Thread: Guns in National Parks

Originally Posted by Bruno

Even I would want to carry one when backpacking in a national park in the middle of nowhere. The truth of it is: you are all alone, and you won't easily be able to escape a situation where you are threatened by a predator (human or animal).

And if my daughter would go backpacking alone in a national park (I hope not), I'd want her to carry one too, and know how to use it.
Carrying a weapon in such places is just good sense.

Thank you sir! Mountain lions are on the increase(200-300 pound cat) as are wolves and then there are always those who try to feed on other human beings.

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

Thank you sir! Mountain lions are on the increase(200-300 pound cat) as are wolves and then there are always those who try to feed on other human beings.

Wolves and bears, OK, a gun might help, but you of course realize that the moutnain lion is an ambush predator, and the chances that you would ahve the chance to draw your gun are not great. This is just me being an argumentative prick, though, as if I were in ML territory, I would sure as hell want my snubby 357 with me. One hiker I know carries that itty bitty North american Arms in 22mag with the first shot loaded with those "snake shot" rounds. Someone told him that the pain and surprise of something (you) causeing the noise and discomfort (understatement) of a faceshot with that round is more likely to stop a ML than a bullet up to a pretty heft round.

And....back on topic....


And to the person who is scared that these legally armed folks would somehow turn bandit and take your stuff....I must point out again that those who take the time to get legally licensed and obtain a CCW, then take their gun on vacation...are not generally the type to shoot you for your mountain bike. The guy who bought his glock behind the 7-11...he doesn't care that it is illegal to carry it...

It amazes me that the same anti-gun arguments that have been used and proven unfounded in every state or juristiction that has concealed carry are yet again being trotted out as if they had some special significance because now we are talking about a park.

About the only one I haven't heard yet is: "the rangers are there to protect you" I guess that in this instance that is just a tinsy bit to obviously false for even the worst fool to try.

Originally Posted by joscobo

It's all fine and well to arm oneself against the bandits that lie in wait in the woods. I am from the South and the small town where I grew up and lived is smack dab in the Appalachian mountains on the Virginia/ Kentucky border more or less.

I have never heard of a significant number of people falling victim to criminals out there waiting for victims to walk by them on the trial. So the threat level doesn't appear to me to be there in the National park system. Granted I have heard of it. But mostly the drop was on the people anyway.

Now a greater probability of occurrence is Billy Bob packin' heat and his Daddies .45 and a case of Coors meeting up with Jimmy Joe and his brand new .357. Now we add the alcohol and then we add a political argument and then we have ourselves a gun fight.

Out here in California change the names to Jose and Tyrell but you get the same result.

Being drunk and carrying a gun is illegal, just like driving a car. So if your guys are really law abiding citizens, like CCW holders on the whole have proven themselves to be, they would have put their guns up before popping a cold one.

Originally Posted by joscobo

I personally don't care to go in the woods or to Yosemite knowing every paranoid person there could be carrying a firearm. I don't feel safer knowing someone might try to play out his Dirty Harry fantasy and shoot me in the process of trying to save someone else.

Your feelings are irrelevant. You have no right to limit my freedoms based upon your vague and unreasonable fears. In truth there is no "Dirty Harry" playing and everywhere carry has been allowed has become safer on all levels as a proven result.

Originally Posted by joscobo

I've owned more guns than most people so it's not like I'm a rabid anti gunner. But the concept of mutually assured destruction doesn't really work well in the world with firearms and the public.

Mutually assured destruction could be achieved with Nukes, or more personally with suicide bombs but a gun, no, they just don't work that way.

Originally Posted by joscobo

Most people don't know how to use the firearms they carry around feeling all tough guy and wind up hurting others and not the bad guys anyway.

Once again your facts are incorrect. Very few ccw holders who have used their guns for protection have even pulled the trigger, almost none have hurt anyone but the intended target. In fact they have a better track record in this area in any given year then the police. Not surprising since many of them have much more extensive training than all but the most elite officers.

Originally Posted by VeeDubb65

Yes, it does say that people have the right to keep and bear arms, and that this right should not be infringed upon. However, it says this within the context of the need to form a militia for state security.

