[sorensen440]

Originally Posted by bulgron

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.

For California bears I would be confident with a 357 or larger

[yellowfin]

Originally Posted by bulgron

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?

Not the most perfectly comfortable, but what would be closest to passable would be a very hotly loaded 10mm.

[bulgron]

Originally Posted by yellowfin2

Not the most perfectly comfortable, but what would be closest to passable would be a very hotly loaded 10mm.

Where California bears are concerned, I prefer bear bells and general situational awareness to firearms. Just don't come between momma and her cubs, and don't sleep with food in your tent. Oh, and don't camp where a lot of idiots leave food around so that the bears can come to learn humans == food.

Of course, if you're going where there's Kodiaks, then the rules of engagement are entirely different, since Kodiaks are predators and they see humans as lunch meat (actually, they see humans as little bears and so get territorial with them -- but why split hairs?)

[Liberty1]

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

Originally Posted by Paladin

The park rule will be published in the Federal Register next week and take effect 30 days later, well before Obama takes office Jan. 20. Overturning the rule could take months or even years, since it would require the new administration to restart the lengthy rule-making process.

OK I'm hearing the CCW exemption goes into effect on Jan. 9th, 2009. Sorry no citation to anything official.

[Meplat]

Originally Posted by sorensen440

For California bears I would be confident with a 357 or larger

+1

[Liberty1]

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

Originally Posted by Liberty1

OK I'm hearing the CCW exemption goes into effect on Jan. 9th, 2009. Sorry no citation to anything official.

I should have said the 12025 exemptions (not just 12050 LTCs/CCWs) apply to the fed. prohibition starting 1/9/09.

[MudCamper]

Originally Posted by Liberty1

I should have said the 12025 exemptions (not just 12050 LTCs/CCWs) apply to the fed. prohibition starting 1/9/09.

That is a very interesting point. But it depends on whether the 12026 exemption to 12025 for "residense" includes "temporary residence or campsite" like the 12031 exemption, which specifically states such. Is there a definition for "residence" anywhere in the PC or CCR?

[Liberty1]

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

Originally Posted by MudCamper

That is a very interesting point. But it depends on whether the 12026 exemption to 12025 for "residense" includes "temporary residence or campsite" like the 12031 exemption, which specifically states such. Is there a definition for "residence" anywhere in the PC or CCR?

Well, any 12025 exemption will work (until the legislature creates NP specific prohibitions) provided it is appropriately applied and is otherwise a lawful possession. Looks like for non 12050 LTC holders and out of state LEOs, UCC via 12026.1a & 2a or an applicable 12027 sub-section and LCC at a campsite/residence/hotel/cabin (not sure on that last one but it looks likely to me) is not prohibited.

Out of state LEO's (not on official business) are SOL on LCC in NPs as LEOSA(HR 218) is no help against the fed. NP prohibition.

[Liberty1]

Originally Posted by sorensen440

For California bears I would be confident with a 357 or larger

Consider this - the new NP gun prohibition exemption (ha!) for concealed firearms exempts "concealed" firearms you can carry under state law- you can legally conceal and carry a longarm in CA so in the NP all you'd have to worry about is the state's 12031 loaded prohibition (so keep loaded mags separate) - boy I think there will be a huge increase in guitar case carrying campers next summer!!


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

[Liberty1]

HOLD MY HORSES (AND YOURS TOO)

OK, I was really excited over this AND MISSED the KEY wording of carry a "concealed, LOADED, and operable firearm"...to the extent that state law allows carry of "concealed, LOADED, and operable firearm".

So with that "and" instead of an "or" you must be able to carry a LOADED firearm under state law to be exempt from the NP prohibition while also being concealed. So it looks like only 12050 LTC holders and CA LEOs benefit in CA by this rule change.

The opportunity to have a loaded firearm at a campsite or cabin/residence (where and if PC 12031 doesn't apply) might still be a possibility. I'll hold off on that one to let the attorneys have a crack at it first. Sorry all it was NOT what I thought.

The feds really put some smooth language in there to not overturn CAs, NYs, MD's and NJs gun control apple carts.


I'm so pissed at myself right now (and this stupid new final rule - yes it is better then it was but it could have been soooo much better then what we got) I'm going to have to go write a lot of tickets tomorrow to burn off this steam (I suggest you all ride the bus - JK ).

