PDA

View Full Version : Poll: Guns & National Parks



dropkick
2008-02-14, 00:59
There is a bill going through Congress that will give back the right to carry in National Parks. It would also make one uniform law for guns on federal lands.

Supporters of this bill say that hikers need this right (if only for peace of mind) and that the current rules infringe on the rights of law abiding gun owners who wish to transport and carry their weapons on or across these lands.

Critics say poaching and vandalism would increase if this was allowed, and that as only 2 people have been killed in national parks by animals in the last 5 years people don't need to carry. They also argue that foreign hikers might be scared if they see U.S. hikers carrying.

The anti-gun people are trying to get this bill tabled, and may succeed.

What do you think?

dropkick
2008-02-14, 01:18
I'm for having the right to carry.
.....If you know me from my previous posts or you caught the tone in which I wrote the first post this probably doesn't surprise you.

-You'll notice that the critics (which I pretty much quoted) didn't say how many people had been attacked but not killed by wild animals in the parks. Nor did they mention how many had been attacked or robbed by other people.

I would bet that if this bill passes that number drops immediately.

fin24000
2008-02-14, 03:16
I think it could help in some areas..... around here where I live the only thing to worry about is hogs and thats not a big deal.... while one issue could be giving a bunch of townies the right to carry and them shooting at anything that scares them even if it was no threat....

GGS
2008-02-14, 03:27
I choose not to carry myself but I support the right to carry (bear arms) as a fundamental American right.

You wouldn't happen to know of any web pages all set up to carry this message to one's congressman, would you?

Mutinousdoug
2008-02-14, 13:16
I think most Western states permit firearms in one's car for protection. (Concealed without a permit? Not so much). So I suspect many NP visitors are carrying in violation of NP regs anyway. This proposal merely legitimizes that practice. My own feeling is that it is irresponsible to leave a firearm in a car anywhere for any length of time especially at a trail head or remote parking lot where break-ins are a potential.
Poaching in and around Yellowstone is already occurring as I understand it so I don't expect this to increase just because visitors are allowed to carry in the park. It will still unlawful to discharge a firearm in the NPs so yahoos would still be charged for "disturbing the peace" when they go shooting up the place.
Boo Hoo on the foreign visitors that are frightened by the sight of civilians carrying. It will give them something to talk about when they go back home to whatever rat-hole of a country they came from.

john pickett
2008-02-14, 15:01
DK,
Did the critics happen to notice the death of the young woman hiking in N Ga?
I would like to think a firearm ( carried openly or not ) might have given her the chance to survive that two-legged predator.
Good luck, and remember to Make your own good luck (hint).
John Pickett

Slipknot
2008-02-14, 16:06
Hey ya'al,
New poster here so I'll keep it short.
Back in the "day" there wouldn't have been a question about it. Everyone carried!!!

sailingsoul
2008-02-14, 19:18
I say lets have Federal issued carry permits and carry on. SS:captain:

Nearly Normal
2008-02-15, 04:52
Why would I want the Federal Government to know I have a gun or not.

UK_Ian
2008-02-15, 07:31
Being unable to carry or own a firearm in the UK I find it hard to understand the need to 'carry' (not that we dont need to now-a-days).

I know that if some of the individuals that I lead were permitted to 'carry' they would only loose it. :hmmmm2:

I think it may get intimidating to see trail-mates with M16 over their shoulders rather than a camera but a concelled side arm may be appropriate.

Myself I feel quite safe with my swiss army knife, umberella and copy of The Times.

oops56
2008-02-15, 09:40
What do you use the times for swat flys:afraid: :afraid:

jimtanker
2008-02-15, 09:49
UK Ian - Its not about the NEED to carry. Its about the RIGHT to carry.

A nice titanium .357 Magnum revolver in a fanny pack on the front of you goes a long ways.

oops56
2008-02-15, 10:05
How can it be a fanny pack when its in front ??

oldgrunt
2008-02-15, 11:31
As I grow older I fine myself degressing to primitive man.

I always keep my eye out for the time tested weapons of choice
a BFS or BFR, very cost effective.

