|
Post by budd on Jan 27, 2016 15:03:52 GMT -5
Will be interesting to see how fast the one's posting against it will have a HPR in their hands come deer season....LOL. Then we can pull up this and the older thread in a couple years and see who went to the dark side!!!
|
|
|
Post by hatchetjack on Jan 27, 2016 15:33:31 GMT -5
I'm only pointing what would be legal. The change as proposed just leaves too many openings for abuse. Myself I'm a fan of Rock River .308 for coyotes. It would work well for deer also but I'd never have more than 10 rounds in it probably more like 5. Need to check and see if 5 or 10 round mags are available.
Jack
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jan 27, 2016 15:51:11 GMT -5
Will be interesting to see how fast the one's posting against it will have a HPR in their hands come deer season....LOL. Then we can pull up this and the older thread in a couple years and see who went to the dark side!!! Ill be one of them .... no doubt. I am almost always against change but Im not going to ignore it once it happens.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Jan 27, 2016 16:32:08 GMT -5
I'm only pointing what would be legal. The change as proposed just leaves too many openings for abuse. Myself I'm a fan of Rock River .308 for coyotes. It would work well for deer also but I'd never have more than 10 rounds in it probably more like 5. Need to check and see if 5 or 10 round mags are available. Jack Remember, there are already lots of deer-legal AR-15 rifles in the woods right now (.450 Bushmaster,.458 SOCOM,.50 Beowulf,.358 WSSM, etc.) I've used them myself, and personally know others who do as well. NONE would use a toy such as a SlideFire stock to deer hunt. First, you'd be lucky to hit the broad side of a barn with one. Secondly, you can get the same rate of fire WITHOUT those stocks with minimal bumpfiring practice.
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Jan 27, 2016 16:37:39 GMT -5
The bump-fire stock is available for the AR platform, as well...so it can already be used for the 458 SOCOM, 450 Bushmaster, 50 Beowolf...etc. All of these are already legal, but yet, you don't see people out there with them. Why would this rule all of sudden change that?
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Jan 27, 2016 17:23:23 GMT -5
Dont think property has to be posted in any way now ...... I also dont think you can ding a person without first being given a warning. If you immediately leave upon being asked I do not think you can be charged with trespass. Hunting is different .... As the law is currently written, you need one sign posted at the normal entrance to the property, and you can press charges for a first violation. The biggest issue is getting the prosecutor to actually file those charges. Our former prosecutor refused to file trespass charges unless a uniformed LEO told the offender they were not welcome and to leave the property and an uniformed LEO caught them on the property a second time.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jan 27, 2016 17:46:52 GMT -5
Do you have the code I can read...?
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Jan 27, 2016 18:00:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jan 27, 2016 18:25:45 GMT -5
I meant the current code for trespass.. .
|
|
|
Post by nfalls116 on Jan 27, 2016 18:26:10 GMT -5
unless the government wants to do something else with it or you don't pay those taxes for a little while (Just call me bill dance) Please, what is the Bill Dance referance. I was just fishing
|
|
|
Post by arlowe13 on Jan 27, 2016 18:29:40 GMT -5
I meant the current code for trespass.. . Oops, my bad.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Jan 27, 2016 18:31:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Jan 27, 2016 19:01:21 GMT -5
Seems consistent with what I've seen in the past. Result is a warning for first offense. At least that's the way I've always seen it. I guess if a person were to admit knowingly entering and admit seeing and ignoring a sign a person might be able to charge. Otherwise it would be a warning.
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Jan 27, 2016 20:53:30 GMT -5
Seems consistent with what I've seen in the past. Result is a warning for first offense. At least that's the way I've always seen it. I guess if a person were to admit knowingly entering and admit seeing and ignoring a sign a person might be able to charge. Otherwise it would be a warning. Scroll down to subsection 5.9 (a)(2). That's where a posted sign constitutes denial of entry (their warning) and allows for charges the first time they are caught.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Jan 28, 2016 5:30:17 GMT -5
Sounds DUMB!! But if that's going to be the law, wouldn't "Hunter Orange" be more visible, rather than Purple?? In my experience, fluro Orange paint fades to a light color within 6 months, and it is even harder to see if you don't first paint a white base coat. A client has 2" drill stem (pipe) in the ground every 100 yds for property markers and it has to be repainted every 6 months if "hunter orange" paint is used. He/we use around 12 cans a year just painting the pipes. Once the pipes are painted white, then only orange has to be used. That's why it would be much better to mount two or three of those round plastic (Large) reflectors both above & below your sign.
|
|
|
Post by hatchetjack on Jan 28, 2016 13:51:46 GMT -5
It appears HB1231 has passed second reading in the House with no amendments.
|
|
|
Post by parrothead on Jan 28, 2016 15:04:13 GMT -5
So what does this mean HJ. Does it have to go through one more reading to pass into law?
|
|
|
Post by hatchetjack on Jan 28, 2016 19:25:26 GMT -5
No. One more reading in the House and then it starts all over in the Senate. Then it goes to the Governor and the AG and they have to approve it.
Jack
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Jan 28, 2016 19:47:32 GMT -5
No. One more reading in the House and then it starts all over in the Senate. Then it goes to the Governor and the AG and they have to approve it. Jack Then after all that the director of the department of natural resources is to establish a deer hunting season in which certain rifles may be used. Not necessary add them to any season or make the season any certain length! Correct me if I am wrong....
|
|
|
Post by hatchetjack on Jan 28, 2016 22:02:22 GMT -5
No, you are not wrong.
|
|