# Muzzleloader Lawsuit?



## taddy1340 (Dec 10, 2004)

This is an interesting lawsuit. I personally agree with the states...no magnifying scopes for the muzzleloader season.

http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandfork ... 209392.htm

Muzzleloader complaint names N.D., Minnesota
The North American Muzzleloader Hunting Association has filed a civil rights complaint of discrimination against North Dakota, Minnesota and 13 other states that don't allow magnifying scopes during the special muzzleloader seasons.

Toby Bridges, founder of the national muzzleloader group, filed the complaint July 16 in a letter to Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne.

"If modern firearms hunters in these states are given the right to hunt with a magnifying telescopic rifle sight (scope), then the muzzleloading hunter has the right to use the same sighting aid during a season established for muzzle-loaded guns," Bridges wrote in his letter, which was included in a news release about the complaint. "For these states to deny that right is a clear cut case of discrimination - due to age, due to sight disability and due to segregation."

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is investigating the complaint, the news release said. Also named in the complaint were agencies in Alaska, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, Nevada, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin.

Randy Kreil, wildlife division chief for the North Dakota Game and Fish Department in Bismarck, said the agency is aware of the complaint, but he defended the state's policy to prohibit magnifying scopes during muzzleloader season.

"We don't believe that they will be successful with their complaint because states have the right to regulate manner and method of take during hunting seasons," Kreil said Friday, in a phone interview.

If hunters want to use scopes on their muzzleloaders, they can hunt with the weapon during the regular firearms season, Kreil said.

"When North Dakota set up our current muzzleloader season, it was intended for primitive weaponry, and we believe that's the spirit in which it was intended," Kreil said. "We plan to maintain the ban on telescopic sites for this primitive weapon hunting season."

Bills to allow scopes during muzzleloader seasons have failed in both the North Dakota and Minnesota legislatures, most recently during Minnesota's 2006 session.

- Brad Dokken


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

The fools will jeopardize the primitive season. My old eyes can not see the rear sight and front sight at the same time, so I went to a non magnifying scope. One power, but it looks more like ¾ power when you look through the scope. With both eyes open the object through the scope looks smaller. However, if we want a "primitive" season, then we should be hunting with primitive techniques. Many include the inline muzzleloader as a contraption, but the truth is they were built at the beginning of the 1800's. It was abandoned because it was to hard to repair in the field. 
If you load it down the muzzle it is primitive, but if you crop on a 3X9 scope it isn't. Maybe I am over simplifying it, but it looks simple to me.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

That is such a foolish lawsuit. Either you have a primitive weapons season or you don't. What is primitive about a magnified scope?

Maybe this will blow up in their face (pun fully intended), and instead the states will lock down the season further and not allow some of the more modern "improvements" in muzzle loading weaponry. Some of the modern guns have been perfected to such a degree that it really has lost most of it's traditional intent and has now just become another season for boyz with neat toyz....

Bring back the traditional muzzle loading rifles, iron sights, old powder/wads etc...

Ryan


----------



## Tator (Dec 10, 2005)

I disagree also and I like the fact we can't use them. It is muzzleloader season, not rifle season. And the way these things can shoot now days, they can get up to 300 yds and not be too bad of a shot!!!!!!!

I love open sites though, and using a muzzy makes it feel a little more special that week after season when no one else gets to hunt them!!!


----------



## Bubba w/a 45/70 (Jul 31, 2006)

I don't even use magnifying scopes on my Marlin 1895. And I don't have any qualms about not using a scope.

Sounds like someone should just put on their "big girl pants" and deal with the way things are. If you don't like the muzzy season not being able to use scopes, just use the other season. Not hard to figure out.


----------



## h2ofwlr (Feb 6, 2004)

IMO inline loaders should be considered a modern firearm- and thus off limits during the muzzleloader season. The Muzzleloader season was established to give guys wanting to hunt the old fashioned way a seperate hunt, so what it is turning into is the modernization of the primatives into modern guns , namely the in line, and then adding of the scope. :bs: Came on for petes sake, that is a modern firearm


----------



## Skip OK (Jul 16, 2006)

Does ND have a muzzleloading season or a primitive firearms season?

I have discussed this before with some froend from Pennsylvania, and they informed me that certain modern feature on some muzzleloaders made it too easy and were not allowed in "Real" primitive firearms. These features?

