PDA

View Full Version : if guns are allowed in the park?


lauxier
02-25-2010, 02:23 PM
If guns were allowed in the park,and you went into the park armed,to do a little fishing,and the 1 in a million chance of having to actually use your firearm in self defense occurred,say on a bear intent on putting you in harms wayand you killed ther bear,what would happen next,what would be the consequences,legally etc.????

silvercreek
02-25-2010, 02:33 PM
My guess is that there would be so much questioning, paperwork and hassling, that you would probably wish you were ate by the bear. I'll carry anyway. silvercreek

Mike_Anderson
02-25-2010, 02:54 PM
The only time in my life that Iíve ever felt threatened enough to pull out my gun was at Clingmans dome. We had a guy follow us all the way up the mtn. I stopped, he stopped, I got out he got out. I even would just pull over on the shoulder where there was no pull off and he would do the same. I played the stop and go game with him all the way up to the top just to see how many times he would stop. When we reached the top I pulled into a parking spot and he pulled into one beside us. I put in reverse and left the lot and again he followed. At that time I decided to put a stop to the game and whipped it back around into the parking lot and parked. He pulled up beside us again and proceeded to walk up to the truck where he was greeted with a 357 through the window. He just stood there and waved his hand side to side then turned and walked away. It was snowing like crazy and we were the only two vehicles on the mtn that day. This was a very strange looking man with VA tags. My wife and I will never forget his face and we kept his tag numbers in case something happened later. Iím not the kind of guy to jump to conclusions and I trust that 99% of the people are good folks. This guy was from the 1% and very much seemed like he had ill intentions.

I wouldnít worry about the Bears.

Crockett
02-25-2010, 03:00 PM
Not sure why the title of the thread is "If guns are allowed in the park". I was under the impression that they are now allowed as of Monday if you have a carry permit on the TN side.

Birdman
02-25-2010, 03:20 PM
Not sure why the title of the thread is "If guns are allowed in the park". I was under the impression that they are now allowed as of Monday if you have a carry permit on the TN side.
You are correct. They are now allowed in the park and national forest.

Carlito
02-25-2010, 04:54 PM
The only time in my life that Iíve ever felt threatened enough to pull out my gun was at Clingmans dome. We had a guy follow us all the way up the mtn. I stopped, he stopped, I got out he got out. I even would just pull over on the shoulder where there was no pull off and he would do the same. I played the stop and go game with him all the way up to the top just to see how many times he would stop. When we reached the top I pulled into a parking spot and he pulled into one beside us. I put in reverse and left the lot and again he followed. At that time I decided to put a stop to the game and whipped it back around into the parking lot and parked. He pulled up beside us again and proceeded to walk up to the truck where he was greeted with a 357 through the window. He just stood there and waved his hand side to side then turned and walked away. It was snowing like crazy and we were the only two vehicles on the mtn that day. This was a very strange looking man with VA tags. My wife and I will never forget his face and we kept his tag numbers in case something happened later. Iím not the kind of guy to jump to conclusions and I trust that 99% of the people are good folks. This guy was from the 1% and very much seemed like he had ill intentions.

I wouldnít worry about the Bears.

Creepy. Did he wave his hand as if to say "never mind"?

BlueRaiderFan
02-25-2010, 10:05 PM
I've had a few incidents on various roads, but never in the park. In all but one, it was obvious that these guys were degenerates that would not be reasoned with. The third guy was just an idiot, but did not look evil. I was glad that I had my pistol locked and loaded in all of these instances. You don't have to be evil to do something stupid.

old east tn boy
02-25-2010, 10:28 PM
I believe law enforcement would call it reckless endangerment, poaching, disturbing the peace, and probably several other offensives I am not aware of at the moment.

sammcdonald
02-25-2010, 10:34 PM
while it is legal to carry a concealed weapon now, it is still illegal to discharge/fire that weapon.

old east tn boy
02-26-2010, 07:50 AM
The legality of firing a weapon would depend on the circumstances. Obviously if it came to that one would worry about legal issues after the fact.

mora521
02-26-2010, 10:57 AM
What Sam in his hoplophobic way was trying to say is it is illegal to discharge a firearm if the target is a tree or a tin can or some other form of inanimate object.It is legal to fire at an animate object that is intent on harming you.Freud had some interesting thoughts on the irrational fear of firearms.Does the shoe fit Sam?

sammcdonald
02-26-2010, 06:17 PM
actually i have no fear of firearms at all having served 4 years in the military....i have concern with a lot of the people who will be carrying in the park....i've already heard one visitor say he wasn't afraid of a bear because he had a gun...that's the attitude that causes me concern.

