Oregano, nuthin'...I just sustained a self-inflicted cayenne pepper wound. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
A couple of quick thoughts...
Maybe the concealed permit holders are more responsible gun-folk (I'm not totally convinced, but willing to grant the point for the sake of argument). But has anyone really felt the need for guns in national parks? I mean, what problem is this change to the status quo solving?
Whatever your stance on the second amendment, most reasonable people would agree that there are some places where guns shouldn't be allowed. I happen to think national parks are among those places. I don't anticipate armageddon or anything, but I do think this change will make park rangers' jobs more difficult. I also think that one consequence of the change in the law will be an increase in the number of people bringing guns into the parks illegally.
Also, to take a step back and look at the bigger picture: I worry about these lame-duck executive-branch orders, and about the degree to which management of public lands sways in the political winds, depending on who happens to be leaving office. (See also the BLM oil leasing thing in Utah TomD brought up a few weeks ago).
I happen to be opposed to most of the policies pushed by the Bush administration, but I think the principle here is bigger than that. Stewardship requires long-term thinking, and it's difficult to make that happen when you get these kind of end-run rule changes.
Whatever your stance on the second amendment, most reasonable people would agree that there are some places where guns shouldn't be allowed. I happen to think national parks are among those places.
There are plenty of places where guns/knives aren't allowed and punishable by severe fines. However, outlaws don't care about those laws. I'd have to respectfully disagree regarding national parks. I hike and camp along the Texas border with Mexico down in Big Bend Nt'l park. I have seen drug planes fly below me, while watching from a hill top, and bandits/drug mules along the border are no secret. The ability to be armed seems reasonable. Down there, when seconds count, help is days away. Maybe 'some' national parks? (everybody has probably read about the drug trade blood bath going on in Mexico. hand guns are illegal there. you can't legislate morality.)
I'd have to respectfully disagree regarding national parks. I hike and camp along the Texas border with Mexico down in Big Bend Nt'l park. I have seen drug planes fly below me, while watching from a hill top, and bandits/drug mules along the border are no secret. The ability to be armed seems reasonable.
I'd be inclined to agree with you. the only reason I'd think you need it is for people.
Registered: 08/18/08
Posts: 31
Loc: Russellville, Arkansas, USA
I am a gun owner and I sometimes take a gun into the woods with me. Most of the problems with the human animal occur within a short distance of the trailhead as those that cause trouble usually don't travel far from the comfort of their vehicle. I have never had need of a gun in the outback so it just depends on the location that I am going into if I carry a gun or not. I was in the military for 11-years, I have a NATO-Secret security clearance, I was a licensed security officer for two years, a volunteer fireman for @ two years, I am an Eagle Scout and a Vigil Honor member of the Order of the Arrow...and currently a Scoutmaster. I have been handling guns almost all of my life but I know many people with qualifications the same, or even better than mine that SHOULD NOT have a gun. I fully believe in the Second Amendment and I feel that I have a right to carry a gun...I earned it. Plus, so many people before me gave up their lives so that I have the right. There are just some times and places that a gun isn't needed, but I AM the one who should be able to make THAT DECISION for MYSELF.
_________________________
Scott W. McClure Photographer - Scoutmaster Troop 202 Eagle Scout - BSA / Vigil Honor - Order of the Arrow
it is a sad statement about our world when guns are being considered as protection from 2 legged as apposed to 4 legged creatures
Why? I personally would only ever bother carrying for very dangerous situations. If I'm not likely to face *another* gun, then frankly, I'm better off with bear spray, even with bears - it's lighter, and will stop stuff. to be honest in 10 years of carrying it, I've only had it out of the holster once, and that was a two legged encounter. Now, heaven forbid that prior to that a handgun ever made trips into willmore with me, that would be illegal in canada. if it did it would be spending it's time weighting my backpack down, and not be that effective against a bear without a good head shot. legal or not, I'd still carry what I carry now most places.
So frankly, untill the right to keep and arm bears gives me the possibility of facing grizzlys packing glocks, I'll stick to bear spray for the four legged critters - (unless I'm looking to eat 'em). OTOH if I'm somewhere there's enough illegal activity I'm potentially faced with a gun - yep, I'd take one. My other exception on this continent is polar bears, but then I'll be packing a rifle. thanks.
Registered: 05/26/08
Posts: 125
Loc: bc/yukon border area
phat i do realize that a pistol is ilegal for us and do not advocate carring one ,besides there are not many that are useful against a bear they do not have the stoping power for large boar grizzly. if you are hiking in a group and everyone is carrieng spray you have good odds. however you only have about 6 seconds of spray time with the large can and in the case of predacious black bears they are wel documented as repeatidly trying to attack after being sprayed repeatidly.so if by chance you get caught alone then1 can may not be enough. the times i am out with a group we all carry spray , but out by yourself there is the time to think about a rifle as well as spray, the proper firearm to carry in this situation is a 12ga pump with 1.25oz slugs. nothing else . this is about how it breaks down for a solo hiker. a proper gun with acompetent shooter sucess is about95%, bear spray about 70% and no defenceabout45%. the odds are not good that you will ever need your defence system but every year there are attacks and deaths. the trend is also on the rise as we are over protecting our bears and they are loosing there fear of man. this along with a steadily rising population of bears and less hunters with less open seasons is changing the bear man dynamics in a way that most people are not aware of
As to legislation, it's an old but logical argument. Those who are willing to murder, rape and rob are generally willing to violate gun laws. Those who are willing to go through the process of getting a concealed carry permit are unlikely to be the ones who will use them illegally. Why bother? Here in Colorado we heard the same argument about reviving the "Old West" and gun battles in the streets, road rage shootings, etc. when the shall issue concealed carry permit law was in debate. We have not seen those results. Many of those who voiced their concerns were ignorant of existing laws. When so many were concerned about increased road rage violence, they were blissfully unaware that it was already legal to carry a loaded handgun in your car in Colorado.
