Anyone else see this? | High Sierra Topix  

Anyone else see this?

Grab your bear can or camp chair, kick your feet up and chew the fat about anything Sierra Nevada related that doesn't quite fit in any of the other forums. Within reason, (and the HST rules and guidelines) this is also an anything goes forum. Tell stories, discuss wilderness issues, music, or whatever else the High Sierra stirs up in your mind.
User avatar

Anyone else see this?

Postby dave54 » Fri Dec 05, 2008 8:25 pm

http://www.doi.gov/issues/Final%20Rule.pdf


Makes me legal now. :lol:


Actually, I rarely carry a weapon when out hiking or biking. But a few times I have when I felt it necessary. Nice to know I no longer have to worry about crossing from a NF or BLM to NP or NWR lands.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
Log off and get outdoors!
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=



User avatar
dave54
Founding Member
 
Posts: 775
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:24 pm
Location: where the Sierras, Cascades, and Great Basin meet.
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: Anyone else see this?

Postby gary c. » Fri Dec 05, 2008 11:28 pm

I hadn't heard of this before, thanyou for posting it.
Gary C.
"On this proud and beautiful mountain we have lived hours of fraternal, warm and exalting nobility. Here for a few days we have ceased to be slaves and have really been men. It is hard to return to servitude."
-- Lionel Terray
User avatar
gary c.
Topix Expert
 
Posts: 999
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 4:56 pm
Location: Lancaster, CA
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: Anyone else see this?

Postby JMat » Sat Dec 06, 2008 12:01 am

dave54 wrote:Makes me legal now. :lol:

Me too!
And while I don't often carry a weapon when travelling through a NP I've always subscribed to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" school of thought. Now I don't have to worry.

JMat
User avatar
JMat
Topix Acquainted
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 7:33 pm
Location: Camino, CA
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: Anyone else see this?

Postby oldranger » Sat Dec 06, 2008 9:40 am

Beware of unitended consequences!

I have a suspicion that a few more backcountry and front country bears are going to get knocked off with this rule. Even though a lot of people have always carried weapons in National Parks I suspect that if they are legal then they will be more likely to use them when apparently threatened than in the past when possession was a violation. Also remember from the posting on another thread how dangerous a wounded bear can be. Are people going to start carrying .44 magnums into Glacier and Yellowstone where there are griz? That is an interesting scenario!

Don't get me wrong even in the past bears have been shot in the backcountry so regulations prohibiting fire arms are no guarantee that bears in National Parks will be safe.

When a backcountry ranger I always assumed that people were carrying. When on horseback I always carried my weapon (but in my pommel bag except when doing boundary patrol during hunting season). I never carried when backpacking (a violation of the rules for LE Rangers back then and I suspect would get me terminated now a days). A couple of years ago I came across a couple of mounted Yosemite Rangers near Matterhorn Canyon and both outfitted like road patrol rangers.

Anyhow I feel much safer in the backcountry without a weapon than anytime in the city and see no good reason to carry the extra weight.

Just my views

mike
Mike

Who can't do everything he used to and what he can do takes a hell of a lot longer!
User avatar
oldranger
Topix Junkie
 
Posts: 2168
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:18 pm
Location: Bend, Oregon
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: Anyone else see this?

Postby The Other Tom » Sat Dec 06, 2008 11:18 am

oldranger wrote:Beware of unitended consequences!

I have a suspicion that a few more backcountry and front country bears are going to get knocked off with this rule.


..I don't carry a weapon when backpacking, and really don't intend to start (extra weight and all), but I am somewhat concerned about mountain lions.
User avatar
The Other Tom
Founding Member
 
Posts: 713
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 6:06 pm
Location: Upstate South Carolina
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: Anyone else see this?

Postby oldranger » Sat Dec 06, 2008 1:21 pm

My guess is that the risk of death from a mountain lion attack is substantially less than from an automobile accident, unless of course you were to give up traveling in an automobile. Not sure what good a gun will do anyway as I suspect that most successfull mountain lion kills occur with the the victim not even aware until the lion's teeth begin to sink in. They do rely on stealth.

I figure if I carried a gun I would be more likely to pull off a Plaxico Burress than to actually protect myself (statistically I'm not in the minority).

mike
Mike

Who can't do everything he used to and what he can do takes a hell of a lot longer!
User avatar
oldranger
Topix Junkie
 
Posts: 2168
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:18 pm
Location: Bend, Oregon
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: Anyone else see this?

Postby dave54 » Sat Dec 06, 2008 2:05 pm

oldranger wrote:Beware of unitended consequences!

I have a suspicion that a few more backcountry and front country bears are going to get knocked off with this rule....
mike


That was one of the arguments against the rule change, as well as drunken campers getting into shootouts in a campground. As the DOI analysis points out, National Forests and BLM public lands have always allowed firearms and those incidents have not occurred.

The principal argument against the rule change seems to be the Bush administration is behind it so it must be bad. 51 senators, including 9 democrats, saw it as a proper updating and revision of an unnecessary no-longer-needed regulation.

I think it is also ironic to note that the regulation was first enacted by Ronald Reagan -- the epitome of the conservative pro-2nd amendment republican. Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 both issued position statements on their campaign web sites calling for greater state and local voice in federal lands management. So isn't making NPS and NWS policies align with existing state and local laws consistent with the democratic platform?
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
Log off and get outdoors!
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
User avatar
dave54
Founding Member
 
Posts: 775
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:24 pm
Location: where the Sierras, Cascades, and Great Basin meet.
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: Anyone else see this?

