Are Hunting Regulations a Form of Gun Control?

hunting gun control

Josh Wayner for TTAG

A few weeks ago I wrote an article that ran here on TTAG where I explained my thoughts on long range hunting. In that article, which you can read here, I detailed my belief that long range hunting was a violation of the spirit of the hunt. It’s a form of animal cruelty due to the fact that it was no longer a noble pursuit, but rather a fetishized version of sniper role-play mixed with a consequence-free, status-oriented gamer’s mindset.

That post resulted in some interesting comments.

You can read that piece and tell me what you think of it, but I want to look at the extension of a comment posted to that article. In that article I made an obviously (and intentionally) extreme statement to drive home a point. Reader ‘Gadsden’ had this to say:

“(Quote from the article) ‘So should we force everyone to hunt at 50 yards with muskets? If that preserves the deer herd for the next ten generations, then I am all for it.’

That’s a pretty strong gun pro gun control statement.”

While I did write those words, the reason I did so was to bring home the point related to conservation. That statement was to made so that it forced the reader to decide if the kill (individual prestige) was more important than the preservation of the species (continuity of tradition). Without tradition, we have no culture.

The interesting part of the aftermath of that article was that I was contacted by a number of people expressing their agreement and what they were doing to combat what they also viewed as cruelty. I also heard from those who believed that killing animals should have no limits as it was ‘gun control’ to restrict hunting weapons.

An extreme hypothetical limit like the one I stated would ensure the deer population survives along with the culture of hunting and wouldn’t at all interfere with the ownership of long range target rifles. They would be restricted from deer hunting, but not ownership or general use.

If you believe that hunting regulations are gun control, then, by extension, so are the rules of any shooting competition that restricts the type of gear and guns you can use. It’s obviously not gun control when you have to have to abide by the restrictions of a shooting match, but to some people it’s gun control when you have to abide by the restrictions of a given hunt. Why is that?

There is a separation between gun rights and hunting. There is a misconception by some that hunting is protected in every way by the 2A. The Second Amendment has literally nothing to do with hunting. For those of you who need a refresher, here it is:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Hunting is not protected by the 2A. The 2A is the people’s right to self-defense against other individuals and an oppressive state. Along with the First Amendment, there is nothing more sacred to Americans.

When gun-grabbers say, “You don’t need an AR-15 to hunt deer.” that’s basically true in literal terms, but is intentionally misleading in that they want you to believe the 2A is only about hunting.

That “logic” is an attempt to appeal to the idea that hunting is the only valid use of a firearm. By saying you don’t need an AR to hunt, they invalidate any other need for gun ownership. They don’t see the right to bear arms as anything more than an affront to their monopoly on the use of deadly force.

Hunting Gun Control

Josh Wayner for TTAG

You need that AR-15 to commence armed resistance against tyrannical government or in the defense of yourself and the state. But it’s also nice when the same gun can be used for the separate pursuit of hunting where applicable (the AR isn’t the best hunting rifle of all time, but that is another story for a different article).

The Second Amendment makes us all militiamen, each man and woman a bastion of liberty in the event that our civil servants seek to become our masters.

When it comes to hunting, the idea that it is a ‘right’ is fallacious. The people who believe that there should be no seasons or bag limits, tags, or restrictions on hunting tools are detached from the reality of conservation practices.

No, it’s not a hippy thing or a left-wing ideology to protect nature and care about animals. That’s a divisive tactic used to separate us into black-and-white groups based on perceived moral high ground. But don’t tell PETA. They think kidnapping and gassing pet dogs is fine because at least they aren’t slaves anymore (they actually believe that). But shooting deer? Murder!

While not all hunting laws make sense, they are put in place to better preserve the natural resources we have. Sometimes they’re arbitrary and seemingly stupid, such as Michigan’s straight-walled case laws. You can hunt statewide with a 6.5-284 or 6.5x55mm for coyote year-round, 24/7, but cannot use the same cartridges in the lower portion of the state for deer. There you need something like a 450 Bushmaster or the new 350 Legend.

Does it make sense? No, not at first glance, but each of these regulations was put in place to support the individual animal populations in a given region. The regulations on hunting equipment are little different than the limits placed on equipment used in any sport, which are themselves supposed to ensure fair competitions. If you can’t agree on regulations, there is no real contest or game.

The point here is that if there were no bag limits or regulations on equipment and guns, people would wipe out animal populations due to our superior technology. If you doubt me, look at the buffalo, dodo, and countless other species that were hunted to extinction in less than a generation. Hunting regulations aren’t gun control, they are simply the rules of the game. If you cut corners in a game, you’re a cheater. If you cheat while hunting, you’re a poacher.

The regulations we have on everything to do with hunting are completely separate from our 2A rights, which constitutionally have no limits. Tyrants will pull no punches when it comes to subjugating their populations so the 2A skews the advantage toward the armed citizen.

Nothing about the 2A is designed to be fair or sportsmanlike. Civilians need the most state-of-the-art fighting equipment to ensure the fight against tyranny will be won with overwhelming force.

To put it in perspective, ISIS was able to destabilize several countries in Africa and the Middle East. Their estimated numbers did not exceed 250,000 globally and it took the combined might of most of the Western world to put a stop them.

Armed American resistance, if it ever comes to that, would be in the millions with an almost unlimited supply of equipment flowing nationwide. When you are disheartened by the latest gun control news, sleep well knowing that it’s really the other side that lives in terror of us because we can resist them so effectively.

This is the point of intersection that we need to stress. The idea that hunting regulations are gun control is simply wrong. What the gun-grabbers want is to discount the idea that they are separate so they can use one to defeat the other.

Hunting laws are regulated conservation practices for maintaining animal populations. The 2A is literally about the individual right to bear arms for use in self-defense and combat. You can use combat arms for hunting, but it’s hard to use regulated sports gear effectively for fighting. They know this and that’s why they huff and puff so hard about the AR-15.

So there you have it. Hunting regulations and Second Amendment rights go hand-in-hand, but they are not the same. People get riled up about the idea that their gun rights are being infringed by the limits placed on hunting, but that simply isn’t the case.

Hunting should be a fair-chase contest between hunter and quarry. Armed conflict is, by its very nature anything but fair or regulated. While some may not agree with all hunting laws, they are essentially there to protect our treasured natural resources from destruction at the hands of those who don’t regard them as valuable.

comments

  1. avatar Warren Neville says:

    NO—Stupid question.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      sometimes…although not intended as such….

  2. avatar No one of consequence says:

    “You need that AR-15 to commence armed resistance against tyrannical government or in the defense of yourself and the state.”

    Well, no. It’s a very very good tool for those activities in some circumstances, but by far the only appropriate firearm. Nor, for that matter, are firearms in general the only tools useful for such activities. (For instance, Mr.Molotov’s mixed drinks are arguably better in some circumstances.)

    And that right there is why gun control will fail, ultimately, to end violence. It’s not the tool, it’s the user and human creativity that have to be suppressed.

  3. avatar MMurcek says:

    Chronic wasting disease is going to do to deer herds what no amount of long range hunting or game commission mismanagement could ever accomplish. Maybe CWD is a gummint plot to eliminate a major category of hunting as a means to justify more gun control?

