Handgun Hunting

I think that handguns should be allowed to be carried for protection while hunting, but not for hunting. I think that too many people would take too many out of range shots, wounding but not killing their targets.

As for protection a good .45 on your side will be much easier to put a grizz down than a scoped bolt action. That would mean that hunters will have time to recognize more false charges, letting a few bears off easy.
 
Last edited:
new and novice said:
I think that too many people would take too many out of range shots, wounding but not killing their targets.
Click to expand...

How is that any different than now? Or do you never have untrained meatheads take ridiculous shots and lose wounded game in your area? Do you think archers should also not be allowed to hunt with their bows? Blame the hunter, not the tool.

Mark
 
new and novice said:
I think that handguns should be allowed to be carried for protection while hunting, but not for hunting. I think that too many people would take too many out of range shots, wounding but not killing their targets.
Click to expand...

False. It's just a tool, like a rifle or bow. It can be used properly or improperly

As for protection a good .45 on your side will be much easier to put a grizz down than a scoped bolt action. That would mean that hunters will have time to recognize more false charges, letting a few bears off easy.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I'd much rathe rbe carrying a rifle than a handgun when charged by a grizzly...
 
i flip flop

mmattockx said:
How is that any different than now? Or do you never have untrained meatheads take ridiculous shots and lose wounded game in your area? Do you think archers should also not be allowed to hunt with their bows? Blame the hunter, not the tool.

Mark
Click to expand...

Ok I stand corrected on the hand gun hunt thing. It is illegal in BC to hunt with one.
 
Last edited:
new and novice said:
I think that handguns should be allowed to be carried for protection while hunting, but not for hunting. I think that too many people would take too many out of range shots, wounding but not killing their targets.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and while we are on that topic, how about not allowing rifles either.
Far too many guys only fire 5 shots a week prior to the start of the season.
"Yup, still makes noise, I'm ready to go"
 
So, if it is legal to hunt with them, the CfO should hand out ATT to hunt during seasons for which we can hunt with them.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Now who wants to be first to request an ATT? I'm going to consult with my lawyer on Wednesday then talk to the CFC/CFO if he agrees it's worthwhile... :D
 
new and novice said:
I think that handguns should be allowed to be carried for protection while hunting, but not for hunting. I think that too many people would take too many out of range shots, wounding but not killing their targets.

As for protection a good .45 on your side will be much easier to put a grizz down than a scoped bolt action. That would mean that hunters will have time to recognize more false charges, letting a few bears off easy.
Click to expand...

1. The same thing could be said for any other type of hunting weapon, be it rifle, bow, shotgun, muzzleloader, or spear. Legislating against stupidity is an exercise in futility and penalizes the wrong people.

2. A rifle is still a far more effective weapon for grizzly defence and is easier to use. Where a handgun shines is the ability to constantly have it on your person; a .44 Magnum on your belt beats a rifle leaning against a tree, but a rifle in hand is best of all.
 
tactical870 said:
Exactly. Now who wants to be first to request an ATT? I'm going to consult with my lawyer on Wednesday then talk to the CFC/CFO if he agrees it's worthwhile... :D
Click to expand...

Please, do let us know what he says.

I'd like to be able to bring my handgun with me if not for hunting at least for protection (and maybe target practice).

I agree that we should get things rolling on this issue.

It is probably wise to quote the AFGA resolution and government response because the MLA's will likely not have a clue what we are talking about. There is also a phone number given on the government response letter as a contact for additional questions on game concerns. Maybe we should all call that contact and politely inquire as to what federal regulation restricts handgun hunting.

Let's keep it all professional and reasonable, screaming and shouting will not get us anywhere. Spell check letters and emails sent and have them proof read by another set of eyes if you are unsure of grammar and/or phrasing. Be aware that emails carry almost no weight with politicians and can easily be deleted by an assistant without the MLA reading it. The best is a handwritten letter, with a typed and signed letter close behind. Letters can be faxed rather than snail mailed if you have access to a fax machine. There are also free online fax services that let you send one or two faxes per day free. Adding a CC list to your letter is a good idea, because each recipient must copy the letter and send it to all the people on the CC list to ensure they receive it. Done correctly, sending 5 letters can generate 25 copies floating around the legislature. Don't forget to sign your letter and include a return address and phone number for the MLA to contact you if they want.
Click to expand...

Mark, maybe you can provide a sample letter we can all take a look at and contact info re. where to send the letter.

Tactical, maybe your lawyer can help with the format and content of the letter.

I'm not sure if the decision makers will agree with handgun use for hunting but maybe if we pitch it as "for protection while hunting" they might lean towards changing the regulations.

I have no legal training and I might be totally of the mark in suggesting "for protection use" if that affects the final goal which is to be able to hunt with a handgun.

We definitely need some legal advise in how to approach this and we also need the support of other organizations (CSSA, gun clubs) so when we get rolling we have all the backing we can get.


CGN Moderators/Administrators, how about a forum section just for petitions where we can keep all pertinent information in a centralized matter (Firearms Politics Forums --> Action Center --> Petitions)?
 
Whitetail Junkie said:
x2.Hunting with handguns is a bad idea,too many wounded animals.
Click to expand...

Regardless of the tool used for hunting, some animals will be wounded. Handguns like any other tool, requires the user to be proficient and know its limitations. Bow hunting has even more limitations and challenges vs handgun hunting, yet is perfectly legal (and so it should be).

