# Concealed guns in national parks? Loaded weapons in wildlife refuges? Whaaa? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 22, 2009, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301 "2009-05-22T15:50:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2009, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/61 "2009-05-22T22:03:39Z")
> [@PatriotGrrrl](#): > > Where are you all getting all this “concealed” and “permit” stuff from? 😕 You’re right. I was going by the discussions I’ve heard here and on the radio that mentioned ‘licensed’ individuals. I’ve looked up S5383-5384 and it says ‘the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the law of the State in which the unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System is located.’ ---
**Author:** ![Stealth\_Potato](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Stealth\_Potato](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stealth_Potato)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2009, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/62 "2009-05-22T22:05:54Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > I am just annoyed at how this legislation got passed, snuck into another, wholly unrealted bill. But this isn’t a new thing, so what can you do? I dunno, it wasn’t entirely “snuck” in. Tom Coburn’s amendment was approved by the Senate 67 to 29, with only three abstentions. Nearly half of all Senate _democrats_ voted in favor of including the amendment. The House also apparently held a separate vote on the guns in national parks issue, and also approved it 279 to 147. But I don’t like the practice of attaching unrelated riders either, FWIW, even if I approve of this particular legislation. (In particular since it seems it could have passed under its own steam anyway…) ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2009, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/63 "2009-05-22T22:13:16Z")
> [@PatriotGrrrl](#): > > Where are you all getting all this “concealed” and “permit” stuff from? 😕 > > Not that I would expect any of you\* to actually _read_ anything you’re commenting on. > > (\* message board posters in general, not dopers in particular) Well, here’s the text of the credit card legislation that applies to weapons: [QUOTE=SEC. 512. PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM VIOLENT CRIME] (b) Protecting the Right of Individuals To Bear arms in Units of the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System- The Secretary of the Interior shall not promulgate or enforce any regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm including an assembled or functional firearm in any unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System if– (1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the firearm; and (2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the law of the State in which the unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System is located. [/QUOTE] Since all states, except Wisconsin and Illinois (as well as the District of Columbia) have some form of concealed carry legislation on the books, paragraph (b) of this section allows for concealed weapons in every national park and wildlife refuge not located in Wisconsin, Illinois, and D.C., in accordance with state regulations on concealed carry. ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2009, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/64 "2009-05-22T22:20:16Z")
> [@Stealth\_Potato](#): > > But I don’t like the practice of attaching unrelated riders either, FWIW, even if I approve of this particular legislation. (In particular since it seems it could have passed under its own steam anyway…) This part really bugged me too, but since I didn’t agree with the amendment, I figured nobody would take me seriously if I complained about it. If it had the bipartisan support it needed to pass, it seems pretty underhanded to attach it to a completely unrelated bill that the President was eager see passed. :mad: Feel free to continue this semi-related hijack. Someone may be inclined to come in here and explain why we shouldn’t be irritated about this method of legislating. ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2009, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/65 "2009-05-22T22:25:13Z")
> [@Washoe](#): > > Federal recreation areas ain’t exactly Disneyland. North Rim of the Grand Canyon generally gets about 25 – 30 forcible rapes reported every year. I know a lot of Rangers who won’t touch Yosemite with a ten-foot pole, my sister’s ex-husband being one of them. Statistically speaking, working in any NP along the US—Mexico border (Big Bend, Organ Pipe) is probably more dangerous than working for the LAPD, but that’s just a guess. As it stands right now, working in a commissioned capacity for the NPS is currently the most dangerous form of federal service. An NPS Ranger is fourteen times more likely to get killed on the job than an FBI agent. They handle felony car stops exactly the same way everybody else does: lights flashing, shotguns out, everybody out of the car and down on the ground. I’ve even talked to State Park Rangers who work in parks in and around LA County who won’t always go for the shotgun, but I can’t imagine an NPS Ranger in any of the larger parks not doing so. Yosemite has had its own jail for 40 years now, and during the peak season it’s generally filled to capacity. And the Rangers who subject themselves to these conditions do so for not much more than minimum wage. In the NPS, those guys in Maintenance who drive around in the truck and clean the restrooms make more money than the commissioned Rangers, who also happen to be the most erudite LEO’s it has ever been my pleasure to associate with. How many cops do you know who are devout vegetarians and have master’s degrees in environmental science? Forgive the unabashed swooning, but it’s not often that I get the chance to spout off on the subject. Thanks for your input. I’ve briefly talked with a few rangers whom I have a great deal of admiration for. It’s a tough job and there are so many aspects to it that differ from urban law enforcement, I always find my discussions with park rangers intriguing. They are truly a breed apart. ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2009, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/66 "2009-05-22T22:32:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Maybe you could explain what, in your view, differentiates a revolver from a semi-automatic pistol. > > When I shoot an ordinary double-action revolver, the pull of the trigger rotates the cylinder, bringing a fresh cartridge into line with the barrel and hammer, and then releases the hammer, which strikes the cartridge and fires the round. In short: I pull the trigger and the gun fires. I can’t hold down the trigger to any effect; I must repeatedly pull the trigger to shoot – one trigger pull equals one bullet fired. > > When I shoot a semi-automatic pistol, the pull of the trigger raises and then releases the hammer, which strikes the cartridge and fires the round. The recoil from the fired round causes the slide to spring back, ejecting the empty brass and moving a fresh cartridge from the clip into position; the slide then springs back into position. In short: I pull the trigger and the gun fires. I can’t hold down the trigger to any effect; I must repeatedly pull the trigger to shoot – one trigger pull equals one bullet fired. > > So what is it that makes semi-automatics unacceptable to you? You seem to be under the impression I am equating semi-autos with burst firing mode on fully automatic weapons. I assure you, I am not. But you still haven’t answered my question. Are semi-automatics with their auto-loading functionality capable of producing damage to a target more quickly than a manual loading or bolt-action weapon? My concern with semi-automatics is that a target has significantly less opportunity to react to a weapon being fired at him and take protective cover reducing his chance of survival. Am I wrong? Are there non-lethal activities that a semi-automatic or fully automatic weapon are better suited for than a manual loaded weapon? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2009, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/67 "2009-05-22T22:46:53Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > Are semi-automatics with their auto-loading functionality capable of producing damage to a target more quickly than a manual loading or bolt-action weapon? Neither really ‘fires faster’ than the other. It’s a function of how fast you can pull the trigger. With a revolver, you pull the trigger and the chamber is ‘reloaded’ and the hammer drops and fires the round. With an automatic (what semi-automatic pistols are called), the hammer drops and fires the round, and then the chamber is reloaded. Capacity doesn’t necessarily come into play. For example, a Colt 1911 has seven rounds in the magazine. A typical revolver has six in the cylinder. Or a Ruger Mk.II automatic has ten rounds in the magazine. My H&R 999 revolver has nine in the cylinder. Furthermore, most centerfire revolvers can use speed-loaders so it’s pretty much like changing a magazine in an automatic. As far as inflicting damage, unless you’re an expert (a group not associated with criminal activities) fast shooting equals poor accuracy. > [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > Are there non-lethal activities that a semi-automatic or fully automatic weapon are better suited for than a manual loaded weapon? First: Fully automatic firearms are highly restricted and it is a very time-consuming and expensive process to get one. Semi-automatics are better suited for a variety of shooting activities from hunting and skeet (semi-automatic shotguns) to various course-centered competitions (semi-automatic military-style rifles and high-capacity pistols). ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2009, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/68 "2009-05-22T22:52:42Z")
What are you suggesting? “Yes we know you only own a semi-auto, and you’ve trained with your semi-auto for concealed carry, and you have holsters and clothing for your semi-auto, and you can carry your semi-auto everywhere… except national parks, where you’ll have to get a revolver, sorry”? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2009, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/69 "2009-05-22T23:24:46Z")
There is the matter, too, of the meth labs and pot farms being set up in National Forests and other federal lands. This has become somewhat of an epidemic in California and Kentucky, though other areas suffer as well. Should legitimate users of these parks and forests stay away, or go defenseless? I don’t think we need be limited by these two choices. ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2009, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/70 "2009-05-23T00:10:24Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > Neither really ‘fires faster’ than the other. It’s a function of how fast you can pull the trigger. With a revolver, you pull the trigger and the chamber is ‘reloaded’ and the hammer drops and fires the round. With an automatic (what semi-automatic pistols are called), the hammer drops and fires the round, and then the chamber is reloaded. As I’m sure is quite obvious to you, I’m not personally familiar with these weapons. So, pardon the dumb question, but don’t you have to cock a revolver, or reload the chamber manually, as you do with to a bolt-action rifle or a pump-action shotgun? The Kennedy assassination notwithstanding, I’m assuming that a shooter of even marginal skill has better luck hitting a moving target if he can fire uninterrupted (i.e., pull the trigger repeatedly) as opposed to having to cock/reload the weapon between shots. Perhaps I’m wrong. I guess this perception is based on growing up in the era of drive-by shootings. Of course, this is somewhat of a tangent as drive-bys don’t seem all that likely in the backcountry. 