[rayra]

It's all moot anyway. NYT just posted an anti-gun opinion piece specifically calling on the incoming Obama adminsitration to rescind this decision.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/op...ml?ref=opinion

Anticipating what Barack Obama has called “common-sense gun safety laws,” the Bush administration has rushed through a last-minute gun rule that is the antithesis of common sense. The Interior Department published a rule last week that will allow loaded, concealed weapons in nearly all of this country’s national parks.

The rule, which will take effect next month, will apply to national parks in every state that has a concealed carry law, even if guns are prohibited in state parks. The administration — again — also has ignored the point of a public comment period. It received 140,000 comments on this proposed rule change, the vast majority opposing it, and still went ahead.

There already is ample provision for carrying unloaded and properly stowed guns in transit through the parks. This is a rule that was bought and paid for by the National Rifle Association, and it reflects its obsession with overturning even the most sensible restrictions on gun use.

Right now, the National Parks are among the very safest places in this country, according to the F.B.I. The presence of concealed, loaded weapons is likely to change that, and it also is likely to pose an increased threat to wildlife.

The parks were set aside to preserve their natural beauty and provide enjoyment for visitors. Loaded guns — concealed or unconcealed — are completely inconsistent with that purpose and with the enjoyment of visitors who do not wish to come armed.

Unfortunately, far too many states have laws that allow citizens to carry concealed weapons. But no one should misinterpret those laws as the will of the people. They too are the will of the N.R.A., which has done everything in its power to force dangerous gun laws through one State Legislature after the next.

We hope that one of the incoming Obama administration’s first steps in bringing common sense to bear will be the reversal of this absurd and dangerous rule.

Lying bastards.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0808/p03s01-ussc.html

Crime rates tick up across national parks
Amid the daisies and national monuments, more rangers find themselves battling lawlessness.

By Brad Knickerbocker | Staff Writer of The Christian Science Monitor

ASHLAND, ORE. –
The smell of bacon mixed with wood smoke. The sight of a spectacular waterfall or field of wildflowers. The sound of a bugling elk ... or nothing at all in the backcountry wilderness.
National parks are meant to be laid-back places where the stress and strain of work and home are left behind for a more mellow experience.

But increasingly, those rangers in their Smokey Bear hats who give talks on nature and lead campfire singalongs - especially the ones trained in law enforcement - are facing crime and violence.


A watchdog group last week warned that law enforcement work in national parks is the most dangerous in federal service.

"National Park Service officers are 12 times more likely to be killed or injured as a result of an assault than FBI agents," the group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility reported. "National Park Service commissioned law-enforcement officers were victims of assaults 111 times in 2004, nearly a third of which resulted in injury. This figure tops the 2003 total of 106 assaults and the 2002 total of 98."

"The National Park Service has an astoundingly poor safety record for its officers," says Randall Kendrick, who represents park rangers as part of the Fraternal Order of Police. "If anything, these assaults against park rangers are undercounted. If there is not a death or injury, pressures within a national park can cause the incident to be reported as being much more minor than it is in reality, and it is not unheard of for an assault to go unreported altogether."

So why all this violence and crime in places that are supposed to be tranquil and relaxing? Alcohol or drugs are part of most violent incidents. Hideaway methamphetamine labs and marijuana fields in rural park areas (some of them run by drug cartels) and illegal aliens crossing through parks near the US- Mexico border are part of a growing crime scene.

But like increasing incidents of road rage, the stress of modern urban life, especially in the post-9/11 world of terrorism, may have something to do with it as well.

"We're suffering from the same societal problems that most urban areas are," says park service spokesman David Barna, who notes that park rangers interact with 1 million visitors a day and a lot more than that during the summer months.

FBI agents "are not face to face with the public the way we are," says Mr. Barna. "We're more like cops - metropolitan police organizations."

Here in Oregon recently, two rangers at Crater Lake National Park attempted to calm a man at the Mazama campground who had been involved in a domestic disturbance, loudly threatening people, disrupting an evening program, and leaving campers cowering in their tents. Undeterred by pepper spray, he came at the rangers with a club. They finally fatally shot the man.

The National Park Service (NPS) is a huge organization whose 20,000 professionals and 125,000 volunteers oversee 388 parks, monuments, battlefields, historic sites, lakeshores, recreation areas, scenic rivers and trails, and the White House. Their security and law-enforcement responsibilities include more than 18,000 permanent structures, 8,000 miles of roads, 1,800 bridges and tunnels, 4,400 housing units, 700 water and wastewater systems, 400 dams, and 200 solid-waste operations.