A handgun should be perfectly legal to carry and/or hunt with. Our firearms rights get whittled away with by these opinions which are not always based on fact or logic.
 
Protection is not a good reason. We need to be very clear with the CFC or CFO. We are requesting an ATT to use our handguns for hunting because the law allows it.

Regardless of the tool used for hunting, some animals will be wounded. Handguns like any other tool, requires the user to be proficient and know its limitations. Bow hunting has even more limitations and challenges vs handgun hunting, yet is perfectly legal (and so it should be).

A handgun should be perfectly legal to carry and/or hunt with. Our firearms rights get whittled away with by these opinions which are not always based on fact or logic.
Click to expand...


Very well said. Not only does this serve to allow us to hunt with another challenging method, but also provides another legal reason to allow private ownership of handguns.
 
Years ago, when there was still a reasonable chance to get provincial/territorial approval for handgun hunting, and thereby a federal permit to have one's restricted firarm afield, I had a long toalk with J.D. Jones of Handgun Hunting International fame. His position on the wounding issue was convincing.

He said that in the states where HGH was allowed, hunters were grouped into two large categories - those who understood the limitations, accepted them, and took personal satisfaction from overcoming those limitations as another challenge in the hunt. And, those who would miss the barn from inside it, and whaled away at Bambi at every opportunity, endangering leaves, moss, bark, grass, and on exceedingly rare occasions, deer hair. At least, .25 ACP, 9mm RN, .32 and .38 S&W ball, generally left survivable wounds, as compared to anatomically identical hits with high-powered rifles, which anually litter the rural environs with rotting crippled carcasses.

At the time, (early '80's) experienced game wardens in HGH friendly states had no issues with the gangsta bangsta's out of the big cities. They couldn't hit **it in the city, and they were afraid to get out of their cars outside of the city. So drive on, promote HGH as a tool to ease the restrictions on restricted firearms, and don't sweat Bambi.
 
Handguns of a 357 cal up to the 50 cal should be only used.
My 44 mag is accurate to 130 yards.
This is without a scope, but also I use special loads, not factory.
I have tested it at the range.
 
Years ago, when there was still a reasonable chance to get provincial/territorial approval for handgun hunting, and thereby a federal permit to have one's restricted firarm afield, I had a long toalk with J.D. Jones of Handgun Hunting International fame. His position on the wounding issue was convincing.

He said that in the states where HGH was allowed, hunters were grouped into two large categories - those who understood the limitations, accepted them, and took personal satisfaction from overcoming those limitations as another challenge in the hunt. And, those who would miss the barn from inside it, and whaled away at Bambi at every opportunity, endangering leaves, moss, bark, grass, and on exceedingly rare occasions, deer hair. At least, .25 ACP, 9mm RN, .32 and .38 S&W ball, generally left survivable wounds, as compared to anatomically identical hits with high-powered rifles, which anually litter the rural environs with rotting crippled carcasses.

At the time, (early '80's) experienced game wardens in HGH friendly states had no issues with the gangsta bangsta's out of the big cities. They couldn't hit **it in the city, and they were afraid to get out of their cars outside of the city. So drive on, promote HGH as a tool to ease the restrictions on restricted firearms, and don't sweat Bambi.
Click to expand...


Read the email I recieved from Ontario MNR above. We have provincial approval for handgun hunting. Now we need the Feds on side....
 
smartassbrat said:
Handguns of a 357 cal up to the 50 cal should be only used.
My 44 mag is accurate to 130 yards.
This is without a scope, but also I use special loads, not factory.
I have tested it at the range.
Click to expand...

Sorry dude, but suggesting that 'only' certain calibers should be used, based on bore diameter, like this, is crap.

Doing so takes away the ability to use many far more powerful choices, while allowing some others that are barely adequate. For example, there are many handguns out there chambered in 30 caliber rounds (30-30, 30 Herret, etc.) that would not be allowed, while a whole raft of cartridges that are barely marginal or worse (pick almost any antique pistol caliber) would be allowed.

Better to designate an amount of energy than to decide that the hole size is the deciding factor. Even that isn't entirely reasonable, as it can be taken too far by folk that think like what you started out with... Run the numbers on energy from a .45 caliber round ball from a flintlock or caplock traditional muzzle loader. Those are legal to hunt deer with, and if you can match that or better, you should be good to go.

Cheers
Trev
 
trevj said:
Sorry dude, but suggesting that 'only' certain calibers should be used, based on bore diameter, like this, is crap.

Doing so takes away the ability to use many far more powerful choices, while allowing some others that are barely adequate. For example, there are many handguns out there chambered in 30 caliber rounds (30-30, 30 Herret, etc.) that would not be allowed, while a whole raft of cartridges that are barely marginal or worse (pick almost any antique pistol caliber) would be allowed.

Better to designate an amount of energy than to decide that the hole size is the deciding factor. Even that isn't entirely reasonable, as it can be taken too far by folk that think like what you started out with... Run the numbers on energy from a .45 caliber round ball from a flintlock or caplock traditional muzzle loader. Those are legal to hunt deer with, and if you can match that or better, you should be good to go.

Cheers
Trev
Click to expand...

Makes perfect sense to me Trev!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom