That might be the case. However, not being a snake expert, I’m not sure if there’s a difference between a diamondback rattler and another rattler. I don’t know if it would be better to be 100% sure what specific snake bit him or not. I’d err on the side of knowing exactly what kind of snake it was.
Since until now (or whenever the law takes effect) it’s been illegal to have a firearm in a National Park or wildlife refuge, what purpose would such a law have had?
The purpose of a NP or WR is to preserve the natural state of the given environment. Setting up a firing course with its (probably) necessary clearing of trees and whatnot would seem incompatible with such a goal; not to mention the scars on the trees and (possibly) animals from shots that miss the backstops.
Here’s something interesting. It appears, if this information is up-to-date, that North Carolina prohibits firearms on state property, except at rest stops and where hunting is permitted. So, in North Carolina, you can carry your firearm, concealed, into a national park, but not into a state park.
From here:
I also wonder about the “any space occupied by a federal or state employee.” Does that mean display your concealed weapon before you walk up to the ranger station in the Great Smoky Mountains NP?
I wonder how many other states are like this and how long it takes for this disparity to change.
Good points. There is National Forest, National Parks are National Monuments. And State stuff as well.
I can’t find anything on the .net, but this may be relevant. I’m sure a few years ago park Rangers requested the ability to carry .357 magnums for the great stopping power of that caliber. Brown Eyed Girl, the .357 is a six shot double action revolver.
Pistols (the term for a semi-automatic handgun) are not necessarily better for defense than a revolver. There are plenty of debates about that. Pistols seem to be the handgun of choice for CCW. They have a slimmer profile. There are also a wider range of calibers and styles with a pistol than a revolver.
I favor the .357 as a handgun myself, but I don’t carry.
Your fear of pistols over revolvers is unfounded.
And, umm poachers don’t use handguns. Well, I suppose some ass could see a deer and shoot it, but I really, really doubt you would see that kind of activity from a CCW person.
No, no, I’m pretty sure that one’s just a restatement of the Pauli exclusion principle. It’s already bad enough if you violate quantum physics by occupying the same volume of space as a federal or state employee, but if you do it while carrying a gun, may Og have mercy on you. 
CCW holders are not a criminal problem. Criminal incidents involving them are much, much fewer than the public at large, and they are a very selective group in almost all States (limiting that statement factually because I have not personally read all regulations of all States).
In short, if the State legislature, the State Attorney General, my local chief of police, my local Attorney General, the County Sheriff, the FBI, and my classroom and practical CCW instructor all agree that I can carry my handgun concealed in a National Park, on what basis is the protest? An otherwise proven law-abiding citizen with training and umpteen background checks will start opening fire at Bambi? My Glock 26 is a piss-poor poaching weapon, I’ll wager. I carry my weapon in shopping malls, to the grocery store, in restaurants, driving past just 10 feet from the grounds of innumerable churches and schools, and in numerous city and county parks and recreation areas. What makes National Parks somehow a potential killing field?
Now I understand this legislation does not just apply to CCW holders, but most of the chatter in this thread has dealt with the issue of “concealed” handguns. I would rather have had the bill be somewhat more limited to just CCW holders, personally, but I won’t shed any tears over its passage.
In my case, it isn’t hysteria, and I’m not anti-gun. I think my history of posting bears that out. My not carrying a gun would be a simple matter of choice and convenience. You gotta clean them, oil them, lug them around.
OK, maybe laziness too.
But like I said to Mr Moto, that’s my choice and he does not have to follow. I have a right to not carry if I so choose, he has a right to carry if he chooses. It’s legal and he isn’t menacing anyone, so why not?
What you describe is only one specific type of revolver, my favorite, the single action revolver. When you cock the hammer, you rotate the cylinder to a fresh round. Think Colt Single Action Army (the famous cowboy Peacemaker), Ruger Blackhawk and Super Blackhawk, etc. They are accurate, dependable, and durable.
I wonder… Does that ranger only exist for as long as you are observing him?
Allow me to shed a tear about thousand of hours of BS that does not do a thing that we are all paying for.
Yes! That’s it! Did I mention I absolutely love westerns?
The gun used in this video is a revolver.
Right. Generally,any handgun that you can conceal easily is more or less useless for hunting any animals that are normaly poached. Sure, you could bag the chipmunk begging for handouts a foot away from you, but you could do that with a good stick, too.