    1. avatar David Bradford says:

      CWD is more likely the result of an insufficient predator population (our fault) left to balance a healthy deer population. Overpopulation of any living thing, be it the banana trees, Dutch elms, bunny rabbits, honey bees, industrially farmed chickens and, yes, wild and captive deer, fosters disease to take hold in the overly dense concentration. Healthy individuals are forced into close contact with the infected. The Pathogen, be it a virus(like bird flu), an insect, fungus or in the case of Cervidae such as Moose and Deer, a prion (similar to mad cow disease), will find a rich environment in which it can multiply and spread quickly. We can’t quarantine wild animals so the only way to save the healthy population is to cull a large portion of the total population to limit exposure and stop the spread. I fear if it is not dealt with aggressively in the next few years it will affect the entire country and wipe out deer hunting as we know it forever. Wolves reintroduce into Yellowstone have restored the ecological balance to the park in ways we could not have envisioned. I would like to see wolves released in one or more of the most heavily affected CWD zones to see if that would not help. Worst come to worst and it didn’t help we can always have wolf hunting reintroduced in areas that it was wiped out years ago.

    2. avatar Kenneth says:

      A good question would be: Since CWD, CJD, scrapies, and BSE(mad cow) are all caused by the same prions, then why all the different names? Unless confusion is the goal, that just makes no sense at all. But if causing as much confusion as possible is the goal, then it’s perfectly logical.

      1. avatar Woodrow Call says:

        Different prions and different diseases. The prion causing CWD has not been shown to interact with human biology, although some have suggested that they can interfere with other prions in our system and cause them to misfold. There’s a lot we don’t know about the disease.

        1. avatar Kenneth says:

          They have indeed been found to be cross species infectious:
          “since the discovery that infected cows might be responsible for several new cases of CJD in humans.” -https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-a-prion-specifica/

    3. avatar Larry G Turner says:

      I have heard for years that deer populations are higher than they were when Jamestown was founded. Mostly because of loss of natural predators, although cars do a pretty good job at culling herds. Not true?
      Thanks

  4. avatar GeorgiaBob says:

    When hunting regs apply to safety (wear orange), game management (harvest limits, hunting seasons), or environmental protection (hunting over feeders), there doesn’t appear to me to be any “gun control” element to the rules at all.

    When regs focus on how many rounds a shotgun holds, the size of a magazine, whether – or not – a weapon is semi-auto, or prohibits hunting with legal sound-suppressed weapons, then their may be cause to think “gun control” is a part of the rules. Further, when hunting is prohibited because “that deer did nothing to hurt you,” I know that it is the same gun control IDIOTS who want to ban scary rifles.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      GeorgiaBob,

      Building on your comment, hunting regulations most certainly are gun-control when those hunting regulations specify that I cannot have a loaded long gun in my car, or that I cannot have a loaded firearm walking in the dark outside of legal hunting hours to and from my hunting location.

      The rationale for those laws:
      (1) If I have a loaded long gun in my car, it makes it far easier for me to stop the car (still idling), stick the barrel out of the window, and shoot a deer. Thus, if police or a conservation officer find me with a loaded long gun in my car, they assume that I am trying to poach and can prosecute me.
      (2) If I have a loaded gun walking to and from my hunting location in the dark outside of legal shooting hours, it is far easier to shoot a deer in the dark (aided with a flashlight if necessary). Thus, if police or a conservation officer find me walking with a loaded gun in the dark, they can assume that I am trying to poach and prosecute me.

      There is a HUGE problem with those laws: I want to keep a loaded long gun in my car for self-defense, NOT hunting. Similarly, I want my firearm to be loaded while I am walking in the dark to my hunting location for self-defense, NOT hunting, because various animals operate in the dark of night and could attack me while walking to my hunting location. Those various animals include feral dogs, feral hogs, coyotes, wolves, cougars, and bears. And even non-predator animals can decide to attack such as deer, elk, and moose.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Oh, and there are other gems:
      (1) Prohibitions on having a loaded firearm in the woods just prior to deer season unless we are target shooting at an obvious target.
      (2) Prohibitions on having a loaded firearm in the woods during deer season without a deer license.

      Again, state conservation agencies justify such prohibitions claiming that, without those prohibitions, someone who is actually hunting for deer just before the season (or during the deer season without a license) could claim that they were merely hiking and armed for self-defense — and evade prosecution.

      What this really means is that the state prioritizes anything that could remotely be a poaching activity over legitimate self-defense. Or, saying it another way, the state will gladly sacrifice legitimate self-defense in order to make their job of prosecuting poachers far easier.

  5. avatar enuf says:

    Are Hunting Regulations a Form of Gun Control?

    No.

    For the most part good decisions are made by game managers. There are times when snobbery and stupidity restrict what gun or caliber can be used for what game but it isn’t about controlling guns when that happens.

    AR15’s are not needed to fight tyranny. All guns are needed for that

    As far as the earlier article on long range shooting, entirely wrong conclusions there too. If you are making sloppy kills and leaving game to suffer you simply are not the good shot you think you are. Does not matter if that’s at 50 or 600 yards. It is not the idea of long range shooting, it is the shooter lying to himself that he is able to shoot that well.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      sounds like you have never tried your hand at antelope…once glassed out a small herd at about 800 yds…and they were all looking directly at me!….really hard to get very close to these guys…my longest shot on a deer was about 285 yds (paced-off)…it was a small buck running on three legs…a pure mercy kill….sometimes you have no other alternative…

  6. avatar Joseph Quixote says:

    Unrestricted hunting led to animal decimation across the West. Buffalo went from 60,000,000 to less than 1000 at one point. Here in Colorado today the home of the nations largest Elk herd, there was less than 500 animals left.
    Look at Rhinos in Africa if you want to see a current example.
    That being said, the second Amendment is not about hunting.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “Unrestricted hunting led to animal decimation across the West.”

      East coast US as well.

      I remember back in the 1970s my grandfather telling me the great depression nearly sterilized the woods of western Mass…

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        what happened during the depression was a pretty common occurrence nearly everywhere…….

    2. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      The last huntable population of pronghorn was in northwest Nevada 100 years ago. Pronghorn are terribly dumb and easy to hunt – and when people in the west 100 years ago were looking for easy meat, pronghorn were what was for dinner.

      Most of the pronghorn you see now across the west are due to hunting laws restricting the hunting of pronghorn, (eg, very tight seasons), and transplants from the Charles Sheldon Antelope Refuge in NW Nevada. Most of the pronghorn you see now in Wyoming – and there are 100’s of thousands of the little speedgoats – are due to the restriction on free-range hunting of pronghorn.

      They’re terrifically dumb animals – just fleet of foot, with absurdly excellent eyesight, that’s all.

      1. avatar Kenneth says:

        I’m not so sure of their intelligence, but they sure are easy to hunt. Just hide(watch the wind, naturally) and put a piece of rag on a stick, and they’ll come right to it to see what’s up. But maybe that’s not stupid, but curious.
        On the other hand, I’ve had them race me down County gravel roads. Once they decide to race a truck on a road, they won’t cross behind you. I ran one for miles until his tongue was hanging out and he still wouldn’t cross behind me, even though he was down to 25 mph and I was a couple of hundred feet in front of him. That’s not very smart…

      2. avatar frank speak says:

        won’t jump a fence either…just remember to get down below the fence post to cut your silhouette….

    3. avatar Woodrow Call says:

      Commercial hunting was what decimated species in North America. Many biologists would state that if subsistence hunting was the only hunting going on in the late 19th and early 20th century, that populations would have been largely stable throughout. Commercial hunting led to massive kill offs by enterprising individuals looking to capitalize on the wild game market.

