Firearms allowed in National Parks

[dorianlee]

Sure wished I had a boomstick this one time. About 3 hours bushwacking solo up mt joseph in Oregon I came across a black bear. Startled me a bit but I figured I could head away from it and continue up.. As I started to do so the bear got curious and decided to get closer. With the first loud huffs and grunts I was pondering my mortality, my sphincter was puckering and I glanced around in search of non-rotten sticks. Nothing worthy. I quickly bailed on any summit plans and began my retreat. Almost the entire trip down the mountain, he was close behind, following my tracks, huffing and sniffing the ground. I would stop and face him, and he would pause, then I would continue and he would follow. Some trippy shit.

[Frankazoid]

Exactly!!! In the spring and summer months I often hike miles off trails, in many places in wa.... I have come across too curious black bears and have been tracked by cougars for hours, many times. This why I carry when I'm solo bushwakin! It is a great IDEa for anybody of the bushwakin adventurous nature! Turning around in the snow to follow your own tracks back out, only to find cat tracks next to yours the whole way back, with a pile of steaming poop is fuckin freaky dude! Why not protect yourself? Duhhh.

[summitchaserCJB]

So what caliber? 38 is light but with not too much power. .40 has more power but is heavier. 357?

[ZimZam]

A good read is "Mark of the Grizzly" by Scott McMillion. The basic consensus is that bear spray is more effective in warding off an attack than a weapon. An attack by a cat. You probably won't even see it until its sunk its teeth into your neck. I am much more concerned about them than I am bears.

[timmy_t]

Sure wished I had a boomstick this one time.

So if you had a boomstick that one time, you would have pointed it at the bear and it would have run away?

 

Exactly!!! In the spring and summer months I often hike miles off trails, in many places in wa.... I have come across too curious black bears and have been tracked by cougars for hours, many times. This why I carry when I'm solo bushwakin! It is a great IDEa for anybody of the bushwakin adventurous nature! Turning around in the snow to follow your own tracks back out, only to find cat tracks next to yours the whole way back, with a pile of steaming poop is fuckin freaky dude! Why not protect yourself? Duhhh.

You are exactly who I'm worried about with this legislation. Anyway, I'm going to go out on a limb and call bullshit on your claim that you've been "tracked by cougars for hours, many times."

 

And it's spelled "bushwhackin'." Duhhh.

[tvashtarkatena]

Exactly!!! In the spring and summer months I often hike miles off trails, in many places in wa.... I have come across too curious black bears and have been tracked by cougars for hours, many times. This why I carry when I'm solo bushwakin! It is a great IDEa for anybody of the bushwakin adventurous nature! Turning around in the snow to follow your own tracks back out, only to find cat tracks next to yours the whole way back, with a pile of steaming poop is fuckin freaky dude! Why not protect yourself? Duhhh.

 

Yeah...you might try learning more about bear behavior and the history of bear/human interaction if you're gonna schwak that much. I think you might discover how unwarranted your fears are...and save yourself carrying a piece of unnecessary gear that weighs as much as a sleeping bag all the time.

 

OH, and BTW, the recommended bear gun is a 12 gauge with slugs. Good luck toting that around, wielding it effectively on a moment's notice, and being a good enough shot under stress (nasal cavity) not to make a predictable weekend warrior's mess of things. Stay within cell phone range to handle the likely eventuality that you shoot your partner...if you can find one willing to take a chance on going out with you.

Edited February 27, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[ZimZam]

Any individual that thinks he can hit a moving target closing in on him at the rate of a bear attack, and then inflict a lethal shot with a fucking hand gun is dreaming. The bear will be on you before the fecal matter hits your shorts. So tell me, are you feeling lucky punk? Well...

[stevetimetravlr]

better to have a package of Black Cat firecrackers and a lighter and set them off if encountered. it will scare any animal off far better then any firearm.

Most of us have been tracked thru the woods by cougars on occasion. Nothing to get your panties in a uproar about. Be alert, be aware in the woods. Don't let them get the jump on you off some overhanging bank or some such and if encountered, be aggressive and loud with them. Grab a big stick and get ready to party.

[AlpineK]

I've run into black bears a few times. If it's mom with cubs then back off. If not don't try to pet it. Hiking this fall on Rainier I came within 20 feet of one we both looked at each other then went back to what we were doing. Eating berries in the case of the bear and hiking in my case. Black bears wander through campsites all the time. Lots of people sleep in tents in camp, but the only thing the bear cares about is what's in your cooler or pack. Hanging your food or using bear boxes solves this problem.

