CCW in Nat'l Parks approved by SecInt

[CitaDeL]

Originally Posted by Liberty1

Really, what does that mean No axes? No matches?

I joked with a friend of mine that by the wording of this law, that even those sticky rodent traps are illegal on the State Capitol grounds. I guess they are concerned we might get the rats out of the statehouse.

[N6ATF]

If only they weren't covered in teflon.

[retired]

So pretty much no one will be CCWing in Yosemite or Sequoia Parks (legally, anyway).

Rayra, I realize pretty much the above does apply to 99% of those in Ca. with a ccw, but, unless I'm wrong, I would think/hope, those retired leos who have a HR218 ccw can carry in those particular federal parks. Does anyone have info to the contrary.

And for those who might want to post it is unfair for a retired leo to be in that special class, please don't as that would be off topic. I wish this state was a shall issue one and every adult who is not exempt, can obtain a ccw, but unfortunately this is not the case. I hope it eventually becomes one.

It was made available to me so I have one. This is in addition to my former dept. issued one.

[Liberty1]

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...8&postcount=51

Originally Posted by retired

Rayra, I realize pretty much the above does apply to 99% of those in Ca. with a ccw, but, unless I'm wrong, I would think/hope, those retired leos who have a HR218 ccw can carry in those particular federal parks. Does anyone have info to the contrary.

My interpretation is that state Leos are OK in their own states NPs if they can carry under their state's laws. Out of state leos are still bound by the NPS firearm prohibition as LEOSA only exempts "qualified" leos from certain state laws and not federal laws.

[rayra]

Originally Posted by bulgron

My issue is if I decide to drive into a National Park for a few hours, I don't want to have to stop somewhere, unload and lock up my firearm, then go into the park, the later stop to unlock and load my firearm. That's a lot of unnecessary handling of something, IMO.

I wonder if the antis will be able to get this rule rescinded before the end of 2009. You know they're going to push hard to do it.

I hope we see a lawsuit about open carry in the parks and monuments sometime in 2009 (it's a GREAT "bear" case). If they think they're going to have to allow OC, they might just decide to leave CCW alone.

So don't, I say. To me, the entire point to me of knowing the letter of the law is to be able to decide when and where it is in my own best interest to adhere to it, or disregard it.

If your weapon is concealed, your stay is short, and you actually consider the risk of danger in a couple-hour visit exceeds the likelihood of discovery or the likely punishments of same, then it seems to be an easy choice to make.

[rayra]

Originally Posted by bulgron

I understand where international socialism leads.

What I can't believe is a large number of very wealthy people are lining up behind it. They're basically voting with their dollars to give the state control of their own wealth. Yes, I'm sure there's some wealthy people who would be fine with that. But on whole, it would seem to fly in the face of everything I know (or think I know) about greedy people.

I mean, if you've got a few million bucks burning a hole in your pocket, rather than let the government decide how to spend it for you, don't you think you'd take direct control and divy out the money to the worthy organizations/people of your choice?

You're making a false subconcious assumption that having more money = more intelligence. It's demonstrably not so. Ideology trumps self-interest in many cases, just as it does for authoritarian-socialists whose primary urge is to tell someone else what to do. They never even notice that the same structures they seek to enact will have any effect on them whatsoever. Even primary effects, much less secondary / unintended consequences.
Hell just look at the eco-madness impacting our energy policy in this nation. Supposedly intelligent people cry we should 'pass the international test' when those self-same euro-judges make FAR more use of nuclear power than we allow ourselves.
Then there's the entire idiotic fraud of anthropogenic global warming. Lots of 'smart' people prattle on about it, while simultaneously deliberately ignoring the gross falsifications of the 'evidence'.

