|
RE: New York rifle bill passes: UPDATE
ORIGINAL: Bill Yox I personally probably wont be able to take advantage of a rifle season here in NY, but Im not against one either. Ive always been a proponent for weapon efficiency, out of respect for the animal. I don't agree with those who imply we need one, however. Modern slugs and slug guns have closed the gap with rifles by a lot. Slugs are ruthlessly efficient deer killing machines, provided the guy behind the trigger knows what he's doing. You're right, there's lots of folks who just like rifles (I'm one, too.) But there's also a lot of folks who want rifles so they can blaze away at that deer on the other side of the field, too. Shotgun only rules were put in place to limit the range of hunting weapons in fairly populated areas for safety purposes ... what's changed? |
RE: New York rifle bill passes: UPDATE
ORIGINAL: BigJohn H thesource, Do you shoot rifles? Have you shot a rifle to kill anything? I have done all of the above, I have NEVER had a deer go more then 2 steps after being shot with a .270 winchester, I have shot woodchucks @ 450yds in the head with a 22-250 that didn't even twitch. If you cannot shoot a rifle with the accuracy needed to drop a deer where it stands, by all means use a shotgun. I reload my ammunition and test every batch so I know where it hits and what it does when it hits there. Presently I am loading a 165 gr spire point which will do the job. Incidentally, a good friend of mine anchors his deer every year with his shotgun by employing the high shoulder shot. They never go anywhere but down. "If you cannot shoot a rifle with the accuracy needed to drop a deer where it stands, by all means use a shotgun." Iassume you mean "you" in the general sense, and are not specifically implying that I can't shoot - no need to get personal, right?;) |
[Deleted]
[Deleted by Admins]
|
RE: New York rifle bill passes: UPDATE
ORIGINAL: thesource Incidentally, a good friend of mine anchors his deer every year with his shotgun by employing the high shoulder shot. They never go anywhere but down. "If you cannot shoot a rifle with the accuracy needed to drop a deer where it stands, by all means use a shotgun." Iassume you mean "you" in the general sense, and are not specifically implying that I can't shoot - no need to get personal, right?;) |
RE: New York rifle bill passes: UPDATE
I've taken 2 big mature does (on nuisance permits) in the past two years with a borrowed 30.06. I hit both rightthrought the back of the shoulderwith 180-grain bullets...the first one literally fell on her butt and tipped over backwards and the other dropped andcrawled a few yards and that was it. I've had the same thing happen with slugs too. I've seen a ton of deer hunts on video where the deer have run off after being hit with a rifle and I've seen a bunch where the hit the ground like a ton of bricks too. Rifles definatelyaren't a total cure all for droppingdeer in its tracks. I'm still not jumping on the pro-rifle in the Southern Tier bandwagon either.
You're right, there's lots of folks who just like rifles (I'm one, too.) But there's also a lot of folks who want rifles so they can blaze away at that deer on the other side of the field, too. If it passes it passes....but I still don't like the safety issues, I don't like the idea of all of the yearling bucks in the county being taken out of the pop. (sounds like PA prior the implementaion of AR's) and I certainly don't like how the DEC has managed to sneak this bill into legislation. |
RE: New York rifle bill passes: UPDATE
I'm neither for or against rifles (I just bought a new mossberg slug gun last year go figure ) but the dec didn't sneak it in this bill has been brought up several times in the last few years just this time it passed
|
RE: New York rifle bill passes: UPDATE
I do rememberhearing about this proposal in the past, but I don't thinkthey (DEC) have hadany meetings around the state for this to get input from hunters like they did when they did when they tried to pass the early muzzleloader season earlier this year. If they did, I never heard of any. I would think thatthis would have been far more controversial than a week of antlerless muzzleloader in October.
|
RE: New York rifle bill passes: UPDATE
I don't think its too big a deal in most areas- maybe a problem on some small public lands in the effective counties (high hunter density) - but generally - 200-300yd shots are not common anywhere in NY.