      1. avatar David Bradford says:

        Commercial hunting gave us the “dime a dozen” passenger pigeon extinction. In the 19th century, they where so plentiful that a single flock could take several hours to fly by.
        quote from “The Audubon Magazine” May- June 2014 issue: In 1871 their great communal nesting sites had covered 850 square miles of Wisconsin’s sandy oak barrens—136 million breeding adults, naturalist A.W. Schorger later estimated. After that, the population plummeted until, by the mid-1890s, wild flock sizes numbered in the dozens rather than the hundreds of millions (or even billions). Then they disappeared altogether, except for three captive breeding flocks spread across the Midwest. About September 1, 1914, the last known passenger pigeon, a female named Martha, died at the Cincinnati Zoo. She was roughly 29 years old, with a palsy that made her tremble. Not once in her life had she laid a fertile egg.

        Total populations may have reached 5 billion birds and comprised up to 40% of the total number of birds in North America.

        Inside of 50 years, commercial hunting wiped out the most numerous bird species in the U.S. to the point of extinction.

  7. avatar JD says:

    I agree 100% josh good article.

  8. avatar arc says:

    Determining how you can hunt, what you can hunt, and what you can hunt with, had absolutely zero bearing on what guns you have a right to own.

    Hunting control is not gun control. This is an absolutely stupid question. People need an authority to control and regulate them in the minimalist extent that is necessary for keeping order. I’m all for hunting control, otherwise there wouldn’t be much of any wildlife to speak of. Deer would be wiped out, followed by elk and any wild grazers. When people run out of meat animals to shoot at, they will get their shits and giggles by wiping out coyotes, wolves, bears, bobcats, etc.

    Without enforcement of licenses, caliber restrictions, seasons, education, etc. Morons would be using calibers too small for game, leading to loads of suffering. A hand full would go overkill with 50BMGs which would be a hazard for miles in and out of the hunting area. Of course if you are shooting at moose, at least 10 miles away from any human habitation, I wouldn’t take anything less. I would have asshole relatives shooting non-stop on their land after quiet hours.

    Government at its finest is a necessary evil, at its worst, intolerable. Minimal regulation is necessary and shouldn’t come without clear cut justification for it.

  9. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

    I know a cat that said, “I’m not going to kill that animal because I have an unfair advantage; I can climb the tree”. I know a hawk who said “I’m not going to kill that little rabbit because I can fly and have hawk-eyes”. I know a guy who said “You can’t use a long range rifle; that’s not fair”. (I have never used a rifle, in case you’re wondering.)

    1. avatar Awesome says:

      This is an awesome comment. Golden.

  10. avatar Tarzan says:

    Most hunting laws were enacted by clueless lawmakers, with the help of a bunch of do gooder Fudds.

  11. avatar rt66paul says:

    Of course the limiting of types of guns and calibers is a form of gun control. We have managed wildlife plans in most of the country and it is the reason that there is game to be had by hunters. While many will argue that management can be done better, it is mostly fair for all of the hunters.
    I am a city boy, never hunted, but wanted to. I walk with a crutch now, so I will not really be able to hunt, but I do support it. Personally, I hate waste, so if you are to use what you hunt, or kill vermin, I am all for it. I also believe that hunting with a rifle that is too small is not right, unless you are in a survival situation. Using a flamethrower to hunt deer (like dynamite to fish)is crazy and wasteful. You should also only hunt game that is within your skill distance.
    These rules are for everybody. If the U.S. didn’t kill off the bison herds, we might be able to hunt them today and really be able to stock a freezer. While it is a form of gun control, limiting the tools a person can use(and other game management rules) means that just maybe, my descendants will be able to enjoy game meat and wild edibles in the upcoming centuries.

    1. avatar frank speak... says:

      the only hard part of a 19th century buffalo “hunt”…was finding them…shooting them down was incredibly easy…but it was part of a genocidal measure to control native-americans..and it worked…

      1. avatar Ron Moats says:

        You are absolutely right!

  12. avatar Darkman says:

    Not only are hunting regulations a form of gun control. They are also a violation of Human Rights. My family relied on hunting to put food on the table years ago. We were dirt poor poor and in doing so were in violation of numerous laws. I know people today who have to do the same thing in order to feed their families. Yes the poor do exist and rely on hunting and fishing to supplement their food needs. Every person has the Human Right to supply their families foods needs by hunting/fishing. Otherwise we are no better off than the subjects of the Crown. Who were Punished/Put to death for killing the Kings stag. Keep in mind that the Government says these animals are the property of the government. Yet when these same animals injure or kill a citizen they are suddenly not government property. Try that as a citizen and have one of your animals injure or kill someone and see where that argument gets you. Keep Your Powder Dy…

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Subsistence hunting is a separate issue that the law should handle in a separate way. I believe it’s still allowed in Alaska.

      But should I, who am not poor, be allowed to kill a deer whenever and however I choose? Without limits the poor who do need to hunt for subsistence will not have anything but beans on the table.

  13. avatar Timothy says:

    The more legally restrictive you make it to hunt, the fewer people will practice the use of and be introduced to firearms. The same is true for shooting sports and everyday carry.

    Your statement about restrictive hunting rights not impeding firearm ownership and therefore not an infringement is as true as when Chicago says they won’t allow any shooting ranges in the city and that’s not an infringement either.

    You are taking a group of people who are in the 2A community and 1, acting like you know their thought process and motivations, 2 telling the world that you are more moral for having a different means of hunting and 3, telling them that you don’t want them in the 2A community.

    How you don’t see the harm in that is beyond me.

  14. avatar possum says:

    Humans who pay $7000 to shoot a deer aren’t doing it for the $80 worth of meat..

    1. avatar Darkman says:

      So it is OK to punish One group of people’s Rights due to the actions of another group. Sounds a bit like the Gun Grabber Strategy. Nothing personal here. Just making a point.

  15. avatar Bob Watson says:

    The buffalo were hunted to near extinction by commercial hunters. Everyone who understands the difference between “recreational hunting” and “commercial hunting” please press the caps lock key on your keyboard. Eliminating the buffalo herds was a necessary step in subjugating those denizens of the west who rode horses and overdid the face paint. The dodo bird inhabited a very small geographic area (less than 800 square miles) surrounded by a very large ocean.
    These are not the best examples for the utility of “common sense” “hunting safety” laws and regulations. Of course we can trust federal, state and local political-whores and their appointed bureaucrats to only implement “reasonable” hunting laws and regulations. Anti-civil rights bigots like Pelosi, Feinstein and Schumer would never dream of banning all hunting on all federal lands as a good “first step”. We should all have complete faith in the legislators and governors in states like California, New York, Maryland, and New Jersey to cherish and preserve hunting culture. Yes, yes gun control and hunting laws/regulations are and will always be completely separate issues.

    1. avatar Bob Watson is a Hero says:

      Thank you for this. What he doesn’t see and isn’t emphasized enough is that historically the eradication of the buffalo had GOVERNMENT SPONSORSHIP. Think about that. And it was intended, the HUNTING was intended, as a means of controlling the freedom of a recalcitrant population.

  16. avatar MarkPA says:

    I remember from my youth being told that during and just before deer hunting season you couldn’t carry a deer-calibre rifle in the woods. You would have to go to a range to sight it in. Struck me as interesting at the time. Was this a “gun control” or a “hunting regulation”.

    It seems clear to me (albeit debatable) that such a regulation was very clearly directed at hunting and didn’t have a material impact on the right to arms. There was, admittedly, a trivial impact on the right to bear arms, but it wasn’t worth arguing about.