1. Conical bullets (ANY bullet shape other than patched ball).

2 Percussion locks (Agaiin ANY lock system other than Flintlock)/

So, unless you huint with a patched ball flintlock you aren't using "primative" weapons, at least in their opinions.

How many of you qualify under the above definition?

Futhermore, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) I am not at all sure a state could legally prohibit vision enhancement sights if the hunter has impaired vision. I think that woudl be "reasonable accomodation" for such hunters.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Skip OK said:


> Does ND have a muzzleloading season or a primitive firearms season?
> 
> I have discussed this before with some froend from Pennsylvania, and they informed me that certain modern feature on some muzzleloaders made it too easy and were not allowed in "Real" primitive firearms. These features?
> 
> ...


What is your point Skip? I take it you are in favor of the lawsuit?

Many here who hunt the ND Muzzleloader season do fall within your category, as many have gone back to a more traditional methodology due to the very advances you (and us earlier) have mentioned. What is your point?

Do you have your Juris Doctorate or are you indeed just a layman offering his thoughts on the technicalities of the law?

It is likely that if a person came before the ND G&F department and presented extenuating circumstances indicating they need a special accomodation via a provision of the ADA, that the department would work to assist that individual with a proper permit. They have made exceptions before for individuals needing accomodation for example, to shoot from a vehicle, shoot with assistance of modified weaponry, etc.

We are not talking about those covered under provisions of the ADA. This lawsuit is not brought on behalf of those individuals, but rather a different class of muzzle loader hunter.

Just for your information:

As stated in the ND Hunting Proclamation: (http://gf.nd.gov/licenses/docs/proc-deer-2006.pdf)

*4. WEAPONS*

Muzzleloader Season--Muzzleloading long guns of .45 caliber or larger, and handguns .50 caliber or larger, loaded through the muzzle, with flint or percussion ignition, firing black powder or black powder substitutes are legal. Smokeless powders are not legal. Telescopic sights are prohibited. No magnification (1X) scopes are legal for muzzleloader season.

Regards,

Ryan


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I believe in-lines should be allowed.....but you should not put a scope on it. I agree with what others have stated....If you load it from the muzzle....it is a muzzle loader and primative. But if you add a scope....not primative.

I make the comparision of the in-line to the new compound bows......You can get a bow with an 80% let off.....is that primative?? IMO NO! But I don't want to ban them from the bow season.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Chuck, I agree. In my first post I tried to get the fact across that inlines are not something new. They were out I think in the mid 1830's. The frontier people rejected them because they were to hard to repair in the field.
As for accuracy I took the North Dakota state championship in 1983 with a Thompson Center Hawken. It will still shoot as good at 100 yards as any inline. 
The truth is the inlines are no more accurate. What is letting people make 200 + yard shots is not the firearm, but the advancement in projectiles. Of course the Sabot was invented by a fellow of that name in france (no I didn't forget to capitalize) a couple hundred years ago so it isn't new either. Still the modern sabot with conical bullets is more responsible than the new inline stainless steel rifles. Although I have an inline, I am not a strong proponent, in fact currently I am interested in a flintlock. 
Anyway, in summary, I think if you load an inline with a round ball or minnie ball you are as primitive as any sidelock. Further, if you load your sidelock with the most modern projectile you are no more primitive than the most advanced inline.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Plainsman......

I agree with you 100%

If you add a scope to an in-line with a sabot....it will take average or below average shooter and make them have sucess. Which is good....but it will also make those shooters think that they can take longer shots. This is bad because they will only connect with a good kill shot about 50% or less. That equals more wounded animals.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Chuck the same can be said of rifle season, or bow season as well! No amount of laws will get a person to practice more with his or her weapon of choice. Some of us do other do not.

Speaking as someone who has used the 1x scope on muzzle loaders I do so to be more ethical! My vision makes using an open site next to impossible, even with the new HV style. I can use them with a magnifier glasses that allow me to clearly see the front and rear sites, but then the target becomes very blurred and it is a guess on where my point of aim is!

I am not in favor of any changes to our current law, and do not think that scopes of above 1x should be allowed unless it is required via a medical exemption.

This and other such lawsuits just stir the waters and will result in nothing good!!!!!!!


