Weapons in National Parks????

[lazer47]

Guns In National Parks??


Congress is talking about a bill that would make it legal to carry a gun in a national park. Do you think you should be able to carry a gun in a national park?

[HereSince1628]

1. I'd say something snarky

But, I'll just say that I haven't read the bill so I'm not about the issues.

Is the bill to allow sidearms for personal protection or is it is about hunting?

[lazer47]

2. Personal protecetion, with a concealed and carry permit.

[Howzit]

24. I am surprised this mirror thread hasn't been moved to the Gungeon too...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8422404&mesg_id=8422404

[Uben]

3. I for one....

....would not go to a national park forest, miles from anywhere, without one. I do not put myself in situations where I can be compromised. If you outlaw guns in the parks, guess who has the guns? I've read too many stories of people who were killed, attacked, or molested in parks, because of their remote locations. Of course, I am talking about parks that are remote. If you choose not to arm yourself, more power to you. This is one camper you don't wanna fuck with.

[RandomThoughts]

4. You have a point

If it is a large national park, and you are hiking or camping away from society, it would make sense that some would want a sidearm for protection from cougars, bears, or even criminals.

I was under the thought it was about assault weapons for target shooting or opening ranges or such. There does seem to be two sides of this issue. But it doesn't seem to belong in a credit bill. Hard to know the motive for it being in that bill.

[Euromutt]

19. A sidearm against cougars and bears?

You're probably better off educating yourself on such animals, and carrying one of those big cans of pepper spray they sell at REI (http://www.rei.com/product/623173).

With cougars and black bear, the rule of thumb is that they are only likely to attack you if they mistake you for prey. Best policy is to make yourself look as big as possible, pick up any children, and back off slowly. Do not run: prey runs. If you are attacked, fight back as hard as you can.

Grizzly bears, on the other hand, are most likely to attack you if they think you're a threat. If you're attacked, play dead so that the bear can satisfy itself you are no longer a threat.

But humans are a genuine threat in National Parks and the like. There are gangs that work over the parking lots at the trailheads in the Cascades and the Olympics, and they've been known to beat up interlopers and sometimes carry guns.

[pipoman]

20. S&W and other handgun makers have long made

short barrel large bore handguns for the very purpose of protection against carnivorous predators while camping and hiking. These are often called Alaskan guns. This is a .500 Mag (it also comes in .460, and I believe .44 mag) kit by S&W. The deafening report of these guns are likely a good deterrent if there is time, if not I would rather be armed with a gun than pepper spray if I am attacked by a grizzly or mountain lion.



Edited...A growing problem in southern states isn't cougars or bears but wild, formerly domestic, hogs. They are big, fast, and have a nasty disposition. They are slowly migrating northward, 2 years ago the closest sightings to me were 50-75 miles south, this spring a sow and babies have been spotted on my deer hunting land...I won't be scouting this fall without a gun.

[Euromutt]

25. Just because someone markets a product...

... as a solution to a problem does not necessarily mean that it is the best answer. Obviously, a gun manufacturer is going to want me to believe that a gun--specifically a gun he makes--is what I need. He might even be right, but I'm not taking his word alone for it. And in the interim, I notice that S&W have discontinued both the orange Emergency Survival Kit (and the ES X500 revolver that came with it) displayed in your post there, and the yellow version (ditto the ES X460).

Here's an article from last December's issue of Field and Stream that recommends pepper spray over guns: http://www.fieldandstream.com/articles/hunting/2008/12/use-pepper-spray-instead-guns-stop-charging-grizzly
Money quote:

Smith analyzed 600 Alaskan bear- human encounters from 1985 to 2006, of which 71 involved pepper spray and aggressive bears—mostly grizzlies.

The results? Bear spray, when properly used, halted aggressive bear behavior in 92 percent of the cases. Of the 175 people involved in the bear-spray encounters, only three were injured and none required hospitalization. Wind interfered with the spray in only five incidents, and in no case, stresses Smith, did it fail to reach the target. Twelve users reported irritation from the spray, but the irritation was minor in all but two instances. And in the 71 encounters when bear spray was used, not once did the can malfunction.

By comparison, Smith's examination of the use of firearms in hundreds of bear encounters shows that bullets deterred a charge just two-thirds of the time, and that it takes an average of four shots to stop a bear.

The advice at the bottom of the article is definitely good stuff; bar the bit about OC, it's exactly what I've been told by a field biologist from the Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (though he specialized in cougars).

Another article, also from Field and Stream (believe me, I do not usually read F&S, but I'm involved in wolf conservation and I often field questions about protection against predators) concludes: "Pepper spray is quicker on the draw than a rifle, and it cuts a wider swath than a bullet." http://www.fieldandstream.com/node/57056

[benEzra]

5. It would allow those already authorized and licensed by a state to carry a weapon in public

to carry that weapon on National Park lands, just as we already can while on National Forest and BLM lands.

I hold a North Carolina carry license; as I've mentioned elsewhere, to obtain it, I had to pass a Federal background check, a state background check, a mental health records check, take a class on self-defense law using a state-approved curriculum, pass a written test on same administered by the sheriff's department, have my fingerprints run by the FBI, and demonstrate competence with a handgun on a shooting range, live fire. In light of that, I don't think allowing me to carry a 9mm when I'm camping in remote areas with my family is the "OMG OH NOES!!" threat that some would make it out to be, since I'm already trained and licensed to carry that 9mm to the mall, grocery store, or down Main Street.

So yes, I believe I should be able to discreetly carry a firearm when on National Park lands if I am already licensed to carry that firearm in public.

[patriotvoice]

6. Not to mention the hassle of the Blue Ridge Parkway National Park...

one minute you're driving along a highway and perfectly legal, then you're driving along the parkway and you're committing a federal crime! Nothing changed but the road. Heaven forbid you cross the state line -- then you're really in for it!

Yes, I'm absolutely for carry in National Parks.

[Tim01]

23. I never even thought of the parkway.

I've probably driven through there on my way to Luray lots of times and never thought about it.

[lazer47]

7. Been there, done that, I could not have said it better.

[Statistical]

8. Just a clarification.

The bill doesn't allow carrying weapon in national park.

It simply makes a national park follow sames rules as any other park in a state.

So take VA currently for example:
City park - legal to carry
Highway - legal to carry
State Park - legal to carry
National Forest - legal to carry
National Park - NOT legal to carry

To make it even more confusing as someone else indicated the Blue Ridge Parkway is a highway and a national park.
So is you are carrying on any other highway it is legal, turn onto the BRP and blam you just committed a felony.

National Forest is legal and often times National Forest is next to National Park. So cross so unmarked boundry and suddenly you went for law abiding citizen to felon.

The law simply will make National Parks follow STATE laws on firearms.

People often bring up that the Mall in DC is a National Park.
DC doesn't allow carrying weapons in public spaces so........ even after this passes the Mall in DC would be subject to laws of DC which preclude carrying a firearm.

[gorfle]

9. Yes.

Of course. If you have a concealed carry permit that allows you to walk down main street while armed and surrounded by hundreds of your fellow citizens, why not in a park?

[NewMoonTherian]

10. Absolutely, yes.

Opponents of the bill, as far as I know, haven't yet provided any legitimate reason not to allow it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

11. If someone is licensed to carry a concealed weapon in the particular State then yes.

That is my understanding of who would be allowed to under the proposed legislation.

David

[Hangingon]

12. Yes

[S_B_Jackson]

13. I support this bill......

which would only allow someone to carry a gun in a national park in accordance with the law that would govern that same persons' conduct in that state. I prefer a degree of uniformity of the law within a state, instead of this little pocket has one rule, that little pocket another rule, and -oops! - the national park has yet another.

[sodom]

14. state and national parks are anything but safe

forget the wildlife, the people scare the crap out of me.
ive spent a lot of time camping in national parks, and between the people cooking meth and prospecting for gold you would have to be crazy not to have a gun for protection.
you simply have no idea how dangerous it is. people go to the parks to escape, to get away, all the criminal elements you find in the city you will find in the parks. and the people who go to the parks to set up their meth labs or steal and mug from tourists they dont drop their guns just because they are entering a national park.

i spent the night at a lovely campsite right off the beach up in washington, the next morning while i was leaving a park ranger told me a whole family was murdered 2 days prior right where i set up my tent because a man wanted their boat. i dont know if having a gun would have saved them, but it couldnt have hurt.

[Israfel4]

16. I got chills reading that.

[krispos42]

15. Yes.

The topic is about concealed carry of handguns being permited in national parks, which exist within state boundries.

Since legally carrying concealed requires a permit in all states except Vermont (no permit required), Wisconsin (does not issue permits) and Illinios (ditto), any person legally carrying a concealed pistol in a national park have been licensed and certified for CCW in public areas in their respective states.

If I can legally carry a concealed pistol in my local city park or when walking in downtown, why not in a national park?

[Israfel4]

17. All I have to say is that

I'd definitely carry if I ever go to the forest. A stick or rock isn't nearly as effective as a firearm against an animal.

Anyone catch that show "I shouldn't be Alive" where the couple was hiking and the old/elderly husband was attacked by a mt. lion!!!! His injuries would have been less severe had either or BOTH of them had been armed.

[dashrif]

18. Some

people just don't realize dangerous animals are in them there woods, my fear is a bear with cubs. If you see cubs get the hell away.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2qYfCOxEYQ

[jmg257]

21. Sure. Why not? n/t

[Tim01]

22. I carry everywhere else. Do parks make people go crazy?