It's very difficult for me to answer this question without wondering why people need loaded guns in a park. But that's not what the Constitution is about, eh?

I think it should be a park-by-park policy. In western states and Alaska, it sounds much more practical to allow loaded guns than back east in smaller, less wild parks.

Posted By Josh on January 12, 2008, 11:12 AM

I can't think of a more suitable place for a US citizen to bring along a firearm for self-protection than into our National Parks. Some years ago I flew up to Anchorage on business and took a fews days' break to fish for salmon and trout below Denali. As I was standing in a small stream - alone, having noticed some fresh bear tracks, it would have been nice to have a .44cal on my hip, but, having flown out of Chicago's ORD, it wasn't "legal" for me to transport a firearm [even for use as self-protection in Alaska] - not even packed in a locked case and checked. There's something{s} very wrong with that. By the same token, I was out in Wyoming a a while back and went into Yellowstone at the end of October. Apart from a couple of other vehicles, I didn't see a sole; however, there was plenty of wildlife around. What's one to do if one's alone and has to face down a grizzly, or some wolves {not to mention a human intent on liberating you of your possessions and/or life?
Thus, with personal safety an overt issue in many of our national parks [from predators - both four legged and those with two], I think any law abiding citizen should be allowed the reasonable assurance of personal firearms. Conceal-carry is allowed in all but two states now, why should we surrender our safety and/or constitutional rights when we enter a national park?

Posted By Center Fire on January 14, 2008, 1:21 AM

Obviously, there are many reasons to be allowed to carry ready to use firearms in many national parks. Both wildlife and wild people don't honor lines drawn on a map. Why should someone have to give up their right to self-defense upon going into a national park - particularly when law enforcement personnel are far and few between?

Posted By Intrepid Traveler on January 14, 2008, 1:24 AM

Gun-free zones, whether they be national parks or elsewhere, only make those who abide by the laws vulnerable to those who don't. Robberies and other transgressions against people also take place in areas surrounding national parks because criminals know those who'll going thru [ in or out of] the parks aren't allowed to transport ready to use firearms, and may have their firearms and ammunition secured {aka: useless}. Also, with Park Ranger staffing levels reduced the need to augment their overstretched capacities appear to dictate that people using the parks need to be prepared to defend themselves.

Posted By Travelor on January 14, 2008, 1:30 AM

Yes, I would like my husband to carry a loaded gun in a national park. We are senior citizens and would not be able to defend ourselves any other way. We do a lot of hiking in Smokies and are concerned about bear attacks but now I fear there is a greater risk getting harmed by predators in the park.

Posted By Rose Schisler on January 14, 2008, 12:17 PM

Yes! With the state of the world and of our country as it is now, I think it's a necessity. Sad, but true.

Posted By JLC on January 14, 2008, 12:21 PM

With the recent kidnapping, torture, murder and possible rape of a 24 year old hiker in Vogel State Park -- that is why hikers, etc. should be able to carry a fire arm with the proper permit.

Posted By Sharon Collins on January 14, 2008, 12:27 PM

Handguns are not likely to protect you from a bear attack. I don't think that human attacks are that likely - most assaults are not random (it's someone you know, or as a result of another crime like a robbery). You are much more likely to be attacked by a person walking down the main street of your hometown than in a wilderness area like our national parks. Allowing weapons in the park would encourage people to bring guns in, just to shoot the animals for something to do. Weapons have been banned for good reasons, and I don't think that should change.

Posted By Midwest Traveler on January 14, 2008, 12:29 PM

Yes, I believe that it would not be unreasonable to allow this. However, the individual should have to register the gun he will be carrying as he enters the park and upon exiting. Jon Holmgren

Posted By Jon Holmgren on January 14, 2008, 12:29 PM

Having lived in Wyoming and on the eastern coast, and visited many national parks, I can argue both ways. Danger from wildlife is a factor, but the danger from humans, in reality, is greater-- intentional, target shooting, or accidental. Then there are the irresponsible people who would poach or kill animals for "fun."

Given the record of threats, I guess I'd say one should be allowed to carry a ready-to-fire gun in a national park when it is okay to do so in all of them--including the White House and the Capitol--and I wouldn't want that.

Posted By Western and Eastern Traveler on January 14, 2008, 12:30 PM

Being retired, we like to travel before and after school is out. This means that there are usually less people in the Parks, I feel it is necessary to be allowed to carry a loaded weapon. I would like to be able to protect my wife and I from wildlife, human and animal! I am a retired Police Officer from California and certainly know when and how to use a personal firearm!

Posted By William Colescott on January 14, 2008, 12:41 PM

NO guns in National Parks. EVER!

Posted By Tim Duda on January 14, 2008, 12:41 PM

A lonely wilderness trail is the last place I want to meet someone with a gun. I hike solo all over the US. I have met bears and other wild life in national parks and other trails. Give me the bear over humans with guns any day.

Posted By Beth Murray on January 14, 2008, 12:41 PM

Not having a gun keeps many of us from enjoying the beauty of national parks has to offer...it's been many years since venturing for a solitary walk in one of our many national parks in cities and out...to meditate or simply enjoy time away ...it's a sad statement true enough but we cannot be idealistic with our safety. Speaking from one who has had a personal experience of being abducted in the woods, simply having a weapon would have perhaps minimized the unnecessary event.

Posted By Threatened B 4 on January 14, 2008, 12:42 PM

Absolutely no guns in any parks, loaded or not!

Posted By Linda ONeal on January 14, 2008, 12:42 PM

My wife and I were surprised by a large black bear 4 miles in from the trailhead in the Olympic Nat'l forest. Thankfully the bear just stared at us as we silently and slowly backed away. If I had my .357, I wouldn't have done anything differently, unless the bear had done something differently. I also frequently hike in the Smokies Nat'l park. There have been a few tragic bear encounters there. I'd feel better with a gun, but the latest "Police" type pepper sprays are extremely effective also. I vote for the gun, the bad guys and lunatics will carry them anyway.

Posted By Joe Burke on January 14, 2008, 12:42 PM

NO! There is no valid reason for any US citizen, resident or visitor to possess a handgun anywhere. Handguns are only used for killing people. Often they are used to kill their owners or their owner's children. I don't want to be in a national park with idiots who think they have to possess a handgun!

Posted By DKJ on January 14, 2008, 12:47 PM

There are enough deranged individuals who have weapons. Give the rest of us a chance to defend someone or our self, if need be. The wilderness can be a lonely place.

Posted By Walt on January 14, 2008, 12:52 PM

Definetly not I do a lot of backpacking and have in many of our national parks. The guns would be used more on other hikers and backpackers than they would ever be used on animals. I've faced off with bears and they will back down if you handle the situation properly.

I have less fear of bears than I do of people, bears kill if they are provoked, peole kill other people for miniscule reasons.

I've been in a park where gunfire by another camper went off in the middle of the night and an argument developed, this was a greater danger than I have ever encountered with an animal.

I do agree that criminals will always have the weapons, but the ones that are more dangerous are the people who would be carrying and for whatever reason are agitated and decide to take it out on another person.

It is so foolish and naive to believe that if everyone were armed we would have less killings. The truth is we would have more killings because the person who on the spur of amoment, who would cool off if they had to go and get a weapon, may if they were allowed to carry a weapon use it on a minor provocation.

Posted By Ed Fronheiser on January 14, 2008, 12:59 PM

I see no problem with someone having a gun in a national park. As a family person with my family together we feel more safe with a gun, just knowing we have something if needed if a life or death situation developed for us or others in need.

Posted By William on January 14, 2008, 1:02 PM

Yes, hunters are allowed to carry their weapons on Dept. of Interior land! Why are the rest of us denied this basic right guaranteed by our Bill of Rights?

Posted By kathy moody on January 14, 2008, 1:18 PM

The national parks have been home for many years to greater populations of wildlife than currently reside therein and have managed to co-exist with visitors without mass attacks on those visitors by its inhabitants.

