I guess the NRA has nothing better to do..

[Ben Long]

Reminds me of the time I went duck hunting with this old guy who decided the heck with the 3-shell limit and decided to take the plug out of his magazine. He unscrewed the cap and -- ping -- the plug and the spring went flying into the muck. He never could find it and hunted the rest of the day with a single-shot autoloader.

 

[BrentD]

reminds me of the time i went duck hunting with this old guy who decided the heck with the 3-shell limit and decided to take the plug out of his magazine. He unscrewed the cap and -- ping -- the plug and the spring went flying into the muck. He never could find it and hunted the rest of the day with a single-shot autoloader.

i love it!

 

[mplane72]

Everyone want's folks to voice their opinion when it favors their position, then rants when it doesn't(self indictment as to not be seen as a high horse rider).

So, besides Hunttalk, did you send letters/email to your DNR and the NRAILA?

Yes. The NRA, IDNR, Iowa Natural Resource Council and several reps have received an electronic ear full from me this morning. Also, posted it up on a Iowa specific sight. So far NRA is getting no love there but most the guys there are pretty conservation minded.

 

[scubohuntr]

NRA gets into things like this because it is a firearms restriction issue. It's ridiculous on the face of it. Why six rounds and not three? Why not ten? Some yahoo whines to his congressman about people shooting more than once. "My gun only holds six rounds. Why would anyone need more than that?" So next thing you know, there's a law arbitrarily restricting the firearms a person can hunt with. I'll bet it's not long before you see a bill come up looking for a general magazine ban, because it's already illegal to hunt with a high capacity magazine, so nobody needs one. Sure, it doesn't say you can't use one, just can't load it with more than six rounds. Sounds like an enforcement nightmare. Hit the mag release button on your evil AR-15 when the warden pulls up and you're golden. There's no way to prove that you actually had that loaded 40-round magazine in your rifle.

I enjoy hunting whitetails with my M1. It takes 8-round enbloc clips, and is pretty much impossible to load properly with less than 8. Oh, sure, you can get expensive and finicky 5-round adapters, but I don't have one. I already have dozens of military issue clips, which the rifle was designed to work with. So what's the solution? Load the clip and then eject two live rounds? Safety issue and just plain dumb.

How about a Rossi 92 in .44 mag? The (built-in, nonremovable) magazine holds ten, plus one in the chamber. You have a pocketful of ammo and you jump out of the truck to chase a big buck. Is it just possible that you may lose count and put more than six in? I guarantee there'll be "plug" requirements in the works soon because as it is, it's essentially on the "honor system".

 

[BrentD]

Golly, my 97 Winchester will hold 6 shots, but I manage to make it work with just 3, all nice and legal. The NRA hasn't complained for me, nor have I complained for myself. Why is this so difficult?

I am sure I could find a way to load an M1 with just 6 rounds. Hell, I probably wouldn't load it with more than 1. But what Iowa legal cartridge does your M1 use?

Anyone jumping out of trucks to chase big bucks makes or breaks his own luck. No sympathy here. NONE. That's just ridiculous.

 

[Ben Lamb]

NRA gets into things like this because it is a firearms restriction issue. It's ridiculous on the face of it. Why six rounds and not three? Why not ten? Some yahoo whines to his congressman about people shooting more than once. "My gun only holds six rounds. Why would anyone need more than that?" So next thing you know, there's a law arbitrarily restricting the firearms a person can hunt with. I'll bet it's not long before you see a bill come up looking for a general magazine ban, because it's already illegal to hunt with a high capacity magazine, so nobody needs one. Sure, it doesn't say you can't use one, just can't load it with more than six rounds. Sounds like an enforcement nightmare. Hit the mag release button on your evil AR-15 when the warden pulls up and you're golden. There's no way to prove that you actually had that loaded 40-round magazine in your rifle.

I enjoy hunting whitetails with my M1. It takes 8-round enbloc clips, and is pretty much impossible to load properly with less than 8. Oh, sure, you can get expensive and finicky 5-round adapters, but I don't have one. I already have dozens of military issue clips, which the rifle was designed to work with. So what's the solution? Load the clip and then eject two live rounds? Safety issue and just plain dumb.

