Doc

Ha-ha .... I thought it had something to do with quadrunners. So it is a 6' platform that I assume you can mount a pop-up ground blind on. Sounds kind of neat. Get a look over the brush a bit without being seen. Looks like you got a heck of a deal!

I guess it all depends on how well you like being blind-sided by a law that was written poorly or incompletely. Do you doubt for one minute that you break laws everyday because you don't understand them, they are buried in the unending text of multiple volumes of law books, or are simply left up to the interpretation of judges and lawyers. Do you really think that is fair to those of us that try to abide by the law? Have you seen the pages of confusion and misunderstanding every time we have a discussion on conservation laws here. I can't for the life of me imagine why anyone would be in favor of any confusion being purposely added to the laws that we are supposed to live under. Apparently some of you think that confusion and vagueness somehow protects you. I'm afraid that is exactly the opposite case. Remember the saying, ignorance of the law is no excuse. It kind of sets you up when the laws are written such that you have no choice but to be ignorant of them.

This last snow storm that we had produced about a foot of the heaviest, wettest, sloppy-gloppy, snow that I have ever encountered. Other than having some problems with the plow shedding the snow, the Yamaha didn't even grunt. That's with no chains, and 9 year old tires. What a beast!

That is kind of where gun control has headed. The failed attempts at logic have now been replaced by appearance and emotional visual effects. Our laws and freedoms are now dictated by how people "feel" about the way guns look. Isn't that nice and fuzzy ..... lol. Function be damned, let's create laws based on how "nasty" a gun looks. I believe that a lot of that emotional crap is gradually being accepted by a lot of gun owners as well.

Quad Pod???? What's that?

Well, we already know of one post on this forum where apparently the shooter was doing exactly that. How many other ones happen without incident? How many others result in mishaps that we no one will admit to? That's why I am saying that the law should simply be finished off with "rest of the story". Why not. There are still a lot of people who regard bows as mere "toys" and will often use them accordingly.

I don't know, that draw length sure does look a whole lot longer. It looks like he almost gets a corner of the mouth anchor out of that, which I have never seen on a horizontal version. It's hard to tell from the shot angles of this video, but there was another picture on another thread that showed a side view. Basically, it looks like it gets as much draw as a regular vertical bow.

Most likely you will see a dramatic re-distribution of gun hunters now entering bow season in large numbers, and the crossbow proponents pointing at the swelling numbers in bow season and saying, "see .... see .... look at all the hunters we have added". I am all ready to be listening to that......lol.

One thing that kind of stands out when I look at this thing is that this configuration of crossbow gets a lot longer draw length and potential deflection of the limbs than any of the horizontal versions. What that does is extend the useful power stroke of each limb, storing a lot more energy. That is another way to get more total thrust out of the same weight limbs.

The DEC firearm discharge setback law is a definition and safeguard relating to the legal way that a firearm (or bow) should be used around occupied structures. There is nothing that precludes the DEC version of setback from including prohibited items in the line of fire as well. That additional aspect of firearms usage should not be left up to interpretation or judgment or after the fact arbitration. And that is what I am proposing. Also, remember that there are other people that absolutely must understand these laws in their entirety beside LEOs and prosecutors and judges. Scattering their definitions all through several sets of law books definitely is not serving the public that must live under these laws. Particularly when it is unnecessary. Can there be additional levels of severity that might be added by NYS penal laws? .... Absolutely that sort of thing is done all the time. Perhaps the argument could be made that firearms discharge laws are not an Environmental Conservation Law issue at all, but if that is where the law winds up residing, then the law should be complete, and it is my opinion that elements in the line of fire should fall into that same law just the same as the distance from those elements.

Leaving the nails not fully nailed down is essential on trees that are still growing. Otherwise the nails will be pulled right through the sign and the backer board as the diameter of the tree increases. I've had that happen. The most durable way to only have to do this job once, is to use a plywood backer board (pressure treated plywood would be ideal). Nail the sign securely to the board with galvanized shingle nails. Never mind that the points of the nails stick out the back of the board. Then nail the sign/board assembly to mature trees along your property line with 3" or longer regular nails leaving about a 1/2" sticking out to allow for tree growth. That is the combination that has left my posted line looking like it had just been put up after all these decades.

No, I understand you perfectly well, and I too am very clear with my rebuttal. I do not like half-laws. I do not like laws that lawyers and judges and cops can twist to their liking. I do not like infractions that are defined by a half dozen other laws. I do not like laws that are not clear and complete to the governed. It really is exactly that simple.

No, it's got nothing to do with numbers. It has to do with attitudes and the fact that if you put a group of gun owners in a room an argument over something will break out inside of 15 minutes. Try to get them to work together to oust a politician, and immediately one of the leaders will stand up and throw the rest of the gun owners and their whole cause under the bus just to make himself look like the rational, mature, and reasoned one. There's something wrong with us folks. I never see any of these antis making public statements that criticize anyone in their organization or membership. Their dirty laundry never gets aired on the streets. They don't get involved in self-aggrandizing moves and public statements that make their membership sound like a bunch of hill-billys. And guess which side of the issue is making all the advances today? I've got to say that I really am not taking this Tom King stuff very well. I'm frustrated and disappointed and really not feeling very optimistic. We have it in our power to impact gun rights issues for decades to come and this is what our leadership pulls just mere months before the elections.

