways; allow under certain circumstances.

HB 4299 (Rep. Bumstead) Natural resources; other; counties eligible to authorize off-road vehicles on road shoulders; extend to entire state and eliminate sunset.

Presentations given by:
Henry Ford Museum- Patricia E. Mooradian, President & Secretary, and George Moroz, Special Assistant to the President
Department of Natural Resources-Michigan Historical Center-Sandra Clark, Director

[45/70fan]

Where did this go, down the tubes again: AGENDA:
HB 4283 (Rep. Lori) Natural resources; hunting; use of certain firearms during firearm deer season; allow.

[Tallbear]

HB 4283 of 2013 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2013-HB-4283)
Natural resources; hunting; use of certain firearms during firearm deer season; allow. Amends sec. 43526 of 1994 PA 451 (MCL 324.43526).
Last Action: 5/9/2013 referred to second reading

[45/70fan]

House Bill No. 4283, entitled

A bill to amend 1994 PA 451, entitled “Natural resources and environmental protection act,” by amending section 43526 (MCL 324.43526), as amended by 1996 PA 585.
Without amendment and with the recommendation that the bill pass.
The bill was referred to the order of Second Reading of Bills.

Favorable Roll Call
To Report Out:
Yeas: Reps. Pettalia, Goike, Crawford, Genetski, Rendon, Pagel, Kosowski and Brunner
Nays: None
The Committee on Tourism, by Rep. Pettalia, Chair, reported

[sasquatchpa]

Personally, I think the bill is fataly flawed as written. I agree with the DNR - it would be a nightmare to enforce. Say a game warden comes across a person carrying a revolver and a rifle, both in .357 mag. The revolver is loaded with .357 mag ammo, the rifle is unloaded, and he has loose .357 mag ammo and loose .38 special +P ammo in his pocket. Did he break the law? What if they find him with a rifle in .357 mag that's loaded, should they force him to unload it (or unload it themselves) and check each round to verify its a .357 and not a .38? What if he has a rifle in .357 mag, loaded with .357 mag, and in the loose shells he has in his pocket he has one .38?

The diameter restrictions in the current law are enough of a PIA. Adding in minimum and maximum cartridge lengths would make field decisions on legal / illegal more difficult and would not endear the officers to hunters.


Iowa and Indiana, have pistol caliber.
Why can their DNR cope?
Is the Michigan DNR flawed?
Did someone drink the DNR Kool-aid?
Are hunters guilty until proven innocent?

[Quaamik]

Iowa and Indiana, have pistol caliber.
Why can their DNR cope?
Is the Michigan DNR flawed?
Did someone drink the DNR Kool-aid?
Are hunters guilty until proven innocent?

In Indiana, handgun cartridges are limited the same as rifle cartridges. So in the examples I listed, the hunter would be illegal - no question.

Here in Michigan cartridges with cases shorter than 1.16 inches are legal in handguns. Personally, I'd fight tooth and nail NOT to change that. I enjoy carrying a .45 Auto while hunting and have carried a 9mm. I'm not willing to give that up so someone can hunt deer with their favorite lever action.

Iowa lists the specific cartridges that are allowed in handguns and only lists center fire cartridges .24 caliber and larger for rifles. That is much easier to enforce, and they have the intelligence to list cartridges such as .38 super, 10 mm and .45 ACP. Some cartridges that are very acceptable choices are not listed, but they are uncommon ones. Others that are not listed (9mm, .40 S&W) are common, but that is their fight to get them accepted - not mine. The rifle vs pistol issue with .357 mag / .38 special still exists, but at the opposite side . .38 special is legal in the rifle and illegal in the pistol. I'm sure part of the reason its easier to deal with is that if the person has both pistol and rifle on them, the pistol is more likely loaded and has the greater restriction as to what cartridges it can use.

[tgafish]

Nice thing about Indiana is that it does not have the straight wall restriction or length max on handguns. Opens a whole world of contender barrels

[RayMich]

... delete ...

[sasquatchpa]

Soooo.....

Indiana and Iowa are doing fine.

You seem to think that making lever action pistol caliber carbines legal will make your .45 illegal?

And You are more important than anyone else?

[Tallbear]

HB 4283 of 2013 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2013-HB-4283)
Natural resources; hunting; use of certain firearms during firearm deer season; allow. Amends sec. 43526 of 1994 PA 451 (MCL 324.43526).
Last Action: 5/13/2013 Analysis File Added

[papabear]

Ok I'm dense, what does this mean?

[art]

Calling bs...never have seen dnr just checking compliance from the road...they don't check for steel shot with binoculars, nor did they check crossbow hunters for age or disability with binoculars. I contacted dnr many years ago about straight wall cartridges in rifles with the same response. They didn't put up a fight about crossbows because of an enforcement issue. DNR should back off this issue.

Additionally, the DNR has concerns over how it would enforce this new exception. Currently, conservation officers are able to monitor and check firearm compliance from long distances because all rifles are currently prohibited in the southern shotgun zone. Allowing certain rifles that shoot straight-walled cartridges could result in conservation officers having to enter privately-owned land to check cartridges, rather than simply being able to check the gun from the road using binoculars. Such action may be seen as intrusive by hunters and could serve to disrupt the hunting experience.

[fuerstma]

RE: Second Reading


"Committee Reports

If a bill is reported from committee favorably with or without amendment or in the form of a substitute bill, the committee report is printed in the journal under the order of business entitled "Reports of Standing Committees" in the House. On being reported favorably from committee, the bill and recommended committee amendments (if any) are placed on the order of "General Orders" in the Senate. In the House, the bill and amendments are referred to the order of "Second Reading.""

Source: http://www.michigan.gov/som/0,4669,7-192-29701_29704-2836--,00.html

My interpretation from high school civics is that it passed out of the committee and is heading to the general floor to enter in to discussion there.

[papabear]

Thank you,high school civics was so long ago

[Tallbear]

HB 4283 of 2013 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2013-HB-4283)
Natural resources; hunting; use of certain firearms during firearm deer season; allow. Amends sec. 43526 of 1994 PA 451 (MCL 324.43526).
Last Action: 5/15/2013 placed on third reading

[sasquatchpa]

I'm a working guy.
What do these readings in committee mean?
Is it more chances for committee members to be wined and dined?
Bring the Bill up to the house and vote on it!!!
When the Koch brothers were buying votes for right to work, these clowns had NO problem acting fast!!!!





Edited for: Spelling

[Walther]

I'm a working guy.
What do these readings in committee mean?
Is it more chances for committee members to be wined and dined?
Bring the Bill up to the house and vote on it!!!
When the Koch brothers were buying votes for right to work, these clowns had NO problem acting fast!!!!

The readings are conducted in the House and Senate, not in the committees.

From the link posted three posts above yours:

Third Reading

While there are provisions in the House Rules and the Senate Rules for reading bills unless exception is made, in practice, bills are not read in full in either chamber. In both houses, amendments must be approved by a majority vote of the members serving and the previous question maybe moved and debate cut off by a vote of a majority of the members present and voting. At the conclusion of Third Reading, the bill is either passed or defeated by a roll call vote of the majority of the members elected and serving (pursuant to the State Constitution, approval of certain measures requires a "super majority" of a two-thirds or three-fourths vote) or one of the following four options is exercised to delay final action on the bill: (a) the bill is returned to committee for further consideration; (b) consideration of the bill is postponed indefinitely; (c) consideration is postponed until a certain date; or (d) the bill is tabled.

Following either passage or defeat of a bill, a legislator may move for reconsideration of the vote by which the bill was passed or defeated. (A motion to reconsider can be made for any question.) In the Senate, the motion for reconsideration must be made within the following two session days; in the House, the motion must be made within the next succeeding session day

It's a good link to bookmark.
http://www.michigan.gov/som/0,4669,7-192-29701_29704-2836--,00.html

[Tallbear]

HB 4283 of 2013 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2013-HB-4283)
Natural resources; hunting; use of certain firearms during firearm deer season; allow. Amends sec. 43526 of 1994 PA 451 (MCL 324.43526).
Last Action: 5/16/2013 transmitted (sent to the senate)

[Tallbear]

HB 4283 of 2013 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2013-HB-4283)
Natural resources; hunting; use of certain firearms during firearm deer season; allow. Amends sec. 43526 of 1994 PA 451 (MCL 324.43526).
Last Action: 5/21/2013 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON OUTDOOR RECREATION AND TOURISM

[sasquatchpa]

Who do we call, e-mail, buy dinner for in the senate?

[EricF517]

Just need to open up all of the state to rifles

[woodtick007]

Tourism:

Peter Pettalia (R) Committee Chair, 106th District
Ken Goike (R) Majority Vice-Chair, 33rd District
Hugh D. Crawford (R) 38th District
Bob Genetski (R) 80th District
Bruce Rendon (R) 103rd District
Dave Pagel (R) 78th District
Robert Kosowski (D) Minority Vice-Chair, 16th District
Charles Brunner (D) 96th District
John Kivela (D) 109th District
_____________________________
Joy Brewer, Committee Clerk
517-373-8474
_____________________________


Do you have their email addresses to post?

[Roundballer]

Do you have their email addresses to post?
There is no sense contacting that committee any longer, this has moved to the Senate, and a Senate committee.

[mechredd]

It looks as if it may pass now that I can't find a sub $1000 .450 upper.

[Quaamik]

Soooo.....

Indiana and Iowa are doing fine.

You seem to think that making lever action pistol caliber carbines legal will make your .45 illegal?

And You are more important than anyone else?

You didn't actually read my post did you?

I stated the reasons Indiana and Iowas laws were different enough for this proposal to not be directly comparable. You ignored those and focused on my comment that changing our laws to match theirs, and eliminating the ability to carry certain weapons, is something I wouldn't support.

Am I more important than anyone else? No. But you are asking for my support changing a law. It's on you to show how it will not adversely affect me. Giving comparisons to other states laws, which allow what you want but prohibit what I want, are not going to win me over.

[Quaamik]

Just to be clear, I'm supportive of opening up the law to allow rifles in zone 3. I just think the proposed bill is too restrictive on which cartridges are to be allowed and will be difficult to enforce.

[sasquatchpa]

I enjoy carrying a .45 Auto while hunting and have carried a 9mm. I'm not willing to give that up so someone can hunt deer with their favorite lever action.



Who is more important than anyone else?

[sasquatchpa]

I just read the talking points the DNR is using against this bill:
..DNR is claiming that they can tell a rifle from a shotgun, while sitting on their %%% with binoculars.
They can spot us all from the road with these magic lenses, and to pass this bill would require the DNR to get up off their &&&, get out of the truck, and interact with the taxpayers, who pay them!!!!



PS. State Senate is down to 9 session days between now and Labor Day!! Arrg!!

[mechredd]

I just read the talking points the DNR is using against this bill:
..DNR is claiming that they can tell a rifle from a shotgun, while sitting on their %%% with binoculars.
They can spot us all from the road with these magic lenses, and to pass this bill would require the DNR to get up off their &&&, get out of the truck, and interact with the taxpayers, who pay them!!!!



PS. State Senate is down to 9 session days between now and Labor Day!! Arrg!!

Some are rifles and some are shotguns. Try to tell them apart just by looks.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/mechredd/2-HRSB2833.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/mechredd/HR_Ultra_Slug_Hunter_Deluxe.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/mechredd/RG410SS_01__772171356798599680500.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/mechredd/220FCamo.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/mechredd/tee0825.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/mechredd/marlin_336SS.jpg

[45/70fan]

From a distance how do they tell the difference between a rifle and shotgun now? It would seem to me that allowing the use of rifles in the shotgun zone would reduce some problems for the DNR thus making their jobs easier.

[art]

They can't tell...it's just a lame argument to ""BS"" wavering lawmakers....

[Quaamik]

Who is more important than anyone else?

Apparently, according to your argument, you are.

It's tiring to have to defend against allegations that I'm elitist or looking out only for my interests when I bring up what I think is a legitimate concern: That supporting a bill that prohibits certain cartridges in one type of firearm will wind up with a law that extends that prohibition, at some later date, to those same cartridges in other types of firearms.

But since it's obvious that no one else has this concern, I'll let it drop. But I reserve the right to say "I told you so" if such a ban is proposed at a later time.

[45/70fan]

But since it's obvious that no one else has this concern, I'll let it drop. But I reserve the right to say "I told you so" if such a ban is proposed at a later time.

Then you might as well start saying it now because every conceivable firearms ban will eventually be proposed.

[sasquatchpa]

QUAAMILK- I would like to extend a olive branch. I don't follow your opinion, I respect your right to have an opinion.

.....The pistol caliber bill is a step in expanding gun usage, not banning. While not the same, very similar actions have expanded hunting opportunities in neighboring states. This bill gives lawmakers a chance to be pro-gun without voting for "evil black guns". Some lawmakers claim to be pro-hunting, and this bill gives them a chance to prove it.

.....Personally, I think it would be cool to sit in my Bow stands, with a .357 lever action. I could continue to use my slug shotgun. I realize that this is a want, not a need.

.....Every one has their own idea of "wants". Some want Kate Upton, some want a Corvette, some want a Corvette with Kate Upton. I am gray headed man who wants to sit in a tree with a 357.

[buckey]

I just want this bill to get done!

[gunnut04]

I just want this bill to get done!
WHAT HE SAID!!!

[357MAX]

I realize that this is a want, not a need.

..


If you were a teenager that weights 75 pounds and about to tentatively squeeze the trigger on a 12 gauge slug that "want" would rapidly approach "NEED" status. That is what I do not get...allow kids to early boom boom hunt then punish their shoulders in order to do so......I just do not get it.

[sasquatchpa]

:yeahthat: :yeahthat: :yeahthat:

[Walther]

If you were a teenager that weights 75 pounds and about to tentatively squeeze the trigger on a 12 gauge slug that "want" would rapidly approach "NEED" status. That is what I do not get...allow kids to early boom boom hunt then punish their shoulders in order to do so......I just do not get it.

They could use a 20. Many deer have been taken with a .410. If someone that weighs 75 lbs finds a 12 gauge punishing, then they should choose a different gun. If they choose to use a 12 anyway, that's their own problem. There are alternatives.

Just sayin'.

[sasquatchpa]

They could use a 20. Many deer have been taken with a .410. If someone that weighs 75 lbs finds a 12 gauge punishing, then they should choose a different gun. If they choose to use a 12 anyway, that's their own problem. There are alternatives.

Just sayin'.


Many deer are poached with a .22!!!!
I am not saying, a 20 gauge is bad.
I am saying, let's expand the choices to pistol caliber rifles, that have similar ballistics to a sabot/ rifled barrel shotgun.

[EricF517]

I am just saying open the whole state to rifles. Stop this stupid **** of this caliber, or that caliber.

[RMC]

I am just saying open the whole state to rifles. Stop this stupid **** of this caliber, or that caliber.


Agreed, but TOO easy for law makers. They must think if it's not complicated they would not be needed.

[tc scout]

I am just saying open the whole state to rifles. Stop this stupid **** of this caliber, or that caliber.

Just what we need down here, .308, 30-06, 375 Magnums Etc. flying through the tree tops. There is a reason the rifle line was put in place.
Let the flaming begin.

[45/70fan]

Just what we need down here, .308, 30-06, 375 Magnums Etc. flying through the tree tops. There is a reason the rifle line was put in place.
Let the flaming begin.

There will be blood flowing in the streets, OK corral all over, wild west shoot outs at high noon. Same old argument we've heard before that never materialized.

The 308's, 30-06's and 375's along with a whole lot of rifles are being used in the shotgun zone already. For 50 weeks of the year these rifles are being used for targets, coyote, fox, ground hogs and not to mention all the squirrels being shot out of tree tops and the misses from all this lead flying around. Yet no one is getting shot.