The vast majority of deer killed in the effected areas will be at less than 100 yds. As far as lofting rifle bullets - I'd ask if the people you are concerned about aren't already lofting Shotgun Slugs across the fields? Itsa change in mindset. I don't know if this group of people is capable of changing their idiotic "hunting" methods. That doesn't mean that law abiding individuals could not really enjoy hunting with "grandpa's" 30.30 - I know I would. FH |
RE: New York rifle bill passes: UPDATE
I guess I agree with most of you on most points, minus the real crazy stuff. Well, and Phade, him and me NEVER agree (joking!) I suppose I think of all the single shot pistols with homemade shoulder stocks, and all the 200 yards capable muzzleloaders already out there and wonder, "Why are we even having this conversation?" Seems as though our fears are already out there.
The bottom line is and always will be...lets be accountable for our own actions. |
RE: New York rifle bill passes: UPDATE
Going out there to NY deer hunting where they have no blaze orange requirement had me come close to shooting a person once. More EDUCATION - not more meaningless laws that place responsibility on the victim! |
[Deleted]
[Deleted by Admins]
|
RE: New York rifle bill passes: UPDATE
ORIGINAL: SteveBNy Going out there to NY deer hunting where they have no blaze orange requirement had me come close to shooting a person once. More EDUCATION - not more meaningless laws that place responsibility on the victim! I have used "hunter shooting" clips from the local newspaper to teach my boys about hunter safety. I ask "What did he do wrong, here?" as we would read the article aloud. The shooter always violates some basic safety rule, but 8 or 9 times out of 10, the "victim" wasn't wearing Blaze Orange. Imagine how low our accident rate could be if BO was required. Clearly, the onus is on the hunter to make sure of his target - and I believe the shooter should be prosecuted for reckless endangerment whenever there is an incident. But everyone should do what they can to prevent themselves from becoming a "victim." Blaze Orange is a common sense, must have item. |
RE: New York rifle bill passes: UPDATE
I think like seat belts blaze orange is a common sense, must have item but, I don't think that legislation is needed we do not need someone else making our decisions for us. Seat belt laws are the dumbest in the land, they are nearly unenforceable and who benefits form the law (Insurance companies) thats all.
I wear seat belts and have all my driving life, seat belts have saved my, my wife's life and a car seat our daughter's life however we are adults and should be treated as such by being allowed to make our own decisions. |
[Deleted]
[Deleted by Admins]
|
RE: New York rifle bill passes: UPDATE
Blaze orange laws are not only to protect you as a hunter from being shot. They are also for protecting those around you. The theory is, if they see orange, they then know its not safe to shoot near you. If they identify a target and shoot, with you somewhere close by the target, in camo, well, they wont see you. Yes, getting a slug in the guts would suck for sure, but what about some young hunter who did EVERYTHING right, but wasnt aware of your presence nearby or behind an identified target? His life is over, in a sense, too. Thats why most states talk about BO being mandatory.
Seat belts are a whole different story, thats just covering the state against liability. The sad fact is, it ought to be called UNCOMMON sense, because you seldom see it anymore... |
RE: New York rifle bill passes: UPDATE
Again Blaze Orange is a good thing making the wearing of it a law is not, unless you make it maditory for hunters under age 18, like it used to be for drinking for instance. I wear blaze Orange if I am on the ground, when I am in my treestand I see no reason for it.
|
RE: New York rifle bill passes: UPDATE
BigJohn, I respect your wanting the choice. But, when Im out there hunting and I cant see YOU, because of YOUR choice, then its effecting me too. I hate laws when common sense should prevail, but not everyone is going to make that smart decision as you do, on their own. In hilly ground blaze orange helps, again, with being able to see whats beyond the target. I know, it sounds stupid, but its one of those "cover your a$$" laws, Im afraid. I see your point though, so please dont feel Im taking exception with you...
