Lawsuits

[jdixon]

Hey, why stop with scopes for the near sighted. I got a friend with one arm. He lost the other in the war, he cannot bow hunt, maybe he should file an ADA suit to allow him to use a rifle during bow season? And what about our nearsighted friends who cannot shoot compound bows with pin sights? Can they now have crossbows with scopes whenever they want? Do we need to make all hunting areas handicap accessible? Must we allow people to hunt from the back of a pick-up truck on a road if they are physically unable to get out and walk into the woods? What about the partially blind? Let’s file an ADA suit to allow them the use of laser sights during rifle season. I hope I am not offending anyone here my apologies if I have, just trying to illustrate absurdity by being absurd. This is an absurd application of the ADA act, ridiculous on its face that is why I am concerned it may prevail. :shocked2: Mr. Bridges has come up with an interesting legal argument here, a real Johnny Cochran for the in-line crowd he is. :shake:

 

[fw707]

J.R., I don't expect many of the states to even try to defend themselves. The hunting laws and regulations today are driven by a different agenda than what's right and wrong, or even what's biologically sound. It's all about what's best commercially and politically, and most F&W agencies cave in to the pressure real fast. I don't expect much of a fight against this suit, because once you play the ADA card the game's just about over. The minorities are controlling the majorities in just about everything nowadays.
You and I are lucky to have the PWA to hunt with our traditional guns. That was done a few years ago with political pressure, but we were just lucky to be on the receiving end of a good thing that time. :winking:

 

[Claude Mathis]

No, dont kill this'un. Perhaps just merge the two so that all the replies show up on one.

The two topics have been merged.

 

[playfarmers]

Our regs state a muzzleloading firearm. Most hunters use the new inlines all scoped up, but that will not stop the people like me that keep slipping backwords, and love it. The fact that I use a flinter opens up a lot of hunting properties that stay closed to modern type hunters. Let them use what they want and stay the course. We will win some over as we go.

 

[graybeard]

Michigan allows inlines and 'scopes in the muzzleloading season. I've seen just one in the woods in 20 or so years of muzzleloader deer hunting. I don't see them at an open range where I shoot sometimes and they sure aren't joining NMLRA. Maybe these guys with plastic-wrapped bullets and scopes on inlines think that without practice they can zap a deer at 200 yards, as one of the ads says. :shocked2: Are they going to be surprised! graybeard

 

[Old Ironsights]

IMO we should make a point of not calling inlines "inlines" or "muzzleloaders" at all, but rather "Caseless Ammunition Rifles". I know it takes up more words and is harder to say, but it makes the point Semantically as well as contextually.

Sir,
While I agree with you as far as definitions go I think that may be a mistake as the only caseless ammunition firearms most non shooters are familiar with are modern military rifles like the Heckler and Koch G11.

And? I think the comparison is not at all inappropriate.

Frankly, I think more people should recognize that a gun is a gun when it comes to politics.

That's why I like my Stainless Steel and Black Plastic .50 Sniper/Assault Flintlock. It makes so many un-PC statements in so many ways... :grin:

 

[pchwcf50110]

hi all. this is my first post. the muzzleloader season has evolved over the years from when the deer herd population was rebounding (the traditional era of the 1970's when they wanted to tightly control the harvest) to the current abundance or even overabundance of deer. i think this is just another evolution. it might swing back the other way if the herds get balanced and numbers are at the correct levels. personally i don't care what anyone uses or wants to use. i hunt my way they can hunt their way. people have always tried to "buy" skill. that will never change.

 

[Java Man]

I was listening to the Steve Gruber Outdoor Show last night on Detroit's WJR. They had Toby Bridges (member of this organization) on the show. They were basically trashing "Traditionalists" and Gruber even stated that "roundballs are not that effective on game" (as close as I could remember the quote). I Googled Steve Gruber, and sent him an e-mail today.

They really pi$$ed me off. I have a well written book by Bridges, written before the modern I-lines were even invented. :cursing: :cursing: :cursing: :cursing:

 

[peashooterJoe]

Have you looked at the muzzleloading magazines per say, they are all bout the what sells not about the Spirit of the Sport. They sell throw away rifles use it one season and buy another at Wally world, this years new and improved version. It is all marketing ploys, the guys I know that used them had to throw them away at the end of Season. The instructions wasn't too clear on clean, clean, or rust will eat the barrel up. What happened to act on facts not on heresay.I am disabled and I don't whine about I can't climb mountains.We have a little common sense do they? A man has to know his limitations in life , I guess they missed that one. Just my two ssense worths.

 

[Java Man]

Traditional archery and muzzleloading share the same problem. There is not big money in it, so all the "sponsors" come from the high tech side.

