I'm a Second Amendment advocate, but carrying firearms in our National Parks would just lead to easier poaching, unnecessary killing of wildlife by anyone who feels even remotely threatened, and an increase in opportunistic crime by people who can now legally carry a gun in secluded places where young people, families, and women are hiking alone. I understand the degree of protection that a firearm can provide, against both natural and human predators, but most of this risk can be eliminated by doing things such as making noise, hiking with a friend, taking proper precautions when storing food, etc. Also, many people will feel threatened coming across someone carrying a weapon while they are out hiking in the middle of nowhere with their families. I love our National Parks, and I want everyone else to as well, regardless of how they feel about me owning a gun.

All of this aside, there is virtually no reason to carry a weapon in a National Park in the first place. I have hiked in about 8 National Parks in Arizona, Utah, and up here in Alaska in the last year alone. This includes about a dozen back-country hikes in Denali National Park, which is definitely grizzly bear country. I have never felt like I needed a firearm to keep myself safe. I'm sure anyone can point out an incident where a hiker could have avoided injury if they only had a firearm, but these instances are very rare. The potential benefits simply do not outweigh the potential costs. I know Americans are polarized on the gun control issue, but I urge fellow Second Amendment advocates to exercise restraint and use common sense, instead of just looking at this issue as another potential political victory. Besides, your little 9mm is just going to make that charging grizzly bear angrier....

If the only things dangerous in National Parks were animals, I would be the first to agree that there is no need for guns. I don't feel that poaching would increase. People will still poach whether or not they are allowed to carry guns legally. In all, there will not be a noticeable difference on daily life in National Parks if guns are allowed in. A concealed carry license from the home state might be nice to require. We are all smart people; let’s figure out how to make it work without many layers of government bureaucracy.

I go to National Parks to view and enjoy our nation's great outdoor heritage. I am not a gun owner and never have been. I do not want to feel the need to purchase a weapon just so I can visit our great nation's natural resources.

Basically I agree with commenter Sully above.

We definitely should have the right to carry firearms in national parks, and anywhere else that we travel so that we may protect ourselves and our families. I live in Indiana and am licensed to carry a firearm, however, i never abuse that privelage.

Yesterday the Fairbanks, Alaska newpaper reported that a National Park Service researcher who was working in the backcountry of Denali, shot a black bear that was threatening the camp. He used a shotgun which he had special permission to carry. Kurt could post the link to the article.

It is time for American citizens to grow up and stop hiding behind weapons, the historical fiction of the gun toting wild west mountain man myth promulgated by hollywood, the news media and our federal governments fear based policies has gone on long enough, IMHO.

Yes, it should be legal for persons with legally registered and permitted firearms to carry them in our National Parks for the perpose of self preservation. Why not, those who carry guns illegaly and with intent to harm others surely do. Laws are already in place to protect the wildlife, those who break them now will continue to do so. Lets give the law abiding citizens of this country the chance to defend themselves when the need arises.

I am a Marine, lisenced concealed weapons permit holder, and a senior citizen. I fully defend our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. I am a sportsman also and truly fear only one thing. The person who illegaly carries a wepon, and will continue to do so regardless of the law, with the intent to do physical or mental harm to his fellow beings. I see no reason why a leagly licensed citizen of the United States of america should not be able to carry Arms, concealed or in plain view, anywhere in this Country.

I have a concealed carry permit that I obtained specifically for camping and hiking. My major reason was protection against human predators. I carry the weapon “concealed” and there is no reason that any other hiker need ever know that I have it. I believe that people who have successfully gone through the process (including an FBI background check) to obtain a concealed carry permit should be able to conceal carry in national parks under the guidelines outlined in the laws of the state. I agree that hunters will abuse the privilege if all manner of weapon is allowed by all citizens.

As for the comment on concealed carry in national parks, increasing the potential for poaching is bunk. CHL holders are law abiding citizens, a poacher is a criminal who has no regard for law.
The statement about coming across someone in the back country with a firearm making people nervous, if they are a law abiding citizen their firearm should be "concealed" and no one will ever know.

"Opportunistic" crimes are committed by "criminals" who could care less about the laws, not law abiding CHL holders. Why would this be any different in a national park than it is on the streets of Miami? CHL carriers walk those streets every day. Besides, who is out in the back country to protect my family & I from a murderer, rapist etc, when we are out backpacking/camping? Who collects his firearm at the trailhead? It is more likely that a CHL holder will prevent a crime being committed rather than commit one. In my opinion is it is better to have and not need than to need and not have. Why can I carry concealed in city and state parks? What makes the national parks so much different other than the different wildlife, and size?

