Mt. Whitney Portal Store & Hostel Forums General Mt. Whitney Portal Store Message Board New Gun Law for National Parks

Ken, my understanding of the law change - and I'll readily admit that I'm not as well-versed as those of you in California - is that the local federal park would allow only what the local municipal permitting regulations allow. In California that's pretty much open-carry, correct? Most of the posts on this thread against this law change regularly referred to open-carry, so I made an assumption. If concealed is the case, why all the drama about open-carry intimidators? Now I'm confused.

Your other point: check out the qualifiers "most" and "just" in that last sentence of mine you quoted. I was very careful to parse those statements. You will rarely, if ever, hear me declare anything absolutely. I'm not a zealot on most topics, and I see colors other than black and white. I never said I knew anything for a fact - just what my experience in an armed society has taught me over the years. The comment about not seeing into their souls was specific to the carry-in-the-park scenario. The next sentence was a general observation. I'm sorry if I didn't make the context more obvious. Was I really so unclear that we're debating semantics? Seriously?

Again Ken, my point being that you will face this thing you hate in the not-too-distant future - especially if you're aggressively looking for it. The time for debating whether it will occur is long past - this is a done deal. As I see it, you have only two choices: (1) ignore a carrier or (2) get in their face. I suppose a third option would be a non-confrontational, friendly chat about their choice to carry in a park, but after reviewing your posts I'm not betting the house on that. Which is the wiser course towards achieving the goal of minimal firearms in your parks? And which will you choose when the time comes?

Mike, I think the real result there would be the park staff having a cow. You know that scenario - and much worse - is being played out in their imaginations right now. Guess we'll see what really happens before too much longer. I don't envy the NPS.

I suspect the California legislature, lethargic ans it may be, will modify the code to disallow weapon possession in National Parks.

"Rat: I don't understand your assertion as to my post. I guess that the statement of someone pulling a gun to commit a crime was not descriptive enough. Other than someone holding up the bears to get their food back, I was commenting on the "open carry" scenario in civilization. Those folks I find disturbed. People in wilderness, I'd only find misinformed and uneducated about the environment that they would be in, mainly."

Ken, it's starting to make some sense to me now. Since the topic is "New Gun Law for Natl. Parks" I assumed that was the context for your statement. I didn't see anywhere until this last post that you were talking about someone carrying in an urban setting. I carried that assumption to the "committing a crime" statement as well, thinking you were talking about robbery or rape in the wilderness. I think that we're in pretty strong agreement actually. So, sorry about the confusion.

Icy, I haven't had a chance to look at any of the videos so I'll reserve comment until I do.

Sorry Mike, our California's lawmakers are busy approving "Cuss-Free Week" to encourage the state's citizens to watch their language. I doubt if they have time for passing budgets, improving our educational system or worrying about weapon possession in National Parks.

Ah yes, probably true.

Can anyone tell me a good source for an really light .44 mag? I checked the Golite website and they don't seem to stock one.

What I find quite disgusting here is that, as someone who carries openly quite often while in the back country (don't worry, not NP), someone who carries concealed, and someone who hunts, I'm feeling quite judged here. My character, intention and motives, I feel, have been misjudged by preconceived fears about firearms. This is why there is such strong, defensive rhetoric about this type of debates.
I'm not a bad guy. I'm a financial professional, father of two amazing kids, God-fearing American. I've never shot anyone, never brandished my firearm, never hunted without a license or tag. I'm not rude, have nothing to prove, am respectful and courteous, even when someone else is not. Yet I am lumped in to some preconceived notion time and again because I own and carry a tool. That's what it is, it is a tool. (We really don't need to hear the "tool of destruction and death argument here either, we've all heard it")
Perhaps it's time for the anti-gun folks to open their minds, be tolerant, and accept that there are people, good people, law-abiding people, that aren't like them. If you see me in the back-country, and I'm wearing a firearm, I pray that you'll come up and shake my hand, have a conversation with me, realize that we're not out to kill everything that moves. Just because I own and carry a firearm, doesn't mean that I'm a criminal, and doesn't mean that I should be treated as one either.

I can only speak for myself. I have claimed on this thread that I am not anti-gun. On the other hand, from this thread::

So, putting on my alleged "anti-Constitution" hat (despite the high concentration of demonstrably false statements in that short paragraph), I don't judge your character, intention, or motives. I might very well walk up to you, shake your hand, and have a conversation with you. Firearm and all. I say that because I have done those things to people carrying firearms before. Also people not carrying firearms. My $0.02 worth of advice to you is relax and ignore the perceived unfair judgments unless they get excessive. Most of the thread has been a pretty civil conversation.