Iceman
2008-02-15, 13:53
Attention to those who have not figured it out yet;

Every single gun law created which limits or regulates does nothing but create more lawbreakers. Do you think that a criminal who likes to carry a weapon could care less about the law already? So, as it stands now, criminals carry guns on the national parks. Good guys, who decide they want to protect themselves are forced into a precarious position, one where they must decide to break the law for self protection, or to go into the area unarmed. So who is the law against carrying in the National park affecting now? Hmmmm? It affects the good guys, not the bad guys. It causes you to consider and to occasionally break the law. Personally, I do not want to break any laws. But, I consider my right to carry-fundamental. I consider the regulation of where I carry to take away something I already had the right to do.

Remember, guns do not kill people, people (I) kill people.

Mutinousdoug
2008-02-15, 13:55
Being unable to carry or own a firearm in the UK I find it hard to understand the need to 'carry' (not that we dont need to now-a-days).

I know that if some of the individuals that I lead were permitted to 'carry' they would only loose it. :hmmmm2:

I think it may get intimidating to see trail-mates with M16 over their shoulders rather than a camera but a concelled side arm may be appropriate.

Myself I feel quite safe with my swiss army knife, umberella and copy of The Times.

Ian,
I guarantee that you would cause a stir if your platoon of Brits were seen tramping around California, all wearing fatigues and carrying M16s.
ON the other hand, out here in the countryside, it's more common to see a rifle rack in a pick-up truck than one without. It's kind of hard to stay intimidated once you realize it's the norm.

oldgrunt
2008-02-15, 17:32
If ban guns, then they will use knifes, if you ban knifes, they will use BFRs, you ban BFRs, they will use BFSs,

when you ban man, the killing will stop.

GGS2
2008-02-15, 21:00
Yup, BFRs and BFSs will kill real good, if hefted with enough force. Or you can drop them. Dropping works well, too. You'd think the bad guys would catch on? I guess it's about the rush. Who gets a rush from toting a BFR?

CaSteve
2008-02-15, 23:21
Right to carry: yes
Need to carry: probably not

The thought of bullets flying around National Parks as I'm hiking down the trail is a bit disconcerting. I trust myself with a gun, but not others.

Mutinousdoug
2008-02-16, 15:59
Right to carry: yes
Need to carry: probably not

The thought of bullets flying around National Parks as I'm hiking down the trail is a bit disconcerting. I trust myself with a gun, but not others.

That's apparently the way antis like Sarah B, Rosie O and the Kennedys feel about gun ownership.
The proposed change in policy allows carry in the parks; discharge of same would still be prohibited unless some further legislation is brought forth permitting hunting.

CaSteve
2008-02-16, 20:53
That's apparently the way antis like Sarah B, Rosie O and the Kennedys feel about gun ownership.
The proposed change in policy allows carry in the parks; discharge of same would still be prohibited unless some further legislation is brought forth permitting hunting.

So why carry it if you can't legally shoot it? Seems like extra weight to me.
I guess if you didn't get a chance to clean your gun after last using it, you could spend a little time on the trail cleaning it :biggrin:

Mutinousdoug
2008-02-16, 23:34
So why carry it if you can't legally shoot it? Seems like extra weight to me.
So... if you have a firearm on you when you enter the park as legally proscribed by the state you enter from, you don't have to throw it away to be legal?
Extra weight? If the proposal is enacted, that would be for YOU to decide rather than the NPS ranger.
Peace, Brah.:bandit:

grannyhiker
2008-02-25, 19:05
What bothers me is that a number of excellent wilderness bills, all agreed to by the local jurisdictions involved and already passed by the House of Representatives, are sitting in limbo in the Senate because a key senator is trying to push this bill ahead of them. While I'm rather neutral on the firearms thing (like others here, I strongly support the constitutional right but don't carry), I'd almost rather see this thing pass so we could get our wilderness areas before they are overrun with ATVs. Lest you think I'm paranoid about that one, the local national forest's (Mt. Hood) ORV plan has ORV trails planned right up against the boundaries of current wilderness areas and inside the expanded wilderness boundaries. Like most, I prefer peace and quiet to snarling motorcycles a quarter-mile away when I'm hiking.

The firearms ban in national parks is not new but goes way, way back. Back in the "good old days," like 60-70 years ago, the only legal way to carry firearms in national parks was if they had been sealed by the park rangers. Any firearm found unsealed or with a broken seal would get you arrested. With the numerous cuts in national park budgets resulting in greatly reduced staffing over the years, sealing and its enforcement are not feasible any more.