We also hear that traditional weapons are not effective. :bull:

 

[Plains99]

My problem with all of this is not that they are lobbying for scopes but that they are sueing. Who the hell does Bridges think he is and what gives him (or his make believe organization) the right to tie up valuable/limited Kansas State Wildlife and Parks resources to defend against this frivilous litigation? I'm as ardent a muzzleloader as there is but my first impulse is to simply cancel the special Kansas muzzleloader only season altogether. What is Bridges going to do then? I guess he can do what his track record has always accomplished for a solution in the past. If you don't like the size of an Iowa deer you just move across the border into Missouri and poach one there. Until you get caught and Knight cans your butt. Or wait until your partnership with Savage is cancelled and then one of your guns suddenly blows up. I resent this organization sueing my state for his personal agenda. But most of all I resent someone of the ilk of Toby Bridges assuming to speak for my muzzleloader interests in my state.

 

[Greenmtnboy]

My problem with all of this is not that they are lobbying for scopes but that they are sueing. Who the hell does Bridges think he is and what gives him (or his make believe organization) the right to tie up valuable/limited Kansas State Wildlife and Parks resources to defend against this frivilous litigation? I'm as ardent a muzzleloader as there is but my first impulse is to simply cancel the special Kansas muzzleloader only season altogether. What is Bridges going to do then? I guess he can do what his track record has always accomplished for a solution in the past. If you don't like the size of an Iowa deer you just move across the border into Missouri and poach one there. Until you get caught and Knight cans your butt. Or wait until your partnership with Savage is cancelled and then one of your guns suddenly blows up. I resent this organization sueing my state for his personal agenda. But most of all I resent someone of the ilk of Toby Bridges assuming to speak for my muzzleloader interests in my state.

I have biting my lip reading this forum. I feel as you all do :bull:
But who is Toby Bridges? Can you give me a quick run down on him.
I opened CO's hunting mag and his lawsuit was one of the stories in it.
I started muzzleloading hunting in CO in 1988 when all you could use was a hammer throw now you can use one of those new fangled high powered non primitive !$#&in rifles :cursing: :bull: :nono: :youcrazy:

 

[spitfire]

:bull: Lawsuit! :cursing: :cursing: :cursing:

 

[shmrck1]

spitfire,
Me too! :bull: lawsuits :cursing: :cursing:
snake-eyes

 

[oldarmy]

What a waste of money for the states.. Spending money to go to court, rather then for wildlife. :cursing:
Too late up here anway
New Hamshire has a "muzzeloading" only season and there isn't a sidehammer or flinter to be found in the woods.
In-lines with optics are the norm. In fact you can't find a sidehammer in any local gunstore anymore.
All new platic and stainless steel.
Still the users arn't smart enought to know they need to be cleaned after use.
Was show at least 10 nice in-lines where the removal breech plugs are so rusted in place that they are no longer able to sell them.

 

[shmrck1]

Old Army,
I don't know if this thread is going
where it should but sence its still alive I will
say this. Congress is run by money,power and polls. I have written many letters to my Senator
and never received any reply. On the other hand
I have sent several letters to my state rep in
Washington and have always received a reply.
The Senate is the most powerful,
uncaring institution in Washington, maybe the
world. They work for two yaers and gather votes
the rest of the time. I am a republican and all
this applies to all parties.IMO
snke-eyes :hatsoff:

 

[paulvallandigham]

Actually, Old Army and guys, the State already has Assistant Attorneys General on the payroll to represent the various departments in lawsuits, and this would include the Fish and Game dept. So, it doesn't cost the taxpayers any more money- in fact it finally makes these guys earn their paychecks! Only when the Attorney General hires outside Counsel to represent the State in these suits does it again cost you much more money. This kind of thing is done to reward lawyers and law firms who make big contributions to the campaign funds of the Attorney General, or the Governor, or both.

 

[hawken45]

If this is out of place I appologise, but I did a search for Toby Bridges and found his website. I read the stuff on this and it's a discrimination complaint not lawsuits. I don't know how the states can do anything about this. If the USFW finds discrimination then the states either have to allow scopes or eliminate the seasons. Scopes are already legal here so it wouldn't affect me, but I feel sorry for those of you who live in the states mentioned.

 

[biliff]

If this is out of place I appologise, but I did a search for Toby Bridges and found his website. I read the stuff on this and it's a discrimination complaint not lawsuits.

Since you mentioned it I went to his website. Found an article where he proclaimed Oregon as having:

The Worst Muzzleloader Hunting Regulations In The Nation

Made me kinda proud. Course it also means we're on his hit list. Don't really think much will come of the discrimination complaint. F&W departments place limits on equipment/firearms etc. all the time. We can't ise recorded duck calls. Does forcing people to use mouth blown calls discriminate against people with asmtha (sp?).

 

[arcticap]

One supposed response to your question could be that "a duck hunter doesn't really need to use a mouth blown call to hunt ducks, but a muzzle loader hunter really does need to see in order to shoot game "safely & effectively"."
Or another response could be that "you may have a valid point, but that specific complaint hasn't been formally submitted yet. Once it is actually submitted then we will make a ruling based on its merit."

Unconstitutional laws and illegal regulations are enacted and wrongly enforced all of the time until someone actually files a complaint, and then the administrative judges & courts keep ruling on it until it finally winds its way through the system.