Wow! 200 posts in 48 hours. I can see this issue is far more important to most folks than global warming is. :-)

Rob Wil wrote:
>Now tell me, if you are complaining about why someone would consider carrying a heavy weapon on a UL backpacking forum but not complain why someone would carry a totally unneeded camera, whats the deal?

Cameras are for shooting photos, not people.
And there are endless discussions about the weight of cameras too, just check the photography section.

.

Edited by tallbloke on 03/19/2009 09:20:55 MDT.

read about it at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29781541

Yogi gets a reprieve.

But what about the second amendment???

On a side note, how often would a ranger randomly stop and search someone for a concealed weapon if they were otherwise behaving themselves? I mean, really, if you are intent on carrying a concealed weapon, you're probably gonna do it anyway. It was not clear from that link if the ruling applies only to concealed handguns, or to all loaded weapons???

>But what about the second amendment???

Well, you know law-abiding citizens, with FBI background checks, and licensed handguns, are responsible for an overwhelming majority of the violence in the National Park system. You keep those folks out, and the NP system is just a utopia of animals frolicking in harmony with each other, and man. Heck, those CHL people are responsible for most of the violence in all big cities. You know the most violent cities in America are all the cities with the most citizens with concealed handgun licenses.

So does that mean the ruling applies ONLY to concealed guns? That's bizarre!

This thread provoked some personal curiosity about local laws. As a hunter, I know hunting regulations, but not self defense/handgun carrying laws on forest lands.

Today I spoke to law enforcement (I won't name the officer) for the Angeles National Forest (Southern California) about carry laws.

He said it's perfectly legal to open carry a handgun on National Forest land. He said that goes for all CA National Forest land (but not National/State Parks). It's my understanding this also includes BLM land.

***HOWEVER***

He did advise that open carry would cause many folks to call in the fact they just saw someone carrying a gun....and at that point, depending on details, they might have to send out rangers to investigate who's carrying the gun and what they're doing with it. And I'm sure that wouldn't be good, because when you're law enforcement and you have to approach someone you know is armed you might not be real "polite".

Basically, he said you'd probably freak out other hikers with open carry and advised against it.

I asked if a gun in a pack would be considered concealed and illegal (I know it is, but wanted to see what he said).
Technically, he said it would be (thus illegal), but no ranger would ever stop and search if you weren't causing trouble.
I was literally told "Don't ask, don't tell."

While not "official" policy, I was basically told that if I feel I need to carry a handgun I should keep it out of sight around other people, but once in camp/out of sight, carry how you want.

Personally, this doesn't mean I'm going to start carrying. I still think one's better off with bear spray if you think some sort of protection is necessary.

Cheers everyone.

And for what it's worth, internet debate sucks because there's no body language. Everything I say, I say with a smile and (usually) a load of sarcasm. If anyone takes my opinions personally, my apologies.

Internet debate sucks because you can't trade a few punches, shake hands, and go drink beer.

Lynn - the entire issue with National parks is that people who are licensed to carry a handgun in the state the NP is located in have to unload their handgun, and lock it up to legally enter the park. Even in their car. Yes, bizarre. But enough to freak out the Brady Bunch.

Edited by skinewmexico on 03/19/2009 20:08:06 MDT.

So it only applies to handguns? I assume hunting with a rifle is still allowed, or is that also off-limits in NPs? Forgive my ignorance as it's been a long time since I lived in the US, and even then I didn't take much notice of gun laws.

Can't hunt in National Parks, only on BLM, Forest Service, State, and private land.

Edited by skinewmexico on 03/19/2009 20:13:22 MDT.

In some National Recreation Areas, hunting and fishing is
allowed with all the proper state and federal licenses.

In National Parks you have to declare all firearms and
have them locked as you travel through them.

There are some exceptions in Alaska where the Park
may recommend firearms in addition to pepper spray for bear defense.

I hesitate to resurrect this thread and thus attract the scorn of all the anti-gun folks out there, but...

Has anyone mentioned the Ruger LCP? 6+1 shots, .380 ACP, only 9.4oz and $347. Not quite as light as a KelTec or NAA, but then again this is Ruger, not some frightening saturday-night special shop. If I were to be attacked while carrying a KelTec I might just consider throwing the thing at him instead of firing it, for fear of losing my hand.

