First off, I don’t like shotguns. They’re just not interesting to me. The only time I even think about grabbing a shotgun is if it’s grouse season. And even then, the shotgun is not interesting. That lack of interest contributes to how often I shoot at a grouse, versus how often I actually shoot a grouse. Now you guess as to my hit/miss average, I’m not that honest to admit it to my one or two readers.
Ok, my personal bias aside. I get a newspaper, the Minnesota edition of ‘Outdoor News’ this is referencing the June 6th, 2025 issue. In the article, ‘Key Policies Find A Way Into Bill For Environment’, it talks about how the numbskulls in St. Paul are among other things wanting to eliminate the shotgun zone for deer hunting. Sounds good right? Well the devil’s in the details.
Some back ground. Decades ago, I think in the ’60s Minnesota had nearly shot out its deer herd in the more or less southern half of the state. The southern half, is mostly flat, and mostly open corn and soy fields, with lots of deer hunters. The idea was, to save the deer, as the hunters were shooting too many, even with bucks only and handing out only one tag. The DNR wanted to make deer hunting harder, thereby, less deer shot each fall. They went to St. Paul, and got them to make the, more or less southern half of the state shotgun only for deer hunting… The idea being shorter range, less accurate, tougher to hunt, less deer shot. It worked. The deer over the next couple decades made a come back.
Somewhere along the way, the myth was created the shotgun zone was instituted for “safety”, due to higher “population density” when compared to the northern half of the state which is largely wooded, and less flat. (We hunt in the northern half with rifles, and sometimes a muzzle-loader, if we choose to hunt the later muzzle-loader season.)
For the last decade or so, deer hunters in the southern half have been pushing to eliminate the shotgun zone, and make rifles legal for deer hunting. (There’s no restrictions on rifles for any other kind of hunting, target shooting, etc in the southern half, only deer season). One reason often stated, is how hard it is to get kids into deer hunting, given the massive recoil of a slug gun. Another is, of course, the deer have rebounded, so, why limit what guns can be used? Many say, in many areas in the southern half of the state there’s too many deer, and the liberal amount of tags handed out by the DNR in much of the southern portion give credence to that argument.
Now, this is where things get dangerous. In the above referenced bill, the article, says as the bill’s currently written, the shotgun zone (southern half of Minnesota) will be eliminated… BUT, the counties in the southern half of the state will have the final say on what types of firearms can be used for deer hunting. See the danger there?
Minnesota law, from https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/471.633
It would appear to me that counties regulating the firearms that can be used for deer hunting, might be at odds with our state preemption statute.
But whether it is or isn’t, isn’t really the point… At least not for deer hunting. If St. Paul grants counties, at least in the southern half of the state the ability to regulate the types of firearms used for deer hunting, what’s next? Will some counties flat out ban ALL firearms for deer and or other hunting? What if a county says it wants to regulate firearms for other uses, such as no more rifles for coyotes? No more rifles for target shooting? No more rifles for self defense or common defense? Or maybe no shotguns? Or a ban on lead shot at trap ranges- that’s been a big topic lately in our state? Or maybe no guns at all? With the woodchuck Tampon Tim as governor and nut case Keith Ellison as Attorney General…
Like most things, this is a slippery slope. What we’re told today, give it a couple years, five years, ten years, and things can get twisted very easily. We see that all the time. Remember how gay “marriage” was supposed to be the end of it? A decade later 2/3 of our society thinks there’s more than two genders and that mutilating sexual organs, and filling both adults and children with all sorts of poisonous chemicals to mutate their bodies is “compassion”. Things get ugly, fast.
Personally, I say eliminate the shotgun only zone, and allow hunters to use any weapon they so desire to take their game. As long as hunters remain within the tag/bag limits set forth by the state DNR, then the weapon they use doesn’t matter does it?
Now, some people think using AR15’s on deer is a bad idea. I agree, but I agree due to cartridge size limitations of the weapon system, not that it’s a “scary black gun”. I think deer need a cartridge which packs more punch to be reliably killed than any that can fit in an AR15. But banning the AR15 or other rifles and cartridges from being used to hunt? No, I won’t agree to that. While I think it’s dumb, I won’t agree to banning them.
Then there’s the 2nd Amendment, which restricts the government from imposing arms regulations on the Militia, the People. So, then does that make hunting weapon laws unconstitutional? Say being forced to use “non toxic” shot for waterfowl? Being forced to use a shotgun for deer? Again, as long as hunters aren’t violating tag/bag limits, does the weapon/ammo used really matter?
One could argue it matters in some cases, particularly big game hunting, due to sportsmanship, but how to we reconcile sportsmanship with the Second Amendment? If the government cannot impose arms laws against the People, the Militia, then how can it impose arms laws for hunting?
I don’t think the government can impose arms laws for hunting, without violating the Second Amendment. And I think sportsmanship is best left to the individual to decide, not “elected” officials or DNR bureaucrats who wouldn’t know a turkey from a pigeon.
Leave a Reply