Loaded Guns To Be Allowed in National Parks

[hollowdweller]

At one time , not all that long ago, the biggest problem in our national parks was CRIME. I don't know the latest figures. In fact Mexican drug types are growing large amounts of marajuana in OUR national parks !

Yeah now that guns are legalized in parks we need to legalize cultivation and let the domestic guys run out the illegals growing it.US citizens need those "green jobs" in this time of recession:thumbup:

Seriously though if it goes into law I predict it will be like the liberalized CCW laws that have swept the country. They'll be no big wave of problems.

 

[okbohn]

It has been said a million times--but if someone is going to carry a gun and commit a crime, they don't care if it is illegal.

A change like this just gives the upstanding citizens another tool to stay safe and the criminals something to think about.

 

[mp510]

Well, i don't mean to offend but i think this is a horrible idea. why the hell would you guys be excited that a bunch of idiots (at this point I'm going to say that I am not generalizing that ONLY America has idiots, or that people with guns are idiots. iI'm just saying that there are a lot of irresponsible people in the WORLD and SOME of those people live in America and carry guns.) where was i? oh right, that a bunch of Yahoo's will be walking into your national parks armed. Then what is the purpose of a national park? i thought the whole point was for the protection of animals? As much as i don't think that anyone here at the forum would be irresponsible with a weapon in the parks i have my suspicions that this will add a new element of danger for The animals first off, and secondly the people who are trying to enjoy the park.

I wouldn't be too worried about people who are out to commit crimes against their fellow man or who want to engage in poaching (and I don't mean erroniously violating an obscure hunting regulation) are going to waste their time getting or worry about not haveing a permit. In fact, stats show that because permit holders value their permits and guns they are less likely to break the law. It's like the difference between folks who own registered NFA items (2 murders in 74 years) and da gangbangaz in da hood with da Macs.

In my state, regs prohibit carrying guns in state parks, except as specifically permitted for hunting. I wish we could have a gun with us for protection while hiking/ camping- just in case (based on personal experiences that I've elaborated on in the past). Remember, violent felonies, car accidents, etc... often happen when you aren't expecting them.

 

[fishshooter]

Well, i don't mean to offend but i think this is a horrible idea. why the hell would you guys be excited that a bunch of idiots (at this point I'm going to say that I am not generalizing that ONLY America has idiots, or that people with guns are idiots. iI'm just saying that there are a lot of irresponsible people in the WORLD and SOME of those people live in America and carry guns.) where was i? oh right, that a bunch of Yahoo's will be walking into your national parks armed. Then what is the purpose of a national park? i thought the whole point was for the protection of animals? As much as i don't think that anyone here at the forum would be irresponsible with a weapon in the parks i have my suspicions that this will add a new element of danger for The animals first off, and secondly the people who are trying to enjoy the park.

that's all i wanted to say.

I don't follow your logic. The rule allows law abiding, licensed citizens that can already carry a gun down the street or in the shopping mall, to carry in a national park. Folks with concealed carry licenses tend to follow the law, that's why they went to the trouble to get a CCW, so they could carry without breaking the law. I doubt they are going to lose their good sense just because they are in the wild. The folks that poach aren't worried about laws anyways. Shooting anything, without reason, is still going to be illegal, that's enough law. Many of these parks have remote areas, it's ultimately your responsibility to protect yourself and your loved ones, not the park rangers.

 

[texasred66]

The weapon is concealed-Nobody knows who is carrying. Keep it concealed-mind your own business-everybody is happy. The new reg is a good thing.

 

[BlackHills]

Be careful with this one guys. I think from the reading of this, that if State law restricts carry in the State Parks, then carry in that States part of the National Park still is not legal. It clearly defers to State law on this. Looking for some clarification. You can see the final policy update and some FAQ's at:

http://www.doi.gov/

A quick look at handgunlaw.us shows a LOT of states with restrictions on carry in State Parks. For instance, Great Smokey Mtns National Park spans NC and Tennessee, both of which do not allow CCW in State Parks.

From reading the FAQ on the DOI site it appears that the state law with regards to carrying in state parks doesn't matter.

Q: Why did the Department decide to reject the original “similar state lands” approach and instead adopt a more general reference to state law?

A: This change helped clarify the rule and make it easier to implement. During the public comment process, a number of entities and individuals, including the National Park Conservation Association, the State of Alaska, and employees of the FWS, suggested that the Department’s reference to “similar state lands” in the proposed regulation was ambiguous and confusing since: (1) individual States often provide for various management regimes for their parks and refuges; and (2) these differences make it difficult to determine what areas are actually “similar”. The Department agrees with this concern and has deleted this language in the final rule. The modified final language adopts the suggestion of commenters and incorporates state law in a similar manner to regulations adopted by other federal agencies regarding firearms on public lands.

Q: What if a State doesn’t want individuals to carry a concealed firearm in a park or refuge within its borders? Can it take any action?

A: Yes. States with concealed carry laws routinely impose statutory prohibitions on the lawful possession of concealed handguns in certain locations. It is possible that a state may wish to prohibit an individual from possessing a concealed weapon on federal lands within state boundaries. In the event a state enacts such a law, the Department’s final rule would respect the legislative judgment of the people of that State.