Tell me again why the rifle restriction is in place for only 2 weeks of the year?

[tc scout]

There will be blood flowing in the streets, OK corral all over, wild west shoot outs at high noon. Same old argument we've heard before that never materialized.

The 308's, 30-06's and 375's along with a whole lot of rifles are being used in the shotgun zone already. For 50 weeks of the year these rifles are being used for targets, coyote, fox, ground hogs and not to mention all the squirrels being shot out of tree tops and the misses from all this lead flying around. Yet no one is getting shot.

Tell me again why the rifle restriction is in place for only 2 weeks of the year?

You are talking about a very small percentage that use them year round for the reasons you state, at least where I hunt. Come deer season, you are talking a very large increase in the use of these calibers.
JMO that it should be straight walled cartridges only. I know they are trying to make a case for only certain calibers in that group which I don't agree with. Pistol rules should stay the same and any rifle used should be of the same calibers.
I only hunt with a pistol, but I don't see any reason to not allow rifles of the same calibers as allowed right now for pistols.
However I remain against high powered rifles for deer season in the southern zone. Anyone is entitled to their opinion, but that is mine.

[EricF517]

Just what we need down here, .308, 30-06, 375 Magnums Etc. flying through the tree tops. There is a reason the rifle line was put in place.
Let the flaming begin.

Why because morons don't understand ballistics and don't realize that rifles aren't lasers?

Yep the more complicated it is then the better it must be is what they think, or it is because of the people trying to push dumb **** like this. Open up all rifles, or leave it alone. There is no reason for this law of pistol calibers allowed down state. There is nothing that you can do with one of them that I can't do better with one of the new inlines, or even the new slugs in a shotgun.

[sasquatchpa]

I would ask your opinions on a circle drawn 10 miles?? around population centers??

For example: the areas between Flint and Lansing, 10 +/- miles. This is a high deer population area with low human population. This area could be rifle hunted.

This is something I believe to be workable. I ask for opinions, and why you have the opinion.

[tc scout]

I would ask your opinions on a circle drawn 10 miles?? around population centers??

For example: the areas between Flint and Lansing, 10 +/- miles. This is a high deer population area with low human population. This area could be rifle hunted.

This is something I believe to be workable. I ask for opinions, and why you have the opinion.

Certainly there are many areas in the southern zone where it would be prudent to use high powered rifles.
But can you imagine the DNR sorting out these areas and determining the boundary lines for each area. I can't see that happening when they can't even sort out calibers suitable for use in a rifle for the whole southern zone.

[EricF517]

No special areas, either open the state up or leave it the hell alone. Like I said before there is NOTHING that any of these calibers being talked about can do equally than today's new inlines, bullets, and powder, or the newest rounds for shotguns.

[tc scout]

No special areas, either open the state up or leave it the hell alone. Like I said before there is NOTHING that any of these calibers being talked about can do equally than today's new inlines, bullets, and powder, or the newest rounds for shotguns.
If I read his question correctly he wanted an opinion on opening certain areas to rifle hunting and why.
You on the other hand keep spouting the same old rhetoric about ballistics which has been covered from one end to other and back. We are are all pretty educated in modern firearms.
Perhaps they SHOULD just leave it the way it is. I have entered into a discussion if that's what you want to call it that I should have kept my comments to myself.
I would like to see it passed for pistol caliber rifles because I think it would be a better choice for young hunters to use a .44,.357 Etc. rifle as opposed to getting pounded by a shotgun or ML.
Myself, I hunt with a pistol or ML and have for a very long time and will continue to do so no matter what is or isn't passed. And so I will exit this discussion.

[westcliffe01]

The reason I am for having the straight walled cartridges is that all of them are considerably cheaper to shoot than 20ga sabot slugs @ $3 each. Frankly I am sure that a 357 or 44mag bullet is going to get the job done just fine compared to my 20ga slug.

Last year it cost easily $150 just getting the rifle sighted in and finding a load that shot worth a damn. That's a pretty big expense and every year you can't be sure what ammo will actually be available. You sight in with 3" Hornadys and then find that they are out of stock nationwide for months. So start over with the shorter ones.

Even the 20ga slug guns are not easy to shoot and a 12ga even more so.

So I will gladly take anything that is thrown our way as an alternative for an expensive slug gun that gets used for nothing else all year. It will be the first thing that goes up for sale the day after a revised law passes. There are plenty of eastern states where the populace will never be allowed anything else.

[45/70fan]

Originally Posted by sasquatchpa
I would ask your opinions on a circle drawn 10 miles?? around population centers??

For example: the areas between Flint and Lansing, 10 +/- miles. This is a high deer population area with low human population. This area could be rifle hunted.

This is something I believe to be workable. I ask for opinions, and why you have the opinion.


Might as well make it an ever expanding circle, lets say start with a circle drawn around a 20.5+K population of .999999 miles outside the center of that population: within this circle and out to 1.499 miles you can use a .357 with a bullet no heavier than 148 gr. Next expand the circle from 1.51 mile to 2.893 miles and you can use a 41 mag with a bullet no heavier than 200 gr. Next up is the 44 mag usable only within the circled area of 3.0135 miles to 5.123 miles. Next up is the 454 Casull and so forth. Just to make it workable if the population is below 19.998K but over 10.278 then add .45 miles to the circles greater circu****ence. Less than 9.0246K population add another .95 miles to the greater circu****ence. The DNR and state treasury would love these rules, so would the lawyers trying to figure out the boundaries and calibers allowed within the specified areas.
See wasn't that easy!!! Now we can have a workable set of rules that will keep the legislature employed and happy too.)(&_^%(*&++)_^&(*^()&_:score: :score: :score:

[JimA]

No special areas, either open the state up or leave it the hell alone. Like I said before there is NOTHING that any of these calibers being talked about can do equally than today's new inlines, bullets, and powder, or the newest rounds for shotguns.

How about weigh less, kick less and cost less to shoot. You certainly are an all or nothing type I guess. What would it matter to you if the pistol caliber firearms were OK'd? You would still be able to use your muzzleloader and shotgun.
I hunt in Huron county mostly. It has very low population and huge crop fields with relatively small woodlots, a perfect place for "beanfield" rifles. It's even north of some of the rifle zone. While I would like to be able to use my rifles to hunt there, I would certainly enjoy the chance to use a revolver cartridge in a short, light, easy to carry carbine.

[sasquatchpa]

I do not want to hijack this thread!!!!
I will start a new thread ( in general discussion) about rifles between the population centers.

My bad!




:edited for spelling

[Diverdave]

Why not shoot from a tree stand?

[gunnut04]

The reason I am for having the straight walled cartridges is that all of them are considerably cheaper to shoot than 20ga sabot slugs @ $3 each. Frankly I am sure that a 357 or 44mag bullet is going to get the job done just fine compared to my 20ga slug.

Last year it cost easily $150 just getting the rifle sighted in and finding a load that shot worth a damn. That's a pretty big expense and every year you can't be sure what ammo will actually be available. You sight in with 3" Hornadys and then find that they are out of stock nationwide for months. So start over with the shorter ones.

Even the 20ga slug guns are not easy to shoot and a 12ga even more so.

So I will gladly take anything that is thrown our way as an alternative for an expensive slug gun that gets used for nothing else all year. It will be the first thing that goes up for sale the day after a revised law passes. There are plenty of eastern states where the populace will never be allowed anything else.
Hornady slugs are 2 3/4" not 3".....JUst saying

[art]

Why not shoot from a tree stand?
Because I have shot many deer on the way to and back from my treestand...

[westcliffe01]

The situation last season with getting 20ga ammo was so dire, we tried anything. Most manufacturers have both 3" and 2 3/4". Certainly Federal and Winchester had both and I could swear the Remington Accutips had both too. Savage supposedly recommended 3" over 2 3/4" but the 3" shells were almost impossible to get. I finally used the Hornady 2 3/4 and Remington Accutip 2 3/4 with just a slight shift in the POI at 100 yds.


Hornady slugs are 2 3/4" not 3".....JUst saying

[gunnut04]

It doesnt look like the bill will pass before the season...at least the link provided hasnt changed since may...i think

[sasquatchpa]

The Senate is in recess until after Labor Day.
No bills will move till then.
When the Koch brothers were in town buying votes for " right to beg ", the State Senate was able to act very quickly..HHmmmmmmm.

[gunnut04]

The Senate is in recess until after Labor Day.
No bills will move till then.
When the Koch brothers were in town buying votes for " right to beg ", the State Senate was able to act very quickly..HHmmmmmmm.


HAHA Right to Beg its so true!

Sr. Vice President
UGSOA Local 29

[MrSmithMSU]

But when the unions come in and throw their money around at politicians, somehow that's OK. Pfft.

Thus ends my thread hijack.

[gunnut04]

If they have the intest of their members or workers in their hearts and minds then yes.

[Darth AkSarBen]

I've always condended that small light weight bullets traveling very fast have less chance (in this shrubby country) of going too far or creating a hazard, than something like a 50 cal muzzle loader (even with sabot) or a shotgun slug. Such large chunks have a tendency to stay together, where the .223 .243 and so on literally fragment to pieces when they hit small brances, etc.

[Unistat76]

Never mind.

[Karl]

For what it's worth, the shotgun zone was not put in place for safety all those years ago. It was to control the harvest because deer populations were opposite of what they are now. Fewer deer in the south meant a greater need to control the harvest. At the time all shotguns were smooth bore without the range of modern deer slug guns. Safety was not part of the original reason for the zones.

[buckey]

Is this bill dead for the year?

[Dirty_Harry]

I sure hope not. I am sick of using a shotgun. I love Marlin lever guns and this would be an excuse to add another to the stable. I read that the senate is in recess till after labor day?

Part timers...:poke: :poke:

[paulg]

Any news on law HB 4283 (using straight wall pistol cartridges in a rifle in zone 3) deer hunting hope that it goes thru thanks for any info if possible please leave a web site to refer to

[Roundballer]

Any news on law HB 4283 (using straight wall pistol cartridges in a rifle in zone 3) deer hunting hope that it goes thru thanks for any info if possible please leave a web site to refer to
In this forum, most of the threads have a link in the OP. The link in this thread is: 2013-HB-4283 (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2013-HB-4283). It leads to the information on the Michigan Legislature's website.

This will give the standing of this bill, at any point in time. Read the information on that page.

It has passed the House, and is sitting, "REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON OUTDOOR RECREATION AND TOURISM", where the Senate sent it.

[HANDGUNNER]

Maybe you should stick your head out the door a little. There are many more calibers than what you listed as usable. 357 Maxy, 445 Super Mag.,450 Bushmaster, 454 Casull,460 Smith, 500 Smith and many more. Maybe you should get creative.
Right now I use a 44 Mag. with a 16" barrel and a butt stock. Now before you get to excited, read the Mi. law on handguns. A handgun in Mi. is a firearm between 26 1/2" and 30". I use a TC Contender, cut the stock down a little and it is 29 3/4" still considered a handgun and legal down here.
I called Mi. State Police headquarters and talked to the firearm experts and was sent a copy of the law. I called DNR and talked to them. Initially I was told no. When I reminded the Lt. I talked to about state law and that their rules could not superceed state law he got back to me and said it was legal. TC Contender is a great canidate for this because of the short action. I even have a TC muzzle brake on it that extends the barrel out to a little over 17". Again don't get to excited yet. When I had TC make the barrel they left the brake so I could unscrew it. It is not permanent so it does not count as part of the overall length. I haved used the TC in several calibers but settled on the 44 Mag. the ballistics are impressive from the 16" barrel.

[buckey]

Handgunner, how long is the stock?

[Roundballer]

Maybe you should stick your head out the door a little. There are many more calibers than what you listed as usable. 357 Maxy, 445 Super Mag.,450 Bushmaster, 454 Casull,460 Smith, 500 Smith and many more. Maybe you should get creative.
Right now I use a 44 Mag. with a 16" barrel and a butt stock. Now before you get to excited, read the Mi. law on handguns. A handgun in Mi. is a firearm between 26 1/2" and 30". I use a TC Contender, cut the stock down a little and it is 29 3/4" still considered a handgun and legal down here.
I called Mi. State Police headquarters and talked to the firearm experts and was sent a copy of the law. I called DNR and talked to them. Initially I was told no. When I reminded the Lt. I talked to about state law and that their rules could not superceed state law he got back to me and said it was legal. TC Contender is a great canidate for this because of the short action. I even have a TC muzzle brake on it that extends the barrel out to a little over 17". Again don't get to excited yet. When I had TC make the barrel they left the brake so I could unscrew it. It is not permanent so it does not count as part of the overall length. I haved used the TC in several calibers but settled on the 44 Mag. the ballistics are impressive from the 16" barrel.
The laws, and the definition of a "pistol" were changes last December. Almost everything that you wrote there is just simply not true any more.

So, don't get excited, if it is 26" or longer and has a butt-stock, it is a rifle. If it is under 26" with a butt-stock, it is an SBR and illegal.

[HANDGUNNER]

I think you had better check State law. You are quoting Fed law. Stock is 12 1/2".

[HANDGUNNER]

Also if I am not mistaken it is only a short barreled rifle if the barrel is under 16" with a butt stock attached.

[Roundballer]

I think you had better check State law. You are quoting Fed law. Stock is 12 1/2".
NO. I told you STATE LAW has changed! You had better start "boning up" on the laws if you are going to make recommendations like what you have posted. You could be the reason that someone ends up in trouble, following BAD advice.

Also if I am not mistaken it is only a short barreled rifle if the barrel is under 16" with a butt stock attached.
You ARE mistaken.

I will back up what I said with a link to MCL, can you do the same?
MCL 750-222 (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-222)

(h) "Shotgun" means a firearm designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of ball shot or a single projectile for each single function of the trigger.

(i) "Short-barreled shotgun" means a shotgun having 1 or more barrels less than 18 inches in length or a weapon made from a shotgun, whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise, if the weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches.

(j) "Rifle" means a firearm designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.

(k) "Short-barreled rifle" means a rifle having 1 or more barrels less than 16 inches in length or a weapon made from a rifle, whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise, if the weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches.
A rifle or shotgun needs to have the appropriate length barrel, AND be over 26" long, or it is an SBS/SBR
There are no more "Michigan Pistols", except for those that were registered as "pistols", and in the possession of the owner as of 1/1/13. If such firearm gets sold, it is sold as the rifle/shotgun that it is by Fed standards.

[HANDGUNNER]

Last time I checked they were thinking about passing a law that was the same as fed law but I have not seen it posted. Also if you can find the original bill thay talked about a grandfather clause for rifles that were made for the purpose of meeting the original state law of 26 1/2 to 30".
I have not seen any new law on it yet.

[HANDGUNNER]

My apologies to anyone who read my answer to the handgun- rifle hunting issue down here in Southern Mi. I had been following the issues and totally missed that they (legislature) had passed the new law on the Mi. definition of a pistol. I hope I didn't get anyones hopes up on solving their problem. I will continue to use my set up for now. I have had it for over two years. Not sure how they will react to this type of firearm (Contender) but the frame is what is registered not the barrel.

[Roundballer]

The thread here on MGO:
http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?t=154119

The bills, links to the Legislative website:

2011-SB-0760 (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2011-SB-0760)
2011-SB-0761 (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2011-SB-0761)
2011-SB-0762 (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2011-SB-0762)

They did grandfather certain things, ownership, transporting, possession, etc, but there is nothing specific about "use". I am pretty sure you are out of luck in that department. That is why the bill for pistol caliber rifles was introduced.

