Firearms in national parks

[computer monkey]

If you want info on a 1911 google 1911

http://www.1911forum.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1911
http://www.m1911.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.sightm1911.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

should I keep going? hehehee

My two cents.
It takes 5 to 7 minutes (maybe) for the police/ranger to get to you. The perpetrator is not going to wait for them to arrive. To me I feel future laws are only going to help the law breakers by keeping weapons out of the hands of law bidding citizens. People who think the law enforcement is going to protect them against a robber...........I hope you live close to the police station.

[Chester]

IMO:
The issue here is very straightforward, and the new law is too. Allowing concealed carry by licensed individuals into our national parks has absolutely nothing to do with poaching, nothing to do with increased plinking by CHP holders, additional danger to working Forest Rangers, or them having to deal with any more duties like worrying about who's the concealed carrier's are. Do you think most police officers stopping you at 2:00 am on a lonely country road for a minor traffic violation, are more worried about the situation when the radio operator advises him that the vehicle being stopped is a licensed concealed permit holder, and therefore someone obviously with no criminal record, or less worried? This has to do simply with the right of licensed individuals to protect themselves, with deadly force if necessary, if they or their loved ones are threatened with bodily harm. The concealed carrier may also elect, to come to your assistance, if you are so unlucky as to be the one who's life is being threatened.

Could an extra bear or human being a year possibly be killed because a concealed carrier, having the ability at hand, shot an attacker? Sure, it's possible. I'd attempt to stop anything walking without hesitation if I felt the circumstances were dire enough to warrant it. Would I feel badly, because a bear or human attacker died by my hand, verses me or someone else being mauled, stabbed or shot by the threat? Sure I would. But anyone rational, knowing anything about a bear mauling or serious crimes against people, should agree stopping the threat immediately would be the first and just priority.

If you don't agree with having concealed guns around you in town, while you eat at McD's, while you gas up at Kroger's, while you shop at Kohl's, while you paddle on the river, or maybe even in your home, then I can respect you not wanting them in national parks or anywhere else. Now I said I could respect, not agree with your outlook. As for me, I'll take that privilege, and hope I never have to use it make that park a safer place for me or you. Does every licensed CHP holder possess quick and accurate shooting capability? Do they all possess the best judgement for all possibly dire situations? No, sorry, again the perfect world evades us, and it may just rain on your picnic tomorrow too. But for those of us with the means and the ability, it could equate to a longer life on this planet for some of us good guys.

Enough rhetoric, the bottom line is, for most of us visiting our national parks, little will change. Just like little has changed on the streets in 48 states where concealed carry is permitted in one form or another, and for many years now hundreds of concealed carry citizens have walked walk around daily, armed and unnoticed. The chance of you encountering serious trouble of any type whether in our national parks, on our streets, or in your own home is very small. But if it happens to you (and it usually happens very quickly), and if I'm there, this law now allows me the means and capability to try and save you. And luckily for you, I shoot better than I paddle.

[okieboater]

Amen, Brother Chester!

[Butch Crain]

I did not read the article, as I can guess the jist of it."

You assume a lot about other's motives and reasoning Chester. Guess I do the same, because I'm pretty sure every one of those "plinkers" I referred to was a right to bear arms type and potential NRA member who thought my presence was an infringement on their constitutional right to be stupid. If they had CHL training (or even hunting safety training) as you do, it wasn't obvious from their actions or remarks.

One good point you made is that an officer knows a little more going in if the dispatcher identifies the person he just stopped as a CHL holder. He knows the registrant of that vehicle is is a responsible member of society that does more than rant about his rights - they've exercised some responsibility relative to those rights. Enforcement officers on National Parks deserve the same level of information in their activities. Since we don't have registrations on our boats or backpacks, self identifying as CHL holders when entering public recreational lands seems a small price to pay for the right to exercise our responsibilities.

I've been a hunter since I was kid (at least until it started intefering with my other recreational activities), and have never been accused of delaying a needed action in any situation. I haven't had the training or experience you've obviously had with firearms so I'll defer to you when it comes to squeezing a trigger. If your remarks are directed at me, you're preaching to the choir, Bro.

[Drifter]

That was quite a piece, Chester. Thanks for taking the time to express simply and clearly what so many of us think and feel.

Ok, that statement was kinda lame.... Let's try this again...

RIGHT ON CHESTER - YOU DA MAN!!!

[computer monkey]

rodger rodger

[Richard]

80 posts and 3500+ hits on a topic that most likely will not affect any of us. The national parks, especially the Buffalo is one of the safest places you can be with or without a gun. I have never owned a gun. I never felt a need for one. I sleep just as well at night as one does that sleeps with his gun under his pillow . . . probably better. And I have a tendency towards paranoia.