|
RE: New York rifle bill passes: UPDATE
Bill Yox, not a problem everyone is entitled to their opinion. I hut with a group of guys on private land, we have radios and we know where everyone is hunting when we are on the move we radio and as I said we wear blaze when we are on the ground. You also know there are STUPID PEOPLE that will shoot at any noise, while on the ground and in blaze orange cover alls I was shot at by someone not of the group and tresspassing, I guess what I am trying to say you can't account for the stupid!
|
[Deleted]
[Deleted by Admins]
|
RE: New York rifle bill passes: UPDATE
it has not gotten to the Gov.'s desk. why they aren't saying. i read that the sponsor feels it will be signed soon in August. I was also told that if he doesn't sign it (which he very well might not) it will become law by default.
as far as my thoughts on the whole thing.... I am not overly enthused about having every Tom, Dick, & and Harry (and careless, inexperienced, or idiots hunters) running threw the woods lobbing 30-06 bullets. however, I don't think it will be as bad as that. I think in most of the areas the topography is ok for rifle (mountains/hills/woods, etc), but there are also areas that don't have that topography and ar more populated. I don'y think I'll be using my .270 but I will love to be able to use my .44 mag Winchester. |
RE: New York rifle bill passes: UPDATE
It'll be interesting to find out how this all goes. I really think action would be soon, or at the very least delayed a session (congress).
|
RE: New York rifle bill passes: UPDATE
From what I understand of the process, the bill has left both the house and the Assembly and is on the governor's desk waiting to be signed and this is according to the county legislators.
|
RE: New York rifle bill passes: UPDATE
The way I plan on finding out if the Governor signed the bill is by checking http://www.state.ny.us/governor/press/year05/press05.html#hdaily. I hope this works anyway. It doesn't help as far as finding out the status of the bill.
As far as all the BO stuff earlier in the thread, I agree with BO being common sense. But if everyone that is going to be in the woods this fall had the common sense as those do in this forum, the controversy over the rifle bill would be non-existent. Most of the controversy is over the capability of a rifle and what would happen if some moron was pissin' off 300+ yard shots at a running deer. Sometimes you have to help along the folks who don't pick up on things very quickly. As for the rifle bill, you just hope that the guys in the woods have enough common sense to use a rifle safely. They seem to have confidence that hunters will hunt safely based on other areas where rifle hunting is allowed. |
RE: New York rifle bill passes: UPDATE
Well I sent an E-mail off to the Governor or who ever it is that reads them, expressing my feelings about the subject and asking him to sign the bill into law.
|
RE: New York rifle bill passes: UPDATE
ORIGINAL: cma3366a I dont think anyone is looking for the "easy way out" with regards to switching from slugguns to rifles, most people shoot deer at the same distance with a rifle as they do with a shotgun (less than 150yds).The real difference, for me anyways, is that I ammore proficient with my rifles as I can afford to get more pratice with them. I can handload my .270 with Sierra Pro-Hunters and IMR4831for $0.34 a round. My Mossberg 695 likes Winchester Platinum-Tips which costs 11.99 plus 8.25%tax per 5 or $2.59 a shot. That, coupled with the fact that the slug gun shoots 2.25MOA and the rifle shoots .75MOA means that using a rifle will more likely result in a properly placed shot, and a clean kill. Another point to ponder is this: We can now use in the southerntier, High powered single shot pistolsthat use "rifle" cartridges, and in-line Muzzel loaders with rifled bores. So now, tell me exactly why using a "rifle" would be more risky????? A rifle is much more accurate than a shotgun, and delivers more energy at 100-150 yards than a shotgun does, and yet there are some guys who routinely shoot at deer at that distance with slug guns??? Talk about crippling a deer or what. A rifle will get the job done at those distances much more reliably than a slug gun ever will. This just boils down to the same in-line VS the flintlock, recurve VS the compound bowdebates. Lets stop getting worked up over nothing. I hate using a slug gun, they are heavy to carry all day, and most of them can't group worth a darn past 75 yards anyway. I'm in all favor for this new Bill to be passed, and it's about time!!!! |
RE: New York rifle bill passes: UPDATE
I don't think people are worried about shooting rifles , I think they are worried about Joe 6 pack firing a rifle at a deer 300yrds away and hitting a family of 4 driving on the road. Or a house or them. Resposible people I have no problem with it just the guys that don't have a clue that I'm worried about. Also fear not , we are our own worst enemy, somebody will ruin this before it has a chance to flurish. Some people are stupid , that's just a fact of life, some yahoo will ruin it for everyone.
