guns in national parks....

[mike_c]

I came across the sign below in Mojave NP a few days ago.



On the same trip, I was camped at Midhills for a couple of nights-- mid-March at 5600 ft was nice, but only I and a group of four men on the other side of the campground were risking it during midweek. It got pretty cool after the sun went down.

But the four guys on the other side of the campground fired guns into the forest-- or what's left of it after the 2005 fire-- for hours each night. I presume they were shooting off toward Macedonia Canyon rather than across the campground in my direction, but thought it best not to saunter over in the dark to inquire. They were firing multiple weapons repeatedly, including handguns, rifles, and a shotgun (judging by the sounds-- I'm the first to admit ignorance of gun calls, but some were sharp and popping, while others were sharp and loud, and other shots were deep and booming-- and I saw them carrying long guns on the hill above camp). This despite there being signs IN THE CAMPGROUND prohibiting loaded weapons, and signs like the one above all around the camp.

It's a long way out in the desert, so its not like there were a bunch of people around, but still. Those yahoos were just burning ammo. I drove by their campsite on the way out Thursday morning and it smelled like a cordite factory. Sheesh.

Reminds me of any number of red-neck jokes that begin with the line "Honey, hold my beer and watch this...."

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. Oh, come on, no gun owner is going to use his weapon irresponsibly.

We have it on sound authority, right on this board.

[cowman]

3. I never heard

anyone on this board claim that gun owners never use guns irresponsibly

[friendly_iconoclast]

12. And you've got a quote from one of those "sound authorities" right at hand, no?

Take some time, dig one up. We'll be waiting patiently.

[michreject]

16. It's been 22 hours

Find one yet?

[friendly_iconoclast]

20. It appears we have found a faith-promoting rumor.

Lets all be very quiet, and maybe another one will show up..

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

27. Surely you are woman enough to post a link to back up your assertion?

[SteveM]

50. The straw blooms forth from the gun-control lobby...and the GOP smiles. nt

[DrDan]

2. this is obviously a clear case of self-defense

[X_Digger]

4. Did you file a report w/ Park Services?

Bust em. The rules in Mojave haven't changed, since CA already prohibits what the NPS rules would have-

http://www.nps.gov/moja/planyourvisit/upload/Hunting_SB_NoBl.7.19.LOW-2.pdf

"The discharge of firearms is allowed only while legally hunting. Target shooting or “plinking” is prohibited. Firearms transported within the preserve must be unloaded, cased, and broken down, except during lawful hunting activities. Firearms must comply with CDFG regulations for the species hunted. No shooting is permitted within 1/2 mile of developed areas, including campgrounds, information centers, Kelso Dunes, Fort Piute, Sweeney Granite Mountains Desert Research Center, and the Desert Studies Center at Zzyzx."

woops, meant to paste the ca gov links..

http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title36/36-1.0.1.1.2.html#36:1.0.1.1.2.0.1.4

http://law.justia.com/california/codes/fgc/3000-3012.html

(reference: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=186457)

[mike_c]

7. no, I didn't....

No real harm was done, just a display of stupidity-- arguably, way the hell out in the desert is the best place to display rampant beer-fueled idiocy anyway. As I said, there were signs posted so there wasn't any ambiguity about the regulations, and while I would have liked them to stop shooting up the trees at night, I wasn't interested in getting them busted. Or in being personally involved once my stay at Midhills was ended.

[SteveM]

51. Not "interested in getting them busted." I AM! I hunt parks, WMAs, forrests, etc....

Do you damned duty and quit bitching about a problem where "no real harm was done." You just like the propaganda effect, here?

[Walk away]

5. Why would anyone go to a National Park?

They're full of cretins with guns.

[jody]

8. To get away from cities "full of cretins with guns" even in CA. n/t

[SteveM]

52. What's wrong with National Parks? Against them? Want to privatize them? nt

[jody]

6. Another DU thread about people harmed by things, "Pit Bull attacks 76 year old woman"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7957258

Things that can harm or kill people can be found in cities like Lynn, MA or remote areas like Mojave NP and be owned by responsible or irresponsible people.

