Culvercreek hunt club

So a crossbow is a firearm?

So even though they made it legal for turkey hunting they didn't mean it? I'm just busting. I get it. My issue with the whole thing is how the laws are written and how hey leave it up to some DEC employees that have less than perfect grasp of the regulations they are charged to enforce. I have had personal encounter with a few and am actually related to one that has no business doing it for game laws. Wouldn't know the difference between a fisher and a raccoon.

so if joe hunter goes in with a crossbow today and sets up in a blind with no decoy or calls then is should be presumed he is really out there trying to poach deer?

That isn't what it says. Should but doesn't

unless you really are walking in to turkey hunt with it.

I do know guys that do it in the spring. There are some on the site that live to turkey hint and barely hunt deer at all. With some of the comments I've seen here I guess you would have to tell me what style boots you were wearing so we can determine if the law is broken.

And that is THE difference.

Why? do you carry calls and a turkey vest when hunting small game? Personally I have hunting clothes that vary based on weather and not the game I am pursuing. So I would be in my deer hunting clothes for small game and turkey

I still think you are wrong. the logic of it being in ML privilege making it is a firearm is flawed. look at penal law and ENV law. the crossbow doe NOT meet the current definition of any firearm

I don't believe I was wrong. Several post keep rewording the regs and interchange firearm with weapon. IT doe not say weapon;

It is unlawful to: Take big game while the deer or bear is in water. Possess a firearm of any description when bowhunting or when accompanying a person bowhunting during special archery seasons. Is it a Firearm?

You know what I find a bit funny. It seems like the guys that are really pushing hard on this thread to consider the crossbow as a firearm to satisfy the way the current regs are written are pretty much the against full inclusion as well.

And you would be OK with that? I wouldn't. Sorry but the burden of PROOF is still on them.

that is the issue.

Grow, I get it. Like I said it would be legal to go out with the crossbow and if someone wanted to be a poacher they could just shoot the deer and go get their vertical bow. You'd have to be a nut to carry both...lol. JK

If one of us walked into the woods today with a vertical bow there would be no questions (legal for small game, turkey and deer). If we walked into the woods today with a crossbow there would be no questions (legal for turkey and small game). both legal implements for respective open seasons. Now they are saying if you were to walk in with both in hand it would be a violation. I agree that once you put an broadhead into ta deer you are opening yourself up to a host of possibilities but I can't see how the the act of possession would result in a ticket.

You are reading it as you see fit. A crossbow is not a firearm by any legal definition in NY

I really really get where you guys are coming from, I do. I can also see and understand the the responses you got. I just have an issue with the arbitrary nature of it and how it is assumed hunters are up to no good as a default. If one of us walked into the woods today with a vertical bow there would be no questions (legal for small game, turkey and deer). If we walked into the woods today with a crossbow there would be no questions (legal for turkey and small game). both legal implements for respective open seasons. Now they are saying if you were to walk in with both in hand it would be a violation.

Here is the problem with that though. By their legal definition of what a Muzzleloader is does not encompass a crossbow. Having to purchase the license does not change the legal definition of the weapon. Just as they did for their revised setback requirements. firearm 500 crossbow 250 and bow 150. the Muzzleloader would be 500. Because by the legal definition it IS a firearm. In typical fashion they botched it all up.

Yeah, They are formally posting an interpretation and they must be seeing that as an "aircraft" because the law only says aircraft.

Do you know the section of ENV law that they modified? I can't see it in the actual law. If they did it's a perfect example of being important enough to make an immediate change.

They specifically call out no firearm during bow season. The CCW permit allows you to carry unless it is excluded bu other regulations. (Like into a government building or school...or with a bow during bow season. That said I know of a lot of folks that do it. quite a few on here from previous threads.

It may not hold water but two different DEC officers, a clerk at the local 7-11 store and a priest told me that they all interpret the law that you are fine as long as....... when you are going into the woods you walk backwards so it appears like you are walking out. They referenced some Jay walking section of the law. Now I am not certain in this but I did stay at a holiday inn express last night.

No. What I am saying is in Order for there to be a violation there must be a regulation or law broken. The opinion of an officer isn't a basis for that. Citing a section that is being violated is. It really isn't a difficult concept. I imagine that this dilemma will go away after inclusion but NY is famous for closing the barn door after the horse is put. Use of aircraft is clear in the regulations but what have they done about drones? I am sure there is some officer that has feeling and opinions on that one too but there isn't a regulation for that. I really do t care one way or another in This scenario. My issue lies in enforcement by opinion. If it is important enough that you want to arrest someone for it then it should be important enough to have it spelled out clearly.

And as soon as there is full inclusion it won't be an issue. Since hey know it's coming there won't be a regulation written either