[JRDNORTAX]

It’s the entirety of § 141.18. Permitted devices.

I’m not sure why you felt the need to use quotes, as the list is in fact, very specific. If an item is not included in that list, it’s not allowed. Note that that list doesn’t allow for otherwise prohibited items if the prohibited feature is turned off, which is what utilization of a delete cap does. If turning off a feature would render an otherwise disallowed device allowable, that would be addressed in the law. Unfortunately, it isn’t.

The entirety of § 141.18. Permitted devices does not list any specific devices by name. If you know of a specific list that does , where can it be found?

The "delete cap" for the Zulus doesn't just turn off the IR feature, it completely eliminates it and removes the IR capability entirely. Your thoughts are a perfect example of not clearly understanding how a given device functions and why it is important for those deciding on permitted devices to completely understand them.

Yes you could put it back on, but that is no different than putting a nite vision or thermal scope adapter on a regular scope. By your logic, that could make regular scopes illegal since they can have that capability added ............. Those same regular scopes are perfectlly fine. They only become illegal if and when a NV or thermal scope adapter is added to them. It should be no different for a Zulus, permitted with out the IR function and illegal whith the IR function (except for furbearers in PA). I'm not in PA, so it doesn't directly affect me, but I have a severe dislike for bad, arbitrary or ambiguous laws and rules.

With the IR feature removed (not just turned off), a Zulus is functionally no different than a Burris Oracle X or the Garmin Xero and other similar ranging scopes.

 

[BigLouie]

The "delete cap" doesn't just turn off the IR feature, it eliminates it and removes the IR capability entirely. Your thoughts are a perfect example of not clearly understanding how a given device functions and why it is important for those deciding on permitted devices to completely understand them.

I know exactly how it functions. And it is in fact a method of “turning it off.”

The point, that you seem to be missing, is that temporarily disabling a feature (whether by turning a on/off switch or by use of a deleted cap) doesn’t move the device to one of the listed exceptions.

Yes you could put it back on, but that is no different than putting a nite vision or thermal scope adapter on a regular scope. By your logic, that could make regular scopes illegal since they can have that capability added .............

Surely you see the difference between turning an existing feature off and on, versus adding an external device to a scope, don’t you?

With the IR feature removed (not just turned off), a Zulus is functionally no different than a Burris Oracle X or the Garmin Xero and other similar ranging scopes..

The Zulus uses a digital sensor to display an image on a screen. Is it your contention that an Oracle X operates the same (is functionally no different)?
.

 

[BigLouie]

The entirety of § 141.18. Permitted devices does not list any specific devices by name. If you know of a specific list that does , where can it be found?

I know of no list with specific devices by name. But that’s not particularly relevant. The legislators that wrote the law chose instead to include descriptions of permitted devices. And Zulus with an IR cap doesn’t meet any of the listed descriptions of permitted devices.

 

[TX_RDXguy]

@TX_RDXguy, do you plan on hunting PA sometime soon? I'm just trying to sort thru my head why someone from Texas is so concerned with what a PA resident can or can't use.

This thread has turned into 2 guys arguing over their own beliefs. One lives in the state and has a horse in the race, the other? 🤷‍♂️

Here's an idea, use what you want and are ethically comfortable with. If for some reason you get caught and they aren't legal that's on you. I have decided that legal or not I will never own a Zulus scope. Regardless of how great of a scope they are I feel like they are being jammed down my throat and it has left a bad taste in my mouth.

I posted this video because I asked Rich to research the law from a lawyer and a prosecutor's perspective since he has been in both positions. He put in hours of research and had discussions with local wardens to come up with his assessment. PA hunters can do with the info what they want or ignore it for all I care.

This will be the last post I make regarding the Zulus unless someone spouts off about it on a thread I make about the Burris or Certis if that ever comes out. As far as I'm concerned this thread can be shut down.