As always self-defense in all its ways are a personal responsibility.

Lots of pit bull attacks described at anti-PITBULL.

[gorfle]

9. I'm pretty sure that what they were doing was illegal.

Just because many of us advocate for concealed carry in state parks does not mean that we advocate turning any convenient patch of a state park into an impromptu shooting range.

What these people were doing was dangerous and probably illegal. You should have called the police.

People who are going to break the law are going to break the law, and they should be dealt with. But you should not infringe on the rights of the rest of the law-abiding people in doing so.

[mike_c]

10. calling the police was not an option....

I could have reported it afterward, from home, but there's no cell phone coverage at Midhills, no Park Service law enforcement for miles, especially at night and this time of year. No one to contact and no way to reach them.

But yes, what they were doing was both illegal and stupid. The regulations were posted on signs. It's not the first time I've seen "shooting parties" in the desert or in the woods on the east coast, either.

[PavePusher]

11. "Shooting parties" in the desert is not such a problem...

as long as it is done in a legal area and a safe manner.

Target shooting in a National Park is a violation, and no firearms enthusiast here would support it. I would have gotten pictures, video and/or audio recordings of the people, their activities and/or the results, and their vehicles, including licence plates. When you exited the Park, report the incident directly to the on-duty personnel and the local police/sherrifs office.


Edit: I would, myself, have been armed while doing so.

[gorfle]

13. Again...

Again, the fact that some people are going to break the law and shoot firearms where they are not supposed to has nothing to do with the issue of legally allowing concealed carry in national parks.

[mike_c]

15. it has EVERYTHING to do with it....

If we can assume that some fixed percentage of gun owners will misbehave-- even if it's a small percentage-- then the best way to combat that sort of abuse is to simply prohibit carrying guns in inappropriate places, period. These idiots-- asshats, pinhead motherfuckers, cretins (yes, I was a bit angry about having to spend the nights hunkered down in my truck for fear of their bullets)-- these dickweeds spent the night shooting all around them, including (presumably) over my head, and they thought that was FUN. Thunder stick make big BOOM! :bounce:

These guys were not hunting. They were not carrying for self defense-- I suppose they were actually a greater threat to one another than anyone else was. They were PLAYING with deadly weapons. Drinking and shooting up the trees all night. Their guns were not concealed-- they flaunted them like toys, carrying them around like soldiers while they walked through the desert whooping it up during the day. And as I said, there was no ambiguity about the regulations prohibiting that behavior-- there were signs like the one they shot up above all around the campground.

I didn't mention their fireworks in my OP. I left out the part about the fireworks because it's not particularly germane to this forum, but it does tell us more about the characters of these men-- they also discharged BIG rockets for several hours each night, firing them over the last remnant of forest that didn't burn in 2005 (in March, granted, but it's still a desert, and fire is ALWAYS a danger, even in spring). I mean big rockets-- their mortars made the ground thump a hundred meters away, where I was camped

They were beer fueled city boys, out for a few nights in the desert with their big boom TOYS. The rest of us want to be free of idiots like these, or at least to regulate their access to dangerous toys that they could use to harm everyone else.

The best way to accomplish that is to keep guns out of the hands of people who don't have the common sense to use them responsibly, IMO. I don't have any real objections to concealed carry in parks-- people who keep their weapons concealed don't generally go around shooting up trees and campgrounds at night just to hear the big noise and whoop. But it should be difficult enough to acquire and keep guns that pinheads like these men don't stand a chance in hell of purchasing them.

[X_Digger]

17. So it really doesn't apply..

.. since these yahoos aren't likely to be concealed carry licensees (which are as rare as hen's teeth in CA) and wouldn't be affected by that change one way or another.

[mike_c]

18. yep-- I want to reiterate that CC licensees are not the problem here...