Mutinousdoug
2008-02-25, 19:56
Granny,
+1 on the ATV and motorbike observations. If they weren't so annoying I'd laugh at the numerous clowns on ATVs during hunting season who ride around "scouting" when they can be heard by anyone (or anything) easily a quarter mile or more away and 10 minutes before you see them.
The ORV organizations claim old people and the disabled are being locked out of wilderness area by green advocates whose real aim is to keep everyone out of the natural areas. If they'd limit their access to defined trails and limit their speed to, oh say, 5 mph, pay for the enforcement of those limits and pay their share of trail remediation with their fees, they MIGHT find a few friends among the peripatetic users of the woods.

dropkick
2008-02-26, 02:03
The current regulations on firearms in national parks was instituted in 1983.

Jim Henderson
2008-02-26, 15:18
One of the basic reasons for the change in this law is not necessarily the right to carry a gun around in the park, but more importantly, far too many people were being arrested or having their firearms confiscated for merely driving thru a park with the weapon as they were on their way to somewhere else or just visiting the tourist attractions of the park. These people had no intention of carrying the gun on their person, they just had it in their vehicle, which is against the law in many places.

It is not legal to drive thru the park with a firearm, in your motorhome or vehicle, whether it is under the bed or in the trunk. You could be arrested or lose the gun if an officer was inclined to give you a bad time. There was an interesting article just recently, either in American Rifleman or the California Rifle and Pistol publication about just such an incident. Wish I kept it so I could refer to it here.

So changing the law to allow carry is more directed towards transiting thru the park with a firearm, but I guess it also allows personal carry while in the park.

If it does allow personal carry I might or might not carry my "camp" gun. All depends on whether I think I might be in a risky situation. I have carried in the past, legally or not and felt fully justified the one time some coyotes were thinking "sandwiches" as I lay in my sleeping bag.

Just my opinion,

Jim Henderson

FireFighter56
2008-02-26, 22:26
i'm for guns ....these ppl never hiked in pennsylvania lol.....i mean....i can tell u a few times i was glad to have my pistolwhere i live we have so we call them mountian men that live in the woods all year long....some are great ppl and i enjoy sharing a cup of coffee with around the campfire...but i ran into a few...well...let me put it this way....glad i had my pistol.......heck 2 MM tried attacking my one friend once he fired 2 shots in the air to scare them off...that and i'v bin out hunting and had a mountain lion walk right under me....so i'm all for a gun in NF......as long as the person has a handgun permit...heck they can even make a new permit just to carry in NF.....make more money for them and they will know who has what ...and where...:biggrin:

Nearly Normal
2008-03-29, 22:34
G-men don't need to have all that info on law abiding folks. It's NONE of their beeswax.

enviro
2008-03-31, 12:07
I don't care one way or the other. I don't carry when I backpack. IMO it's extra weight that I really don't need. I do carry pepper spray when hiking solo or with women (who are unfortunately targets for 2 legged predators).

I'm not too worried about the 4 legged animals, near as much as the 2 legged ones. The really dangerous animals are not going to be deterred by most handguns, maybe just annoyed to violence. Will people shoot the racoons that are trying to get in their food sack?

Having said all of that, I don't want to come into a camping area or stumble across some G.I. Joe, or Cowboy that is openly carrying/flaunting a firearm. That makes me very very nervous. I'll generally move on as fast as possible. I would assume that most guntoters are good law abiding people, as in most cases, it's the ones that aren't that bother me. The nutcases would also be able to carry and the ensuing violence could end up like the OK corral.

Pappyhighlife
2008-03-31, 12:41
I'm for carrying CCW, here in my neck of the woods (NC)
Two hikers were murdered and robbed in Pisgah forest last year.
I was hiking in SC last year and I always carry so doing the right thing I called the National Park Rangers. "Hey Can I carry a weapon on Park Land?"
Their reply: "Sure son...long as the pistol is not bigger than a 22 cal."
The Ranger went on to say I should check with the local authorities first just to be on the safe side. Odd I thought local law could not supercede Federal law.

So I called the SC State Wildlife officers who told me if they catch me on State or Federal land I will be put under the jail-house. So I called the SC Attorneys General office and after a 30 minute wait I was told I need to call the Wildlife folks they just weren't sure.

Left hand don't know nutin bout the right hand. So I carry anyway. Like Daddy said; Son better to be tried by a jury of 12 than carried by 6

Nearly Normal
2008-04-02, 22:13
[QUOTE=envirodiver;24972]I don't care one way or the other. QUOTE]

Really?
That may be what's wrong in this country.

