Advisory Council Discussion of "High-Power Rifle" Proposal

[cedarthicket]

The Advisory Council (AC) met on January 14, 2015 as scheduled. (Please note that the Advisory Council (AC) is just what its name implies -- it gives advice, serves as a sounding board, makes suggestions, etc. It does NOT have the authority to rule on proposals for regulation changes like the Natural Resources Commission does.) The AC discussed the proposed “high-power rifle” rule changes as noted in their meeting agenda. Following is the link to their January 14 meeting agenda:

www.in.gov/nrc/2435.htm

The January 14 meeting was a matter of public record and the meeting minutes will be made available to the public. Also, it is my understanding that at the upcoming meeting (January 20, 2015) of the Natural Resources Commission (NRC) the Advisory Council will present a report of what transpired at its most recent meeting. Please refer to the following link to see the agenda for the NRC January 20, 2015 meeting:

NRC: Meetings & Minutes

Also, please note that in my opinion no ruling regarding the “high-power rifle” rule is expected by the NRC at its January 20 meeting. I suspect the NRC will hear what the AC has to say and take it under consideration as additional input in the process of evaluating comments regarding proposed rule changes.

Also, please note that I have not yet seen or heard any specific date or dates for public hearings. There will most likely be more than one public hearing, taking into account all the interest in the proposed rule changes by citizens all over the state. I do expect the date(s) for public hearing(s) will be announced before long.

JMHO -- FWIW

 

[indyjohn]

I really appreciate that you can navigate the in.gov site and pull useful information from it. But OMG!

Can you post a synopsis or cliff notes on the topic of "will I ever get to use my .223, .308, or .30-06 for deer hunting in Indiana" please?

 

[oldpink]

Very interested in this succeeding.
I'll be watching.

 

[Willie]

Thanks...

 

[Willie]

Very interested in this succeeding.
I'll be watching.

See post 15...

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...behind-high-powered-proposal.html#post5569232

 

[cedarthicket]

From another site:

“4. Advisory Council - classified forest program is becoming quite popular for landowners trying to reduce their tax bill. Advise anyone with 10 acres or more to look into getting your property into the plan now.
- high power rifle was discussed at last week's Advisory Council meeting. Consensus is that it is largely a social issue. All comments are being reviewed. Pat Early stated he read all 1900 comments and more were pouring in. As of now the rate is 50-50 to 60-40 and is clearly a devisive issue. The public hearings likely will be in March. 3 people showed up for the meeting. 1 commented for, 1 commented against, and the Council itself made no recommendation.”


My observations:

Regarding the high-power rifle issue, the Advisory Council gave a report of its January 14 meeting to the NRC today. Especially noteworthy, is that the Advisory Council gave no specific recommendations to the NRC. I would add that I believe the proposed rule language must first be published in the Indiana Register before any public hearings are held on the matter. So, if the hearings will start in March the Indiana Register will need to publish the proposal language pretty soon.

At this point in time the proposal is still “alive.” Also, the comment period is still open. However, it would be sheer speculation on my part to predict what the eventual outcome will be.

 

[MRP2003]

I am surprised that there are so many against. I was positive that it would pass but now think there is a better chance that it will not. I doubt that it will pass with a lot of restrictions such as only being allowed to us HPR in the southern part of the state. I think it passes 100% or not at all.

I wonder how many were against cross bows when it was proposed.

 

[oldpink]

The sad thing is that many of those against are probably against hunting of any kind at all or hoplophobes in general.
The hunters against are more than likely mostly fudds.

 

[M4Madness]

I was positive that it would pass but now think there is a better chance that it will not.

I'm still hopeful that it will pass. The one buck rule was called a social issue as well. What they mean by "social issue" is an issue that has little positive or negative effect on the herd, but rather is just what hunters want. It also tells me that they don't consider it a safety issue or something that will decimate the herd.

 

[ADDICTED2TONE]

This is sparking lots of arguments and bringing out the worst in people. I find that the against it side really doesn't know crap about guns. They speak with conjecture and hearsay..

 

[spaniel]

I find that the against it side really doesn't know crap about guns. They speak with conjecture and hearsay..

In addition to your own post turning that accusation back at yourself...

"

The sad thing is that many of those against are probably against hunting of ​

any kind at all or hoplophobes in general.
The hunters against are more than likely mostly fudds."

The name-calling and ridiculous accusations being thrown around on this site regarding this issue has grown very old. Here's a novel thought; reasonable people can look at the same information and come to different, rational conclusions based on differences in their own experience and background.

 

[oldpink]

Were you even aware of the original reason for shotguns and muzzleloaders only?
Hint: It had nothing to do with "danger" and a "densely populated state" with "flat topography."
Or you could just stick to emotions and conjecture instead.

 

[MRP2003]

so what was the original reason for shotguns and muzzleloaders only? I moved to IN 9 years ago

 

[Whitsettd8]

To minimize the impact of hunters on a dwindling deer herd.

 

[MRP2003]

so does this mean that the deer herd is no longer dwindling but rather is growing?

 

[Whitsettd8]

I think the state recorded record harvest past 2 years. EHD has done some significant damage in select counties but as a whole it's growing well.

 

[Tynimiller]

The sad thing is that many of those against are probably against hunting of any kind at all or hoplophobes in general.
The hunters against are more than likely mostly fudds.

Personal choice is a no here, but even with that stance I am amazed if this doesn't pass.

 

[spaniel]

Were you even aware of the original reason for shotguns and muzzleloaders only?
Hint: It had nothing to do with "danger" and a "densely populated state" with "flat topography."
Or you could just stick to emotions and conjecture instead.

"

The sad thing is that many of those against are probably against hunting of​

any kind at all or hoplophobes in general.
The hunters against are more than likely mostly fudds."

I have good, rational, thought-out reasons why I believe high-powered rifles in some areas are a bad idea during deer season. Your entire initial post is emotion and conjecture, it's almost laughable you think anyone would care about your thought on the matter after such a post. You have no actual information or argument to support your point of view, you just call people names.

Yet on every thread on this topic we see the same thing. Have any concern about zero restrictions on high-powered rifles? Know-nothing. Anti-hunter. Fudd. The hypocrisy drips.

I'm all for a reasonable debate on the topic. I have little tolerance for people whose extent of intellectual horsepower is name-calling. It goes a long way to giving insight into the depth of your argument.

 

[Whitsettd8]

I would be interested in hearing why it's a " bad idea" and I promise I wont call you names.

 

[yote hunter]

I would be interested in hearing why it's a " bad idea" and I promise I wont call you names.

Because people don't understand high power rifles just like people think black guns are dangerous.... They don't really know what they are talking about, Plain and simple...