Anyone who feels their safety is threatened because they choose to impose on the natural residents of the national parks should stay at home, locked behind their barricaded doors, guns loaded, ready to aim and fire.

It is beyond comprehension that anyone would think themselves qualified to challenge a crazy, who would more than likely have a high-powered rifle with a scope, or site, or whatever its called to pick off targets one-by-one. A handgun will do very little to defend anyone from such a nut-job.

As for shooting it out with a grizzly, good luck.

When society reaches the stage where its citizens feel they can't "walk in the park" without being armed, "society" no longer exists.

Posted By Vee on January 14, 2008, 1:18 PM

Yes, a ban would violate my constitutional rights.

And your headline shows your bias: "guns be openly used" is undoubtedly not the language advocated by the Senators or the Park Service.

Posted By Dave on January 14, 2008, 1:18 PM

People who have commented have NOT READ the article! Currently, one CAN BRING a gun into a National Park (for "protection" or whatever paranoid reason Americans seem to want to be armed to the teeth nowadays!)
The only question is that the current rules say that the firearms cannot be loaded! They can be assembled and you can have bullets along, too. You just can't have it loaded and ready to fire.
THAT IS STUPID - I would NOT want people to be carrying loaded guns around Old Faithful - one surprising noise and these idiots would fire!
Unloaded guns are BAD ENOUGH!

Posted By Frances Pierce on January 14, 2008, 1:18 PM

I'd vote yes. In todays enviroment I would feel safer. You don't need one till you really need one. Better safe than sorry. I do belive that a hand gun is a great deturent of bad things that could happen. Now days you can't depend on anyone else to protect your family from harm.

Posted By Duane Vaughn on January 14, 2008, 1:18 PM

Letting visitors carry loaded guns in National Parks is asking for trouble. An agressive bear can be repelled by something called "bear mace", a spray that will be far more effective than a hand gun.

Posted By Carl Purcell on January 14, 2008, 1:19 PM

I had a Grizzly enconter in Glacier National Park a few years back. It came within a few feet of me and did some very nasty roaring. My 9MM might have at least made me feel better and provided a "feeling of security" while hiking on remote trails. I have never felt threated by other people in our National Parks, only by a few of the critters.

Posted By Wayne on January 14, 2008, 1:20 PM

I carry concealed legally and think of it as another insurace policy that I hope I never have to use. The people who you would have to fear in a lonely place probably did not obey the laws about not bringing a gun into the park anyway and it would be nice to have the means to protect you and your loved ones from danger. You would be remiss and should be ashamed of yourself if you did not do everything possible to protect your loved ones.

Posted By John Blevins on January 14, 2008, 1:26 PM

We do not need visitors carrying loaded guns in our National Parks.
I willingly take my chances in the presence of magnificant wild animals in their home range, but there is no reason to increase my risk with gun-packing civilians who anticipate that they may need to use a weapon.

Posted By Wood on January 14, 2008, 1:27 PM

Guess I'll have to skip the parks now. I do enough of the duck for cover dance in Jacksonville; now when I go down to St Augustine to the Castillo de San Marcos I'll have to worry about being shot at there.

I have been to the Yellowstone many times and when I saw bear sign, I left. They belong there, I'm just visiting. How many people will abuse this? Uh, LOTS. Dead animals shot for amusement, people shot for stupid reasons, yes criminals will bring guns no matter what but why do we need to make a bad situation worse? Leave the animals alone; I hike, I go places with just a knife and all in one tool and they're the only tools I need. I've never had a bear or any animal mess with me. They come sniffing around, you do what the rangers tell you to if you ever go to their free classes. Oh right, that would require an EFFORT and G*d forbid someone has to think or something. Just give em guns and pass the ammo! YEEEEHAW!

Posted By Ronnie on January 14, 2008, 1:30 PM

Definitely not...totally agree with the comment made by Ed Fronheiser.

Posted By Joan A on January 14, 2008, 1:30 PM

First of all, I think it would still be illegal to shoot an animal in a National Park even if it is attacking you - not that it would stop me from doing so, but if you do be prepared to face the consequences!! Secondly - people who are out to shoot other people or abduct them or rape them, don't abide by the laws like the rest of us do anyway, so banning everyone from carrying a loaded gun, only gives the criminals the advantage. So allow the guns, but make everyone register their guns so you know who is carrying what. Even then - most National Parks do not have a fence around them - a criminal can walk into a park almost anywhere around its parimeter, carrying a gun and no one would know it. If you don't want to face a loaded gun in a park, then fight to get criminals off the street and kept off the street!!

Posted By Judi on January 14, 2008, 1:31 PM

I agree with the retired police officer. There have been murders here in Florida National Parks because most people feel a false sense of security in them and are unprepared for predators. It is foolish and naive to believe that if we were unarmed we would have fewer killings. I too vote for the gun, the bad guys and lunatics will carry them anyway.

Posted By Gun proponent on January 14, 2008, 1:35 PM

I live close to Yosemite NP, and can't fathom gun-toting tourists on the crowded valley floor. But there have been times in the back country that I would have felt a whole lot comfortable with a sidearm. I believe regulations should be on a park-by-park basis -- i.e., where in the park they're permitted, under what circumstances -- e.g., sidearms, for protection only, always visible (not concealed), and registered upon entry. No need for long guns since hunting isn't allowed.

Posted By Tony Seidel on January 14, 2008, 1:53 PM

Visiting a national park to view the beauties of nature untouched should be restorative to one's soul. If I knew that fellow hikers could be carrying guns, my tranquility would be threatened. This "walk in nature to restore my soul" would then liken itself to a crowded, noisy day on the Jersey boardwalk, thus destroying the beauty of nature.
No, guns should be found only on rangers, not on fellow visitors.

Posted By Lynn McNaughton on January 14, 2008, 2:00 PM

No! No! No! Handguns have only one purpose - to shoot people. BAN THEM.

Posted By Warren Machell on January 14, 2008, 2:09 PM

I believe when you are hiking and camping you should be able to feel safe and in many places that means having a gun for protection. I agree with the writer who proposed thatregulations should be on a park-by-park basis -- i.e., where in the park they're permitted, under what circumstances -- e.g., sidearms, for protection only, always visible (not concealed), and registered upon entry.

Posted By K smith on January 14, 2008, 2:11 PM

What good is a weapon ,if needed,if it is unloaded?

Posted By James Pickett on January 14, 2008, 2:15 PM

On a Wilderness Trail, YES.
Otherwise NO.

Only in situation to take out a permit with the Park Ranger, on the day of the hike....

Posted By Sandy on January 14, 2008, 2:18 PM

obviously there are 47 sensators with too much time on their hands! talk about insanity. it is bad enough that forest park rangers have had to become police officers in our national parks, and now we are being asked to approve of everybody else carrying firearms? i shudder to think that the next time i visit a national park i will have to worry about whether the yahoos in the next campsite have had too much to drink and are ready to shoot. no firearms in the parks.

Posted By jerry persky on January 14, 2008, 2:28 PM

The question is a "push poll" question. It begs for the "no " answer. Also the picture of staring down a gun barrel is scary. Take out the scary picture, make the question neutral and re-ask it.

Posted By Erin Davis on January 14, 2008, 2:29 PM

I have read the comments of others here and find some interesting similarities. Many say that even though criminals will undoubtedly carry guns allowing law-abiding citizens to carry them will only make the situation worse. That is true, but the situation worsens for the criminal not the law-abiding person! Others say that they do not trust their fellow citizens and fear that someone will exhibit poor impulse control. Truly this is possible but equally possible is that impulse-challenged person will carry and use a loaded gun anyway, law or not!! Those who fear what others MIGHT do are likely to find that they have no freedoms, because the cost of any type of freedom is the POTENTIAL for abuse!!! Take away the freedom and the possibility for abuse lessens but does not disappear!!!! Those who state all guns should be banned need to read the Second Amendment to the Constitution. It merely confirms the existence of an 'inalienable' right. It does not grant any rights because it does not possess any rights to grant. The law only serves to regulate and protect people's rights. It does not and cannot create them.