    We want to be taken seriously by voters who don’t see the 2A and the right to arms as matters of religious doctrine. If we consider this a worth-while goal then we need to be able to differentiate between laws that really infringe (break) the right to arms.

    We need to start on, and concentrate on, those laws that most obviously obliterate the right to arms. “May-Issue” (Won’t-Issue) is the most egregious and obvious. Less obvious are the laws (e.g., NJ’s) that prohibit transporting a handgun in a car when traveling on normal activities. (i.e., not to a range, to hunt or go to a gun-shop.) Laws, such as those of NJ, prevented Carol Bowne from getting a handgun to defend herself against a violent ex. Had she obtained a handgun in time, they would still have forbidden her to transport it (unloaded in her trunk) while in her car. Would have prevented her from carrying it while on daily activities. After 40 days waiting for her background check, she was stabbed to death in her driveway. Theoretically, she could have had her hand gun on her while standing in her driveway.

    The laws that absolutely stop Carol Bowne cases are the ones that should be our poster children. If we can’t get traction on these we certainly can’t get traction on any other laws. E.g., NJ’s Won’t-Issue policy (law) is a far higher priority than getting PA to go permit-less-carry (saving me $21 every 5 years).

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      if it’s good enough for West Virginia…it’s good enough for PA…just a revenue axquiring measure…

      1. avatar frank speak... says:

        ok…acquiring….[damned edit button absence]…

  17. avatar GunnyGene says:

    Just a note from MS. There are no caliber, or legal weapon, restrictions on hunting deer in MS.

    1. avatar Specialist38 says:

      When I was growing up on South Mississippi, we could not not hunt deer around my house with a rifle. Them reasoning was thick brush and low visibility. 75 yards would have been a long shot.

      I got the two game wardens in our county to agree I could hunt with my 357 highway patrolman since it was not a rifle. I did not hunt with dogs and the regulation was directed at drive hunting so people wouldn’t shoot each other on drives…..I guess.

      1. avatar GunnyGene says:

        If the “authorities” don’t like what you’re doing they are very good at coming up with reasons to prevent you from doing whatever it is they don’t like. Sometimes in contradiction to existing laws and regulations.

        1. avatar frank speak says:

          yep…case in point PA’s gun registry that isn’t a “registry”….

      2. avatar Mater says:

        What county were you in and what time period was this i’ve Dog hunted with rifles my whole life…

    2. avatar Mater says:

      Rimfire is illegal for deer in ms… you can hunt with .223..

  18. avatar strych9 says:

    A fairly well reasoned article. It misses some outliers but as do nearly all arguments and sets of rules because it’s basically impossible to cover every possible circumstance. Such is the flaw in statist societies, trying g to regulate everything down to minutia.

    Still, for the majority of cases I would say overall this is correct.

  19. avatar Shut Up Clown says:

    The notion that the type of weapon used has any large effect on animal populations in modern hunting seasons has been repeatedly debunked by numerous wildlife agencies. Just because a guy can’t use his 800-yard rifle doesn’t mean he now goes and doesn’t take a deer. It is why numerous states are expanding their crossbow seasons. It used to be thought that the crossbow would give a huge benefit that would result in much larger harvests than the compound bow. It didn’t happen. The same arguments that this article is using could be used for your Remington 700. It is a enormously unfair advantage over using a compound bow. Oh wait, using a compound bow is a huge advantage and unethical compared to getting close to the game in the way you do using a LONGBOW. (And this is true if you’ve done both!) So we should make the hunts more ethical and fair and make everyone use the longbow. You see where this goes. It needs repeating: we think the 2nd Amendment is in danger because of legislation. NO. Read that again. NO. It is in danger because of mindset. The mindset that exalts safety (false notions of safety), that exalts false notions of ethics and projects them on the animal world, that requires dogs to be buckled up in cars. There are lots of writers like this guy, who though they sound pro-America/pro-gun, in mindset they are totally postmodern and proto-Southern-Californian. Their MINDSET is what gives places away. The mindset of the quibbler, the ninny, the OH NO THE ANIMALS FEEL A BULLET DIFFERENTLY AT 800 YARDS THAN THEY DO AT 50. He will turn your state into a Colorado in seconds. This mindset, right here.

  20. avatar Gadsden says:

    I’m glad this was brought up again, because as the commenter who said this, I think it’s a debate worth having here. I’ll start off by saying, as you can read in the original article, I very much agree with John in his overrall opinion. As the comments in that article show, I think taking game with an inadequate round or at a distance not within hunters skill level is immoral.

    The problem I have is with the notion we should make it a *crime* to hunt with a particular weapon, caliber, or at a particular distance. The moment we advocate or allow the government punish us for the tools we choose- I am very much of the opinion that this is gun control. It’s not much of a stretch for the government to use that same line of logic to dictate what guns you should carry or own for self defense.

    Similarly to states that do not allow necked cartridges for hunting. Those laws have *nothing* to do with “population density” and everything to do with making certain weapons less prevalent among the population.

    I think the more appropriate action is to broadcast on places like TTAG and whatnot, and teach in hunters safety, proper hunting ethics. Not taking shots beyond your skill level, using appropriate rounds for selected game. Also, to police ourselves, and not over state certain rounds capabilities. Everyone who frequents this site knows what I mean by that, such as the article about the Alaskan woman who took a bear with a .22. Just because she did it, doesn’t mean you can, and doesn’t make .22 an appropriate bear round.

    Now, using that as an example, does that mean we should make it a crime to do so, meaning said Alaskan woman should be jailed for killing that bear? No, I do not believe that is ok for us to advocate for.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      I get what you’re saying. I would simply say this is one of those things where there is no “good” solution.

      Regulations and laws are often promulgated by people who understand little about that which they are regulating. Those rules also have unintended real-world consequences. Unfortunately this is also an issue of margins, what rule get’s us closest to what is “wanted” for the greatest number of people, and in this case animals?

      Then there’s the fact that in a perfect world every situation would be reviewed in it’s totality and criminality would be assigned based on specific circumstances. Unfortunately that would require resources that are considered to be better used elsewhere and when we do allow such review people often complain about the leniency shown in certain cases and not in others.

      Then you can add in the pot-stirrers from various angles who just want to muddle the whole situation by arguing in bad faith because they have an alternative agenda.

      The only people we’re going to agree with completely on a topic like this are those who have exactly the same understanding of the nuances , be that understanding correct or not, and who assign the same basic priorities to the various elements.

      The whole thing is a rat’s nest. I agree that one size fits all laws are not the appropriate answer, but I’ll be damned if I can find an answer that will satisfy even 90% of the people who are interested in such a debate.

      1. avatar Gadsden says:

        Good points. Personally, I think bag limits, seasons, things of that nature are a better route to go in terms of preserving game then weapon limits. For instance, let’s just use deer as an example, Florida has a pretty thriving hunting culture and deer population. The hunting season is fairly long compared to many northern states and if you hunt with let’s say, bow or black powder, you can hunt for several months out of the year. Much longer then you can with a “modern” rifle. So, in a way, it seems to me at least, your given incentive to try more challenging methods to hunt. (That’s how it worked for me at least, I was brought up hunting with a Remington 700 I still hunt with, but in realizing I can hunt more with other weapons, got me into those more primitive weapons). I think this type of regulation is a more appropriate route to go then by outright banning use of particular weapons.