The comment about the 9mm pistol being no match for a grizzly can be debunked also. If you are familiar with your firearm and have trained and know where and what you have to hit you can stop most North American animals. This is an individual responsibility of each and every CHL holder, hunter & sportsman, in my opinion. Sometimes the noise from a gunshot is enough to stop an attack whether or not you hit the animal, when yelling, waving arms and bear spray do not work. Reference the story on black bears recently killed in Denali and Grand Teton.
www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2008/07/bears-denali-grand-teton-national-parks-killed-rangers
I agree most incidents with wildlife, whether in national parks or not, is usually due to ignorance or stupidity and can be prevented. But there are instances where no matter what you do it will not make a difference or stop an animal from attacking. People forget that when in the national parks we are in the home of the wildlife (their backyard) not at the zoo, petting zoo or on our hometown streets.
Ask Timothy Treadwell if he needed a firearm to feel safe in Denali. Where is he today? Would he be alive today if he had a firearm? We can only speculate, but I feel he would have had better odds of surviving if he did have a firearm. Anything can happen at anytime to anyone, anywhere.

I am very committed supporter of the 2nd amendment, matter of fact I am a firearms instructor. So your statement of "exercise restraint" to me means to use a firearm when serious bodily injury or possible death are imminent, whether it is a human or animal threat. This is the rule of thumb that is used in CHL training in my home state.

It is more than a "political victory", it is a right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, not a "privilege".

"An armed man is a citizen
An unarmed man is a subject"

You need to do the same thing the Supreme Court did when they ruled on the Second Amendment - read the LAW. The government (us) has nothing to fear from its law-abiding armed citizens. Criminals and bears do. So you think the Rangers are going to rush in and save you from the criminals who now know that everyone in the National Parks is un-armed. Grow up.

The only way a person (private citizen) should be allowed to carry a firearm (in a national park) is if there is an absolute means of ensuring only those with good intentions, common sense and proper training have firearms. Can't be done-therefore-no firearms. Most wouldn't be much value against the larger predatory animals and small caliber weapons for personal defense are just a bad idea. Firearms are a wonderful privilege but too many have them that shouldnt. Just an opinion.

I just read a page-full of the "new" comments. They're pretty much like the previous 60 days of comments. Almost all of them SUPPORT the proposed rule change allowing concealed-carry. I read one that OPPOSED the change: they were sure that their vacation would be ruined if they knew people were carrying on the trail with them. Now, just how naive is THAT?

"We're scared of that law-abiding citizen, AND his CONCEALED (invisible) gun. Oh MY!"

Exactly!

Everyone’s safety will be enhanced if certified concealed carry citizens are armed in the parks. Currently, a criminal can be pretty certain that any intended victim is unarmed. Take that certainty away and the opportunity to prey diminishes. For those gentle people who believe the police and or rangers can protect them; when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. In a National Park those minutes may become hours. Never forget, Virginia Tech was a “gun free zone.”

I'm a nature lover and really appreciate the beauty and serenity of our National Parks, but am now feeling that there's a lot of fear out there -- especially from those individuals who feel they need to take weapons with them when they are on vacation (and hopefully, relaxing). I am not a gun owner and just hope that I don't run into any of the people out there who seem to think we still live in the Wild West. I do not support the right to bring guns into our National Parks.

The most dangerous thing you will ever meet on an isolated trail is another human being. As a woman that would love to prowl local trails on her own, I don't do it, because I live near Atlanta, and don't want to be a victim. Remember Meredith Emerson at Vogel State Park ? What about Jennifer Ewing on the Silver Comet Trail? All these ladies wanted was to use the parks THEY paid for with their tax dollars. They might both be alive if guns had been permitted.

The federal government has closed large parts of state parks out West because of the coyotes and drug traffickers, and rangers are murdered. Your government doesn't want you to be aware of these issues, but you CAN inform yourself via the internet. Usually the stories are on sites of local newspapers and television stations. Get informed!

