[TX_RDXguy]

That is not true. A internal rangefinder does not make an electronic device legal in Pa. A internal rangefinder is allowed in certain devices if the device itself is legal.

Exactly the point Gene. Way too little detail in what’s written to know what’s truly legal by the language used.

 

[tree-rat]

I think PA is like a controlling manipulative, parent or a micromanaging boss who’s mindset is if I don’t tell you, you can do it then you can’t do it instead of teaching you what’s right and wrong.

 

[Dirt fahmah]

The only way to truly find out if something is 100% legal in 2025, is to let Trump do it.


🤷‍♂️✌DF

 

[Driftless Hunter]

View attachment 347843

Beautiful dog . We picked up a new rescue also her name is cocoa

Cocoa looks like a beautiful sweetheart, too!

 

[Driftless Hunter]

I can't ... tell'ya how many carcasses my FLIR thermal has found for me and how many downed deer it has located while I was still in the tree! Priceless tool.

I can't argue that! Whether you have a tracking dog or not, I can see the real benefit of having thermal scope. May I ask what type you have? Is it a hand held device or mounted on a weapon?

 

[vortex nation]

View attachment 347843

Beautiful dog . We picked up a new rescue also her name is

All dogs want to be labs and all labs want to be Chocolate! Lol

 

[dpms]

Exactly the point Gene. Way too little detail in what’s written to know what’s truly legal by the language used.

Don't know. The language is pretty clear. Any electronic device is illegal unless and exception is written for it.

 

[TX_RDXguy]

Don't know. The language is pretty clear. Any electronic device is illegal unless and exception is written for it.

Agree and to the point that this language applies to All the eletronic scopes weather they are digital or glass based.

 

[dpms]

Agree and to the point that this language applies to All the eletronic scopes weather they are digital or glass based.

Yes. The Burris is legal because of its optical design all functions are rangefinder related.

 

[TX_RDXguy]

Yes. The Burris is legal because of its optical design all functions are rangefinder related.

How is that possible with no language saying it is? There’s no language that says the function of POA manipulation is allowed. Seems to follow the logic that if it’s not stated it’s not allowed.

 

[dpms]

How is that possible with no language saying it is? There’s no language that says the function of POA manipulation is allowed. Seems to follow the logic that if it’s not stated it’s not allowed.

Modern rangefinders spit out all kinds of information. Not just range. Angle, arc, range. Some show the trajectory of the arrow and can measure heights. All kinds of crazy stuff. Look at the Leupold RX Fulldraw 5 rangefinder. That rangefinder places reference marks on the trajectory based on the parameters you input into it.. Same principle applies to the shifting POA or reference mark in the reticle of the OracleX.

The "rangefinder" exception in the law does not get specific to the functions of the rangefinder.

 

[bowmanmt]

Imo opinion, Burris wouldn't be allowed.
If it has a battery in the scope , integrated or not.
Illegal.
Fish n Game wont call it grey area.
Would you win in court, after spending 100k in legal fees and expert witnesses.
Maybe. Up to the individual.

 

[dpms]

Imo opinion, Burris wouldn't be allowed.
If it has a battery in the scope , integrated or not.
Illegal.

Illuminated reticles and internal rangefinders are given exceptions. Both require batteries.

 

[robertyb]

Imo opinion, Burris wouldn't be allowed.
If it has a battery in the scope , integrated or not.
Illegal.
Fish n Game wont call it grey area.
Would you win in court, after spending 100k in legal fees and expert witnesses.
Maybe. Up to the individual.

I think you are really stretching it. $100K to defend a ticket that in GA goes to the Judge of the Probate Court of the County in which the ticket was written. In reality most folks just go in if they want to plea innocent and tell the Judge why they feel like they are innocent of the charge. Quite often the Warden who wrote the ticket will not even show up for the hearing. I know several people in FL that have had their cases dismissed when they told the Judge their story even with the Warden being present so apparently they run the wildlife cases about the same way GA does. If you are going to plea guilty you just pay the fine and don't have to go before the Judge. No one hires an expensive Attorney for a ticket that will cost less than an hours expense of an Attorneys fee.
Now if you are caught shooting from a public road out the window of your vehicle with a dead deer in the back of the vehicle or a fresh dead one laying where you just shot it and you are drinking alcohol or doing drugs and have no hunting license and on land you don't have permission to hunt anyway then you MIGHT need an attorney depending on which County you are caught in. Georgia Outdoor Magazine does an article about a few of these cases every month and rarely does anyone get fined over $2,000 and usually not even close to that and it is rare to have a vehicle or weapon actually seized and not returned. Some of the Judges hate these cases even being written up and fines are ridiculously low.