...but rather, the confluence of the second amendment and raw yahoo idiocy. Remember that story from a year or so ago about the guy who shot his wife trying to use a handgun to drill a hole in his bedroom wall? That's these guys. They are a whole other side of the gun debate, IMO. They epitomize the sorts of folks who should never have a chance of laying their hands on firearms, for love or money-- but that requires strong mechanisms for preventing gun ownership for folks like these.

[friendly_iconoclast]

21. So what kind of prior restraint do you think might be used,...

...without violating the Second and Fourteenth amendments?

[mike_c]

24. see #23....

It's a tough question, isn't it?

[friendly_iconoclast]

41. self delete n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

60. And those idiots are no justification to deny me my right to have the tools I need

to stop a cougar from eating me or my child.

Such animal attacks are pretty rare, but attacks by two-legged animals protecting their pot grow ops and meth labs are certainly on the rise. My rights don't change when I step across an arbitrary human boundary into land owned by the National Forest Service instead of state wildlife or DNR, and designated a 'National Park'.


You can still be 'et there. You can still be attacked by some human scum. And if you are, as you pointed out in your OP, you are ON YOUR OWN. The police may not even find your remains.

[gorfle]

22. So let me get this straight.

The best way to accomplish that is to keep guns out of the hands of people who don't have the common sense to use them responsibly, IMO.

I agree.

I don't have any real objections to concealed carry in parks

Great! Glad we agree!

people who keep their weapons concealed don't generally go around shooting up trees and campgrounds at night just to hear the big noise and whoop.

You are exactly right!

But it should be difficult enough to acquire and keep guns that pinheads like these men don't stand a chance in hell of purchasing them.

How would you propose going this? Something like a literacy test before voting, perhaps?

[mike_c]

23. well, that's clearly the issue, isn't it...?

I mean, invoking literacy tests aside-- we both seem to agree that responsible gun owners are not a major social problem. Rather, it's the irresponsible ones, whether overtly criminal or just plain ignorant, that are a genuine danger to others.

The debate always comes down to this question: how do we regulate the irresponsible behavior without infringing on the rights of responsible citizens? If I had a "one size fits all" answer I'd be pushing it long and hard, but of course, there really isn't any such solution, which leads us to the place where we will undoubtedly disagree.

If we accept that a significant proportion of gun owners will ALWAYS behave criminally or irresponsibly-- and I think that is a valid presumption well supported by history-- and that such people cause harm to others, whether intentionally or not, we're left with at least three possibilities:

1) Accept that such harm is inevitable and cannot be prevented because it is more important to foster everyones' right to bear arms than it is to promote the general welfare, i.e. we simply must accept gun crime and irresponsible behavior because preventing them will threaten responsible gun owners' rights. This is the do-nothing alternative.

2) Attempt to provide access to guns for everyone on the assumption that everyone will be responsible, and then enact regulations to police irresponsible behavior. This is the status-quo alternative, and in my opinion it is not working for the promotion of the general welfare-- rather, it sacrifices the general welfare in favor of the rights and desires of individuals. That's a good idea in principle, but in practice, at least as we've implemented it, it encourages social problems like gun crime and the yahoo-ism I witnessed at Mojave NP.

3) Accept that the general welfare will be harmed by inevitable irresponsible behavior on the part of a minority, and ask the responsible majority to sacrifice their individual desires for the general welfare, i.e. make it difficult for EVERYONE to own and use guns. This is the good-citizen alternative, in which people put the general welfare before their personal wants. This is obviously the alternative I advocate.

I've omitted alternatives that do what you suggested, which I assume you oppose as much as I do-- tests or some other device that allow some classes to have their rights while denying them to others, no matter how good intentioned.

[hack89]

40. How can #2 be considered a failure

when violent crime is falling to historic lows as gun ownership climbs to record highs? It seems the present system seems to be perfectly adequate at addressing gun crime and yahoo-ism.

America has a poor record at prior restraint of civil rights - poll taxes and voter tests were a key part of keeping blacks from voting. Why are you so confident that the government's view of a "good citizen" is the same as yours?