Snaps10,
I have worked pretty hard to keep my queries to why anyone would find it necessary to be openly armed in any one of Yosemite's car camping campgrounds. The answers have ranged from "Beacuse it's my right to do so.", "I need to be able to fend off a bear, mountain lion, or other wild animal attack.", "I need to protect my family from rapists and murderers.", to "I'm going to because I can and screw anybody that objects and besides I don't care if they are uncomfortable with my carrying." Again let me stress my concern is limited to carrying openly (legal to be loaded at your camp site by the way) at the car camps in Yosemite. Walking around on the valley floor open carrying is kind of dumb too.

I find these reasons objectionable and they cast a bad light on even reasonable, responsible, experienced, trained, knowledgeable, etc. armed visitors to the wilderness and backcountry.

Been lurking on this thread.

Wasn't planning on adding anything to it, but wanted to elaborate a little further on the "destabilization" thought that Ken mentioned (and with which I agree, although I don't agree with the comment about the carrier being the first target...). I want to try and describe how I would probably react (and more important, *why*) if I ran into any stranger (to me), other than law enforcement, who was openly carrying any kind of firearm (loaded or not) in public (city or backcountry).

Roughly, my mental process might go something like this (couldn't get the bullet points to single space, sorry):

• See person with firearm

• Do I know this person? If yes, no biggie.

• If no, is there anything about this person, at first glance (which is probably all I would have), that would cause me to think, even a little bit, that this person might be a threat, even without the firearm? If no, then probably no biggie. But how do I know that for sure? Should I assume, sight unseen, that this person who is unknown to me (and thus an unknown quantity) won't be a threat? If I assume no threat, how do I know that for sure? I don't.

• If any threat is sensed (rightly or wrongly, based on the immediate circumstances), then the presence of a firearm only heightens that sensed threat.

• Do I want to socially engage this armed person in the same outgoing manner that I normally do? What will be the consequences of that social engagement?

• The mere presence of a visible firearm (always presumed by me to be loaded unless proven otherwise) slightly decreases the likelihood that I will as readily engage this person in the same manner that I otherwise might do without the firearm.

• My mind will automatically ask, why is this person *displaying* a firearm in the first place? Does s/he really feel that unprotected without it, or is s/he just displaying it more as a means of saying to others, in essence, "because I can do it, I am doing it" (sort-of like the same thought process that might motivate someone to demonstrate for or against any principle that they hold very strongly)?

• If displaying the firearm more on principle (just because I can...), then, without knowing anything about them (again, remember that they are a total stranger and thus, an unknown quantity) I may begin to question their ability to show good judgment and restraint, since I consider such a willful display a bit over the line of what I would consider showing proper restraint and being considerate of how others might be reacting (with unease) to this display of potential deadly force.

• If a person can't show a basic amount of reasonable restraint in a non-stressed environment, then how are they going to show the kind of restraint that is needed even more in a tense situation? That could be a problem.

These are the kinds of logical thought processes that would probably go through my mind, depending entirely on the situation. Note that I mentioned no names here, because I don't consider that relevant to this line of thought.

My main point here is that a stranger is an unkonwn quantity until I meet them and am comfortable with them so that they are no longer a stranger. I'm very outgoing most of the time, and make friends pretty easily. Also, I am very inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt in just about any situation, all other things being neutral or equal. But even so, until the time a new acquaintance ceases to become an "unknown quanity", if you add to that mix any kind of a weapon, and most certainly an openly displayed firearm of any kind (loaded or not), it will make me more cautious toward and wary of that person. Obviously, that will change completely once I get to know that person, should it get to that point.

I think a few here had commented that they didn't necessarily understand why someone carrying openly, merely on its face, would be a problem for others. The above thought process hopefully answers that question. Before anyone responds and says that I am a fearful person, I am not.

Ooops ... went longer than I anticipated (what a surprise).

CaT

Cat, you summarized my concern, much better than I've been able to.

Wow, CaT, how long does this thought process take? The gun totin' stranger yet to be evaluated might get a little nervous if you stood around staring at him/her too long while you worked though this list

Bee - Far shorter than it takes to type it out.
Probably a couple of seconds, actually.
I wanted to also say that I've thoroughly enjoyed your posts on this subject (and others). Very well thought out, and highly entertaining in places (making me laugh outloud at times). Thanks.

Ken - Thanks. I tried to keep it shorter, but...

