Muzzleloading Association Files Suit Against 15 State Wildlife Agencies

The Outdoor Wire ^ | Aug. 4, 2006 | Jim Shepherd

[girlangler]

Actions by Advocates

The North American Muzzleloading Hunting Association has filed a civil rights complaint alleging discrimination against the fish and game departments of fifteen states that do not permit the use of "sight correcting magnification" (riflescopes) during their special muzzleloader hunting seasons.

According to the complaint, big game hunters in the United States are becoming older as a group. With that maturation, NAMHA holds, there is a natural deterioration of vision. Due to that accepted fact, it should be only reasonable that older hunters be provided the equipment to see more clearly.

In fifteen jurisdictions across the United States, however, muzzleloading hunters are prohibited from using optical sights, despite the fact that center-fire rifles, handguns and slug-loaded shotguns permit optical sights. This, NAMHA holds, is discrimination against muzzleloading hunters - discrimination that is due to age and sight deterioration- items covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

In a July 16 letter of complaint to Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne NAMHA founder Toby Bridges pointed out, "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. 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 July 27th reply from the Department of the Interior says: "We have accepted your complaint for investigation under the authority of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Section 504 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance. Title II of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in programs and activities conducted by public entities whether or not they receive Federal financial assistance. Each of the 15 Wildlife Agencies is subject to the nondiscrimination requirements of both of these Federal laws. Under separate cover, we have asked the FWS (Fish & Wildlife Service) to investigate your complaint."

Since filing the complaint, the NAMHA says it has been contacted by several of the named departments. Their reasoning for the no-scope regulations are characterized by NAMHA as "the same old rhetoric and reasoning that has been shot down and proven wrong in other states, " from a potential over-harvest of game to the temptation to take longer shots. In response, the Association says that precise shot placement is key to a quick, clean and humane harvest, not a ban on optics.

Further, the NAMHA says game departments "haven't a clue" as to how much game is lost to poor shot placement due to their open sights only requirements.

The game agencies listed in the complaint are the Alaska Department of Fish and Game; California Department of Fish and Game; Colorado Division of Wildlife; Georgia Department of Natural Resources; Idaho Department of Fish and Game; Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks; Minnesota Department of Natural Resources; Nebraska Game and Parks Commission; Nevada Department of Wildlife; North Dakota Department of Game and Fish; Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife; South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks; Utah Division of Wildlife Resources; Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

A second fledgling group, the United States Knife & Tool Association (www.USKTA.org) exists to oppose what founder Doug Ritters calls "irrational and needless restrictions on civilization's most fundamental tool."

Ritter's decision to form USKTA wasn't based on a legal action; it was the result of a "wake up call" delivered by the Wall Street Journal.

On July 25, the WSJ ran an article entitled "How Hot, Deadly Pocketknives Became a $1 Billion Business." In the article, Ritter's group says well-made knives were portrayed as "deadly" due to features including locking blades, ergonomically designed, non-slip handles and one-handed opening. That, says the USKTA, was "deliberately disingenuous " only giving credibility to other media outlets now "copying the tone, and implying the need for restrictions on ownership of pocket knives and related tools."

"Virtually every threatened sport or product in this country has an advocacy group that represents the industry and also a separate and independent advocacy group that serves the end users," says a USKTA release. "For firearms, the NSSF represents industry and the NRA represents individual gun owners. In general aviation, GAMA represents the industry and AOPA represents the owners and pilots. In recreational boating, NMMA represents the industry and BoatUS represents boat owners and operators."

Despite having an individual membership category ("Ambassadors"), the American Knife and Tool Institute, says Ritter, represents the industry, making USKTA necessary to represent the owners of knives and tools to avoid any possible impingement on the right to carry them.

On the surface, this might appear to be the case of a cure in search of an illness. Unfortunately, it isn't.

Australia and England already outlaw many types of knives. "Legal knives" in fact, may not be legal, if you lack "good reason" to be carrying one.

For more than a year, trauma physicians of the UK have been seeking a ban on "long-blade" kitchen knives. Since a large majority of emergency-room stabbings result from domestic disturbances, the physicians say banning long-blades might not minimize the violence, but could limit deep tissue and internal organ trauma, limiting the damage.

In the United States, this sort of reasoning seems laughable, but the British and Australian citizenry laughed when the ban on knives was introduced -with an equally shallow logic.

Opponents pointed out, it seemed more sensible to crackdown on criminals than to penalize the citizenry. While the reasoning may have been solid, the political preparation wasn't.

Consequently, many knives are banned and the inability to demonstrate "good reason" to carry any knife can mean serious legal consequences.

For the record, there is no overarching "need" for many Americans to carry some types of knives that are employed by tradesmen, police, fire and rescue personnel in their daily work.

Neither, however, is there any reason to remove the right.

We will keep you posted.

[girlangler]

Ping. I know Toby Bridges, he is a muzzleloading expert, a hunting guide and great guy.

[SJackson]

If you'd like to be on or off this Upper Midwest (WI, IA, MN, MI, and anyone else) list, largely rural issues, please FR mail me. And ping me is you see articles of interest.

Thanks.