😉 > [@](#): > > Capacity doesn’t necessarily come into play. For example, a Colt 1911 has seven rounds in the magazine. A typical revolver has six in the cylinder. Or a Ruger Mk.II automatic has ten rounds in the magazine. My H&R 999 revolver has nine in the cylinder. Furthermore, most centerfire revolvers can use speed-loaders so it’s pretty much like changing a magazine in an automatic. And why would you want to do that? Use speed-loaders, I mean. To shoot faster? > [@](#): > > As far as inflicting damage, unless you’re an expert (a group not associated with criminal activities) fast shooting equals poor accuracy. But multiple shots does raise the odds of hitting the target, right? > [@](#): > > First: Fully automatic firearms are highly restricted and it is a very time-consuming and expensive process to get one. As they should be, IMHO. > [@](#): > > Semi-automatics are better suited for a variety of shooting activities from hunting and skeet (semi-automatic shotguns) to various course-centered competitions (semi-automatic military-style rifles and high-capacity pistols). I can fully appreciate sport shooting and, perhaps hunting, as a valid reason to use guns of that type. I do perhaps have some qualms with those activities taking place in a wildlife refuge, however. As for self-defense, when the wildlife start taking up arms, I’ll grant that you ought to be able to do so as well. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2009, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/71 "2009-05-23T00:11:33Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > There is the matter, too, of the meth labs and pot farms being set up in National Forests and other federal lands. This has become somewhat of an epidemic in California and Kentucky, though other areas suffer as well. > > Should legitimate users of these parks and forests stay away, or go defenseless? I don’t think we need be limited by these two choices. Nope. Perhaps we should do whatever it is we have to do (collectively) to support law enforcement in our parks and forests. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2009, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/72 "2009-05-23T00:14:40Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > As I’m sure is quite obvious to you, I’m not personally familiar with these weapons. So, pardon the dumb question, but don’t you have to cock a revolver, or reload the chamber manually, as you do with to a bolt-action rifle or a pump-action shotgun? Needing to pull a hammer back for every shot is called “single action” - some revolvers use that as a method of operation, but most are capable of double action - which means that the trigger pull both pulls back and releases the hammer. > [@](#): > > And why would you want to do that? Use speed-loaders, I mean. To shoot faster? Really? You don’t see the value in being able to reload your weapon faster? OH HE WANTS TO SHOOT FAST? MUST BE KILLING TODDLERS. THAT’S THE ONLY EXPLANATION. > [@](#): > > As for self-defense, when the wildlife start taking up arms, I’ll grant that you ought to be able to do so as well. 😉 Right, wild animals have never harmed humans. ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2009, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/73 "2009-05-23T00:18:23Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > What are you suggesting? “Yes we know you only own a semi-auto, and you’ve trained with your semi-auto for concealed carry, and you have holsters and clothing for your semi-auto, and you can carry your semi-auto everywhere… except national parks, where you’ll have to get a revolver, sorry”? Not really. Bricker asked me why I mentioned semi-automatics and I attempted to explain my qualms with them. My suggestion is that banning guns altogether from national parks and, especially wildlife refuges, is as desirable (to me) as banning them from federal buildings in the interest of public safety as well as ecological conservation. I’m open to the suggestion, however, that this legislation will, in practice, change nothing, but make certain law-abiding citizens feel safer while visiting parks and wildlife refuges. I certainly hope this is true. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2009, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/74 "2009-05-23T00:20:41Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > Not really. Bricker asked me why I mentioned semi-automatics and I attempted to explain my qualms with them. My suggestion is that banning guns altogether from national parks and, especially wildlife refuges, is as desirable (to me) as banning them from federal buildings in the interest of public safety as well as ecological conservation. Or as well as anywhere else, right? ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2009, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/75 "2009-05-23T00:26:14Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Needing to pull a hammer back for every shot is called “single action” - some revolvers use that as a method of operation, but most are capable of double action - which means that the trigger pull both pulls back and releases the hammer. Thank you for clarifying this for me. > [@](#): > > Really? You don’t see the value in being able to reload your weapon faster? OH HE WANTS TO SHOOT FAST? MUST BE KILLING TODDLERS. THAT’S THE ONLY EXPLANATION. Wow, defensive much? > [@](#): > > Right, wild animals have never harmed humans. Apparently, winky was lost on you. Where’s shruggy when you need him? Oh wait, how about smacky? :smack: In any case, invading the territory of wild animals subjects you to the risk of being held accountable for that invasion by said wild animals. Most people who go out there to experience nature unspoiled by humans appreciate this and do what they can to minimize their impact and avoid disturbing (or attracting) animals in their natural state. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2009, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/76 "2009-05-23T00:26:53Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > As I’m sure is quite obvious to you, I’m not personally familiar with these weapons. So, pardon the dumb question, but don’t you have to cock a revolver, or reload the chamber manually, as you do with to a bolt-action rifle or a pump-action shotgun? It depends. Since you were asking about ‘fast shooting’ I assumed a double-action revolver, which is the most common type. When the trigger is pulled the hammer is cocked back, a loaded chamber rotates into position, the hammer is dropped, and the round is fired. No need to cock. With an automatic pistol the first round has to be manually racked into the chamber by manipulating the slide. (This can be done beforehand, but a few pistols have safety issues here.) So having worked the slide and with a round in the chamber, working the trigger drops the hammer (or cocks it and drops it, if it’s a double-action pistol), the round is fired, and the next round is loaded. So with a DA revolver: Cock, load, fire. With a pistol: Fire, cock, load. (NB to shooters: I’m keeping it simple. Please don’t be pedantic! 😛 ) > [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > The Kennedy assassination notwithstanding, I’m assuming that a shooter of even marginal skill has better luck hitting a moving target if he can fire uninterrupted (i.e., pull the trigger repeatedly) as opposed to having to cock/reload the weapon between shots. Perhaps I’m wrong. I guess this perception is based on growing up in the era of drive-by shootings. Drive-by shooters usually miss. But by mentioning bolt-action, etc., you’re adding complications that don’t really apply to the situation. With handguns (and I know that the law doesn’t specify them) you’re looking at revolvers vs. pistols. The most commonly-encountered revolver, the double-action revolver, fires just as fast as an automatic pistol. > [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > And why would you want to do that? Use speed-loaders, I mean. Because inevitably someone says, ‘Well you can just change clips in an automatic!’ (‘Clips’ is incorrect, BTW.) Those who oppose semi-automatic firearms nearly always argue that someone can reload faster and kill more people on his shooting rampage. I brought up speed-loaders to point out that a revolver can be reloaded as quickly as an automatic. > [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > But multiple shots does raise the odds of hitting the target, right? I heard about an incident in the Old West where two guys were running around a saloon, emptying their pistols at each other. Neither was hurt. ‘Wild Bill’ Hickcock said that it was more important to aim than to shoot quickly. > [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > I can fully appreciate sport shooting and, perhaps hunting, as a valid reason to use guns of that type. I do perhaps have some qualms with those activities taking place in a wildlife refuge, however. As far as I know, nobody has advocated enjoying those activities in a wildlife refuge. As far as I know (and I didn’t read the amendment that closely) no one has made it legal to actually shoot in a National Park or wildlife refuge; just that guns can be carried. ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2009, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/77 "2009-05-23T00:27:27Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Or as well as anywhere else, right? Not sure what you’re getting at. ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2009, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/78 "2009-05-23T00:41:05Z")
Thank you, **Johnny L.A**. I believe I understand much more clearly now. I am still uncomfortable with the idea of permitting the carrying of concealed weapons in national parks. I am also highly doubtful that illegal poaching in wildlife refuges will not increase as a result of permissive gun regulations. However, the discussion in this thread has prompted me to reconsider my position on the legislation. I’m not saying I’m completely supportive of it, but I will say I’m a bit less outraged by it. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotGrrrl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9dc877/32.png) [@PatriotGrrrl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotGrrrl)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2009, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/79 "2009-05-23T00:51:23Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > As far as I know, nobody has advocated enjoying those activities in a wildlife refuge. As far as I know (and I didn’t read the amendment that closely) no one has made it legal to actually shoot in a National Park or wildlife refuge; just that guns can be carried. Shouldn’t the question be what law makes it illegal? ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2009, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/80 "2009-05-23T00:56:41Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > Thank you, **Johnny L.A**. I believe I understand much more clearly now. > > I am still uncomfortable with the idea of permitting the carrying of concealed weapons in national parks. I am also highly doubtful that illegal poaching in wildlife refuges will not increase as a result of permissive gun regulations. However, the discussion in this thread has prompted me to reconsider my position on the legislation. I’m not saying I’m completely supportive of it, but I will say I’m a bit less outraged by it. My understanding is that poaching can get you in BIG ASS trouble . Worrying that “permissive” gun regs will increase poaching is like worrying that free parking will increase the number of bank robberies. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301.md?page=5)