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ron,

I agree total with you. I don't mind people using the 1x or Holo scopes/sights. I am in favor of them. Because it is people that are in your situation. They need help lining up the front and rear sight due to glasses, bi focals, etc.

The one thing that gets me is with all shooting/hunting.....people think that if they can buy a 9X24 or what every high powered scope.....that they become automaticly good shots. Just because you can zero in on an animal does not mean you can place the shot where it needs to be. That is why the inline arguemnt does not hold water with me. yes in-lines can be more accurate....but those shooters that shoot that in-line very accurate....give them an old hawkin's and they are just as good. Because they practice.


----------



## Skip OK (Jul 16, 2006)

I was trying to make two disparate points.

The first is that, in many people's minds there is a substantial difference between a ?muzzleloading" season and a "primitive weapons" season.

The easiest way I can describe the difference is that to the "primitive" supporter, the idea is to recreate, as much as possible, the conditions exisiting at some point in history. In Pennsylvania that point appears to be the early 1800s, certainly before percussion caps and minie balls were common. You may have a different date, but unless everyone in ND agrees on one you will always have this contorversy.

The muzzleloader side tends to be more tolerant about what equipment you can use, provided some basic parameters (effective range, speed of second shot, gun fit, etc) are within established parameters. If you want to adjust those parameters if you would like; for instance you can prohibit pelletized powder, or saboted bullets. This was done in Colorado a few years back.

I can see some real advantages to using an inline. One of the big ones is that it is more likley to fit your body and shooting style than is a sidelock. And it should; the stock measurements are way closer to the typical "deer rifle" than is the typical side lock gun. Better accuracy leads to fewer wouded deer, which is a benefit.

As to the second point, about the ADA, I am not a lawyer but have seen some of what is called "reasonable accomadation". The essence of this analysis is : "would a person with a vision-limiting disability, but who would otherwise be able perform all the expected activities of this 
hunt be reasonably excluded for participation in a publlic activity simply because SOME people believe that vision-enhancing sights are somehow unaccepatable."

The response I would expect woudl be for the ADA cops to say in effect " before we penalize the state for gross violations of the ADA, we will allow the state to present evidence to PROVE that their actions provide "reasonable Accomodation" to the disabled community? Should we close the ML season for everyone. whjich would by definintion, remove the discriminatory violation of the ADA?"


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

So where do we draw the line? As plainsman has stated, twice, in-lines were invented in the early 1800's, so were these:










High quality brass tube scope, ¾" in diameter, 4X - 15mm objective lens, 3" eye relief. Fully coated optics for a sharp view. Brass screw caps on each end protects lenses. Includes unpolished, flat-bottomed brass mounts ( for octagon barrel), allows elevation adjustment at the rear with windage adjustment on front mount. Round barrels require the bottoms of the mounts to be made concave, or flat spots made on the barrel. Each mount requires (2) blind 6X48 standard American holes to be drilled and tapped into the barrel. Screws included.

They are available from Dixie gun Works.

It is 4X, but if I mounted one of these "primitive" scopes on my "primitive" sidelock percussion, or flintlock, Hawken, it would be illegal.

I have a T/C in-line that will soon be wearing a 1X Nikon. I also have a percussion sidelock T/C Hawken with open sights. By the way I took second place the same year that plainsman took first in the state ML shoot with this rifle. I enjoy shooting both of them equally.

I would have no problem with a telescopic sight on a muzzleloader all the way to 4X, but straight power, no variables. And no electronic holosights, red-dot sights etc. I don't think Jim Bridger had access to lithium batteries. 

Years ago traditionalist bow hunters preached doom and gloom if the compound bow were allowed in the archery hunting seasons. Has that come to pass? Not to my knowledge.

If something is to be limited it should be the projectiles. Black powder is black powder, it can only develope X amount of velocity with a given bullet weight. It is the sleek polymer tipped, boattail, saboted bullets that are allowing the extra range in ANY muzzleloader. Go back to primitive bullets, round balls, minnie and maxi balls, and allow the scopes for us old SOB's who can't clearly see both of the open sights any more.

I got a feeling that if any of the mountain men would have seen one of the quality optics available he would have given his eye teeth for one.

Just my :2cents: from someone who's been shooting ML's since the early 80's

huntin1


----------

