Do you want to help preserve traditional hunting?

[captchee]

Shot 2 large bull elk in New Mexico...Elk #1 about 350 yards with custom Ruger#1 8mm Rem Mag,,,elk took about 10 steps feel over dead (low shoulder shot)  Elk #2 about 75 yards with Sante Fe Hawkins .530 PRB....elk took 1 step fell over dead (also lower shoulder shot). Yea PRBs don't work!!!

 

[forest2]

you guy's could argue with this NONYA guy till yer blue in the face, it won't matter. He just don't understand. He never will. He wants an extra tag/or what he thinks is an easy hunt, and he wants it any way he can git it.
 He doesn't understand the quality of a "hunt",
 He doesn't understand the ability of a "primitive firearm"
 He has little faith in his ability with a primitive firearm.(it's just a "muzzle loader")
 He only wants what he see's , as "HIS" right, without thought or regard too the future of others in any sport.
 it's obvious. nobody has ever showen him the pleasure, the true joy of an afternoon hunting. nobody has taken the time too teach him the required skill. He measures his succsess with his bag limit and shooting abilities.

[NONYA]

We dont HAVE a ml season,we dont get any extra tags,why didnt you read my posts BEFORE you shoved your foot in your mouth?You couldnt have made a more ridiculous post if you had tried.

[Slamfire]

Here in TN there are no restrictions on muzzleloaders, if you want to use a Savage with smokeless powder and a scope sight it's ok. The muzzleloader season lasts a week, between the archery season, and the early any weapon season. You can use your muzzleloader for the week of the muzzleloader season the 3 weeks of the early any weapon season, the week following that is split between bear and european boar, and the 3 weeks of the late any weapon season. I use the same rifle for eight weeks of hunting, and nobody ever spoils my season, because I OWN the land I hunt. I make the rules, and don't allow modern muzzleloaders, only because I think they look stupid. I ain't takin' nothin' from nobody, cause I'm selective about who hunts on MY property, and danged FEW qualify. 

[captchee]

We dont HAVE a ml season,we dont get any extra tags,

 i find that interesting .  so how about you tell us why it is you use a muzzleloading rifle ?.

 now im not saying that this is the case with you .  so  dont take it that way and get bent out of shape .
 Im only bring this up so folks will know  and am in no way pointing a finger at you or anyone else here .

  back in 92 when  the push was to allow modern muzzleloading rifles into muzzleloader seasons  there were a few folks that mistakenly believed the could use a muzzleloader just as they could a bow .basically,  for any given reason they had been barred from using a  gun .. Some found out the hard way that if you are a felon  a muzzleloading rifle is looked at just the same as any other type of  firearm .

 any why lets here your story and why you use a muzzleloading  rifle
 

[NONYA]

I use a ML for my doe MD and doe antelope tags just to make the hunt a bit more challenging.I have also taken a cow elk and several varmits with them,they are fun to shoot and add a challenge to whatever you are hunting.BTW in the state of MT a felon can own any legal firearm they choose after the expiration of their sentence,and MLs are not considered a firearm in MT.

[captchee]

MLs are not considered a firearm in MT

well not sure there are many states that classify them as firearms but i believe that  you will find that  in some case they are treated just as any firearm .
 its much the same here  in that muzzleloaders are not classifiedd as a firearm  under the FFA. however  under the law they are treated as any firearm . thus if you have  commited a felony crime you cannot own or use even a muzzleloader . that you may have served a sentencee or not .

[captchee]

 you might want to give the state police a call , you information doesn't seem to be completely true

[quickdtoo]

Federal law prohibits a convicted felon from possessing a firearm, period!! Once a felon, always a felon, there's no expiration of status related to time served. State laws can be more strict, but not less. Even a person convicted of domestic violence can't possess a firearm.

Tim

B5) Are there certain persons who cannot legally receive or possess firearms and/or ammunition? [Back]


Yes, a person who –

(1) Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year;

(2) Is a fugitive from justice;

(3) Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;

(4) Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution;

(5) Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;

(6) Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

(7) Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship;

(8 ) Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner; or

(9) Has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

(10) Cannot lawfully receive, possess, ship, or transport a firearm.

