Interior Announces Final Firearms Policy Update

[+Criminal]

The National Parks are now open to those of us who carry firearms when we hike. There seems to be some ambiguity about how it’s carried, openly or concealed, but they seem to have followed the paradigm that handguns are carried concealed.

 

PDF of the Rule

 

Interior Announces Final Firearms Policy Update

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Lyle Laverty today announced that the Department of the Interior has finalized updated regulations governing the possession of firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges. The final rule, which updates existing regulations, would allow an individual to carry a concealed weapon in national parks and wildlife refuges if, and only if, the individual is authorized to carry a concealed weapon under state law in the state in which the national park or refuge is located. The update has been submitted to the Federal Register for publication and is available to the public on www.doi.gov.

Existing regulations regarding the carrying of firearms remain otherwise unchanged, particularly limitations on poaching and target practice and prohibitions on carrying firearms in federal buildings.

“America was founded on the idea that the federal and state governments work together to serve the public and preserve our natural resources,” Laverty said. “The Department’s final regulation respects this tradition by allowing individuals to carry concealed firearms in federal park units and refuges to the extent that they could lawfully do so under state law. This is the same basic approach adopted by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the United States Forest Service (USFS), both of which allow visitors to carry weapons consistent with applicable federal and state laws.”

On February 22, 2008, Interior Secretary Kempthorne responded to letters from 51 Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, as well as from the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Natural Resources Committee, urging him to update existing regulations that prohibit the carrying of firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges. In his response, the Secretary directed Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Lyle Laverty “to develop and propose for public comment by April 30 Federal regulations that will update firearms policies on these lands to reflect existing Federal laws (such as those prohibiting weapons in Federal buildings) and the laws by which the host states govern transporting and carrying of firearms on their analogous public lands.”

Changes in the final regulations from those originally proposed in April were developed as the result of public comments. In particular, comments expressed concern about the feasibility of implementing regulations which directly linked the carrying of concealed firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges to the ability of an individual to carry a concealed firearm on analogous state lands. The final regulations remove that potential logistical hurdle.

The existing regulations, as currently in effect, were adopted in 1981 for national wildlife refuges and in 1983 for national parks. Since that time many states have enacted new firearms policies. Currently, 48 states have passed legislation allowing for the lawful possession of concealed weapons.

“The Department believes that in managing parks and refuges we should, as appropriate, make every effort to give the greatest respect to the democratic judgments of State legislatures with respect to concealed firearms,” said Laverty. “Federal agencies have a responsibility to recognize the expertise of the States in this area, and federal regulations should be developed and implemented in a manner that respects state prerogatives and authority.”

[luckykoi]

[+Gipsie]

I am happy about this, but a little worried that it was posted by someone named "Criminal". Hmmmm........

[+TotemLake]

Think irony.

[CoyoteRed]

The National Parks are now open to those of us who carry firearms when we hike. There seems to be some ambiguity about how it’s carried, openly or concealed, but they seem to have followed the paradigm that handguns are carried concealed.

 

PDF of the Rule

 

Interior Announces Final Firearms Policy Update

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Lyle Laverty today announced that the Department of the Interior has finalized updated regulations governing the possession of firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges. The final rule, which updates existing regulations, would allow an individual to carry a concealed weapon in national parks and wildlife refuges if, and only if, the individual is authorized to carry a concealed weapon under state law in the state in which the national park or refuge is located.

 

[snip]

This is good news. No need to disarm law-abiding citizens simply because you're on Federal land.

[+TakeTheLongWay]

This was great news.

 

Even better here in PA we repealed our ban on carry in state parks, so federal parks are now open too.

 

The change is supposed to mirror the states policy on state parks.

 

Just remember though, this only open spaces. Don't go entering any building, those are still covered under the ban on carrying in any federal government building. Many small historic houses and such are considered federal parks.

[+Nishnabotna]

Yay, but my firearms aren't concealable. They are not clear on the issue of open carry. Perhaps that depends on the local/state law just as the concealed carry does?

[+Criminal]

Yay, but my firearms aren't concealable. They are not clear on the issue of open carry. Perhaps that depends on the local/state law just as the concealed carry does?