Postby rlown » Sat Dec 06, 2008 3:42 pm

Doesn't this only pertain to those who already have a concealed handgun permit? I think that's what i read, but i could be wrong. That should severly limit the scope of this ruling.

Russ
User avatar
rlown
Topix Junkie
 
Posts: 5350
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:00 pm
Location: Petaluma and Wilton, CA
Experience: Level 4 Explorer

User avatar

Re: Anyone else see this?

Postby dave54 » Sat Dec 06, 2008 6:58 pm

rlown wrote:Doesn't this only pertain to those who already have a concealed handgun permit? I think that's what i read, but i could be wrong. That should severly limit the scope of this ruling.

Russ


I read it as you can open carry also, where legal. Which is most of California.

Although legal, open carry tends to freak other people, so I never do.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
Log off and get outdoors!
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
User avatar
dave54
Founding Member
 
Posts: 775
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:24 pm
Location: where the Sierras, Cascades, and Great Basin meet.
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: Anyone else see this?

Postby gdurkee » Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:16 pm

For California National Parks, this only applies to you if you have a valid CCW permit issued in California. Also some CCW permits are valid only for the county they're issued in -- that's apparently up to the city or county issuing it. Under limited circumstances, you can carry a weapon openly, but it can't be loaded.

California does not recognize CCW from other states so, for California National Parks, this has very limited effect. In addition, you'll note that it allows the state to pass a law limiting even this right on federal land covered by this regulation. I can envision that happening.

Finally, I suspect that several organizations may file a lawsuit on the grounds that no Environmental Impact Statement was done. Interior claimed none was needed because there was no substantive change. Arguably, more wildlife and even visitors may be shot or endangered as a result of this rule.

It's relevant to note that all ranger organizations strongly opposed this rule -- the Association of National Park Rangers; the Ranger Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police; the Association of Retired Park Rangers; and every former Director of the NPS. This was just another last minute sop to Cheney and the gun lobby. There was absolutely no reason for changing the existing rule -- don't fix what ain't broke.

--George

*****************
Loaded Firearms in a Public Place
It is unlawful to carry a loaded firearm on one’s person or in a vehicle while in any public place, on
any public street, or in any place where it is unlawful to discharge a firearm.(Penal Code §
12031(a)(1).)

Since it's unlawful to discharge a firearm in a National Park and, of course, it's a public place, you can't carry one unless you've got a CCW -- a very small number of people. Remember, all this regulation does is apply some aspects of state firearms laws to federal lands (specifically NPS and USF&W). Also note: "or in a vehicle."

How can I obtain a Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) license?

Contact your county's Sheriff's Office or, if you are a resident of an incorporated city, your city's Police Department, for information on obtaining a CCW license. They can answer your questions and provide you with copies of their CCW policy statement and the State's Standardized CCW Application. If you live within a jurisdiction of a city Police Department, you may apply to the county Sheriff's Office for a CCW license. However, only residents of a city may apply to a city's Police Department for a CCW license.

California law does not recognize CCW licenses issued in other states.

# May I carry a concealed firearm in California?

Except in extremely limited circumstances, you may not carry a concealed firearm on your person in public unless you have a valid CCW license. CCW permits are issued only by a county sheriff to residents of the county, or by the head of a city police department to residents of that city.

(PC Sections 12025-12031, 12050-12054)


(PC Section 12050)
User avatar
gdurkee
Founding Member
 
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:20 pm
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: Anyone else see this?

Postby dave54 » Sat Dec 13, 2008 9:38 pm

gdurkee wrote:...Arguably, more wildlife and even visitors may be shot or endangered as a result of this rule....


I don't see that happening. The National Forests and BLM public lands have allowed firearms for years, and they have not turned into the OK Corral. Increased visitor injury or wildlife poaching will be very slight, if at all. Of all the arguments raised against the rule change, that one is the weakest.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
Log off and get outdoors!
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
User avatar
dave54
Founding Member
 
Posts: 775
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:24 pm
Location: where the Sierras, Cascades, and Great Basin meet.
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: Anyone else see this?

Postby Bad Man From Bodie » Mon Dec 15, 2008 5:44 pm

George,

I respect your opinion so don't take too much offence here :hippy: ......but come on now!

There is no freaking way on gods green earth that this will increase the amount of visitors or wildlife shot nor will they be in any more danger than before this ruling :D . If a lawsuit is filed and it goes to trial on the grounds of not following NEPA......it will be another example of why our ecosystems are going to hell in a hand basket (and I am sure my fishing/hunting license money will go towards fighting it rather than managing ecosystems). Gun control is NOT and should not be part of environmental and natural resource management or initiatives. Last I checked, all National Parks in the United States of America are located in the Untied States of America....and if I am not mistaken....it is my second amendment right as a United States Citizen to carry firearms. I personally do not have, nor care to have a CCW, but If someone wants one and obtains one in a legal fashion, good for them, its their right! Maybe that young girl in Yosemite Valley wouldn't have had her head cut off by the Yosemite killer if she had a gun!!!!!
User avatar
Bad Man From Bodie
Topix Regular
 
Posts: 357
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Lee Vining/Reno
Experience: N/A

Next

Return to The Campfire



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Hobbes, Jimr, zacjust32 and 8 guests