I thought I did actually. You asked me whether I would admit my concern was groundless if the rate of crime in federal parks went up simultaneously and to the same degree as that of urban areas. I said no. Gun violence would still be a concern, but also that you failed to provide a corollary. For one thing, the representation of law enforcement in an urban area does not match that of national parks. Nor does population and human activity match all that much. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to draw conclusions from data comparing state parks in which concealed, loaded weapons are permitted to national and state parks in which they are not permitted? If you could help me find some of that data, it may alleviate my concerns.
From what I’ve heard, for example on NPR (sorry, no link to a site), they mean a concealed-carry permit. My belief is that people who want to have a gun in a National Park want to because they fear being robbed or attacked (such things do happen in National Parks) or to protect themselves against animals. ISTM that the logical choice would be a handgun in those situations. (Although a bear might be a bit of a problem unless you’re carrying a .44 Magnum.)
If a person is carrying a handgun, then it’s very unlikely that he is a poacher. I’ve heard that some people like to carry ‘kit guns’ (i.e., guns that are part of their kit) in the wilderness to protect against rattlesnakes. Usual examples I’ve read about are .22 revolvers.
Does the rule only apply to handguns?
Off-topic, but: If you need a handgun to defend yourself against a rattler, you’re already too close to the rattler and probably not going to be able to draw and shoot before it bites you. Them critters are fast.
Yes.
Now I’ve answered TWO questions. It seems amazing to me that no one is willing to answer mine. This reluctance suggests that the issue is a strawman: the debaters are willing to raise the issue if it cuts their way, but if it doesn’t, it won’t change their minds one bit.
For people requesting a cite - in 2003 the law was changed in Virginia to allow concealed carry permit holders to carry in state parks. And while I cannot find specific cites for parkland, which overall has remained safe, concealed carry permit holders in our state have maintained their general law abiding attitude since 2003 (and indeed before then.)
I don’t know. I doubt it though. As long as a person has a CCW, then that shouldn’t preclude him from carrying a rifle in the wilderness.
This may or may not be true. Rattlesnakes are not going to maliciously attack something it can’t eat, and will often (usually?) try to warn the threat off. A person could very well slowly draw a handgun and shoot the snake. He might also try to back away slowly, but this movement might be perceived by the snake as an attack. Of course, it’s always better to maintain awareness (situational and wilderness) so as to avoid the snakes altogether and live and let live.
No, no. Your concern was that if federal parks permit concealed carry, crime would rise. Now you’re saying that you’re still concerned even if no data show a rise in crime, because crime might still be rising but there’s no law enforcement? Or something? I can’t quite grasp the gravamen of your claim, but you have held out a thread of hope.
Are you saying that if I can produce crime rates from state parks where concealed carry is permitted, and it’s the same or lower than state parks where concealed carry is not permitted, THEN you’ll concede this fear is groundless?
Nitpick: During the late 1980’s and through the mid-1990’s (the last time I lived in an NP) the penalty for poaching in a National Park was typically a $500 fine. That probably hasn’t changed much. The last time I spoke to any commissioned Ranger on the subject, he said “I’ve never arrested anybody for poaching.”
ETA: This was a backcountry Ranger.
I have hiked and kayaked in Alaska and carrying either a revolver (while hiking) or a rifle (while kayaking) was a standard load out for my rig. There are good sized critters in the backcountry, and in case the bells / whistles / spray / bear barrels / shouting / not being stupid does not protect - I like having another bit of fall back equipment.
I have been within 100 feet of bears, moose, wolves and seen fresh cat sign as well (the kitties hide better). I never pulled a trigger, but I was happy to have that final bit of protection. I am glad that Congress passed this.
Now - my fear is some idiot car camping in Yosemite Valley when bears go through the clustered RV sites every single night.
I will state here and now that this entire issue revolves around our constitutional right to arm bears 
Sorry, lame joke.
I don’t know too many reasons to carry concealed weapons in a park or a wildlife preserve.
- To engage in criminal activity - robbery, murder, etc
- To protect onself against dangerous animals and this would be a bad idea (the usual weapon small enough to be concealed would only make a bear more angry)
- To poach (again, a concealed handgun would not be up to the job and might only get you killed faster
- To protect against the bad guys mentioned in item 1.
The most likely scenario would be for poaching (including spotlighting and hunting out of season), which are not allowed in parks and reserves anyway.
Added on edit:
Please note: I am pro gun and pro hunting. But we ARE discussing concealed weapons, aren’t we? They are generally not designed for hunting (a Super Blackhawk, Redhawk, or Thompson Center Contender are good for hunting but are not that easy to conceal, they’re pretty big).
The aforementioned idiot who shoots the bear will sadly be let off with a slap on the wrist.
I agree - according to this study 57% of the victims of a rattlesnake bite were handling the snake that bit them and 28% were intoxicated, so shouldn’t be handling a gun in that state anyway.
Sorry about continuing the hijack. 
If he first survives the bear. they are very strong, very fast, and they apparently are fervent believers in killing that strange little bipedal thing that hurt them.
That first shot better be a good one. Or else.