That’s exactly what I’m wondering. In part of the rule they mention following the laws of the state where the park is, however, in most of it they mention concealed carry and require a concealed carry license or permit issued by the state. Two states, Alaska and Vermont, don’t require a concealed carry license or permit of any kind to carry a concealed handgun. Most of the other states (including Washington) do not require a license or permit to carry a handgun openly anywhere. So if you live in Washington, you can carry a handgun openly (yes, even in downtown Seattle) without a permit or license of any kind. How will the Parks react to carry within the Park that is lawful within the state where the Park is located? Is the wording of the rule a result of the paradigm that people only carry handguns concealed?

[CoyoteRed]

Is the wording of the rule a result of the paradigm that people only carry handguns concealed?

I think it is. It could be simply short-sightedness or a deliberate statement. I didn't get a clue of which during my reading.

 

There are varying schools of thought on the issue. My department states directly in policy that off duty carry must be concealed. The academy teaches it's better to carry concealed even if individual department policy allows open carry. The reasoning is open carry tips off the bad guy on who to take out first.

 

Politically, it might not be feasible to argue for open carry when you can conceal weapons made for defense against humans. Start arguing "because my .500 S&W won't fit under my jacket" and the reasoning behind carrying something that large comes to the fore. Then comes arguments about range of the round, "you shouldn't put yourself in that position," etc. etc.

 

Additionally, I think it a good idea to conceal, anyway. The Rangers start getting complaint, formal or otherwise, from liberal-types about yahoos on the trails "with all those guns" and then you'll start getting pressure from the other end.

 

For really remote wilderness areas where it is necessary to carry large caliber firearms I'm sure the departments will eventually make a policy about carrying openly. I anticipate, though, the public and touristy areas will remain concealed carry only.

[+rwdflynavy]

Great news indeed! Now law-abiding citizens can carry, just like the criminals who never concerned themselves with the law!

[+ironman114]

Great news indeed! Now law-abiding citizens can carry, just like the criminals who never concerned themselves with the law!

 

 

Easy Now! It was Criminal that started this topic! And yes he is concerned with obeying the law.

[MikeB3542]

Please understand, I am neither a gun control advocate nor am I a gun owner. I am a citizen who enjoys the parks, and not sure (more) guns in the National Parks = good thing.

 

Can someone offer a coherent arguement why the change in policy is necessary? NPS is not just any old federal public land (USFS, BLM.)

 

Do we really have a problem with wildlife attacking people in the National Parks-- specifically, do we have a problem that would be resolved with a firearm? By arming visitors, are we encouraging them to blunder into encounters that are best managed by avoidance?

 

Do we really have a problem with the criminal element attacking visitors? Again, is this a problem that can be resolved by arming visitors? My back country experiences in the NP's is that very few folks, including criminals, are back there. Criminals generally focus on public spaces with concentrations of people and stuff. That means armed encounters in parking lots and campgrounds. Is this what we want? Is this something that can be better managed by larger numbers of rangers patrolling parking lots and campgrounds?

 

Finally, how meaningful is allowing extending state conceal carry regs to the NP's when the vast majority of the visitors are from out-of-state and may not have conceal/carry priveleges?

[MikeB3542]

By the way, Criminal, listening to that Sonny Boy Williamson vid clip done this Chicago boy a world of good. Real music indeed!

[+markandsandy]

Can someone offer a coherent arguement why the change in policy is necessary? NPS is not just any old federal public land (USFS, BLM.)

If I am licensed to carry nearly everywhere in the state, why should that change just because I crossed the boundary into a National Park?

Do we really have a problem with wildlife attacking people in the National Parks-- specifically, do we have a problem that would be resolved with a firearm? By arming visitors, are we encouraging them to blunder into encounters that are best managed by avoidance?

Most of the people that I know that carry would still prefer avoidance over an encounter.

Criminals generally focus on public spaces with concentrations of people and stuff. That means armed encounters in parking lots and campgrounds.

Do you see a lot of armed encounters in parking lots, etc. OUTSIDE of the National Parks? I mean involving people who are licensed to carry. I don't. Why assume that this would then be a problem inside the parks?