JimmyC
02-26-2010, 06:54 PM
Once we start believing that one group, because of status or profession, has a special privileged, then we've lost any reason to fight for the whole.

One person caused you concern? One person. Seeing an area destroyed by tourism in my short lifetime causes me much more concern than one person saying they'd shoot a bear. And if that bear is close enough, not running away, it probably needed to be put down anyway. I guess people only matter when they matter to us. That's a **** shame.

The funniest whine I've heard about this whole situation is, "Oh, law, everybody will have a gun." Well, no. Grow up. If they don't have a permit, and they have a handgun, then they are carrying one illegally.

Ours is a cultural construct that is out of control. See school shootings. I'd rather be one armed and able to control my own construct -- my life.

I hope, honestly, that I don't come across as brutish or mean. I'm not picking on anyone. Everyone's idea of safety is their own. Unfortunately the jumps to conclusion are so often so wrong that instead of licking the wounds of our pride or politicking, we fail to see that incidents occur, and we miss our opportunities to educate, instead we regulate.

Until you can change our culture you won't change crime. Especially gun crimes. Imagine, if health care is too difficult and expensive to contrive, then how will we get guns out of the hands of those that would harm us? Door to door? Metal detectors? Sounds like a book burning would be the next logical step.

I hope I didn't offend. Really.

Speck Lover
02-26-2010, 07:07 PM
i've already heard one visitor say he wasn't afraid of a bear because he had a gunsammcdonald,

That statement reminded me of one of my Smokies fishing partners. He is a law enforcement officer and always brings his .380 pistol with him on our backcountry fishing trips. When I first found out a few years ago that he was packing the .380 pistol, I asked him why he brought it. He told me in case he ran into a bad situation with a bear. I told him that his .380 pistol could make a bad situation with a bear much worse for the simple fact that all the .380 rounds would do is pizz the bear off if they didn't scare it off.

While I will be carrying in the backcountry for protection from the two-legged "animals", I'm afraid that there will be a few people like my buddy who are not rational in their thinking and don't realize how much of a gun that it takes to put a bear down in a bad situation. They may actually wind up in more danger with a gun than without one. Time will tell.

BlueRaiderFan
02-26-2010, 09:12 PM
I agree. Carry a 10ml or larger. ;)

Crockett
02-26-2010, 09:18 PM
Maybe we should go back to the good ole days when only criminals carried in the park ;)

jeffnles1
02-27-2010, 11:07 PM
As others have said and I've said before when this topic comes up. I am not afraid of the bears and the cougars. Healthy respect yes, fear, no. I'm not going to go about molesting a bear or threatening cubs and I'm sure going to give it the right of way in any circumstance I may encounter one.

It's the 2 legged predators I'm worried about. Even then, avoid them, walk away, don't go being John Wayne and looking for a fight but if it comes down to him or me, I would like to have the means at my disposal to make it him.

Most of the firearms that are concealable are not sufficient to stop a bear in its tracks. Yes, the bear may die after a clip of .380 or 9mm is emptied into it, but not before it finished with you.

I carry a S&W J frame in .357 mag. Even that, with typical self defense hollow points, is not sufficient gun to stop a bear attack immediately. It's better than a rock or a stick and would be a last line of defense but that's about it.

I don't hunt bear but if I did and wanted to do it with a handgun, a concealed carry type firearm is not what I would use. At a minimum, I'd want a 44 single action with pretty hot loads or maybe a 357 with heavy solid bullets. Never really thought much about it since I've never hunted for bear. I'm thinking a 45-70, 444 Marlin, 338, 450 bushmaster, or the like would be more appropriate.

Anyway, I'm glad the law has changed. Because it was against the law, I never carried a firearm in the park. Now, I have that option should I choose to do so. I pray I will never be faced with a situation where I will need to use it.

Jeff

WVBrookie
02-28-2010, 09:37 AM
At one time, I carried a small frame Glock, in the .357 Sig round, when I ventured into the backcountry of WV. One nice February day, I thought I was alone in the Otter Creek Wilderness Area when I heard brush breaking below the trail. I pulled the unchambered weapon, thinking the warm weather had brought the bears out early, but what I found was another fisherman. He had also decided to hit the backcountry that fine day. I had pulled a weapon on a fellow outdoorsman, granted it was unchambered, I still felt very bad about it. That was the last day I carried in the backcountry.