While Yellowstone National Park had the biggest number of violent incidents directed at park service officers last year (16), nearly half the total took place in urban areas where US Park Police patrol: the National Mall, the Statue of Liberty, Golden Gate Bridge, the Camp David perimeter, and dozens of parks and parkways in the Washington, D.C. area.

For some critics, this raises questions about why there are fewer US Park Police today than there were before 9/11, even though the park service's law enforcement budget has increased $42 million in the last three years and officers now get more training.

Last year, US Park Police Chief Teresa Chambers was fired for speaking out against the dangers of understaffing at places like the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument. With help from whistle-blower organizations, she is fighting her termination.

In a report last summer, the National Parks Conservation Association, a private organization, noted that the number of commissioned permanent and seasonal rangers had been declining in recent years while the number of park visitors was rising.

Noting incidents of vandalism, arson, burglary, and theft, including stealing old-growth redwood trees and poaching of black bears for use in Chinese medicines, NPCA warned that "a shortage of law enforcement rangers has a direct impact on park resources."

"The Park Service's on-the-ground law enforcement capacity has been further eroded by the demands of homeland security," the group stated in its report, titled "Endangered Rangers."

"The agency has estimated that it spends $63,500 each day that the nation is at orange alert," according to NPCA. "This diverts funds from the parks' operating budgets, and when rangers from parks such as Rocky Mountain and Shenandoah are sent to guard dams and icon parks, their positions remain unfilled."

More recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) expressed concern about the ability of the Interior Department - of which the National Park Service is part - to maintain adequate security in the post-9/11 world of heightened alerts due to potential terrorist attacks.

Based on interviews with Interior and Park Service officials, GAO reported that "the department's law enforcement staff is already spread thin ... averaging one law enforcement officer for about every 110,000 visitors and 118,000 acres of land."

[retired]

[QUOTE=rayra;1761737]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.

rayra, I wanted to keep the thread on topic, so that is why I included my statement, because I knew someone would object to a retired leo from being able to obtain a national carry ccw. Look, I wish there was a national ccw carry for everyone qualified to obtain one. I hope someday that occurs (obviously after Obama since he will never sign one) and you can have one also.

As far as a concealable handgun to take care of bears, I believe, tho IIRC, it may not be made anymore; Ruger made .454 in a 2" or 2 1/2". It was some large caliber like that, because I just read a gun review on the net a few weeks ago (can't provide the link because I was just surfing).

Personally, I would prefer a shotgun with slugs and a large caliber revolver in the calibers starting with a "4" as mentioned. Our local paper (Press Enterprise) had an article a few weeks ago about a National Park officer who hunts bears. He mentioned the largest brown bear killed in S. Ca. was 8" in height. I would want a really large caliber in case he had a brother.

rayra, if you need someone to protect you while you are at your place in the Sierras, I'd be more than happy to be your guest up there sometime to do so. I do have that ccw you know.

[WokMaster1]

[QUOTE=retired;1774195]

Originally Posted by rayra

Personally, I would prefer a shotgun with slugs and a large caliber revolver in the calibers starting with a "4" as mentioned. Our local paper (Press Enterprise) had an article a few weeks ago about a National Park officer who hunts bears. He mentioned the largest brown bear killed in S. Ca. was 8" in height. I would want a really large caliber in case he had a brother.

rayra, if you need someone to protect you while you are at your place in the Sierras, I'd be more than happy to be your guest up there sometime to do so. I do have that ccw you know.

should read 8' (ft) not inches. lol!

[rayra]

No thanks. My biggest dangers in the Kern River Valley are Bakersfield vatos, illegal marijuana growers and cougars, in that order. What I carry is sufficient. And when we head deeper into the higher forest north of Johnsondale or Big Meadow, it's a 12ga with slugs that's kept handy.

[MudCamper]

Originally Posted by Liberty1

HOLD MY HORSES (AND YOURS TOO)

OK, I was really excited over this AND MISSED the KEY wording of carry a "concealed, LOADED, and operable firearm"...to the extent that state law allows carry of "concealed, LOADED, and operable firearm".

So with that "and" instead of an "or" you must be able to carry a LOADED firearm under state law to be exempt from the NP prohibition while also being concealed. So it looks like only 12050 LTC holders and CA LEOs benefit in CA by this rule change.