Posted By NRA BENEFACTOR on January 14, 2008, 2:38 PM

Generally, I'm against guns and certainly, guns in populated park areas. Near home during hunting season, I refrain from my normal hiking and walking on trails because of the real possibility of getting shot at, inadvertently, I would hope.
I can see some logic in carrying loaded guns if one is hiking in the backcountry or way off trail, but regulations should be clearly spelled out and strict.
It is a privilege to be in a national park and in nature. Guns are not part of nature. Humans should meld in as inconspicuously as possible and without causing harm.

Posted By Nikki Descoteaux on January 14, 2008, 2:44 PM

??? If you have a permit and can carry a firearm TO a park, WHY, should you not be allowed to carry it IN a park??????? DUH?????

Posted By James Scarbrough on January 14, 2008, 2:46 PM

The picture at the beginning is obviously intended to affect this poll. No gun owners organization would tolerate pointing a gun like this unless it's to be used.
I have camped and hiked in wilderness areas for over 50 years. A pistol (less than a 44 mag.) would anger a large bear or a boar. A hunting rifle is great when hunting but too much to carry when out to enjoy nature.When fishing or just camping I don't normally carry a gun.
I believe some people are vulnerable when out alone & they should be allowed to carry protection from other people. I do fear people with a gun who can't resist "target practicing". Maybe people with a gun should sign in with it, the amount of ammo and a credit card (so they'll return). To get the card back they would have to itemize the used ammo.
John (Jack)Easley

Posted By John Easley on January 14, 2008, 2:49 PM

no, what we need is more people running around with gus "on their hips"

Posted By Zumkota on January 14, 2008, 2:51 PM

Hasn't everyone read about the people murdered or abducted on a lonley trail?
You may not be able to bring down a grizzley with a 45-hand gun but it's better than a stick.
The Second Ammendment gives us the right to own and carry weapons. Every time the governmant say, "but not here", we step on the slippery slope.
Yes, freedom to carry a weapon, in plain sight, and ready to fire is our right. The bad guy or the grizzley won't wait a minute while you load up.

Posted By Casey Scoles on January 14, 2008, 2:53 PM

I am in favor of law abiding citizens being able to defend themselves at all times. More guns does not mean more crazies with guns, it means the crazies won't be the only ones armed.

Posted By Lou Firehammer on January 14, 2008, 2:59 PM

I'm an avid hunter and respect the right to own guns but do those of us who enjoy the peace and quiet of our parks really want someone blowing off 100 rounds just because they can. Too many opportunities for an accident waiting to happen. For those of you that think just carrying a gun will protect you, good luck,most freaks aren't going to give you the chance to defend yourself.

I`m not opposed,but be prepared for the consequences.

Posted By SHANNON on January 14, 2008, 3:04 PM

The constitutional argument is bogus - it mentions a militia, not "self-defense". Where does it say that I have to worry that some paranoid gun-toter will shoot first and ask questions later. If they want to shoot, that's what gun clubs and pistol ranges are for.

Posted By Jim Witt on January 14, 2008, 3:23 PM

Please, no loaded guns in our parks. The questions I would ask - how many people have been accosted by someone they did not know in a park or wilderness area? A lot fewer than in areas where loaded concealed weapons are allowed. And two - how many folks have been harmed by wild animals in our parks? All of the posts I read indicated that they had felt threatened when they came upon a bear, but nothing had happened - which is the most probable outcome. Let's keep our parks safer by not having guns in them. Tracy

Posted By Tracy on January 14, 2008, 3:25 PM

WHAT A WONDERFUL IDEA!!! Why not just hand guns out to anyone who enters a park? Have you considered, now many "innocent" people, could be injured or killed by idiots, shooting at each other? Don't you think, that it would be especially dangerous in parks, where trees limit your perception of distance?

Posted By Charlene Rush on January 14, 2008, 3:27 PM

I agree in principal that one should be armed, anywhere they wish to go in the USA. The best way to be armed around wildlife is to be armed with knowledge.
A 9mm handgun will not stop even a small bear! Naturally, the best way to avoid trouble is to be alert and know what to do before the situation escalates. Attend the Ranger classes to know what to do about Wild Animals in the National Parks.
Human predators are another matter. Certainly, the armed citizen is a major deterant to criminals, if the weapon is carried concealed. Allow those individuals with a Concealed Carry Permit to do so in the Parks. Others would have to openly carry firearms in National Parks.
For the Anti-gun segment, I would urge them to learn more about a very useful tool, guns. Find a Gun Range and join the Civilian Markmenship Program (CMP). Learn how to use this very useful tool. Your life may one day depend on your knowledge. Teach your children gun safety so they will respect a gun and handle it well.
I have a number of .22LR target pistols that are NOT designed to kill people (or bears). Use the right tool for the right job, But first learn how to use the tool!
It can be said about guns the same as about fire. It is a useful tool that can be very dangerous. Using the analogy between fire and guns, I would say that there are circumstances where using either fire or guns could be very dangerous in National Parks. It should be decided on a park by park basis if open gun carry should be allowed. Concealed Carry Permit holders should be allowed to carry anywhere, at any time.

Posted By Tom Owens on January 14, 2008, 3:28 PM

I can't think of one good reason to allow civilians to have firearms with them in a National Park.
The arguements that 'we have the right to bear arms' is overused. I'd like to hear of one circumstance where someone in a National Park didn't have a firearm that caused them harm. Exclude those ignorant folks who have been in bear country and don't know what to do when traversing bear territory.

Posted By M Beales on January 14, 2008, 3:34 PM

No way should guns be allowed on the trails in our NPs. I have hiked many a mile in the NPs and always feel safe there. That would change if I had to worry who had a gun and what might provoke them to use it.

Posted By Bob Sheldon on January 14, 2008, 3:35 PM

I think only registered hand guns could be allowed into parks. The guns must be declared at the park entrance and the serial number recorded.

Posted By Philip Gannon on January 14, 2008, 3:39 PM

I think only registered hand guns could be allowed into parks. The guns must be declared at the park entrance and the serial number recorded.

Posted By Philip Gannon on January 14, 2008, 3:40 PM

Bad people and bad animals. I am too old to run or fight, so I carry anyway. I have never had to touch it in twenty years but I will do what is necessary to protect my family and myself. I do have a state concealed carry permit.

Posted By SG on January 14, 2008, 3:40 PM

Let me start by saying that I own guns and believe that the Bill of Rights specifically protects my rights to do so. But I can in no way support the posession of loaded weapons within the national Parks. I spent 4 days on a 30 mile backcountry trek in Yellowstone this summer. We took extreme precautions to avoid grizzlies and carried legal bear spray just in case we didn't. People who have problems with animals in the parks have those problems because they act irresponsibly. Allowing the possession of guns in the parks will allow people to act irresponsibly and then kill the animals when they react. If you don't feel safe, stay in your car on the road. The backcountry isn't about us, it is about the wilderness and the native wildlife. Our national parks need to stay gun free!

Posted By Kent Hobart on January 14, 2008, 3:54 PM

Yes, being able to defend one's self out in the wilderness shouldn't even be a question. Our fore-fathers would have laughed if you asked them to go into the wilderness without personal protection. I feel people with personal gun permits who have been checked out should have these rights.

A Permit Carrying Gun Owner

Posted By mike gilbert on January 14, 2008, 4:10 PM

I totally favor allowing guns and I agree with each one of the judicial and logical arguments presented above by those who also favor gun freedom. I do disagree with registering them.
However, I did want to note that most of those above who oppose the guns presented a very negative attitude toward their opposition. Many described a basic disdain and distrust for other human beings. Often, they had no argument in their favor, just a kneejerk no reaction. Frequently, they had the usual hate-filled commentary to make on those who dared to disagree with them.
I only wish they would actually read and consider some of the really great postings from the gun proponents.
And yes, the question's wording and the drawing definitely were aimed at "shooting down" the gun proponents.