[mike_c]

45. I call it a failure because it manifestly did not work....

See the OP. Those events occurred because alternative #2 failed to prevent them.

[hack89]

46. So in a hopeless effort to pursue perfection

you will eliminate the right to bear arms bit by bit - "this time we will get it right!" will be your slogan until all gun ownership is banned.

[friendly_iconoclast]

43. You failed to report a crime that you witnessed. So who are you to speak of "good citizens"?

Let me point out the several strawmen in your arguments while I'm at it:

1) Accept that such harm is inevitable and cannot be prevented because it is more important to foster everyones' right to bear arms than it is to promote the general welfare, i.e. we simply must accept gun crime and irresponsible behavior because preventing them will threaten responsible gun owners' rights. This is the do-nothing alternative.

And one that I've only heard from the likes of the White Panthers and some of the nuttier liberatrians. The observant reader
will note that the NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation, myself and even Antonin Scalia accept that the right to bear arms
is not absolute.

2) Attempt to provide access to guns for everyone on the assumption that everyone will be responsible, and then enact regulations to police irresponsible behavior. This is the status-quo alternative, and in my opinion it is not working for the promotion of the general welfare-- rather, it sacrifices the general welfare in favor of the rights and desires of individuals. That's a good idea in principle, but in practice, at least as we've implemented it, it encourages social problems like gun crime and the yahoo-ism I witnessed at Mojave NP.

Same as above- with the added point you don't know if the idjits you witnessed had their guns legally or not.

3) Accept that the general welfare will be harmed by inevitable irresponsible behavior on the part of a minority, and ask the responsible majority to sacrifice their individual desires for the general welfare, i.e. make it difficult for EVERYONE to own and use guns. This is the good-citizen alternative, in which people put the general welfare before their personal wants. This is obviously the alternative I advocate.

Let me be so churlish as to point out that this approach isn't working so well in Chicago, Mexico, and Jamaica.

And you are not asking people to sacrifice their 'desires', you are asking them to sacrifice their RIGHTS.

[mike_c]

48. so-- failure to report irresponsible gun use makes me culpable...?

I don't even own a gun. This is really LAME. Rather than try to transfer the blame to me, why not address the irresponsibility of the gun owners who were actually breaking the law with their guns?

[friendly_iconoclast]

49. No, I expected you to "put the general welfare before (your) personal wants"

Ya know, like a "good citizen" might. How difficult would it have been to drop a dime when you finally could get to a phone?

I note your position has evolved- you now ask us to "address the irresponsibility of the gun owners who were actually breaking the law with their guns?", where before you had the onus upon what you called the "responsible majority" to sacrifice for the general good.

Glad to see you moving away from the notion of 'prior restraint'...

[SteveM]

54. It's not a question of "culpability." It's a question of not doing your civic duty. nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

26. So how is it that you know these people were in legal possession of their firearms?

[mike_c]

30. that's an interesting point....

I don't, of course. I assumed that since they carried them openly during the day that they did so legally. What would make possession illegal?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

32. Being a convicted felon, someone having a restraining order against you.

Just the usual things that make gun possession illegal.

[PavePusher]

28. Then why did you not do your part as a responsible Citizen...

and report them?

You are just as at fault as the transgressors, by taking a passive role, which essentially condones their actions.

Don't come here and blame legal, responsible firearms owners for the faults of law-breakers, when you have done nothing to attempt to fix the actual problem.

P.S. This has nothing to do with concealed carry. That is not an indicator of responsibility.

[mike_c]

31. dude, you're trying to blame ME for this...?

:rofl:

Come on, that is just LAME.

No, I did not go to the police or the park service LE folks. As I said earlier, I didn't have any interest in seeing them busted-- I'm merely using this incident, and the OP photo, to illustrate why not everyone should have the right to bear arms, if we can agree that rights come with responsibilities. It's a bit of a stretch to claim that I share equal responsibility for these guys' actions because I did not try to stop it.