No, no plans currently to hunt PA. My interest in the conversation falls to the general discussion surrounding these new electro optics and state regs. I’m a longtime user and fan of the technologies that can improve efficiency and add new experience capabilities, in particular, the value of video.

 

[dpms]

Would it meet PA permissions if the IR function was disabled by a delete cap? There would then be no beam emitted. With the IR deleted, the scope functions the same way as the Oracle X but with a digital screen instead of glass providing the magnification. Both use existing ambient light, both provide a (permtted) rangefinding function, both provide an electronic aiming point. It seems that the Oracle X is a permitted device (no actual devices are specifically named as being permitted) and if so, why should an IR deleted Zulus be treated any differently? PA game commission may be seeing the IR capability , but not realize that that function can be disabled and deleted.

The glaring difference is the Zulus provides an electronic image in the scope. That is where it runs afoul of our laws and regs when it comes to electronic devices.

 

[hunterdan2002]

But yet everyone I've seen that has called the offices to find out their legality, has all been given the same answer, that as long as it doesn't emit a visible beam of light, it's fine. We're not talking thermal. And we've expressly said that they are digital optics, not glass and have gotten the same consistent answer. I fall back to the rangefinder. It wasn't "legal" until 2016 or so. But how many guys were using them in the field before then? How many guys were ticketed for using it? Sure, you violate they laws, I'm sure they'll find every possible infraction they can charge you with.
I've gotten the answers I've needed to make my mind in which optics I plan to use. I have my choice between them. This isn't just a Zulus issue, there's a number of similar optics out there that are similar. Bukops cycloptic x, omega, pard, etc.
What makes it any different than using an adapter to mount your phone to the eye piece and using your phone as the viewfinder in the scope? Would that be legal? You're not physically looking through the scope, and the camera can do the same thing as the electronic scopes.
Point is, we're all big boys and girls and if you have a question about it, call your game commission office and ask them and make up you're own mind from there.

 

[JRDNORTAX]

I know exactly how it functions. And it is in fact a method of “turning it off.”

The point, that you seem to be missing, is that temporarily disabling a feature (whether by turning a on/off switch or by use of a deleted cap) doesn’t move the device to one of the listed exceptions.



Surely you see the difference between turning an existing feature off and on, versus adding an external device to a scope, don’t you?



The Zulus uses a digital sensor to display an image on a screen. Is it your contention that an Oracle X operates the same (is functionally no different)?
.

The delete cap entirely removes the IR capability, not simply disable it. The entire IR device is removed from the scope to install the delete cap.

Functionally there is zero difference between removing an external device from a scope and removing the IR assembly from a Zulus. So no, I don't see a difference, as there isn't one.

All internal ranging scopes use a digital sensor to determine range and establish a suitable aiming point.
While the Zulus uses a digital screen to both display ranging and viewing and the Oracle uses a digital ranging reticle with optical viewing, FUNCTIONALLY they are no different. Both provide ranging capability and aiming points assisted by a ballistic profile specific to the crossbow being used. As do all internally ranging scopes.

The glaring difference is the Zulus provides an electronic image in the scope. That is where it runs afoul of our laws and regs when it comes to electronic devices.

The glaring difference is the Zulus provides an electronic image in the scope. That is where it runs afoul of our laws and regs when it comes to electronic devices.

Given that other electronic devices are permitted, how does the fact that the Zulus uses an electronic digital image give it any significant advantage over excellent optical glass scopes? If there is no significant advantage, then there should be no reason that it should not be permitted when IR deleted.

 

[BigLouie]

The delete cap entirely removes the IR capability, not simply disable it. The entire IR device is removed from the scope to install the delete cap.

Functionally there is zero difference between removing an external device from a scope and removing the IR assembly from a Zulus. So no, I don't see a difference, as there isn't one.

All internal ranging scopes use a digital sensor to determine range and establish a suitable aiming point.
While the Zulus uses a digital screen to both display ranging and viewing and the Oracle uses a digital ranging reticle with optical viewing, FUNCTIONALLY they are no different. Both provide ranging capability and aiming points assisted by a ballistic profile specific to the crossbow being used. As do all internally ranging scopes.