I have also been within 15 yards of a charging grizzly in Yellowstone - I walked up on three of her cubs. I can tell you that a handgun, no matter what caliber, would have done me no good in that situation. If you can hit a target moving 25 MPH, while fight/flight is kicking in, you are a better man than me. Handguns are not the proper weapons for self-defense against four-legged threats.

Of course, someone intent on committing a violent crime is not going to be concerned with carry laws. I have done quite a few of solo backcountry adventures in GSMNP and RMNP, and the two-legged predators are almost always the biggest threat in the backcountry. This just levels the playing field a bit.

Chris

ZachMatthews
03-01-2010, 10:03 PM
I think people tend to get somewhat fired up (as we say in Arkansas) when it comes to self-protection. Here's a good resource on bear attacks with real statistics:

http://www.appalachianbearrescue.org/bearsafety.htm

"In the last 100 years, 57 people have been killed by black bears in North America. The same number of people die of bee stings in the United States every year."

I did some checking and a large number of those deaths were in Canada.

We all know there have been some legitimate attacks in the Smokies/Cherokee NF in the last ten years or so. But I think we can also all agree that most if not all of those attacks were provoked by stupid human behavior, usually related to feeding bears and letting children approach bears. That can have tragic consequences.

Here's the relevant federal statute relating to discharge of handguns in the Smokies:

"All hunting or the killing, wounding, or capturing at any time of any wild bird or animal, except dangerous animals when it is necessary to prevent them from destroying human lives or inflicting personal injury, is prohibited within the limits of said park [i.e. both Great Smoky Mountains and Shenandoah National Parks]."

16 U.S.C.A. ß 403c-3.

In other words, the law allows you to use a weapon in legitimate self defense. That said, I promise that the National Parks Service would look pretty closely at whether there really was a necessity to 'prevent [bears] from destroying human lives or inflicting personal injury.' No one wants to see the bears shot at when they simply show natural interest in people. Moreover, not all the national parks have the same laws: Yellowstone is also opening up to concealed carry but there's apparently no self-protection excuse for discharging a firearm there.

I would just encourage everyone contemplating carrying a gun in the park for 'bear protection' to ask themselves what they would do if they didn't have the gun. If there's an option that does not involve shooting the bear, please take it. You'll save the bear and probably save yourself a lot of hassle to boot.

You do not want to have to cough up the money to 'defend yourself' from a criminal prosecution, either, believe me.

Zach

Knothead
03-02-2010, 08:36 AM
I met a fellow who was retired from the NFS. We talked about the AT as this was part of his responsibility in some way for several years. He told me that at least two or three people are murdered every year on the AT for food, money or credit cards. But, he stated these are hushed up or people would avoid the AT. I'm like others, I'm more concerned about the two legged predators in the parks. As for bears, the best defense would be a bear spray repellent. Many people have guns but don't know how to use them properly or accurately. I've talked with people who have a gun for protection but never fired it!
Caliber is in the hands of the user. I know of a policeman who killed a bear with a .38 Special which is not exactly a powerhouse.
Mike Anderson, after your incident, why didn't you turn in the license number to the authorities? This might have prevented another incident later with someone else.
See in the park!

jross
03-02-2010, 09:34 AM
questions!

Can a person carry a shotgun? Or is the new reg only for handguns? (I'd much rather be carrying my shotgun than a handgun...that's just me. And it is a serious question.)

What's to say that criminal minded people don't carry now as well?

I just find it disturbing. Not saying anything bad against WVbrookie, but that situation coulda been worse with someone else, like a trigger happy "everyone is out to get me" kinda guy. I'm not a lib, so don't say it.....I just don't want to go to the park worrying now about who's carrying. That's for the rangers.....or so I hope!

ps. I'll think on this more....