Yellowstone has developed a pretty large jail and has a very high per capita crime rate. Lots of drug use, theft, etc. As was mentioned, many of our border parks have issues with drug trafficking. There are reasons to carry if you so choose and you can debate the merit of them until the cows come home, but if you choose not to, don't be afraid of those who legally do so. They aren't out to "get you" or anyone else. Big difference between offense and defense.
I think that the effort required to get a CCW and the sobering lectures on criminal and civil liability surrounding use of a concealed weapon will ensure a reasonably high standard of responsible behavior.
Only at first, I think. I'm guessing that the effect of those lectures (and training) are long gone after a few years. I'm aquainted with several people who probably shouldn't carry a gun, but have permits.
I suspect the only tangible result of allowing people to carry guns in national parks is that a few bears will be killed needlessly.
I suspect the only tangible result of allowing people to carry guns in national parks is that a few bears will be killed needlessly.
Your probably right. I sometimes carry but don't have a permit. I don't think that a permit makes you responsible. It's like driving. Many people can drive and have a license to do so. But, I'll only get in a car with certain people. I used to hunt and was raised around firearms and shot for sport and fun. So I think I have a reasonable respect for them. I've also had enough high performance driving schools to qualify to be a driving instructor. But I refused to teach driving because I refuse to get in a very fast car with a newbie. One fast mistake could be fatal. The limited training that someone not familier with firearms has to take to get a permit is in it self dangerous. A person wanting to get a permit and carry should have more experience and the verve and responsible attidude to posess such a dangerous tool. Yes, in the woods they might kill or mame an animal. In the jungle some call cities, they can get their piece taken from them or "accidentialy" shoot themselfs or loved ones.
"The limited training that someone not familiar with firearms has to take to get a permit is in it self dangerous."
What training? You misunderstand the license process. For the license, you learn about the law, take a shooting test, and written test, and wait several months for the process to conclude. You are expected to be proficient in safety and operation, prior to testing, which is made clear upon applying. The instructor will cull you out instantly if you make a mistake, shoot poorly, or violate a safety rule. You'll be culled out later if your background checks have a glitch. Those with no shooting experience are expected to take a relevant firearms course prior to applying for a CCL.
I personally don't expect any more wildlife getting shot now, then before the law change. Citizens have been carrying guns in parks since parks were parks.
I am a firm believer that if you take guns out of law abiding citizens, then the only people with them (gov't not incl) will be people of ill intent. I took a CWP course b/c I wanted to be law abiding and know the law. The law was revised previous to this in SC for CWP holders to carry in state parks...and I do in some cases. Point being, that anyone who might be shooting someone just b/c there was too much noise or other overly exaggerated thought would most likely not be a CWP holder anyway.
I'm quite pleased by the new policies. I happen to have a CHL, and I do carry regularly.
I've been an outdoorswoman my entire life, and have had a bad encounter while fishing on one of our local rivers. I've also had bad encounters in so-called "good" neighborhoods.
While I doubt I'd carry a firearm on, say, the PCT, I appreciate the option on other trails. Here in Oregon (as in many other states) there are enough backwoods illegal pot gardens supervised by armed Mexi gangs (really! Not making this up!) that it would make me feel a bit better about my safety and that of my backpacking party.
Enough have already posted about the law-abiding nature and overall good track record of CHL holders, so I'll leave that alone...except to add that it's an extremely low percentage of CHL holders who have used deadly force to protect property, as opposed to life--though some would argue that the theft of a car or a burgled house is akin to stealing all the hours one had to work to pay for those things.
After my fishing experience, one friend told me I had no business hiking or fishing alone. This really bothered me, as I'm sure it would bother many of you here who like to solo. I like having the option for concealed carry.
By the way--concealed is preferable to open carry, at least in my case, because a) it's nobody's business whether or not I have a gun, unless that nobody is planning something nefarious against me, and b) because of the misinformation about firearms and responsible firearm ownership, people who carry openly are viewed in an unwelcome manner.
I strongly believe, mexi-mafia or no, that the farther down the trail one goes, the less likely one needs a handgun. But since the topic here is National Parks, I should mention that I happened to be in Yosemite with a female photography buddy the same winter weekend Joie Armstrong was violently and randomly murdered, about 10 years ago. Our next stop on our trip took us within 1/2 mile of the location where two of the women he'd previously murdered were burned in their car.
Knowing now what I didn't know then, I'm glad my friend broke the law and brought along her concealed handgun (for which she was licensed in her home state).
There's been some problems at one of the national forrest here in FL, where people have been robbed, raped and/or killed. This gives the decent people a fighting chance. As mentioned only people with a permit will be allowed to do so. Granted every state is different when it comes to issuing permits, you do have to pass a background check, and at in most states demonstate your ability to safely handle a firearm. This will not cause more accidents, but will give people the oppritunity to protect themselves agaisnt both four legged and two legged critters. For the record, I don't believe in the senseless killing of wildlife, but if its between that wild hog, bear, panther, etc or me, I'm going to do whatever I need to do to come out of the woods the same way I went in.
Our long-time Sponsor, BackcountryGear.com - The leading source for ultralite/lightweight outdoor gear:
Affiliate Disclaimer: This forum is an affiliate of BackcountryGear.com, Amazon.com, R.E.I. and others. The product links herein are linked to their sites. If you follow these links to make a purchase, we may get a small commission. This is our only source of support for these forums. Thanks.!