Finally, how meaningful is allowing extending state conceal carry regs to the NP's when the vast majority of the visitors are from out-of-state and may not have conceal/carry priveleges?

I go back to my first point: If I am licensed to carry nearly everywhere in the state, why should that change just because I crossed the boundary into a National Park? Just because you might not be able to carry here shouldn't mean that I cannot.

[MikeB3542]

"Nearly everywhere" is the key phrase. There are a LOT of things that you can do "nearly everywhere" that just don't work so good in the NP's. This drives some folks nuts, and they avoid the NP's because they don't like the crowds and they don't like being told what to do. I get it.

 

So let me re-phrase my question(s): what are the arguements FOR allowing conceal-carry in the NP's?

 

It occurs to me that this has more to do with the NRA flexing its political muscles and a lame-duck administration trying to get it's two cents in before being shown the door, and less to do with any meaningful gun-owner rights.

 

By the way, I'm a resident of Wisconsin, so I have no direct experience with conceal-carry.

[+Nishnabotna]

"Nearly everywhere" is the key phrase. There are a LOT of things that you can do "nearly everywhere" that just don't work so good in the NP's. This drives some folks nuts, and they avoid the NP's because they don't like the crowds and they don't like being told what to do. I get it.

 

So let me re-phrase my question(s): what are the arguements FOR allowing conceal-carry in the NP's?

 

It occurs to me that this has more to do with the NRA flexing its political muscles and a lame-duck administration trying to get it's two cents in before being shown the door, and less to do with any meaningful gun-owner rights.

 

By the way, I'm a resident of Wisconsin, so I have no direct experience with conceal-carry.

 

So, what are the arguments for NOT allowing ccw in NP?

[CoyoteRed]

Personally I'm glad folks in general and particularly many of this Nations' government entities are recognizing the problem isn't with law-abiding citizen who happen to carry guns. Very few gun related crimes are committed by folks to lawfully carry. Of course, they are the very few just like there are the very few criminals who happen to also wear a badge. For the most part you can trust a cop who shows up at your door when called. You called them for a reason and by far the majority will protect you and not betray that trust. (YouTube stars notwithstanding.)

 

So, because the problem element with CCW holders is so rare there is no reason to prohibit them. Additionally, not only are CCW holders not a problem, they can depend on themselves to their protection. When officers show up it's to take a report for some thug that got scared away and not some thug who took someone's hard earned money or worse.

[+Criminal]

Can someone offer a coherent arguement why the change in policy is necessary? NPS is not just any old federal public land (USFS, BLM.)

Let’s look at it this way. Say you’re out backpacking and you reach your campsite 15 miles from the trailhead after hiking over rough terrain. Someone approaches and asks for some water because his bottle is empty. You notice that all he’s carrying is a water bottle and a camera; 15 miles from the trailhead! So you top off his bottle and ask why he ventured out so far without any gear. He replies that he’s only out for the afternoon and he isn’t worried because he has cell phone reception and can always call search and rescue if he gets lost; after all, that’s their job. The next evening you arrive back at your car and see that S&R is organizing there to look for the same individual. Yep, he got lost and called for help. You’re a little indignant, and rightfully so. During the search, one rescuer breaks a leg and another dies. All of us that hike and backpack would be greatly offended that this individual went out unprepared and cost someone their life because of it.

 

How is going about anywhere unprepared any different? It’s the job of the Park Ranger to endanger his life to protect yours? It’s the job of the police to risk their lives to come to your rescue? Does it not appear cowardly to rely on someone else risking their life, health, job, family, etc, to protect you? The lost photographer was relying on S&R instead of taking necessary preparation in case he became lost. I’m offended whenever anyone endangers someone else because they refused to take even small steps to protect themselves. While protection is one of the jobs the Rangers and police do, basic preparation is your responsibility. Courts all over the country have ruled unequivocally that the police have no legal duty to protect you. In other words, if you are maimed or raped and the police failed to stop it (even if they were negligent) you cannot prevail in a lawsuit against them. Sadly, in places like DC, Chicago, and NYC, you’re between a rock and a hard place. The police have no duty to protect you, and you have been denied the most effective tool to protect yourself. It was that way in the National Parks until recently.