Jim Casada
03-02-2010, 01:40 PM
All--I personally think a number of you are misreading and misinterpreting this mater of carrying a firearm now being legal in the Park. The change DOES NOT mean anyone can venture into the Park and legally carry a firearm. Only those who have a concealed carry permit, at least as I understand it, can do so. Obtaining such a permit is a rigorous process involving many hours of instruction, range time, discussion of safety and use issues, a detail background check, and more. Folks who pass this aren't irresponsible rednecks, drunks, or questionable characters.
The Park isn't suddenly going to become the wild West. If anything, I think it will be safer than before, and study after study has shown that in situations where concealed carry is legal crime goes down, not up. On the other hand, where are the worst gun-related crime areas of all? Places like Washington, D. C. and Chicago, where decent, law-abiding citizens have been denied their Second Amendment rights.
In truth, I think that the irresponsible, semi-criminal types who have occasionally caused problems in the Park in the past will be much less likely to do so now, and again I would emphasize this change does not mean anyone and everyone will be toting guns. Anyone who has one legally is going to be a very responsibel person who knows how to handle and use a gun and who has impeccable background credentials.
I probably spend more time in the Park than most of those on this forum, and far from being worried, I'm somewhat relieved. I also happen to be a firm adherent to the U. S. Constitution, and its Second Amendment is what this is all about.
Jim Casada
www.jimcasadaoutdoors.com (http://www.jimcasadaoutdoors.com)

buzzmcmanus
03-02-2010, 02:31 PM
I'm curious, but what are the chances that there will be increased car break-ins at visitor centers and other park buildings? Since these are federal buildings and you can't carry in them, will criminals be watching and break into cars when others go into the buildings. I know of 2 people that have their carry permits who have had their guns stolen while they were at the courthouse.

Are restrooms like the ones at Metcalf Bottoms considered federal buildings?

silvercreek
03-02-2010, 02:49 PM
Given the way government is performing, I would have to think they would be considered the same. Regards, Silvercreek

Knothead
03-02-2010, 03:03 PM
Keep in mind that when carrying a concealed weapon (handgun) in a national park, where permitted, the law of the state/states where the park is located prevails. For the GSMNP, that would depend on the laws of Tennessee or North Carolina.

JohnH0802
03-02-2010, 03:10 PM
Once again Jim says it very well. The bottom line is this, criminals carry firearms where it is illegal to do so all of the time, by definition they have no respect for the law. Rest stops in SC were initially illegal places to carry a concealed weapon with a permit when the SC carry law was passed. They have since modified the law because they found that they had made a safe haven for the criminals, while insuring that the law abiding would be unarmed victims.

Take a moment to think about why some of the most horrific crimes have been comitted in schools. Do you think that the schools were targeted for no reason? The schools were targeted because these individuals knew that nobody would be able to stop them from doing what they wanted. Would you put a big sign on your home that says "GUN FREE ZONE", I know I wouldn't and I cannot fathom why we would put our children at risk by doing this. Again the bottom line is that a bank robber is not going to stop robbing banks because it is illegal for him to carry a gun in one!

Violent crime has gone down in every state that has a right-to-carry law, while violent crime continues to climb in areas with the strictest gun control (i.e. DC and Chicago). Even criminals are not complete idots. In Florida when they first passed their carry law, gangs and criminals started targeting tourist at rest stops (i.e. people with out of state plates) because they knew that they would be unable to defend themselves. Florida determined this by interviewing the perpetrators. They then modified thier carry laws so that they now issue permits to non-residents, and this drastically reduced this problem.

Criminals will, by nature and definition, always target the weak and defenseless. This is part of the reason our founding fathers gave us the constitutional right to keep and bear arms (on top of the consumate check and balance on government).

If you look throughout history, the most horrific genocides comitted, were comitted on people that did not have the means or right to defend themselves.

Hitler first required the Jews to register thier firearms, then he required them to store their weapons in the local armories and shooting clubs, then he confiscated them and continued to exterminate them.

Knothead
03-02-2010, 03:33 PM
To add to JohnH0802's post, several years ago a group of people put signs in the windows of their homes "We have no guns." The signs came down when the houses were broken into.
Hitler took over Poland in September, 1939 is just a matter of days. How?, you ask. The Nazis went to the local courthouse and pulled all the gun registration records. They went to the citizen's homes and made them an offer they couldn't refuse. "Give us your guns or we will shoot you." Unarmed citizens are an easy target for criminals and governments. The Warsaw Uprising was quickly squelched because the Jews were able to get only a few guns; few guns were available due to strict confiscation laws by the Nazis.
Australia, South Africa, and England have had sweeping gun bans. Now, they are trying to figure out why the crime rate has increased! Canada had a gun registration law passed a few years ago. It turned out to be many times what the estimated cost was. There is a good possibility it will be repealed and registration records destroyed.
I'll close with this. The crime rate in the USA has decreased while gun purchases have increased.

