The Department of the Interior is about to submit paperwork for consdieration regarding their management practices. Amongst the changes is one that will no longer prohibit citizens from carrying weapons in national parks. Seems they used some beurocratic policy back in the day as a substitute for actual law and administratoively banned the carry of defensive weapons in many parks due to poachers.
You can google the info on the Knox report and get the specifics, but if you hike and camp then you need to be sure to comment on these changes to ensure they go through. There is no good reason law abiding folks should be feared just because they have guns. Criminals will carry nonetheless, but disarming law abiding citizens is no solution unless. Especially considering many of these areas are extreme wilderness areas.
You can google the info on the Knox report and get the specifics, but if you hike and camp then you need to be sure to comment on these changes to ensure they go through. There is no good reason law abiding folks should be feared just because they have guns. Criminals will carry nonetheless, but disarming law abiding citizens is no solution unless. Especially considering many of these areas are extreme wilderness areas.
posted by:
|
-
Re: No more gun banning in national parks
Fri, April 11, 2008 - 2:28 PMDoes the national park in az. allow gun's? We packed hand gun's on the river trip's alot though I never really new the legality of it out there. Here in missouri you can carry in the national park's as long as you dont shoot it. Unless it is in self defense or hunting season. Was that a national law of some crazy out west thing? -
-
Re: No more gun banning in national parks
Fri, April 11, 2008 - 2:58 PMI was under the impression that loaded firearms have always been banned in a National Park or National Monument. Not in a National Forest or BLM Land. -
-
Re: No more gun banning in national parks
Fri, April 11, 2008 - 4:00 PMI had a park ranger tell me back in 03 that we could have them for self defense outside the hunting season as long as we didnt target practice or shoot them for no reason. This was on the current river though. just out in the national forest, everybody set's up target's and shoot's. -
-
Re: No more gun banning in national parks
Fri, April 11, 2008 - 6:26 PMI'd rather run into an angry ranger with my gun, and face charges or get my ass chewed out, than to run into an angry bear or lion, face a charge, and get my ass chewed out.
The laws really don't affect where I carry when I have legitimate reason to be concerned for me or my family's safety. However, I would sure appreciate the opportunity to greet a ranger out on the trails, and not worry about him noticing any printing. -
-
Re: No more gun banning in national parks
Sat, April 12, 2008 - 9:57 AMI pack into the wilderness areas to hunt and I have had Montain Lions and Bears in my camp. It was a lot more comforting knowing I had a 44 mag than a can of pepper spray or beating on a tin plate with a spoon. May not make a Sierra Clubber happy but then the bear can eat them. -
-
Re: No more gun banning in national parks
Sun, April 13, 2008 - 9:03 PMDifferent types of land have different restrictions. This change will end all of that. Other than federal buildings, you will be allowed to pack a gun when you camp in Yosemite or the Rincons.
It always galls me that every time we get a chance to regain a few gun rights that the newspaper reports that police were against the move because it meant they would be approaching more cars with loaded guns or opposed the measure because more people with guns somehow equates to danger.
You have nothing to fear from law abiding gun owners. -
-
Re: No more gun banning in national parks
Mon, April 14, 2008 - 6:45 PM"You have nothing to fear from law abiding gun owners"
UNLESS you are the kind of corrupt person who would pose a threat to a law abiding citizen... it really says a lot about those particular police officers...and politicians... -
-
Re: No more gun banning in national parks
Tue, April 15, 2008 - 10:16 AMIt's the usual reply, and even if they don't say it, the press inserts it. It's like the school mass murders. AZ wanted to enact a law that allowed CCW holders to carry on campuses, but every time they interviewed one of the campus police chiefs they would say that they felt it was a bad idea because having all the guns around would make it hard for the police to respond in an emergency. How would they know the good guys from the bad guy.
What the press consistently overlooks in these schoolroom mass murders is that not one single time (with the exception of Columbine) have the police ever arrived and tried to take back the situation before the killing was over. At Columbine the deputy exchanged shots with Klebold & Harris (henceforth knows as loser 1 and loser 2) before falling back to "call for support." Most of the people killed that day were killed AFTER that deputy backed off.
When the bullets start flying, don't count on the poilice to save your ass...unless they are already there.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