For those opposed to concealed weapons in national parks, get over it. You are even more paranoid than me. You will never notice a change as a result of this ruling. I am sure one of the 80 posts has mentioned that hunting guns are already allowed in some parks during hunting season. How many people have been killed in a NP as a result of a hunter bringing a gun in the park? On our last Buffalo River trip my paranoia got the best of me. We were camped next to a couple who were dressed a little different and were hunters. Shortly after dark, a shot rang out. It sounded like it was just a few yards away. My immediate thought was that one of them had gotten drunk and one of us was going to end up dead. All kinds of things went through my mind. None of them good. It turned out the wife had gotten lost and Randy Dodson went with the husband to see if they could find her. He suggested firing a couple of shots to let her know they were looking for her. All turned out well. Randy was a true neighbor and friend of one in need.

For NRA members, get over it as well. You need to get your paranoia under control. Just because I don't own a gun doesn't mean I am a communist trying to take yours away.

[Cowper]

80 posts and 3500+ hits on a topic that most likely will not affect any of us.

But it did affect me. When I travel to remote places in National Wildlife Refuges, which are included in the ruling, I now have rights and more legal options than I had before. Also, if I drive to Harrison or Ponca or Boxley, I'm not commiting a crime if I fail to stop, unload and relocate my firearm, before crossing through the National Park boundary.

You've made the right personal decision; and I really appreciate your willingness to let others make a different decision. That is the element that is lacking in so many, and what makes this a controversial issue.

[Chester]

Butch, quite simply, my note was directed to the general population that may be interested in this topic. The you in my note just refers to anyone interested, concerned, or caught in these situations. I did not name anyone, although I did cover a few points mentioned by others in the post, including yourself. I also did not discuss or mean to remotely imply, any possible response you personally may choose to take in any situation, past or present. If you feel otherwise you should PM me, meanwhile the matter is dropped here.

I agree with Butch on the plinkers. Plinking can be great fun for the individual or family. Unfortunately, many plinkers throw down some cans and start banging away with little regard to where those bullets may travel. For everyone's safety, an adaquate backstop is mandatory whenever shooting. Too often on a gravel roadway, I have seen cans full of holes, and wondered how many bullets had undoubtedly ricocheted off into the surrounding woods. And when paddling and hearing shooting, the first thing that comes to my mind is, are they shooting in my direction, and is it at cans on the water. :shock:

[Butch Crain]

My bad Chester, continue with your witness.

I'm always glad to defer to those who have more knowldege, experience, or ability than I do. When it comes to firearms (and probably other things) I'm sure you should have the floor.

[Richard]

It was bound to happen sooner or later. We need to ban all guns everywhere. I just hope it is not foggy Christmas eve.

[rynorris]

In my CCW class, our instructor ( state police armorer) told us that according to the "Letter of the Law" you can pretty much carry a gun on you, unconcealed, in the state of Arkasnas when on a journey that will lead you 60 miles or more from your home.
Not sure what kind of magic number 60 is.


an attorney friend said the same thing, but don't remember the 60 mile thing. always wondered if this was true. this would seem to confirm.

grant

That would be correct. Boss got a kid out of a ticket in Ozark for toting his pistolee on the interstate w/ no cwp. They even returned the gun.

[RPG]

For those who like a little history:

http://www.claytoncramer.com/popular/du ... erance.pdf

[Drifter]

Gun laws are tricky - mainly cause they're so vague. And they are different in every state. What compounds the trickiness of the situation is that the vagaries of these laws are sometimes left to interpretation of individual jurisdictions within the states.

Let's forget about the CHL deal for right now - take it out of the equation to include everyone. I see Arkansas has a "traveling" clause that allows for the carry of a handgun when traveling. But it's vague. That's how it used to be in Texas and everybody and his brother had his own definition of "traveling" - crossing three county lines - overnight trip - 60 miles - you name it. (See example above) Problem was sometimes the podunk judge or cop did not agree with that definition and off to jail you go. Fortunately for Texas this law has been re-written and is much more clear. Not going to go into it here, but I have posted a link below that lists the laws for all the states - with a disclaimer that says these laws are subject to change.

Interesting to note that you must be "traveling" in Arkansas - but according to NRA-ILA you can have an unloaded handgun in plain sight in the truck with you in Oklahoma. I confirmed this with one of the Sheriffs up there. In Texas you can have a handgun as long as it is out of sight - go figure. Don't take my word for it.

Point is - it's never a good idea to rely on second hand information on this subject. And it's hard for the average citizen to get the facts on this subject even with lots of research. But I believe it's a good idea to do all the research you can on it - then at least you'll be a lot closer to the truth.

And not all states reciprocate on the concealed handgun deal. But that's another subject. Oh yeah - and beware of New York.

http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Drifter]

Oh yeah, on what Butch was talking about:

I used to do a lot of hunting, but not so much anymore - since I discovered kayaking, canoeing, etc. I absolutely quit hunting on public lands because of some of the behavior Butch described.

In my opinion, most hunters are pretty ethical and responsible firearms owners. Everyone in my circle of "woods buddies" is anyway. But all it takes is a few jackasses shooting indiscriminately to mess it up for everyone and give us all a bad name.

Unfortunately, common sense cannot be legislated.