        Using Florida as another example, its one of those states that has that rather silly law, in that you cant hunt with anything more then a 5 round magazine. That arbitrary magazine limit does *nothing* to limit the amount of game one can harvest. This type of legislation is not the right answer.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          I agree with this.

          Magazine limits are kinda silly, outside maybe some specific types of bird hunting where swapping weapons or quick reloads aren’t really an option. That’s people who don’t really know what they’re regulating making the regs. They’re probably not bad people and they probably want hunting to be somewhat “sporting” but they’re misguided in their approach.

          That said, were there no “rules” some asshole with a ton of money would fly over a deer herd with a helicopter and a minigun just because he could. Sure, it’s only one guy but that jerk would piss off nearly everyone across the spectrum and tons of people would clamor that “Something must be done!”. As my wife is fond of saying “This is why we can’t have nice things”.

          I think that there is definitely room for improvement in A LOT of hunting laws. I think probably 40% of that improvement is stuff *most* people can agree on. Past that we get into that rat’s nest I was talking about and that’s where I run out of steam because there’s an obvious downside to any action/inaction we take as a society and that’s where the arguments start to get vicious. At that point, assuming everyone is arguing in good faith and knows something about the topic, it comes down to where you assign your priorities. Human freedom, conservation, a balance between the two etc.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      or having to use slugs instead of rifles…once saw a nice trophy buck lost because of that…

  21. avatar Du Hast Mich says:

    The greatest testimony as to where the author’s thoughts go is Europe. Europe started having hunting ethics debates in the 19th-century. Soon certain types of weapons outlawed. Now you get to modern times and even most types of hunting outlawed. You can keep your pellet rifle, though, in case you need to shoot rats.

    1. avatar David Bradford says:

      let us not forget the, oh so proper, 9mm Flobert rimfire shotgun for those pesky rabbits in your back garden. I seem to remember reading somewhere that some famous entomologist used one to hunt moths.

  22. avatar Cloudbuster says:

    Bottom line: Any regulation you allow, the gun-grabbers will give you cause to regret.

  23. avatar TFred says:

    Aside from a debate about conservation, there is absolutely no doubt that some jurisdictions, including the Commonwealth of Virginia, impose gun-control disguised as hunting regulations.

    The Department of Game and Inland Fisheries publishes an annual document titled “VIRGINIA HUNTING & TRAPPING REGULATIONS.”

    Included in that document are the “Local Firearms Ordinances.” The vast majority of these are related to hunting, and include such regulations as restricting the use of rifles, or minimum calibers, or minimum distances from dwellings. But some of these are also plain old, run-of-the-milll, GUN CONTROL. In fact, some of the more urban jurisdictions have discovered that they can “get in on this deal,” and have imposed these regulations, even though there are virtually no areas within those jurisdictions where someone can actually hunt.

    You can read through these regulations, and see which jurisdictions they apply to in this document, which is a subset of the whole thing, just covering the Firearms Ordinances:

    https://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wp-content/uploads/local-ordinances.pdf

    Look at the City of Alexandria, for example. They have imposed two ordinances, #1, and #54.

    #1 states: “No discharge of firearms except on approved ranges.”
    #54 states: “It is unlawful to transport, possess, or carry a loaded rifle or shotgun in any vehicle on any public street, road or highway.”

    Well, let’s do the math. According to #1, it is illegal to use any firearm for hunting in the City of Alexandria. That means that #54 cannot be related to hunting, which means it is just a back-door gun control ordinance, that circumvents the General Assembly’s preemption statute, which says that local jurisdictions cannot impose their own ordinances, policies, or administrative actions regarding the transportation, possession, ownership, etc., of firearms.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      Arlington and Alexandria are too built up to allow hunting of any kind even in areas along 4 Mile Run. The restrictions are about safety, not gun conttol. The firearms discharge prohibition does not apply to self defense.

      1. avatar TFred says:

        It’s generally helpful to actually read the comments before you reply to them.

        If hunting is not allowed in Alexandria, what “hunting interest” is served by regulating the carry of loaded firearms in a vehicle?

        1. avatar tdiinva says:

          I actually read the comment and perhaps you ought to think the underlying premise. In Virginia Individual counties and political jurisdictions have the right prohibit the carrying of loaded rifles. There are rural counties that gun friendly that also ban the carrying of loaded rifles in your vehicle. The implication of the post was that the City if Alexandria used their power to regulate hunting to prevent the use of a firearm for self defense. That is BS. Having lived in Arlington County for 30+ year I can Ingorm you that if you miss with arrow you end up killing someone in their living room. Alexandria is any safer. The reason you can’t discharge a firearm except in self defense it is f-ing dangerous

        2. avatar TFred says:

          And you continue to ignore the point of my comment, and my specific question. Let me repeat it for you:

          If hunting is not allowed in Alexandria, what “hunting interest” is served by regulating the carry of loaded firearms in a vehicle?

          If you actually read my comment, you would know that I am not discussing any regulations regarding the discharge of firearms. Why don’t you stick to the subject, and try answering the question?

  24. avatar Tom T says:

    I would love to see an honest estimate of how much it would cost government to manage wildlife without the services of hunters. We should not be paying to do it. THEY should be incentivizing us to. Like tax deductions for expenses, or even subsidized ammo and firearms.

  25. avatar Red says:

    Never hunted in my life, but I don’t care if others do. That said, I totally agree that the Second Amendment was not about hunting. First of all, back then, everyone knew you needed a gun for hunting. It didn’t need to be enshrined in the premier government documentation.

    I think the way around some of these crazy hunting laws is to have your own hunting preserve.

  26. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    In Vermont the answer is YES,suppressors are legal but only at a range not in the hunting field.
    One can have/carry a loaded pistol in their vehicle but not a loaded rifle or shotgun,one can have a loaded AR pistol or Shockwave,because it is not a rifle or in the case of the Shockwaves a shotgun.
    Those F&G laws are against both Article 16 and the 2 nd. amendment,so are they a form of gun control and control in general,in a word YES.

  27. avatar Specialist38 says:

    Hmmm … lota comments on here.

    Magazine capacity rules were set to limit “slob” hunting practices. That is the terminology I remember from childhood.

    I do remember someone I knew was fined for use a 30 carbine on a deer drive (shotguns only) and emptying the 15 round magazine without touching the deer. He was also fined for having more than 3 rounds in the magazine.

    I have also been on a dove hunt where a shooter was using a Benelli with an 8 shot magazine. We knew when he saw doves as we heard 8 rapid shots. Most of us left after about a half hour since we have no chance of seeing a dove once he spooked any he missed.

    So…rules may not make sense. If all things are allowed, some dumbass will set up with a 50 cal to shoot a deer at 100 yards. Probably not the safest choice for woods hunting. I would not hunt with someone who fired willy-nilly at deer while emptying their AR-10 like they were shooting AT a steel target on a range. So rules have a little effect on limiting shitass behaviour.

    I think 223 is a little light for deer and hogs but I have talked to, several people who seem to want a reason to use their AR “for real” as a hunting rifle. Hogs are evil pests so I don’t have much problem there, deer are another story.

    I have never taken a second shot at a deer. If I missed my first shot, the second shot would have been ill-advised as the deer moved into cover where it was not clearly visible.
    I hunt squirrels with a single shot shotgun because I enjoy the gun and recreation.

    So .. hunting may have some limitations on guns…but hunting has nothing to do with the second amendment….and vice vs.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      You can use an AR-10.