GrouseMan77
03-02-2010, 07:54 PM
Criminals will, by nature and definition, always target the weak and defenseless. This is part of the reason our founding fathers gave us the constitutional right to keep and bear arms (on top of the consumate check and balance on government).

JohnH0802, you nailed it.

I have been on a couple backpacking trips, just me and the wife, were I wished that I had been carrying. One instance was at Bone Valley a couple years ago. Two campsites down were several drunk and rowdy guys. If they had decided to come on up and mess with us what chance would we have stood? They didn't...but what if?

My only concern was that my wife was with me. I'm not afraid of bears, snakes or cougars. The "bear protection" argument is absurd and the first person who over reacts and shoots one should be placed under the jail.

Also, the penalty for killing an animal in the park (deer, bear, elk, etc.) is incredibly weak. No wonder people do it...$500 and/or/maybe 6 months for an elk? You are in a National Park! The ante needs to be raised.

A bit of a ramble but...one more thing. I would have handled the situation that Mike Anderson described a little bit different. The guy would have been looking at a .45 instead of the .357.

WVBrookie
03-02-2010, 09:17 PM
It's not only a TN and/or NC permit which will allow you to carry a concealed weapon in the park, but also the states with reciprocity.

http://www.saf.org/reciprocity.html


jross,
What if grasshoppers carried .44s? :biggrin:

Chris

GrouseMan77
03-02-2010, 10:00 PM
I think that the park service was trying to keep quiet on this. They made need to go ahead and address it and out some info out there. I read back through this thread and someone was asking about carrying a shotgun.

WVBrookie linked a good site for those with questions on who is allowed to carry concealed.

WVBrookie
03-02-2010, 10:08 PM
I just noticed the link I posted was dated 2002!

Here is another link:
http://www.nraila.org/recmap/usrecmap.aspx

Tennessee recognizes permits from every state.

Chris

jeffnles1
03-02-2010, 10:14 PM
My permit is from Kentucky which has one of the more rigorous carry permit processes. As Jim said, the people who will be allowed to carry in the park are licensed by their home states and only people with licenses from those states which Tennessee recognizes will be allowed.

The "wild west" argument has been used by the anti-gun crowd in almost every state where right to carry legislation has been introduced. Something like 40 states now have right to carry laws and have had them in place for over a decade. The wild west has not happened in any of them.

Responsible adults who have gone through the rigor of training, testing, and the extensive background checks necessary for a concealed carry permit are not going to go about shooting up the park. It's just not going to happen.

Carrying a firearm does not equal lawlessness. The scare tactics of the wild west infers there will be lawlessness. People who are granted carry permits have, through the background checks, proven themselves to be law abiding citizens who are not prone to such lawlessness. By the very nature, we are people who are law abiding citizens.

Even minor crimes will result in the revoke of a license.

So, if a person is fearing a rash of lawlessness in the park, it's not going to happen from licensed firearms holders. It hasn't happened in any of the states where permits are issued and there is absolutely no reason to believe it will happen in the park.

Criminals already have them. Those who do not care about the law are already carrying weapons and will use them in the pursuit of their criminal activity..

Civilized and law abiding people who have the means to exercise the right to self defense are a deterrent to crime, not a cause of it.

Just my .02 worth.

Jeff

old east tn boy
03-02-2010, 10:33 PM
TN carry law (note; not required to be concealed, Knoxville cop found this out the hard way after a false arrest) stipulates that a handgun meet certain requirements, i.e. size. Recently a young man in Cumberland State Park, I think, carried openly a gun resembling an assault rifle with a shortened barrel. Several visitors were alarmed at the sight of it and notified authorities. Several rangers arrived on the scene and the man was briefly detained but later released because 1, he had a valid carry permit and 2, the gun met the requirements that it was legally determined to be a "handgun."
Several have questioned the purpose of the man in doing this because he stated that he intended to take the gun to yet other state parks carrying it openly as he did at Cumberland. Personally I hope someone finds a way to end his fun because it is obvious he is doing more harm than good for the case of carrying guns in parks. However, I think the issue of allowed gun types that can be carried by holders of permits is primarily defined based on barrel and/or overall length. It's interesting that caliber doesn't enter into the question.