 

Past that grizzlies aren't much of an issue in Washington. I've heard that the act of standing like we all do when we walk is considered an act of aggression to a bear, so turning around and bending over is the thing to do.

 

I haven't heard much about cougars. I'd say just be aware of your environment. If the cougar is after you I bet it has some skills related to sneaking up behind the victim (you) that you can't match. In that case a gun ain't going to help. being a fast runner like an antelope might work, but I just don't think any of us are up to that, even without a pack.

[Nitrox]

Regardless of which side of the firearm issue you're on this boils down to State's rights. Those that are more invested in firearms restrictions may not see it but this opens doors to other laws set by the federal government that really should be set by the state (controlled substances for example).

 

As far as my personal opinion, I don't see this really effecting anyone. Hunters could always hunt in national parks so long as they had the correct tags and licenses, poachers will continue to poach (that's why they're called poachers). In general most climbers and hikers aren't gun people and aren't going to add the additional weight. Those that do will be licensed by the state and can carry everywhere else anyway (like it or not).

 

Again, I see this as one more empowerment to the state and one less restriction of the federal government.

 

FWIW, CYA, IMHO, Etc Etc Etc.

[gyro]

Lots of talk about animals here and it reminds me of a book I read called "Predators at Risk in the Pacific Northwest". It goes for a couple bucks (2-5$) and IMO is a good read for those that explore the backwoods.

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0898867339/ref=dp_olp_new?ie=UTF8&condition=new

 

One idea that I've taken from that book is the use of little air horns. If you look around you can find really tiny ones (1.4 oz net wt). Clip it on your belt. No aiming, just press and it makes an unholy loud noise. About as much good as your average person would be with a gun when they end up missing their target and just making noise. Only time I've ever used the little horn was to scare away a mtn goat that was getting too comfortable with my camp.

 

The one and only time I've carried a gun was up in the great white north, and that was for fear of polar bears. I carried a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with magnum slugs, biggest rounds I could fit in the thing. It took me lots of practice shooting such large rounds before I could pump all 7 slugs through a 10" grouping while shooting as fast as possible, and not starting aiming at my target, to simulate sudden use. That is the only gun I would trust to stop a bear, and there is no way you are going to want to be carrying it all the time unless there is some real potential for danger, beyond what you find in the lower 48. Also, you have to carry it ready to use, meaning in your hands, cause if a bear charges, it will not give you time to rummage around in your pack. Just not worth it most of the time.

 

The rest of the time, if I'm worried, I'll just carry bear mace along with my little fog horn.

 

As far as being followed by cats and black bear, if your uncomfortable with it, stay home. There will always be an animal that will pick up your trail out of curiosity. Unless it's starving, it should leave you alone (maybe be more cautious in spring).

 

As far as state rights go, what do state rights have to do with federal land? I thought national parks were technically federal land, meaning that this won't help with any kind of precedent for states rights. It may help bring federal laws in line with state, easing confusion, but this isn't a legal precedent.

[Nitrox]

As far as state rights go, what do state rights have to do with federal land? I thought national parks were technically federal land, meaning that this won't help with any kind of precedent for states rights. It may help bring federal laws in line with state, easing confusion, but this isn't a legal precedent.

 

What do Federal rights have to do with a State? It may be a National Park but its within a state. Limiting the power and scope of the Federal Government is never bad, it keeps New Yorkers from telling Alaskans what they should or should not do and vice versa. If this turns into an issue then the states can control it, one hot spot should not effect the rest of the country.

 

We don't live in a black and white world, lets not force each other to use broad brushes. We have entirely too much of that already. Again, I don't expect this to change anything, there won't be ice cream trucks selling AK's as a result. Just go about your business, I bet you'll still find the same accommodating outdoors-men (and women) you always have.

 

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

As far as state rights go, what do state rights have to do with federal land? I thought national parks were technically federal land, meaning that this won't help with any kind of precedent for states rights. It may help bring federal laws in line with state, easing confusion, but this isn't a legal precedent.

 

What do Federal rights have to do with a State? It may be a National Park but its within a state. Limiting the power and scope of the Federal Government is never bad, it keeps New Yorkers from telling Alaskans what they should or should not do and vice versa. If this turns into an issue then the states can control it, one hot spot should not effect the rest of the country.

 

We don't live in a black and white world, lets not force each other to use broad brushes. We have entirely too much of that already. Again, I don't expect this to change anything, there won't be ice cream trucks selling AK's as a result. Just go about your business, I bet you'll still find the same accommodating outdoors-men (and women) you always have.

