Think of it this way: You're going out on a hike several days from the nearest road or house. You're going on foot, which means weight is crucial and everything you take with you must be considered carefully since no one is going to carry them for you. In our example there are no great amounts animals in the area that should be considered dangerous to humans, although there might be an odd bear or a wolf hanging around. In your area they still behave their natural way and try to steer clear of humans the best they can(can't blame them there :lol:).

Your average .45 M1911 weights around 1.5 kg fully loaded(just a common example, granted there are lighter pistols around). That's about the same as two days worth of food or a satellite phone with hell of a lot of batteries. A rifle would naturally be a lot heavier. Which one would you rather take with you? Would it be the pistol "just because I can", or something else?

Weight is not a problem - the cute SUV has room for the whole household including TV, Computer, coffee machine and -of course- guns, all necessary for the complete natural experience. The biggest dangers are a flat tyre, an empty tank or (biggest catastrophe) failure of the GPS system.

Bears and wolves usually avoid humans, but some of them are criminals or -even worse- commie partisans so a gun is still very useful.

Weeks? :-? Where might that be? I know you can travel for hours in Sweden/Finland and Norway without seeing anything but a moose. I feel perfectly safe there without a gun.

Our national park system alone encompasses 84.4 million acres.

Look, all this regulation does is bring the national park lands in line with the laws of the states they're located in. It's not like these huge wilderness areas have a fence around them.

I was actually agreeing with a Subman/August-combo, then this gem came along. SERIOUSLY? :rotfl:

wow. a lot of frightened people on this thread.

Maybe there aren't as many predators in Europe? In the open areas of our country there are many wild animals that can kill you, will kill you, and eat you. If you're 100 miles from nowhere dialing 911 isn't going to do much good. It's just common sense to have a weapon to protect yourself.

It's not a matter of being frightened as much as it is dealing with the reality of the situation(s).

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/08/pot.eradication/ The drug cartels are using our national forest and parks to grow pot. So they can run around with guns, and we can't? Nope, not going to happen for long, not here.

ROFLMAO!!! Thanks for the laugh, mate! :rotfl::rotfl:

As for having guns with you in the wilderness, well, I've come up with a bear 3 times in my life, they've never done anything as long as I havent act agressively. Met few deers too, same thing, dont act agressively, back down slowly and they dont give a damn about you. That's something, atleast, we Finns are teached from child, respect the nature and it respects you. Unloading a mag from a .45 Colt to a bear that prolly wouldnt've done anything to you isnt that. You only need a gun in wilderness if you're planning to behave like you need a gun to defend yourself. That's my take on it. Animals arent stupid.

The reality is there IS danger out 'where the wild things are'. There is also danger in our bathrooms. The point is, is carrying a concealed, pocket 9mm going to make any difference at all? If you are going to camp next to a river during the salmon run in grizzly territory then you need a bazooka not a concealed pop gun. To quote Gene Wilder in Blazing Saddles, "No, don't do that! If you shoot him you will only make him mad."

In all the 30+ years I've been camping I've dealt with the cold, the heat, the wet, lack of water, lack of food, injury and bears+. My grandfather and Mr Ligertwood, my old scoutmaster taught me how to deal successfully with all those things and funny enough, bringing a gun along never came up.

So, go ahead, pack heat if it will make you feel better. Just know being in the woods is a heck of a lot safer that civilization.:up:

Geez guys. Understand the situation. ALL THIS RULE CHANGE DOES is put the concealed carry laws in a national park in sync with the state that the park is located in. Carrying firearms UNconcealed on national park land is perfectly legal and always has been, again in accordance with pertinent state law.

Why bother then? Hiding our guns from Yogi and BooBoo? Concealed carry in civilization is a little paranoid anyway.

But, that's another thread.....:smug:

There are people who have lots of money growing in national parks. Those people tend to have guns. I don't think it's so crazy to want to carry concealed in the wilderness these days.

http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_10986714

PD

I hike an area here called Skyline park. We have a situation with mountain lions being forced into these areas because they are over populated. I love these cats, but make no mistake, that they have on occaison attacked hikers, bikers, joggers etc... The Smith and Wesson 329 is my carry weapon of choice when I am hiking. Even if I miss the target the fireball this puppy produces will sear its hair right of its face.

Years back my Dad always advised his family to never go into the woods without a firearm. My Uncle went camping up near Booneville circa 1975. Some biker thugs slashed my Aunt and Uncle's tent with machettes. Luckily they were unharmed, but since then my Uncle always took a pump 12 gage camping.

Recently some pot growers just killed and buried a hiker in the Mendocino forest. It is a sad reality of life, but to go into the forest without a firearm IMO is foolish.

All it takes to make that bear a lot less agreeable is for you to have, unintentionally, placed yourself between her and her cubs. I've been raised the same way you have; respect nature, but I still carrying a gun in the woods is a pretty good idea.

The bear, generally, will not do anything to me if I don't do anything to it. This works both ways, as I'm not going to shoot the bear unless it's acting in a hostile fashion. But if the bear decides, for whatever reason, that he isn't pleased with my continued existence, I would much prefer to have the means to defend myself.

:lol:

Well, for instance did you know that 4 million acres of the National Park system remain in private ownership? Imagine a situation where a CC registered person can legally be packing walking down the main street of his town but be in violation of the law doing the same thing on his own property.

Imagine a person driving down a back road carrying concealed, crossing an unmarked boundary onto government land and suddenly becoming a criminal without even knowing it.

The laws in national park land should be the same as the state they are located in with few exceptions. It only makes sense.

FWIW I don't think Obamas pick for Interior secretary is going to let that stand for long though...