 

If your loved one is about to be raped in a National Park, would you be hoping that the Ranger 35 miles away can arrive in time (if you could even contact them), or that maybe one of the folks at the campsite 100 yards away is armed and willing to provide aid? The rule change doesn’t mandate the carry of a firearm, it makes it an option. If you don’t want to you don’t have to.

By arming visitors, are we encouraging them to blunder into encounters that are best managed by avoidance?

No. A firearm is simply one more tool available if one thinks it necessary. Carrying a first aid kit doesn’t make me reckless around sharp rocks or take chances I otherwise wouldn’t.

Do we really have a problem with the criminal element attacking visitors? Again, is this a problem that can be resolved by arming visitors? My back country experiences in the NP's is that very few folks, including criminals, are back there. Criminals generally focus…

It’s hard to predict when or where a criminal might strike. Since rapes, robberies, and murders do happen in the Parks, I have to ask how many rapes, robberies, or murders do you find acceptable? If there were only eight rapes in the Parks, is that ok? Carrying a firearm cannot completely prevent such occurrences, nevertheless, if it were happening to you you’d probably be wishing you had one.

 

Finally, how meaningful is allowing extending state conceal carry regs to the NP's when the vast majority of the visitors are from out-of-state and may not have conceal/carry priveleges?

I’d have to ask you for a citation on that stat. Even still, my WA CCL is valid in NC, OH, and several other states. Many states have reciprocity with other states.

[+Renegade Knight]

Is the wording of the rule a result of the paradigm that people only carry handguns concealed?

I think it is. It could be simply short-sightedness or a deliberate statement. I didn't get a clue of which during my reading....

 

It seems the intent is to follow state laws for firearms. They confused the issue by expanding the policy beyond the one sentance needed to say they will honor state laws.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Can someone offer a coherent arguement why the change in policy is necessary? NPS is not just any old federal public land (USFS, BLM.) ...

 

Regardless of the division of federal government, the policy in regards to something non specific like firearms should be uniform wherever possible. If that policy is to honor local laws, there is no reason the BLM, Forest service, NPS, GSA etc. should honor it. Obviously you would not be allowed to Carry in the White House for obvious reasons. Open Land? That's another thing.

 

It's when you create uneeded different rules that you create artificial complexity in government and cause confusion with citizens.

[+ironman114]

Please understand, I am neither a gun control advocate nor am I a gun owner. I am a citizen who enjoys the parks, and not sure (more) guns in the National Parks = good thing.

 

Can someone offer a coherent arguement why the change in policy is necessary? NPS is not just any old federal public land (USFS, BLM.)

 

Do we really have a problem with wildlife attacking people in the National Parks-- specifically, do we have a problem that would be resolved with a firearm? By arming visitors, are we encouraging them to blunder into encounters that are best managed by avoidance?

 

 

I believe this will answer that question:

 

Two threatened species of mammals, the grizzly bear and the Canadian lynx, are found in the park. Although their numbers remain at historical levels, both are listed as threatened because in virtually every other region of the U.S. outside of Alaska, they are either extremely rare or absent from their historical range. On average, one or two bear attacks on humans occur each year; since the creation of the park in 1910, there have been a total of 10 bear related deaths.[29]

 

29. ^ "If you encounter a bear". Resources. National Park Service. Retrieved on 2007-03-23.

 

The above was copied from Wikipedia on Glacier National Park, Montana.

 

Is 10 dead people enough? While most handguns won't stop a Grizzly some will with good shot placement.

 

William Tesinsky, photographer October 1986 Brown Approached an adult female too closely in the Otter Creek area of Hayden Valley, Yellowstone National Park.[40]

 

Brigitta Fredenhagen July 1984 Brown Dragged from a tent during the night and killed at a backcountry campsite at the southern end of White Lake in Yellowstone National Park.[41]

 

Roger May June 1983 Brown Dragged from a tent during the night and killed at the Rainbow Point campground in the Gallatin National Forest just Northwest of Yellowstone National Park.[42]

 

Harry Walker June 1972 Brown Killed by a bear that was feeding on food that was left out at his campsite near Old Faithful Inn, Yellowstone National Park.[46]

 

John Richardson, 31, male 1971 Black Killed while camping at West side of Rocky Mountain National Park.[47]

 

These were also found in a Wikipedia site for List of fatal bear attacks in North America by decade

 

Cougar attacks:

 

13 May. 30-year-old Chris Kerzman, an information analyst for the city of Fort Worth, Texas, was attacked by a mountain lion around 8:30 a.m. on the Chisos Basin Loop Trail

in Big Bend National Park about 100 miles south of Alpine, Texas.