|
RE: New York rifle bill passes: UPDATE
That and the guy that came up from the "Big City" with his semi-auto shot gun last year and emptied it twice trying to hit what he thought was a deer, returning this year with his BAR AND 10 clips to do the same thing this year.
|
RE: New York rifle bill passes: UPDATE
Ok first off I have nothing against rifle, I've been hunting for 11 years now in shotgun country...I have hunted in rifle country for 2 years. Out of the 11 years I have taken a deer each year either with my bow, or shotgun. Out of the 2 seasons in rifle country I have only seen one deer. Now I'm not saying anything bad on rifle hunting, becauseI like challenges, but I do believe it has a major affect on deer, and their nerves. Basically my exsperince in Riflecountry sucks.. Now I'm not here to shoot anyone down. But when it comes to deer hunting in NY, their is no reason for rifle hunting. A goodknowledgeable hunter should be able to take a deer every year. Now when it comes to prefernce, if you really like rifle in general. Then thats a different story. But in all honesty 0- 100 yds in todays time with a shotgun, their is noneed for rifle. So when I hear people say that it will make them a better hunter, or they perfer rifle over shotgun under 100yds I really laugh. If you practice with any weapon and stay withen that weapons range it willwork well. You don't need a rifle to be better. Another point when people say they can buy ammo cheaper and practice more, what about the people that have been hunting shotgun all their life and have all shotguns, and no rifle. I guess its ok for them to spend extra money now to change weapons.
Now as for the safety issues,now we are talking about a hole other ball game(even worse). Perfect sitituation is were I hunt. The main reasonwhy theymade thesezones in the first place was to protect people, in areas were population and landscape made it difficult and dangerous for long range shots.Thats why they made it shotgun country. Now with that said. Population has grown, and the landscape is the same but we are saying that it is ok to use rifle now????? I don't get it at all. I really think that we should consider the consequences this may bring to hunting in general. I know from exsperince how many people are against hunting in general (anti's). Like what was earlier posted that we havehad accident #'s down. Because of it theAnti's don't have much of an argument on their side. So why not keep it that way. It will only take one accident to trigger them. I believe it something like that were to happen it would even worse the just bringing it back toshotgun. These are things that we need to think about. Not just oh I want to be able to get that Buck at 200yds. I for one would rather have safety first, then a trophy. So those of you that usesafety measures, I'm not talking about. Their is whether we like are not hunters that just don't care. That will take that risky shot! Then we also have poachers, its alot easier for them to take a shot from a raod now also.. All these things we have to keep in our minds. I am open minded and understand everyones point of view.Ifanyone disagrees with me thats fine. I appologize if anyone takes this comment offensive in any way. I just wanted express my opinion like everyone else. If anyone can honestly say that Rifle hunting will make them better hunter in under 100yds, and that they couldn't make the same shot with a shotgun.Oblivious with practice! Please keep an open mind, and not personal prefence. Beacuse I don't believe we should change just because of personal prefernce.I shoot a rifled barrel shot gun and can hit my target accuratly at 90yds. So it can be done! So in all I believe that we are causeing more problems, then creatingbetter hunting!  |
RE: New York rifle bill passes: UPDATE
in all honesty i feel that hunting with a rifle can be done in certain areas but in some cases i honestly feel that using a rifle would not be a good idea.