The opportunity to have a loaded firearm at a campsite or cabin/residence (where and if PC 12031 doesn't apply) might still be a possibility. I'll hold off on that one to let the attorneys have a crack at it first. Sorry all it was NOT what I thought.

OK. I'm interested in the campsite issue. First, let me quote the new changes:

Title 36 Chpt. 1 Part 2 § 2.4 Weapons traps and nets.

(h) Notwithstanding any other provision in this Chapter, a person may possess,
carry, and transport concealed, loaded, and operable firearms within a national park area
in accordance with the laws of the state in which the national park area, or that portion
there of, is located, except as otherwise prohibited by applicable federal law.

So, does this means that the firearm has to be concealed?

If yes, then remember in CA, rifles can legally be concealed. And we know for a fact that they can be loaded in one's "temporary residence or campsite". It's also legal to load in non-prohibited areas of unicorporated territory. So it seems there will be lots of places that a loaded and concealed rifle or shotgun is legal in NPs. This seems a bit looney (the concealed part). But it results from their wording, "firearm" and not "handgun", which in CA PCs are distinctly different.

Second, if the firearm has to be concealed, then for the handgun in one's campsite issue, all we need to know whether or not the 12026 "residence" exemption to 12025 applies to temporary residences like the 12031 exemption does.

[Liberty1]

The DOI analysis states:

Under the final rule, an
individual may possess, carry, and transport concealed, loaded, and
operable firearms within a national park area in the same manner, and
to the same extent, that a person may lawfully possess, carry, and
transport concealed, loaded and operable firearms in the state in which
the Federal park, or that portion thereof, is located.

Now this is their own analysis of the effect of the rule change and their intention too. If the law provides for something more (in the old Calguns spirit) I don't see it.

As for 12026 applying, it looks like a stretch for LCC at a campsite which is not private property.

12026. (a) Section 12025 shall not apply to or affect any citizen
of the United States or legal resident over the age of 18 years who
resides or is temporarily within this state, and who is not within
the excepted classes prescribed by Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this
code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code,
who carries, either openly or concealed, anywhere within the citizen'
s or legal resident's place of residence, place of business, or on
private property owned or lawfully possessed by the citizen or legal
resident any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being
concealed upon the person.
(b) No permit or license to purchase, own, possess, keep, or
carry, either openly or concealed, shall be required of any citizen
of the United States or legal resident over the age of 18 years who
resides or is temporarily within this state, and who is not within
the excepted classes prescribed by Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this
code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, to
purchase, own, possess, keep, or carry, either openly or concealed,
a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon
the person within the citizen's or legal resident's place of
residence, place of business, or on private property owned or
lawfully possessed by the citizen or legal resident.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting the
application of Section 12031.

Originally Posted by MudCamper

So it seems there will be lots of places that a loaded and concealed rifle or shotgun is legal in NPs.

The NPs are a discharge prohibited area (except for limited hunting in some areas) so PC12031 would apply if that discharge is prohibited by any law.

[MudCamper]

Originally Posted by Liberty1

The NPs are a discharge prohibited area (except for limited hunting in some areas) so PC12031 would apply if that discharge is prohibited by any law.

Oh. OK. So we get nothing.

[Liberty1]

Originally Posted by MudCamper

Oh. OK. So we get nothing.

In CA, for you, yes. I'm still golden with my tin, but I'm not a fan of privilege so no smiles here (I'm glad for the rest of the country but the victory seems hollow in Ca). But with an out of state CCW recognized by the state in which the park you're visiting is located, you're GTG.

Well, time to get my Utah CWP so I can carry at the Az Grand Cyn.

The good news is that the NP prohibition (near total ban absent a license recognized by the hosting state) is still ripe for a "bear" and now a "licensing" challenge among other issues.

But hey if anyone wants to cover my vacation expenses I'll be happy to travel with them in the NP and bring along "my little friend".

[retired]

Originally Posted by rayra

No thanks. My biggest dangers in the Kern River Valley are Bakersfield vatos, illegal marijuana growers and cougars, in that order. What I carry is sufficient. And when we head deeper into the higher forest north of Johnsondale or Big Meadow, it's a 12ga with slugs that's kept handy.

I was just trying to shag an invite to an nice place in the mountains; can you blame me.