A .380 is NOT a manstopper, but I figure it'll at least make an attacker pause a moment and rethink things because if nothing else he'll have some 'splainin to do at the ER. If they know that they can't get away with it, they'll go elsewhere. Few confrontations involving guns end in gunfire, after all- usually one only has to menace with the weapon and the criminal flees.

Normally I like revolvers for self-defense, because they NEVER fail to fire, esentially CANNOT jam, and you can leave it loaded for YEARS and not have to worry about the magazine spring failing. However, I can't find one in a decent caliber under 12oz (S&W Mod360PD J-frame .38sp).

Another option is a derringer. Personally, I'd love to find a light 2-shot derringer in .45ACP (presumably it would need a sort of a 2-shot moon clip). Anyone know of one? Bond Arms makes one but it's 21oz! American Derringer will make them for you, at about 15oz. Supposedly their Model 10 is lighter, but I'm not sure by how much.

(Of course, I'm assuming that the question is "protection from 2-legged predators" rather than, for instance, bears.)

P.S. HI ROG !!!

Edited by acrosome on 03/29/2009 05:44:16 MDT.

"Well, you know law-abiding citizens, with FBI background checks, and licensed handguns, are responsible for an overwhelming majority of the violence in the National Park system. You keep those folks out, and the NP system is just a utopia of animals frolicking in harmony with each other, and man. Heck, those CHL people are responsible for most of the violence in all big cities. You know the most violent cities in America are all the cities with the most citizens with concealed handgun licenses."

ummm.... what? those were some loaded statements!
can you cite sources plz? what kind of violence are you talking about in the NPS? hunting/poaching related or hiking related?

and for the big cities... what about DC, New York, Chicago, etc where they are very stringent on concealed permits and pistol ownership? im very skeptical about this one.


a bit too heavy to want to carry for much mileage but:

these are 1911s above. the top one is a recent boozeresque "thursday present" ;)

The Ruger LCP has a great reputation. they basically took the Kel-Tec and made it better. these things fit into a wallet sized pocket holster perfectly!

Edited by HechoEnDetroit on 03/29/2009 11:15:05 MDT.

Steve O,

I think you need to set your sarcasm detection threshold a little lower...

WOW. I just read "Firearms laws and the reduction of violence: A systematic review" (in American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2004). They estimate 300 federal and state laws regarding the manufacture, design, sale, purchase, or possession of guns. No wonder the police can't tell you if you can carry or not in the backcountry!

"Although firearms ARE allowed in Wrangell-St. Elias National Park & Preserve, it is illegal to carry firearms in some of Alaska's other national parks, so check before you go.

Firearms for Personal Protection
Which parks allow firearms?

A .300-Magnum rifle or a 12-gauge shotgun with rifled slugs are appropriate weapons if you have to shoot a bear. Heavy handguns such as a .44-Magnum may be inadequate in emergency situations, especially in untrained hands.

State law allows a bear to be shot in self-defense if you did not provoke the attack and if there is no alternative, but the hide and skull must be salvaged and turned over to the authorities.

Defensive aerosol sprays which contain capsaicin (red pepper extract) have been used with some success for protection against bears. These sprays may be effective at a range of 6-8 yards. If discharged upwind or in a vehicle, they can disable the user. Take appropriate precautions. If you carry a spray can, keep it handy and know how to use it."



http://www.nps.gov/wrst/planyourvisit/close-encounters-what-to-do.htm

Here is a list for Alaska.

http://www.nps.gov/wrst/planyourvisit/upload/firearms.pdf

Thanks Dean. I think Steve-O missed that completely.

Here is a new one Lynn and Ali will like, a tax on the
air in airguns.

http://accurateshooter.wordpress.com/2009/04/01/california-imposes-strict-new-regulations-on-airguns/

"Here is a new one Lynn and Ali will like, a tax on the
air in airguns."

Good April fools stuff, methinks.

For any California folks, do you know the laws on carrying a knife and/or gun while hiking? Specifically in the LA County area? I'd be much more comfortable knowing I had a weapon because sometimes I hike alone (which I know is not recommended but sometimes it's my only option) and I own a 9MM and a .44 and would feel better if I had one of them on me.

I at least want to know if I can carry a knife, specifically this Gerber one that I just bought: http://www.rei.com/product/752020

Also, what's the deal with Griffith Park? Could I carry this Gerber hiking there or would I get in trouble for that? Thanks for any help!