|
[Deleted]
[Deleted by Admins]
|
RE: New York rifle bill passes: UPDATE
Well guys and gals, I was informed that the governor may quite possibly sit on his hands on this one. The word has it that he will not be signing the bill, so it will either be vetoed or pass wothout his signature.
|
[Deleted]
[Deleted by Admins]
|
RE: New York rifle bill passes: UPDATE
I hear that!
|
RE: New York rifle bill passes: UPDATE
Still no news ??!!!??
|
RE: New York rifle bill passes: UPDATE
Well he has not signed it as of yesterday, as far as has he received it I do not know.
|
RE: New York rifle bill passes: UPDATE
According to Senator Volker's office today (8/15), his aide said that the bill will be on the governor's desk this week. Now counting 10 days (depending on which day (could be Saturday) will still let us know the outcome, one way or the other, by the end of the month on the outside.
|
RE: New York rifle bill passes: UPDATE
ORIGINAL: cma3366a ORIGINAL: BUCKARCHER Another point when people say they can buy ammo cheaper and practice more, what about the people that have been hunting shotgun all their life and have all shotguns, and no rifle. I guess its ok for them to spend extra money now to change weapons. First thing I really don't want to get into a debat. I understand your point of veiw. Obliviously you would like rifle bill to pass. Thats fine if you do, but I don't see were your going with these reasons. Lets be honest now, you will be able to shoot at 300yds and I will only have a 100yd shot right. Now I don't think that is very fair. Now I would have to buy a rifle right? The main reason why they want to change weapons is for money!Plain and simple.Now with what I just said before, Why would I want to shoot ashotgun when everyone else is shooting a rifle, I think alot of others will be forced into buying a rifle also. Its notreally because they want to too, it just because it would make sense right. ORIGINAL:BUCKARCHER Then we also have poachers, its alot easier for them to take a shot from a raod now also.. Yeah your right they don't follow the rules, but it would make it easier for them? Or is it common for people to carry rifles in their trucks in shotgun country during hunting season. Breaking the rules is breaking the rules, it would also make double the punishment right! ORIGINAL:BUCKARCHER I know from exsperince how many people are against hunting in general (anti's). Like what was earlier posted that we havehad accident #'s down. Because of it theAnti's don't have much of an argument on their side.ing that slugguns are safeSo why not keep it that way. It will only take one accident to trigger them. Let me tell you if you hunted in my area you wouldknow what I mean. Enough said! And no one accident wouldn't end hunting, it would just give them more fuel for the fire!!!!! If you don't know they are attacking us in seperate situations, not the hole picture. In that I mean they will try restrct us as much as possible. ORIGINAL:BUCKARCHER Please keep an open mind, and not personal prefence. Beacuse I don't believe we should change just because of personal prefernce. Also what about the fact that they made these zones shotgun for a reason, population and landscape. Now I know that our population of people has grown over here, and the landscape hasen't changed. So what exactly is different? Please don't take this personal because it is not my intent! I understand your point of veiw and it is for what I can see that you would like too be able to shoot your rifle. Thats fine! Just see my point of view also! |
[Deleted]
[Deleted by Admins]
|
RE: New York rifle bill passes: UPDATE
ORIGINAL: cma3366a First thing I really don't want to get into a debat. I understand your point of veiw. Obliviously you would like rifle bill to pass. Thats fine if you do, but I don't see were your going with these reasons. Lets be honest now, you will be able to shoot at 300yds and I will only have a 100yd shot right. Now I don't think that is very fair. Now I would have to buy a rifle right? The main reason why they want to change weapons is for money!Plain and simple.Now with what I just said before, Why would I want to shoot ashotgun when everyone else is shooting a rifle, Iffect your own?think alot of others will be forced into buying a rifle also. Its notreally because they want to too, it just because it would make sense right. Hunting is a personal endevor, not a contest pitting you against the Jones' next door. Why would you let someone else's firearm choice affect your decision? For me the switchfrom shotguns to rifles will mean onlyone thing, I will start carrying a bolt action .270 with a 3.5-10 rather thanmy bolt action