With the fight for Sunday hunting behind us, many of us thought that we might coast into deer season without more controversy. Think again. The next debate is looming, and this time it involves semi-automatic rifles for big game.

Sen. Dan Laughlin (R-Erie) has been circulating a memo announcing his intentions of introducing a bill this fall to allow the use of semi-automatic rifles for big game hunting. Pennsylvania hunting regulations currently permit the use of semi-automatic firearms for small game and fur-bearing animals, but not for big game, such as deer, elk and bears. Like the recently passed legislation permitting Sunday hunting, even a hint of legislation allowing semi-automatic rifles for big game is causing each side of the debate to voice their opinions strongly.

Before I get into the debate about whether or not semi-automatics should be permitted for taking big game, let’s address the bigger question: “Should legislators decide hunting or fishing issues?” For me, this is a strong “No.”

Pennsylvania, thanks to both the Game Commission and Fish & Boat Commission, can address such issues in a manner that is relatively free from politics. This means that legislators generally can not decide how, when, where, or for what Pennsylvania sportsmen hunt or fish due to personal bias or gain. The commission system also allows changes to be made much faster than through the legislative process.

Sunday hunting was an anomaly; the law specifically prohibited it, so legislative action was required to allow commissioners to add Sundays to the schedule. This is not the case with semi-automatic rifles. Commissioners can make such a change on their own. Now on to whether or not it should be done.

The idea of semi-automatic rifles for big game is not a new one. Several other states permit their use, and Pennsylvania has debated the issue on several occasions. Many of the arguments against their use have remained consistent, and thus far, have been successful.

≤ Concern over caliber size

≤ Concern over the number of shots a hunter may have available

≤ Concerns regarding safety

≤ Fears it would result in too many deer being harvested

≤ Fears concerning change

Most of these arguments are no longer an issue. Due to changes in technology, advances in firearms design and even activities in other states, these concerns have already been proven incorrect, or effective means of addressing these issues have been found. For example, there are multiple calibers available that are more than capable of taking big game — including many of the most popular calibers already used in other platforms. Likewise, magazines are available in multiple sizes, and hunters could easily be limited to far less than the 30 rounds many people associate with semi-automatic rifles.

Now let’s look at the positives.

≤ Easier for disabled hunters to utilize, especially when it comes to follow-up shots.

≤ A growing number of shooters already own a semi-automatic platform and could join or rejoin the ranks of hunters without any additional cost.

≤ Many platforms can be easily customized or modified to hunt multiple species rather than investing in multiple rifles.

≤ The adjustable stocks on many semi-automatic rifles allow young hunters to grow with the gun or multiple hunters to use the same platform successfully.

While I disagree with semi-automatic rifles being regulated by the legislature, I do not see a potential place for them in Pennsylvania hunting. Although it will require some debate, and it will be impossible to please everyone, it is possible to add semi-automatic rifles to Pennsylvania’s legal arsenal without compromising safety or destroying hunting traditions.