silvercreek
03-03-2010, 09:17 AM
Tn Boy you are right the law in tennessee does not say the gun must be concealed. the incident you are referring to took place in Radnor Park here in Nashville. The gun was an AK type weapon without a buttstock. It had apparently been manufacturered as a pistol and therefore met the test of the law. He is now suing for being detained. Radnor is a state park, so he could carry. Nashville opted out of allowing carry in local parks. The issue of carry was being revisited for more remote city parks. This guy pretty well kicked that in the head with his act. Frankly, If I had seen this guy wandering around in para military getup carrying what would appear to be an AK I would have called the authorities to have him checked out Regards, Silvercreek

jross
03-03-2010, 09:32 AM
So I could carry a shotgun?!? wow! I won't....but I could?

I guess it's true that I will likely see no difference when I'm in the park.

But do you think it will make a difference to the rangers? I mean their safety and will they have to approach people differently?

JohnH0802
03-03-2010, 09:36 AM
Why would a ranger have to approach a law abiding citizen differently just becasue he may be carrying, that is absurd. The law enforcment officers that I know have no issues with approaching someone with a carry permit, it does not affect thier outlook at all because they realize that it is the criminal that they have to worry about and the criminal will be armed regardless of the law. A wildlife officer/ranger/game officer approaches armed people (hunters) every day. Again it is not the law abiding, with or without arms, that a law enforcement officer is concerned about.

silvercreek
03-03-2010, 09:44 AM
Nope, You as an individual can't just call any gun a handgun, or cut off the barrel and stock to the definition of a handgun. The MANUFACTURER has to make it as a handgun to the legal definition of a handgun, and have the receiver/frame serial number registered as a handgun. That's federal law. Then you have state legal definitions of what is a handgun to satisfy. Silvercreek

Knothead
03-03-2010, 01:07 PM
The federal government classified any firearm under 14 inches as concealable. This was according to the BATF booklet I had when a gunsmith. Does anyone have the latest booklet? Your local gun shop would have one, if someone will ask for the information as what defines a pistol.
When I lived in Kentucky, '74-'82, I asked a deputy sheriff about a concealed weapon. He told me that I could carry a handgun in my vehicle in plain sight. If I covered it with a jacket, newspaper, etc., then it became a concealed weapon.

jross
03-03-2010, 01:07 PM
thanks silvercreek, I understand.

and I was asking about the rangers, because I was thinking instead of asking for a license will they now also ask if you have a gun. Just wondering...I'm not trolling or trying to get anyone upset....just curious... making internet small talk!

Crockett
03-03-2010, 01:40 PM
I understand your question jross but think about it this way. You have people with carry permits walking all over knoxville passing and talking to police officers in stores and going about their every day business. Most of the police that I pass or say hello too do not ask me or anyone else if we are carrying a gun even though we might be. I don't think the rangers would have any need to ask random people if they are carrying a gun unless they have evidence a crime is or has taken place. It would be akin to a policeman pulling me over just to see if I had a drivers license I think.

jeffnles1
03-03-2010, 10:47 PM
The federal government classified any firearm under 14 inches as concealable. This was according to the BATF booklet I had when a gunsmith. Does anyone have the latest booklet? Your local gun shop would have one, if someone will ask for the information as what defines a pistol.
When I lived in Kentucky, '74-'82, I asked a deputy sheriff about a concealed weapon. He told me that I could carry a handgun in my vehicle in plain sight. If I covered it with a jacket, newspaper, etc., then it became a concealed weapon.

In '82, that may be correct, but in Kentucky now, one is legally allowed to carry a firearm in the glove box of their automobile even if they do not have a concealed carry permit. I'm not sure about having it covered by a jacket on the seat.

I have a concealed carry permit so I'm covered regardless. However, some states (Ohio for example) say the firearm must be on one's person (i.e. in a holster) and in the glove box is a violation of state law.

It's a messy patchwork.

Your best bet is to get a valid permit from your home state, and carry the firearm in a holster concealed upon your person.

While I would feel much better with my .45acp, it's not a very easy firearm to carry totally concealed. That is why I opted for a 2" barrel Smith & Wesson J frame in .357mag caliber as my carry firearm.

