Fish and Wildlife explains S.231 amendments to address powerful air weapons and enforcement issues

Justin Stedman, identified in the meeting as “director of the ward of service,” and department staff described proposed language for S.231 aimed at bringing air‑powered weapons into statute where existing language did not capture them.

Stedman told the committee the department intended the change to cover “air rifles of various types” that are “incredibly lethal, incredibly capable, tremendous range,” and that current statutes do not clearly address those implements. He said the department’s approach was to use a term such as “projectile” so the law would capture bullets, bolts (short crossbow arrows), and similar missiles without needing frequent statutory updates.

Committee members and staff discussed narrowness versus breadth. An earlier draft’s phrasing (“any other implement”) had drawn objection in the House as too broad; department witnesses said they aimed to avoid unintentionally capturing handguns or paintball markers while still covering high‑power air weapons that function like firearms. The department provided technical context: unlike centerfire or rimfire firearms, many air weapons use compressed air instead of an explosive propellant and can be much quieter; some designs fire bolts that resemble crossbow arrows.

Senator Ruth Hardy asked about hunting rules and whether ammunition rules exist for different game. Department staff replied that the state has some projectile‑type requirements tied to certain game (for example, archery head size for turkey or moose) but not universal caliber restrictions for rifles across all species. The department reiterated that certain air implements pose animal‑welfare and public‑safety concerns and that draft language aims to capture the dangerous, modern products now on the market.

Officials also discussed enforcement and safety risks when such weapons are carried loaded in vehicles. The department said it can provide the committee with the number of charges filed under the statute that currently prohibits shooting from the road or from a vehicle but that parsing out the subset explicitly involving air weapons would be difficult from existing records. The department recommended the committee adopt a revised line that would reference “projectile” or similar language to achieve the intended scope while avoiding an overly broad catchall.

The department also proposed other technical updates in S.231: aligning penalties, clarifying municipal ticketing authority for water resource violations, and conforming migratory/bird protections to federal treaty obligations. Committee discussion did not result in a recorded vote on the item during the session excerpt.