I know of no 'relaxed' self defense laws. I do know about the "Castle Doctrine" and the right to defend one's property (home) with deadly force. With few exceptions, it's used rarely and the line between defense and murder is very thin. The CHL classes spend a majority of time teaching that deadly force usually results in a lifetime of grief and is a dire last resort, and that non-violent conflict resolution is prime. This is why many CHL holders choose not to carry, or carry with discretion....they've been educated. Think if it as "a well regulated militia". The data speaks for itself.

Quote:
The last thing I am interested in is wondering if the next person I come across in a national park is going to think that I'm somehow a threat to them, pull out a handgun and shoot me, then claim self-defense. If I'm dead, they have the perfect alibi.


They would likely be charged with murder. As I indicated before, you've already come across such people and probably never new it. Illegal carry has been happening in national parks since parks were parks. What happens now is that CHL holders are allowed to carry, unlicensed lawbreakers now face much stiffer penalties if caught. I'm fine with that.

Tim brings up a good point regarding reciprocity. Most states now recognise each other's licensure. Also, in Texas, it's lawful to carry a concealed firearm in you car, with no license. Apparently that doesn't carry over to national parks, which is probably a good thing.
_________________________
paul, texas KD5IVP