If I'd been armed, should I have started a gun battle? That would teach them! :rofl:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

33. You didn't want to see them busted. I sure as hell would have liked to.

It's much better to have them arrested than to let them vandalize a National Park.

[PavePusher]

35. No, I am not blaming you...

I am saying that you have abrogated your responsibilities as a Citizen.

So complaining that there is a problem, when you are unwilling to try to do something about it, comes off as, well, whining hypocracy is the kindest thing I can say.

[SteveM]

53. "EVERYTHING"? Such a huge text about this incident, yet you didn't report it!

[Lurks Often]

36. This is why we applaud the changing of the law

"calling the police was not an option....
Posted by mike_c
I could have reported it afterward, from home, but there's no cell phone coverage at Midhills, no Park Service law enforcement for miles, especially at night and this time of year. No one to contact and no way to reach them."

Your above comment is exactly why so many of us approve of the change in the laws so that we are now allowed to legally able to carry a concealed firearm in National Parks.

And you should have called the Park Rangers since they were committing a crime.

[mike_c]

44. called them how?

I love the way folks are chastising ME over other peoples' irresponsible gun behavior because I didn't do anything to stop it.

Addressing your comment that I "should have called the Park Rangers"-- how do you propose that I should have called them? No landlines in the middle of the desert. No cell coverage. It's a hundred miles from anywhere. I don't carry a radio, and wouldn't know what frequencies the park personnel use anyway-- and that info was not posted anywhere. I doubt that anyone monitors the base station at night anyway.

It was about a 30-40 minute drive to Kelso, which is mostly just the old restored railroad depot and a couple of trailers, plus an hour or so to break camp. And Kelso, in the middle of the night? I doubt that anyone in authority was available. I likely would have had to go all the way to Baker, Barstow, or Needles-- all a couple of hours travel. And do you seriously think that the park would have sent someone to investigate a simple complaint? At night? I neglected to check your profile before writing this response, but I wonder whether you've ever visited remote western parks before.

How do you suggest that I "call the Park Rangers?"

[Lurks Often]

47. You call when

you have the first reasonable opportunity to do so and let the Park Rangers know.

Since you didn't bother to report the crime, we'll never know what might have happened.

[Euromutt]

14. As PavePusher and gorfle rightly point out, possessing a firearm and discharging it are not the same

To cite the legal situation here in Washington state (which, being my state of residence, is the state the laws of which I am most familiar with), both the state constitution and statutory law guarantee your right to carry a firearm for self-defense, but neither guarantees your right to discharge a firearm. At best, acting in defense of oneself of another is an affirmative defense to a charge of violating a legal prohibition on discharging a firearm in a place or manner prohibited by law.

And that's the situation in National Parks within Washington state at present; you can bring a firearm into Mount Rainier or Olympic Nat'l Park, but nobody says you have the right to discharge it at whim. There are locations in state and national parks that have become accepted as informal shooting ranges (mostly abandoned quarries, which have a built-in backstop) but even there, it's understood that one's shooting fun does not trump other's right of way (i.e. when a hiker or ATVer wants to pass through, you safe your weapons until they're clear of the area).

Shooting from a campground toward a canyon does not sound to me like responsible use of firearms; the responsible way to go would be to be in the canyon, with some part of canyon wall acting as backstop. That's overlooking the fact that it might be smarter to just refrain from shooting at all.

[jefflrrp]

19. while this has limited relation to the OP

I went to a national park today. It was a lovely 75, sunny and breezy in Shenandoah National Park, in the Old Dominion. 3 friends and I did the White Oak Canyon/Cedar Falls loop, which is basically just waterfall after amazing waterfall.

The little Smith and Wesson 642 airweight (all 15 oz of it) went largely unnoticed in the right front pocket of my tan BDU pants, but was a comfortable reminder that I had a defensive tool to use if neccessary against a two-legged predator while in the backwoods.