Posted By Diane Gordon on January 14, 2008, 4:39 PM

Guns do NOT belong in national parks, except those carried by law enforcement agents. First of all, National parks are some of the LAST places that wildlife can live in peace, unthreatened by human encroachment, violence and greed, in this country. If you don't know how to respond to a bear or mountain lion sighting, then you should stop at the ranger station before you set out next time. Secondly, do you REALLY want to go hiking or camping knowing that any jerk you run across on the trails might have a loaded handgun? Seriously, think about taking your kids out, knowing that you could get accidentally shot, or robbed, or raped, or murdered with them along. I recently had to tell some campers to hold down their 3:00 am party in a tent near mine, and I was alone with my border collie. I was so p-o'd about not getting any sleep that I didn't stop to think that they might be armed. What if they were armed?
The incidences of someone being attacked by a "psycho" stranger in a National Park are so insignificant as a ratio to the # of park visits every year to render them statistically meaningless. You are far more likely to die in traffic. Next time I want some peace and quiet, and that takes me to a National Park, I hope and pray the laws haven't changed to allow ready-to-use weapons in the parks.

Posted By the pixinator on January 14, 2008, 4:57 PM

I would like to see the federal government go even further than our national parks. I would like to see a federal firearms law and carry permit uniform to all states. The closest protection to my person is myself and others similarly armed. It scares me to think I have to wait to have a law enforcement officer protect me in time to prevent great bodily harm.

Posted By Richard Tylen on January 14, 2008, 4:57 PM

Yes. Especially those who have permits to carry firearms from their home states, and whose permits are honored in the state where the Park is. Federal and state law acknowleges the right to be armed and to protect yourself. The states have decided who may carry firearms and in what manner. The Park Service has the authority to negate all of that with an administrative rule?? This is a case of the tail wagging the dog and needs to be corrected.

Posted By Steve Taylor on January 14, 2008, 5:00 PM

Thank you to everyone who posted civil, respectful, and well considered comments on this important topic.

It's sad to have to say this, but some of you have been impolite and inflammatory. This is all too common on all kinds of blogs with all kinds of political leanings. Whenever it is easier to post a drive-by comment, in a faceless, reputation-less, and real-world-less way, the greater the volume of antisocial behavior that follows--to paraphrase the writer Xeni Jardin.

C'mon guys: Please be respectful of each other! (I have deleted some of the most inflammatory comments.)
Thanks!
Sean
Blog editor

Posted By Blog Editor on January 14, 2008, 5:09 PM

Sadly, due to the condition of the World and the state of morals among some of the so-called humans, it is almost a necessity that you be allowed to defend yourself, whether it be from an animal or a person(?) intent on getting your possessions.

Posted By Nelson C. McLarkey on January 14, 2008, 5:17 PM

I think there is a strange phenomenom occuring here. The Yes voters seem to trust that other people are normal human beings who just want to enjoy a quiet weekend but want to protect themselves from a few crazies out there who want to harm them. But the no voters assume that all of humanity is comprised of weak-minded people who can't control their emotions and would consider firing off a few hundred rounds in spite of the risk of hurting others. Curious!
I think that there is no better place than Federal Property to exercise our federally protected God given rights. Yes don't draw an imaginary line so someone can think that they are safe whether they are or not. At least allow those who are trained and licensed to carry a weapon so the rest of the unarmed masses will be safer.

Posted By Lee Eggleston on January 14, 2008, 5:20 PM

The ability to protect oneself from harm should not be infringed upon. Our forfathers put the second amendment in the constition for our protection. The national park service does not have the right to remove it!

The criminal is the only person who benifits from the national parks ban on guns.

Posted By Fred Phillips on January 14, 2008, 5:25 PM

Lawful carry of firearms is guaranteed by the constitutuon. To prohibit the lawful possession of firearms in State and National parks guarantee that only criminals will be armed. The rest of us are waiting to be assualted or worse!

Posted By David Phillips on January 14, 2008, 5:43 PM

NONONONO, absolutely not. It makes me sick to read the comments above re "needing" guns for protection against both humans and animals. Guns are only meant to kill life..both human and animal. I cannot believe there is enough crime where a person would be willing to whip out a gun and kill a criminal in our parks. And as for the poor animals, shoot first and empty the parks of all their lovely critters who have just as much right to the land as humans do.

Posted By Esther Corley on January 14, 2008, 6:00 PM

Yes, I think people should be allowed to be armed in backcountry wildernesses and similar territory, but with some restrictions for safety. Permits should be issued for shotguns at the same time as other permits are issued for camping, hiking, etc. Proof of weapon training should be required. I would prefer only to allow unaltered shotguns to be carried in parks by the general public and not rifles or handguns for safety reasons, yet at the same time, I do think that citizens who have been issued a concealed-carry permit should be allowed to carry their handguns anywhere in park boundries. Concealed-carry permit holders are well trained in the handling of the weapon and they have a complete understanding of the laws concerning weapon useage. They have been granted concealed-carry permits by their home state and that privilege should not end at a park boundry gate.

Posted By Gayle Creel on January 14, 2008, 6:02 PM

if folks feel so threatened by wildlife perhaps a visit to local zoo is more logical than carte blanche w/ guns....sad to say i see lots of alcohol abuse and bad judgement but john Q citizen 100 times more than grizzlies. giving the gun go-ahead to the public at large is stupid beyond comprehension. the number 1 reason for these santuarys is to protect the wildlife. we visit at our own risk. we are not forced to be there. stay home and watch it on nat'l geographic if you are that scared. pat s.

Posted By pat sherwood on January 14, 2008, 6:13 PM

It is truly amazing that in 2008 we still have so many far right wing people in this country who believe in war, torture, the death penalty, the slaughter of animals, the destruction of the environment and "the right to bare arms," written to protect against invading armies not so people can be the modern version of Wyatt Erp. Spare me from the lunatics.

Posted By Karl Wolf on January 14, 2008, 6:36 PM

If concealed weapons on licensed people were permitted the USPS would have to begin searches of everyone to be sure that these people were showing their weapons,etc. This would mean 24 hour Rangers at all entrances. It would mean spending more money than any park has available to hire more personnel to do all the searches of people and their vehicles. People do hike in and poach elk for antlers in velvet because the Chinese pay $$$ for it. Same with black bear gall bladders in the Smokies. And there may be people who have hidden guns all the time but they don't go waving them around because they are illegal in parks as a protection to the animals as well as people. I was born in Connecticut. There is no hunting with firearms because the state is covered with trees and people were shot in their homes by high powered rifles. There are bow seasons. I have hiked many National Forests, BLM and Parks and worried about bear encounters. Don't have
food in your tent like all those boy scouts over the years did. Don't wear perfume. Jingle a bell. Be cool. Back away. Bears will
get mad if you act wrong or get between a sow and her cub; that can be deadly. You have choices. Err on the side of caution and believe
that the USPS is not ever going to make guns legal for anyone but their own Rangers because they will never be able to pay the real cost it
would take. Why waste everyones' time on this stupid question?I see how these licensed/concealed weapons people are so sure they have that right to go anywhere with their guns. Doug Peacock, a man who studied bear behavior says
that a man who is armed has totally different body language than an unarmed man. Do you recognize yourself? The man who wished he had his 9mm when a Griz was only a few feet away may
have been dead if he'd had a gun ; just that motion of going for it may have been enough for that bear to decide HE was taking no chances with this human. If
you have a wolf encounter, back off. I have been face to face with a wolf at night
in Yellowstone and she showed herself to me so I would know where she was and not go there, then she disappeared in the shadows.
The animals know what to do.
People with guns tend to use them in mostly unlawful and
hideous ways. A true hunter is someone who believes in conservation. Hand gun talk is all about the paranoia in
our nation. We are very dangerous people. 47 senators? They ought to be listed so we can vote them out of office.

