Feb 24, 2010 at 8:03 pm #1255736
Well, it's finally happened… it's now legal to carry loaded guns in national parks, I for one am happy, as a law abiding american who grew up with guns, and gun safety I think its great, and am now going to plan some solo trips, I might not have felt comfortable to do alone.
Let's face it: criminals do not care about this, or any gun law, and will carry one no matter what the law says, people like my self who DO care about laws now have an option to carry they're weapons….
what do you guys (and gals) think?Feb 24, 2010 at 8:07 pm #1578285
@foundLocale: Sacramento, CA
I'm disappointed. Who will be the first hiker to be shot for scaring someone when they're out night hiking? Who will be the first drunk gun owner to shoot someone?Feb 24, 2010 at 8:10 pm #1578286
Ken T.BPL Member
Those who are going to carry are happy. Some are appalled, the rest don't care enough to care. This thread can only end badly.Feb 24, 2010 at 8:18 pm #1578291
Ye Haw. My God given right to carry a gun to protect myself against rabid Marmots has been legally validated.
Seriously though, does this include slingshots?Feb 24, 2010 at 8:22 pm #1578292
Jay WilkersonBPL Member
@creachenLocale: East Bay
The odds of somebody being shot is extremely high–UL hikers walk fast and will –sooner are later be mistaken for game. It already happened last year-a backpacker was mistaken for a bear and was shot in Washington.. I do not want to take my son on a hike were people are carrying guns…How did this happen? I did not vote for that….Feb 24, 2010 at 8:31 pm #1578296
Cayenne RedmonkBPL Member
@redmonkLocale: Greater California Ecosystem
+1 night hiker comment
+1 this discussion can't end well
At least there is no hunting in national parks, so people will probably only being carrying pistols for protections against other armed and dangerous people, plus bears and cats, and the occasional thing that breaks twigs in the night.Feb 24, 2010 at 8:31 pm #1578297
drowning in spamMember
Sounds good to me.Feb 24, 2010 at 8:44 pm #1578300
Luke SchmidtBPL Member
@cameronLocale: Idaho Falls
My understanding is this law simply allows people who are already licensed to carry in that state to do so in the National Park as well. I won't say whether its good or bad but I don't see how it radically changes the situation. People were already carrying guns around for better or worse in the rest of the state.Feb 24, 2010 at 9:04 pm #1578307
Joe ClementBPL Member
The change only allows people who are licensed to carry to bring a concealed handgun into the park as allowed by their state of residence. So if your state doesn't allow licensed concealed handguns, your state's National parks won't either. And over the last 15 years, concealed handgun licensees have been proven to be substantially safer and more law-abiding than the average citizen. Geez, the stereotypes……here goes a 55 page thread. It has been a few months though……
Glad to see this thread though…..reminded me I have to take my renewal class, and get another FBI background check before my birthday.Feb 24, 2010 at 9:09 pm #1578310
Bob BankheadBPL Member
@wandering_bobLocale: Oregon, USA
If I recall correctly, it all depends on the concealed carry laws of the state IN WHICH any given National Park is located.
IF you have a CC permit IN THAT STATE or in a state whose CC permits THAT STATE accepts via reciprocity…..
IF THAT STATE allows concealed firearms within their state and county parks (OR and WA do but CA does not)…
THEN you can legally carry your concealed firearm in the National Parks within THAT state.
Otherwise, no – you can not.
As much as I support the 2nd ammendment, I think this was a bad idea for all but the Alaskan NPs. A good case can be made for firearms there to protect oneself from large predatory animals. not so here in the lower 49 (Hawaii included). I'm just waiting for the first frightened weekend camper to start blasting away at something large moving in the dark, no doubt looking to attack his sleeping children and carry them away for dinner. I'm not concerned about the bullet with my name on it; I may be able to duck that one. It's all those addressed "to whom it may concern" that scare the beans out of me.
The mentally and chemically challenged will be another kettle of fish entirely. Expect to encounter more armed and nervous rangers. Hopefully, only a few innocent bystanders will need to be hurt [or worse] for Congress to wake up and repeal this mistake.Feb 24, 2010 at 9:14 pm #1578311
Tipi WalterBPL Member
Where are the ultralighters when you need them? Shouldn't they be shouting down anyone carrying something so very heavy and so very nearly useless as a handgun in a National Park?Feb 24, 2010 at 9:23 pm #1578315
W I S N E R !BPL Member
But haven't all the concealed carry zealots been carrying concealed in parks all along?