This all took place last July (2012), and was in full effect by 1/1/13. You have to keep more up-to-date, especially if you have a CPL.

There were also major changes to the pistol registration laws, just incase you didn't know.

[Dansjeep2000]

So I am guessing this bill will not effect the years hunting season?

[HANDGUNNER]

The bill has not come out of committee yet. Even if it passed this fall it probably would not take effect until next year!!!! Part of the hold up is the DNR. They claim enforcement would be a problem.
Also I am calling the State Police Monday. It appears my contender may still be usable. The grandfather does say carry so that would be use in my mind. Also See this and the section on the owner not the gun. ← More of ATF’s Most Frequently Asked Questions and AnswersFFLGuard Offers “Peace of Mind” →
Summary of Michigan’s New Pistol Definition Law
Posted on 10/23/2012 by adorjan@aol.com
Senate bills 760, 761 and 762 cleared the Michigan Senate and House and were signed into law on June 25, 2012 and will take effect on January 1, 2013.

The bills re-define “pistol” to mean a loaded or unloaded firearm that is 26 inches or less in length (reduced from 30 inches).* Senate Bill 761 grandfathers current owners of a pistol 30 inches or less who wish to carry that firearm as a pistol.

A “pistol” was defined as a loaded or unloaded firearm that is 30 inches or less in length, or a loaded or* unloaded firearm that by its construction and appearance conceals itself as a firearm.* The bills would reduce the length requirement to 26 inches or less.

This means that firearms between 26 and 30 inches that were subject to the licensing requirements and regulations regarding pistols will now be regulated as firearms similarly to rifles, shotguns, and other long guns.

In addition, the bill also allows a person who lawfully owned, possessed, carried, or transported a firearm 30 inches or less in length as a pistol before January 1, 2012, under a license issued under Section 2 (purchase license) or Section 5b (concealed pistol license) ─ or an exemption under either of those sections ─ to continue to own, possess, carry, or transport it as a pistol after that date.

Further, such a person could continue to own and carry this type of firearm as a pistol under a subsequent license renewal.

The actual language is:* “Pistol” means a firearm, loaded or unloaded, 26 inches or less in length, or any firearm, loaded or unloaded, that by its construction and appearance conceals it as a firearm.

Ryan Mitchell, spokesperson for Senator Mike Green (R-Mayville) who introduced the legislation, was involved in drafting the amendment language passed by the House and concurred by the Senate. It grandfathers the gun owner and not the firearm itself for purposes of ownership and legal carry.* It allows a person to have their affected firearm “de-registered” and treated as a long gun under the new definition.

Using the word “possess” in c (see below) as opposed to “in possession” does not require a gun owner to actually carry the pistol sales record with them.

“Sec. 228. (1) A person may lawfully own, possess, carry, or transport as a pistol a firearm greater than 26 inches in length if all of the following conditions apply:

(a) The person registered the firearm as a pistol under section 2 or 2a of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.422 and 28.422a, before January 1, 2013.

(b) The person who registered the firearm as described in subdivision (a) has maintained registration of the firearm since January 1, 2013 without lapse.

(c) The person possesses a copy of the license or record issued to him or her under section 2 or 2a of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.422 and 28.422a.

(2) A person who satisfies all of the conditions listed under subsection (1) nevertheless may elect to have the firearm not be considered to be a pistol. A person who makes the election under this subsection shall notify the department of state police of the election in a manner prescribed by that department.”

Source:* Ryan Mitchell and MIAFR staff

This entry was posted in Legislative updates and tracking. Bookmark the permalink.
← More of ATF’s Most Frequently Asked Questions and AnswersFFLGuard Offers “Peace of Mind” →
Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name *
Email *
Website
Comment
You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

[westcliffe01]

You will find yourself with a seized rifle, vehicle and game and explaining your story to a judge. If you are happy being a test case, then fine, go ahead and poke the bear.. This is going to cost you a lot more money than getting what is considered a legal weapon under current law.

Now outside of the restricted season (Nov 10-31) carrying a grandfathered MI pistol for predators is a different matter since weapon restrictions never applied to them in the first place (except at night). But deliberately going out to hunt deer with a weapon that does not meet their legal definition (the answer you will get from 95% or field officers) is treading on thin ice.

I figure the straight walled cartridge law will eventually get passed, simply because the new shotguns are more powerful already, so just wait until then.

[HANDGUNNER]

That is why I will be calling State Police and probably DNR law enforchment. A number of years ago I talked to a Lt. Horner he stated under the current defintion back then it would be legal. Also I have all of this on my phone for a officer to look at. I also hunt private property. But I still want to be legal. We have been waiting for years for this bill. I am in my late 60's and can't wait much longer!!!! Lol

[Roundballer]

I would not go to the MSP for answers on this question. Get a hold of some one high up in the DNR and ask them. The MSP doesn't write these things, the DNR does. The MSP will be poor at interpreting hunting law, it is not their primary function to either learn them or enforce them.

A plain reading of the hunting law, and current firearm definitions would lead me to believe that it is a no-go.

Just remember, the fact that they used the "pistol registration" for certain firearms, does not make them "pistols". They just had to be registered, by the AG opinion.

[HANDGUNNER]

Thanks for your info, I respectfulluy disagree. This has nothing to do with DNR rules or regulations. If the gun is classified by state law as a pistol the DNR would have to abide by state law since that takes precedence. Out of courtesy I would and will contact them, just like I did years ago. When the Lt. Advised it would be illegal to use if it had a butt stock. Then we discussed state law taking precedence. He checked it out and called me back the next day and advised it would be legal to use. The state decides what is a pistol and what is not, the DNR would have to abide by that. If it is still considered a pistol by state law nothing has really changed. Will let you know when I get an answer. Also it now gives you an option to switch what was then a pistol. You can do nothing and it is still a pistol. If you want to change the status to a rifle you have to call State Police to find out what you need to do to deregister it. Again that is why I believe it falls under State Police juridiction because it is a state law and not DNR.

[westcliffe01]

Did you happen to take note of the following paragraph in the hunting regs ? Emphasis mine.
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10366_37141_37706-31578--,00.html

Exceptions: This prohibition does not apply to pistols carried under authority of a concealed pistol license or properly carried under authority of a specific exception from the requirement of a concealed pistol license. However, a concealed pistol license does not authorize the individual to use the pistol to take game except as provided by law.

[HANDGUNNER]

I Just finished talking with the DNR. Talked to MSP yesterday. Looks like I will be OK to use the Contender down here Deer hunting.
I talked to DEB at MSP, she is the manager of the firearms division. Nothing has changed since the Contender is a registered pistol and was prior to the deadline that was established. It has been grandfathered until I sell it or fill out a form to request changing it to a rifle. The gun is not really what is grandfathered it is the owner who actually is. MSP says it is a pistol as long as I own it.
Today I called the DNR Law Enforcement Division and talked to Sgt. Tom Wanless. After explaining it all to him he responded I should not have an issue. He suggested (I already had) to make a copy or carry my registration card(Safety Inspection.) also make a copy of the changes by the legislature that were made to grand father the firearm owner. I have that copied on my phone.
Since it is under 30" and with the grand father clause I should be OK. He thanked me for trying to do the right thing to prevent any issues.

[Roundballer]

Get that statement from the DNR in writing. You have nothing but what you have been told, and that will not stand up in court.

[HANDGUNNER]

Well here is the final chapter as far as I am concerned. To you doubters.
I have now talked to two DNR Lt's, Lt. Dobson and Lt. Grey, Sgt. Wanless and one CO. Lt. Grey and Sgt. Wanless even took the time to look up the new law as it was written for a definition of a handgun and the new grand father clause for an existing handgun that was registed as a handgun prior to the new defintion. Every one of them I talked to was very courteous and extremely helpful. My TC Contender in a straight walled cartridge and under 30" was and still is legal to use down in the shotgun zone for Deer hunting.
As far as CO'S go I have been stopped once hunting to check licenses and about four or five times fishing. Every time the officer was polite and friendly. We talked about either hunting or fishing success and a couple of them even steered me where I might find some good locations. With the contacts I made and names I have been given I do not believe I need anything in writing. I do thank you for the negative thoughts though since it made me check to make sure everything was cosher. Maybe some of you might want to sit down with your local CO's some day and get to know them, they are not the ogres you make them out to be.

[sasquatchpa]

Who should call, E-mail, visit, stalk to get some action on this bill???

Give us Names, E-mail addresses, etc.....We will be heard!!!!

[Leader]

I'm willing to let this die & go back to eliminating the shotgun zone completely.

Two weeks of it is just plain stupid.

[HANDGUNNER]

We are getting a liitle off beat here. Don't you think we should get the original bill passed and then work on improving it. I have to say some of your suggestions are on the low side for a humane kill on Deer that deserves better. You not only do not have the ballistics with the 30 Carbine, 38 Special and the 9mm you do not have the frontal area. Sure one can be killed with those rounds with a perfect and close shot. But does the average hunter wait for the perfect shot. There is a reason for their minimum of 1.6" for the casing. Remember this lower and the higher limit of 1.8 is just the length of the brass. Not the overall length of the cartridge.
If we are going to continue to hunt game use (enough gun) to get the job done cleanly and humanely. Some use a 410 but it is a far cry from a good cartridge for deer. Remember the slug is only 1/5oz. That is about a 87.5gr bullet, little light for my taste. Not only that, most if not all of the shotguns for that cartridge are smooth bore and not that accurate. I work in a gun shop and you would be surprised how many dads want a 410 for the kids first deer gun. Most often they are single shots with a bead for a sight with no provision for mounting a rear sight or scope. Plus they are many times given to younger or small stature hunters to start with. I would hate to think of the number of Deer only wounded with such a small caliber.
Contact for the Senate outdoor recreation and tourism committee is Goeff Hansen, 517-373-1635. He is the chairperson for that committee. It does not appear that HB 4283 has come out of committee at this time. It was introduced to the Senate Committee on 05-21-2013.

[Roundballer]

I'm willing to let this die & go back to eliminating the shotgun zone completely.

Two weeks of it is just plain stupid.
:yeahthat:
With the advances in the inline muzzle loaders and the sabot shotgun rounds, we are reaching the range and performance of many center fire rifles. This whole "pistol caliber" thing is just like a nothing bill that they will be able to point to, and say "we support you", when in fact they got us nothing truly better than what we already have.


We are getting a liitle off beat here. Don't you think we should get the original bill passed and then work on improving it.
No, we do not want "Just get some crap passed so that we can then improve it" that is exactly how we got "PFZ, CEZ" that we have now. Once they give us "something", it seems to be VERY hard to get it fixed and written the way it should have been the first time.

I have to say some of your suggestions are on the low side for a humane kill on Deer that deserves better. You not only do not have the ballistics with the 30 Carbine, 38 Special and the 9mm you do not have the frontal area. Sure one can be killed with those rounds with a perfect and close shot. But does the average hunter wait for the perfect shot. There is a reason for their minimum of 1.6" for the casing. Remember this lower and the higher limit of 1.8 is just the length of the brass. Not the overall length of the cartridge.
If we are going to continue to hunt game use (enough gun) to get the job done cleanly and humanely.
If you had read the whole thread and understand all that is going on here, you would not go where you just did.
Your opinion of what cartridge is suitable for use in a rifle/carbine becomes completely baseless if that same cartridge is currently allowed for use in a handgun. You will get better performance from a longer barrel and have a longer sight radius with a more stable platform. From that point of view, there is no down side to our arguments of cartridge. If it meets the handgun requirements, we should be able to use that round in a rifle/carbine. It needs to be 0.35 caliber and a straight walled cartridge across the board.

Some use a 410 but it is a far cry from a good cartridge for deer. Remember the slug is only 1/5oz. That is about a 87.5gr bullet, little light for my taste. Not only that, most if not all of the shotguns for that cartridge are smooth bore and not that accurate. I work in a gun shop and you would be surprised how many dads want a 410 for the kids first deer gun. Most often they are single shots with a bead for a sight with no provision for mounting a rear sight or scope. Plus they are many times given to younger or small stature hunters to start with. I would hate to think of the number of Deer only wounded with such a small caliber.
And none of that has anything at all to do with this bill, other than, maybe those dads would buy the same break action chambered in one of the pistol cartridges to start their kids out on. It is the skill set of the hunter that makes a clean kill. Would it be any better if dad outfitted his kids with 12ga's? They can gut shoot a deer with that just as easy. If the skill set is there, it can be done with a .22LR (can is not the same as may). The hunter just needs to know what he is doing. As I understand it, .22LR is a preference of poachers.

Contact for the Senate outdoor recreation and tourism committee is Goeff Hansen, 517-373-1635. He is the chairperson for that committee. It does not appear that HB 4283 has come out of committee at this time. It was introduced to the Senate Committee on 05-21-2013.We each have the ability to express our own preferences on this legislation. I would encourage all to do so.

[HANDGUNNER]

The bill is almost exactly like the one passed in Indiana. And it does have to do with ballistics. I have been going to meetings with some of the legislators. The whole purpose of the 1.6-1.8" brass length is to have enough power to kill humanely. Sure a 22 (will) kill. If you are good enough for a brain shot. If not you will have a deer die of a lingering death. You certainly won't have a blood trail to follow when it runs off to die.
The reason for the max of 1.8 is not to allow to much power down here in the more populated region. Straight walled is for the same reason so you don' have people shooting 308 handguns etc. The larger handgun bullets lose velocity much quicker than a PSP boat-tail bullet. They want something that will not travel for miles and miles. I would also argue it would be a much easier for a follow up shot if needed than the ML.
Ask Indiana if the hunters like their new laws on this. They love it. Retailers love it for new firearm, ammo and accessories sales.
My god let's get onboard to get this bill passed next year. We have tried to get it into the house and pass for years. Right now the DNR Law Enforcement is against it because of, they say difficult enforcement. Again I have hunted down here for over 40 years, most of it with a handgun. Since I am in my late 60's it is harder for me to use my big bores. Right now I use a TC Contender in 44 mag. With butt stock and 16" barrel it is under 30" and considered a handgun if registered as such prior to 1/1/2013. With scope it weighs between 5-6lbs. Much easier to carry than a heavy ML and especially a heavy shotgun.

[HANDGUNNER]

Sorry I mispoke when I said 1.6"-1.8" for mini, max. It should have been 1.16"-1.80". I was thinking of Indiana's law. When they first passed it several years ago the max length for their brass was 1.6". In the past year or so it was amended to 1.8" max so it included the Smith 460, Smith 500 and 450 Bushmaster. So as we see we can get A bill passed then get it amened just like In. did.

[Roundballer]

The bill is almost exactly like the one passed in Indiana.We don't care what Indiana law is, this is Michigan, we are a unique State, our land and hunting is unique. We don't need cookie cutter laws.

And it does have to do with ballistics. I have been going to meetings with some of the legislators. The whole purpose of the 1.6-1.8" brass length is to have enough power to kill humanely. Sure a 22 (will) kill. If you are good enough for a brain shot. If not you will have a deer die of a lingering death. You certainly won't have a blood trail to follow when it runs off to die.The numbers are 1.16-1.8. This is part of the problem. You can hunt with a handgun chambered in MANY cartridges that don't fall within that range, but they want to limit out some very viable loads with the lower limit, and not allow them in a rifle. There is no reason that you can't use a Marlin camp 9 in the rifle zones, but that will not be allowed in the shotgun zone. The legislators are writing this crap influenced by people that have a prejudice, want to make it better for themselves, but to hell with the rest. .38sp, 9x19, .38 Super, .45 ACP and many others very viable, with limited range, but the legislature is listening to people that are not well informed.


