Firearms allowed in National Parks

[AlpineK]

Having hiked then climbed in National Parks for over 40 years I have never felt a need to protect myself from either humans or animals by packing heat. Neither my family or friends have ever recounted events where a firearm would have helped.

[gyro]

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.

 

And that guns had to be disassembled in the vehicle (They just had to be unloaded).

 

And you know what they say about pistols for bears. File down the sights so it doesn't hurt as much when the bear shoves it up your ass...

[tvashtarkatena]

I would say that having the option to shoot yourself rather than die of exposure is might come in handy once you've broken your ankle trying to negotiate a mossy creek bed with your sixty pound pack complete with gun, ammo, bowie knife, snake bite kit, tre-bark jumpsuit, trip wires, night vision goggles....

Edited March 1, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[The Jerk]

LOL. Or just a failure to proof read? LOL!

 

I enjoy many things. Climbing and firearms are just some of them. I used to really enjoy hunting. Now, I enjoy other things more so I don’t hunt much. No great desire to kill. But when hunting, that is a very small part of it. Like climbing, the placing of a cam is only one small part of the overall enjoyment of the outing.

 

 

[The Jerk]

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.

 

So maybe that what I get for believing the signs when they say “No guns inside park limits” ?

 

I’ll buy it that it “disassembled, unloaded and stored separately”. But that still leaves me with the whole issue of leaving it in the car and hopeing it isn’t ISN’T broken into.

 

[Jim]

Having hiked then climbed in National Parks for over 40 years I have never felt a need to protect myself from either humans or animals by packing heat. Neither my family or friends have ever recounted events where a firearm would have helped.

 

I don't get it either. Even when I work in AK none of us carry firearms, unless required to by the agency we're working for. I have made sure I had pepper spray in instances I knew were were going to spend time in bear infested places. One state biologist we worked with carried a rifle when he worked for the feds and was charged by a big boar they surprised near a creek. He got the rifle off his shoulder, the bear charged to within 5 feet, stood up on it's hind legs towering over him, then got back down on 4s and wander off. His statement of why he didn't fire? "I knew he was going to stop"

 

Seems that folks would rather spend the money to gain the false security of a pistol rather than learning about the elements they step into. In general, I'm bemused about the parnoia and fear of gun toters.

[The Jerk]

Lets just be clear? TV was the first person to bring up “bears” as a reason people want to carry a gun (and for that matter, also started with the “there will be blood in the streets” kind of BS). And the “anti” gunners on here were the ones to start jumping anyone that didn’t fall in line with guns=bad.

 

I have no plans to carry into a NP. But now, if I’m in the area and want to stop in, it’s a non issue as far as if I’m caring a firearm. Still won’t be taking it on my next Rainier climb though!

 

 

[The Jerk]

In general, I'm bemused about the parnoia and fear of gun toters.

 

I’m with you Jim. I’m also “bemused about the parnoia and fear of gun toters”. I mean really, once you meet them and get to know those “gun toters”, you find their really just nice folks. I don’t really know why people are so “paranoid” and “fearful” of “gun toters”. But lots of folks are. Maybe they are just haters and insecure deep down inside?

 

 

[Figger_Eight]

And that guns had to be disassembled in the vehicle (They just had to be unloaded).

 

Woops - yup, you're right. Just double checked.

[Figger_Eight]

This is all I have left to add to the conversation.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Lets just be clear? TV was the first person to bring up “bears” as a reason people want to carry a gun (and for that matter, also started with the “there will be blood in the streets” kind of BS). And the “anti” gunners on here were the ones to start jumping anyone that didn’t fall in line with guns=bad.

 

I have no plans to carry into a NP. But now, if I’m in the area and want to stop in, it’s a non issue as far as if I’m caring a firearm. Still won’t be taking it on my next Rainier climb though!

 

 

"Blood in the streets"? Yeah...own your own bullshit. As for bears, there was a fair bit of discussion here about them before you arrived on the scene to deliver a few misconceptions. Worried about your gun being stolen out of your car? Own that, too. In what whiny universe would that ever be the National Park Service's problem? Planning a trip that includes a National Park visit and worried about leaving your gun in your car? Here's some ideas: a) Keeping worrying. b) Leave the gun at home, or c) skip the National Park. It's just not that hard.

Edited March 1, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[ivan]

In general, I'm bemused about the parnoia and fear of gun toters.