Posted By M.K.Wolf on January 14, 2008, 6:57 PM

I can think of lots of reasons I would carry a gun in National Parks---but I don't want to give that right to the ever-increasing lunatic fringe we seem to be encouraging. So, I guess, if the permission isn't going to be only for me, then no one should be allowed to carry a gun. And to enforce this law, make it a federal felony crime.

Posted By kathi on January 14, 2008, 7:06 PM

As long as you are a citizen without a police record or under a restraining order you should be able to carry firearms anywhere you want. This is an individual right that predates the Constitution. The second amendment only states what was every citizens right before it was written. And what better place to carry protection than in some of our parks. The park system, especially those along the Mexican border have become quite dangerous. It is up to each individual to protect themselves and their families....ANYWHERE. Those that think the park rangers or police will protect them are foolish and, like parasites, depend on those that will take the responsibility and expense to carry firearms.

Posted By Dale on January 14, 2008, 7:13 PM

As long as the individual is licensed by his/her home state to carry a concealed gun, he/she should be allowed to carrry for personal protection in National Parks.

If there is no gun permit in place then that person should not be allowed to carry.

The reason? To get a gun permit you have to go through training and show that you know how to handle your carry gun and shoot it accurately. I don't want anyone who doesn't know how to shoot accurately carrying a gun anywhere. Also, the laws are taught in training courses. This is essential. In the 17 years that my husband and I have had our permits, he has only pulled his gun once to protect a third party and i have never pulled mine. We neither have had to shoot the guns we carry.

Posted By Leslie B Mink on January 14, 2008, 7:41 PM

When did this crime wave in national parks begin? I have read of hikers lost in the mountains, of skiiers killed in avalanches, of people lost in snow storms, of hikers falling off cliffs and dying, and of occasional bear attacks perhaps once or twice a year. But I have not heard of large numbers of murders committed in the parks. Rather, when one hiker is murdered (which I agree is a horrible crime), we have some hysterical reaction that everyone must be armed in national parks. A woman of my acquaintance had the same feeling that a gun was her best protection. She prided herself on her marksmanship and went on big game hunting trips. When she heard a disturbance next door, instead of calling the police, she grabbed her gun and went next door to investigate it herself. Both she and the neighbor were stabbed to death despite the fact that she had the loaded gun in her hand. Whatever makes anyone think that the criminal who is intent on killing will give you a fair chance to use your weapon? The old rules of dueling do not apply. I live in Missouri. A few years ago we had the proponents of concealed carry assure us that we would all be much safer with such a law. I can attest to the fact that the murder rate is just as high, if not higher than it was before. Criminals have held shoot-outs with the police. If they will do that with people they know are armed and trained, why would they hesitate to use guns against Joe Citizen who "may" be armed? I am more frightened of people who think they know what they are doing with guns but who don't take into consideration that whenever a bullet is fired, it will go somewhere--perhaps striking some totally innocent person or animal some distance away as often happens on New Year's Eve when some drunk decides to show how excited he is to have lived another year and shoots his gun ignorantly into the air without thought of the consequences. This proposed law may be a way to reduce the number of visitors to the parks. I, for one, will be too afraid to go if it passes as I avoid any wooded area during hunting season for fear of the trigger-happy types who shoot anything that moves.

Posted By Marilyn Long on January 14, 2008, 8:34 PM

There are more good reasons to allow people to carry a fiream into any park than can be found to deny such action. People who have taken and passed the course to carry a registered gun should be able to declare the gun and log the serial number upon entering any State or National Park.

Posted By Roger Collins on January 14, 2008, 8:41 PM

Your bias in starting this blog is palpable. First the title "Should guns be used openly in parks" is not at all what the senators letter states, then the handgun barrel pointing at us all, not trying to intimidate anyone, were you? This is the exact bias that all anti-gun propaganda starts out with. I can assure you that there are thousands upon thousands of "otherwise" law-abiding citizens that have and currently carry a firearm in Parks, for personal protection. You hear of none of these evil people shooting "animals for fun" as one of your readers posted, or shooting hikers that did not yield space on the trail, or pulled their gun when Old Faithful shot off. These are typical rants from anti-gun individuals. As far as an increase in poaching, this is already illegal, do you think a poacher cares whether it is legal for him to have a firearm or not? ridiculous!
If you are going to carry a firearm concealed in a Park than it would be a requirement that the person be a legal concealed carry permit holder. This involves training, fingerprinting, fees and lots of paperwork. Not typically the sort of thing a crazed lunatic goes through, only law-abiding individuals concerned for their own safety and the safety of others. Hundreds of law-abiding persons travel everyday in our cities and towns with concealed handguns for personal protection and we don't read about "Dodge City" shootouts by these persons in the papers. We only read about the crazies, gang members, robbers etc.. These are the people that are going to obey the National parks law, I don't think so. Personally, I don't think your odds are great up against a mother Grizzly with a handgun, but having to get within 5-10 ft to use pepper spray really is also a last resort. I would rather take my chances with a handgun instead of watching an animal maul a small child or have a woman brutally raped with no way to defend them.
Just my perverse way of looking at it.
And having a unloaded firearm for protection is worthless, the very thing that one would need to protect themselves from is not going to "timeout" for me to locate my bullets and load a firearm. Yes it's sad that we have to protect ourselves in society, but tell that to mother's that have had a child abducted or killed or a woman that has been raped, or a family whose mother or father was mauled by a bear while innocently camping. (yes they were in the bears domain, but should they have had to die for it?) These things don't happen often, but it would be nice if they could have been prevented, maybe.
I wish the "innocent" individual that was killed by the Tiger in the SD Zoo recently could have shot the tiger before it killed him, however, I have no sympathy for the individuals that antagonized the tiger with slingshots, if that is what truely happened.

Posted By Butch H. on January 14, 2008, 9:31 PM

I've only seen a couple of people allude to this, but every National Park is located in a state, right? Why should that Park's rules be any different from the state's where it is located? If it's legal to carry a weapon in that state, concealed or not, it shouldn't stop at the boundary line of a park, nor should the CCW permit requirement be any different. Federal rules as dictated by the park service should not be allowed to trump the rights of states.

Posted By James Spencer on January 14, 2008, 9:50 PM

Absolutely Yes we should have the right to carry firearms everywhere. Armed citizens means safe citizens.

Posted By Mike Stephens on January 14, 2008, 9:57 PM

please understand that in most matters i'm more to the left than left-wingers, consider liberal democrats too conservative & right-wing... when i'm in the woods, i like to carry a revolver of absolute minimum .357 magnum caliber, more likely .44 magnum... 'cause i only have myself to blame if i'm unarmed, & end up face to face w/one of those exceedingly rare but nonetheless existent predators, usually a post-adolescent male black bear or mountain lion, that doesn't realize humans aren't safe prey... i personally know several people who have blundered into hunting packs of coyotes at dusk in isolated areas, & have either ended up climbing trees or shooting their way through to safety; i've also had to use handguns & rifles to drive off feral wolves/wolf hybrids that were intent on eating my poultry & dairy goats so i guess you can put me in your survey as a vote for carrying a gun in nat'l parks, although i do think that if someone discharges a weapon they'd better have a damn good reason as to why!

Posted By michael silakowski on January 14, 2008, 10:30 PM

I will contiue to carry a loaded gun EVERYWHERE I go....regardless of laws. I am sure that the mace and martial arts training that poor hiker girl came in handy....or maybe the wolf or bear will wait for me to call 911 and give me extra time if I can't get a signal on my cell phone.