The reason for the max of 1.8 is not to allow to much power down here in the more populated region. Straight walled is for the same reason so you don' have people shooting 308 handguns etc. The larger handgun bullets lose velocity much quicker than a PSP boat-tail bullet. They want something that will not travel for miles and miles.Again Hog-wash. Many loads for ML and modern saboted shotgun out perform in both range and power, the very popular .30-30. This portion is not all that offensive, but it is still based on erroneous information. I can understand not wanting to have the "orange Army" armed with .45-70 Trapdoor Springfields, or even .45-120 Sharps Buffalo rifles, but there is little chance of that happening. Even if an individual did choose one of those rounds, it would be a more experienced shooter. The law for handguns is .35 or larger straight walled cartridge. Start there. If you are not limiting less powerful in the shorter barrel, don't limit it in the longer barrel. You already have the straight wall in the pistol portion, no .308 etc, moot point. They are trying to needlessly put a quadruple condition on the rifle, where it is a binary condition on the handgun. Add in the better performance of the longer barrel, and there should only be a singular additional condition added, the upper limit.

I would also argue it would be a much easier for a follow up shot if needed than the ML. Moot point and not part of the reasons that this is a bad bill. You can get pretty quick follow up shots with an auto-loader shotgun too.


Ask Indiana if the hunters like their new laws on this. They love it. Retailers love it for new firearm, ammo and accessories sales. Again, this is not Indiana. This is about our hunting laws, this piece of crap law is not being thought about for the retailers, and they will make out the same if this bill is fixed before it gets passed, or if it passes as the piece of crap that it is.


My god let's get onboard to get this bill passed next year. We have tried to get it into the house and pass for years. It is obvious that you have not read up on this AT ALL! The House HAS passed it, it is now sitting in Committee in the Senate.

Right now the DNR Law Enforcement is against it because of, they say difficult enforcement. Again I have hunted down here for over 40 years, most of it with a handgun. Since I am in my late 60's it is harder for me to use my big bores. The DNR should have no voice in this, but they do use our license fees to lobby for what they want, whether we want it or not. And as for you PERSONAL situation, use a smaller bore, work to get this piece of crap fixed, or go with what you claim you already have all lined up (good luck with that).

Right now I use a TC Contender in 44 mag. With butt stock and 16" barrel it is under 30" and considered a handgun if registered as such prior to 1/1/2013. With scope it weighs between 5-6lbs. Much easier to carry than a heavy ML and especially a heavy shotgun.It is NOT considered a handgun, it is a rifle and always has been. It just fell outside of the old definitions, and by an AG opinion, had to be registered. The MSP used the pistol registration forms and database to accomplish that, but it doesn't change what the firearm is. WE coined the phrase "Michigan Pistol", but it is a non sequitur, it is a rifle/shotgun and will always be.

Did you know that one of the only powers that a CO has that a regular LEO doesn't have, is to prosecute on his own. He doesn't need the local prosecutor to file and pursue a case. I hope you have every thing in writing, else you have no defense.

[HANDGUNNER]

Wow
Guess you have not read previous info. I already said it passed the house and was in the Senate committee and gave the name and phone number for it's chair. Also when we were talking anout follow up ***** I used the ML as the example because a previous mention about ML.
Your right we don't care about In. It was only mentioned because that was what we copied. Still it is a start.
Even though the Michigan Pistol was created by the AG it is pretty much law until challenged. Since I am only hunting in Michigan with it I am not going to worry about it.

[HANDGUNNER]

Talked to an aide of Senator Hanson today, Chris he believes it will be discussed within the next few meetings. The committee meets about every week. Those of you that would like to see the bill passed as is please make your voice heard. It is a start.
By the way Roundballer you answered part of your own logic. As I said before they do not want firearms like your 30-30 because the bullet is more aerodynamic and will travel further than a more blunt handgun bullet. Even the new FTX bullets drop and shed velocity much faster that a rifle bullet. Not sure why that is not obvious.

[Roundballer]

Wow
Guess you have not read previous info. I already said it passed the house and was in the Senate committee and gave the name and phone number for it's chair. You did post the contact info in post #125, but you also posted conflicting info in post #127:
Contact for the Senate outdoor recreation and tourism committee is Goeff Hansen, 517-373-1635. He is the chairperson for that committee. It does not appear that HB 4283 has come out of committee at this time. It was introduced to the Senate Committee on 05-21-2013.
My god let's get onboard to get this bill passed next year. We have tried to get it into the house and pass for years. Nowhere did you say it had passed anything. I have reread all 24 of your posts, and I now have a better understanding of what is going on. I am not respecting your AUTHORITY. (http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showpost.php?p=1100696&postcount=1)
red

Also when we were talking anout follow up ***** I used the ML as the example because a previous mention about ML.
Your right we don't care about In. It was only mentioned because that was what we copied. Still it is a start.
Even though the Michigan Pistol was created by the AG it is pretty much law until challenged. Since I am only hunting in Michigan with it I am not going to worry about it.
It is a bad start. If a cartridge can currently be used in a handgun, there is no reason that it should be limited from a rifle, other that the top end where it is perceived that it might be too powerful (also an erroneous premiss).

From one of your posts, where you were telling someone that the revolver he was think if using is not good enough: "NOT RECOMMENDED, NOT A LOT OF POWER THERE TO DOWN A DEER UNLESS THE SHOT IS NEAR PERFECT. 1000lbs OF ENERGY RECOMMENDED FOR DEER SIZE ANIMAL, OLD ARMY DOES NOT COME CLOSE." (http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showpost.php?p=1247481&postcount=3)
Lets just go with your "1000lbs" number, and the statement you made in post #125, "38 Special and the 9mm you do not have the frontal area. Sure one can be killed with those rounds with a perfect and close shot" (http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showpost.php?p=2186423&postcount=125)

Then, acknowledge that .38, and 9mm both exceed the .35 minimum by a few thousandths. Use this chart to look up the energy of those rounds. (http://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_power_chart.htm) Also note that those figures come from pistol length barrels, rifles will be greater. And if you look close, you will see that many of the .380 rounds also exceed the minimums.

Now, if you really want to garner support, get rid of the minimums, or at least get it down to 0.75 to include 9x19, then people will get behind it. Until then, this is just a piece of crap legislation, and it will have little support.

Here is another chart: handgun trajectory table. (http://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_trajectory_table.htm) This gives information of what could be considered effective range for many of those handgun rounds.
red

By the way Roundballer you answered part of your own logic. As I said before they do not want firearms like your 30-30 because the bullet is more aerodynamic and will travel further than a more blunt handgun bullet. Even the new FTX bullets drop and shed velocity much faster that a rifle bullet. Not sure why that is not obvious.
I used the 30-30 as a direct comparison to the performance of shotguns and inline-muzzle loaders. What we ARE allowed WILL out perform some of those that are prohibited. Are you starting to see the point?

Here is a chart that compares bullet drop for a 30-30 with a couple of pistol loads:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v396/carwi/3030Win_357Mag_44Mag_Comparison_Chart.jpg

There is a few holes for your flawed logic.

[HANDGUNNER]

The chart you show is only out to 150yds. After we attended some of the meetings I believe the concern is much further out. We are talking about across corn fields and beyond.
Also guess I assumed since it is HB (House Bil) 4238 and I stated it went to a Senate committee it would be realized the house had passed it. I have been following this bill or one like it for several years now and very aware of some of the pitfalls. A year or so ago the intent was a single shot firearm only. We got that changed. Again we would like to get it passed and if there are issues they can be fixed just like Indy. did.

[Roundballer]

Read what the chart actually shows. The 30-30 and the .357mg-xtp are within 1.5 inches at 150yrds, with a 100yrd zero, and are both DROPPING. Neither of them are are going to start rising after that. Both of those rounds are going to hit the ground within a couple of hundred yards more. A typical 30 cal with a muzzle velocity of about 2700fps, and a 100yrd zero has about 57+/- inches of drop @500 yrds. If such was fired from the shoulder, on "target" on a level plane, the bullet hits the ground about 500 yrds away.

Any of the handgun rounds will never meet that, but many Muzzle Loaders exceed it, and the saboted slugs are getting very close.

"Fixing" a bill here in Michigan is something that very seldom happens, case in point "PFZ's" in the Concealed carry law. Get the bill right, then it will get the support. Don't support what is wrong, and then hope to fix it later. Do you have any hope of "fixing" 0bamacare?

[HANDGUNNER]

You are absolutely right about the drop in the bullet. However all shots are not taken on the level. An up hill shot could allow that bullet to travel a great distance in populated Southern Mi. You have to realize everyone who hunts deer is not as knowledgeable as you.
My club runs sight in days for two weekends prior to the gun season every year for shooters who don't have a range to shoot at.
Many of them have no or very little information on their firearm. Many store their rifle all year and never shoot it until deer season. Some just bought their gun the day before and know nothing about how to mount a scope, sight in or correct ammunition to use and maybe even less about deer hunting.
Remember when a broad law is past like the one we are talking about you have to take in consideration there may be many who do not have the information we have been taught. I hand load most of the calibers and gauges I shoot and have done so for over 50 years. I chronograph most of them, so I have some background in ballistics etc. Many hunters may hunt down here closer to home if the law is past. Back when I grew up we only had smooth bore shotguns and no sabots. That is why when I wanted to hunt down here I used a regular handgun. I did not like to use(never have used) a shotgun for deer hunting. Also because of some old injuries I dislike a heavy firearm. Repeating shotguns like pumps and auto loaders are usually fairly heavy, as are ML's for the most part. Handguns fit the bill for me perfectly. As I got older the large calibers were getting to be much to handle even in a handgun. That is why I went to the contender and used the Michigan law on handgun length to my advantage so I could continue to use a light handling firearm.

[Roundballer]

You are absolutely right about the drop in the bullet. However all shots are not taken on the level. An up hill shot could allow that bullet to travel a great distance in populated Southern Mi. You have to realize everyone who hunts deer is not as knowledgeable as you.This is not something that is, or should be addressed or used as a point of discussion about this bill. Any firearm discharged in that manner could have the same result (outside of bird shot). Also, a converse argument can be made that the majority of deer hunting is done from elevated positions, and the "miss" would be directed into the ground. That is all a discussion for the quality of the Hunters Education program, not for the bill regulating the firearms.


My club runs sight in days for two weekends prior to the gun season every year for shooters who don't have a range to shoot at.
Many of them have no or very little information on their firearm. Many store their rifle all year and never shoot it until deer season. Some just bought their gun the day before and know nothing about how to mount a scope, sight in or correct ammunition to use and maybe even less about deer hunting.My club also has "Sight-in Days", and our experience is the same as yours, but that has nothing to do with the way this bill is written. I work to educate people when and where it is appropriate. This concept also extends to those guys that have bought muzzle loaders only for the purpose of extending their hunting season. Most that fit into that category really don't know much about the firearm and just use the pre-formulated, number of pellets, sabot/projectile, 209 primer. Again, if anything it is a failure of the Hunters Education program, not addressed in this bill.


Remember when a broad law is past like the one we are talking about you have to take in consideration there may be many who do not have the information we have been taught. I hand load most of the calibers and gauges I shoot and have done so for over 50 years. I chronograph most of them, so I have some background in ballistics etc. Many hunters may hunt down here closer to home if the law is past. Back when I grew up we only had smooth bore shotguns and no sabots. That is why when I wanted to hunt down here I used a regular handgun. I did not like to use(never have used) a shotgun for deer hunting. Also because of some old injuries I dislike a heavy firearm. Repeating shotguns like pumps and auto loaders are usually fairly heavy, as are ML's for the most part. Handguns fit the bill for me perfectly. As I got older the large calibers were getting to be much to handle even in a handgun. That is why I went to the contender and used the Michigan law on handgun length to my advantage so I could continue to use a light handling firearm.
This bill is not that broad of a change. It primarily allows the use of a pistol caliber rifle for deer hunting in the shotgun zone. The failure that makes this bill unpalatable is the restrictions on which pistol calibers are acceptable. Our legislature has listened to either the prejudices or ignorance of some group in writing this bill. Pistols are already allowed. The restrictions for the calibers are already in place. The change is just the firearm. Now, it is difficult to word the laws to prohibit cartridges that meet the pistol cartridge criteria, yet are not pistol cartridges. Therefore there needs to be ONE more limitation added to the pistol cartridge definition to keep it within reason. That additional restriction is the upper cartridge case length. Having a lower limit makes it a poor law, having an unreasonable lower limit makes it totally unacceptable as written.

A simple change of the number "1.16" to "0.75" will make it worth supporting. Until, and unless that lower number is either lowered or eliminated, there will not only be limited support, there will be active opposition.

As I see it, this is where it stands. The ball is in that court, fix it or dump it. Their choice.

[HANDGUNNER]

I certainly agree with you on some of it. And I understand your view. I have a reverse felling about the bill. I feel the original handgun bill was flawed allowing any .35 caliber and above. To me there is the mistake allowing anything .35 with a straight wall. There should have been a higher minimum to begin with. I feel this bill is addressing that very issue to make sure the cartridge is adequate. It has been nice talking with you even though we differ on the bill as written. Have a great day!

[Leader]

I certainly agree with you on some of it. And I understand your view. I have a reverse felling about the bill. I feel the original handgun bill was flawed allowing any .35 caliber and above. To me there is the mistake allowing anything .35 with a straight wall. There should have been a higher minimum to begin with. I feel this bill is addressing that very issue to make sure the cartridge is adequate. It has been nice talking with you even though we differ on the bill as written. Have a great day!


How do you feel about people being allowed to hunt deer with sharp sticks?

The law doesn't say anything about the equipment allowed to do that.

[45/70fan]

How do you feel about people being allowed to hunt deer with sharp sticks?

The law doesn't say anything about the equipment allowed to do that.

Those sharp sticks should be no shorter than 27" and a maximum length of 72", fletched with the wing feathers from passenger pigeons and tipped with hand knapped obsidian points at least 1.21" wide and secured with sinew from white mastodons. A minimum velocity shall be 307.76 fps if thrown by a bent stick and string, a min of 42.3 fps if thrown by hand and 121 fps if by atlatl.

[HANDGUNNER]

Hi there welcome to the discussion. I believe you are getting a little picky on the stick. Any old stick will do.
However I think there should be rules for the caveman that uses them. He must jump from at least a 10' height from a pine tree onto the deers back. He would be required to take BUCKS only with at least a 10pt rack. Lastly he could not touch the ground untill the stick was inserted completely. This would give the buck a FIGHTING chance and the hunter may be the one getting stuck!
I am a hunter have been all my life and will certainly continue to be one. I also feel we have a responsibility to take our game cleanly and humanely as possible. Therefore we MUST USE ENOUGH GUN.

[Roundballer]

<snip> I also feel we have a responsibility to take our game cleanly and humanely as possible.
The absolute cleanest shot/quick kill, would be a brain shot. The next best would be to disconnect the brain stem from the body. BUT, that paralyzes the body, stops the heart and respiration, and leaves the brain active until it dies from lack of circulation/oxygen, a couple of minutes. Anything else is more or less an exsanguination process, and not as quick. It is the skill set of the hunter that makes any of that possible.

Therefore we MUST USE ENOUGH GUN.
Please define "enough gun"

The most humane two kills can readily be accomplished with a .22LR
The third (and most normal) shot, only needs to penetrate the heart, and can easily be done with any .30+cal.
It is the skill set of the hunter (which can not be legislated), not the tool he uses.

Leader and 45/70fan were just pointing out the hypocrisy of the minimum regulations on firearms, when there are no such regulation on archers. There isn't even a regulation that you have to use a broad head, you could use field points with a 20# bow if you wanted to.