Given that other electronic devices are permitted, how does the fact that the Zulus uses an electronic digital image give it any significant advantage over excellent optical glass scopes? If there is no significant advantage, then there should be no reason that it should not be permitted when IR deleted.

You’re still not getting it. Even with the delete cap, the Zulus uses a sensor to create a digital image. It’s still an “electronic device” under PA law. As an electronic device, it is illegal to use if it doesn’t fall into one of the listed exceptions in section 141.18. And it clearly doesn’t fall under one of the exceptions, as no exception allows for a scope that creates a digital image.

Your point about “significant advantage” is irrelevant, as that’s not a listed criteria for inclusion under one of the listed exceptions.

It’s really quite surprising that you’re still arguing this. . .

 

[dpms]

But yet everyone I've seen that has called the offices to find out their legality, has all been given the same answer, that as long as it doesn't emit a visible beam of light, it's fine.

Not everyone.

 

[JRDNORTAX]

You’re still not getting it. Even with the delete cap, the Zulus uses a sensor to create a digital image. It’s still an “electronic device” under PA law. As an electronic device, it is illegal to use if it doesn’t fall into one of the listed exceptions in section 141.18. And it clearly doesn’t fall under one of the exceptions, as no exception allows for a scope that creates a digital image.

Your point about “significant advantage” is irrelevant, as that’s not a listed criteria for inclusion under one of the listed exceptions.

It’s really quite surprising that you’re still arguing this. . .

Actually it's really quite surprising that you are so adamant that it is not/should not permitted.

Yes the law does not allow electronic devices as stated in SS141.6

BUT the following devices are permitted, as per 141.18 (6) "Electronic rangefinders, including hand-held devices and those contained within a scope or archery sight. " That is exactly what the DNT Zulus scopes are, an electronic rangefinding scope.

141.18 (6) goes on to "clarify" that "This authorization may not be construed to permit a device that emits a light beam, infrared beam, ultraviolet light beam, radio beam, thermal beam, ultrasonic beam, particle beam or other beam that is visible outside of the device or on the target. "

Does it emit a light beam? No,
Does it emit an infrared beam? No, not with the IR assembly completely removed as is the purpose of the delete cap, it totally removes any IR capability, and is not "just turning it off".

Does it emit a UV light beam? No
Does it emit a radio beam? No
Does it emit a radio beam? No
Does it emit a thermal beam? No
Does it emit an ultrasonic beam? No
Does it emit a particle beam? No
Does it emit any other beam that is visible outside the device or on the target? No

So it IS an electronic rangefinder contained within a scope or archery sight (which is specifically permitted), and it does NOT (again with the IR function deleted) have any of the disqualifications listed in the specific section that allows the listed devices (electronic rangefinders)

You can argue that the internal viewing screen should disqualify it, but it can also be argued that the internal viewfinder is a functional part of the rangefinder function (which it is), and as such is part of a permitted device.

In the end it is not you or I that make the decision, but the staff at the PA Game Commission. I would just hope that they fully understand the devices and that they consider functionality and not just component parts

 

[One eyed archer]

Man I really tried not to comment on this again lol. Bunjies video explains it all. Watch it if you haven't. He didn't make the video just because...he researched it heavily and talked to Game Commision officials.

 

[bowmanmt]

Again, if your in doubt, ask the DNR to email you their take on it.
Print it out like i did in NB Canada.
I had a DNR official come into our camp. He didn't say a word about the scope, and back then it was the huge ATN 4k.
But it sure felt good knowing i had that printout just in case

 

[BigLouie]

Actually it's really quite surprising that you are so adamant that it is not/should not permitted.

