OC an AR-15 in National Parks

[deepdiver]

imported post

The great thing about the publicity would be if -- nothing happened. Just a few people who were going to some National Parks anyway carried their sidearms like they always do and nobody noticed or got excited. No rallies, no photographic poses just to display sidearms, nobody walking around with long guns in a place that a sidearm is sufficient and appropriate for self-defense, "no nothin'" that any anti or NP Ranger can point to and say, "See, these people are crazy." Just another day with everyone living their lives as they usually do just being able to extend that normal carrying behavior to their national park visit. Sometimes the best thing to do when you win is nothing special.

Can you see the national news if nothing particular happened? "In other news, the national park ban on legal firearm carry expired today and for more on that story we go to Bob. Bob, what's happening over there at _____ National Park today?"

"Um, Linda, nothing happened. A few families were here with pistols on their hips and when asked about the change in the law simply said, "This is family time and I would rather spend time with my family than answering your questions, have a good day." Numerous anti-gun statements were issued by blah blah blah but from my vantage point this is apparently just a non-issue."

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

Pace wrote:

Then someone needs to inform the media and even some of the firearms press.

You are right, I just visited the National Parks office, my apologies. Sorry for speaking out my ...

Oh, the media know darn good'n well that it isn't just concealed that's allowed. The Washington Post has been harping since this began that "the new law will allow people with concealed carry permits to carry concealed weapons..." etc. Why? Two reasons come to mind off the bat.

(1) the anti media want to discourage OC insofar as possible, and make most people think you need "a permit for that gun".

(2) the anti media want to plant paranoia in everyone's mind that they have something to fear now that they cannot tell if someone else is armed.

Of course they want to drum up the usual bargeload of dumbass assumptions about how Old Faithful will erupt in blood from all thegore soaking into the ground from the gun slayings sure to ensue. Okay, they don't get that overheated. But they get close enough.

 

[Pace]

imported post

You know there is more of a danger that the entire YellowStone park will explode in a massive volcano eruption in the next 100 years than anything else? (Not joking, google it)

Alexcabbie wrote:

Pace wrote:

Then someone needs to inform the media and even some of the firearms press.

You are right, I just visited the National Parks office, my apologies. Sorry for speaking out my ...

Oh, the media know darn good'n well that it isn't just concealed that's allowed. The Washington Post has been harping since this began that "the new law will allow people with concealed carry permits to carry concealed weapons..." etc. Why? Two reasons come to mind off the bat.

(1) the anti media want to discourage OC insofar as possible, and make most people think you need "a permit for that gun".

(2) the anti media want to plant paranoia in everyone's mind that they have something to fear now that they cannot tell if someone else is armed.

Of course they want to drum up the usual bargeload of dumbass assumptions about how Old Faithful will erupt in blood from all thegore soaking into the ground from the gun slayings sure to ensue. Okay, they don't get that overheated. But they get close enough.

 

[GLOCK21GB]

imported post

Pace wrote:

You know there is more of a danger that the entire YellowStone park will explode in a massive volcano eruption in the next 100 years than anything else? (Not joking, google it)

Alexcabbie wrote:

Pace wrote:

Then someone needs to inform the media and even some of the firearms press.

You are right, I just visited the National Parks office, my apologies. Sorry for speaking out my ...

Oh, the media know darn good'n well that it isn't just concealed that's allowed. The Washington Post has been harping since this began that "the new law will allow people with concealed carry permits to carry concealed weapons..." etc. Why? Two reasons come to mind off the bat.

(1) the anti media want to discourage OC insofar as possible, and make most people think you need "a permit for that gun".

(2) the anti media want to plant paranoia in everyone's mind that they have something to fear now that they cannot tell if someone else is armed.

Of course they want to drum up the usual bargeload of dumbass assumptions about how Old Faithful will erupt in blood from all thegore soaking into the ground from the gun slayings sure to ensue. Okay, they don't get that overheated. But they get close enough.

The Yellowstone, Caldera = SUPER VOLCANO = Teotwawki ( the end of the world as we know it ) for real.

 

[tekshogun]

imported post

I know this site is about open carrying of a properly holstered and retained sidearm, but I honestly see rifles and handguns as being no different from each other.