Again, it is the skill set of the hunter, not the minimum round specifics that makes a clean kill.

ETA:
A competent hunter will choose the tool that he is confident with, and will be successful.
A less skilled hunter can be regulated into using nothing less than a 12ga, and can still gut shoot a deer.
The bill, and limitations, as they stand, will not accomplish what you are hoping for.

[HANDGUNNER]

You are absolutely right it comes down to the hunter to take responsible shots. But as you well know that does not happen as much as we would like to think. I guess my enough gun definition would have to depend on the hunter. Will he wait for a clean shot or not. Enough gun is a caliber or bullet size that will put an animal down within a relatively short time so that it may be recovered. Enough gun is if a shot is taken and for whatever reason it did not connect where you intended and it will still bring the game down.
Now as far as the 45-70, I used that down here for 3 years in the Contender. It was 16" with a muzzle tamer. The problem I was having with is the contruction of the bullets and my hand loads. I loaded fairly light for the Contender with 300gr HP. The contruction on the big .458 bullets are fairly heavy in the jacket area, mainly for bigger game On double lung shots no expansion to speak of. I had deer running nearly 200yds before they dropped. I could have boosted the loads but then the little gun bucked like a mule.
Two years ago I went to the 44 mag with full loads using the Winchester STHP at 210grs. I had very good bullet performance. Found lead and jacket material as the deer were dressed and still had a very nice exit hole for short tracking. With the 44 I also got great shocking power to the system that I don't believe I was receiving from the 45-70.

[Leader]

From your posts Hangunner, I get the idea you would be happier if hunting were limited to those that hand load and can shoot the 10 ring at 250 yds.

Maybe only use a 12 Ga with slugs at no greater then 20 Yds. until hey have 10 confirmed kills?

Oh... and NO sharp sticks.

[45/70fan]

[QUOTE=HANDGUNNER]You are absolutely right it comes down to the hunter to take responsible shots. But as you well know that does not happen as much as we would like to think. I guess my enough gun definition would have to depend on the hunter. Will he wait for a clean shot or not. Enough gun is a caliber or bullet size that will put an animal down within a relatively short time so that it may be recovered. Enough gun is if a shot is taken and for whatever reason it did not connect where you intended and it will still bring the game down.
Now as far as the 45-70, I used that down here for 3 years in the Contender. It was 16" with a muzzle tamer. The problem I was having with is the contruction of the bullets and my hand loads. I loaded fairly light for the Contender with 300gr HP. The contruction on the big .458 bullets are fairly heavy in the jacket area, mainly for bigger game On double lung shots no expansion to speak of. I had deer running nearly 200yds before they dropped. I could have boosted the loads but then the little gun bucked like a mule.
Two years ago I went to the 44 mag with full loads using the Winchester STHP at 210grs. I had very good bullet performance. Found lead and jacket material as the deer were dressed and still had a very nice exit hole for short tracking. With the 44 I also got great shocking power to the system that I don't believe I was receiving from the 45-70.[/
Handgun dr you are confusing my screen name with actually using the 45 2/10
Read round baller's and my postings a bit slower

[Roundballer]

You are absolutely right it comes down to the hunter to take responsible shots. But as you well know that does not happen as much as we would like to think.Well according to this report it happened over 418,000 times last year, bow, rifle, and shotgun combined: DNR MI Deer Harvest Survey Report 2012 .pdf (http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/MI_Deer_Harvest_Survey_Report_2012_426213_7.pdf)

I guess my enough gun definition would have to depend on the hunter. Will he wait for a clean shot or not.And that can not be legislated, and is not addressed in this bill in any manner. It is not a valid point.

Enough gun is a caliber or bullet size that will put an animal down within a relatively short time so that it may be recovered. Enough gun is if a shot is taken and for whatever reason it did not connect where you intended and it will still bring the game down.In the first sentence, I have pointed out it can be done with a .22LR. In the second sentence, there is no such thing. Even a 50BMG that misses joints and vitals will allow the animal to run away.


Now as far as the 45-70, I used that down here for 3 years in the Contender. It was 16" with a muzzle tamer. The problem I was having with is the contruction of the bullets and my hand loads. I loaded fairly light for the Contender with 300gr HP. The contruction on the big .458 bullets are fairly heavy in the jacket area, mainly for bigger game On double lung shots no expansion to speak of. I had deer running nearly 200yds before they dropped. I could have boosted the loads but then the little gun bucked like a mule.And what your preferences are, are not germane to the bill in discussion. Personally, I have never had to chase or track a deer that I shot. My preference is an 11 ga. smooth bore flintlock, that doesn't even have sights on it. That gun, and my skills, just drops them DRT. I am very good at tracking, I have found the deer that friends and family have hit with their .44 lever guns and 30-30's when it was necessary.


Two years ago I went to the 44 mag with full loads using the Winchester STHP at 210grs. I had very good bullet performance. Found lead and jacket material as the deer were dressed and still had a very nice exit hole for short tracking. With the 44 I also got great shocking power to the system that I don't believe I was receiving from the 45-70.It sounds like you are really over thinking what is needed, AND what the effects of a round are.

[HANDGUNNER]

Hardballer I wish we were all as good as you. You know as well as I do we are not. I have made mistakes and at the time was saddened by the event. However I learned from them. I contend a .22 is a very poor example that you keep mentioning. It is certainly not a deer cartridge the knowledgable deer hunter would choose.
Also I think the caliber does pertain to the discussion. That is why the law as written attempts to insure proper calibers are used. By putting in a high and LOW limit they corrected the mistake that was instituted years ago when a (.35 caliber 380, 9mm, 38 Special and similar cartridges of that size was instituted. Most feel the 357 Mag handgun is marginal for hunting deer except in an experts hand who waits for the perfect broadside shot at close range. Many have thought the cartridge that developes a 1000 lbs of muzzle energy is the least you should use as a bonified deer cartridge. Not sure I subscribe completely to that since the standard 44 Mag 240gr developes less than the so called required 1000 lbs from a typical handgun. The 240gr 44Mag bullet has taken numerous deer for numerous hunters including myself. For years the only 44 Mag that achieved 1000 lbs was the 180gr bullet. I always felt the 180gr in the .44 was contructed a little light and if it hit heavy bone may not penetrate to the vitals. Years ago I did a lot of testing my 44 bullets in soaked phone books. My testing led me to this conclusion.
Caliber and power is important and I for one am glad they are addressing it.

[amontana086]

:popcorn:
Good thread lot of good information in here.

I agree with ROUNDGUNNER.

[JimA]

The 1000 foot pounds of energy required for deer is nonsense. No deer that ever lived could not be taken cleanly with a standard loaded .45 colt round that won't make half that energy figure. Deer haven't become bulletproof in the last 140 years. Those that worship at the altar of hyper velocity, light bullets would have you believe that though.

[45/70fan]

Regardless of cartridge dimension, bullet weight, velocity or animal size;only two thing cause that animals death,1: central nervous system interruption. 2: exsanganation. The first can be immediate or only cause paralysis, the second will take some time if at all. The ultimate determining factor is bullet placement and only the person pulling the trigger will determine the end result.

[sasquatchpa]

Could you guys "get a room" and let this thread work on passage of 4283.

Please!

[DP425]

Hi there welcome to the discussion. I believe you are getting a little picky on the stick. Any old stick will do.
However I think there should be rules for the caveman that uses them. He must jump from at least a 10' height from a pine tree onto the deers back. He would be required to take BUCKS only with at least a 10pt rack. Lastly he could not touch the ground untill the stick was inserted completely. This would give the buck a FIGHTING chance and the hunter may be the one getting stuck!
I am a hunter have been all my life and will certainly continue to be one. I also feel we have a responsibility to take our game cleanly and humanely as possible. Therefore we MUST USE ENOUGH GUN.


I believe the "stick" he's talking about is an arrow.

If you support bow hunting, it's absurd that you feel conventional .35cal and above centerfire pistol cartridges are somehow inhumane. You proclaim to know ballistics but seem to be ignoring terminal ballistics... and external ballistics for that matter; or at least you are horribly confused.

Ponder this for a moment since you're stuck on the whole "danger to populated areas" BS. Hornady SST's and many of the saboted muzzle loader bullets have much, much better BC than the vast majority of handgun bullets. That means given same velocity, they will retain more energy down range, or given less velocity, at some point they will over take the handgun bullet and retain more energy. That actually places these firearms in the performance category of light to moderate caliber rifles.

Now consider the fact that smaller, higher velocity bullets have less tendency to ricochet than say... 1oz slugs, especially from irregular surfaces (such as rocks), the entire argument against conventional rifle calibers has very, very little to stand on. Especially when we want to start talking about humane kills.

Back onto humane kills, a typical 9mm handgun can have up to 10 times the energy of an arrow; while the arrow does significant damage through slicing, it falls flat on its face when placed against most centerfire calibers; thus why militaries abandoned the bow and arrow for the smooth bore musket, gaining very, very little in effective range. Now, I don't mind bow hunting; it's not my thing but I have no issue with others doing it. However, if you're going to come on here and talk about conventional handgun calibers being insufficient, I sure hope you are not yourself, nor do you support bow hunting.

Now, lets take for example, 10mm... it often slightly exceeds .357 in energy yet the 10mm would not be allowed where the .357 would be. Or we can go even worse... 10mm vs .38special, which happens to meet the 1.16 exactly. 10mm often triples .38 in energy. 9mm which would also not be permitted better than doubles the energy of the .38. Or we can look at the .410 slugs... avg energy around 700lbs ft falls right into the 9mm +p+ range... but guess which loses velocity faster...

This bill is entirely BS. It's written to appease one crowd (lever gun fans) with a side benefit to some single shot rifle users. The fact is, if this passes as is, it will NOT be fixed at a later date; the people remaining are not vocal enough to have their desires met (9mm AR carbine users, Marlin Camp Carbine, etc). And because there are so many idiots who think they know what they are talking about, running around spouting off crap about what is dangerous to populated areas while slinging 1oz chunks of lead (which FYI, studies HAVE show to be more dangerous than rifle rounds as the more common mode of off-target delivery is through ground-impact ricochets), those of us that would just like to use a rifle everywhere will continue to suffer.

[Roundballer]

Could you guys "get a room" and let this thread work on passage of 4283.

Please!
Well, frankly, NO.

This thread is to discuss the proposed legislation, and this particular piece of crap, does not deserve the support of the majority of gun owners OR Shotgun zone hunters.

The bill, as written, was written for lever gun users, with no factual information about internal, external or terminal ballistics considered. This is a bill what should be actively opposed if it is not amended.

[Leader]

Could you guys "get a room" and let this thread work on passage of 4283.

Please!

No.

The bill as it stands is garbage.
It shouldn't pass.

Scrap it and rescind the shotgun zone altogether.
Make ALL center fire rifles legal in all counties .

[Dirty_Harry]

I understand that some of you think its silly, and it is. I however would kill to use one of those rifles in a pistol caliber over my shotgun. It isnt just lever actions either.

I hope it passes.

[Leader]

I understand that some of you think its silly, and it is. I however would kill to use one of those rifles in a pistol caliber over my shotgun. It isnt just lever actions either.

I hope it passes.

If the "shotgun zone" was just eliminated, you COULD hunt with pistol caliber rifles. Anyplace in the state.

The restriction makes NO sense, it is just another "feel good" law.

What makes the government think the same people that don't shoot up Traverse City, Alpena, or Marquette are going to shoot up Livonia, Holland, & Coldwater?

Perhaps the people in Detroit might actually be safer if rifles were allowed for hunting the two weeks of the year they aren't now.

[Dirty_Harry]

If the "shotgun zone" was just eliminated, you COULD hunt with pistol caliber rifles. Anyplace in the state.

The restriction makes NO sense, it is just another "feel good" law.

What makes the government think the same people that don't shoot up Traverse City, Alpena, or Marquette are going to shoot up Livonia, Holland, & Coldwater?

Perhaps the people in Detroit might actually be safer if rifles were allowed for hunting the two weeks of the year they aren't now.


I understand that, and I would rather use my regular rifles than anything, but this is better than nothing.

Plus its an excuse to buy another gun! :sniper:

[sasquatchpa]

If you read the whole thread, you would find that I agree with you.

When my sons were born, they could not run.
First, they scooted on their bellies.
Second, they crawled.
Third, they walked in a walker.
Then, they walked on their own.
Finally, they learned to run.

This bill is not perfect.
It is a step in the right direction, in a tough political time.
Maybe we should learn from children?

[Roundballer]

If this is passed in the form that it is in, most of us will not see it "fixed" in our life time.

We have to stop letting them give us a little tid-bit and pat us on the head and say "there you go little guy". It is our bag of candy, it is our government. This is not an "all or nothing" statement, but they need to have "common sense" too.

If it is legitimate to use a particular round in a handgun down here, OR it is legitimate to use a particular round (.38 sp, 9x19 etc) in the rifle zones, then it needs to be across the board. It does not make sense to allow it in one firearm and not another, OR allow it in the northern areas and not here (reference to .35 cal or larger, and under 1.8' case length). Just dump the lower limit, or change it to 0.75, then it is at least reasonable.

Just remember, if they can apply it to a carbine/rifle down here because of the erroneous concept of under powered, they can then apply it to rifles/carbines State wide.

Fix it NOW, or KILL it.

[Leader]

If you read the whole thread, you would find that I agree with you.

When my sons were born, they could not run.
First, they scooted on their bellies.
Second, they crawled.
Third, they walked in a walker.
Then, they walked on their own.
Finally, they learned to run.

This bill is not perfect.
It is a step in the right direction, in a tough political time.
Maybe we should learn from children?

What we need to show them is this stupid law did not solve any problems. Repeal it because it doesn't protect anybody or anything. Go back to what we had before the restriction was put in place.
Thats the *FIX* we need.
As stated, if we allow this or whatever reduced form of it they dream up next to pass, that is what all reading this now will be stuck with for the rest of our natural lives.

Dump this law & dump the shotgun zone thing.

[DP425]

If this is passed in the form that it is in, most of us will not see it "fixed" in our life time.

We have to stop letting them give us a little tid-bit and pat us on the head and say "there you go little guy". It is our bag of candy, it is our government. This is not an "all or nothing" statement, but they need to have "common sense" too.

If it is legitimate to use a particular round in a handgun down here, OR it is legitimate to use a particular round (.38 sp, 9x19 etc) in the rifle zones, then it needs to be across the board. It does not make sense to allow it in one firearm and not another, OR allow it in the northern areas and not here (reference to .35 cal or larger, and under 1.8' case length). Just dump the lower limit, or change it to 0.75, then it is at least reasonable.

Just remember, if they can apply it to a carbine/rifle down here because of the erroneous concept of under powered, they can then apply it to rifles/carbines State wide.

Fix it NOW, or KILL it.


THIS is a key point- Why is it no one is asking if this isn't actually the foot in the door to increased caliber restrictions throughout the state for rifles AND pistols?

[Tallbear]

Here's your chance to do something about it. Yes or no..... Good or bad. Let them know now.

COMMITTEE: Outdoor Recreation and Tourism

DATE: Thursday, October 3, 2013

TIME: 12:30 p.m.

PLACE: Room 110, Farnum Building, 125 W. Allegan Street, Lansing, MI 48933

PHONE: Michael Hart (373-5312)
Committee Clerk


AGENDA


HB 4283 Rep. Lori Natural resources; hunting; use of certain firearms during firearm deer season; allow.