 

1991, 12 August. Nathaniel Moore, 12, of Cornville, Arizona, was attacked by a 98-pound male lion in Glacier National Park, Montana.

 

26 July. 9-year-old Scott O'Hare, of Dayton, Wyoming, was mauled in Glacier National Park, Montana, 50 miles northeast of Kalispell at about noon by a young female cat, who authorities said made an unprovoked attack. Park rangers tracked and killed the animal less than 100 yards from where the incident happened. The boy was flown to the hospital where he underwent surgery for deep cuts and puncture wounds in his head, face, neck and right arm. His parents filed a claim for $1 million against the National Park Service the following year. Sources: (Associated Press; Rocky Mountain News; 11/23/91)

 

Near where I live and hike:

 

24 May. 28-year-old Phil Anderson was attacked by an approximately 80 pound mountain lion in Olympic National Park about 20 miles west of Port Angeles, Washington. The lion moved out of the shadows "smoothly and quickly". A mountain biker and wrestler, Anderson first ran backwards but fought when it leapt on his chest. Anderson fell to his back, locked his legs around the cougar, flipped over and buried his thumbs in the animal's throat and choked the cat in and out of consciousness. He kept the front paws pinned back with his forearms. After about two and a half or three minutes, the cat still wriggling, got Anderson's thumb in its mouth and smashed it. That gave the cat the edge. Anderson lost his grip, and the cat's claws went into a whirl and managed to rip through his thick sweatshirt in a couple of places, giving Anderson puncture wounds to the chest. Not wanting more, the lion then fled. Park Rangers declined to hunt down the lion, stating that having so many lions in that area would make it difficult to know which one it was. Source: (Read his account HERE by Mike Dawson, Peninsula Daily News; Sunday, 05/26/96)

 

1996, June. A man running in Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado was attacked by a mountain lion. Injuries not noted. Source: (Statistics on mountain lion attacks in Colorado)

 

14 July. A 4-year-old boy was attacked by a lion at Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado, at about 10:45 a.m. The lion grabbed Raphael Degrave of Bougival, France, by his face and shook and dragged him for several yards. The youngster was hospitalized with cuts to his nose, left ear, and shoulder and required 52 stitches. The lion had previously been seen approaching people, and was killed. The family of Raphael filed suit against the National Park Service three years later, charging that park officials failed to protect them from the "known risk" posed by the mountain lion. Source: (Wildlife Report; from the Colorado Division of Wildlife; 10/22/97) (Deborah Frazier; Rocky Mountain News; 07/16/97) (John C. Ensslin; Rocky Mountain News; 06/28/2000)

 

17 July. A 10-year-old Lakewood boy, Mark Miedema, was killed by an adult female cougar about 4:30 p.m. during a hike in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado. He had raced ahead of his family on a well-traveled trail and was out of sight. His family arrived to see his feet and legs extending onto the trail from adjacent brush. The cougar attempted to drag him away before fleeing. Mark died from choking on his own vomit. The lion retreated when the parents arrived, but was killed soon afterward when it tried to pounce on a National Park Service officer who was guarding the boy's body. This is the second death ever in Colorado from a lion attack, and two other hikers were attacked by cougars in Colorado in the previous year. Sources: (Denver Post; 05/01/98, B-01) (Wildlife Report; from the Colorado Division of Wildlife; 10/22/97) (San Diego Union-Tribune; 08/16/98; 04/25/99, BOOKS-8) (Kevin McCullen; Rocky Mountain News; 07/19/97)

 

Too bad she only had a knife to protect her children:

 