There shouldn't be any discussion on what is or is not reasonable to carry in a National park or anywhere else. If I saw a law abiding citizen carrying a M1A .308 SOCOM, slung around his or her shoulder, I wouldn't care much. I would guage what their intentions were but I do that to everyone I see with a gun including police officers.

Any dissention on our part with people carrying rifles and any labeling of a weapon being offensive versus defensive will only lead to more erosion of your rights as anti-gun campaigners begin to quote support for "sensible gun laws" even from within the pro-gun community. I think rifles are just as proper as handguns. What makes them offensive or defensive depends on how you intend to use them.

 

[GLOCK21GB]

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

While it may be perfectly legal to open carry an AR-15 in a National Park in most states, the discussion of such actions is AGAINST THE RULES of this forum!



11) This web site is focused on the right to openly carry properly holstered handguns in daily American life. Do not start OFF TOPIC threads or discussions such aspromoting the carry of long guns. Long guns are great! OCDO co-founders John & Mike and most of the folks on this forum own at least one long gun - but due to urban area issues of muzzle control, lack of trigger guard coverage, and the fact that the long gun carry issue distracts from our main mission to promote the open carry of handguns in daily life, we will leave long gun carry activism in the capable hands of the future founders of web sites about long gun carry.

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum1/1.html

let me guess you were also the hall monitor in Grade school & the crossing guard too.

 

[tekshogun]

imported post

My apologies for breaking the rules. I'll go eat my foot now.

 

[GLOCK21GB]

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

Glock34 wrote:

let me guess you were also the hall monitor in Grade school & the crossing guard too.

No, actually the rule pisses me off to no end and I think it is completely hypocritical.

I agree. I was just giving you a hard time, not serious at all. sometimes rules were intended to bent to breaking point, but not broken.:lol:

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

Why don't yall split the difference and discuss OC of a Buntline Special? See, S&w used to make a revolver callled the Chief's Special, now the model name applies to a semi-auto. So call the AR-15 a "Buntline Semi" and voila! Loophole!

All you need to do is look at the rules the way the antis look at the Constitution, and you can get away with anything; until the voters wise up and kick you out (or until the site owners ban you)

 

[shad0wfax]

imported post

Well I guess the admins/founders will have to chastise or ban me for replying to this thread. I guess I'm distracting from the issues of ope-carry.

I would like to point out one thing though.


National Parks are not normally urban areas and the open carry of a long-arm in a National Park is not very different from the open carry of a long-arm in a National Forest. Hence, I think that discussing the open carry of a long-arm in a National Park is warranted and appropriate even for this biased handgun-only rule of discussion we have here.

IBTL

 

[kwikrnu]

imported post

http://www.lbl.org/RULESGeneral.html

rule #13

I thought guns were now allowed in national recreation areas. Land Between the lakes in Ky and Tn seems to still prohibit them.

Is there a law I can look up somewhere?

 

[shad0wfax]

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

kwikrnu wrote:

http://www.lbl.org/RULESGeneral.html

rule #13

I thought guns were now allowed in national recreation areas. Land Between the lakes in Ky and Tn seems to still prohibit them.

Is there a law I can look up somewhere?

Nope. National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_public_laws&docid=fubl024.111.pdf

Thank you for posting authenticated government documents NavyLT. I see in the document that the term National Park System is used.

I assume this means that National Historic Reserves, National Historic Sites, National Historical Parks, National Recreation Areas, National Historic Trails, National Monuments and anything within the domain of the National Park Service is fair game if the state allows it.

I'm not an attorney, but as far as I can tell, if it's listed on http://www.nps.gov/findapark/index.htm and legal in that state (or district) you can carry there in accordance with state law.

So you could carry at the USS Arizona monument if you had the necessary stuff to carry legally in HI. (Not all that easy to get) You could also open carry (unloaded California style) at the Alcatraz Prison. LOL

 

[kwikrnu]

imported post

Thanks for posting that Navylt.

Land between the lakes isn't listed on the national parks site. It is run by the USDA so it must be under different regulations or something. I had seen some news stories that said carry at national recreation areas was going to be allowed. I guess they got it wrong.



I go to mammoth caves occasionally.:celebrateI won't carry a rifle, but the ak pistol or puma bounty hunter, or smith 500 will do.