CaT

I took a training walk today for a few hours, thanks to a break in the storms that have been sweeping in off the ocean. I didn't have my ear buds with me so I was more inclined to let my mind wander and contemplate whatever thoughts blew by. Several times I imagined what it would be like if I had a firearm strapped to my side. And then I wondered what kind of weapon I would have. (Some of my time while reading this thread was wandering on Google searches of Glocks, Walthers, Berettas, and Desert Eagles). At one point while walking by some houses, a little off the beaten path, I had a little bit of a stand off with a Pit Bull that was off-leash. I stopped, he stopped, and then we finally let each other go our mutual ways. If I had my sidearm at this point, would I have been fingering my magazine in my pocket or would I already have it slipped into my Glock? (And probably the owner of the dog would have his laser sighted rifle pointed through the window of his house on my temple)

I finally came to a bluff overlooking the beach, did a round of Tai Chi, and then started my walk again back home.

I'm afraid, that the Sierra Nevada that I've known since I was a boy in the 1950's are now gone. Maybe, they were really only tranquil and serene in my imagination....as there has always been those that carried their weapons hidden.

I've been lucky to have had good health for the 50 years or so that I've wandered around these mystical mountains. I'm hoping to be able to go another 10 years or so. I might have to adapt again to the new equipment changes that might be needed for safe back-country travel. As well as shopping at REI for the latest ultralight stoves, sleeping pads, tents, packs, trail running shoes, I will now be going to Cabella's or Scheel's to get a handgun.

I already own several shotguns and a 22 rifle, so it's not a great leap to the handgun world. After I get my preferred choice of handgun, I will train and get confident in my ability to be safe to myself and others. I will wait for another thread to ask some of you for recommendations on what handguns would be the best for backpacking. There seem to be many people that have "spoken" on this thread who are very knowledgeable about their weapons of choice.

Or maybe I'll just go down to the corner Starbuck's and ask some of the law abiding, open carrying, urban cowboys.

How does that differ from your process meeting a person wearing a loose untucked polo shirt or a fanny pack? Especially a fanny pack combined with a day pack? I see this combo on occassion and while the fanny pack could hold a camera, I generally presume that it holds a handgun.

National Park Wilderness is only a portion of the Sierra wilderness, it seems reasonable to have consistent rules. (But of course still no dogs allowed...)

Open carry says "I'm packing and I want you to know it. Oh, by the way I want quick access in case I need to shoot something in a hurry."

Concealed carry doesn't say anything.

Nope. Not gone in any way. I've been on various Sierra backcountry trails literally every day from June into October since 1970. Don't let this strange thread tip you over into paranoia (kind of like watching the 11PM news a little too often). Sierra trails -- all of them -- are still tranquil and serene. Save your money on the gun purchase, get a lighter sleeping bag instead (or, as I may have mentioned before, chocolate).

g.

Ah, that does not involve a person who is making a deliberate effort to make everyone around them hyperalert, uncertain, and intimidated, and screaming LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME! They are being deliberately provocative.

Somewhere I've heard it said: "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Is this what is meant by that?????

Most people who go into situations in which they are likely to encounter others, want to approach it by being in a unoffensive state that will tend to get along with people. They don't wear T-shirts that proclaim the cause of overthrowing the US, or support for Al-Queda....even if they think such things. Most people want to fit in, socially, most people want to get along.

However, some apparently want to destablize the social situation, want to intimidate others, want to offend, even scare others.

Such people seem unstable to me.

People carrying concealed are not in this group, nor are people carrying as part of their job.

George can speak better to this, but I'm positive that carrying a gun changes the dynamic of interaction with the public. I've heard it said that ranger-naturalists dislike carrying a gun because of this change in the dynamic, but do so because they have to.

This has been a sore point in this topic for quite a while, and seems to be central to a lot of the more animated debate. I did some Googling on how this new law would impact California's parks specifically, but wasn't able to locate any precise detail. Most references I found were to the general description that the NPS rules would reflect those of the local municipality (or state regs) in which the park is located. After doing a search for California regulations, the best link I found was this one on Wikipedia (man, what a patchwork quilt of regulations you guys have there!). While it was very informative, it didn't answer my question of whether open-carry or concealed-carry will be dominant in the Cali parks this summer.

Anyone have a clearer idea of what the state of affairs might be with this law? I ask because, despite some of the comments made on this board by gun owners intending to carry in the parks, I believe the vast majority really agree that an open-carry is just too antagonistic and would eminently prefer to carry concealed if they choose to carry at all.