Great day. Im super tired though.

[mike_c]

25. I've done that hike before, years ago when I lived in the valley....

Was there snow? It's still a bit early in the year there, isn't it?

[jefflrrp]

29. Nope.

The falls were wonderful. The best time to go is either early spring or fall, and we hit it good. The water level was very high. There was maybe 1 or 2 patches of leftover frozen snow. But thats it.

[depakid]

34. The devastating Yosemite fire from two years ago was caused by reckless target shooting

in a nearby National Forest.

[Lurks Often]

37. Please provide a link

Please provide a link to back up your post.

[GreenStormCloud]

38. I googled and found it.

Mariposa County Telegraph Fire of July 29, 2008. So named because the location involved Telegraph Rd.

http://www.goldrushcam.com/2008/mariposa%20news/mariposa_news%20286.htm

http://www.modbee.com/2008/07/27/372963/midpines-fire-grows-dramatically.html

I would be interested to know how target shooting started a fire.

Here is more. The shooter did not act negligently and no charges were filed. http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/29/local/me-yosemite29 "But Sarah Gibson, a spokeswoman for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, said Monday that investigators had found that the shooter did not act negligently and that no charges had been filed."

[GreenStormCloud]

39. No, not reckless at all.

"But Sarah Gibson, a spokeswoman for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, said Monday that investigators had found that the shooter did not act negligently]/b] and that no charges had been filed."

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/29/local/me-yosemite29

[friendly_iconoclast]

42. It appears you have promulgated another faith-promoting rumor

Care to retract this?

[SteveM]

55. Was the shooter using black power? If not, please explain how this happened. nt

[PavePusher]

64. O.K., I know it was a typo...

but that's funny as hell. :rofl:

White power: Not as incindiary as it used to be...

[SteveM]

65. Jesus, can't even pull off a one-liner without making a one-liner.

[jody]

56. "who fired the shot believed to have SPARKED the blaze". Sounds like fantasy speculation that a

ricochet started the fire.

Anyone have links to other fires started by a ricochet?

[SsevenN]

57. The fire was started because...

The shooter was using STEEL jacketed ammunition. If I recll correctly this incident is one of the reasons many ranges ban its use now.

[jody]

58. Thanks, where is the source confirming the shooter used "STEEL jacketed ammunition"? n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

59. Steel jacketed ammo?

All ammunition has a coating of a soft metal so that it can go down the barrel of the gun. It has to be able to deform to accept the rifling. Bullets may be part steel to make them armor piercing, but that is usually a steel tip or steel core. Steel jacketed ammo would wear out a gun barrel in a real hurry, if it didn't cause the gun to blow up from excessive chamber pressure.

[RichS]

61. mild steel jackets are very common

in eastern-bloc ammo, especially military surplus 7.62x39 used in the AK and SKS type rifles. Mild steel is a bit harder on the rifling than gilding metal or pure copper jackets, but it's so much softer than the barrel steel that barrels are still good for tens of thousands of rounds.

[GreenStormCloud]

62. Thanks for the information.

[PavePusher]

63. Urr? Are you sure you are not confusing...

steel-core ammo? I have never seen or heard of steel-jacketed ammo.

Also, much Eastern-European surplus ammo has a steel case, but that has nothing to do with the actual bullet.

This can get very confusing, very quickly.

If you have a link to steel-jacketed ammo, I'd much appreciate seeing it, thanks!

[burrfoot]

66. Just for shits and giggles-

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Ammunition>

Wolf is apparently steel jacketed.

I didn't know until I looked, this thread got me curious :shrug:

(link is to the wikipedia page for Wolf Ammunition. I know it's self evident but just wanted to reassure the more cautious among us :) )

[PavePusher]

68. Huh, I learned something new.

Thanks for the link, I didn't know anything about that one. Have never used Wolf ammo yet.

Thanks you! :toast:

[SsevenN]

67. Assholes

Come in every shape, color, and age. Sounds like a phone call to the police was in order.