A closer look at Otter Lake’s walleye in Wisconsin’s Chippewa County
DNR Report
April 27, 2026
Tom Venesky: Legislation allowing the use of semi-automatic rifles for big game should be shot down in Pennsylvania
In the wake of the passage of Sunday hunting legislation in Pennsylvania, the effort to legalize semi-automatic rifles for big game has resurfaced in the state, and like all of the previous legislative attempts, the current proposals deserve to be shot down.
In the House, state Rep. Charity Krupa released a memo outlining her plans to introduce semi-auto legislation. Krupa, who is a Republican from Fayette County, plans to include language limiting semi-auto rifles for big game to six rounds.
That’s six too many.
In her memo, Krupa lists six reasons why she feels the legislation makes sense. In reality, the reasons are nonsensical – simply re-hashed arguments from past legislative attempts that ultimately failed.
Krupa believes semi-auto rifles are beneficial for ethical hunting because it allows for faster follow-up shots. But as any ethical hunter knows, faster isn’t necessarily better. In fact, faster shooting can be downright dangerous.
First of all, when it comes to harvesting a deer, the main objective is to do so with a single, accurate shot that results in a quick kill. Being able to use a semi-auto rifle to hunt deer may give some hunters the belief that they can compensate for a less-than-perfect first shot by following up with more rounds as quickly as they can squeeze the trigger.
That’s not what deer hunting is about.
We need to get back to the importance of a one-shot kill. Shooting with speed diminishes accuracy and erases the true meaning of hunting in an ethical manner.
But what about the need for a follow-up shot? Won’t semi-autos help with that, as Krupa contends?
No.
MORE COVERAGE FROM PENNSYLVANIA OUTDOOR NEWS:
What causes fibromas in wildlife, and is it a concern for hunters?
Making a hunting or fishing video on public land? You may have to pay or hit pause
Top five favorite fish-catching birds in Pennsylvania
In my opinion, a manually-operated rifle offers a more accurate follow-up shot because one has to work the action and then re-focus their sight picture to take an accurate second shot.
An accurate follow-up shot is more important than a quick one.
Krupa also insinuates that denying the use of semi-auto rifles for big game goes against the rights of lawful gun owners.
I question the sincerity of those who try to tie the semi-auto rifle issue in with the Second Amendment. We’re restricted in many ways as to the types of firearms and ammunition that we can use during certain seasons.
And don’t forget just a few years ago the Pennsylvania Game Commission took away the ability for turkey hunters to use rifles in the fall season.
Where was the Second Amendment outcry then?
But Krupa isn’t the only legislator with misguided intentions regarding the semi-auto issue.
In the Senate, state Sen. Dan Laughlin also released a memo outlining his plans to introduce legislation to allow semi-auto rifles for big game.
Laughlin is eying a three-round limit, and noted that turkey and waterfowl hunters can already use semi-automatic shotguns with a three-shell limit.
That’s fine, but there’s a major difference between a semi-auto shotgun and a semi-auto high-caliber rifle.
But in his memo, Laughlin actually makes a fair point. He claims by allowing semi-auto rifles for big game, it would benefit those hunters with physical limitations that make operating a bolt or pump action difficult.
I am all in favor of measures that help hunters with physical conditions stay in the field. If allowing them to use semi-auto rifles would be a benefit – as Laughlin suggests – authorize their use under a disabled person permit.
Still, there is one other thing that is found in both Krupa and Laughlin’s memos that I find very disturbing. They both make the argument that other states allow semi-auto rifles for big game, and so should we.
Since when did Pennsylvania become a follower instead of a leader when it comes to hunting? Other states do it, so we should as well?
If there was ever a weak argument for allowing semi-auto rifles for big game, it’s the “other states” logic.
Pennsylvania is unique when it comes to hunting, and there are a lot of things allowed in other states that aren’t done here.
Here’s one example: Every other state but Pennsylvania has combined fish and game agencies. Now, do we really want to go down this road about mimicking things that other states do?
We currently allow semi-automatic firearms for turkey, waterfowl, small game and predator hunting, and that’s enough.
When it comes to semi-automatic rifles for big game, it has nothing to do with gun rights, opportunity or any of the other lackluster reasons that have been mentioned.
Allowing semi-auto rifles during deer season, for example, would raise serious ethics and safety issues, not to mention upsetting many of the non-hunters who are the majority of our population.
I don’t care what they do in other states, semi-autos for big game is a proposal that misses the target for Pennsylvania.
Share on Social
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email
- Tags: Big Game, Hunting, Pennsylvania, Whitetail
Hand-Picked For You
Wisconsin’s Outdoor Calendar
Staff Report
April 27, 2026
Nature Smart: Spring ephemerals
Stan Tekiela
April 27, 2026
Backyard and beyond: Spring rolling in!