A person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year cannot lawfully receive a firearm.

Such person may continue to lawfully possess firearms obtained prior to the indictment or information.

18 U.S.C. 922(g) and (n), 27 CFR 478.32

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#b5

http://www.doj.mt.gov/victims/forms/catchandnorelease.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony#Punishment

[NONYA]

I know my states laws,Montana AUTOMATICALLY restores gun and voting rights to most felons who have completed their sentence.

"Under federal law, it is illegal for a convicted felon to possess a firearm. But in Montana, once a felon has served his sentence, all his civil rights, including the right to bear arms, are restored. Federal authorities can’t prosecute Montana felons solely on the basis of possession of a gun."
Bill Mercer Mt US attorney   


When you guys have done some proper research you can school me on my state laws.IN MONTANA,my state,a felon can own,buy and sell firearms,he cant be prosecuted by Federal agents for the possession of a firearm as a felon.

[forest2]

We dont HAVE a ml season,we dont get any extra tags,why didnt you read my posts BEFORE you shoved your foot in your mouth?You couldnt have made a more ridiculous post if you had tried.

gee,musta hit a nerve, oops!

how bout' we ask the moderators to stop or delete this thread..the old in-line vrs trad thread sure gets old

even the guy that started the thread gave up.I think he did so inside three posts,,,,,

common man, no sence kickin a dead horse, it ain't worth nuthin anyway's,,when ya come to a fork in the road,,pick it up.

[NONYA]

We are doing just fine without you stoppin by to toss insults and then ask for the thread to be locked,THANX,BYE!

[quickdtoo]

As long as everyone is civil, there's no reason to lock or delete this thread, if ya get out of line, then that might happen.

I know my states laws,Montana AUTOMATICALLY restores gun and voting rights to most felons who have completed their sentence.

"Under federal law, it is illegal for a convicted felon to possess a firearm. But in Montana, once a felon has served his sentence, all his civil rights, including the right to bear arms, are restored. Federal authorities can’t prosecute Montana felons solely on the basis of possession of a gun."
Bill Mercer Mt US attorney   


When you guys have done some proper research you can school me on my state laws.IN MONTANA,my state,a felon can own,buy and sell firearms,he cant be prosecuted by Federal agents for the possession of a firearm as a felon.

Nonya, I see no facts that supports your position, show us a reliable source for that statement, not something you read somewhere. Here's one from the Montana state Department of Justice that supports my statement.

Tim

http://doj.mt.gov/victims/forms/catchandnorelease.pdf

Catch and No Release:
a Quick Reference to Federal Firearms Laws
District of Montana
I. POSSESSION OR RECEIPT OF A FIREARM OR AMMUNITION BY A PROHIBITED PERSON:
18 USC § 922(g). Punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment.
Elements
A. Knowing possession or receipt of a firearm or ammunition;
B. By a subject who falls within one of the following categories:
* Felon
* Drug addict or persistent drug abuser
* Alien
* Person adjudicated as mental defective or committed to mental institution
* Person subject to a domestic restraining order
* Person with a prior misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence
* Fugitive from justice
* Person dishonorably discharged from the military;
C. AND, the firearm or ammunition was transported across a state line at any time, which is generally the case because few firearms are manufactured in Montana.

More...

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/mt/pressreleases/20070711151212.html

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/mt/pressreleases/20061115134803.html

[NONYA]

I already know the law,keep diggin you will find it,I have a parole/probation officer in my family,she has to file the paper work that restores the rights when one of her clients goes "off paper",I dont mind if you dont believe me buts its a fact and Im not going to jump through hoops to prove it.

[quickdtoo]

You may be referring to a misdemeanor conviction, except for domestic violence, once a misdemeanor sentence is completed, firearms possession/purchase rights are reinstated.