      1. avatar Specialist38 says:

        Yes.

    2. avatar I Use Ye Olde Timey 10 Gauge on the Squirrels Not Like These Neanderthals, Nyaahaaa says:

      Is funny because in many states it is perfectly legal to use a .223 to kill whitetail deer and they go down like a box of rocks. They don’t have rhino skins. So what we have here is an arrogant, and most importantly, FALSE bias that is pulled from thin air and exploited to limit firearms that are deemed culturally offensive. It starts with a smug doofus and ends with the legislature. What is especially funny about your waxing “ole timey” about your squirrel hunting is that we do that a lot out here, and nearly everyone would think you were an unethical shooter for spraying at them with a shotgun. Why the overkill?? Why the fetishizing large bore weapons for the killing of such harmless creatures? Why aren’t you using a slingshot?

      1. avatar Specialist38 says:

        I’m certainly not alone in my bias against 223 for deer-sized game. I’ve seen a lot of deer killed with a 22 Long Rifle. Doesn’t mean it is a dandy cartidge for deer. If it’s legal to use in your area, knock yourself out. I will reserve it coyotes and other varmits.

        I stated Im use a single shot shotgun for squirrels because I like the gun and it’s a fun walking gun. Pocket full of shells and a nice morning. If you want use your tacticool AK 12 gauge for the ravenouse squirrels…you go ahead.

        I hunt because it enjoyable and I like the guns i use to hunt. Sounds like you may need a 10 gauge auto with no 6 so you can get enough shot on target. And you ought to be able to shoot them from your vehicle while they are in the bird feeder.

        1. avatar I Use the Same Ye Olden Beard Oil on My Gunstocks and My Loafers says:

          Caricatures, caricatures. You aren’t pro-hunting at all. You are pro “Garden and Gun” type hunting. A couple of oily-bearded friends gathering at the microbrewery after a day of (two) mangled squirrel-corpses to have a competitive hipsterthon. The .223 will deliver, even with lightweight bullets, about 1000 ft. lbs. of energy at 100 yards. That will kill a whitetail deer dead all day long. If it wouldn’t, no one would ever take a deer with a handgun or with a muzzleloader. Whitetail deer are not elephants, and your shotgun is still overkill for the squirrels. The average whitetail weighs approx. 130 lbs.. Even the monsters can be killed with light bullets. I have killed a 215 and 220 lb. one with 100 grain bullets and they went down easily. The same states that forbid the .223 for political reasons and to appease Ralph Naders such as your whiny self will let you take one with a muzzleloader making 500 ft. lbs. at 100 yards.

        2. avatar Specialist38 says:

          LMAO.

          Glad you got your crystal ball shined up so you can know how and why I hunt. And a hipster is not how anyone above room temp IQ would describe me. I am also pretty sure none of my guns have a price tag sufficient for Garden and Gun. I dont even like IPAs.

          I also like to hunt squirrels with a 22 revolver and a Marlin 39. Don’t hunt deer much as I tend to nod off sitting in a stand cause its boring.. Not a good thing. I have killed deer with a 357, 44, and 45 Colt revolver as well a 308.

          I shoot birds, rabbits, and squirrels with shotgun because I like shooting shotguns. I also shoot Clay’s when I can afford it. I use a shotgun for squirrels (as opposed to a 22) when close to adjoining property. The fact you think a 16 gauge with #6 mangled squirrel shows how little you know about shotguns. A misplaced 22 destroys way more meat.

          Don’t hunt out west because I choose to spend my money on other things….like food. Don’t mind big game hunting, it ‘a just not my thing. Never been to Africa and don’t imagine I will.

          So hunt deer with your 223. Makes no difference to me what you do. I have no desire or need to use 223 for deer. I would like you to elaborate on the 100 grain load in a 223. Sound more like 243 to me.

          Seems like you’re on of the “if you dont acknowledge my way is best, you’re crazy” crowd. Let your freak flag fly and do what you want to do. I’ll use the 223 for all sorts or vermin.

        3. avatar tdiinva says:

          The restrictions on .223 are also restriction on 220 Swift and 22-250 both of which deliver more energy than 223. So what types of guns are the States that restrict deer hunting to larger calibers trying to control?

  28. avatar Craig in IA says:

    Well, archery-only deer hunting rules/regs are certainly a type of “gun control”. 🙂 .

    But there are other restrictions on caliber and ammo type that boiled down to their essence would be claimed as gun control as well, esp around here.

    Seriously, when we get into these weeds we’re really going for semantics only and not really dealing with intent or content. Food for the bottom-feeders.

  29. avatar James J. White says:

    It’s foolish to get locked into a phrase like “gun control”. There are legitimate government controls over almost everything we do’

  30. avatar Brandon says:

    Extreme limits on equipment can and will destroy the culture of hunting. I can tell you that many people I know, my self included, wouldn’t hunt if I was limited to the hypothetical muzzle loader at 50 yards. I wasn’t exposed to hunting as a kid and I got into on my own. The weapons that I own and my interest in firearms have all stemmed from playing video games. With the exception of some mil surplus collectors all my long guns are all scary semi autos of some flavor. My “deer rifle” varies between a suppressed 300BLK SBR and a suppressed AR10 in .308 depending on the area/range I will be hunting. I feel like certain regulations are important for conservation, but equipment restrictions can quickly get out of hand.

    1. avatar MyName says:

      I agree that the equipment specific regulations are often counter-productive. There is a huge range of possible hunting equipment, including things that are not firearms at all, but to stay on topic I’ll only consider the boom-sticks. I’ve never really understood the variety of weapon specific distinctions that are implemented in most states. The animals don’t care. I recognize, of course, that some of the distinctions are related to the likelihood of success on the part of the hunter but, still, it all comes out to a weighted average of probability of harvest that the local game authorities think will aid in healthy population maintenance. So, I agree that the equipment regulations are silly even though I am on a very different point on the spectrum than you. I am very unlikely to hunt with a “scary black rifle” (I won’t rule it out, just not my thing). I enjoy hunting with muzzle-loaders and bolt guns. I like the outdoorsman, camping, and back-to-nature aspects of hunting as much as the stalk, kill and eat parts. If I couldn’t hunt with my old walnut and blued steel, I’d be less excited. Unlike the legions of Fudd’s, however, I recognize that this is my preference and not the only correct way to do things. If you want to hunt with your AR-10, I say more power to you, good luck, be safe and I hope you bag your limit.

      A ridiculous outgrowth of the equipment focused mindset, that we hear from the antis all the time, is the silly trope that you don’t “need” an AR to hunt. ( Or, even more stupidly, that it is “overkill”) First off, most of us don’t “need” to hunt at all, we choose to. Second, there is a clear indication in this position that there is something extra-deadly about certain types of firearms. This is, of course, stupid and baseless. I challenge any of these anti-gun types, or even more specifically, anti-hunting-with-an-AR-pattern-rifle types, to show me how an AR is more lethal to game than my walnut-stocked 30-06 or .270 or even my .54 cal. muzzleloader. All of those, and a few other old-timey guns, have put meat on my table and, as I indicated above, the game neither knew nor cared what killed it.

      1. avatar GunnyGene says:

        Are you my long lost twin brother? We certainly think alike. Except I use a lever gun most of the time for walkers. Shotgun for flyers of course. 🙂

        1. avatar MyName says:

          Possible but unlikely – only had one brother that I’m aware of.