When I lived in Zion NP in ’94, the Rangers got a call to handle a rattlesnake bite in the Park’s only campground. Drunken idiot had been playing chicken with the snake and had been deservedly bitten. Drunken idiot’s drunken buddy had picked up a heavy stick and clubbed the snake to death. The Rangers transported drunken idiot down to the outpatient clinic in Springdale for an antibiotic shot, and fined drunken idiot’s drunken buddy $500 for killing the snake. Justice would have been better served if they had also shoved the stick up his ass, but these were professionals.
Reasons? You want reasons to allow me to carry a firearm?
Given that there is a little thing called a Second Amendment, it falls on those who would restrict guns to provide compelling reason, not those of us who want to lawfully carry. Being permitted to carry should be the default here and the restrictions have to be justified by a compelling need.
Also, for many of us national parks aren’t exotic things that we plan vacations to - I live across the street from one, and I bring my family to it often. Now, if I were a concealed carry holder, I see no good reason to remove my gun and store it just for this short visit. I wouldn’t have to do so for the county and state parks close by that we also visit frequently.
You mentioned “compelling reason”. I agree. I personally wouldn’t feel a need to “go CCW”, but that’s just me. You’re right, that my personal decision doesn’t/shouldn’t dictate what you can or can not do. I could question the reason, and depending on that, the calibre of the weapon - see my comment about bears for example - but you noted Compelling Reason. You’re right.
Sweet Jeebus. bears bears bears.
Help me! I’m channeling Colbert!
Here’s a list of shootings they seem to be referring to:
Apparently, there were two others, but I can’t find a definitive list as a related article posted on the AP that seems to have been the basis for this story has been removed. It’s fair to raise an eyebrow upon looking deeper into the story. McLendon, for instance, had permits for two handguns he carried on his rampage, but not for the rifles he used.
Jiverly Wong had apparently obtained a gun permit. Robert Stewart was a hunter with a reported short temper, but no info on whether the shotgun and “deer guns” he used were registered.
OTOH, it’s not clear that parollee, Lovelle Mixon had any business carrying a weapon and was probably doing so unlawfully.
Without researching every name on this list, it has become clear to me that this an example of the media using some truth along with some good, ole misrepresentation of facts to present a biased position. Insofar as I revoke my citation of it, the list does illustrate to a certain extent that criminals may very well follow gun-control laws until they snap and further that gun-control legislation does sometimes fail to achieve the protections that advocates are aiming for.
Not just you. I remember watching TV shows and movies when I was a kid that featured park rangers. I guess these were made in the 1930s to 1960s. It wasn’t uncommon for someone to casually have a gun in a park. It was normal. In the past 30 years it seems that hysteria has taken over.
We go through this every time concealed carry becomes legal somewhere new.
Back in '87 when Florida became the first state in modern times to start issuing shall-issue permits, people were screaming “it’ll be the wild west! People will shoot each other over parking spaces!”
It went well. There were pretty much no problems whatsoever with permit holders - in fact they not only committed crimes at a lower rate than society as a whole, they actually committed crimes at a lower rate than police officers.
So other states proposed adopting similar laws. Despite permit holders in Florida having a perfect record for years, the anti-gun crowd was screaming “It’ll be the old west! People will shoot people who cut them off on the roads!”
So many states adopted concealed carry laws with no problems over the next decades. I was in Ohio in 2004 when they were debating allowing concealed carry. By this time 34 (IIRC) states had allowed concealed carry and it had a 17 year history of being successful and not causing problems. So what did we hear? “It’ll be the wild west! People will shoot each other for having 16 items in the express lanes at the grocery store!”
And it’s 2009, and there’s a proposal that parks and wildlife refuges be taken off the list of prohibited places, and we have… this thread.
It seems that no one cares that concealed carry in the US has an amazing history of having so few problems, even with hundreds of thousands of permit holders over decades.
In what way are you harmed by other law abiding citizens carrying concealed around you? If you live in a shall-issue state, then you’ve probably been near thousands of people carrying a concealed gun, and never knew, and were never harmed by it.
Surely with hundreds of thousands of concealed carry permit holders over decades, and a media that just loves to report gun crime, you could come up with thousands of examples of incidents where road rager types with concealed carry licenses killed someone for no good reason, right? Try.
The gun control crowd has deliberately led the public to misunderstand the term “semi-automatic” in their campaign to spread ignorance about the capabilities of firearms. Why would you specify “even semi-automatics” if you weren’t intending to make it sound like they were especially scary weapons? The majority of guns in the US are semi-automatics - why do they deserved to get labelled specifically?
Uh, how is the burden of proof on us to make a special case that semi-automatic handguns should be allowed to be carried concealed? They work basically the same way as revolvers - they’re handguns, you pull the trigger, they go bang once. The majority of handguns are semi-automatics and most modern designs are semi-automatics. What case are you attempting to make here?
There are at least 3 things wrong with this statement - but before I go there, why is it that you feel this is a relevant point?
The article is deliberately vague and doesn’t indicate that crimes were committed by concealed carry permit holders. ABC is a deliberately biased news source on the issue of guns so it’s not surprising that they would write an article that was deliberately ambiguous that would lead people to believe that concealed carry holders are committing these crimes. The article just seems to indicate that the people who had the guns were legally allowed to own them… in most states that exclusive category includes pretty much everyone but felons.
Again, there should be thousands of examples, right? Maybe a study showing that concealed carry permit holders are more likely on average to commit a crime or act of violence?