 

Im with you Jim. Im also bemused about the parnoia and fear of gun toters. I mean really, once you meet them and get to know those gun toters, you find their really just nice folks. I dont really know why people are so paranoid and fearful of gun toters. But lots of folks are. Maybe they are just haters and insecure deep down inside?

 

whatever paranoia i have against gun toters is likely the result of a gun being pulled on me by an angry red-neck in shenendoah national park - though i was in the park according to the map and signs, he was confident i was on HIS land - i'm pretty certain having a gun myself in that situation could only have made things worse

[The Jerk]

Whenever the gun thing pops up here, as it cyclically does, and somebody invariably cites 'grizzly danger' as a reason for packing, I'm reminded of a conversation I had with our game warden and guide in South Africa's Hluhluwe Umfolozi National Park (HUNP) while on a walking safari there back in 1995. Steve was his name, as I recall. HUNP has a rich population of dangerous animals, which includes black and white rhino, elephants, cape buffalo, lions, and leopards, hyena, hippos, crocodiles, cobras, and black mambas, to name a few. Poaching, particularly of rare white rhinos, is a constant concern, so all game wardens are required to have prior military training. If a poacher is detected in the park (basically, any unaccounted for human prints), all game wardens deploy with fully automatic weapons and are authorized to track them down and shoot on sight. It's assumed that the poachers are heavily armed and will shoot first. They do. Steve himself, had been involved in a fierce firefight with poachers not two years prior. Game guides also carry .458 rifles (elephant guns) while on safari.

 

Steve, obviously no stranger to the use of firearms, was also an ultramarathon runner who trained regularly in the park...unarmed. "If you bother to learn the habits of the wildlife here, you don't need a weapon, you just need your brain and your senses" he told us.

 

I asked him how many animals had been shot in emergency situations by game guides in the park's then 45 or so year history. "Two, both by the same warden. Both killings were deemed unnecessary; he was finally fired."

 

Like many attitudes in America, any feeling of increased security one gets from being armed in a national park is based on myth and a lack of knowledge about both the wildlife and largely non-existent crime in those areas. It's the Lazy Boy approach: buy the appliance, get that manly, 'protector' feeling.

 

Back on planet earth, however, the danger from wildlife in our national parks is a statistical joke, particularly when compared to the tooth, claw, and poison running around a park like HUNP. Despite this rather glaring fact, some of us continue to harbor significantly more selfish and paranoid cultural attitudes towards this kind of non-existent threat than do, say, most South Africans, who, by all rights, should be a lot more worried.

 

Unfortunately, this indulgence comes at the expense of the security of wildlife and other park visitors; a sacrifice many 'no exception' gun toters are perfectly willing to make for everyone and everything else. For some, its not about visiting and respecting a wildlife habitat that, after all, isn't YOUR home. Its not about sharing a national treasure with other citizens. It's about 'exercising your rights' and making yourself feel good at the expense of pretty much everyone and everything around you.

 

There will likely be a few shootings in national parks in the coming years; bears mostly, but just as likely the occasionally brush bashing night hiker or disgruntled campground neighbor, some likely fueled by booze, as such incidents often are. It will be interesting to see how all this plays out after a few inevitable and avoidable firearms related deaths occur.

 

 

TV, do you read before your full BS on-slot starts?

 

“somebody invariably cites 'grizzly danger' as a reason for packing,” That somebody was you TV. More of your full on SHIT mode.

 

“It will be interesting to see how all this plays out after a few inevitable and avoidable firearms related deaths occur.” That was more from you TV. Sounds like blood in the streets BS talk to me.

 

So this is where you come on full bore and launch in to a flaming attack on me instead of simply talking and or clarifying the issue.

 

 

[The Jerk]

Wow ivan, that would suck. Glad it didn’t end up worse. And I know you get this, but that was just that situation. Not everyone that has a gun is like that guy. Clearly.

Or was that more about him being a “red-neck”?

 

[Nitrox]

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.

 

Admittedly in my haste I mixed National Forest with National Park. However, hunting does exist within National Parks, just not on the same basis. Usually its done by state/federal hunters in a resource management form, not over the counter permit and tag.

 

As far as State's rights goes, the new law reverts regulation to the state while enforcement remains federal. If the state doesn't want CCW in parks they can create state level regulation specifically or do as California does and not issue permits.

 

Personally I'd like to see states have full control over the parks, which is where my interests lie, not in trying to convince you that you should or should not carry a gun.