25 May. Armed only with a pocket knife, Mary Jane Coder, 41, fought off a mountain lion that repeatedly tried to attack her three daughters, ages 6, 8, and 9, in Big Bend National Park in west Texas. The lion kept trying to "herd out" one of her daughters at a time, but Coder charged at the lion to protect her children, yelled, and waved her knife. The lion wounded her hand, but the family managed to retreat to their car 2 miles down the trail. Source: (Nando News; Reuters News Service; 06/08/98)

 

04 April. Victoria Martinez, a 4-year-old girl, was attacked and seriously injured by a mountain lion at Bartlett Lake in Arizona's Tonto National Forest at about 7:30 p.m, 20 minutes after sunset. Her family was setting up their camp not far from the water. Her parents were putting the bedding in the tent, and Victoria and her brother were just outside the flap of the tent swatting at bugs when the lion attacked her from behind. The lion dragged her for about 15 yards in the dark. She got tangled in a thorn bush, and her parents scared the lion off. The child's father threw rocks at the lion, yelling and chasing the animal until it released Victoria. The lion crushed the back of her skull, nicked her carotid artery and put several deep puncture wounds in her torso. As of 07/21/2000, Victoria was reported "doing very well considering all that she has been through".

 

After the lion was chased away, District Ranger, Delvin Lopez, said about 15 minutes later the large, healthy, approximately 4-year-old male lion, thought to be Victoria's attacker, ran through another campground and tried to catch a dog. He was chased again. The lion returned to the spot where he dropped his prey. The third time it returned, the lion was killed.

 

Seems it took 3 attacks in one spot before someone stopped this cougar from attacking another person.

 

 

Is this enough accounts of problems with wildlife attacking people in the National Parks? some of these were not in backcountry areas either.

 

I didn't list all the attacks in state parks or in Canada's National Parks.

[+Z71-K9]

I worry more about two-legged predators than four legged-predators. For me its not about protecting myself from wildlife. I fear no animal in the woods. I have a deep respect for the power some animals have, like bears. But I don't fear them. However, I have seen, heard, and read what the most evil animal on earth (man) will do to its own species. That is why I carry a handgun.

[+rock_rat]

So let me re-phrase my question(s): what are the arguements FOR allowing conceal-carry in the NP's?

 

This is the wrong question completely and is part of our current problems in this country. We are a free nation and should never ask why some one should be allowed to do something instead we should always ask why they shouldn't. It is enough in a free nation that you desire to do something. As long as there is no valid, legal, and constitutional justification for not doing it then you should never need to justify doing it. There is no valid constitutional reason why your gun rights should end at the park borders. We spend way to much time worrying about what other people are doing in this country.

[MikeB3542]

So let me re-phrase my question(s): what are the arguements FOR allowing conceal-carry in the NP's?

 

This is the wrong question completely and is part of our current problems in this country. We are a free nation and should never ask why some one should be allowed to do something instead we should always ask why they shouldn't. It is enough in a free nation that you desire to do something. As long as there is no valid, legal, and constitutional justification for not doing it then you should never need to justify doing it. There is no valid constitutional reason why your gun rights should end at the park borders. We spend way to much time worrying about what other people are doing in this country.

 

Just continuing to probe...trying to make this a dialog rather than a smack-down.

 

As I think about this more, CCW is entirely about personal defense against other people -- animals don't decide whether or not to attack based on whether they think you are packing or not. Open-carry is sufficient for protection against animals. Looking at the animal-attack anecdotes, it is not clear that a gun would have changed the outcome in most. (At least one instance involved the deceased near the body of the animal that died from a GSW after mauling the shooter! Others involved being stalked -- sorry, but you probably won't KNOW you are being stalked until the bugger has is claws on you!)

 

Setting the Constitution aside (I really don't want anyone to take your guns away, anyway), let's talk about the personal choice. When you walk out the door in the morning, what decision-making goes into dropping a pistol in your pocket? If you are in a National Park, or any other public place that currently prohibits CCW, do you truly feel that unsafe?

 

Without CCW, the National Parks have been extremely safe places to go. In 2006, there were nearly 300 million visitors, and only 11 homicides/manslaughters. Now, 11 is 11 too many, but that is a remarkably small number. You are way more likely to get killed or injured in a car wreck getting there.

