Indiana Sportsman Forum banner

Rifle regulations screw up?

12K views 103 replies 16 participants last post by  Jack Ryann 
#1 ·
Looks like poor wording has pistol cartridge rifles no longer legal on public land.
Yes, I know it sounds stupid, and it may be........... but it's true.

Checked IDNR website after seeing the dust up on social media.

http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/7389.htm

Look under the equipment tab and it should be 2nd topic.

Accident or on purpose, PCR is a no go on public at this time........

If the DNR doesn't make a clarification I'd suspect they (and/or the politicians) played dirty pool with the hunters. I never saw anything put out that HP rifle test period would require a trade.
 
#2 ·
Note: the printed Indiana Hunting Guide says PCR still legal on public land...........but the guide always comes with a disclaimer and NEVER should be thought of as actual law. It's deer hunting and rifles...........not that hard folks. Legislators can't get this simple deer hunting stuff right...........sure gives me a warm feeling when it comes to health care and other.
 
#11 ·
Well. Crap!
I guess my 358 wssm is useless to me now.
That blows.

Fortunately I hunt mostly private but pull some does from public.
Ugh.
Feel sorry for those folks that purchased PCR & High-powered rifles for hunting Deer in Indiana. It certainly does sound like it has a "political spin" to this issue. Probably some anti-gun official is the one who put the Kibosh on the use of rifles in Indiana.
 
#7 ·
IMHO the DNR should make a comment soon if they see this as a mistake, offer a legal clarification allowing PCR. if they don't then it is what it is. And folks can try to figure out what really went on politically.

Timing sure sucks for some folks.
 
#13 ·
That would be interesting to know and find out. I just can't understand why this "rifles-for-Deer-Hunting" issue turned into one big confusion for all. Also, was/is this H.P.R. law one that is a "sunset law"? If I remember right Hunters could use P.C.R.s on Public Properties, when I lived in Indiana. There might have been a few Wildlife Areas that didn't allow P.C.R.s due to the size or layout of the property as well as the "Human" population surrounding the area.
 
#15 ·
I think this is a misunderstanding of the law. It does say no rifles, but it is in reference only to the new rifle calibers. It does not say PCR or Muzzleloading. If the term rifle covers all rifles in this state you have to include muzzleloading rifles as well. So now we are a shotgun state only. That isn't the purpose of the law and those saying it is are wrong IMO. That includes the DNR staff whom emailed my Brother-in-law that this is true and they will make a public statement this week. 1415 passed some time ago and as another poster stated the youth hunt undoubtedly had a lot of law breakers in the woods. I imagine there will be some clarification on this to keep PCR legal.
 
#16 ·
they sure can screw things up better than anyone. lol some things in the book were different than the new laws have stated in the past also. like the iceshanty markings deal a couple years ago. one thing about haveing it in print from the state is they wont ticket you. if they did, and you show up in court with the official document showing otherwise, then your sitting good and they look the fool. there has to be a leave way period for the people get the word about law changes.

as for this deal, i dont think they intended to ban pistol cartridges. like said, that would make no sense. haha but then again we are are talking about a group of boobs.:rolleyes:
 
#17 ·
they sure can screw things up better than anyone. lol some things in the book were different than the new laws have stated in the past also. like the iceshanty markings deal a couple years ago. one thing about haveing it in print from the state is they wont ticket you. if they did, and you show up in court with the official document showing otherwise, then your sitting good and they look the fool. there has to be a leave way period for the people get the word about law changes.

as for this deal, i dont think they intended to ban pistol cartridges. like said, that would make no sense. haha but then again we are are talking about a group of boobs.:rolleyes:
I am just glad that Kentucky isn't so screwed-up in defining what firearm equipment is legal or not, to hunt Deer with.
 
#18 ·
Yes, I too caught the mentioning of "no rifles on public land" being in context of the new HP rifle stuff.

FWIW most muzzleloaders are not rifles. In the Federal sense. You don't do a 4473 when you buy one new. Unless of course it's a TC Encore or similar.............but those are rifles/handguns that can be switched to muzzleloader. So.........the state doesn't consider a MZ to be a rifle, in sporting terms.

Shotgun, MZ and handgun under current view, are public land legal. Just no rifles, until clarification made.
 
#19 ·
I think it would have been fine, but the DNR did put this on their page:

Copy/snip

What are the rifle cartridge size requirements for Firearms Season?

The Department of Natural Resources has received numerous questions regarding recent legislation that legalizes certain rifles for deer hunting beginning in November of 2017. Most questions have to do with calibers and cartridges allowed under the new law.

House Enrolled Act 1415 that was passed earlier this year by the Indiana General Assembly (state legislators) and signed by the Governor allows some additional rifle cartridges to be used on private land during the deer firearms season, but removed the ability for any rifle to be used on public land for deer hunting.

..........................

It appears to me to be taken out of context. But with the above statement.........you know how they're going to view it this season.

I thought the context aspect rather obvious, so it appears to me that this is a form of payback for getting HP rifle without the DNR. Of course, this might have all been planned and PCR off public could have been traded for HP rifle............politics.
 