No, it claims that a free state needs a well trained militia therefore the people need guns and the government can't take them away. It doesn't say that this "militia" or body of citizens is ever needed or what it might be needed for just that it must have access to guns to be well trained.

Originally Posted by VeeDubb65

The problem, is that in modern day America, there is rarely if ever the need to form a militia, and I can't think of a single instance of one being formed for the protection of the state in the last 100 years.

I personally feel that this is more of a reflection on the "free state" bit in the second amendment, or rather how far we have come from truly being one, than a reflection on the need for a militia.

Originally Posted by VeeDubb65

Also, we have many firearms of a nature that was never dreamed of when the 2nd amendment was written. The whole amendment is outdated to the point if total irrelevance.

I just don't see how a more advanced weapon makes it any less needed that the people be well trained with it in order to defend their free state? If anything I'd this the reverse would be true.

Originally Posted by VeeDubb65

While we like to think of the bill of rights being concrete and all encompassing, their interpretation is the right and responsibility of the US Supreme Court

It actually is not all encompassing in any way. It is actually just a list of the freedoms the founders saw as so critical that thought they should be spelled out so the government could not claim ignorance if it tried to trample them. This view is completely correct as all freedom not signed away specifically in the constitution were to be reserved by the people but our government ignores that completely. Proving the need for the second amendment beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Originally Posted by VeeDubb65

the US Supreme Court, which has repeatedly ruled that no constitutional right extends to the point where it's exercise infringes on the liberty or safety of other law abiding citizens.

The easiest examples of this are laws about slander, libel, and shouting "fire" in a theater, which technically fly in the face of the 1st amendment.

In no way do these things violate free speech as they are intended to deliberately harm another person. It is not speech made illegal but using words as a deliberate weapon that is illegal.

Originally Posted by VeeDubb65

Restricting the right to carry a firearm in a particular place (federal post offices, court rooms, county jails, schools, ad infinitum) because the risk to public safety created by carrying firearms in those places outweighs the benefit to personal safety, is a well established practice which is approved by the supreme court.

Of course, we could debate whether some of these restriction do more to protect or endanger the public, but that's a whole separate topic.

These are direct violations of our second amendment rights. There is no greater risk to anyone from my gun because my location is now inside a school than there was outside of it. Approved by the Supreme court or not these clauses have never made any sense and should be faught or done away with whenever they are encountered.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

These are direct violations of our second amendment rights. There is no greater risk to anyone from my gun because my location is now inside a school than there was outside of it. Approved by the Supreme court or not these clauses have never made any sense and should be faught or done away with whenever they are encountered.

In the case of courtrooms I think it makes sense. Because if you have business in a courtroom, you are likely in a very emotional state.
If people were allowed to carry inside a courtroom, how many fathers of murdered kids would shoot the murderer? How many people who are declared bankrupt or have their kids taken away would shoot the judge?

Not all I am sure. Not even the majority. But just as it is illegal to carry guns while drunk for the sake of protecting the other people, it is prudent to outlaw guns inside a courtroom.

For post offices or other federal institutions I agree it makes far less, to no sense to restrict ccw

Originally Posted by igitur55

This law interferes with my right to enjoy my time in our National Parks without thinking that maybe every second person I encounter may be packing, and may like my kit or my mountain-bling enough to shoot me in the face for it.

who's afraid now?

it seems kind of hypocritical to accuse people that want to carry a gun to protect themselves from criminals as being overly fearful and then post that you are afraid of the same thing: criminals with guns.

Originally Posted by Blade Wielder

I've eaten bear meat before. I didn't like it at all.

It had a very gamey taste to it. The good thing? Once I ate the bear, I assumed his strength and power!

I LOVE gamey tasting meat

Originally Posted by littlesilverbladefromwale

I LOVE gamey tasting meat

have you tried Essex girls??

I always thought if a state tried to prosecute you for a firearms offence in the US, you claimed your Federal RKBA!?? And the State usually backed down!
In the UK when I tell people we used to be able to bear arms* in the UK untill quite recently and believe we should still have that right, they look at me as if I have just climbed down from the Christmas tree!
We have a lot of sheeple in the UK though
(*untill the early 20thC, the Conservative government got frightened that all these armed working people might one day take their power away)