Yes the law does not allow electronic devices as stated in SS141.6

BUT the following devices are permitted, as per 141.18 (6) "Electronic rangefinders, including hand-held devices and those contained within a scope or archery sight. " That is exactly what the DNT Zulus scopes are, an electronic rangefinding scope.

141.18 (6) goes on to "clarify" that "This authorization may not be construed to permit a device that emits a light beam, infrared beam, ultraviolet light beam, radio beam, thermal beam, ultrasonic beam, particle beam or other beam that is visible outside of the device or on the target. "

Does it emit a light beam? No,
Does it emit an infrared beam? No, not with the IR assembly completely removed as is the purpose of the delete cap, it totally removes any IR capability, and is not "just turning it off".

Does it emit a UV light beam? No
Does it emit a radio beam? No
Does it emit a radio beam? No
Does it emit a thermal beam? No
Does it emit an ultrasonic beam? No
Does it emit a particle beam? No
Does it emit any other beam that is visible outside the device or on the target? No

So it IS an electronic rangefinder contained within a scope or archery sight (which is specifically permitted), and it does NOT (again with the IR function deleted) have any of the disqualifications listed in the specific section that allows the listed devices (electronic rangefinders)

You can argue that the internal viewing screen should disqualify it, but it can also be argued that the internal viewfinder is a functional part of the rangefinder function (which it is), and as such is part of a permitted device.

In the end it is not you or I that make the decision, but the staff at the PA Game Commission. I would just hope that they fully understand the devices and that they consider functionality and not just component parts

The plain language meaning of the law is actually very clear, notwithstanding your protestations to the contrary. At this point, it’s getting hard to determine if you’re just trolling, or if you actually believe the twisted logic that you’re presenting.

There is no exception to the basic rule that allows for an electronic, digital display of the target image. An electronic display of the measured range is permitted, as that’s how electronic rangefinders built into scopes work, and that is specifically allowed. But there is no exception for an electronic, digital display of the target image.

 

[Dirt fahmah]

Man I really tried not to comment on this again lol. Bunjies video explains it all. Watch it if you haven't. He didn't make the video just because...he researched it heavily and talked to Game Commision officials.

Well Jim. There's only one way to settle this once and for all. We must find someone who has gone to law school and has practiced law for years.🤔 It would help if the person lived in PA and was familiar with the inner workings of the PA legal system.🧐 It also wouldn't hurt if the guy was a hunter, and familiar with this type of equipment!

Good luck finding someone with that resume brother! Maybe ask Rich if he knows anyone that fits this description?

😆 ✌ DF

 

[JOE PA]

Well Jim. There's only one way to settle this once and for all. We must find someone who has gone to law school and has practiced law for years.🤔 It would help if the person lived in PA and was familiar with the inner workings of the PA legal system.🧐 It also wouldn't hurt if the guy was a hunter, and familiar with this type of equipment!

Good luck finding someone with that resume brother! Maybe ask Rich if he knows anyone that fits this description?

😆 ✌ DF

Doesn’t matter what someone like that would say, out of state “experts” will still argue about it.

 

[Norski]

I offered earlier. Give me the scope and make a technical person available, at least by phone. I'll make a personal appt with PGC and demo the unit. I'd ask PGC for a written opinion and post it. Otherwise, we'll have to let

out of state “experts”

argue the cause.

I have to wonder if the PGC isn't laughing the butts off...

 

[robertyb]

I sort of doubt they are laughing about it seeing how all but 1 of them said it would be legal to use. 4 or 5 said yes and 1 said no.
It will take a court case to settle it I suspect.

 

[One eyed archer]

Well Jim. There's only one way to settle this once and for all. We must find someone who has gone to law school and has practiced law for years.🤔 It would help if the person lived in PA and was familiar with the inner workings of the PA legal system.🧐 It also wouldn't hurt if the guy was a hunter, and familiar with this type of equipment!

Good luck finding someone with that resume brother! Maybe ask Rich if he knows anyone that fits this description?

😆 ✌ DF

🤣🤣🤣