Well, I don't think I have ever met anyone who thought that laws should be constructed to define only parts of the infraction.....lol. Left purposely vague? Left up to the discretion of cops and judges and the imagination of whatever citizens are involved? You believe that statutes should be purposely written in an obtuse fashion with the actual definition left up to a compilation of several obscure laws? Well, I'll just have to totally disagree with that assessment of how our laws should be written. None of it really makes a bit of sense to me. My thoughts are that keeping laws purposely vague is why we break laws every day without ever realizing it. It is also a reason why court time is cluttered sorting out situations that never would have occurred had the law been written in an understandable, complete, and all-inclusive fashion in the first place. If you think that is a good idea, then I will just respectfully disagree with that opinion.

Isn't this all so typical of gun owners and hunters. We never seem to be able to stay glued together long enough to get anything accomplished before somebody needs to have the spotlight by making some outlandish statements and proposals. That's what fills me with frustration and pessimism. Logically, there is no reason why even a minority group of people can't influence elections if they are dedicated and passionate about one particular issue. I mean, we are not really all that small a block of voters when you consider that there are also many other groups that dislike Cuomo for their own reasons. It used to be that politicians would pay great attention to any large block of voters. Now they have learned that other organizations may pose a real threat in elections, but the gun lobby is being exposed as a paper tiger that can never hold themselves together long enough to get the job done.

I don't expect to see that much effect in the first year or two. After all it took almost 30 years in Ohio before the crossbow usage and harvest overtook the regular bows. So I think (I hope) we have a few years before the growth in bowhunting hunter density gets to be obvious.

There are those that would consider the couple bales of hay that I mentioned to be the backstop and not the neighbors house, or kids, or dogs, etc., etc. You see .... again opinion, subjectivity, and why? And why should I have to glue together two or three laws to get at what is trying to be prohibited. Why not write it into the setback law as to exactly what is to be prohibited in the direction of aim? At least say something about it. I'm not suggesting anything about time wasting and law enforcement. I'm talking about legal language that might help prevent the situation in the first place. We currently have a thread about exactly what I am talking about. A house was hit by an archer target practicing so we know it happens. I am sure he thought he was adequately backstopped, but obviously he wasn't. I am simply suggesting that language finally be included that spells out the infraction as exactly as possible, rather than requiring a lawyer to interpret it all from a book full of other laws. Seems kind of reasonable to me.

I agree. I think styles of hunting and conditions where you hunt do form hunter opinions on the crossbow issue. Those that are not impacted because of styles and conditions of bow hunting, and those that have total control of hunter density on their posted or leased lands or those of friends and families that are similarly locked up also have no concerns about what goes on outside of their controlled situations. But there are many of us that do rely on scouting and learning patterns and other tactics that require a fairly unmolested herd that stay true to those daylight feeding and bedding patterns. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to picture what sudden spikes in hunter densities does to a method of bowhunting used for decades by most bowhunters. Anyway, I keep hearing that question asked as to how the addition of crossbows could ever impact my bowhunting, and I just thought it was about time someone actually explained that. Yes it was lengthy, but there was no other way to answer that question such that it could be understood by anyone who seriously wanted an answer.

I can tell you that that exact set-up (manufacturer, color and all) is what I bought more than 30 years ago. The yellow has darkened very slightly, but other than that they look exactly the same as when I bought them. They'll certainly last as long as I do so it is probably a purchase that will be a great buy for you. I have a rather nasty border. The back line is at the bottom of a 200' deep ravine with very steep rock walls. It makes this posting job something you only want to do once. You won't regret going with metal. Back it up with a good board and it will be the last time you have to worry about posting.

Imagine how safe Westchester is now that they have disarmed all the criminals ..... ha-ha. I had an old 20 gauge that I would have gladly handed in for $25. Of course the barrel was a little more suited for shooting around corners.

$1000 for an super-ugly pump action rifle? I think we really do need a better way to get back at Cuomo .... lol.

One thing we all know for sure is that people do stupid things. That is the reason we write laws in the first place. So why we would write "half of a law", I can't really imagine. But that is exactly what our shooting set-back laws are.

Nice argument against the article, and peripheral things around the article, but none of that really is an argument against the content.

I think he honestly believes what he is saying. He's just wrong and should be told so. If he's not willing to get with doing what he is supposed to be doing, maybe it's time for him to be replaced.

That was my point. The entire nature of a bowhunt will be impacted. How badly remains to be seen, but I am thinking it will be significant in a lot of different places. But like you said, you either learn to go with the flow or get pushed out. Unfortunately, for a lot of different reasons not too many people understand or appreciate how the quality of the hunt could possibly matter so much.