Take aim
Aubrey Thurmond is convinced that by using a dramatic line to close his (her?) letter that everything must be OK.
Actually, I think a complete ban on high-powered rifles is the wrong-headed approach to take for two primary reasons ...
- It's true that some parts of this county are too populated for appropriate hunting with a rifle, however there are still very large patches of land in the community which are suitable for hunting with a rifle;
- A reactionary ban of high-powered rifles in response to the unfortunate shooting of dogs is meaningless to someone who is going to deliberately shoot at dogs anyway.
What we need is a tiered approach to this issue, with certain parts approved for rifle use, others for shotgun use and others for bow-hunting.
Actually, I think a complete ban on high-powered rifles is the wrong-headed approach to take for two primary reasons ...
- It's true that some parts of this county are too populated for appropriate hunting with a rifle, however there are still very large patches of land in the community which are suitable for hunting with a rifle;
- A reactionary ban of high-powered rifles in response to the unfortunate shooting of dogs is meaningless to someone who is going to deliberately shoot at dogs anyway.
What we need is a tiered approach to this issue, with certain parts approved for rifle use, others for shotgun use and others for bow-hunting.
posted by Jmac at 11:15 AM
4 Comments:
Where are the landowners in this debate?
I don't think we need to do anything, actually.
What difference would any legal approach make in a situation where a person clearly chose to disregard existing laws?
The fact of the matter is that responsible hunters don't hunt on posted land, don't hunt with high-powered rifles in inappropriate proximity to others, and don't shoot people's pets. So giving them additional restrictions won't make any difference.
The term “high-powered rifle” can be somewhat problematic, and would have to be narrowed down considerably in any new ordinance. For example, the Georgia DNR hunting regulations for 2006-2007 specify the following legal weapons for deer hunting:
“Modern Rifles and Handguns: Centerfire Only, .22-cal. or larger with expanding bullets.
Shotguns: 20-gauge or larger loaded with slugs or buckshot. Buckshot is not allowed on WMAs, unless otherwise specified.
Muzzleloaders: .44-cal. or larger, or muzzleloading shotguns 20 gauge or larger.
Primitive Weapons: Legal weapons during primitive weapons season include crossbows (scopes legal), bow and arrow, and muzzleloading firearms (scopes legal). Muzzleloader hunters may use scopes, iron sights or peep sights (fiberoptic is OK) during primitive weapons season.”
Thus, any local ordinance curtailing firearms hunting would have to deal with a variety of issues concerning long guns versus handguns (some of which can be chambered in centerfire rifle calibers), breechloaders versus muzzleloaders, etc. Alternatively, if the Commission simply opted to ban any firearm suitable for deer hunting, it would include a variety of calibers, such as .222 Remington, .223 Remington, .22 Hornet and .22-250, that are not “high-powered” from a ballistics standpoint. But then what about a cartridge like the .218 Bee, a centerfire round of less than .22 caliber? I realize that this may be somewhat arcane, but my point is that “high-powered” is not a useful concept in and of itself.
Regarding Jmac’s comments, I agree that any proposal to ban firearms hunting in the county would be reactionary and needlessly restrictive. Unfortunately, the Commission has enacted several such measures in recent years (IMHO). I also agree that a “tiered” approach may be the best solution. However, I will note that the same could be said of stream buffers; a years worth of work by the Stormwater Advisory Committee, resulting in the recommendation of a three-tiered system, was summarily rejected by the Commission without even bringing the recommendation up for a vote.
Adrian poses a question that has crossed my mind, as well. As the would-be commissioner for District 1, I campaigned on the idea that the rural residents and landowners of the county have been consistently discriminated against since unification. Granted, no change to the existing ordinance has been formally proposed on which opposition can focus, but that will change in the very near future (perhaps as early as tonight’s Commission meeting). Nonetheless, folks in the formerly unincorporated areas of the county appear to be getting set up for another drubbing by local government. They need to be down at City Hall registering their protests.
In summation, I think that Nicki is entirely correct. All any ordinance more restrictive that the one currently in effect, regardless of the specifics involved, would do nothing more that punish the responsible hunters who are blameless in this situation. I categorically oppose the adoption of a more restrictive ordinance.
so, write about the damn Tostistos Bowl, already. ;-)
Boise State rocked da' house! I kept trying to turn off the game and go to bed but it just kept getting better and weirder on every play.
Give the Broncos a shot at Ohio State!
Post a Comment
<< Home