          I don’t shoot many feathered beasts – not as much meat per unit lead. I do have a lever-gun but it hasn’t seen much use for hunting since I returned from the Ozarks to the Rockies.

        2. avatar MyName says:

          I did have an uncle named Gene but he wasn’t qualified to be a Gunny, he was a Captain.

      2. avatar frank speak says:

        …think the reaction is more about magazine capacity than caliber…..

        1. avatar MyName says:

          What difference does magazine capacity make? How many shot’s do they think people take on a game animal? It’s not like anyone wants to deal with extra bullet holes when they are butchering and the number of animals taken is limited by the number of tags one has. If we are talking about varmits and vermin, why would anyone care how many times they get shot?

  31. avatar GS650G says:

    Hunting will be regulated as much as they can be away with. They back off when wildlife numbers or actions get out of hand but they abhor the idea of ordinary Joe’s out there in the woods with guns.

    1. avatar GunnyGene says:

      Don’t care what “they” like or dislike. In fact I was out in MY woods this morning shootin’ stuff. Just like I do every couple of weeks.

  32. avatar Alan says:

    Personally speaking, I never had the least interest in hunting. I found National Match Course and Long Range rifle competition more interesting, however to each their own.

  33. avatar Minuteman says:

    When you start limiting what kind of gun and its long range capabilities you can use deer hunting then you just made it about gun control. Deer herds will never be hurt because someone is sniping them at 500 yards. That’s why we have limited amounts of tags. If this was about harvesting too many deer than maybe we should limit deer hunting to archery only. That would make it up close and personal every time. The guy who wrote this article is just butt hurt someone would shoot a deer at a distance he isn’t capable of. It’s jealousy. He hasn’t even considered the fact that there are far more deer today than ever. Long range rifle shooting hasn’t hurt the deer herd yet. I would be far more concerned with baiting deer and its affect on spreading CWD. Deer were never congregating together eating out of a feed trough. Wonder how many deer this author has shot over a legal baiting area?

  34. avatar Robert A says:

    No. Hunting regulations are a form of state control, plain and simple. It is absolutely insane for the state to claim dominion of every, single animal on private land. That is the ultimate example of CONTROL.

  35. avatar Anonymous says:

    All hunting is animal cruelty. You shoot an animal. It jumps up, runs a few yards, collapses and dies. All unnecessary, because you could have eaten an egg, drank a chocolate milk, and ate some vegetables.

    So disagree with the writers premise. If long range hunting is animal cruelty, short range hunting is animal cruelty also. Any hunting at all is animal cruelty, because it is 100% unnecessary.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      target practice on living targets…for some maybe…others just enjoy a walk in the woods and trying to outwit an animal on its own turf..

    2. avatar Gadsden says:

      Ah, I see your point after having read your post below.

  36. avatar Anonymous says:

    Next logical argument:

    If the captive bolt pistol is the most humane way to kill an animal and the gold standard against cruelty – as it must be – right? It is obviously acceptable as this is what everyone uses in the slaughterhouse. Therefore anything less than the captive bolt pistol is more cruel. Hence, short range hunting and long range hunting are more cruel, therefore captive bolt pistols are the only acceptable method to kill an animal. Ergo short range and long range hunting are unnecessary.

    You logically can’t say in one sentence that long range is unacceptable and short range is – when there is another alternative: point blank. Therefore both long and short range are unacceptable (after all, even in short range – what if you miss??)

    The point here I’m making – is stop complaining about long range hunting. Life is cruel. Death is cruel. Hunting is cruel. Being slaughtered and your flesh put inside a can of wolf brand chili is cruel. Placing a limit on the gradient of cruelty is arbitrary and pure opinion.

    1. avatar The "Humane" Society kills hundreds of thousands of more animals every year than hunters says:

      Dude, thank you!!! I was on a hunt once and a very (urbane, not “urbane”) guy was all flummoxed about his kill. It had flailed around a bit before dying because he had hit it about a foot from where he should have. He said, “I just feel bad that it had to feel that.” The old timer hunting with him said, “You think it feels bad about being shot poorly?? Think how awful it must feel to be dead.” LOL. Exactly.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      having grown up next to slaughterhouse…and seeing what went on there.. [did you know a pig can scream?]….I would say hunting is a far more humane way to dispatch an animal…

      1. avatar Wiregrass says:

        I had a work study job in college at the Meats Lab, i.e. campus slaughterhouse. Yeah those hogs put up a racket. Hunting is far more humane than anything we did there, at any range, by a long shot. Pun unintentional.

  37. avatar The Grey Man says:

    There HAS to be regulations… Because men cannot regulate themselves… Common sense….

    1. avatar Dev says:

      You are an idiot.

  38. avatar Dev says:

    Simple answer: the second amendment is about survival, hunting is also about survival. No government restrictions on either.

  39. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    I’m glad that Teddy Roosevelt all those years ago put an end to commercial hunting of wildlife in the United States. Because of that didn’t happen we wouldn’t have any wildlife in the United States. There has to be some form of organized regulation and a police force to prevent people from essentially cheating.

    What we had before in the United States was essentially Anarchy. When it came to Wildlife. And as a result most of the wildlife was nearly killed off completely.

    It’s silly to think of it as gun control. Unless you’re a person who believes you have the right to hunt an animal species into Extinction?

  40. avatar Ark says:

    Gun rights =/= the right to kill anything, anywhere, in any quantity or method you want. Hunting regulation is why we still have hunting. Unregulated hunting pushed game to the brink of extinction, some (bison) never to fully recover again.

    Own all the guns you want, shoot them all you want, but the government DOES have the right to tell you what you can kill.

  41. avatar Wiregrass says:

    It can be a form of gun control. Pennsylvania was all set to begin the next step in the slow acceptance of semi-automatic rifles for hunting by sending out a notice for public comment on hunting big game with semi-automatic rifles. I submitted my comments 3 days after that notice, only to receive a second notice that there would be no semi-automatic hunting for big game in the upcoming season. Why the sudden change of heart when it looked like the Pennsylvania Game Commission was ready to approve this measure? Input from “Key legislators” was the explanation. They can’t have PGC legitimizing the use of semi-automatic rifles while the Governor, the Attorney General, and “Key Legislators” are all trying to ban them.

    1. avatar GunnyGene says:

      General Cornwallis wanted to confiscate all the Pennsylvania Long rifles, because they gave the Colonists an unfair advantage over the British muskets. Didn’t work out too well for them.

  42. avatar James W Crawford says:

    You make extremely cogent arguments that hunting regulations designed to preserve the species and ensure safety are not gun control.
    You also acknowledge the risk that the gun prohibitionists will exploit the argument that a particular class of weapons are not appropriate for hunting to ban those weapons.

    I would point out that a corollary to the gun prohibitionist logic, people are sometimes not held accountable for committing violent crimes because they employ weapons that are perceived to be “legitimate” hunting weapons. An example is my tennant and associates who installed an extremely large scale marijunna grow in the barn associated with the rental house without our knowledge or consent. They had no growers permits or grow site certificates, making the grow illegal under Oregon as well as Federal law. Aside from the very real risk of wrongful criminal prosecution against us and civil forefeiture of our property, marijunna grows are a conflageration waiting to happen which made this bootleg grow with its unpermitted and uninspected modifications of the electrical system an extreme threat to hundreds of acres of our timbered property. The people involved were also nut cases who had only recently applied for their Medical Marijunna Cards to treat “anxiety” resulting from PTSD and brain injuries. They had also been fired by a gun shop that had been working at because some 100 “assault rifles” had been stolen.