Poaching is usually for large game animals like deer, where a small concealable handgun is neither accurate or powerful enough to be an effective weapon. A hunting handgun often has a 6-8" or longer barrel and usually a scope.
Now, for my outside gun, I carried a .357, first round was “snake-shot”. I used it once, to shoot a ground squirrel who had bitten a (stupid) kid. This was to allow them to check the squirrel for rabies (and the Rangers were OK with that). I carried it openly, as a 6" heavy bbl 357 is rather hard to hide. (My concealed carry town weapon was a .25 Beretta, usually)
The fear of guns being allowed in national parks is a clear example of a misdirected fear; a fear of guns themselves as inanimate objects rather than a fear of murderous psychos with guns in national parks - the latter is a justified thing to be afraid of since there has been an unfortunate number of assaults, kidnappings and murders occurring within national parks. (None of them, to my knowledge, were perpetrated by concealed-carry permit holders.) It’s just a typical case of people who don’t know anything about guns whatsoever, being irrationally afraid of them.
If you go out into the wilderness it’s only common sense that you be armed. More as a defense against animals than against people, although you never know who you might run into. Why take the chance? Why put yourself in the position where you might need something and not have it? And why object to others having that right? The right to carry a handgun shouldn’t be voided just because you’re in a national park.
You were talking about how semi-autos aren’t good for anything but combat, which is not only an ignorant view, but similar to views people hold who think gun owners are inherently immoral or have ill intent. I overreacted, but do you have any idea what it’s like living your life as a decent and good person only to have people assume from their ignorance that because you advocate gun rights and own a gun you must be an evil person?
People like you not only wish to infringe upon my basic human rights, but imply I’m evil if I try to defend them. It’s very tiring.
Guns are allowed in state parks, and in national forests. What problems has this caused? Why should national parks be different?
Seriously, what is the difference between state parks and national parks, other than which branch of government controls them?
Not every state permits firearms in its state parks. For example, NC does not permit concealed weapons, as far as I can tell. Californiadoes not permit loaded firearms in its state parks. Neither does Wisconsin. What problems has this caused? You got numbers? I don’t. Perhaps it’s a good thing that I don’t. I’m willing to admit that gun violence in state parks doesn’t seem to be significant problem.
I’m not sure what you’re asking. Do you think that I am against allowing firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges, but okay with allowing firearms in state parks? That doesn’t make much sense.
Please spare me the alarmist posturing. Yes, you overreacted and I’ve been trying to learn something here and not be an asshole to people whose views differ from mine. Try to grant me the same courtesy.
Although, I will say that I disagree with your position that arming yourself is a basic human right. IMHO, you have the basic human right to life and to be safe. How you go about protecting that basic human right is a right granted to you by your government. Whether and how you choose to exercise your government right to protect yourself is your business. When it becomes my business by putting my life and safety at risk, I have an interest in your rights.
This is not, of course, to suggest that you personally are going to put my life and safety at risk , but I’m well aware there are people out there who would and feel the same way you do.
Finally, I never said nor implied that anyone who wishes to carry a gun is evil. FWIW, I’m agnostic, I truly don’t believe in “evil”.
Can we now establish a cease-fire?
The problem with murderous psychos is that they don’t generally have a sign on their forehead that identifies them as such. The thing is when you’re out walking a trail and you see a guy with a gun, you have to decide whether he’s safe or not. If the gun is prohibited, you can pretty much assume that if he’s willing to break this particular law, he might just be dangerous to you. Not to say, this is always an accurate assumption, but at the very least, it keeps you on your toes (which, of course, you should always be anyway). It’s just one more piece of information to have. Now, the gun is legal and the information that Joe Blow hiking 50 yards behind you is carrying a firearm is useless. Yes, he could still be dangerous or he could just be Joe God-given-right-to-carry-I-fear-bears Blow. Is it irrational to believe that my best defense (without having to resort to shooting people) from dangerous individuals is to keep my distance?
Well, because when you go out into the wilderness or wildlife refuge, it’s to enjoy nature that is, for the most part, unspoiled by man. You do what you have to do to take precautions, but you are in their yard. People shooting animals kind of spoils the goals that preservation efforts exist to accomplish. You should fear running into a wild animal on his turf, and you should be smart about the risks and responsibilities of doing so. But, in my opinion, you don’t belong out there if your answer is to destroy the life that collectively we are trying to protect. We aren’t the only species on this planet.
Sorry for the granola rant; I know it really irks some of you diehard survivalists. :o
The government does not grant rights. It is compelled to recognize them.