[Roundballer]

Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Committee (http://www.senate.michigan.gov/committee/outdoorrec.html)
Goeff Hansen (R) Committee Chair

34th District Muskegon, Newaygo, Oceana and Mason Counties
SenGHansen@senate.michigan.gov
517-373-1635
http://www.senatorgoeffhansen.com/

Dave Hildenbrand (R) Majority Vice Chair

29th District Grand Rapids area
http://www.senatordavehildenbrand.com/contact-me/ - uses a contact page on his website
(517) 373-1801 or toll free at (866) 305-2129
http://www.senatordavehildenbrand.com/

Arlan Meekhof (R)

30th District Ottawa County
SenAMeekhof@senate.michigan.gov
(517) 373-6920 or toll Free: (866) 305-2130
http://www.misenategop.com/senators/Meekhof.asp?District=30

Tom Casperson (R)

38th District Alger, Baraga, Delta, Dickinson, Gogebic, Houghton, Iron, Keweenaw, Luce, Marquette, Menominee, Ontonagon, and Schoolcraft Counties
http://www.senatortomcasperson.com/contact-me/ Uses a contact form linked from that page.
(517) 373-7840
http://www.senatortomcasperson.com/

John Moolenaar (R)

36th District Alcona, Alpena, Crawford, Gladwin, Iosco, Midland, Montmorency, Ogemaw, Oscoda and Otsego counties
http://www.senatorjohnmoolenaar.com/contact-me/ Uses a contact form linked from that page
(517) 373-7946
http://www.senatorjohnmoolenaar.com/

Coleman Young II (D) Minority Vice Chair

1st District Inner Detroit.
http://young.senatedems.com/contact-me Uses a web form on that page.
Office: 517-373-7346
http://young.senatedems.com/

Hoon-Yung Hopgood (D)

8th District Wayne County: Allen Park, Ecorse, Lincoln Park, Melvindale, Riverview, Romulus, Southgate, Taylor, Wayne, Wyandotte
http://hopgood.senatedems.com/contact-me Uses a webform on that page
Office: 517-373-7800
http://hopgood.senatedems.com/


Committee Clerk, Michael Hart (517) 373-5312
mhart@senate.michigan.gov

[sasquatchpa]

Roundballer:

This is the list I was asking about 2 pages ago.

Thanks!!!

[HANDGUNNER]

Here is the next meeting for any and all who would like to attend. Let's give them the support this bill deserves.
Room 110, Farnum Building, 125 W. Allegan Street, Lansing, MI 48933
Date Thursday, 10/3/2013
Time 12:30 pm
Agenda HB4283 (Lori)
Also 45/70fan you are correct, bullet placement is absolute. But everyone knows every hunter who enters the deer woods will not have that commitment or skill. So on the bill extra power is built in to assist those of us who do not make the perfect shot every time like some others apparently do! With a little excess in a more powerful cartridge hopefully we may still get a CLEAN kill and enjoy our Venison too.

[amontana086]

Here is the next meeting for any and all who would like to attend. Let's give them the support this bill deserves.
Room 110, Farnum Building, 125 W. Allegan Street, Lansing, MI 48933
Date Thursday, 10/3/2013
Time 12:30 pm
Agenda HB4283 (Lori)
Also 45/70fan you are correct, bullet placement is absolute. But everyone knows every hunter who enters the deer woods will not have that commitment or skill. So on the bill extra power is built in to assist those of us who do not make the perfect shot every time like some others apparently do! With a little excess in a more powerful cartridge hopefully we may still get a CLEAN kill and enjoy our Venison too.
+1

[45/70fan]

Apparently the DNR continues to oppose this bill, time to oppose the DNR.

[HANDGUNNER]

DNR law enforcement has apposed us from the start. They feel it will be difficult to enforce?????????
This evening I talked with Michael, an aide of Senator Hansen. The meeting tomorrow is an open meeting and all are welcome.

[Leader]

Apparently the DNR continues to oppose this bill, time to oppose the DNR.

What does the DNR think or opening up zone 3 to ALL center fire rifles?
No problem enforcing that.

[HANDGUNNER]

Personally I do not ever see that happening. To much human population and to much carry of the bullet in bottleneck rifle cartridges.

[45/70fan]

Change is what they are opposed to like all human activity, they oppose change from what is familiar.

[Tallbear]

HB 4283 of 2013 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2013-HB-4283)
Natural resources; hunting; use of certain firearms during firearm deer season; allow. Amends sec. 43526 of 1994 PA 451 (MCL 324.43526).
Last Action: 10/2/2013 Analysis File Added

[HANDGUNNER]

Hey all
Just returned from the Senate committee meeting on the proposed legislation of pistol cartridge rifles to be used for deer hunting in Zone 3.
It looks pretty positive from my viewpoint. Six of us spoke to the committee all were in favor for the law for various reasons. Only negative was from DNR Law Enforcement. Senators asked the DNR why they were apposed, it came down to the DNR officer stating that if they saw a hunter with a rifle it would have to be checked to see if it was an allowable caliber. This would take to much time according to the DNR. They also apposed because of public perseption of a rifle being used. Couple of Senators refuted the idea of to hard to enforce the new law.
The Senators appeared very positive about the bill.

[Dirty_Harry]

HB 4283 of 2013 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2013-HB-4283)
Natural resources; hunting; use of certain firearms during firearm deer season; allow. Amends sec. 43526 of 1994 PA 451 (MCL 324.43526).
Last Action: 10/2/2013 Analysis File Added


So, whats next?

I really want a .44 magnum rifle!

[HANDGUNNER]

The committee did not vote today. They will take a vote, if positive it will be sent to the full Senate for consideration. The law would not go into effect until next season.

[Walther]

So, whats next?

I really want a .44 magnum rifle!

So buy one. If I waited for a legitimate reason to buy every gun I own, I would only have four.

[Dirty_Harry]

So buy one. If I waited for a legitimate reason to buy every gun I own, I would only have four.


Truth, but I have to convince the wife too. :slap:

[Walther]

Truth, but I have to convince the wife too. :slap:

I'll bet she doesn't convince you everytime she buys shoes!

I know what you mean. I usually call the wife and tell her. The typical response is "I don't care.", but I'm sure she likes being included.

[Dirty_Harry]

I'll bet she doesn't convince you everytime she buys shoes!

I know what you mean. I usually call the wife and tell her. The typical response is "I don't care.", but I'm sure she likes being included.


Thats the thing, she doesnt buy ANYTHING for herself. Her only splurge is Starbucks, I dont have a leg to stand on lol.

[oldmann1967]

That is great! I usually stash gun money when my wife splurges on speeding tickets!

[BravoKilo]

Fingers crossed! Have been waiting for this for a few years now, and part of the reason why I went with .50 Beowulf vs .458 SOCOM on my last AR build.

[Dirty_Harry]

Fingers crossed! Have been waiting for this for a few years now, and part of the reason why I went with .50 Beowulf vs .458 SOCOM on my last AR build.

.50 Beowulf would be legal? Hold on Marlin levergun, I may look into this!

[SADAacp]

.50 Beowulf would be legal? Hold on Marlin levergun, I may look into this!

Yes. It's a straight-walled cartridge with a case length of less than 1.80 inches.


7 (D) A .35 CALIBER OR LARGER RIFLE LOADED WITH STRAIGHT-WALLED
8 CARTRIDGES WITH A MINIMUM CASE LENGTH OF 1.16 INCHES AND A MAXIMUM
9 CASE LENGTH OF 1.80 INCHES.

[BravoKilo]

.50 Beowulf would be legal? Hold on Marlin levergun, I may look into this!

As far as I can tell, I don't see why not (but someone please correct me otherwise). Straight walled cartridge with 1.65 in. case length (fits the 1.16-1.80 in. requirement of HB 4283). 16" barrel on an AR platform makes it very nimble in the woods, and amazingly accurate at close distances. Only downfall is Cabela's no longer carries ammo for it so I'm stuck ordering online and paying shipping charges (though not a huge deal). Hella fun to shoot too :)

[c_franklin50]

now I did not read through all 19 pages to see if it was mentioned but when it comes to reloading case length and cartridge length are 2 totally different measurements which can open the door to many more calibers. I was reading blogs from people in Indiana where this bill passed they would trim there 45-70 brass cases to 1.8 to be legal then use a long bullet to make up the difference.

[45/70fan]

now I did not read through all 19 pages to see if it was mentioned but when it comes to reloading case length and cartridge length are 2 totally different measurements which can open the door to many more calibers. I was reading blogs from people in Indiana where this bill passed they would trim there 45-70 brass cases to 1.8 to be legal then use a long bullet to make up the difference.

Rather than do all that why not just use a 454 Casull or 460 S&W. I shoot a Ruger SRH 454 using a 350 gr cast slug sized to 454 from 458. Thus giving me what the above is trying to do with a 45-70 case.

[c_franklin50]

Rather than do all that why not just use a 454 Casull or 460 S&W. I shoot a Ruger SRH 454 using a 350 gr cast slug sized to 454 from 458. Thus giving me what the above is trying to do with a 45-70 case.

I fully agree, but for some it depends on what they have on hand and how deep the pockets are for a new gun. If this law passes I first started out looking at the 1894's but with more thought and bullet set up I think my needs would be better suited with and h&r. I would like a 357 maximum but until the bring it back into rifles which is where its best at over revolvers I will stick with a 44 i think.

For those who don't know what a 357 maximum is here is some great info

http://www.bellmtcs.com/store/index.php?cid=121
http://www.bellmtcs.com/store/index.php?cid=658&
http://www.bellmtcs.com/store/index.php?cid=120&

http://357maximum.com/

[DP425]

Personally I do not ever see that happening. To much human population and to much carry of the bullet in bottleneck rifle cartridges.


Pure BS

[45/70fan]

Pure BS

No it's true, just ask the anti's and DNR that does not like change.

[flhpi]

No it's true, just ask the anti's and DNR that does not like change.
Thats thes same B.S. the DNR C.O. told the kids at hunter's ed that my kid took a few weeks ago.

[DP425]

It really grinds me when our own side continues to spread such nonsense.

http://www.americanhunter.org/blogs/shotguns-safer-than-rifles/

http://www.ihea.com/_assets/documents/AFWA_Presentation_9-18-07.pdf

[Walther]

It really grinds me when our own side continues to spread such nonsense.

http://www.americanhunter.org/blogs/shotguns-safer-than-rifles/

http://www.ihea.com/_assets/documents/AFWA_Presentation_9-18-07.pdf


I've never questioned this before, going along with the conventional wisdom that faster and lighter goes farther before dropping. Which I supose is still true as long as one doesn't take the ricochet into account.

I've never seen any studies in this up until now or for that matter bothered to look them up. I admit to being surprised at the results assuming the data is accurate. As he says, it is all calculated, not real world. Still, physics don't lie. So from this point forward I will change camps.

Thanks for the link.

[MrSmithMSU]

I've never questioned this before, going along with the conventional wisdom that faster and lighter goes farther before dropping. Which I supose is still true as long as one doesn't take the ricochet into account.

I've never seen any studies in this up until now or for that matter bothered to look them up. I admit to being surprised at the results assuming the data is accurate. As he says, it is all calculated, not real world. Still, physics don't lie. So from this point forward I will change camps.

Thanks for the link.

Yep, Leonardo daVinci did those tests for us!

+1 on the thanks for the links - those were great.

[HANDGUNNER]

Here is the only problem I see that may come up. At the Senate hearing I was talking to a member of our gun club I informed him I would love to use my 450 Bushy (right at 1.80.) There was a gentleman sitting in front of us. He turned around and told us he wrote the original bill for the legislation, sorry have forgotten his name. He advise the original wording stated " straight walled PISTOL cartridge." he then told me the Bushy would not be allowed if the bill passed with that wording.
This gentleman was the first called to speak to the committee along with Representative Lori who is the sponsor of the bill. During his testimony and all others that followed mo one mentioned a PISTOL cartridge.
We will just have to wait and see if the bill passes and then look at the wording.
Good Luck to us all.

[HANDGUNNER]

Hi Walt
As I see it this is part of the problem. The DNR is trying to tell hunters to use common sense when choosing a bonafide deer cartridge. The 30 Carbine is not a deer cartridge especially out of the Ruger. It would certainly suffice for a small game gun or a coup-deGrasse on a deer after it is down.
Same with the 38 special, it was never intended as a deer cartridge. Most if not all police depts have sat it aside because it was not sufficient to stop a person let alone a wild big game animal. Ya I know most cops carry semi autos now and certainly favor the 40. But prior to that they were looking for revolvers with a more oomph than the 38. I was lucky enough to be on a police dept in the 60's and 70's most of us carried a 357 or even a few 44's that were personal guns. We were issued old, old 38 Colts that had seen better days.
And yes a 38 special or 44 special will work!!!! In some lever guns. Some are very finicky about cartridge length when working through the carrier and into the chamber. I have used both but not for deer hunting. Use was for plinking loads or small game loads. Certainly the 44 spl should be sufficient for deer with a good load. But why bother when you can shoot the mag from the same gun. Same goes for the 38spl why would you use the 38 if the gun will shoot 357. The 357 has always been considered marginal at best out of a handgun for deer. From a sealed chamber and longer barrel of a rifle it should fair well if the hunter does his part. The 38 spl out of a rifle would be close to 357 out of the handgun. A little light if not placed properly and if the right bullet is not chosen.
I am sure I will hear about this but again the average deer hunter will not be fussy about his shot. A poor shot from a 44 may result in a long tracking scenario with no recovery. Imagine what a poor shot from the 30, or 38 would be with half the mass and half or less of the shocking power than the 44.

[Walther]

Hi Walt
As I see it this is part of the problem. The DNR is trying to tell hunters to use common sense when choosing a bonafide deer cartridge. The 30 Carbine is not a deer cartridge especially out of the Ruger. It would certainly suffice for a small game gun or a coup-deGrasse on a deer after it is down.
Same with the 38 special, it was never intended as a deer cartridge. Most if not all police depts have sat it aside because it was not sufficient to stop a person let alone a wild big game animal. Ya I know most cops carry semi autos now and certainly favor the 40. But prior to that they were looking for revolvers with a more oomph than the 38. I was lucky enough to be on a police dept in the 60's and 70's most of us carried a 357 or even a few 44's that were personal guns. We were issued old, old 38 Colts that had seen better days.
And yes a 38 special or 44 special will work!!!! In some lever guns. Some are very finicky about cartridge length when working through the carrier and into the chamber. I have used both but not for deer hunting. Use was for plinking loads or small game loads. Certainly the 44 spl should be sufficient for deer with a good load. But why bother when you can shoot the mag from the same gun. Same goes for the 38spl why would you use the 38 if the gun will shoot 357. The 357 has always been considered marginal at best out of a handgun for deer. From a sealed chamber and longer barrel of a rifle it should fair well if the hunter does his part. The 38 spl out of a rifle would be close to 357 out of the handgun. A little light if not placed properly and if the right bullet is not chosen.
I am sure I will hear about this but again the average deer hunter will not be fussy about his shot. A poor shot from a 44 may result in a long tracking scenario with no recovery. Imagine what a poor shot from the 30, or 38 would be with half the mass and half or less of the shocking power than the 44.

A) My name isn't Walt. My username is 'Walther', not Walter.

B) You missed the entire point of my post. I can use a .30 Carbine to hunt deer in the rifle zone in either a handgun or long gun, but I cannot use either down here. I agree it's a weak cartridge, but it's not as weak as a .380 or 9, both of which make the cut according to this bill.

If they're going to make it legal to hunt deer with a 9mm in a little carbine, the the .30 should be ok too.


BTW, I sold the blackhawk.