Tim

http://hwylaw.lawoffice.com/CM/Articles/Articles88.asp

[NONYA]

No Im talkin about FELONY conviction,felons are restored their gun rights when they finish their sentence...


this is the law as it reads...
MONTANA
I. Automatic Restoration of Rights:
A convicted person is ineligible to vote only if “serving a sentence for a felony in
a penal institution.” Mont. Const. art. IV, § 2. Right to vote regained upon
release from incarceration. A felony offender may not hold public office until
final discharge from state supervision. Id. art. IV, § 4. Under Mont. Code Ann. §
46-18-801(1), a conviction does not result in loss of civil rights except as
provided in the Montana Constitution, or as specifically enumerated by the
sentencing judge “as a necessary condition of the sentence directed toward the
objectives of rehabilitation and the protection of society.” Full rights – including
firearms rights -- are automatically restored “by termination of state supervision
for any offense against the state.” Mont. Const. art. II, § 28. Accord Mont. Code
Ann. § 46-18-801(2) (“Except as provided in the Montana Constitution, if a
person has been deprived of a civil or constitutional right by reason of conviction
for an offense and the person’s sentence has expired or the person has been
pardoned, the person is restored to all civil rights and full citizenship, the same as
if the conviction had not occurred.”).

and this is a link to the MT law library and the law...
http://www.sentencingproject.org/tmp/File/Collateral%20Consequences/Montana(1).pdf


if this isnt proof enough I give up...I know the MT law,think whatever you please.

[captchee]

well someone need to tell  the police that because yesterday when i called they said no .
 
 that under  MT law  in fact most states do this same thing. A felon  convicted of a minor felony could petition the state to  have their  privileges  restored but the belief that  just because one discharge papers stated that their civil rights were restored did not mean  that firearms  were also restored

 While I  understand fully the MT is  light on Firearms  laws “ I don’t necessarily think that’s a bad thing “
 I have a hard time believing that they would automatically  re- instated  felons the right to bear arms .
 . As I understand this law   from talking to the MT sate police , this  applies to minor felines not  class A felonies 
 Another thing to think on is even though Montana MAY restore  a felons right to  a fire arm most other states  do not . When leaving Montana  I believe that person would be subject to  confiscation and  imprisonment.

Tomorrow afternoon when I get a break from meetings ill place a  call the  Montana  AG office and  get a clarification, I find this very hard to believe and from what I got from the MT state police yesterday  there are important parts to this  story that your leaving out .

 I also got in contact with  our state rep in MT to find out about this so called traditional push  you have been talking about . What he said was that MT tried some years back to establish a  muzzleloader season . That season had no basic  restrictions on weapons type .
 What he did say however is that there has been a push to  restrict the  modern inline as well as remove  center fire rifle alliances do to  close proximity of population  , in areas defined for short range weapons .

 So  is this the  so called removing from rifle season your speaking of ?
 Because I find nothing else .

 in the end i guess it makes little difference .
 the  Mt laws are not generally accepted   so one would do well to personally call  and find out IF one could use a muzzleloader if a felon . Most places you cant  and if by chance you lucky or maybe I should say the state is  not intelligent enough to  read the statistics on repeat crimes , then remember .  It wouldn’t be smart to assume that crossing the state line  with said firearm would  be acceptable .

[captchee]

 well i called in a couple favors  and had a nice conference call  this morning over a cup of coffee.
 as i suspected  some of what NONYA  says is true and i must say i find that very interesting .+

 however  as with most things  general  knowledge simply isnt enough . what often seem true on the surface sudden  becomes untrue the deeper you go .
 this is no more  true then with  law and  is one of the reasons attorney must  certified for individual states .

also as i sad before.  while a person  may have their firearms privileges restored , they may still find themselves prosecuted for a Federal crime of firearms possession .
Also  other states may not recognize another states  restoration process  . Thus  you could still be prosecuted  for a firearms violation  if caught  with a firearm  in another state, even though your home state has re-instated your firearms privates.