Concealed is concealed- legal or not, it will always be
under the radar. Even if yours is legal, you'd be stupid to advertise it.
I'm sure we've all been sharing campgrounds and trails with far more pistol packers than we'll EVER know.Feb 24, 2010 at 9:23 pm #1578316
Luke SchmidtBPL Member
@cameronLocale: Idaho Falls
Can we hold off on the stereotype that anyone who carries a gun for self defense is paranoid and will quickly blaze away at anything that startles him? Most people here may not think the danger in the woods justifies hauling a gun or even bear spray around but just because someone else disagrees doesn't mean they should be put down or that they are irrationaly afraid. Most people I know who carry do so because they can not because they are afraid but because that slight bit of inconvience is worth it to them in the unlikely event they really really need it. They are also more worried about people than animals, most of them don't even give bears a second thought when asked. Actually I'm not even sure ANY of them carry on camping trips.Feb 24, 2010 at 9:33 pm #1578322
obviously I'm for this, jay, I can definitely understand your concern, BUT responsible people with guns are statistically not the danger, it's people who dont abide by basic gun safety i.e. dont ever point a gun at anything you dont intend to kill, seems simple I know, but its simplicity is its beauty,
now, we all know about the proliferation of mexican drug cartels in california, with meth labs, and plots of marijuana they will kill over… wouldn't you feel a little better with some type of protection?
I used to live in El dorado county, and you hear about people going out into the woods, stumbling upon one of these plots, and loosing their lives, maybe this might make them think twice about doing that in our parks…
I know this thread will go back and fourth, BUT I do see it as a valid discussion…Feb 24, 2010 at 9:34 pm #1578323
NMFeb 24, 2010 at 9:51 pm #1578333
Backpack JackBPL Member
@jumpbackjackLocale: Armpit of California
Alright Jesse way to stir the pot, but I'm with you, I've taken the proper courses and training for a ccw permit its a little bit more involved than people think, especially in Ca. People who are responsable gun owners don't shoot at something they can't see in the middle of the night or the day for that matter. You are taught that your weapon is your last resort, never draw it unless you have to use it, you should always be aware of your surruondings and try not to put your self in a bad situation. I think as BPLers we all are aware of the surruondings and try to stay alert as possible. I usaully don't take mine with me but there are times when hiking by myself that I will, but these are usually outside of the parks, sometimes you run across some pretty wierd stuff, not to mention pot growers who don't care if you accidentally stumbled on to their pot farm. Just my 2 cents JackFeb 24, 2010 at 9:56 pm #1578335
W I S N E R !BPL Member
So how often can I to stumble across "Mexican" cartels, meth labs, and pot farms in National Parks?
This is what people worry about?
Goodnight folks, have a good one.Feb 24, 2010 at 10:24 pm #1578339
@pa_hikerLocale: Orwigsburg PA
I think it's about time they passed this law…
i never leave home without my sidearm,and i always have it with me..
I'm just waiting for the first frightened weekend camper to start blasting away at something large moving in the dark, no doubt looking to attack his sleeping children and carry them away for dinner. I'm not concerned about the bullet with my name on it; I may be able to duck that one. It's all those addressed "to whom it may concern" that scare the beans out of me.
thats a good point…but
everyone i know that has a CCP would not just fire random shots and a noise …thats a quick way to have your CCP taken away, and end up in jail…will it happen..i'm sure it will..heck..it could happen at your local mall for all you know ,point is it doesn't really change anything…most ppl still carried in the parks..you just never knew itFeb 24, 2010 at 11:25 pm #1578347
James NaphasBPL Member
"So how often can I to stumble across "Mexican" cartels, meth labs, and pot farms in National Parks?
This is what people worry about?
Goodnight folks, have a good one."
A friend of mine did exactly that: stumbled into a large concealed pot farm within SEKI while hiking solo. He does a lot of cross country hiking up there, hitting trout streams. Scared the bejesus out of him. They had installed a drip irrigation system that linked to a stream, had a bunch of netting camouflage over the top, had brought in a bunch of gardening tools. Luckily there was no one home, and he didn't hit a booby-trap. He got out of there quickly, and even the armed rangers were pretty nervous about going back in there en masse to eradicate the farm.