[HANDGUNNER]

Sorry about shortening Walther
You may have read it wrong or someone told you wrong. The 380 and 9mm fall far short of the required length of 1.16" by a long way.
No, I got your point. Just because we made a mistake in the rifle zone by allowing someone(as if anyone would) to use the 380 we do not have to repeat the error down here. I for one am glad we learned and corrected our mistake.

[Walther]

Sorry about shortening Walther
You may have read it wrong or someone told you wrong. The 380 and 9mm fall far short of the required length of 1.16" by a long way.
No, I got your point. Just because we made a mistake in the rifle zone by allowing someone(as if anyone would) to use the 380 we do not have to repeat the error down here. I for one am glad we learned and corrected our mistake.


I'll buy the .380, but the 9 has a MOL of 1.169. It wouldn't be hard to load it as a legal round.

And if we're going to correct it down here, then it should be corrected up there as well. Along with the .380, .32 and everything else.

I can see it now, taking to the woods with my LCP...ah, yes...

And the .30 Carbine should still be legal to use down here.

[Kaeto]

Spoke to Sen Hopgood about this bill today. One of the points I brought up with him was that passage could mean increased tourism dollars from out of state hunters.

[Dansjeep2000]

Spoke to Sen Hopgood about this bill today. One of the points I brought up with him was that passage could mean increased tourism dollars from out of state hunters.
Did he give any insight as to how he may vote on it?

[Kaeto]

Not really, but I got the impression that he hadn't thought about the money it could bring into the state.

[HANDGUNNER]

That was also a point discussed at the committee hearing by the person who wrote the bill and Rep. Lori. I made this point a few weeks ago on MGO and got shot down by na sayers to the bill. Guess I am not the only one who believes it would add to the economy. Thanks for your support of the bill
Walther
The lengths are not MOL. The 1.16 Min and the 1.80 Max is for the brass case length only.

[Roundballer]

I'll buy the .380, but the 9 has a MOL of 1.169. It wouldn't be hard to load it as a legal round.

And if we're going to correct it down here, then it should be corrected up there as well. Along with the .380, .32 and everything else.

I can see it now, taking to the woods with my LCP...ah, yes...

And the .30 Carbine should still be legal to use down here.
In the proposed law, they are talking of ONLY the Case length. They have eliminated (purely from erroneous information) any CASE that is less than 1.16". The 9mm is 0.75....Gone, same with .38 spl, too short.

The whole subject of the triple limitation being applied only to carbines in the shotgun zone can not be logically supported with the existence of lack of that limitation in the other zones, or in pistols. This is pure hypocrisy on the part of a few that just want "their" rounds included. Bad law as it stands, it gives an inroad to extending it State wide, and placing the same limits on pistols. It also limits out several viable options for smaller youth. How are we supposed to get them shooting if we have to teach them how to shoot something that they can't even hold up, and can't handle the recoil of?

[HANDGUNNER]

There is a simple solution. If the person is that small or that frail maybe it would be better to start them on smaller game where a smaller round would suffice. That would eliminate the heavy gun and heavy recoil. Just because we have some nice new laws about youth hunters does not mean they have to start learning about this great sport on big game.
There are also solutions for the heavy guns. A single shot rifle is much lighter than a bolt or lever action. Also there are ways to tame the recoil down for a smaller person. Better recoil pads, muzzle breaks, additional padding in the coat. Limb saver makes a great slip on pad to put over the butt plate or even over a recoil pad. If you take a rifle in 357 and the exact one chambered in a 44 the 44 will be a little lighter because of less metal to the barrel. So that is not a viable argument to try to make about a larger caliber making a heavier gun.

[Walther]

In the proposed law, they are talking of ONLY the Case length.

Ok, yes. I re-read the bill, it'd been a long time since I looked at it. Some of the earlier conversations centered around cartridge length, as it was incorrectly stated in an early post. That actually lops quite a few cartrisges off the list.

[Roundballer]

There is a simple solution. If the person is that small or that frail maybe it would be better to start them on smaller game where a smaller round would suffice. That would eliminate the heavy gun and heavy recoil.
So in other words: Lets just pass this and the heck with anybody that could actually benefit from a competent law.

Just because we have some nice new laws about youth hunters does not mean they have to start learning about this great sport on big game. These "nice new laws about youth hunters" ARE about deer hunting. The hypocrisy is so thick and heavy, I am thinking that a skid-loader is going to be required.

There are also solutions for the heavy guns. A single shot rifle is much lighter than a bolt or lever action. Also there are ways to tame the recoil down for a smaller person. Better recoil pads, muzzle breaks, additional padding in the coat. Limb saver makes a great slip on pad to put over the butt plate or even over a recoil pad. If you take a rifle in 357 and the exact one chambered in a 44 the 44 will be a little lighter because of less metal to the barrel. So that is not a viable argument to try to make about a larger caliber making a heavier gun.
You are completely skipping over the concept that once a rifle configuration is found, that a person can physically lift and hold, then find it chambered in a round that the person can handle the recoil from, in that weight of rifle. Lighter firearms transmit more of the recoil energy to the shooter.

It is obvious that you have never worked with youth, teaching them to shoot. Sure find a light firearm with the "required" caliber, and you will drive the youth away. They need to be encouraged to shoot, practice, and shoot some more. If the firearm/chamber combination just punishes the youth, you will have them going afield with something they are not competent with. They will jerk because of the anticipated recoil. Now lets talk about "clean kills" that this law will force (not). It is the SHOOTER, not the cartridge. Set-up for failure.

An accurately placed 9mm or 38 spl is a much better choice than a .44 mag through the gut.

There are MANY variables here, and the shooter is the biggest one. Give them what they need to mitigate that variable.

Please show one verifiable source of information that provides the information/data that those cartridges that are currently used in handguns, are insufficient in a rifle.

[DP425]

There is a simple solution. If the person is that small or that frail maybe it would be better to start them on smaller game where a smaller round would suffice. That would eliminate the heavy gun and heavy recoil. Just because we have some nice new laws about youth hunters does not mean they have to start learning about this great sport on big game.
There are also solutions for the heavy guns. A single shot rifle is much lighter than a bolt or lever action. Also there are ways to tame the recoil down for a smaller person. Better recoil pads, muzzle breaks, additional padding in the coat. Limb saver makes a great slip on pad to put over the butt plate or even over a recoil pad. If you take a rifle in 357 and the exact one chambered in a 44 the 44 will be a little lighter because of less metal to the barrel. So that is not a viable argument to try to make about a larger caliber making a heavier gun.


Okay, I'll do this one more time- if you fail to answer, I'm going to assume you're a huge hypocrite talking out of his fifth point of contact... likely the same place his head is residing. So please, do answer this time... I don't want to have to assume that!

Are you a bow hunter and/or do you support bow hunting for deer?


Also, a lighter gun in a larger caliber will produce more free (felt) recoil. So your counter argument there doesn't hold water.


A LOT of shots are missed due to recoil. And if we can mandate larger calibers simply BECAUSE of poor marksmanship, we can mandate accuracy tests to get a permit. If you can't hit a 9" pie plate 10 for 10 out to 300yd w rifles, 125 with shotgun 40 with bow, with no sighters, you don't hunt. How does that sound? Requiring a larger caliber to make up for poor marksmanship makes as much sense as raising the BAL on drunk driving to reduce the occurrence of that problem. Or as much sense as taking away the rights of all gun owners because some (mostly criminals) screw up and calling it a solution.

I'd push my ignorant plan just like everyone pushing this one if I didn't actually care about hunter's rights as a whole. Plus, I'm smart enough to realize poor performance of some isn't reason to punish all. Unfortunately, it would appear my mental capacity is in the minority here.



But back to the main point in this post- don't bother replying "handgunner" if you are not going to answer the questions about bow hunting.

[Leader]

Why is it that some here believe we will have a rash of wounded deer running around the southern half of the state if we allow the same guns we allow in the northern two thirds of it with no such problem?
When was the last time you saw someone deer hunting with a LCP in the northern part of the state?

The BEST answer is to allow ALL the guns that are allowed for the rest of the year during deer seasons here in zone three.

[HANDGUNNER]

Sorry this is the first I have seen your question.
Yes I am a bow hunter and have been one for over 40 years . The first 37 years were with traditional gear and instictive shooting. Last three years have been a crossbow because of an injury.
Roundballer
I respectfully disagree with your reply. I am a father of two, one of which is a hunter. I work with youths at our club. The problem I see is STARTING a new hunter or shooter to big and that includes adults. New shooters should start with air guns or rimfire. Learn how to shoot well with those prior to stepping up in caliber and recoil.
You don't start a new shooter with the big 44 unless you want to ruin them. My son in law is a very big guy. I had several 44's and a 454 by the time he came about. First thing he did was buy a Ruger Redhawk in 44. Tried to get him to buy a 22 but he was a high school athlete and a weight lifter and he can handle the 44 or so he thought.
Our first trip to our range he could not hit the target at 25 yards. I could see what he was doing but he could not. I took his gun and told him to turn around. I loaded the revolver with some live ammo and some empty brass he had already fired. When he came to an empty and pulled the trigger HE knew exactly what he was doing. He was anticipating the recoil and flinching so bad he was hitting in the dirt below the target. I had told him what was happening but he did not believe me until he could see for himself.
A 357-44 etc should not be their first gun for new shooters or hunters. So if you are starting a newby out on deer hunting with no previous background in shooting there is the first and probably worst mistake you can make. Some times we want our kids to follow in our steps so bad but forget they have to walk before they run.

[Roundballer]

Can't grasp the concept, you are talking all around the point. Yet you still seem to not grasp the very core of the issue.

Yes, you teach with the smaller calibers first. Just assume that the youth has the basics down. When he moves up to hunting, he is going to sight in a rifle for that. If you just beat the crap out of him with that big 357 or 44, he has his flinch and is going into the woods with it.

If the youth was fitted with a more appropriate caliber for his size, and has been given the instruction and range time with it, he will enter the woods as a competent hunter.

Now, you have admitted that you bow hunt, get off of this "big enough" argument and help get this law changed, NOW.

[HANDGUNNER]

You are sadly mistaken if you think all hunters and shooters are brought along properly.
You don't go down in caliber so it has no or very little recoil. Because if you do the result is the same on there other end. There is no free lunch.
And you are sorely misinformed if you think an aroow and bullet kill in the same fashion but it is the same concept. That is to kill quickly and humanely. The bow must be heavy enough to deliver an arrow with an extremely sharp broadhead to penetrate to vitals and cut major arteries for hemorage. A firearm kills by shock and disrupting and displacing vitals.
Do you let someone who is small either adult or child use a ten pound bow to hunt deer because they can't pull a bigger bow? I think not. It should be the same for a firearm. If they can't handle a suitable caliber do we let them use one that is not suitable because it makes them comfortable. If this is your arguement it is flawed.
WE OWE MORE THAN THAT TO OUR GAME ANIMAL!!!!!
This law is a good one to start. And I for one hope it passes.

[SADAacp]

You are sadly mistaken if you think all hunters and shooters are brought along properly.
You don't go down in caliber so it has no or very little recoil. Because if you do the result is the same on there other end. There is no free lunch.
And you are sorely misinformed if you think an aroow and bullet kill in the same fashion but it is the same concept. That is to kill quickly and humanely. The bow must be heavy enough to deliver an arrow with an extremely sharp broadhead to penetrate to vitals and cut major arteries for hemorage. A firearm kills by shock and disrupting and displacing vitals.
Do you let someone who is small either adult or child use a ten pound bow to hunt deer because they can't pull a bigger bow? I think not. It should be the same for a firearm. If they can't handle a suitable caliber do we let them use one that is not suitable because it makes them comfortable. If this is your arguement it is flawed.
WE OWE MORE THAN THAT TO OUR GAME ANIMAL!!!!!
This law is a good one to start. And I for one hope it passes.

I disagree. The minimum case length 1.16 inches is retarded at best. This minimum case length will exclude 9mm, 40s&w, 45acp and even 38 specials. 9mm and 45acp have been killing both two and four-legged critters for over 100 years and the 40s&w for nearly 25 years now. There's absolutely NO reason whatsoever not to include these calibers which are already allowed out the barrels of handguns throughout the entire state of Michigan. Just wondering, how many so-called wounded deer have you observed in Michigan, while you're out and about, which were shot by these calibers?

[HANDGUNNER]

Just because they are chambered in a handgun and are legal else where they are not deer cartridges. How many hunters have you seen only carrying a 9mm, 38 or a 40 in the deer woods as their primary arm. When deer hunting I have carried for years a 9mm in the woods for a small game gun or to finish off an animal but would never carry it as my actual ONLY deer gun.
What is it with the low and under powered guns you want to deer hunt with. Maybe it makes you more of a man to say (ya man I took him with a 22 short black powder out of a Smith & Wesson #1)
Pure garbage, USE ENOUGH GUN!!!!!!!!!

[SADAacp]

Just because they are chambered in a handgun and are legal else where they are not deer cartridges. How many hunters have you seen only carrying a 9mm, 38 or a 40 in the deer woods as their primary arm. When deer hunting I have carried for years a 9mm in the woods for a small game gun or to finish off an animal but would never carry it as my actual ONLY deer gun.
What is it with the low and under powered guns you want to deer hunt with. Maybe it makes you more of a man to say (ya man I took him with a 22 short black powder out of a Smith & Wesson #1)
Pure garbage, USE ENOUGH GUN!!!!!!!!!

Why would there be a reason for you to finish off an animal when you're carrying/using a firearm chambered for what you consider to be a deer cartridge? If the deer requires more than one shot to finish it off, as you say, why exclude handguns in the above mentioned calibers? You're tripping over your own words here.

[Roundballer]

"Use enough gun", yet an arrow is enough?

HYPOCRITE

Your arguments are simply emotional "feelings" and are not based in fact or reality. What is being proposed will not make hunters better, will not migate the number of "lost deer", will have no effect except to opening the door to State wide limitations. For that point alone this bill needs to be KILLED.

[HANDGUNNER]

Now we have or should I say you have resorted to name calling because my opinion is different from yours. And your a main guy here, shame on you!!!!
You make no sense at all comparing a bow to a firearm. They both kill effeciently but differently. Anyway you guys asked if I was a bow hunter. You opened the door. If I would have said no to the question you would have really laid into me about how an arrow kills without a lot of shock. No comparison between the two.
And as to the other question about follow up shots.
Again I am not a perfect shot. There have been times I wish I could have taken the shot back but no can do. So I carry a main gun in a suitable cartridge that may allow me to be off some but still make the kill. I also stated I carry the second gun for small game and a coup-degrasse on deer if needed. I did not say I have had to use it.
If I make a mistake on a shot and it is not exactly where I wanted it, at least I have some extra power that assists me to recovery of the animal. If you use a pea shooter to begin with and make a poor shot ya got nothing but a small hole. The extra shock and bullet weight of the bigger caliber can't hurt.

[Leader]

Now we have or should I say you have resorted to name calling because my opinion is different from yours. And your a main guy here, shame on you!!!!
You make no sense at all comparing a bow to a firearm. They both kill effeciently but differently. Anyway you guys asked if I was a bow hunter. You opened the door. If I would have said no to the question you would have really laid into me about how an arrow kills without a lot of shock. No comparison between the two.
And as to the other question about follow up shots.
Again I am not a perfect shot. There have been times I wish I could have taken the shot back but no can do. So I carry a main gun in a suitable cartridge that may allow me to be off some but still make the kill. I also stated I carry the second gun for small game and a coup-degrasse on deer if needed. I did not say I have had to use it.
If I make a mistake on a shot and it is not exactly where I wanted it, at least I have some extra power that assists me to recovery of the animal. If you use a pea shooter to begin with and make a poor shot ya got nothing but a small hole. The extra shock and bullet weight of the bigger caliber can't hurt.