I have the right to protect my person and family from any and all would be harm...first...not after 30 minutes of the cops or other authorities showing up. I follow the seasons...I am a conservationist...I obey the laws about hunting...I obey the laws regarding the use of a firearm to fight off an intruder...if confronted in my home ..he/she will be afforded an avenue of escape...if they refuse they will die...period.

Dodge City in the old west was a safer place than your average city today...and everyone was armed to the teeth. Firearms safety in elementary grades teaching children the Constitutional heritage that is theirs to keep and defend. Guns are not fun or cool like the video games or the latest Hollywood shoot'em up.

Proven fact...more guns....less crime.

Vow to the Second.

Posted By B.L.B. on January 14, 2008, 10:46 PM

I live in the west and have probably visited 20+ national parks. I am a gun owner - rifles and pistols.

I prefer parks to be a quiet place, surely noise from guns would increase. You wear bells to ward off grizzlies, you don't pick a fight with them. Is someone saying there is a significant personal threat in National Parks - I don't buy in to that theory. You run a higher risk of death by lightning, especially above the tree line.

I know Rangers in Nat Parks have to deal with drunks, druggers and poachers...no longer rare occurances in national parks. So, now we make it harder to figure out who are the bad guys?

My final point is that national parks have a lot of kids. So, I would suggest leave the guns at home or in the trunk out of site while you visit a park.

Posted By John Grossmann on January 14, 2008, 10:46 PM

Some years ago I was forced into a US Forest Service Campground 10 miles outside the North Rim of the Grand Canyon since the campgrounds in the National Park were full. I returned to our pop-up camper in the campground from the National Park at 10 PM one evening with my wife, mother-in-law, and two small children. The tent portion of our camper was unzipped but nothing else seemed amiss. At approximately 1:30 AM, we were awakened by female screams for help, profanity in English, and shouting in a language we had never heard before.

"Armed" only with an undersized hatchet, we stumbled through the dark into our station wagon and drove out of the campground across a half-mile of meadow to a payphone at a closed gas station. As I frantically called for help another set of headlights came across the meadow and I was faced with trying to complete my call or fleeing. The lights belonged to another family fleeing the chaos. When I finally got an operator to connect me to the National Park, the rangers said he would like to help but was some 200 miles away by road at the South Rim. Additional calls finally roused a reluctant sheriff only 40 miles away.

You better believe that I would have welcomed a weapon as I awoke, separated from the melee only by canvas, as I guided my family to the station wagon, as I saw the headlights coming toward us and debated about continuing to call for help, and in the interval until help actually arrived. And you will understand if, since the raping drunks were park employees, I am convinced that the event could have happened in the park campground just as easily.

Posted By Neal Jordan on January 14, 2008, 11:12 PM

I see no reason for guns in the national parks. It would make me reluctant to go there, when I could stay home in my big city and know that I was probably safer! They should be a refuge from the noise and suspicions of our daily lives, not a continuation of it. Those who feel threatened by the wildlife or the empty, quiet space should stay home and watch the nature channel or go to the zoo, as has been suggested already.

Posted By Dr. Connie C. on January 14, 2008, 11:29 PM

After reading so many good letters the only thing I can add is: "Several years ago a man was walking his dog on a mountain trail when another man used a rifle to shoot the walker. He was relieved of the charge of murder. He claimed the man made threatening movements and the man was afraid for his life. Wow !!

Posted By James Lane on January 14, 2008, 11:35 PM

When I first became a Ranger in Yosemite, even WE weren't allowed to carry loaded sidearms.

Anyone shooting a grizzly with a 9mm will be forever known as "lunch".

People who carry guns 24/7 wherever they go, will, as the founding fathers really meant, be called "soldier" "reservist" or "National Guard member". Or of course,as civilians, "cop".

Having been a cop, Ranger, soldier, and current possessor of a concealed weapons permit, I see absolutely no justification for a "civilian" to carry a loaded weapon inside a National Park. Yes, they ARE allowed on most other federal lands, whether or not you are hunting at the moment. The regulations against loaded weapons in National Parks, which by the way long precede Jim Watt, should NOT be changed. This is to protect wildlife, signs, outhouses, tourists, and other "targets of opportunity".

Posted By Doug Troutman on January 14, 2008, 11:37 PM

For all the people who are dumb enough to think that people who own guns just go around shooting them all day, I'll say it again, YOU ARE DUMB! This is not proposing that people can go around shooting at whatever. That is illegal. It just gives people the ability to quickly protect themselves if they are in danger. People shouldn't fear guns, they should fear the idiots that have them and shouldn't! This gives the people who DON'T abuse guns a fighting chance.

Posted By Stephanie T on January 14, 2008, 11:39 PM

I absolutely agree with this proposal. There is no question that predators(four and two legged)are a reality in these parks and personal protection should be afforded to those who enter wilderness areas. The passage of concealed carry laws in states like Michigan has shown that we need not fear the citizens who carry weapons.

Posted By Rod Jones on January 15, 2008, 12:20 AM

I am sorry to see your question which is begging for a biased NO. I thought Budget travel was above this very political issue.

It is clear that rules against firearms are effective only for honest law abiding citizens. Criminals ignore them so this puts the unarmed at the mercy of the armed.

Protecting yourself against a wild animal is a very unlikely event unless you get between a momma bear and her cubs which could indeed happen.

Unfortunately, as a longtime camper, I feel much more threatened by the criminal element than the wild animals. For this reason I believe firearms should be allowed in most Parks

Posted By James H on January 15, 2008, 12:34 AM

NO! If wildlife are not teased, harrased, or are not approached too closely in parks, they will go on their way without bothering anyone. If people are given the right to carry arms into the parks, some will no doubt use them when there is no need to do such. Also, it is unknown what would happen if a visitor thought he was being attacked and decided to shot. No doubt the injured animal if just wounded, especially a bison, bear, moose, etc. would attack all humans within sight.

For the most part wildlife have lost their fear for human beings in parks because they have not been hunted for many, many years. I can imagine that park wildlife would not come near to park visitors if they knew that their lives would be in danger.

I suggest that those who think weapons should be carried see the PBS program titled "Travels To the Edge With Art Wolfe -- Alaska: Katmai Coast" where a photographer and friends got close to number of grizzly bears and not one became aggressive. I hope that the conversation organizations and the National Park Service will fight hard to stop such an insane ruling by the senate if that should occur.

I once noted a bear heading toward me a little distance a head on a trail that I was on. As far as I know he did not know I was a head of him. I simply hollowered, "Hello, bear." He got on his hind feet, looked around, and then bounded off the trail and out of sight, and I hiked by that area with no problem.

Posted By John W. Stockert on January 15, 2008, 12:55 AM

Absolutely not should you be allowed to carry firearms in a national park. There are several ways to prevent being attacked by an animal, and ways to get yourself out of situations like that without using a gun. If people are able to carry handguns, not only does it put risk in them harming themselves, other humans, but animals in the park through illegal hunting.

Be smart and stay safe and there is no need for a gun.

Posted By Jessica on January 15, 2008, 12:58 AM

I have spent the last 3 summers in State and National Parks, almost 3 weeks in Glacier NP... sure there's the threat from grizzlies, but I just as soon, we didn't have everyone hiking about packing a .357 magnum. No guns pls.

Posted By Gerrit Pang on January 15, 2008, 1:29 AM

The NRA is out in force. Sensible precautions provide more protection against two or four legged risks than concealed weapons. Evidence shows higher levels of crime in nations with lower levels of gun control, the opposite of what many gun advocates argue. I hope that national parks remain a refuge against humanity's worst tendencies including guns so the peaceful majority can enjoy God's creation in its natural state.

Posted By wrb on January 15, 2008, 10:00 AM

Guns should not be allowed in National Parks. The danger from reckless humans far outweighs any other danger.

Posted By Stewart on January 15, 2008, 10:39 AM

I have no problem with people having the right to own guns or use them in the proper settings. I am worried about letting ANY yahoo with a loaded gun loose in a National Park.

