https://www.jsonline.com/story/spor...ns-6-outdoors-related-bills/72992226007/

I hadn't been aware this was moving ahead.

Modern airguns are more than capable of taking down a whitetil deer

We are not talking about a .22 caliber Benjamin

You can use airguns in Virginia but not a 5.56 or 223., which both will take down a deer easily.

They are legal here during firearms season. Cool concept that will work but personally would just use an x bowat that point. I believe the range would be better and don't think the deer would make it as far with bigger wound channels.

It died last time because they didn't want felons able to deer hunt with an air gun wanted to keep them to archery only.

I really don't care

we can already hunt deer with 22lr and 17hmr anything as long as it works , since they dropped the caliber restrictions

they only intended to drop it to any center fire but since they phrased it as any cartridge capable of reasonably reducing a game animal to bag.

when a guy in green county got caught poaching Nick was told he could not write the added ticket for unreasonable equipment on the 17hmr because that deer didn't take 2 steps .
poaching , confiscated the gun , got the Sherriff to charge him with trespassing

but the way they had re-written the usable arms any powder fired firearm that works is reasonable

they do still have air guns written out.

Airguns haven't been added to the list of legal weapons because why would they update last year's regulations. I guess a guy could use one for turkey if it shoots a shotshell. It'll be in the new regulations later this year.

I heard this time it was being pushed as a way to get more women and children into hunting because of the low recoil, kinda like the blaze pink law. I've had probably close to a dozen questions about airguns so far, all from middle aged men, about half of whom admitted they were felons. Go figure.

I've seen a guy shoot a black bear with a blow gun. Where do you draw the line? You either think it needs to be restricted to common sense calibers and weapons so the general public doesn't see a YouTube video and go out and try something dumb and wound an animal. Or you think it should be up to the hunter to decide what's lethal in their hands and open up that opportunity. The DNR seems to be on the side of the latter, same with no minimum age for hunting. Not all 6 year olds can kill deer, but some can. Not everyone with a 17hmr can kill a deer, but some can.

as my son called it , 3 time DUI men all over WI rejoice!

I just messaged a cousin who is in that boat , been clean 22 years
he would xbow hunt durring gun season with us in the past

Somehow I would think that air guns and thermal optics are a poachers go to weapons of choice.

I like the idea of Felons being able to hunt again. I know some violent Felonies can still exclude you from owning "any dangerous weapon" in MN which could include airguns or even archery equipment. Hopefully WI passes this then MN follows suit.

[quote][/quote]Wisconsin NR admin code 10.09(3)(a)
If I am reading it correctly, a .17 hmr could be tried as unreasonable equipment.

The governor signed it into law so get MN going!

The following are prima facie reasonable equipment:
(a) A firearm with a caliber of at least .22.
(b) A bow with a minimum draw weight of 30 pounds.
(c) A crossbow with a minimum draw weight of 100 pounds.
(d) A raptor, as defined in s. NR 18.01 (10).
(e) Commercially manufactured or similar hand-loaded or re-loaded ammunition.
(f) An arrow or bolt with a sharpened broad-head blade.


prima facie
adjective
based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proved otherwise.
"a prima facie case of professional misconduct"


I am telling you Green county Warden Nick King had it proven otherwise , poacher dumped a big buck over by New Glarus and it didn't take 2 steps with a 17hmr and his management in Madison told him he could not write the unreasonable equipment citation because it worked.
I had called him to clarify the new reasonable equipment verbiage in the rule book the ladies at the Madison service center were telling everyone 22cal min as it had previously been.

at this point everything is OK until it doesn't work and it was questionable.

Yeah, felons deserve multiple chances, like their victims got.

My opinion, if you are safe enough to be on the street, you are safe enough to have a gun. Lets face it, if you are too dangerous to allow to have a gun you are too dangerous to be loose, men killed people for thousands of years before firearms, and still do every day.

You might want to look up what all is a felony these days.

You do realize that these days you can catch a felony for just putting your signature on the wrong piece of paper, you're the wrong political party or because she accused you of something.

At the rate the administrative state is going we will all be felons shortly.

And for a little history lesson.

The whole felon thing and guns is a fairly recent thing only being around since the sixties. So for over a century and a half it wasn't a thing.

BTW, it was solely based on the civil rights unrest of that time and was based upon the long since discredited racist black codes of the antebellum south.

And current events, under the Bruen decision we have to look to the time of ratification of the Constitution. It wasn't a thing then either.

Now if you want to make the case that certain felons cannot be trusted with freedom then make that case and why they are allowed out of prison.

My opinion as well, not being combative. I am fully aware of what felonies are today. I nor anyone in my family have received a felony charge. What is categorized as a felony matters not to me. If you cannot follow the law, you lose privileges. Life is full of choices make better ones or face the consequences. You will find no sympathy or forgiveness from me. I know people who have received felony charges in WI gone through the process, to be able to carry or hunt again. Due the crime, due the time, if it is for your lifetime, you chose that.

MN just legalized voting for convicted felons. By their own admission, it seems felons owning guns should be a Constitutional right. No?

Georgia allows voting once all obligations of sentence are met. They also have a somewhat streamlined process for full restoration of right, including 2A.

Next door in Alabama on paper has a process but in practice once a felon always a felon as a felony conviction cannot be expunged short of a full governor's pardon. Rights can be restored by the Parole board but the felony remains. In practice that usually means voting only, if that. Alabama is known as the most restrictive state in the union and it is a product of their 1901 Jim Crow constitution.

So if 2A is a national thing under the US Constitution, as recognized by Bruen/Heller/McDonald, why do we have such variances between the states?

I don't believe you never broke the law before. Noone is perfect.

Never said that??? I said felonies, and no I nor my family have committed or been charged a felony.

Been caught yet, more like it, or fell afoul of a malicious or political prosecution.

But bootlickers don't worry about stuff like that.

There's a reason the phrase, "back the blue until they do it to you" is trending these days.

When will the Fudds wake up?

The problem with that is that owning a gun is a right, not a privilege. They should not be able to take away your right to own a gun once your time has been served for whatever crime you had committed.

Good call, Angela. Some of these guys will never get it.

As I stated before some probation cam include a "no dangerous" weapon clause that could even include archery equipment. It would likely go case by case and depend on the probation officer. The worst thing on my record is a speeding ticket but I know some guys with ridiculous felonies that shouldn't preclude them from hunting.