Val Cunningham
April 27, 2026
Wisconsin Cuffs & Collars: Shed hunters have to take cover as men shoot at flock of turkeys
Outdoor News
April 27, 2026
Ask a fisheries biologist: A look at the sauger, the walleye’s less famous cousin
Max Wolter Wisconsin DNR Fish Biologist
April 27, 2026
Wisconsin’s Star Prairie sporting goods store burglarized; $10,000 reward offered for information
Staff and News Reports
April 27, 2026
Related Articles
A closer look at Otter Lake’s walleye in Wisconsin’s Chippewa County
DNR Report
April 27, 2026
The local DNR fisheries crew ran a fish survey on Chippewa County’s Otter Lake in 2023. They found the walleye
Wisconsin’s Outdoor Calendar
Staff Report
April 27, 2026
A look at upcoming outdoors-related events from across Wisconsin published in the May 1, 2026 edition of Outdoor News.
Nature Smart: Spring ephemerals
Stan Tekiela
April 27, 2026
I really enjoy this time of year but not for what you might think. Sure, there are thousands of birds
3 thoughts on “Tom Venesky: Legislation allowing the use of semi-automatic rifles for big game should be shot down in Pennsylvania”
I have been hunting, in Pennsylvania for over 65 years and the one thing that we don ‘t need is, allowing hunters to use the Semi-Automatic Rifle as presented by Krupa and Laughlin.
This will increase the chances of a hunter being killed by that same weapon. It’s not bad enough, that our Commissioners allowed a large number of Doe Licenses, to be issued, because they want to kill off the deer herd to protect the Forrest’s?
If we allow the use of a Semi-Automatic Rifles, you will see an increase of the number of hunters who shoot another hunter because they will just keep shooting until the clip is empty. At least with a clip, with a limited number of rounds, that’s all they can shoot. Almost every hunter will only take a shot if they can identify their target and they feel safe shooting and the fact that, racking the bolt takes a little bit of time and not a shot going down range.
In closing, I hope you will take this under advisement and not allow the use of semi-automatic weapons, for big game animals in Pennsylvania.
Please do not allow the use of the Semi-Automatic Rifles to hunt Big Game in Pennsylvania. We have been hunting for years with a Semi-Automatic Rifles and hunters are used to them and utilize good safety practices during the hunt.
I have been hunting, in Pennsylvania for over 65 years and the one thing that we don ‘t need is, allowing hunters to use the Semi-Automatic Rifle as presented by Krupa and Laughlin.
This will increase the chances of a hunter being killed by that same weapon. It’s not bad enough, that our Commissioners allowed a large number of Doe Licenses, to be issued, because they want to kill off the deer herd to protect the Forrest’s?
If we allow the use of a Semi-Automatic Rifles, you will see an increase of the number of hunters who shoot another hunter because they will just keep shooting until the clip is empty. At least with a clip, with a limited number of rounds, that’s all they can shoot. Almost every hunter will only take a shot if they can identify their target and they feel safe shooting and the fact that, racking the bolt takes a little bit of time and not a shot going down range.
In closing, I hope you will take this under advisement and not allow the use of semi-automatic weapons, for big game animals in Pennsylvania.
Please do not allow the use of the Semi-Automatic Rifles to hunt Big Game in Pennsylvania. We have been hunting for years with a Semi-Automatic Rifles and hunters are used to them and utilize good safety practices during the hunt.
I’ve heard all the negative senseless comments about why we shouldn’t allow semi-automatic rifles to be used in PA for hunting deer. I’ve been hunting deer for about 60 years, and I am convinced that we should allow the use of semi-automatic rifles. Not for all the reasons that have been misrepresented in the media and statements made by those who don’t use semi-automatic rifles but for those who haven’t dug into the actual use of these firearms. The idea of having a second quick shot available is only part of the reason. If you have to lift your head and take the hand off the rifle and eyes off the scope in order to cycle the action, then you are missing the point. The semi-auto allows you to keep in your firearm and stay focused on making sure you have a clean human quick harvest. In all my years I’ve witnessed a lot of lever action hunters and others who rack off wild and crazy second, third, fourth shots because they can, but they don’t have the time and accuracy to place those additional shots. The goal is to make the first accurate shot but have a quality second shot if needed. Limit the magazine to five shots if you’re concerned about someone spraying the woods with shots. I’ll go along with that. But why limit our ability to use a modern sporting rifle, a design that has been around for many decades in the likes of the Remington 7/740/742, the Browning BAR, Beretta, Benelli, Springfield Armory to name a few. Everyone seems to draw the immediate response that these are M16 style and in today’s world a lot of them are the AR15/AR10 models which are some of the most adaptable and customizable firearms ever conceived. As for the belief that allowing the use of an autoloading firearm will increase the number of hunters shot is totally incorrect. Studies have shown that there is no added risk in other states who allow the use, that incidents of hunters shot has increased with the use of autoloaders. Myth debunked! If your goal is to limit the hunter to one humane shot, then eliminate all rifles that can have more than one shot in their magazine. Mandate single shots. I have hunted with single shots many years and never felt the lack of available ammo. I make sure I have the first shot well placed. I can quickly load a second round to finish off if necessary. The arguments against autoloaders are archaic and ill conceived. Let’s drag ourselves out of the early 1900’s mentality and move into the modern-day era of hunting. I can survive very well with my current choices of firearms, but I also like the functioning and use of modern firearms. Let’s get past this mentality of no one needs a particular firearm to let’s embrace technology and modern advancements in firearm development.