Mutinousdoug
2008-04-02, 23:16
I don't care one way or the other. I don't carry when I backpack. IMO it's extra weight that I really don't need. I do carry pepper spray when hiking solo or with women (who are unfortunately targets for 2 legged predators).

I'm not too worried about the 4 legged animals, near as much as the 2 legged ones. The really dangerous animals are not going to be deterred by most handguns, maybe just annoyed to violence. Will people shoot the racoons that are trying to get in their food sack?

Having said all of that, I don't want to come into a camping area or stumble across some G.I. Joe, or Cowboy that is openly carrying/flaunting a firearm. That makes me very very nervous. I'll generally move on as fast as possible. I would assume that most guntoters are good law abiding people, as in most cases, it's the ones that aren't that bother me. The nutcases would also be able to carry and the ensuing violence could end up like the OK corral.

"Brandishing" or "flaunting" a firearm is illegal just about anywhere in the US of A. Firearms carry laws define legal means of carry/display of same. The people you are "very nervous" about could give a rat's butt about legal carry or display. Legislation regulates the behavior of the law abiding citizens right to defend themselves from the morons you are talking about.
"Open carry" is not considered "flaunting" except in urban/suburban environments.
Good luck with the pepper spray when you deploy upwind...

CaSteve
2008-04-03, 01:27
I'm not too worried about the 4 legged animals, near as much as the 2 legged ones. ...

I agree. The 2 legged animals are a problem.

FireFighter56
2008-04-03, 02:23
i think this goes right back to my post.....not the bears that worry me in the woods it's the ...(crackheads)....or ppl that are way out in left field....that forgot to come in after the game during a thunderstorm lol.....trust me on this one...i ran into a few in my time...and i just have that great luck.....my wife tells me i'm a retard mag. they draw to me....for some reason....i do...and i don't like it....and i'll tell u there are a few times in my life maybe 5....3 being in the woods i was greatfull i had my pistol on mei never leave home without it....i don't care where i am....i keep it hid if i need to.....i feel safer knowing i have it...than leaving it at home....and i hope some of my fellow hikers here will feel alittle safer knowing i have mine on me if they are in the woods with me.....maybe it's because i live on a state road and the cops are 30 min away....dunno...just the mindset i have....and it's helped a few times....so i will never stop packing

CaSteve
2008-05-05, 17:08
This article says there is a proposal to make state gun laws apply to carry in the National Parks:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24394522/

"The proposal would overturn a 25-year-old regulation that has restricted loaded guns in national parks and wildlife refuges. The regulations require that guns be unloaded and placed somewhere that is not easily accessible, such as in a car trunk."

So it seems we can currently have guns in the national park as long as they are kept in the trunk?

Mutinousdoug
2008-05-05, 23:59
DNRTFA but if that's what it says, it's in error. RMNP clearly states that "possession of a firearm within the boundarys of the NP is not permitted" or words to that effect. (Open carry is legal in Colorado.) No provision for trunk carry, no provision for the park service to safeguard your firearm for you until you exit the park (assuming you wish to exit the park by the same entrance you entered).

FranceyS
2008-05-19, 13:47
About guns in NP... I'd have to agree with those who are against... and FOR those who carry illegally, just on the faint possibility that you would need it for self-protection. Give everybody permission, and party-goers will be hauling theirs out to compare with others and the REAL possibility of being shot by some thoughtless individual showing off his gun to be macho is a real possibility. At least nowadays, with the law in effect, you know that thoughtful, self-protecting people have their gun, it's in a safe but accessible place, and they will think three times before comparing their gun with others while partying. Before my little Beretta 45 was stolen from a bureau in my home by the Security Repair jerk, I always kept it in my rig or on me, depending on where I hiked. It really made me feel somewhat safe. Now, without it, I don't FEEL safe when I trek the sparsely used trails. Sure, you might say, don't go on those trails alone. Well, I can't stop doing what I enjoy doing out of fear. No one I know camps or hikes or does anything nature enjoyable. By the way, that N.Georgia woman who was brutally abducted and killed. She, as anyone would do, in a group, befriended a man who had the same trail enjoyments as she, a dog, hiking, etc. They lingered in back of the group they were with, and no one knows exactly what happened after that... They found her dead, buried miles away, after she was reported missing, and the group pinpointed the madman/abductor/murderer. He was a 'regular' at the Park.