For some of the larger, more remote areas of the wilder Parks I can see a possible necessity for protection and can see the park allowing it on a case by case basis - with a permit and a clear understanding of what is protected.

For the more populated areas of the National Parks I'd say only Park or Law officials should be allowed to carry loaded guns.

Every year you hear about hunting accidents that happen with people who are out in the woods wearing proper gear with hunting in mind. A lot of the National Parks are very crowded with "city" people who will wander off in everyday clothing, not safety gear. Without any sort of control, some "trophy" hunter will end up shooting a clueless tourist who's just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Posted By Evelyn on January 15, 2008, 11:15 AM

Absolutely N O T!

The main reason we enjoy the National Parks, is to be with nature, not a fellow camper packing a gun for "self Protection".

Something is wrong with the thought of needing a gun against a wild animal in a busy National Park. Whose home is it?

Posted By charles spain on January 15, 2008, 11:16 AM

I live in an area of the US that is surrounded by National Parks that you pop into and out of all the time as you are diving almost anywhere in the mountains. Within one mile of my private land cabin there is a National Monument that that has a big sign on the road that states that not only will any guns be unloaded in the monument area - they must also be broken down and inoperable. This is also crazy as in reality no one having a legal weapon on their person or in the car would or could ever follow this rule.

Posted By Bill Newman on January 15, 2008, 11:17 AM

First, in all federal circuits except the 5th Circuit, there is no individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. There is only a collective right held by the states. I believe that analysis is wrong, but until the U.S. Supreme Court rules otherwise, is currently the law. Therefore, of course the Ingterior Dept. may ban guns from its parks.
Second, for those who want guns registered at the park gate, what is the purpose of that? I have a concealed weapons permit and I do not want anyone knowing that I may be armed.
Third, and most importantly, I always carry a handgun in the car when I travel, especially out of town. I do not want to become a criminal simply because I pass through the gates of a national park. Of course guns should be allowed in parks and those who misuse a firearm should be prosecuted accordingly. Moreover, when I hike to remote areas of a park, I definitely want to be armed. Remember, to wild animals hikers are just food.

Posted By Tom on January 15, 2008, 11:46 AM

I have enough to worry about !! Could I please have a vacation in peace. We all know the type that is carrying a loaded weapon. I don't want him/her near my family .. I 'd rather trust the wildlife

Posted By kathy on January 15, 2008, 1:09 PM

For those of you in support of allowing loaded handguns, have any of you lived in a National Park? Have any of you spent more than a few days or a few hours in one? I have. For almost ten years, I have lived, worked and recreated in Yellowstone, and I am mortified by all of the comments about "if only I had my handgun with me..." You people are the reason many of us have chosen to leave cities and even rural life--you are full of fear and the misguided notion that carrying a weapon is going to save you from any possible encounter-human or animal. I don't even want people like you visiting my backyard if your mentality is close proximity to an animal equals getting to shoot it. What is wrong with you?! We are in their territory. It is an absolute priviledge to experience the mega-fauna in any of the national parks, not an opportunity to justify whipping out your gun and shooting what you find "threatening." If you are so afraid to utilize the back country because of the wildlife, then stay in your car. We are not the top of the food chain here, and that is the way it has always been.

Posted By Kelly on January 15, 2008, 3:39 PM

i keep a loaded handgun in my home to protect me not from wildlife but from the criminal element the resides in my community. who says that elements is not found also in our natl. parks?

Posted By richard wong on January 15, 2008, 4:57 PM

i always get a little chuckle when another hiker gets mauled and killed by a mountain lion, and all i hear is californians "grappling" with "what to do about this problem". newsflash people. you carry a gun to protect yourself from animals, be they human or otherwise.

Posted By Nate on January 15, 2008, 5:04 PM

As I read the comments regarding this issue I see a common thread which is abuse of wildlife and/or people will occur if guns are allowed to be carried in a wilderness area. It is sad that public perception of those of us who have guns is based on Disney movies and Hollywood. The kneejerk reaction to any issue involving guns is that those who carry them are bent on mayhem and are predisposed to solve problems with a pull on the trigger. I agree that animals seldom pose a threat and are a joy to see alive in their natural environment. I believe those who fear abuses to wildlife or humans would find that they would not occur. We who have guns and believe in the Second Amendment have a profound respect for nature and for all living things found in it. It is only for the few who don't have this respect that we feel compelled to have the means to protect ourselves.

Posted By Rod Jones on January 15, 2008, 5:04 PM

Well, certainly there has never been a human that needed a weapon in hiking. No woman has ever been abducted and killed on a trail. No family robbed or harmed in a campground. No wild animal attacks have ever been recorded in National Parks nor crime of any kind. If it has happened then a dead woman or two, a robbed family, an eaten hiker on a trail are a small price to pay so that I feel more tranquil with the knowledge that only those people who intend to do harm will be armed in the park.

Nature and mankind are blissful and all is well so long as ordinary people who are far more stupid and less in tune with nature than I are not carrying such terrifying objects of destruction.

Can these people hear themselves?

Posted By K. Crane on January 15, 2008, 5:26 PM

Re Josh:

You mean back east like here in NC? Back east where an elderly couple on a hike were murdered? They still haven't found the husbands body yet, by the way.

What about the girl who was decapitated recently while on a hike?

Is that the same "back east" you mean, or is there someplace more east of here?

Posted By Sal on January 15, 2008, 6:23 PM

It's weird that some people posting here would rather live in a police state. As if it was somehow more noble for a woman to be raped and killed than to defend herself with a gun.

I have no problems with people who have a valid concealed weapons permit issued by any state from carrying their concealed weapon anywhere, and that includes in a national park.

We should punish those who commit crimes against others, not those who only wish to protect themselves while being left alone to enjoy the parks.

Posted By B Turtle on January 15, 2008, 6:54 PM

Loaded firearms should be allowed in the Parks. There should also be a stiff min.$1000 fine for discharging firearms in National parks. These fines should be levied with no exceptions, even if one is forced to defend themselves from a potentially deadly attack. This will help prevent poaching and the needless killing of animals during human-animal run-ins. I'd happily pay the $1000 fine in order to get that mountain lion off my back.

Posted By Frank on January 15, 2008, 7:09 PM

I routinely carry a concealed handgun to protect myself and loved ones from the criminals that society refuses to put in jail. I have never had the benefit of a bodyguard. When they supply one I will not carry my pistol in the parks.

Posted By Bob on January 15, 2008, 7:13 PM

Re:K.Crane

A dead woman or two,a robbed family, an eaten hiker, just so long as YOU feel more tranquil?

Posted By Rod Jones on January 15, 2008, 8:01 PM

I am very much in favor of guns in National Parks. Some of them are very crime ridden and should not be entered without one. Require folks to have a concealed carry would be fine with me.

Posted By James Wilson on January 15, 2008, 8:06 PM

Dealing in absolutes(never,no,ever,none))requires a logic that operates in an egocentric vacuum and maintains its truth at the expense of reality. It is the handmaiden of arbitrary thought and the refuge of those who prefer to dictate rather than discuss.

Posted By Rod Jones on January 16, 2008, 9:59 AM

No guns, loaded or not unless you are a park ranger. And if you are afraid of wild animals don't intrude into their habitat.

Posted By Carol on January 16, 2008, 4:34 PM

Though I haven't been to a Park in many years I always carried either a .357 or a .45 ACP when camping, because IF I needed a law enforcement officer they couldn't be there in time. I knowingly violated the law, but I had to consider 'what was more realistic', self protection or violating a law.
Art.

Posted By Art on January 16, 2008, 7:01 PM

Though I haven't been to a Park in many years I always carried either a .357 or a .45 ACP when camping, because IF I needed a law enforcement officer they couldn't be there in time. I knowingly violated the law, but I had to consider 'what was more realistic', self protection or violating a law.
Art.