 

 

 

a) Hunting is not allowed in National Parks

 

NPS

 

From the site:

 

"National Park: These are generally large natural places having a wide variety of attributes, at times including significant historic assets. Hunting, mining and consumptive activities are not authorized."

 

b) Regulations in National Parks is not a states rights issue. Both federal jurisdiction and preemption apply in those areas.

 

Edited February 28, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[Fairweather]

...but the Second Amendment does. That said, I would propose that using a firearm against an animal in a national park should be a crime--even for self defense. When you venture out in to the wilds, acceptance of certain risks goes with the territory. So why bring a gun into a national park? To protect against those rare but unfortunate human encounters we read about from time to time.

[tvashtarkatena]

As anyone familiar with even rudimentary constitutional law knows, the 2nd Amendment is as subject to statutory and judicial restrictions as the rest of the Bill of Rights. From prohibitions on automatic weapons to the banning of guns in bars, the 2nd Amendment is limited in many, many ways.

 

As in other areas of life, the devil is in the details.

Edited February 28, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[Fairweather]

Of course. But as we saw in the recent Heller case, there are limits to the limits.

[Stonehead]

As anyone familiar with even rudimentary constitutional law knows, the 2nd Amendment is as subject to statutory and judicial restrictions as the rest of the Bill of Rights. From prohibitions on automatic weapons to the banning of guns in bars, the 2nd Amendment is limited in many, many ways.

 

As in other areas of life, the devil is in the details.

 

We'll see what the extent of that control at the state and city level of jurisdiction is after McDonald v. City of Chicago is decided.

 

High court to define reach of gun-control laws

[gyro]

What do Federal rights have to do with a State? It may be a National Park but its within a state. Limiting the power and scope of the Federal Government is never bad, it keeps New Yorkers from telling Alaskans what they should or should not do and vice versa. If this turns into an issue then the states can control it, one hot spot should not effect the rest of the country.

 

We don't live in a black and white world, lets not force each other to use broad brushes. We have entirely too much of that already. Again, I don't expect this to change anything, there won't be ice cream trucks selling AK's as a result. Just go about your business, I bet you'll still find the same accommodating outdoors-men (and women) you always have.

 

This doesn't do anything to limit the power of the federal government, that was my point. This was the federal government making this decision, they didn't lose a court case, or otherwise be forced to it. They still have the power to re-enact the ban. It doesn't do anything to enhance states rights. All it does is allow guns into the National Parks and reading anything more into it shows a definite bias, one way or another.

[The Jerk]

So let’s cut to the point here. The real difference this law makes is that now when I decide to drop by Crater Lake on the way home, I won’t be breaking the law because there is a gun in my car. And I won’t have to take it off and hope my car is broken into when I hike over to look over the rim. And everyone in the park will be just a little safer because the dirt bags won’t be guaranteed an unarmed victim simply because you are in a national park.

 

The Oregonian (and I bet many here made the same claims and jumped to the same BS conclusions) back when we got the “shell issue” CWP, of “there will be blood in the streets at every car accident”. Didn’t happen then, won’t happen now.

 

 

[summitchaserCJB]

Was it that there were no guns absolutely in the parks before? Like not even in cars?

[The Jerk]

That’s correct.

[summitchaserCJB]

K. Thanks for clarifying.

[Figger_Eight]

You were able to have guns in National Parks before the ban was lifted, but they had to be disassembled, unloaded and stored separately from the ammunition.

 

We also see this from the context of living in the PNW where it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to carry a gun up to Camp Muir. The story might be a little different, though, if I was out hiking or backpacking in Appalachia.

Edited March 1, 2010 by Figger_Eight

[tvashtarkatena]

Several gun proponents have posted things on this thread that are just plain wrong. That you couldn't carry a gun in your car into a national park prior to the rule change (you could). That hunting was and is allowed in National Parks (it isn't). That pistols are effective bear guns (they aren't). This this is a states rights issue (it's not). I realize that the gun lobby tends to play pretty fast and loose with the facts; that seems to be a cultural thing regarding that issue and those who make it a priority. If you care enough to defend your rights on a public forum that isn't hosted by the NRA with any credibility, however, then please care enough to do a little homework beforehand.

Edited March 1, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[ivan]

And I wont have to take it off and hope my car is broken into when I hike over to look over the rim.

freudian slip?

 

i don't much give a shit about guns, but it is a little disturbing that many folks buy them out of a deep desire to kill