 

[abwgtx]

When was the last time a game warden inspected your crossbow? For me never. Only weapon & ammo I've ever had checked is my shotgun during waterfoul. Actually every game warden I've been in contact with all had the same thing in common. They didn't want anything to do with my weapon. Last deer lease we usually saw the warden every year. Figured we were a easy stop for his quota. He wanted us to call and tell him we were night hog hunting as not to waste his time. Now if you are having the GW called on you for a poaching violation, especially night hunting that might be different. Unless you have diarrhea running of the mouth and HAVE to ask them about your current equipment on a check & this might be like some kind of death wish calling attention to yourself. Don't poke the bear.

 

[TX_RDXguy]

Illuminated reticles and internal rangefinders are given exceptions. Both require batteries.

To Rich's point, unless it's written based on the exclusionary language, it's not legal. A rangefinder to ID distance is just that. A scope that takes that information via a connection to it and feeds it to a ballistic calculator and from that a reticle change is made would surely need to be defined to be allowed.

Lots of states needing to catch up to technology and maybe our attention to PA will get that some traction and drive more specific language. I'll hold hope that technology that improves a hunter's ability to ethically harvest game and improves the experience for the hunting community is seen that light.

 

[dpms]

To Rich's point, unless it's written based on the exclusionary language, it's not legal. A rangefinder to ID distance is just that. A scope that takes that information via a connection to it and feeds it to a ballistic calculator and from that a reticle change is made would surely need to be defined to be allowed.

Did you read post #31? Some modern rangefinder's do ballistic calculations and plot trajectories in the viewfinder. They are legal in our state. A internal processor that does that in an optical scope is legal, according to the language in our laws. The language is clear.

Bottom line no matter how some try to spin it. Rangefinders are legal and there is no specific language that says what they can and cannot do. Optical scopes are legal. A rangefinder within a scope is legal. A electronic scope that uses cameras and processors to produce and manipulate images in the viewfinder is not legal, except for furbearrs. A electronic scope that has a rangefinder in it is not legal, accept for furbearers.

I completely agree that our electronic device language is piss poor and creates all kinds of issues. Until it is, folks can make their own decisions what they want to go hunting with and let the chips fall where they may. I am simply just relaying what the actual law is.

 

[TX_RDXguy]

Did you read post #31? Some modern rangefinder's do ballistic calculations and plot trajectories in the viewfinder. They are legal in our state. A internal processor that does that in an optical scope is legal, according to the language in our laws. The language is clear.

Bottom line no matter how some try to spin it. Rangefinders are legal and there is no specific language that says what they can and cannot do. Optical scopes are legal. A rangefinder within a scope is legal. A electronic scope that uses cameras and processors to produce and manipulate images in the viewfinder is not legal, except for furbearrs. A electronic scope that has a rangefinder in it is not legal, accept for furbearers.

I completely agree that our electronic device language is piss poor and creates all kinds of issues. Until it is, folks can make their own decisions what they want to go hunting with and let the chips fall where they may. I am simply just relaying what the actual law is.

The point I'm attempting to make is the language does not define ballistic capable optics because of a rangefinder as legal. That's it. The key value point of all of the ones mentioned. Not stated as allowed by definition of PAs "inclusion" approach to law would make them illegal.

 

[dpms]

The point I'm attempting to make is the language does not define ballistic capable optics because of a rangefinder as legal. That's it.

I completely understand your point. I really do. I am just trying to explain why the Zulus is not legal and the OracleX is. My point is the only language that addresses rangefinders is that they are legal. Since internal "rangefinders" are legal, and rangefinders can calculate ballistic profiles, an optical scope that uses a rangefinder to drop the aiming point is legal.

 

[TX_RDXguy]

I completely understand your point. I really do. I am just trying to explain why the Zulus is not legal and the OracleX is. My point is the only language that addresses rangefinders is that they are legal. Since internal "rangefinders" are legal, and rangefinders can calculate ballistic profiles, an optical scope that uses a rangefinder to drop the aiming point is legal.

I understand that the PA language doesn't allow a device like the Zulus because there isn't language including it. The point I'm missing is why other "electronic" optics seem in some opinions to be included. The OracleX is totally electronic with the exception of image. How well does it work without power? It's doesn't. Same with the Zero, BDX and most other "electronic" optics.

Ya, it's a mess.