Posted By Art on January 16, 2008, 7:02 PM

We have enough gun violence as it is. I don't need some retarded hick pulling a Cheney on me as I'm trying to enjoy nature. Pepper spray should be enough defense for any wildlife or mugger.

Posted By Common Sense on January 16, 2008, 8:52 PM

Yes. Individuals should be allowed to carry weapons. An individual should never be totally dependent on outside sources for personal protection. Those who will use weapons to break the law will not be hampered by gun-ban rules, why should law-abiding citizens be penalized by the rules? I venture to say crime will go down as a result of allowing guns in the parks. Criminals will be less likely to commit a crime if they think there is personal danger involved.

Posted By Gorden on January 16, 2008, 11:15 PM

In most cases, bears can be deterred with a good dose of pepper spray. Why kill the animal instead.

Attacks by "wild" humans are much less likely to occur in parks than in cities (local banks, convenience store ...).

Allowing weapons in the park would encourage people to bring guns in, just to shoot the animals for something to do or for target practice or for poaching.

Weapons have been banned for good reasons, and I don't think that should change.

Posted By GH on January 17, 2008, 8:59 AM

A few articles and Facts might provide a reality check for those who indicate that there's no threat in national parks:

Park Rangers hold the most dangerous law enforcement job in the federal government, they are 12 times more likely to be subject to violent assault than an FBI agent

Another new and rapidly growing problem: "Hideaway methamphetamine labs and marijuana fields in rural park areas (some of them run by drug cartels) and illegal aliens crossing through parks near the US- Mexico border are part of a growing crime scene."

Source: Christian Science Monitor Aug 8th, 2005: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0808/p03s01-ussc.html

The New York Times, in an article called Rangers Take on Urban Woes in wide open spaces" has this to say:

"The larger problem, rangers say, is not that national forests have become crime-infested jungles. But that as cities like Reno; Denver; Phoenix; Tucson; Albuquerque; and Boise, Idaho; and smaller communities like Bend, Ore., and Moab, Utah, grow at rates far beyond the national average, they bump against the public land that surround them, carrying urban crimes to open space.

In fast-growing Snohomish County, Wash., a woman and her daughter were killed earlier this month on a popular hiking trail. The crime remains unsolved.

“Our biggest problem with corpses is all the bodies being dumped in the national forest,” Mr. Leveille said. “Particularly in the south, as you get closer to Vegas.”

--

The average law-enforcement to visitor ratio is 1 to 100,000, far lower than in any urban setting anywhere in the country.

Finally, since everyone thinks these are safe refuges from the worlds problems and that banning the good guys from carrying guns, leaving only the bad guys armed, here's an article on illegal immigration and drug smuggling rings run through our safe and weapon free national parks:

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/14/162412.shtml

Posted By Ray Randolph on January 17, 2008, 5:38 PM

I'm wondering how many of the Senators, belong to ,or accept contributions from the NRA!!!

Posted By RD on January 17, 2008, 9:10 PM

It's better to have a gun and not need it, then to need a gun and not have one! Simple! Patrick

Posted By Patrick on January 18, 2008, 1:06 AM

The 2nd amendment gives citizens the right to keep and bear arms. The fact that I had to pass a test and background check to be able to enjoy this constitutional right is irksome at best. However, those people that have gone through this process are not nuts who like to shoot animals or are reckless. This argument was used by those wanting to ban guns as a result of given CCLs. The opposite has proven to be true. Remember, the only people that obey the gun laws are law-abiding citizens. Those that are intent on doing harm don't care about a sign that says they can't have a gun. Give me one instance where a maniac that wanted to harm someone stopped because he saw a sign that said guns were not allowed. People have the right to protect themselves. If the park service doesn't want them to be able to do that, they better prepare to offer personal guard service.

Posted By Marianne on January 18, 2008, 11:23 PM

The freedom to carry and own firearms in this country is certainly not been a crime deterrent. In most cases a gun is used against a loved one or accidentally against the gun owner. In our gun culture I believe that there should not be a ban on legally owned and permitted weapons in state parks. I do believe however that those who can carry these weapons should be more strictly regulated.

Posted By Chris O. on January 19, 2008, 2:10 PM

Perhaps the senators should be asking for more money for parks so that more guards/guides can be hired and properly trained.

I am one who is more fearful knowing that guns are approved and around. I fear human nature much more than I fear the wild animals. I feel safest in other countries where guns aren't a part of daily living. Why does the USA seem to think guns are the only way to protect oneself?

Posted By nan reger on January 27, 2008, 12:06 AM

I DO Support Carrying guns in OUR Natl. Parks. Due to the Dept.`s Policy of allowing the Wolf, Grizzly,and Lion populations to increase to the UNSAFE level they have brought it too.
Pepper spray depends on the direction of the wind, it can be a disaster disabling who used it and is minimal at best.
Closing areas because of Predator presence is unacceptable. It only makes more of OUR Public Lands UNAVALIBLE to "WE THE PEOPLE" for whom it was set aside, and PAY THE BILL for them!!!
We have The Constitutional Right to Defend and Protect our own life!
Don`t waste more tax-payer dollars on more employes it`s NOT the solution. They are only a Burden on the already overburdened Tax Payers of our Nation.
ANIMAL LIFE DOESN`T COMPARE TO THE VALUE OF HUMAN LIFE.

Posted By Richard L. Ruggles on July 14, 2008, 11:05 PM

Odds of dying from a cougar attack: 1 in 32 million
Odds of dying from a bear attack: 1 in 10 million

Odds of dying from accidental gunfire: 1 in 5,134
Odds of dying from firearm assault: 1 in 300

Paranoid much, anyone? Youare more likely to die by an accidnet from your own gun than to be killed by a wild animals.

People are just stupid.

Posted By Mike on May 26, 2009, 9:10 PM

One thing I haven't seen anyone speaking about is simply this. Have we forgot that the constitution gives us this right and it is not supposed to be something that is allowed! Too Mike, Being paranoid has nothing to do with it, it has to do with our rights and in reality the carrying of a firearm isn't for the animals, it's for the criminal who will carry his gun anyway so lets be real, when the criminal happens to pull his gun and shoot someone there may be an honest citizen there to stop him from killing others as well. It happens quite often so don't think it can't happen in a National Park. You sir are the one who is stupid to think because you may be in a park that you are safe from criminals.

Posted By Terry on February 16, 2010, 9:47 PM

Odds of dying in auto accident one in 84.

Lets ban all cars in National Parks!

I think Mike is stupid. You have a one in 119 chance of killing yourself.

Just because you don't like guns don't cloud the issue.

Common sense says that I would rather have more guns being carried by law abiding citizens then just criminals having them. Duh!!!!!!!!!!!

Next you will tell me that there is no crime or felonies committed in National Parks.

You have to equally support all the constitutional rights or you will lose all of them.

Posted By Pete on March 1, 2011, 10:19 PM

I don't think half of these people have ever even been in a National Park.
You dummies don't realize that people already carry guns regularly in all of the National Parks and Forests that allow hunting and there are no problems with people getting shot.

Dumb asses,
I can carry all types of firearms all over National Forests here in NC for hunting and believe me nobody is getting shot and more importantly nobody is getting robbed raped or murdered while carrying a firearm. You cannot say that about areas where firearms are restricted. Why do you think they already know what will happen. Nothing will happen except a bunch of stupid tree hugging idiots will protest something they know nothing about.

Posted By Pete on March 1, 2011, 10:25 PM

Vielen Dank für dieses Blog-es ist toll! Ich mag diese Art von Menschen, die Wissen mit anderen zu teilen.

Posted By wypadek on March 6, 2012, 9:43 AM

I'm really impressed with your writing skills as smartly as with the structure in your weblog. Is that this a paid theme or did you customize it your self? Anyway keep up the excellent high quality writing, it's rare to see a great weblog like this one nowadays..

Posted By afta on May 15, 2012, 5:44 PM