Accidents happen. I agree that accidents happen and I accept that risk. Accidents happen from a variety of causes yet we do not prohibit anything that may cause an accident. More children drown than by accidental gunfire. That is not a sufficient reason to prohibit a constitutional right.

Gun owners have children and even many children in their homes and those children do not suffer unduly from injury from guns. Gun owners are aware and take precautions. That risk or concern is just as possible in homes and playgrounds where other gun owners can and do carry. Plus in a campground I have never had kids from another campsite go through my belongings and that seem an extremely minor risk. Gun owners are more concerned from theft and take a lot of precautions of someone handling a weapon. We know that a gun can kill and do not let another handle a weapon without precautions. We certainly want to keep any expensive guns from being stolen so they are either on the owner or very well stored like current law allows. Current law allows guns to be stored at campsites and I never heard anything of a problem.

· Alcohol and guns do not mix. The main reason people say this is that alcohol lowers the inhibitions and yet people drink and rarely attack others with or without guns. Now young impulsive people can and do risky behavior especially while drunk. If they indulge in that behavior then the regular punishments apply. People also drink at home where guns are and I do not hear of a gun slaughters that happens. Again this is a stretch. Again the underlying fear is that the gun owner will not be responsible and I have yet to hear evidence that supports that contention.

· In the case of overt gun use how can a ranger tell the difference is easy? The ranger tells all parties to lower the guns. This is the same method police use when they run into non-uniform police and guns are in play. You treat all the gun holders the same and tell them to lower and drop a gun. After the ranger gets the stories he can then arrest or let go as he determines.

Poaching is still disallowed. I have said before that in order to arrest on poaching you need the true evidence not the assumption that everyone with a gun is a poacher. My rights are not to be violated to make a poaching arrest easier. As to the inclination of pistol holders to shoot game in a park I do not see that as a reasonable assumption. Most game is hunted with rifles and poaching happens in National Forrest lands also and the rangers there do not have the ability to assume a group of hunters is taking game out of season. So they will often check for dead game. No reason that NPS ranger can’t do the same thing.

A right to carry a gun is not predicted on need. You do not need the right of free speech or freedom to worship as you choose but you still have it. Crime may not be an issue but regrettably when it occurs it is generally unexpected. Why not be prepared if you choose. Same as any other risk.

A previous commenter mentions a NPR show about a person who was risk from Illegal “weed” farms on NPS land. That is a true issue and some parks are not as safe as others.

You present concerns that are not major problems or have any evidence in other areas where carry is practiced as an issue.

The major problem is wither reckless, irresponsible of felonious use of a firearm. Those are the same risks that are present off NPS land where carry is allowed and it is not a problem. If they occur then you prosecute as well as any other law that is broken. Prohibiting lawful exercising of rights because it might be a problem, that is a travesty of the concept of freedom. We don’t tape people mouths shut when they go into a theater to prevent them from shouting fire. They are punished after the fact. We do not prevent the press from printing stories before they are printed and some stories have violates national security laws but the government generally pleads and the courts do not take kindly to pre print prohibition

The right to self protection is even more needed in areas of our nation in which there is less protection from criminals and animals that might attack humans. This law was a step in the right direction.

It is everybody's choice to carry or not in the backcountry except in NP's.

I did a quick search and could only figure out that if caught in a NP and not following the existing law concerning firearms and weapons then the individual is subject to fines, possible loss of permit, possible loss of weapon, and possible confinement. So it sounds to me that it depends on the circumstances in which the person is caught and how they interact with the ranger who catches them. The point I was making is to respect the laws of the land. Including the stupid ones. I don't agree with them all, but I follow them and try to change them through the appropriate channels. Yes, I do have a lead foot and have paid for it on occasion.

@Frank C: Well, it did take a while, but finally you made it. Thank you for proving Godwin's Law again. This thread can be closed now.

Beamis your comment is really off topic. You will get a lot of arguement about the wars being unconstitutional. Since this site is about NPS and the topic is loosening gun carry in the NPS.

Keep on topic.

In Virginia a CCW person can walk in the State house with a weapon and visit his representative.

Coburn may allow that in his home state. But in DC there is still a gun ban and carry ban in effect. Senator Webb ran into that problem with his assistant getting caught with a gun in his briefcase.

The difference is that in DC they do not trust the public with carrying weapons. In Virginia they do. OC and CCW is allowed in Virginia and they have less crime than DC. I am not implying that guns are the reason that Virginia has less crime. More to do with demographics but DC guns laws do not help