Actually I thought Frank C was on topic since it was in response to our supposed duty to follow all stupid laws and he pointed out the logical extension of that policy of obedience. Where Beamis went off topic is brining up our foreign policy which is irrelevant to this topic.

The point is not that all people obey all laws stupid or not. We don't. Most of us speed and that is against the law. I do not carry or store in the NPS since where I live, that is difficult. Plus I did not care to have extra weight when I used to backpack. Howver one of my party did carry a 45 in the backpack in post 1976 and we had no idea that was illegal at the time.

It is irrational to prohibit carry in NPS when it is pefectly legal is the adjoining state. Most of the opposing arguement are about lack of need which is not a requirement to execise a constitutional right. Also worry about poaching which would still be prohibited so that is a false arguement.

I wish that people would accept that the 2A means people can have, carry and use guns. That means most any place not only in few locations.

Yes, Rationally the 2A allows the right to keep and bear arms. Most states have similar language. Many states allow OC and 38 states allows CCW or LTC. The 2A particularly says the federal government may not infringe that right. Prohibiting carry in public lands such as NPS is infringing that right. Read the Coburn amendment it specifically refers to the 2A language to justify the amendment that DOI has no authority to promulgate or enforce gun laws. That means gun restrictions in NPS. That is because the 2A is not incorporated throughout the states except in the states covered by the 9th Circuit Ct, which just recently decreed that the 2A is incorporated. Those states are Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Ca, Nevada and Arizona. Of all those states the only state that had restricted OC and CCW was CA. All the other states allow OC and CCW in the 9th Circuit Ct.

So for instance in Virginia that allows OC and CCW there should be no restriction by NPS only state law would apply to visitors in Shenandoah.

If the person come from West Virginia the same applies since their laws are the same as Virginia. Maryland however has LTC but not OC so only those who possess a LTC could carry on NPS lands in Md like Assateague NP.

DC, which has the monuments and mall, has restrictions on carry so far and those restrictions would apply on NPS run parks in DC. So there would not be CCW or OC in DC on the monument grounds.

States cannot impose their laws on adjoining states that violate the federalism nature of our Republic.

The federal government cannot either on the states they can only say what applies on federal land. The BLM and National Forests use the states laws to abide on guns on those federal areas. Only NPS and Wilderness Areas seems to have this massive urge to ban guns carry whether open or concealed.

They had the option for CCW and they fought that and manage to get it suspended so now they may suffer open and loaded carry of handguns and long arms.

2nd amendment proponents have made some sound arguments on the Traveler about the gun regs in parks and wildlife refuges. However, the one made by Anon above--"It is irrational to prohibit carry in NPS when it is pefectly legal in the adjoining state" is not one of them. There are all kinds of things that one can do in an adjoining state that are illegal in most parks--hunting, driving off road, driving 70 mph, picking wildflowers, etc. That's the point about parks. They are meant to be different than other places, and despite Frank C's arguments to the contrary, I think that most of us believe that they are different and we are glad they are. The National Park System is full of special places, places that beginning with Yellowstone, each succeeding generation of Americans, speaking through their elected representatives, believed merited protection in perpetuity. I always felt that the boundaries of a national park area should mean something. Upon entering, you were going to a place where you could turn off your blackberry, take off your wrist watch, and turn down your Ipod and live for a period of time according to the rhythms of nature or the ebb and flow of history. That's why they're so special and why we must exercise the highest standards of care to see that they remain so.

Rick Smith

Kurt, No state can dictate to another state its laws. I thought you understood our system of federalism and that this is a republic. Why would that be rational ? It is not the same thing at all and you probably know that.

The state is not dictating to the federal government. This is the Senate of the US aligning NPS gun policy with local states just as the Forest Service and BLM does. Why does it get you upset?
Your concern were minor risk that are extremely unlikely. These objections seem absurd.

What difference is it when a woman carries a gun concealed with CCW license outside a park and then in a park, She does not change to a homicidal maniac and will brandish her gun anymore in NPS as she would outside NPS.

The ability to carry in a park concealed or open would not have any effect on these desirable characteristics. Discharge of a gun for non lawful puposes is still illegal so what is the problem. Is it because you think they will shoot at signs, trees or animals? Laws that try to stop an action because they "may" do something is wrong. If the peson does an illegal discharge of a weaponthey can be charged.

These laws do not ever stop anyone who plans on vandalism, poaching or atatcking the fellow man,. They only stop those who want to obey the law. These prohibition are targeted at the lawabiding. The criminals do not care!

I agree Kurt that in the NPS that are in several states that which state law governs is a big problem.

However the NPS is not an independent state and cannot have jurisdictional authority and has to abide by the DOI. That is why regulations have to very thoughtfully thought out and the exceptions clearly defined.

As to the attitude of distrust the comment of Jim D “Just what we need: a bunch of violence-predisposed people carrying guns in our national parks, which historically are among the safest places in the entire country.”

Rangertoo expressed the idea that children need to be defended from the sight of men with rifles.” understand that not everyone who owns a gun is a nut, but at least now, if someone shows up at a children's program with a gun, the NPS can take action to protect children.”

Jim Hiker expressed a similar opinion “but to protect the wildlife in the NP's from poachers, and people carring firearms/weapons who don't respect the wildlife for what they are; wild”

So if you really do not believe that people will abuse the right then what is the objection? Because this objection existed when the idea was just to allow CCW holders. I understand the discomfort that people may suffer from seeing civilians with guns openly holstered or rifles slung over the shoulder. That is because they are not used to the sight. It is not scary to see people carrying rifles and guns at a range because that is expected. People are used to seeing police and rangers with guns. They quickly become accustom as long as those people do not brandish or appear to threaten with a gun.

Personally I am more concerned that those who are not CCW holders will be less careful; and will shoot signage, flora and fauna. However I want those people arrested and charged if they do. I want that type of behavior punished.

I love my NPS lands and like to enjoy them. I generally travel to them on vacation and take my dogs and they have been a lot of fun. As long as guns stay in holsters and in cars I do not mind. They only time they come out is maybe cleaning and if in defense only.

Because of the risk of dogs getting bears, cougars to come to humans I have refrained from bringing my dogs at those parks because I do not want that situation where the dog is chased by an angry bear or hungry cougar. I do not expect to have to use a weapon against a bear or cougar and succeed unless the situation is dire.

A handgun is a poor tool to defend against a bear anywhere, even a black bear. At best the sound may discourage but the bullet won’t.

However I like to take a weapon and find ranges in other states and not to have to worry that I have violated a technically of storage will be a great relief. So I do want the laws liberalized in the NPS.
I expect that once the thrill of ability has worn off most will continue to keep guns hidden so not to disturb others. People in some states have the ability to OC and most do not do so. I expect that pattern to continue.

I read Rick C’s comment and the ability to carry a handgun or rifle will not change that experience of being a in a special place. A gun on the hip will not change the experience as much as the cell phone. People are always chattering on those and it is disconcerting. Hunters often travel to wilderness locations to hunt, but they spent most of their time enjoying nature. Some hunters stop hunting because they do not enjoy the hunt and trophy more than the trip.

Many of parks were created by the desires of hunters to maintain areas that would not be developed. They felt the best way to protect these special places was by creating parks. The history of NPS is full of great hunters that protected the land and put it in protection