ease on gun ban in national parks

[andycarey]

Amen to that. And criminals aren't likely to have concealed weapons permits, either. The key operative is "law-abiding" citizens.

One reason for weapons bans is that it is very hard to catch someone poaching, in the act of shooting illegally, and shooting up signs and buildings. But it is easier to apprehend and prosecute these people if mere possession is illegal. Virginia did that in the '60s to cut down the poaching. "uncased guns were illegal in National Forests outside of hunting season"--how do I know this? I got a citation and my rifle taken (no I wasn't poaching, I was a wildlife researcher working on rabies in foxes). Anyhow, the point is, these "hardened criminal" scofflaws know this as well and since they can't go into national parks with weapons without a highly increased possibility of detection and prosecution they don't go into the parks--they go into the national forests where they can poach and vandalize with impunity. However, the real criminals (drug smugglers, mfrs, and growers) are brazenly taking over large areas of wildlands and the meth heads, well, they are nuts anyway (but at least in the park, if they are seen with a gun, they can be reported and arrested). I don't know whom the 3 Mt. Rainier NP LEOs were chasing a month ago (I saw them jacking cartridges into their pump shotguns before heading up hill thru the woods), but I did see a 5 gallon bucket full of mushrooms

[Dustin Bise]

street value of about a few grand

[Jim Wallace]

I think its a very bad idea to allow the public to carry guns in the National Parks, and I agree with Andy Carey's well reasoned explanation. The first time I'm in the Park and I hear some jackass shooting off his weapon in there, if I can't get his sorry ass busted, then I might just go take it out on vehicles with NRA stickers. I'm really bummed about this.

Anyone else ever have some parking lot attendant glue one of those full-sized parking violation notices on your windshield? Really hard to get off unless you have a scraper handy.

[shotgunner]

One reason for weapons bans is that it is very hard to catch someone poaching, in the act of shooting illegally, and shooting up signs and buildings. But it is easier to apprehend and prosecute these people if mere possession is illegal Anyhow, the point is, these "hardened criminal" scofflaws know this as well and since they can't go into national parks with weapons without a highly increased possibility of detection and prosecution they don't go into the parks

Back up a sec.. Who said anything about it being legal to discharge firearms inside a park?

What 'highly increased possibility of detection' would that be? Is an intense vehicle search going to be implemented @ the gate?

"The regulation allows individuals to carry concealed firearms in federal parks and wildlife refuges to the same extent they can lawfully do so under state law, Laverty said, adding that the approach is in line with rules adopted by the federal Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. Those agencies let visitors carry weapons consistent with applicable federal and state laws" from post #1

This will only apply to individuals with a concealed weapon permit and bound by regualtion of the state it was granted in and the one containing the park being visited. Hardly a carte blanche invitation to the general public... The criminals don't/won't need one, never did or will, before or after.

[andycarey]

Increased probability of detection: you, me, the other park visitors who see someone with a gun, aiming it, shooting it, twirling it on their finger, playing quick draw, pointing it at wildlife or kids that are bugging them, etc. BTW, it has been legal in multiple states for game wardens to search your vehicle without a warrant if you are on public land/public roads and they suspect you of violating game laws (probably wouldn't hold up with an intense legal challenge). I don't know what the laws are about NPS LEOs searching vehicles within National Parks.

If it is legal to carry a loaded weapon on your person or in your vehicle in a National Park for self defense does that not imply it is legal to discharge said weapon under certain circumstances ... or wouldn't the weapons carriers feel just as insecure as if they weren't armed. AND just because it might be illegal to discharge a weapon in the park, people will be shooting things just like it is illegal to shoot a weapon from a vehicle in the National Forest and to shoot up a sign, outhouse, tree, rocks, bottles, cans, etc.--it happens all the time (every day 10-1,000 times/day out here given the shots I can hear from my house--there is no shooting range around here, either).

[cj6530]

your view on this issue should have zero to do with personal safety. If it is...then I suggest taking a course in statistics, logic and or see a licensed doctor who specializes in phobia.

[gearhead]

Lol, guess ya didn't read my entire post, i know it was long.

[Mike T]

I agree; I always wanted to shoot trout in Yellowstone just like I could in the Wind River Range. And living here just outside Mt. Rainier NP, I've always been chagrined, that unlike in the neighboring National Forest, none of the road signs or rest rooms are shot up, there are no abandoned, burnt out, shot-up cars and pickups (all over the GP NF and the nearby DNR lands), and when I go hiking or skiing I can't hear anybody shooting (repeatedly, all day long, unlike anywhere in the GP, or DNR, or unincorporated east Pierce County). Why I even haven't had the pleasure or seeing poached or wounded deer and elk in the Park, like I have in the RCW "no shooting zone" in my high-density housing subdivision--the game warden says he can't enforce no shooting/no trespassing violations and the sheriff's deputy told my neighbor-- when someone shot a deer in her driveway right in line with her looking out the window--well all you people out there have guns don't you? Well, not in the National Park we didn't, now we will! Hip, hip, hooray!!!!

p.s., just got back from the Queets (no noticeable bullet holes on signs on the lower or upper river valley, but dropped by the Wynoochee, whoooeee! talk about some good shooting through the timber company's signs!! Now, that's American! No wussy gun prohibition. Also found an elk rumen in the river, just below Bob's bridge, seems like the day before some citizen shot one 3 miles upstream and floated it down the river (being submerged chest-deep himself at times) before he got to the bridge and dressed it out in the water, of course.

People who would poach game or shoot up signs are acting illegally. Why would someone who acts unlawfully care about a law like the right to carry if they're willing to break other laws?