 So laws like Montana’s automatic reinstatement    may not hold true for all,  even within Montana
in fact , as  described to me this morning  it can and has resulted in  criminal prosecution and jail time in  surrounding states 
 


 

  Montana law prohibits purchase or
possession of a firearm by a person who has been
convicted of certain felonies or an equivalent offense
in another jurisdiction. A minor child under the age
of 14 years cannot carry or use firearms in public
without adult supervision.

Restoration of rights.  A convicted felon's right to
possess a firearm can be restored by a governor's pardon
or upon completion of the sentence, except for certain
offenders who must apply to the district court for a
permit to purchase and possess firearms.

Prohibited firearms.  It is an offense, except under
certain circumstances, to possess a sawed-off rifle or
a sawed-off shotgun.

Regulated sales.  State law does not require background
checks on firearms purchasers. Residents of contiguous
States may purchase long guns in Montana unless
otherwise prohibited.

Permits.  Montana does not require a permit to purchase
a firearm.  A permit is required to carry a concealed
weapon.

Background checks.  The State is not a point of contact
for the NICS. Licensed firearms dealers in Montana
contact the FBI for all checks required by the Brady
Act. County sheriffs conduct background checks on
applicants for concealed weapon permits. ATF allows a
valid permit to be used for a purchase in lieu of a
NICS check.

Waiting period.  No State requirements.

Information from applicants.  No State requirements.

Purchaser fees.  No State requirements.

State data.  Montana maintains fully automated fugitive
and criminal history data on a statewide network. Since
April 2001, all Montana domestic violence restraining
orders have been immediately entered into the NCIC
protection order file.

Check processing time.  Not applicable.

Retention of records.  No State requirements.

Registration.  No State requirements.

Appeals of denials.  A person who is denied a firearm by
the FBI can appeal under Federal law. A denial of a
concealed weapon permit may be appealed to Montana
district court.

Arrests of denied persons.  Persons denied a concealed
weapon permit are arrested in some cases.

2001/2002 legislation.  No significant changes.

Relevant laws.  Montana Code 45-8-301 et seq;
46-18-801.

Source of information.  Montana Department of Justice

 very interesting NONYA, to say the least

[quickdtoo]

Interesting, to say the least. Thanks for finding that Nonya, you were right.

Tim

[Idaho Ron]

This thread was really not about inline vs traditional. The fact is it was about hunting and opportunity. Idaho F&G wanted to bring down success because they felt that the populations could not handle the higher success of the inlines. Most of them said "cut out" inlines or "cut out" hunts. It is not too hard for me to figure out keep the hunts, and live with restrictions.  If the Commission overturns this we will see reductions in our hunts. The rifle hunters and Archery hunts will not be touched. 
In my hunt last year there was 125 tags for traditional. The hunt was 53% success Only 1 antlerless deer was killed. Fact is even the traditional guns are too effective. There is a thought process out there (me included) that I want to shoot a big buck, or nothing. It seems that most of us here in this state are the same. If they had a spear hunt in that one unit I will guarantee that guys will kill big bucks. My guess is that we will all have to see some reductions in opportunity.  I can live with restrictions, if I can get the opportunity. No opportunity, means I don't buy the tag or go hunting, that just ain't right.  Ron

[NONYA]

Tim,

No problem.In my state a felon can posses,sell,buy firearms,as long as he commits no other crime involving the firearm or while in possession of one.He CAN NOT be prosecuted for the possession alone while in the state.As far as the state of Montana is concerned they are no longer a felon after they serve their sentence.My Aunt who deals with these laws every day explained them to me very clearly.As far as the traditional ML group that wanted to petetion the F&G commission I wrote that their petition was NEVER CONSIDERED by the commission,they made their attempt while the commision was considering the ML season,their instant complaints over what weapons would be included probably  destroyed any chance we had of getting one.If you are seriously concerned with finding a written record of this attempt you need to find the minutes of F&G commision meetings held in Helena around 1994.

[captchee]

1994!!!! who cares what was discussed in 1994  that was 13 years ago  alot has change to include modern muzzleloading .
 if 1994 was the last time   this was discussed  then you mistaken . i happen to know that Idaho Montana , Washington Oregon and Wyoming are all  tied very closely  concerning this issue in Idaho . There are also other states  on the line considering this move .