I would like to use my parks more, and I think I could do it safely if I were permitted to carry a sidearm. If you believe these attacks are isolated, please check out this link on the Washington Post from yesterday. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/07/08/DI2008070801660.html?hpid=artslot

I am aware that guns can save lives, but they also take lives. I know that a lot of people like to say guns don't kill people, people kill people, but if the people didn't have guns there wouldn't be as many deaths. I am not saying people who work in bad areas shouldn't be able to carry concealed weapons for protection, but as a citizen with my own rights, I do not want them in National Parks. National Parks are not the most dangerous places, but if you want to be safe, don't travel alone, and travel smart, I do not feel a need to carry a gun in a National Park to protect myself.

Cate -

I'm also a nature lover. If you met me on the trail, you'd wouldn't know whether I was armed or not. After we parted ways, you'd probably think to yourself, "What a nice man". If you only knew. I feel sorry for you and your irrational fears. Good luck in our reality.

I am also a second amendment advocate. In addition, I am a woman and a concealed weapon permit holder. I respectfully disagree with you Sully and here is why.

As has always been my contention; issues are not usually caused by those who carry weapons legally. In order to get a concealed weapon permit, a criminal background check must be passed. Only law abiding citizens get concealed weapons permits.

A poacher, is not a law abiding citizen. True, it could be they have a weapon legally because they haven't gotten caught at their illegal activities. However, I think these people are fewer than those who have the right to carry a weapon because they obey the laws.

As you, yourself stated, "women hiking alone". Well, I'm considering going on a solitary vacation in about a month. I'd like to visit some of our National Parks, but frankly, I'm a bit uneasy about doing so. I'm not afraid of the animals; but, I am a bit fearful of the people I could possibly encounter. It's a sad reality, that a woman alone is an easy target, especially when we have no means of defense and are in the middle of nowhere.

I am the first person to hope I never, ever have to use my weapon. But I'd feel safer knowing I have it if I need it....and no, I wouldn't bother to shoot a bear with a 9mm.

As far as people feeling threatened when they come across someone with a gun. If it is a concealed weapon, it means it is not visible, so they wouldn't even know a person has one.

The weapon would only become visible if it was absolutely necessary to use it. That is part of the responsibility that comes along with the privilege of being able to carry one and this has nothing to do with a political victory, it has to do with safety in parks and anywhere else I wander in this great country of ours.

Also, if people dont know who does or doesn't have a weapon, they may think twice before starting something. Meaning specifically, if I meet someone on a trail that has ill intent, they may think twice knowing I could be carrying a weapon.

"If you want to be safe, don't travel alone", is bulk.

I should be able to travel alone or walk the streets of any city any time day or night alone if I so choose...and be safe. But of course I cannot and why? Because of muggers, rapists, murderers, etc. So who is free here?

Not travelling alone if I so choose, infringes upon my right to the pursuit of happiness. Carrying a weapon is a right guaranteed to me by the second amendment.

National Parks are part of the United States of America. They belong to us all. The second Amendment, (whether you agree or not, says I can carry a weapon). Therefore, I should be able to carry one with-in the parks.

Why should *I* be expected to stymie my activities? I shouldn't. Instead I should be allowed the right to protect myself...mainly against human predators.

Lots of misinformed commentary here by the folks who refuse to believe that unarmed parks visitors (in isolated areas or otherwise) are potential victims of those with criminal intent. In other words "it won't happen to me". That is a classic victim's mentality.

The same histrionics about how dangerous concealed carry will be were brought up back in 1987 when Florida became the first state to streamline concealed carry laws - and those concerns were shown to be groundless in the years that followed. Over 30 states have follow suit in streamlining their CCL (Concealed Carry License) laws.

For you folks that don't know what's involved - CCL permit holders in most states have to go through criminal background checks, take approved firearms courses (including laws limiting the use of deadly force) and demonstrate minimum proficiency. The license has to be renewed each four years or so and any incident during that time is reported to the issuing authority - and misuse can (and does) result in revocation of the permit. In other words - a CCL holder sitting next to you is perhaps one of the most law-abiding citizens you will ever encounter - and you'll never know they are carrying. You have no need to know and they won't tell you. So all this "anti-carry" fuss is really over nothing.

If concealed carry is so dangerous - then why aren't National Forests as dangerous as these anti-carry types fear? - National Forests have long followed the guidelines that are now proposed for the National Parks - permitting concealed carry based on the laws of the states where they are located.

Don't kid ourself - there is a fair amount of crime in National Parks - and if it happens to you - it will take a long time for help to get to you. I hope none of the "anti-carry" folks have to find that out the hard way.