    Our efforts to evict these vermin escalated to an incident in which my pot plantationist tennant vented his frustrations by firing two rounds from a 12 gauge shotgun at my son and his friend while they were target practicing with their AR-15s on our property adjacent to the rented property. The boys observed the effects of two, singular projectiles impacting the trees and the ground about 10 feet from them. The reasonable deduction is that the tenant was firing slugs from the Remington 870 shotgun which he habitually keeps near his front door for home defense (and marijunna grow defense).

    Our tennants and their corrupt attorney exploited the Elmer Fudd defense. Any sane gun owner would interpret the bitch wife lamenting “we’re old. We don’t have time to shoot at children” as confirmation that they are paychopaths. Frederick Hopkins was old, so he shot police officers rather than children. Andrew Keyhoe was old and didn’t have time to shoot at childeen, so he used explosives to commit the deadliest school massacre in US history. Richard Mershon was old, but he had plenty of time to shoot a kid outside of Zippy’s Pizza.

    However; the lawyer spun this statement to portray our tennants as harmless. They also put their marijunna bootlegging, gun stealing grandson on the witness stand and misrepresented him as a “gun expert.” He testified that our tenant was shooting a “Remington Model 1870, 12 gauge shotgun” (check that statement) that had a full choke barrel which he used only for skeet shooting, and hunting moles and gophers digging up the lawn. The tenant allegedly could not have been shooting lethal slugs because the barrel would explode, “just like what happens to Elmer Fudd when Buggs Bunny sticks a carrot in the muzzle.” He went on to testify that our tennant allegedly could not have been shooting anything heavier than #8 birshot, which is allegedly harmless. This imbecile obviously never read the label on a box of Remington Sluggers which states “safe to shoot through any choke.”

    The jury deliberated for less than an hour before acquitting.

    The lesson here is that “legitimate” hunting weapons are no lessdeadly than “evil assault rifles” but violent criminals can evade being held accountable simply by using politically correct guns.

  43. avatar James W Crawford says:

    As an aside, I now hunt exclusively on my own property. As a result, I found myself noticing distinguishing scars including a torn ear, while taking aim at a nice, 4 point buck and saying, “I can’t shoot him. I remember him when he still had his spots.” I knew him well because I am the bloodthirsty predator who had freed him from the barbed wire fence that he got entangled in and scarred up from. The doe was going nuts as she watched and seemed to be telling her fawn, “get away from him. He is a predator. Can’t you smell the venison on his breath.”

    I have not hunted deer since, but the Elk are not so familiar.

  44. avatar Ralph says:

    It’s a head-scratching thing to watch an intelligent writer double down on nonsense.

  45. avatar Nimrod says:

    The author is a sick person if he justifies killing things for “sport”. I kill things to eat.

  46. avatar Toni Smith says:

    personally i feel that certain regulations put on hunting are a form of gun control particularly when they focus on the tool used and not the animal. for example while the caliber restrictions can be a good thing a person that only has their grandfathers single shot .22 and is just trying to put food on the table for their family should not be charged no matter the time of year regardless of caliber or whether it is in or out of hunting season (a quick look at the situation of the person/family should tell you this). For other than this i support good game management and certain “minimum” calibers for different species and that being based on the species hunted. These restrictions MUST be based on hard evidence of what is effective and what is not. Other than that i dont support any restrictions other than maybe full auto not being allowed to be used. Personally I think that unless a person has knowledge and experience of game management (and i dont just mean a university degree) then they should have no say on formulating game management strategies otherwise you end up with the mess you have now in the US or the mess we have here in Australia where large parts of australia are in severe drought, populations of kangaroos numbers have exploded exponentially since the NFA in australia (not that kangaroos were not in large numbers even before that and the greens were still crying that they were in danger of extinction) and now due to the drought there are literally dying of starvation in their millions and we are still not allowed to cull them. Their great numbers are also part of the reason this drought is so extreme. The fact is that before white man came and started improving pastures and putting in dams for water storage etc kangaroos only bred once a year and not even that much if it was a dry season. Their populations self regulated better. Now in good seasons they breed 3 times a year in good years and still once even in really bad years. Due to this prior to the NFA they were regularly culled in large numbers by farmers and shooters who had permission to shoot on properties from the land holder and they still were not in any danger of extinction despite the greens claims

  47. avatar Tom Curry says:

    The Democrats and liberals have all shown us patriots just how corrupt and deceitful they really are, for if all Americans would just connect all the dots to all these Democrats and liberal politicians ideology you would find that they are not being Constitutional at all for they have been after our 2nd Amendment for years and most all of our rights!!! Just look what these Democrats are doing with a great many of our constitutional laws, they just passed a bill to allow illegals to vote in our elections and now you should know why they want open borders they have been planning on this for years and they now think they have enough illegals to win all elections and they just might succeed if the Senate also psses it!! Plus they are looking at passing the death of babies up to the time of a child’s birth and even when it comes out of the womb, how sick is this??? Their is a lot more that these Democrats want to get done in taking away our rights, they want complete control of all our lives and they are showing us it with their actions!!!! I really hope all of America wakes up to these facts, gun control, birth control, illegals getting the vote, paying billions of dollars to support illegals just to get their votes, attacking our history, attacking our rights, attacking our constitution, attacking our laws, attacking our schools, and etc. !!!!! I am very glad I have very little time left on this earth for the young really need to wake up and stop these deceitful and lawless asses before it is too late and they lose all their rights and they start living life like a banana Republic country were you will not have any liberty or freedom!!! It was the biggest mistake the citizens of our country ever made voting these Democrats into office and not just in Washington but all over this country, and I can tell you if Trump loses in 2020 and the citizens don’t get all the congress Democrats out of office our country will never survive the damage that these politicians will inflict on this nation!!!! We can all kiss morality and our standard of living goodbye, I might not live to see it and I hope I don’t, but everyone needs to really wake up to stop it all by taking things more seriously and look at the facts when you cast your vote!!! Just educate yourself and you will see that these Democrats are filling your heads with nothing but BS!!! All of you can bet whatever these politicians give to you it isn’t worth it if you lose your freedom and your rights and you can bet whatever they give you it matters not to them for they know they will get it all back with the raising of your taxes!!!!

  48. avatar RetroG says:

    We had at least reasonable deer hunting regulations in Michigan when I was growing up. No centerfire rifles south of a certain state highway, as the human population was to high and a stray round would go too far. Shotguns, handguns, muzzleloaders and “primitive weapons” only. North of that east- west line, centerfire rifles were good to go. Archery (plus muzzleloaders) season before and after rifle season. There was a minimum caliber, but I can’t recall what it was. Doe permits by lottery, buck permits were walk in and purchase, since you only need one buck for a bunch of does. Bucks had to have a minimum number of points on their antlers. Since there are no longer any predators except feral dog packs, hunters are needed to keep the population from exploding and then die off. Booms and busts in deer population still happen due to weather.

    Having said all that, there is a correlation between hunting regs and gun control.

  49. avatar John says:

    In La. Game wardens are used by regular law enforcement to enter, search and seize any residence that the owner has a hunting license, WITHOUT a search warrant. This is under the guise of searching for illegal game meat. Illegal drugs found in search allows the occupant of the house/home to be arrested, all firearms seized, food freezer emptied and any other charges. Law enforcement is there to supposedly “protect “the Game warden. Just another way to screw the citizen.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email