 Ron understands the situation fairly well .
 We will have to see what happens 

[captchee]

This thread was really not about inline vs traditional. The fact is it was about hunting and opportunity. Idaho F&G wanted to bring down success because they felt that the populations could not handle the higher success of the inlines. Most of them said "cut out" inlines or "cut out" hunts. It is not too hard for me to figure out keep the hunts, and live with restrictions.  If the Commission overturns this we will see reductions in our hunts. The rifle hunters and Archery hunts will not be touched. 
In my hunt last year there was 125 tags for traditional. The hunt was 53% success Only 1 antlerless deer was killed. Fact is even the traditional guns are too effective. There is a thought process out there (me included) that I want to shoot a big buck, or nothing. It seems that most of us here in this state are the same. If they had a spear hunt in that one unit I will guarantee that guys will kill big bucks. My guess is that we will all have to see some reductions in opportunity.  I can live with restrictions, if I can get the opportunity. No opportunity, means I don't buy the tag or go hunting, that just ain't right.  Ron

 yep ron you have the jest of it down pretty good . sadly most cant see that and would ruther make this a traditional vs modern fight then  do what needs done

[quickdtoo]

My gripe with Washington state isn't the equipment allowed, I can live with whatever they say is legal, the last few seasons that I hunted with a muzzleloader, I chose to carry a flintlock and PRB during the modern rifle season, but the muzzleloader only season opportunities compared to the archery opportunities are very poor and haven't changed in years, same old stuff. They did make a change this year to allow plastic tipped lead muzzleloader bullets.....whoopee!!

Tim

[captchee]

 the problem is that a state must deem  a reason for an opportunity.
 untell  that reason discovered i dont see any change coming down the road eather

 if that reason is simply  to hunt then you already have that opportunity  in the general season   

[NONYA]

The uproar of the "traditionalist" group while our F&G was considering a ML season for my state is the main reason they decided against having one,they decided it would be more trouble than it was worth with the whining they heard right off the bat.
I can use  my inline during the general season and thats fine with me,id rather NOT  have a ML season than have one that is so restricted i wouldnt take part.The issue first came up in 94 and has surfaced several times since,every time they consider one your group of purists makes a big stink and ruins the opportunity for everyone,I hope you are proud.PEACE OUT!

[captchee]

 again . if there is not reason other then  to just have more time to hunt then IMO there is no reason to have a season.  Its simply a mater of asking to extend the season to give you more time . I submit to you that IF the state was considering adding another special season then most certainly they also would have the resources to  lengthen the general season

. If a state has not specific opportunity  its because  there is no reason to establish that opportunity OR they don’t have the resources to support that opportunity .

Whining  as you put is a two way street . but no mater how you cut it, it comes down to one thing . two completely different reasons for the  establishment of a special season    .

 Sometimes as with whats happening here in Idaho  its about  the needs for management .
 However some folks simply cannot see that I guess and must blame  someone else  or see issues that simply are not there . The whining here is coming from modern folks .

And for the record the  view of the commission here  seems to be at this moment  that modern muzzleloading weapons are  no more capable or superior to traditional ones if excluded from modern technologies that make them so.  that is why they are considering reversing thier ruleing.

 despite  major  modern firearms manufactures like Pedersoli and Benelli  saying otherwise . .
which by the way happen to also agree with you .

 I however still find what you say interesting in that if there is such a large contingent of  traditional shooters in your state to block   the establishment  of a special season  because of a foreseen inclusion of modern weapons  BY “whining as you put it “ then apparently the modern muzzleloading   movement isn’t as strong as we are lead to believe OR as widely accepted as we are lead to believe.
Simply put if that was not the case then  your state would have a a special season IF  the stated deemed they had the resources to  establish such  a season .