 

 

[LostCamKenny]

no one else has said it, so i will...

 

... and this is on the climber's board and not in spray because______

[JoshK]

Because paranoia about bears and meth heads assaulting you in the wilderness and the corresponding tough guy "i'll defend myself" attitude is obviously a fundamental topic in cimbling.

 

Just carry a handful of M80s with you. You can scare bears and meth heads, perform your own avalanche control, and entertain yourself as a bonus. Not to mention pull a prank and blow up the mailbox on the top of certain local peaks.

[gyro]

Wow ivan, that would suck. Glad it didn’t end up worse. And I know you get this, but that was just that situation. Not everyone that has a gun is like that guy. Clearly.

Or was that more about him being a “red-neck”?

 

There is always a minority (hopefully) within a demographic that gives the rest a bad name (like people who place bolts on old trad routes). The difference with gun owners is that reckless behavior with a gun can result in more than marred scenery.

 

I had a bad encounter with drunk turkey hunters and since then I've kind of looked askance when I see people with guns in the wilderness, wondering if they are responsible or not. And I am a gun owner. It doesn't take very many bad encounters with drunk, gun wielding people before you wish you didn't have to worry about it.

[tvashtarkatena]

The only sketchy encounter I've had in the wilderness involving another human in 40 years of backcountry travel was spotting a lost and obviously confused hunter in the Jefferson Peak area who appeared to be high as a kite on something aiming his .306 at my chest. Damn, I know I could have gotten a shot off first had I only had the means.

 

The assumption posted here over and over again is "those who carry legally aren't the ones you need to worry about". Yeah, I don't buy that at all. Sure, there are plenty of responsible permit carriers out there, blah, blah, but let's face it; it's laughably easy for just about any bozo to get a permit to carry. Furthermore, screening for such permits has been watered down by the lobbying efforts of the very same folks who make this claim. Sorry, guys, basic conflict of interest = zero credibility. Furthermore, isn't just a little ironic that those who are paranoid enough to want to carry in a National Park also want to maximize the potential lethality of the other folks they claim to be so worried about?

 

I'm with Ivan; the gun fetish indicates some inner wrongness that I don't pretend to understand but that I also certainly don't trust. Guns attract kooks like moths to a flame. Go to a gun show and, Woah Nelly, you'll see what I'm talking about. When I see someone packing in our PNW wilderness 'for personal safety' (hunting's a different story, of course), I interpret it as a either a) the aforementioned weirdness or b) a lack of experience...at least until interaction with the individual proves otherwise.

 

Statistically, nearly everyone who owns non-hunting guns claim its for personal safety. And statistically, these are the very folks who do the lion's share of shooting family members, friends, and themselves, either violently or by accident. Statistically, you and those around you are far less safe if their's a handgun in the house. That's what the numbers say...your mileage my vary.

Edited March 1, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[billcoe]

Yes, we need gun control like Mexico. That way, at least the cops, who of course remain armed, can pick up extra cash by kidnapping the citizens subjects.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/28/1088392599561.html

 

Then at the end of the day (like the million some odd folks gathered in the picture above claiming that the police are behind all these thousands of kidnappings and continually victimizing them in other ways) you can protest and squeal like a pig all you'd like since your constitution guarantees the right to protest: the politicians and their armed cronies still have you by the short hairs since they retain the real power.

 

Of course, you'd still have a "free" press right? Frankly, speaking for myself, I much rather trust all of you to be carrying firearms than just allowing the government to control that, see, I feel that many of them are untrustworthy and it only takes one power hungry dude like Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin etc to ruin your day life, while most of you are honest folks.

 

Bottom line: I trust YOU more than I trust THEM. At the end of the day, freedom isn't free. You don't get something for nothing.

[pink]

The only sketchy encounter I've had in the wilderness involving another human in 40 years of backcountry travel was spotting a lost and obviously confused hunter in the Jefferson Peak area who appeared to be high as a kite on something aiming his .306 at my chest. Damn, I know I could have gotten a shot off first had I only had the means.

 

The assumption posted here over and over again is "those who carry legally aren't the ones you need to worry about". Yeah, I don't buy that at all. Sure, there are plenty of responsible permit carriers out there, blah, blah, but let's face it; it's laughably easy for just about any bozo to get a permit to carry. Furthermore, screening for such permits has been watered down by the lobbying efforts of the very same folks who make this claim. Sorry, guys, basic conflict of interest = zero credibility. Furthermore, isn't just a little ironic that those who are paranoid enough to want to carry in a National Park also want to maximize the potential lethality of the other folks they claim to be so worried about?