rifled 12ga with a 3-9. I will still hunt from the same stands, an take the same shots<150yds, but I will doing it with a gun that I am much moreproficient with, And one which is inherently3 timesmore accuratethan the slug gun. Yeah your right they don't follow the rules, but it would make it easier for them? Or is it common for people to carry rifles in their trucks in shotgun country during hunting season. Breaking the rules is breaking the rules, it would also make double the punishment right! I think we agree that poachers are already using rifles, so why hinder legal hunters with a less accurate firearm? Let me tell you if you hunted in my area you wouldknow what I mean. Enough said! And no one accident wouldn't end hunting, it would just give them more fuel for the fire!!!!! If you don't know they are attacking us in seperate situations, not the hole picture. In that I mean they will try restrct us as much as possible. If we really want to placate the anti's, why dont we just give up firearm hunting and switch to bow, that would really get them off our back,,,,, WRONG. The fact of the matter is, anti's hate the very act of killing animals, plain and simple, changing the method of how you kill said animals will neither unify nor disband them, they are against hunting for the long haul. People will be injured and killed whether we use rifles, or shotguns, or archery, hunting is a "risky" activity, just like driving a car, or getting out of bed in the morning:D, there are a million ways for people to get hurt and die, that is a fact of life you just have to live with, not be fearful of. I see no reason to restict our sport because of fear that someone will get hurt, I can gaurantee youpeople will get hurt, just as they would should we take to the woods with any other implement, but study's (like the PGC one I mentioned) have shown us tha the use of rifles is generaly no more hazzardous than the use of modern slugguns. No the open mind would think of the precautions just before doing something. Or do you justact and ask questions later. Hey look you never really answered any of the important questions that I asked. Do you believe that you would be a better hunter with a rifle, and if so ....How? Also what about the fact that they made these zones shotgun for a reason, population and landscape. Now I know that our population of people has grown over here, and the landscape hasen't changed. So what exactly is different? Please don't take this personal because it is not my intent! I understand your point of veiw and it is for what I can see that you would like too be able to shoot your rifle. Thats fine! Just see my point of view also! I guess being open minded where you come from is similarto being stuffy, conservative and fearfull where I come from:D. As faras will rifle use make me a better hunter?, the question is very vague, but I'll bite. By means of the rifle's greater accuracy (3X in my case) And the factthat I get much, muchmore practice with my rifles, I believe the use of a rifle will allow me to place my shots with greather precision, which willlead to cleaner kills.Now If you meant the question I a way like, will it force me to better my field craft, I gun hunt from my (succesful) bowstands, 'nuff said. As for politicians making slug only zones for a reason, All I can say is in NorthernPA hunters use rifles in the same terrain as we in Southern New York use slugguns. Ok I see were you going with this. I think that you pretty much answer what I exspected. You like Rifle plain and simple..... Greater accuracy huh!...lol .... in under 100 yds? I think your losing the point. Have you ever herd that driver wins the race not the car. Well now if you practice with any weapon it will be effective. Nowyou say that you be able to practice more with arifle, how is that? Which is still your personal choice. Also the open minded commment was not necessary  . Yes I am open minded. And this is NY not PA..... Remember that, our population is far greater. I don't care what studys you are looking at... Its commen sense, if you can shoot farther you be able to hit things farther. I'm not going into detail! Yes I think of safety first, enough said....... As for the personal endevor I don't care who you ask, if you have the ablilty to shoot an animal at 300yds compared to 100yrds, I'm pretty sure the choice is common sense. Now this is going no were. I don't want to debat with you. You obliviously perfer rifle........... My intenet was to say it was not necessary in our zone.  |
[Deleted]
[Deleted by Admins]
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:55 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.