 I would agree with you that if a state had an established season based on muzzleloading in general then  most certainly it should stay that way . IF a group wants a sub  season or given areas defined specifically within  that given season it would be up to them to  request and provide  supporting numbers to justify such an area .
 However in states that have  a opportunity established for a given reason  such as we have , then there is no  acceptable  reason for allowance of others within that opportunity with out   demanding  folks to comply with the established reasoning / intent for that season .
To do so  negates  the purpose of that opportunity and thus the  inclusion should be denied  OR removed .

 Thus providing the resource  to a more general area  for all to partake in opportunity  .

 now
 if i may qoute you  here

their weapon of choice has been redesigned into a superior waepon,the INLINE

 and there is why the state of idaho made this move . not becouse of a traditional view over a modern on one .

 here is exsactly what the state managment section proposed  and WHY it was accepted by the commission .

RULE:13.01.08.410
Issue: Muzzleloader Opportunity:

In the late 1980’s, Idaho offered numerous big game hunts for muzzleloaders and over 10,000 hunter participated annually . Recently, the number of special  muzzleloader hunts for big game  and the number of  muzzleloader hunters have declined. Reduced mule deer numbers, improved muzzleloader technologies, and relatively high muzzleloader success rates are the primary reasons  for the declining muzzleloader hunting opportunity.
 The commission  is considering  whether to restrict all special season  big game  muzzleloader hunts to traditional  muzzleloader . In-line muzzleloaders would remain  legal in the any-weapons hunts . In short range  weapons hunts , only traditional muzzleloaders would be allowed. Converting  all regular muzzleloader  hunts to traditional muzzleloader hunt will allow the commission to offer additional special season muzzleloader season

end of story . eather one has to accept that reasoning OR accept that opratunities will be reduce further .
so we have a choice  continue to  provide  muzzleloader opratunities  OR face thae facts of losing them .

[captchee]

and here is comes . if  any of you doubted what idaho ron and i where telling you here then i would suggest picking up the latest  Idaho Fish & game news  Special Mule Deer Issue , now available .

 Not only has the state NOW FINALY!!! Came out and said what many of us have been saying for years  IE hunter numbers are not down but UP! But they are also  describing  what is to come .

 Over and over you will read the same words DRAW and PREMIT hunts . AND
  Hunters have some hard choices , Opportunity OR Less hunting .
 Again the writing is on the wall , you can believe what they or telling you , or fight it and find out for yourself   

[cascadedad]

Hey capt!  Finally made it through all this.  Whew.

My take is this.  If draws and permits are necessary, then draws and permits it should be.  In my mind, the traditional hunters that are for traditional seasons want a season to themself with unlimited opportunities.  They don't want to share the woods with the "evil" people that are in their minds "just looking for something quick and easy".  They are being very selfish.

There are 3 reasons they would have proposed this change.
1)  Money.  They like to generate revenue.
2) Game management.  The change is necessary to reduce the number of animals taken.
3) Pressure.  Some group is pressuring them in one way or another to make the change.

I have asked on other forums but have not gotten a response, so will ask here.  Idaho says they needed to make these changes for game management reasons.  Is there a study or some data/statistics that show that the changes made in Idaho will make a difference?  How much money has this change cost and then ultimately may be reversed anyway?  In my business, if you want to spend money to make a change, you have to prove your reasoning for the change.  I would think that for such a change, Idaho would have performed a study and had to show that the proposed changes would make a difference.

Again, I have never seen such a document or a reference to it.  IF there was one, I would think that the commision would have it plastered all over the internet to back their proposals and get people off their back.  Also, if it were game management, why did they only make changes regarding hunting with an inline?  Is it safe to say that WAY more deer are killed in Idaho with centerfire rifles than all forms of MLers?

So, if it isn't game management, is it money..............or a special group?

Capt, one thing I have a problem with in your position is that you often state that the season was set up as a traditional season and that is what it was always there for and that is the way it should remain.  And yet, at other times you say it is all about game management.  Which is it?

[cascadedad]

What do you mean opportunity OR less hunting?  More opportunity for "traditional hunters" and who cares about anyone else?