Also, how does the right to carry a concealed weapon equate to national parks becoming a free fire zone? In WA it's legal to carry in state parks, they've not become free fire zones. It seems to me that you and others are reacting emotionally and linking two different topics.

[Nooksack Mac]

Why should our views on this subject have nothing to do with concerns about personal safety? In fact, it's mainly about personal safety, and rightly so. True, animal attacks are unlikely in wild public lands, and attacks by two-legged predators even more so. Nevertheless, they do happen, and I don't want to go down waving a table of actuarial probabilities as my last defence.

Nor do I want my right to act on my personal judgment to be subject to the authoritarian prejudices of a remote administration. What if someone, somewhere in Interior or Homeland Security decided that pornographic magazines or campfire talk about political issues should be banned as, well, contrary to the public interest or morals?

The right to gun possession is a very, very big deal in the American political culture. It cannot be shoved aside at some official whim. When we composed a short list of inalienable rights that the mighty government could not casually take away, we listed this one second. Most of the objections raised earlier can be dealt with by reasonable restrictions on recreational shooting and "brandishing" or other horseplay.

[ak_powder_monkey]

you aren't allowed to have guns in national parks and wildlife refuges? Oops...

[cj6530]

Why should our views on this subject have nothing to do with concerns about personal safety? In fact, it's mainly about personal safety, and rightly so. True, animal attacks are unlikely in wild public lands, and attacks by two-legged predators even more so. Nevertheless, they do happen, and I don't want to go down waving a table of actuarial probabilities as my last defence.

Nor do I want my right to act on my personal judgment to be subject to the authoritarian prejudices of a remote administration. What if someone, somewhere in Interior or Homeland Security decided that pornographic magazines or campfire talk about political issues should be banned as, well, contrary to the public interest or morals?

The right to gun possession is a very, very big deal in the American political culture. It cannot be shoved aside at some official whim. When we composed a short list of inalienable rights that the mighty government could not casually take away, we listed this one second. Most of the objections raised earlier can be dealt with by reasonable restrictions on recreational shooting and "brandishing" or other horseplay.

I agree that the right to gun possession is a very very bid deal. I am a member of NRA. I think we should have the right to carry guns in parks. But....if you think that you need this right to defend yourself against animals or humans you likely have a phobia that could be treated. Just because animal and human attacks happen doesn't mean you should arm yourself for it in the wild. The statistical probability of it happening is so remote that you should not worry about it. Your argument that it does happen so you should be prepared only makes sense when you have a reasonable probability of it happening....otherwise it is a phobia. It would be like you building a shield over your home because you are afraid of a plane crashing into it. Yes it does happen, but i don't know that you should take precautions to prevent it.

[andycarey]

I just read the official final rule (vs. news report). To my surprise the rule only allows carrying concealed handguns; unconcealed pistols, rifles, and shotguns are still prohibited (except where currently allowed for hunting and target practice in National Wildlife Refuges). Now this is bizarre, to me. The strongly inferred purpose of the new rule is to allow people to protect themselves from murder and rape (not from dangerous wild animals) and to promote federalism, or the preeminence of State law over Federal law (by Federal choice). The rule also cited the recent supreme court decision then decided that that decision did not apply to tents and trailers . The final rule made a big deal of Sarah Palin writing in to support the change (100,000 + others objected including park employee and retired park employee organizations).

[shawn k]

I just read the official final rule (vs. news report). To my surprise the rule only allows carrying concealed handguns; unconcealed pistols, rifles, and shotguns are still prohibited (except where currently allowed for hunting and target practice in National Wildlife Refuges). Now this is bizarre, to me. The strongly inferred purpose of the new rule is to allow people to protect themselves from murder and rape (not from dangerous wild animals) and to promote federalism, or the preeminence of State law over Federal law (by Federal choice). The rule also cited the recent supreme court decision then decided that that decision did not apply to tents and trailers . The final rule made a big deal of Sarah Palin writing in to support the change (100,000 + others objected including park employee and retired park employee organizations).

lSeveral years ago while hiking in the back country in redwood National park My girlfriend and I encountered a Marijuana patch. We got lucky that no one was there because we could have been shot. this was before the Mexican drug lords took over the Marijuana trade .Two years ago in Point Reyes National Sea Shore (A national Park)
some hikers stumbled into a grove of close to a thousand pot plants. The park Police later Arrested some Illegal aliens carrying automatic weapons. In this day and age you never know what criminal element you might encounter in a national park. Drugs have become such a problem in National parks that they have special units to deal with them now.

[andycarey]

lSeveral years ago while hiking in the back country in redwood National park My girlfriend and I encountered a Marijuana patch. We got lucky that no one was there because we could have been shot. this was before the Mexican drug lords took over the Marijuana trade .Two years ago in Point Reyes National Sea Shore (A national Park)
some hikers stumbled into a grove of close to a thousand pot plants. The park Police later Arrested some Illegal aliens carrying automatic weapons. In this day and age you never know what criminal element you might encounter in a national park. Drugs have become such a problem in National parks that they have special units to deal with them now.

You are very correct and your statement applies to National Forests as well. the rule, however, referred to increasingly dangerous conditions in the southern border states.

[Be Jofus G]

Wow, people who have passed background checks and have been issued a concealed carry permit by the sherrif can carry a pistol now. what a f-ing tragedy. surely this will be the end of our national parks system. I mean, cmon, we all know that these people with no history of mental ilness that have never comitted a violent crime in their lives are going to shoot you while you are peacefully gaining carnal knowledge of a tree and it's all Bush's fault.