High Sierra Topix

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


Makes me legal now.


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.

I hadn't heard of this before, thanyou for posting it.
Gary C.

dave54 wrote:Makes me legal now.

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

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

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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)