 

[shad0wfax]

imported post

kwikrnu wrote:

Thanks for posting that Navylt.

Land between the lakes isn't listed on the national parks site. It is run by the USDA so it must be under different regulations or something. I had seen some news stories that said carry at national recreation areas was going to be allowed. I guess they got it wrong.



I go to mammoth caves occasionally.:celebrateI won't carry a rifle, but the ak pistol or puma bounty hunter, or smith 500 will do.

National Recreation Areas do fall under the purview of the National Park System. According to the language of the document NavyLT posted, they should be OK for carry. I'm not an attorney, but the legislation in that official document clearly states National Parks System, not just "National Park" the singular word.

 

[Carnivore]

imported post

http://www.coloradoan.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2010100222012

 

[shad0wfax]

imported post

Carnivore wrote:

http://www.coloradoan.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2010100222012

Coloradoan.com wrote:

but rangers use pepper spray instead of weapons because the spray is more effective than a gun in deterring a bear attack, spokesman Al Nash said. The best way to defend yourself against a black bear in Rocky Mountain National Park isn’t to shoot it, Magnuson said, but to pack bear spray and prevent the encounter by storing food properly in the backcountry.

HAHAHAHAHAH :lol::lol::lol:

HAHAHAH :banghead::banghead::banghead:

Seriously? Pepper spray is more effective than a gun in deterring a bear attack? You have got to be f***ing kidding me... The best way to defend yourself against a bear is not to shoot it but to carry bear spray and prevent the encounter? OK, that's all fine and dandy, but what happens if the encounter happens despite flawless food storage on your part? What happens if you're hiking and you round a corner and you're between an irate sow and her two cubs? She WILL attack if she feels that her cubs are threatened and pepper spray will NOT deter her at all. She's willing to fight off males that are twice her size to save her cubs. Pepper spray will work though...

HAHAHA

Thanks moronic spokesman Al Nash, but I'll put my faith in 240gr to 320gr lead coming out of my .44 magnum when I'm in bear country. Screw pepper spray.

 

[kwikrnu]

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

Ahh, well, if a National Recreation Area is a unit of the National Park System, then it would seem that the firearms prohibition in a National Recreation Area is, ummm, prohibited. I misread the statute myself, I missed the "unit of" part!

From what I've read tonight I think national recreation areas can be national parks (us department of the interior) or us forest service (us department of agriculture). I'm guessing that the us forest service national recreation areas must be off limits because they aren't mentioned in the act. I don't understand why the second amendment wouldn't apply equally to property of both departments.

 

[Fenris]

imported post

I don't know about any of the rest of you, but I shoot and sometimes carry my rifle in my hands. Doesn't that make it a handgun? I sure as heck am not very accurate shooting it with my feet. That would make it a "footgun".

 

[chiefjason]

imported post

Shadow, the point of bear spray is to fog the area between you and the bear. If nothing else you are more likely to hit the bear with spray than a handgun. Well at least for the average person. Kind of like the reasoning for using a shotgun instead of a handgun. From what I understand of it, it is highly effective. A well placed shot would be too. But the shot would be more difficult under stress for most folks.

When I go, I'll carry a pistol. My long guns are useless for close defense work. Another thought is that they seem less useful slung over your back. Seems that they would work better slung in the front. But that would drastically change how you were perceived and what your intentions were. I also have zero training with them so maybe I am missing something.

I OC for two reasons, to make a statement about my rights and for protection. For me, the handgun is the only thing I have that really fits both reasons.

 

[Thoreau]

imported post

Since the Grand Canyon is the example used in the OP, I figured I might as well hop on board this thread.

As an Arizona resident, and a person who has visited the Big Hole numerous times (and will do so more often quite specifically because of the new law) I can, and WILL open carry throughout the park during my future visits there (save for the 'federal buildings' of course.)

With regards to an AR, at the Grand Canyon, i really don't forsee myself carrying that. As a hiker, the added weight and likely 'threats' just don't match up for me. In AZ, however, that would be perfectly legal and if someone feels the need to carry an AR, I'd not hold that against them.

I would, however, GLADLY OC an AR at places like the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (sits right on the Mexican border) and other NPS areas that are too close to the border for comfort. I've actually pushed off such trips while waiting for the law to take effect.