Opposition to allowing carry in Nat'l Parks

Do I understand this National Parks issue as one that would extend state Right-to-Carry (concealed carry) laws to National Parks within those states? Or, would this rule change authorize me in some states to hike around National Park backcountry with a loaded FAL or AR-15 slung across my chest?

If it's a concealed carry issue (which I thought it was), then the issue revolves around concealable firearms. The argument that this will facilitate or increase poaching is completely without merit, as concealable firearms are (I would think) almost never used by poachers.

Moreover, it it illogical that individuals armed pursuant to state law would be the pool from which likely poachers arise. In other words, people who go out of their way to obtain carry licenses aren't going to jeopardize those licenses by illegally shooting deer, elk, or what have you. Regardless of whether people carry concealable firearms legally or illegally in National Parks, it will still be unlawful to kill game animals inside Park boundaries.

I wonder if their primary basis (or public sentiment hook, if you will) for this argument is the (still) widespread belief that the mere possession of a firearm increases the likelihood of possessee commiting a crime (any crime). Untrue, but it seems the belief is still rather widespread.

These opposition arguments are based on "what if" arguments. It's time to use stricter scrutiny in deciding these issues.

If the new regulations are going to mirror the law for state parks in each state, the laws will be a little different in each National Park depending upon in which state its lands are situated.

For example, most western states are open carry states and so rifles can be carried in a sling and pistols in a hip holster. But some states, such as Colorado, prohibit firearms altogether in state parks, except for those with a CCW permit. But carrying in a state park in Colorado with a CCW means the firearm must be concealed. Will that mean that firearms in National Parks situated in Colorado will be concealed carry only? If so, that will mean that only concealed handguns can be carried and that rifles cannot be carried.

That is a bit of a problem if protection from grizzly attacks is your reason for having a firearm. The rangers do not rely on handguns when they are in grizzly country. They carry rifles. The lives of park visitors should be worth at least as much and they should be able to have the same protection the rangers have.

I was hoping that firearms in National Parks would be treated the same as in National Forests and Wilderness areas. It looks like It may not come out that way. Not complaining, however it comes out it will be better than it is now. But trying to defend oneself from a grizzly with a handgun requires expert skill and training.

Here I go, traipsing through the woods with my piece in my pocket, ready to dust off any bad-like mofo who messes with me. So, like here comes Bambi all furry-like, and... HEY! I'VE GOT A GUN! LET'S KILL IT! YEAH!!!

Yep. That's how poaching works. Right.