And from KXMC:

Under a rule to take effect in January, visitors will be able to carry a loaded gun into a park or wildlife refuge — but only if the person has a permit for a concealed weapon and if the state where the park or refuge is located also allows concealed firearms

The new rule goes further than a draft proposal issued last spring and would allow concealed weapons even in parks located in states that explicitly ban the carrying of guns in state parks. Some states allow concealed weapons but also ban guns from parks

“If you can carry (a gun) on Main Street, you are allowed to carry in a national park,” said Chris Paolino. a spokesman for the Interior Department.

 

[mapper66]

I certainly hope that is the correct interpretation. This paragraph reads like the underlying logic of the reg was to bring into alignment the rules governing possession in state lands and federal lands:

We also note that national park areas and wildlife refuges are often located in close proximity to state parks or wildlife management areas, National Forests, or public lands managed by the BLM. Visitors to these sites may frequently travel through a combination of federal and state lands during the course of a trip or vacation. In these circumstances, the Department believes that adopting for these federal lands the applicable state standards for the possession of firearms will promote uniformity of application and better visitor understanding and compliance with the requirements.

The "applicable state standard" for my state is: No concealed weapons in state parks.

 

[gnius]

Well, i don't mean to offend but i think this is a horrible idea. why the hell would you guys be excited that a bunch of idiots (at this point I'm going to say that I am not generalizing that ONLY America has idiots, or that people with guns are idiots. iI'm just saying that there are a lot of irresponsible people in the WORLD and SOME of those people live in America and carry guns.) where was i? oh right, that a bunch of Yahoo's will be walking into your national parks armed. Then what is the purpose of a national park? i thought the whole point was for the protection of animals? As much as i don't think that anyone here at the forum would be irresponsible with a weapon in the parks i have my suspicions that this will add a new element of danger for The animals first off, and secondly the people who are trying to enjoy the park.

that's all i wanted to say.

So let me understand your logic... if carrying a gun is illegal, then "idiots", "yahoos" and criminals won't carry any and you'll be perfectly safe. Correct? Now read it aloud to yourself, and realize how ridiculous that sounds...

People who obey the law and get a concealed carry permit... obey the law. People who are stupid or dangerous won't obey the law anyway, so restrictions mean nothing to them...

 

[BlackHills]

I certainly hope that is the correct interpretation. This paragraph reads like the underlying logic of the reg was to bring into alignment the rules governing possession in state lands and federal lands:

The "applicable state standard" for my state is: No concealed weapons in state parks.

I agree it's not as clear as it should be. From what I have read originally it was dependent on a state allowing carry in state parks but they changed that. Hopefully they'll come out with some clearer guidelines shortly.

Another one from the Washington Post:

Under a rule to take effect in January, visitors will be able to carry a loaded gun into a park or wildlife refuge _ but only if the person has a permit for a concealed weapon and if the state where the park or refuge is located also allows concealed firearms.

The new rule goes further than a draft proposal issued last spring and would allow concealed weapons even in parks located in states that explicitly ban the carrying of guns in state parks. Some states allow concealed weapons but also ban guns from parks.

 

[mapper66]

But lucky you either way:

Wyoming (from handgunlaw.us)

WMA's - YES
State\Natl Forests - YES
State Parks - YES
Road Side Rests - YES

 

[Sharp_newbie]

okay, first off i was a bit on the tired side (just getting up for work) when i wrote the post and it does sound a bit stupid. but i still think its a bad idea. after all it is a wildlife refuge and even if the people carrying the guns are law abiding citizens, i don't see the point in carrying a gun for protection (again i do hunt and I'm not against guns) there are a whack load of non-lethal animal protection items and i just don't see the point.

I can't really explain it, but i just see it as a pointless idea that is going to see alot of big animals shot for no more than happening to walk out of a clearing that so and so was hiking that day. It is scary seeing a big predator in the woods, like a bear for instance, and i just think that this will endanger the animals even more, in a habitat that we have set aside for them to live in relative peace.

just my thoughts

*then again, I'm Canadian... so what do i care

 

[attej]

Well, you are correct, there are a lot of idiots, but the majority of us who take the time and money (and hassle) to get our CCW permit are typically not of that crowd.

I agree... if someone carries a gun to do stupid things with it, he/she propably will carry one without a licence too.

By the way, it would be intresting to hear about situations in which you guys have needed a gun in the woods... Im just curious, because in the environment I live in, there's no need for one.

For example I read about this crazy norweigian dude Lars Monsen, who walked through Canada... he encountered something like 100+ bears on his trip. That kinda trip... yeah I can see the need for a firearm! But it would be great to hear about other peoples experiences... in what kinda environment and situations you have, or think that you will, need a firearm? Other than recreational use I mean.

 

[lambertiana]

I agree... if someone carries a gun to do stupid things with it, he/she propably will carry one without a licence too.

By the way, it would be intresting to hear about situations in which you guys have needed a gun in the woods... Im just curious, because in the environment I live in, there's no need for one.