 

The current ban against conceal, which was based on a Reagan-era presidential order, had no real legal challenges--the lifting of the ban is purely a political parting shot from the W-admin. If it was that important to W, he would have lifted the ban in 2001, and dealt with public discussion and debate.

[+Renegade Knight]

...let's talk about the personal choice. When you walk out the door in the morning, what decision-making goes into dropping a pistol in your pocket? If you are in a National Park, or any other public place that currently prohibits CCW, do you truly feel that unsafe? ...

CCW is also about not having to answer questions, get "those looks" get your plate number taken at the gas station and so on. Ignoring anything else. Carrying concealed just solves a lot of problems.

 

Someone isn't different if they carry open or concealed. However they are treated differently.

[+markandsandy]

 

The current ban against conceal, which was based on a Reagan-era presidential order, had no real legal challenges--the lifting of the ban is purely a political parting shot from the W-admin. If it was that important to W, he would have lifted the ban in 2001, and dealt with public discussion and debate.

 

Not quite right.

 

From the link in the original post:

 

On February 22, 2008, Interior Secretary Kempthorne responded to letters from 51 Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, as well as from the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Natural Resources Committee, urging him to update existing regulations that prohibit the carrying of firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges.

[+rock_rat]

Setting the Constitution aside (I really don't want anyone to take your guns away, anyway), let's talk about the personal choice. When you walk out the door in the morning, what decision-making goes into dropping a pistol in your pocket? If you are in a National Park, or any other public place that currently prohibits CCW, do you truly feel that unsafe?

 

First if you took my comment as a smack-down let me apologize, it was a simple observation about the way our society is treating personal liberty these day's and meant as nothing more. The problem is far broader than the CCW debate and extends to all parts of our lives. Any photographer can tell you the way they are treated for doing something that is well within there rights and geocachers see it as well. Instead of asking why that person shouldn't be able to take a picture of there city street they instantly assume the worse and ask why should they. Now to get back on topic, aside from a pocket knife all the time and a fixed blade when I'm backpacking I don't carry a weapon (and I don't consider a pocket knife a weapon). I've considered getting a hand gun recently out of a simple desire to have a handgun. If I were to carry the weapon it wouldn't be do to feeling "unsafe" instead it would be out of a sense of preparedness. Individually our safety is our own concern. It's impossible for any law enforcement agency to always be there when you need them so one must use what ever reasonable measures they feel are appropriate to a situation. I carry water, food, a blanket, and some medical supplies in my vehicle at all times. This is not because I feel unsafe driving down the road, it's because if I wreck in bad weather I want to have what I need to survive. I would rather have those things my whole life and never need them than to need them and not have them.

[MikeB3542]

Fair enough

 

Well, thanks all for the great exchange. The whole gun issue gets the hackles up and good to see folks were overall pretty thoughtful. That, in itself a relief. I might not be thrilled with the change in policy, but it doesn't change any travel plans we had.

 

Good to know that most of the folks carrying are serious people (a lot of the pro- and anti- arguements would lead you to believe otherwise!)

 

Anyhow, my wishes to all for a happy, safe and free 2009 in this country's wild places.

[+Rev Mike]

Thanks for including that PDF here. It not only made for good reading but is immediately relevent to me as I am in the process of planning a 20 state caching trip for the spring that is going to involve spending a large deal of time in no less than 6 National Parks. It is nice knowing now that if I am in a state that honors my concealed carry permit that I no longer have to secure me sidearm before entering the parks. It is already been quite a task trying to figure out what states have what level of reciprocity agreement (if any) with my home state and researching gun laws in twenty states before setting off.

 

- Rev Mike

[+geospyder]

Thanks for including that PDF here. It not only made for good reading but is immediately relevent to me as I am in the process of planning a 20 state caching trip for the spring that is going to involve spending a large deal of time in no less than 6 National Parks. It is nice knowing now that if I am in a state that honors my concealed carry permit that I no longer have to secure me sidearm before entering the parks. It is already been quite a task trying to figure out what states have what level of reciprocity agreement (if any) with my home state and researching gun laws in twenty states before setting off.

 

- Rev Mike

 

States that Honor Pennsylvania's CCW Permit:

Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado*, Florida*, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan*, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming

 

* Honors RESIDENTIAL Pennsylvania permits only.