All right, lets try this argument....

Using a smaller caliber allows the deer to HEAL and survive when a bad shot is made and you can't find the animal.
That is more "humane" then putting a BIG hole in their guts and letting them suffer a painful death laying in the cold snow out in some swamp.







(Is that emotional enough?)

[Walther]

And you are sorely misinformed if you think an aroow and bullet kill in the same fashion but it is the same concept. That is to kill quickly and humanely. The bow must be heavy enough to deliver an arrow with an extremely sharp broadhead to penetrate to vitals and cut major arteries for hemorage. A firearm kills by shock and disrupting and displacing vitals.



Partially true. A firearm kills the same way an arrow kills, with the added advantage of shock and disrupting vital organs. Many deer hemorage out from a bad shot with a firearm regardless of the caliber. Witness for example, the 9 you carry for a follow up shot. Clearly the deer isn't dying from shock and vital disruption, it's bleeding out.

BTW, as a former archery dealer I can tell you that there is no specific need for a bow to be 'heavy enough'. It's a combination of speed and arrow weight that produces enough kinetic energy to cause tissue damage.

[HANDGUNNER]

You are absolutely right. The only ways to get speed is heavier poundage, lighter arrows, different cams etc. The point was some of these guys want peashooters legalized. That is why I used a 10# bow as an example to show a correlation.
As far as the smaller gun-bullet, example, it does not deserve a reply. You know what maybe it does. Why not use RUBBER bullets so we can have shoot and release!!!!

[paulg]

Did the law get passed hb 4283 ? and can you use a .44 mag factory load for deer hunting this year. if you can can you give me a official web site to go to thanks

[HANDGUNNER]

Negative
It passed the House. We attended a committee meeting and it looked good. It has not been taken up by the full Senate. Even if it gets to the floor this year it would not go into effect until next year. We talked to committee chair Senator Hansen after the meeting. He stated since all of the literature has been printed for this year it would have to wait until next.

[Quack Addict]

"Use enough gun", yet an arrow is enough?

HYPOCRITE

Your arguments are simply emotional "feelings" and are not based in fact or reality. What is being proposed will not make hunters better, will not migate the number of "lost deer", will have no effect except to opening the door to State wide limitations. For that point alone this bill needs to be KILLED.

LOL.

Let's kill a bill that offers MORE freedom because it MIGHT lead to more limitations (i.e. deer hunting with a 9mm out of a PISTOL) down the road. :facepalm:

[Leader]

LOL.

Let's kill a bill that offers MORE freedom because it MIGHT lead to more limitations (i.e. deer hunting with a 9mm out of a PISTOL) down the road. :facepalm:


It's already legal to hunt with a 9 MM pistol.

[Quack Addict]

It's already legal to hunt with a 9 MM pistol.

Yes, I realize that. His fear is that because the proposed minimum length requirements would not allow use of 9mm in a RIFLE that:

1. someday down the road....

2. because it's not allowed in a rifle...

3. that argument...

4. might be used...

to dis-allow deer hunting with a PISTOL chambered in 9mm.

Seems like a lot of "if's".

It's time to pass this legislation and end the stupidity.

[Divegeek]

I can legally hunt deer with a 9mm shot out of a 3" barrel in my Glock. The state has deemed that it has "enough power." So I don't see why that same 9mm round shot from a 16" barrel in my carbine, that will have significantly more kinetic energy isn't "powerful enough" to take a deer. The minimum brass length is ridiculous nonsense. If a round is good enough to hunt with out of a pistol it should be good enough to use in a rifle/carbine.

[Roundballer]

Yes, I realize that. His fear is that because the proposed minimum length requirements would not allow use of 9mm in a RIFLE that:

1. someday down the road....

2. because it's not allowed in a rifle...

3. that argument...

4. might be used...

to dis-allow deer hunting with a PISTOL chambered in 9mm.

Seems like a lot of "if's".

It's time to pass this legislation and end the stupidity.

Apparently, according to your argument, you are.

It's tiring to have to defend against allegations that I'm elitist or looking out only for my interests when I bring up what I think is a legitimate concern: That supporting a bill that prohibits certain cartridges in one type of firearm will wind up with a law that extends that prohibition, at some later date, to those same cartridges in other types of firearms.

But since it's obvious that no one else has this concern, I'll let it drop. But I reserve the right to say "I told you so" if such a ban is proposed at a later time.
(http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showpost.php?p=2087541&postcount=65)

Just to be clear, I'm supportive of opening up the law to allow rifles in zone 3. I just think the proposed bill is too restrictive on which cartridges are to be allowed and will be difficult to enforce.
(http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showpost.php?p=2079980&postcount=59)
ONE of my gripes with this bill is that I see it as a possible in-road to applying the same restrictions to not only pistols, but to deer hunting State wide.

It appears to me that someone from HSUS is trying to do to deer hunting what they did with the Dove hunting. After all, if it is not "enough gun" down here, it is not anywhere else either.

[RayMich]

Boy, talk about an elitist mentality ! ! !

Just because YOU (HANDGUNNER) and your friends might want to use a larger caliber rifle, does not mean that everyone else can or should.

The 1.16" case length restriction has no scientific basis at all for being a requirement for rifles in Zone 3. It is simply a restriction that someone pulled out of their butt and now want to force every Zone3 deer hunter to abide by their selfish wishes.

I can legally use a 9mm Beretta CX4 Storm carbine in the rifle zone and get quick and humane kills as long as I do my part with shot placement. (This is no different than with any other firearm or caliber.) But for some mysterious reason, that 9mm rifle is considered "unsafe" or "inhumane" to use in Zone3, so it will be illegal to use here, simply because someone has capriciously ruled it out in this FLAWED law. -- I can also LEGALLY use a 9mm pistol or a .38 caliber revolver to hunt deer in Zone3, but the 9mm or .38 special carbines are illegal to use. That makes absolutely NO SENSE AT ALL, unless we realize that this law has been drafted by a bunch of elitists who think that THEY are the only ones who can decide what is appropriate or not for the rest of us.

Gun laws in this state tend to be cast in stone and it generally takes multiple acts of God to change them once they become law. (Just look at the 1927 pistol registration requirements for an example of a BAD, USELESS and EXPENSIVE law that has no merit whatsoever, but is STILL on the books causing countless legal problems for law-abiding Michigan gun owners and costing taxpayers untold tax dollars to maintain.) -- As far as I am concerned HB 4283 is a BAD LAW and we don't need another monolith that we will have to fight for years in hopes of fixing it "some day". A bad law is worse than no law. We need a law that encompasses the needs of ALL Michigan hunter/gun-owner, not just the wishes of a bunch of elitists. So I will urge my Senator and Representative to vote AGAINST this law unless that minimum case length restriction is removed.

[Walther]

Here's a touch of interesting info. Handgunner, you earlier said the .30 Carbine isn't a bonafide deer cartridge, then stated the .357 is marginal but ok.

Federal's .30 Carbine loads develop 597 Ftlb. @ 100 yds. I would assume that's through the carbine barrel.

Out of 5 of Federal's .357 magnum loads designated for deer, the highest was 406 Ftlb. @ 100 yards. I would assume that to be out of a 6" barrel.

Experience dictates that it is highly unlikely the .357 would develop another 200 Ftlbs. with an additional 12" of barrel. And even if it did, that'd make them an even match.

In your post, you addressed me using the Blackhawk for hunting. That is not my intent. My intent is to get the .30 Carbine ok'd for use in the shotgun zone along with the 'handgun' cartridges. Any use of the Blackhawk would've been striclty as kill shot, like your nine.

It always cracks me up when people say the .30 Carbine isn't enough to kill something the size of a deer. That round killed hundreds of thousands of men, which in many cases are just as large or larger than deer.

[Quack Addict]

ONE of my gripes with this bill is that I see it as a possible in-road to applying the same restrictions to not only pistols, but to deer hunting State wide.

It appears to me that someone from HSUS is trying to do to deer hunting what they did with the Dove hunting. After all, if it is not "enough gun" down here, it is not anywhere else either.


This bill does NOTHING to restrict hunting deer with a pistol chambered in anything that is legal to use today.

[Quack Addict]

Boy, talk about an elitist mentality ! ! !

Just because YOU (HANDGUNNER) and your friends might want to use a larger caliber rifle, does not mean that everyone else can or should.

The 1.16" case length restriction has no scientific basis at all for being a requirement for rifles in Zone 3. It is simply a restriction that someone pulled out of their butt and now want to force every Zone3 deer hunter to abide by their selfish wishes.

I can legally use a 9mm Beretta CX4 Storm carbine in the rifle zone and get quick and humane kills as long as I do my part with shot placement. (This is no different than with any other firearm or caliber.) But for some mysterious reason, that 9mm rifle is considered "unsafe" or "inhumane" to use in Zone3, so it will be illegal to use here, simply because someone has capriciously ruled it out in this FLAWED law. -- I can also LEGALLY use a 9mm pistol or a .38 caliber revolver to hunt deer in Zone3, but the 9mm or .38 special carbines are illegal to use. That makes absolutely NO SENSE AT ALL, unless we realize that this law has been drafted by a bunch of elitists who think that THEY are the only ones who can decide what is appropriate or not for the rest of us.


It makes as much sense as the fact that it is currently legal to use a 375 Winchester, 444 Marlin, 458 Win Mag and 45-70 Gov't in zone 3 out of a pistol to hunt deer, but same cartridges are prohibited in a rifle.

It's also legal to hunt bunnies and squirrels with a 300 Winchester Magnum in Zone 3, just not between Nov 15 and Nov 30.

[Roundballer]

This bill does NOTHING to restrict hunting deer with a pistol chambered in anything that is legal to use today.
It is an unreasonable, unsupportable, irrational restriction that is being applied to a single class of firearm, in a certain region. This is done solely on a elitist insistence that those lower calibers are "not enough gun"

If that is allowed to pass, these same elitists (I suspect agitators from the HSUS) have an in-road to extend the same "not enough gun", first to ALL rifles State-wide, then hand guns. Don't give an inch, they take miles.

It makes as much sense as the fact that it is currently legal to use a 375 Winchester, 444 Marlin, 458 Win Mag and 45-70 Gov't in zone 3 out of a pistol to hunt deer, but same cartridges are prohibited in a rifle.
That actually does make SOME sense, if you are to buy into the other misconception of the ability to travel much further from the longer barrel. If you go back a way in this thread, you can find a chart I posted comparing drop of the 30-30 to a couple of pistol rounds. They are within inches of each other at 150 yrds. That is a rule/law that was placed on us from a misconception, just like the lower limit on the pistol rounds. What do you think the chances are of getting rid of that one?

It's also legal to hunt bunnies and squirrels with a 300 Winchester Magnum in Zone 3, just not between Nov 15 and Nov 30.
Actually that is a non-sequitur, even possession-afield for several days before deer season is against the law. Yet IN SEASON, it is perfectly legal to use all sorts of center-fire and rim-fire cartridges for game/predator hunting.

[Dirty_Harry]

So would a 300 blackout be legal? :wow:

[Roundballer]

So would a 300 blackout be legal? :wow:
Not for hunting deer in or around the Kalamazoo area, or the rest of the shotgun zone.

[art]

WHY ARE THEY LETTING IT DIE AGAIN......

[flhpi]

WHY ARE THEY LETTING IT DIE AGAIN......
WHAT!!! Why can't this ever get ammended ?

[45/70fan]

WHY ARE THEY LETTING IT DIE AGAIN......

Because the legislature is listening to the DNR and not their
constituents'.

[Divegeek]

WHY ARE THEY LETTING IT DIE AGAIN......
Do you have some info that you would like to share? The last I heard it was in committee in the Senate. Their committee just released their fiscal impact study on Oct 2nd. Three weeks isn't very long in the legislative world, especially since we are only 9 months into a 24 month session.

[art]

Do you have some info that you would like to share? The last I heard it was in committee in the Senate. Their committee just released their fiscal impact study on Oct 2nd. Three weeks isn't very long in the legislative world, especially since we are only 9 months into a 24 month session.This is a replay of all the other years.....it will just sit in committee..

[Big50shooter]

Wish the DNR would back off! I firmly believe if they passed it with the use of "American Magnum Revolver Cartridges" it would be fine! This list is "short" and the DNR should have NO issues enforcing this law.
And honestly, some folks are already using their 44 mag and 357 rifles to hunt deer around here....

[Walther]

I firmly believe if they passed it with the use of "American Magnum Revolver Cartridges" it would be fine! This list is "short" and the DNR should have NO issues enforcing this law.


That's a worse idea than the way it's written now. A 10mm has as much power as a .41 magnum and well more than a .357.

So, you think they should write it around magnum ravolver charges just to keep thing simple? I think they should write a bill that makes sense or leave it alone.

[buckey]

Welcome to Michigan, where nothing gets done unless it helps the rich get richer!

[sasquatchpa]

Some things happen when the Koch bros. fly in from Texas.............. and buy a bunch of republicans!!!!

[Big50shooter]

Ok I see your point about the 10mm, I also hunt with a Glock 20 with modified mag to only hold 9 rounds.
I talked to Brad Benzing yesterday He is running for a seat in the house, and he said he knows of NO organized opposition to the bill. Its NOT the DNR. Soooo Whats going on?

[Roundballer]

Ok I see your point about the 10mm, I also hunt with a Glock 20 with modified mag to only hold 9 rounds.
I talked to Brad Benzing yesterday He is running for a seat in the house, and he said he knows of NO organized opposition to the bill. Its NOT the DNR. Soooo Whats going on?
Bovine Excrement!

Read this:

http://www.senate.michigan.gov/committees/files/2013-scm-outdoor-10-03-1.pdf

Then write to Senator Goeff Hansen, Committee Chair, and ask HIM how come the committee has not voted on this?

[Walther]

I talked to Brad Benzing yesterday He is running for a seat in the house, and he said he knows of NO organized opposition to the bill. Its NOT the DNR.

He's either terribly misinformed or lying to you. Send him the letter attached to Roundballer's post. Also, this is a very long thread, but if you start at page 1 and read it you'll learn a lot about the history of this bill.

[art]

Bovine Excrement!

Read this:

http://www.senate.michigan.gov/committees/files/2013-scm-outdoor-10-03-1.pdf

Then write to Senator Goeff Hansen, Committee Chair, and ask HIM how come the committee has not voted on this?
Just sent an email to him.....

[art]

SenGHansen@senate.michigan.gov

[luckless]

Ok I see your point about the 10mm, I also hunt with a Glock 20 with modified mag to only hold 9 rounds.
I talked to Brad Benzing yesterday He is running for a seat in the house, and he said he knows of NO organized opposition to the bill. Its NOT the DNR. Soooo Whats going on?
You still think the DNR is on our side? The same DNR that said 9 out of 10 hunters want a tax increase to pay for more COs? That's too funny!
:lollol:

[buckey]

Just sent a E-Mail to Mr. Hansen asking why this bill can't get passed? My frustration with Lansing and Washington will not be forgotten next time at the polls! Getting real tired with all the B.S. I've heard from those with self interest.

[Big50shooter]

Just sent him an email myself.

[Tallbear]

COMMITTEE: Outdoor Recreation and Tourism

DATE: Thursday, November 7, 2013

TIME: 12:30 p.m.

PLACE: Room 110, Farnum Building, 125 W. Allegan Street, Lansing, MI 48933

PHONE: Michael Hart (373-5312)
Committee Clerk


AGENDA


HB 4283 Rep. Lori Natural resources; hunting; use of certain firearms during firearm deer season; allow.