For example I read about this crazy norweigian dude Lars Monsen, who walked through Canada... he encountered something like 100+ bears on his trip. That kinda trip... yeah I can see the need for a firearm! But it would be great to hear about other peoples experiences... in what kinda environment and situations you have, or think that you will, need a firearm? Other than recreational use I mean.

The only time I would carry to protect against animals is for mountain lions. The bears around here are no problem, but mountain lions are a different story. Attacks on people do happen occasionally. And there are probably many close calls that are not reported (I know someone in my town who narrowly missed becoming dinner for a mountain lion). My uncle knows someone who was attacked by a mountain lion and survived.

Go to Alaska and you may change your tune. My son in law grew up in Alaska, and it was standard policy for him to have a gun with him in case of grizzly encounter.

But the primary reason I would carry in national parks would be due to the crime problems in the crowded areas where people can drive to. Crime is a problem in the popular national parks. And the prevalance of illegal marijuana plantations in the national parks here presents a very dangerous situation for any hikers who stumble across them. It is no different from being downtown here. As my brother put it, having a firearm is like having a fire extinguisher. Do I plan on using either? No, I hope to never need either. But if I ever do need one, I will need it right now, and very badly. The courts have consistently held that the police have no legal responsibility to protect any individual person; we have to be ready to take care of ourselves. The only time in my life that I have called the police to report a crime in progress (someone trying to break into my apartment in the middle of the night) it took them 45 minutes to arrive. I will not risk the safety of my family, I have to be able to take care of them myself.

 

[attej]

The only time I would carry to protect against animals is for mountain lions. The bears around here are no problem, but mountain lions are a different story. Attacks on people do happen occasionally.

Yeah I saw a documentary about mountain lions in CA. I know they can be dangerous, even though Ive understood that - just like bear attacks - most attacks could be prevented with the right kind of precautions. But, since they are dangerous, I can understand the "fire extinguisher" thingy.

Go to Alaska and you may change your tune. My son in law grew up in Alaska, and it was standard policy for him to have a gun with him in case of grizzly encounter.

In the isolated parts of Alaska, I would definately carry a rifle.

But the primary reason I would carry in national parks would be due to the crime problems in the crowded areas where people can drive to.

That can be a problem in some parts of the world... That really sucks. I think Ive said this before in some thread, but I go to the woods to relax, and to think that I should be worried about the worst things an urban environment can offer in the woods too... damn. I love hiking alone, but if Id have to be concerned about criminals, I dunno if Id sleep that good.

Im not saying this to criticize your home-state or nothing like that, its just that even though Ive visited LA once, the idea of such hiking is pretty alien to me. I was born and raised in the Helsinki area (which in US standards is just a little village), but even that was too crowded for me

 

[ROCK6]

By the way, it would be intresting to hear about situations in which you guys have needed a gun in the woods... Im just curious, because in the environment I live in, there's no need for one... in what kinda environment and situations you have, or think that you will, need a firearm? Other than recreational use I mean.

The only predators I am leery of (in the lower 48) are mountain lions, "dogs-gone-wild" and wild pigs/boars. I've run into two mountain lions while hunting elk and bear hunting...one seemed curious the other was as spooked as I was. Just a month ago I was up at Fort Lewis, WA running an exercise for another unit and I was shocked to see how bold a wild-pack of dogs was. They were circling and howling for about 30-40 minutes...there was about a half-dozen evaluators with me. Once we got back to the field site (with generators), the pack moved on. I've been on a couple of military posts where dogs run in packs and kill deer and turkey; I don't think they would be much of a threat to an adult male, but my kids could easily be targets of opportunity. I've run into wild pigs a few times when out hiking...they are erratic and usually try to run away, but we get stories from the "range-control" guys here on Fort Hood, where a sow with little piggies are very aggressive.

I only had one occasion where I was glad to be packing with regards to two-legged predators. We were backpacking into an area of northeast, GA and late at night we heard several shots and breaking of brush. My guess is that it was poachers, but I spent the next few hours stoking the fire with my .45 close at hand. It spooked my wife and kids and my wife now carries herself every time we head out.

For me, a sidearm is like a woobie...my comfort blanket. I feel much more comfortable when I carry outdoors with my family; it's better to “have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it”. It's just another tool in my kit, kind of like your signal mirror or better yet, your pen-flare. It's used for emergencies only, and when you need it, you're mighty glad you packed it.

I know several friends, family and acquaintances that don't carry when out woods-bumming, hiking or backpacking. It's a personal choice and as others have stated there are other non-lethal options (pepper spray and even a stout walking stick are mighty effective). I respect their choice as I would expect them to respect mine. It's just good to have the option to protect you or your family without fearing the worst predator of all...lawyers

ROCK6

 

[Runs With Scissors]

People here in Alaska have been carrying guns in parks since forever. (just a bit more quietly in the National ones) Hell, for that matter we can carry concealed or open in town also. It's pretty much business as usual up here. Idiots and yahoo's don't seem to have had much of an impact. No one harassing and wounding game,murdering each other on the hiking trails, camping spots, etc.

I guess they just think it makes sense to be responsible and protect themselves...