Jimmy,

Live Free or Die baby.

Personally, I have never understood the motivation around making BO mandatory. I have read many excellent arguments being made here, especially where the decisions you make on wearing BO or not have a further potential impact than just upon yourself. That said, is it the government's responsibilty to protect us from ourselves? Not sure I can buy off on that one. Furthermore, what is the financial liability that the government or landowner has if someone is injured or killed by a gun wound on their property while hunting? Does BO legislation release these liabilities? I doubt it. Might help or hinder a case either way, but put the argument into the hands of an eager attorney, he'll get around it.

In NH, a guy actually sued NH Fish and Game after running into a Moose on I-93. The accident killed his wife. He claimed that it was NH F&G's responsibility to keep that moose out of the highway. During the trial, the judge asked him "sir, you hit that moose in a straight section of the interstate. You could see the animal well over a half mile away. Why didn't you avoid hitting it." The answer, "I thought it would move." A sidebar example not having anything directly to do with BO, but maybe an example of the type of lawsuits this legislation is meant to avoid.

It may lower the probability of the accident from happening in the first place, but if that's the purpose, there have been examples already made in this thread which do a better job of accomplishing that task.

I actually feel just as safe in full camo during spring Turkey season than I do in BO (which I do wear in my voluntary state of NH) deer hunting in the fall.

I've dragged on enough.

Cheers,

Dan