Gruntacious
2008-05-28, 02:46
I recently considered the idea of bringing a rifle with me to camp in Red River Gorge, KY. As far as I know (without doing too much research) I would be able to take a 22 with me, unconcealed of course, and shoot at cans or other properly placed targets. I think this would be a good time being that I'm familar with guns/gun safety, I take it very seriously, and hell, shootin' is fun. However, when putting myself in the shoes of those who might be camping within earshot of my rifle; I don't think I would bring it, for the simple fact that I don't want to freak anyone out.

I've been camping where the people on the ridge next to mine decided that it would be a good idea to bark at the moon and shoot at the stars. Suddenly, my peaceful trip to the wilderness was totally ruined by the idea that there were lunatics near me who had no respect for guns that might send a bullet my way. I know I'm responsible with my weapon. However, I cannot personslly speak with those who may hear my gunshots and explain to them I know what I'm doing and I would never do anything to put them in danger. That's why I won't bring a rifle with me when I'm camping to target shoot.

My verdict: let's allow weapons in national parks for protection only, but lets try to keep it quiet. I don't want every yahoo who thinks guns are cool to be hiking behind me looking for something to shoot at.

Mutinousdoug
2008-05-29, 00:36
About guns in NP... I'd have to agree with those who are against... and FOR those who carry illegally, just on the faint possibility that you would need it for self-protection.

The change in enforcement will not include permission to "display" firearms and discharge of same will still be illegal/restricted. The change only allows possession of firearms in the parks. "Brandishing" will still be prohibited. Not that this small distinction will discourage the feeble minded from behaving as they do anyway.
Your position on the issue puts a huge burden on the responsible gun owner to violate the laws of the land only to be vilified if he/she has to protect himself/others in a restricted area (where this sort of thing is "after all" at best: "faintly" necessary).
Don't gather from my posts that I advocate "everyone" be armed. The spectre of 5-10% of the interested population arming and training themselves in self defense is enough to discourage 95% of the mischief of the scum who prey on the rest who will not defend themselves.

CaSteve
2008-05-30, 22:35
About guns in NP... I'd have to agree with those who are against... and FOR those who carry illegally, just on the faint possibility that you would need it for self-protection.

Self protection from what?



Give everybody permission, and party-goers will be hauling theirs out to compare with others and the REAL possibility of being shot by some thoughtless individual showing off his gun to be macho is a real possibility.


Exactly.



At least nowadays, with the law in effect, you know that thoughtful, self-protecting people have their gun, it's in a safe but accessible place, and they will think three times before comparing their gun with others while partying.


Hopefully, It's safe & accessible & at home.



Before my little Beretta 45 was stolen from a bureau in my home by the Security Repair jerk,


Another good point. You can't trust anyone, not even the Security Repair jerk. You probably need the gun more at home than in the park. I'm armed to the gills at home :secruity:



I always kept it in my rig or on me, depending on where I hiked. It really made me feel somewhat safe. Now, without it, I don't FEEL safe when I trek the sparsely used trails. Sure, you might say, don't go on those trails alone. Well, I can't stop doing what I enjoy doing out of fear.


Get out & get some fresh air. You have more to fear from not doing so :smile:



No one I know camps or hikes or does anything nature enjoyable. By the way, that N.Georgia woman who was brutally abducted and killed. She, as anyone would do, in a group, befriended a man who had the same trail enjoyments as she, a dog, hiking, etc. They lingered in back of the group they were with, and no one knows exactly what happened after that... They found her dead, buried miles away, after she was reported missing, and the group pinpointed the madman/abductor/murderer. He was a 'regular' at the Park.


As I understand it, the man befriended her, then killed her. Would she have used a gun on him before realizing it was too late? Would he have taken it from her? Who knows. If someone is that evil...




I've been camping where the people on the ridge next to mine decided that it would be a good idea to bark at the moon and shoot at the stars. Suddenly, my peaceful trip to the wilderness was totally ruined by the idea that there were lunatics near me who had no respect for guns that might send a bullet my way.


Unfortunately, there are alot of people like that out there. And the odds are high of getting hit, as one of my friends learned during hunting season. It's bad enough when they won't go to bed at a reasonable hour.



My verdict: let's allow weapons in national parks for protection only, but lets try to keep it quiet. I don't want every yahoo who thinks guns are cool to be hiking behind me looking for something to shoot at.

I can agree with that. Conceal it & keep it quiet, but I'm not sure it's worth the extra ounces on the trail.