The recoil is "stout" and it's not a very fun firearm to shoot. After 15 or so rounds at the range with full mag loads, I've had about enough fun for the day. Most of my range time with this firearm is with 38spl target loads. I probably run less than 100 full mag loads a year thorugh it. That is just to keep my proficiency with the arm up to snuff. I shoot in the neighborhood of 1,000 rounds of 38 spl rounds on a given year through the firearm while at the firing range.

My .45acp sees over 3,000 rounds on any given year

While one may not need to shoot as much as I do, if a person has a concealed carry permit, I believe they should put in enough range time to feel comfortable with the firearm. At a very minimum, you should practice to the point where you can keep 10 out of 10 shots inside a paper plate at 21 feet (7 yards). Even better, all 10 shots should be able to be covered by the palm of your hand.

Dedicated target firearms can do much better (1 big hole at that range) but most concealed carry type self defense firearms have poor fixed sights, short barrels, fairly stout recoil due to the light weight which results in a 1" - 2" group at 7 yards is a pretty decent day shooting for most of us.

Also, always wear eye protection while shooting and don't do as I did in my younger years and skip the ear protection. ALWAYS wear proper ear protection while at the range. I can assure you that you don't want to end up with the kind of hearing loss I suffer nor do you want the constant companion I have of a ringing in my ears (that is about the A# note on my guitar, at least I can use my buddy the "ear ringing" for something useful while tuning a guitar).:eek:

Jeff

cb76
03-06-2010, 02:01 AM
There have been times that I wished that I would have had my gun with me, but in these times you never know what might happen. The only time that I have ever had to even show my gun was when I was going to a football game in Knoxville. I was traveling at night to go and stay with a friend and I had to make a so called "Pit Stop". Being around 11:30 at night, I stopped at the last rest stop on I 81 before it merges into I 40. This was a mistake but when ya gotta go ya gotta go. I went into the restroom and there was absolutley no one around that I could see. After being in for a minute I heard the door open and then there was someone right next to me. This guy was most likely one of those that their "door swings the wrong way" but I hurried up and took of bussiness and left. As I was sitting the car looking for somethhing, this wacko came up to the door and tried to open it and get in. I reached quickley under my jacket and grabbed by Colt Government Model 45 and held it where he could see it. When he saw it, he made like horse s#@t and hit the trail and left. I can only imagine what he was looking to do and I am thankfull that I had my gun with me. A lot of times all you have to do is let the thug or whatever know that you do have a gun and they will not bother you.

JohnH0802
03-07-2010, 05:23 PM
Great story cb76, I am glad that your firearm saved you from who knows what. It does also illustrate the point that criminals will always look for an easy mark, and just the fact that you were armed was enough.

Other things that tend to do the same thing is watching your surroundings, paying attention is a critical way to show anyone looking that you are not an easy mark.

JohnH0802

Owl
03-08-2010, 04:10 AM
I'm pleasantly surprised to see the content of most of the posts here. As someone who carries daily, it always amazes me that people equate gun ownership/carry with crime. While it's true that some criminals have guns, the following is hardly ever true:

1. The criminal has a license/permit for the weapon.
2. The criminal wouldn't commit the crime if unarmed.
3. The criminal couldn't break-in/steal/attack/rob/kidnap without a firearm.
4. The criminal wouldn't think twice if the victim was armed and commit the crime anyway.


The idea of letting the owners of the Park( that's We the People, FYI) legally carry firearms inside our National Parks is long overdue. As for the change, as recent history has shown, if people are angry at the government, they don't have to go inside a federal building to show that anger and harm other people. You still cannot carry your firearm into any building on National Park land, so when camping at Elkmont you'll need to lock your firearm in your car to make your way to the bathroom - even though it makes no sense at all. ( It's the federal government, what did you expect - something totally sensible? ) The only thing prohibiting law-abiding citizens from carrying their weapons does is make more of those "gun free zones" where criminals know they stand less of a chance of being shot if they try their game inside those areas.


btw - if a bear attacks me I will kill it. I have the range time and the handgun capable of doing so. They are not super-beasts and one or two rounds into the head should do it. Just for safety's sake, I carry 12 rounds of .40 hollow point. I will not hesitate to kill boo-boo if he decides to attack me and I will not regret doing it. Saving a bear's life is not my priority. Saving my own life, or that of a family member is...


That said, I predict that some idiot will kill a snake, bear or other human being without reason within 2 years. Sadly, there are people out there that have a hard time with common sense.

Owl
03-08-2010, 04:22 AM
Sorry, double tap. ;) ( Please delete)