#21 ·
I don't think it's out of context or payback. It's simply interpreting the law that was passed in July. pretty black and white to me...

SECTION 7. IC 14-22-2-8, AS ADDED BY P.L.110-2016,
SECTION 1, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE
JULY 1, 2017]: Sec. 8. (a) This section applies to a hunting season
beginning after June 30, 2016, and ending before January 1, 2020.
(b) A hunter may use a rifle during the firearms season to hunt deer
subject to the following:
(1) The use of a rifle is permitted only on privately owned land.
 
#20 ·
The Hunting Guide is NOT an official document. It has always (best of my knowledge) had a disclaimer. My guess is that it has zero legal weight in and of itself, however it in court would fall under a "good faith" type of thing. But then, anybody reading this or other threads, having a smart phone and social media presence..........it would be easy for somebody to do a search and find out if folks claiming ignorance of the law were being less than truthful.
 
#22 ·
I think this mess really isn't a mess but some folks higher up have made it one for the moment. All we need is the state or DNR to make a clarification (since there is legit confusion having the Hunting Guide contrary to DNR view). The statement I snipped in a prev post is on the official IDNR site. Legally, they've stated the way they see it for now.
 
#25 ·
It's not a mess really - it's very simple. The hunting guide verbiage was finalized before the final version of the rifle law, which had different verbiage that clearly states all rifles must be used on private land only. The only people making it a mess are hunters that are trying to over-parse things. It's very black and white.

The DNR website reflects the latest change, but obviously since the guide was finalized prior to the change, the hard-copy guide doesn't include it

I would bet a lot of money that CO's are going to use discretion and not write tickets for people using rifles with previously legal pistol cartridges on public land. That's what they always do for situations in which laws got changed after the guide books for hunting and fishing are published
 
#23 ·
MC,

If you followed how HP rifle came to be....
The HP rifle allowance was under a test period and was to have data submitted by 2020.
With that section (a) (IMHO) would be talking about HP rifle.

I don't believe PCR was ever under a legal test period, or had a data collection deadline.
 
#24 ·
I think one could run PCR but might have to play Matlock if they do LOL.
The agents of the courts are going to go by the direction of their higher ups.
The DNR has made its statement.
They don't have to be correct to give you a ticket.

I wouldn't do it, because I'm old and cranky and don't like hassle.
 
#26 ·
Yes it is black and white. Well...........and red ;)

SECTION 7. IC 14-22-2-8, AS ADDED BY P.L.110-2016,
SECTION 1, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE
JULY 1, 2017]: Sec. 8. (a) This section applies to a hunting season
beginning after June 30, 2016, and ending before January 1, 2020.

(b) A hunter may use a rifle during the firearms season to hunt deer
subject to the following:
(1) The use of a rifle is permitted only on privately owned land.

..................................................

This was the test period for HP rifle evaluation.

 
#27 · (Edited)
With that, I think the DNR to be in error. Even so.........they've made their statement and as such, should enforce it or not. Across the board a yes or no. None of this here and there stuff.

I think the context rather obvious, esp having seen the progression of the HP rifle allowance law.

That is why the DNR statement of "no rifles on public" was a shocker to me. Which points me towards gamesmanship/politics.

All the state needs to do is change that one line to say "The use of a high power (non PCR) rifle is permitted only on privately owned land."
 
#28 ·
The wording IMHO need not change, but since higher up folks are having problems.......the change to what I posted prev would reinforce the context and avoid confusion.
 
#29 ·
Personally, I think PCR by the wording of the law to still be legal on public.
I think the DNR statement is in error, but they have told us what they think.
So.........if there is no change to their statement soon, best be emailing and calling your reps to get this fixed.
 
#30 ·
I'm confused how you think the DNR is in error of correctly interpreting the law, passed by the legislature. The law clearly states all rifles must be used on private land only. Hence, the DNR posting that statement, saying literally the same thing.


Again. There's no confusion. Just an issue with the legislative session coming after the hunting guide was published
 
#31 · (Edited)
The statement of "rifles only on private ground" is in context of the test period for HP rifle that was started last year (note: it says ref to 2016-2020 season). That test period applied to high power rifles ONLY.

If the state wanted all rifles on private ground only, then that statement should have been made on its own......a stand alone.......not in a subsection, and certainly not within one that previously only dealt with HP rifle.

Yes there is a statement saying "rifles only on private ground"..........but IMHO one must look at the context. The DNR has IMHO cherry picked that statement......on accident or on purpose.

(post has been edited).
 
#32 ·
The statement of "rifles only on private ground" is in context of the test period for HP rifle that was stated last year. That test period applied to high power rifles ONLY. Remember, the state could say no HP rifle after 2020...........we got them under a TEST PERIOD. 2016-2020.

If the state wanted all rifles on private ground only, then that statement should have been made on its own......a stand alone.......not in a subsection, and certainly not within one that previously only dealt with HP rifle.

Yes there is a statement saying "rifles only on private ground"..........but IMHO one must look at the context. The DNR has IMHO cherry picked that statement......on accident or on purpose.
I believe you're correct per your post.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top