Taken as a whole, the opposite of that assumption seems to be more in evidence. Some of the biggest idiots roaming across the policy landscape are the idle rich. Folks whose bankroll is so deep or so secure that no matter what ruinous policies they advocate, they are personally not impacted to any great degree. Again I reference the global warming fraud that has its biggest proponents flying their personal jets to conferences, having extraordinarily high utility bills or other signs of waste while they castigate everyone else for their lack of frugality. Or folks like Warren Buffet or George Soros, while becoming multi-billionaires on the back of the Capitalist system are in their personal sociall politics and advocacy utterly socialist. They advocate a system for everyone else that precludes the repetition of their success by anyone following after them.

[bulgron]

Originally Posted by rayra

So don't, I say. To me, the entire point to me of knowing the letter of the law is to be able to decide when and where it is in my own best interest to adhere to it, or disregard it.

Yes, I've been thinking about that. Arizona also has an issue where you aren't supposed to CCW in any restaurant that serves alcohol, yet I've read that this rule is widely disregarded (and likely to be removed this year now that Governor Napolitano is moving along).

I've always been so EXTREMELY careful not to go breaking firearm laws that it seems odd to me to read about people deliberately breaking laws that they don't like.

This trip to Arizona will be (among other things) a real experiment in CCW. I've never been able to legally carry a firearm in public before outside of wilderness areas. So I've going to have nearly two weeks to get used to it and decide where I'm going to draw the line on crossing the line.

My instinct is to obey the absolute letter of the law wherever possible, so that's probably what I'm going to do.

[bulgron]

Originally Posted by rayra

You're making a false subconcious assumption that having more money = more intelligence.

Actually, my assumption has nothing to do with intelligence and instead has everything to do with assumptions about greed. But you're probably making a good point. A combination of arrogance, assumed privilege, and sheer stupidity may be leading these people to believe that they will somehow be exempt from the worst effects of the socialistic policies that they are working to inflict on the rest of us.

[rayra]

Originally Posted by retired

Rayra, I realize pretty much the above does apply to 99% of those in Ca. with a ccw, but, unless I'm wrong, I would think/hope, those retired leos who have a HR218 ccw can carry in those particular federal parks. Does anyone have info to the contrary.

And for those who might want to post it is unfair for a retired leo to be in that special class, please don't as that would be off topic. I wish this state was a shall issue one and every adult who is not exempt, can obtain a ccw, but unfortunately this is not the case. I hope it eventually becomes one.

It was made available to me so I have one. This is in addition to my former dept. issued one.

Sorry, but I'm one of those people. I think the special privilege given to LEOs in CA gun laws completely sucks. No matter the positive effects it has for you personally. You can view it as 'some freedom is better than none' but the vast majority of us are on the outside looking in. Just as the authoritarian scum that crafted those laws intended us to be.

/

And to the poster putting forth their own blinkered comfort level about bears in Yosemite as gainsay, stuff it. There are enough attacks by predators both two-legged and four to more than justify being armed in your campsite or while hiking. We've also got a house in the Sierras and spend a good deal of time in the lower Sequoia Forest. There have been more than enough cougar incidents in CA and my own personal experience with problem bears on the floor of Yosemite that I consider being armed a necessity.

Of course it's all sort of moot with Yosemite as it appears the Greens have finally managed to turn it into their semi-private reserve by hindering access via private vehicles (after decades of their trying to impose that barrier).

[bulgron]

Originally Posted by rayra

and my own personal experience with problem bears on the floor of Yosemite that I consider being armed a necessity.

Just as an aside, what firearm are you able to carry concealed that holds a large enough caliber that you can comfortably believe you can take out a bear?

It needs to be .44 magnum or bigger, IMO ....

Frankly, if I thought I was going somewhere that I really had to worry about problem bears, I'd be carrying a shotgun loaded with slugs plus a Ruger Super Redhawk chambered in .44 magnum or possibly .454 Casull. Neither of these weapons are very concealable. Which is why I don't go to places where there are problem bears, unless I can open carry without worrying about being harassed.

Also, IMO, the big reason to carry a weapon in Yosemite are two-legged predators plus the occasional aggressive domestic dog.