How about a Rossi 92 in .44 mag? The (built-in, nonremovable) magazine holds ten, plus one in the chamber. You have a pocketful of ammo and you jump out of the truck to chase a big buck. Is it just possible that you may lose count and put more than six in? I guarantee there'll be "plug" requirements in the works soon because as it is, it's essentially on the "honor system".

By this logic, we should be able to hunt elk with a 22 short.

Cause freedom.

 

[VikingsGuy]

NRA gets into things like this because it is a firearms restriction issue. It's ridiculous on the face of it. Why six rounds and not three? Why not ten? Some yahoo whines to his congressman about people shooting more than once. "My gun only holds six rounds. Why would anyone need more than that?" So next thing you know, there's a law arbitrarily restricting the firearms a person can hunt with. I'll bet it's not long before you see a bill come up looking for a general magazine ban, because it's already illegal to hunt with a high capacity magazine, so nobody needs one. Sure, it doesn't say you can't use one, just can't load it with more than six rounds. Sounds like an enforcement nightmare. Hit the mag release button on your evil AR-15 when the warden pulls up and you're golden. There's no way to prove that you actually had that loaded 40-round magazine in your rifle.

I enjoy hunting whitetails with my M1. It takes 8-round enbloc clips, and is pretty much impossible to load properly with less than 8. Oh, sure, you can get expensive and finicky 5-round adapters, but I don't have one. I already have dozens of military issue clips, which the rifle was designed to work with. So what's the solution? Load the clip and then eject two live rounds? Safety issue and just plain dumb.

How about a Rossi 92 in .44 mag? The (built-in, nonremovable) magazine holds ten, plus one in the chamber. You have a pocketful of ammo and you jump out of the truck to chase a big buck. Is it just possible that you may lose count and put more than six in? I guarantee there'll be "plug" requirements in the works soon because as it is, it's essentially on the "honor system".

I get it - but don't like the slippery slope rationale. There are all kinds of inconvenient hunting regulations, and this wouldn't even be close to my top ten.

Maybe the gun manufacturers and those who want to preserve an arsenal to fight the feds ala 1776 will give NRA enough money that they don't care about losing the support of more moderate hunters and sportsman, but I have to believe the NRA's rabid stance on so many minor issues over time is going to take its toll and we will all lose. I hear NRA advocates warn hunters that if we don't support all the NRA's most extreme positions the 2nd amendment rights will eventually be lost so hunters need to stay in the fold - I turn this around, if the NRA keeps taking extreme positions and behaves obnoxiously in the public forum they will eventually reduce their relevance and we will all lose important 2nd amendment rights -- there are two sides to this analysis and I believe ardent NRA supporters are reading it wrongly.

 

[BrentD]

Right now, the NRA is alienating hunters in the eyes of the non-hunting but not anti-hunting public. This is not good. Very not good.

 

[1_pointer]

By this logic, we should be able to hunt elk with a 22 short.

Cause freedom.

Sure, why not? Heck, doesn't your own state's regs include the following language making the 22 short legal?:

Methods & Means of Hunting
Firearms
General Season
• There is no rifle or handgun caliber
limitation for the taking of big game
animals.

It's not like regulations remove all possibility of folks making bad choices.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I disagree with my state in that regard, I also disagreed with the statute that the NRA pushed that eliminated my state wildlife agencies ability to regulate lead shot and ammo.

But yes, let's eliminate all regulation & law. It's worked incredibly well in Somalia. People will murder others, so we should get rid of laws about murder.

People will still rape others, so let's eliminate all sexual abuse laws.

etc.

#winning

 

[Sytes]

I understand those who do not approve of the NRA voicing opposition towards NRA members interest in hunting firearm proposed restrictions. It's a given such is to occur.
From an NRA member perspective, this is exactly the sort of affairs I expect them to assess and use our collective voice to oppose, if necessary. NRA is largely based on protection and endorsement of hunting ethics, safety, etc.

From my perspective, this is for deer and as such I view this not as a game management function, rather some personal opinion on ammo capacity influenced into hunting...

Sometimes many little bites go unnoticed... Thankfully this was brought to the leading hunting/firearm organization and this ridiculous deer ammo capacity restriction is being opposed.

 

[1_pointer]

Apples to aardvarks....

 

[Ben Lamb]

Apples to aardvarks....

Ha!

But no.