I've also heard reports of farms sometimes being located within a half mile of trails in some of the national parks.
OTOH, the idea of a bunch of people carrying in parks makes me nervous. It's not so much the people on this list, most of whom are probably way above average in the amount of time they've spent in the backcountry, but someone who is licensed but not experienced in the outdoors getting paranoid about noises in the night making an unfortunate mistake.Feb 25, 2010 at 2:00 am #1578359
Jesse Helmick said, "what do you guys (and gals) think?"
I am a gun owner, and think your thread is in poor taste.
If you are a Life Member, and are not yet aware that the topic of guns is a sensitive one on these boards, then now you do.
You have exaggerated the claims of the linked news report, which discusses a relaxed restriction on allowed firearms, but not to the degree that you have stated, "firearms are now legal."
You have also felt the need to add rhetoric on firearm use that serves little purpose to those who are firearm supporters, and serves to antagonize those who are not.
The ground rules for threads are:
Be civil, reasonable, and helpful. Off-topic, inflammatory, or inappropriate posts will be removed at our discretion.Feb 25, 2010 at 3:08 am #1578361
I am simply stimulating discussion about an extremely relevant topic that pertains our community, your attempt at bashing me personally is laughable, and a bit upsetting, but let's take a look:
"Jesse Helmick said, "what do you guys (and gals) think?"
we call this opening dialog… this is a forum right?
"If you are a Life Member, and are not yet aware that the topic of guns is a sensitive one on these boards, then now you do."
you can see I'm a darn lifer.. LOL And weather or not it's a sensitive topic does not negate it's importance of discussion or relevancy for a "new" thread, (I posted a thread some months ago when this was going through its course) or constitute your rudeness, I didn't attack anyone for their input, I welcomed it. but let's keep going…
"You have exaggerated the claims of the linked news report, which discusses a relaxed restriction on allowed firearms, but not to the degree that you have stated, "firearms are now legal."
I can't see anywhere in my post where I exaggerated anything here is another link:
did anything I say anything that differed from the news artical I read?
one question I do have is how this got pushed with a credit card related bill? pretty weird… (there, is something to discuss)
"You have also felt the need to add rhetoric on firearm use that serves little purpose to those who are firearm supporters, and serves to antagonize those who are not."
again, how so? Is this reference to my comment about "mexican drug cartels"? because if so, that is my only real life reference to a reason someone might want to bring a weapon into the woods, (again where I lived, this was a serious issue) THE SAME FEARS, ONE MIGHT HAVE ABOUT MT. LIONS, BEARS, WEIRDOS or any unknown you could find on a trail that would make someone want some level of protection?
"The ground rules for threads are:
Be civil, reasonable, and helpful. Off-topic, inflammatory, or inappropriate posts will be removed at our discretion."
ok, I'm being repetitive, but, how so? have I violated any of these rules?
edit: for spellingFeb 25, 2010 at 4:03 am #1578365
Miguel ArboledaBPL Member
@butukiLocale: Kanto Plain, Japan
Here we go! Again! It's like a perennial… keeps cropping up!
I do have to get my two yen's worth in, too, though, so: I had broccoli and asparagus for dinner! Hah! So there!Feb 25, 2010 at 4:43 am #1578368
Arapiles .BPL Member
"am now going to plan some solo trips, I might not have felt comfortable to do alone"
Out of curiousity, where would you not feel comfortable walking without a gun? Meth/dope labs excepted?
And what kind of gun are you thinking would be appropriate?Feb 25, 2010 at 5:37 am #1578379
Tom CaldwellBPL Member
If you're going to be packing you need different gear for different occasions. If you're looking for a quality, yet affordable, holster, made by a bonafide cottage builder, contact me and I'll put you in touch with one. (shameless plug for my friend)Feb 25, 2010 at 5:38 am #1578380
todd harperBPL Member
@funnymoLocale: Sunshine State
Jesse did nothing wrong. Guns present where we are is very relevant (be it good or bad) to many on this forum.
He was civil and reasonable; and was certainly helpful in pointing this out.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.