 

I'm with Ivan; the gun fetish indicates some inner wrongness that I don't pretend to understand but that I also certainly don't trust. Guns attract kooks like moths to a flame. Go to a gun show and, Woah Nelly, you'll see what I'm talking about. When I see someone packing in our PNW wilderness 'for personal safety' (hunting's a different story, of course), I interpret it as a either a) the aforementioned weirdness or b) a lack of experience...at least until interaction with the individual proves otherwise.

 

Statistically, nearly everyone who owns non-hunting guns claim its for personal safety. And statistically, these are the very folks who do the lion's share of shooting family members, friends, and themselves, either violently or by accident. Statistically, you and those around you are far less safe if their's a handgun in the house. That's what the numbers say...your mileage my vary.

 

 

so nobody should own a gun is what your saying... if a person owns a gun statistically it will be used to do harm..... so all guns should be done away with on this planet is what you are saying? right??????

[Stonehead]

[video:youtube]v=6nf1OgV449g

Fast forward to about 2:08 for those of you who don't have 3 minutes of time.

 

The Swiss have a militia system where citizens are armed with military grade firearms. Despite that, the Swiss are not afflicted by a high number of gun shooting deaths and their gun crime rate is so low as to be virtually nonexistent.

 

Granted, Switzerland is a less populous country than the US. It seems to indicate that although guns are contributory they are not the cause of violence. Perhaps there is something else that is endemic to the US that leads to violence. And if you think it’s confined to guns, think again. If you ever been on the receiving end of road rage, you’d know what I mean.

 

[video:youtube]v=2TVooUHN7j4

 

Of course, this doesn't mean by default that everyone should have access to similar weapons. And, I'm not saying that guns are always the answer. Possessing one is analogous to training in other self defense skills such as martial arts. One doesn't train in order to attack people but to have something to counter the threat to one's being or family.

 

 

Edited March 2, 2010 by Stonehead

[ZimZam]

Just bring your kevlar when in NP's cause Jose got sumtin for ya.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100302/ap_on_re_us/us_drug_war_pot_farms

[Nitrox]

The only sketchy encounter I've had in the wilderness involving another human in 40 years of backcountry travel was spotting a lost and obviously confused hunter in the Jefferson Peak area who appeared to be high as a kite on something aiming his .306 at my chest. Damn, I know I could have gotten a shot off first had I only had the means.

 

The assumption posted here over and over again is "those who carry legally aren't the ones you need to worry about". Yeah, I don't buy that at all. Sure, there are plenty of responsible permit carriers out there, blah, blah, but let's face it; it's laughably easy for just about any bozo to get a permit to carry. Furthermore, screening for such permits has been watered down by the lobbying efforts of the very same folks who make this claim. Sorry, guys, basic conflict of interest = zero credibility. Furthermore, isn't just a little ironic that those who are paranoid enough to want to carry in a National Park also want to maximize the potential lethality of the other folks they claim to be so worried about?

 

I'm with Ivan; the gun fetish indicates some inner wrongness that I don't pretend to understand but that I also certainly don't trust. Guns attract kooks like moths to a flame. Go to a gun show and, Woah Nelly, you'll see what I'm talking about. When I see someone packing in our PNW wilderness 'for personal safety' (hunting's a different story, of course), I interpret it as a either a) the aforementioned weirdness or b) a lack of experience...at least until interaction with the individual proves otherwise.

 

Statistically, nearly everyone who owns non-hunting guns claim its for personal safety. And statistically, these are the very folks who do the lion's share of shooting family members, friends, and themselves, either violently or by accident. Statistically, you and those around you are far less safe if their's a handgun in the house. That's what the numbers say...your mileage my vary.

 

Fortunately this doesn't change the hunting regulations so based on your only negative experience you should still be good to go in National Parks.

 

 

[Fairweather]

The only sketchy encounter I've had in the wilderness involving another human in 40 years of backcountry travel was spotting a lost and obviously confused hunter in the Jefferson Peak area who appeared to be high as a kite on something aiming his .306 at my chest.

 

.306?? Is this some new .308/.30-06 hybrid I need to add to my arsenal?