The ban has always struck me as silly, though it's worth noting Wisconsin does allow 0 magnification scopes, which eliminates the vision issue. IMO more important is the effective range of modern muzzleloaders. Accuracy with iron sights at ranges over 100 yards isn't only an issue for the "elderly". Seems to me a DNR should be concerned about clean kills.

[SJackson]

BTW, the lawsuit is silly, this isn't a disability issue. Next, crossbows for all ages, not just the "elderly". I think crossbows are age 60 or 65 in WI.

[Concho]

Well he can take his plastic stocked, stainless barreled, scoped muzzleloader and hunt with it in the regular season. Keep him the hell out of my muzzleloader season.

The purpose for having a muzzleloader season in the first place was so that the oldtimers like myself could use traditional rifles and hunt with blackpowder loads in a traditional manner such as the bowhunters have. Then along comes the enlightened ones who want to turn the muzzleloading season into a city boys free for all so that they can use modern rifles converted to single shot, which loads through the muzzle using smokeless powder and copper jacketed bullets to get an unfair advantage over the people who use the season as it was originally intended.

If Bridged is such an expert, then he can get a traditional rifle and use it in the same expert manner as the rest of the blackpowder rifle experts.

I say to the hunters, support the states in question to defeat this BS.

[G-Bear]

They're wrong.

People use a muzzleloader because they enjoy the challenge. The primative sights are part of the challenge, as is the single shot.

If your eyesight has gotten to the point that you can not hit anything without using a telescopic sight, you should return to the regular firearms season, and not corrupt the muzzleloading season.

BTW, I am equally adverse to the use of those modern, inline, sabot-shooting phony "muzzleloaders" being used during the primative hunting season.

Although I do not live there, Pennsylvania has it right; traditional design firearms, and flintlock ONLY!

[Calpernia]

I added it to my forum for publicity.

[Jack Black]

Totally agree.

[Concho]

I am putting this on all the muzzleloading forums so that members across the US are aware of this and get it stomped out before it gains flame.

[mountn man]

...using smokeless powder and copper jacketed bullets to get an unfair advantage over the people who...

I don't know about you, but I hunt animals. They're the only ones I feel I have an advantage over.

[NaughtiusMaximus]

Flinters Forever! I love 'em.

Pennsy's flintlock only hunting season is a great salute to a grand tradition.

I plan to take a wild turkey this year with my handbuilt (by me) Hudson's Bay trade musket. I anticipate a peak experience.

[Dixie Pirate]

I use a (Cabela's) .50 Hawken with a measured 90 grain load of black powder (not Pyrodex pellets), shooting a round lead ball (not a hollow-point conical sabot), using factory open iron sights and can still hit a pine cone at 100 yards 2 out of 3 shots. I also have over-40 eyes.

I don't want a scope on my smoke pole. That's not what it is about. I'll reserve that for the Browning .308 on those 325+ yard shots.

[PeteB570]

Hey now;

I resemble that remark :-)

I find it hard to bring the target, front sight post and mid-barrel V notch into focus, all at the same time. Without glasses I get the V notch and front post. With glasses I get the target and the front post.

I do much better with rear peep sight rifles like my AR-15.

Much, much better with scopes.

[RicocheT]

We are over run with deer here in Wisconsin, many of which have a brain wasting disease. We take as many with our automobile front grills as we do in hunting season. I'd vote for hunting with just about anything to get the numbers down.

[Concho]

There were some original rifles that had peep sights. They also had wooden stocks, external hammers, and used black powder under patched round balls.

Putting scopes on modern rifles and calling them muzzleloaders is like the article yesterday that featured the six foot, one inch, 180 pound guy that had had a sex change operation, and wanted to compete in the womens bicycle races. Any way to cheat.

[girlangler]

I am not taking sides by posting this, simply bringing the lawsuit to your attention if you hunt in any of these states.

One poster mentioned the crossbow issue -- this past season Tennessee legalized crossbows for all, something that was very contentious at one time here. I'll be following this muzzleloading issue as well.

[PeteB570]

I have 5 muzzle loading rifles, 2 in .58 and three in .50, one of which is a flintlock . All with wood stocks and external hammers.

My father-in-law picked up a .50 cal. in line in a deal somewhere and we both kinda' looked at it and put it back in the box.

It moved on to somewhere else within a few months.

[proud_yank]

People use a muzzleloader because they enjoy the challenge. The primative sights are part of the challenge, as is the single shot.

Thats fine, and I think that it is a neat when people choose to hunt by traditional means, i.e. black powder, recurve bows, etc. However, nowhere in the article does it mention legislation being passed forcing you to use a scope on a muzzleloader, or that you can't hunt by traditional means.

I say to the hunters, support the states in question to defeat this BS.

Sounds rather liberal to me.

[Concho]

What is that in your profile about "frivolous lawsuits"?

[GMMAC]

"Sounds rather liberal to me."

While it's not an issue that interests me all that much beyond it's various philosophical conservative ramifications, I'd tend to agree with the position expressed by Concho in his post #5.

If anything here absolutely reeks of contemporary liberalism, it's demanding what amounts to effectively having one's cake & eating it too and, once this was rightly rejected, getting a bunch of slimeball lawyers involved.

To me, the proponents of this law suit sound more like a bunch of whining soccer moms than the rugged outdoorsy individualists they claim to be.