It's the state's responsibility to manage hunting. Magazine capacity as a hunting regulation has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. Regulations work, otherwise we're telling ourselves that the entire history of governance is a lie and that regulations had nothing to do with the restoration of America's wildlife after we simply killed everything off w/o regulation or thought towards the future.

 

[scubohuntr]

By this logic, we should be able to hunt elk with a 22 short.

Cause freedom.

I tried and tried to see the logic behind this leap, and then realized there just isn't any.

I am not saying it's a good idea for the NRA to jump in on this issue, just pointing out reasons why it is well within their wheelhouse. It's not because it's a hunting regulations issue. It's a firearms issue that happens to be contained within hunting regulations. It is the NRA's job to shine a light on arbitrary firearm restrictions. I pointed out a few reasons why this is really an arbitrary and unenforceable limitation, in my own opinion. If you disagree, great. That's what this country is supposed to be about. If you disagree with the NRA, that's your right as an American. They do a lot of things I don't agree with, and I'm a life member. If there was an organization that I never disagreed with, it would have a membership of one, and be completely ineffective in the social and political arenas. I support the NRA because they are the most effective voice for our rights, not because I never disagree with them. I also support the NRA because the Institute for Legislative Action is only a small part of what they do, even though it's the part that gets all the press. If you have a better option, go for it.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I tried and tried to see the logic behind this leap, and then realized there just isn't any.

I am not saying it's a good idea for the NRA to jump in on this issue, just pointing out reasons why it is well within their wheelhouse. It's not because it's a hunting regulations issue. It's a firearms issue that happens to be contained within hunting regulations. It is the NRA's job to shine a light on arbitrary firearm restrictions. I pointed out a few reasons why this is really an arbitrary and unenforceable limitation, in my own opinion. If you disagree, great. That's what this country is supposed to be about. If you disagree with the NRA, that's your right as an American. They do a lot of things I don't agree with, and I'm a life member. If there was an organization that I never disagreed with, it would have a membership of one, and be completely ineffective in the social and political arenas. I support the NRA because they are the most effective voice for our rights, not because I never disagree with them. I also support the NRA because the Institute for Legislative Action is only a small part of what they do, even though it's the part that gets all the press. If you have a better option, go for it.

It's an extreme example, to be sure; but it applies.

The NRA logic of late is that there should be no restrictions on firearms in any circumstance. That the laws on the books don'twork, there fore we need to loosen them.

The NRA asbsolutely has a right to get involved in this issue, just as does HSUS, Defenders of Wildlife, RMEF, etc. I have zero issue with their involvement and participation, simply their position which is wrong and counter to good wildlife management that was established during the earlier part of the 20th century that showed regulation of the number of bullets, etc, helped ensure better sportsmanship. Our goal as hunters is to cleanly and quickly take an animal. Not to rely on 20 round magazines to dispatch a critter. The skill necessary to ethically hunt is being discarded for this nonsensical idea that regulating firearms during hunting season is a violation of the 2nd amendment rights.

Regulations work, limited magazine capacity during hunting is a good thing, and I respect those who disagree. Even Tyler.

 

[WapitiBob]

They lost me when they decided a cooler discount program was a 2nd amendment issue.

 

[Sytes]

It's an extreme example, to be sure; but it applies.

The NRA logic of late is that there should be no restrictions on firearms in any circumstance. That the laws on the books don'twork, there fore we need to loosen them.

https://home.nra.org/joint-statement

 

[Gr8bawana]

The NRA doesn't give a crap about hunting, hunters or the PLT issue. It's all about being a shill for the gun lobby and selling more guns and not the kind used for actual hunting.
I guess the NRA thinks everyone needs to have this kind of firepower to go deer hunting. If you need more than 6 rounds just stay home.

 

[UintaYeti]

Why does the NRA feel the need to make enemies with the outdoor community? I think they just want to stay relevant and create media fires in order to increase membership and donations, and awareness of their organization. Their fear mongering tactics are getting old, and it's dividing the sportsman community, which is the last thing we need.

I have a feeling it is going to backfire on them one day real soon if they keep this up... pun intended.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Their fear mongering tactics are getting old, and it's dividing the sportsman community, which is the last thing we need.

And it’s happening with the Eco-Left too. Time for sportsman to rally towards the reasonable middle. Even if the far left or far right may appear to support an important concern of ours (public lands, legal hunting or gun availability) in the end they don’t care about us and at the extremes their end goal has no place for us.