Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Olympic National Park

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, WA, ,
    Posts
    6

    Post imported post

    I'm a new member, so please bear with me if this has been covered before.

    I'm not truly an OC crusader or anything, but I do admire what the activists on this board are trying to achieve. I actually prefer to CC on most occasions, because I just don't want the hassle of "explaining" my rights to my skittish neighbors.

    But I do a lot of back country hiking, and prefer to be armed when I'm hiking alone through remote country -- and not necessarily for protection against bears and cougars either. And CC while wearing a 25 pound pack is tough. So I figured I would strap my leg holster on and head out, right?

    At Olympic NP a couple of weeks ago, however, I started out on a 7-mile roundtrip hike and at the trailhead encountered a sign stating "No Weapons Allowed on Trail". Now, I'm not naive enough to assume that WA state law will apply in all cases in a national park, but this actually caught me by surprise. Why would the NPS not allow weapons in the backcountry? And how can they get away with taking my 2A rights like that?

    By the way, there is NO indication on any NPS website that I can find that mentions a prohibition on weapons.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Mainsail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,532

    Post imported post

    Carry of any weapon in any manner is not allowed in the National Parks. I understand that's being worked on, but for now that's the law. State law plays no role because the Park is Federal land.

    Open carry is OK in the National Forests, that's where I hike.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Washington, USA
    Posts
    102

    Post imported post

    Want to be a test case? If judges are honest, it would be hard to lose this battle in court, but stranger things have happened. I hope it gets fixed soon. My life is only so long.

    Mainsail, do you have a link to info on who is fighting this good fight? I assume the NRA is impotent as usual on this sort of issue. Is it the VCDL?

    -- Sandy (WA)

  4. #4
    Regular Member Mainsail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,532

    Post imported post

    Sandy, I heard about it in this thread at THR

  5. #5
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    IIRC, a bill was introduced in the last session of Congress that didn't make it. It was supposed to allow the same carry provisions as exist in National Forests.




    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, WA, ,
    Posts
    6

    Post imported post

    In a quick update, this past weekend I did a 16-mile round trip in the Alpine Lakes Wildnerness area, within the boundary of the Mt. Baker - Snoqualmie National Forest. During that hike, I had my .45 in a leg holster in plain view. I encountered two Forest Service rangers during the hike. No concerns or questions about my being armed -- just a nice conversation about the trail.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Mainsail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,532

    Post imported post

    maquimike wrote:
    In a quick update, this past weekend I did a 16-mile round trip in the Alpine Lakes Wildnerness area, within the boundary of the Mt. Baker - Snoqualmie National Forest. During that hike, I had my .45 in a leg holster in plain view. I encountered two Forest Service rangers during the hike. No concerns or questions about my being armed -- just a nice conversation about the trail.
    The OP was asking about the National Parks, the National Forest is a whole different ball of wax. I hiked in two differnt NFs over the weekend, one in the Cascades and the other in the Olympics, both times I had my Alaskan 44 Magnum in a chest holster.





    I would not recommend OC in the parks for the time being.

  8. #8
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    The fight for this is still on, from what I understand. Packing.org has a post regarding it and links/action you can follow: Packing.org - National Parks Carry
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Kirkland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    126

    Post imported post

    Mainsail, what kind of setup is that? Looks nice.

  10. #10
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887

    Post imported post

    Here is a link at VCDL about the ongoing effort to get National Park carry.

    Please do your part.

    http://www2.vcdl.org/webapps/vcdl/va...l?RECID=146694



  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Oak Harbor, WA
    Posts
    44

    Post imported post

    After my wife and I were stalked by a cougar on the Hoh trail I inquired about carrying while in the park. It's not legal in any park in the lower 48. However carrying of a weapon in highly reccomended in any and all parks in Alaska. It's politically driven... big surprise, since we all know that cougars and bears will not attack you in any lower 48 national park. Let's not even mention attacks by any other fellow hiker. Would any woman out there hike across the Olympic peninsula alone and feel totally safe?

    I sent many emails to the park service about this topic and never recived a reply, and then never had any phone calls returned.

    I know I read somewhere there is a push to change this that actually had a reply from the park service. Let's keep this fight going!!!

  12. #12
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887

    Post imported post

    The somewhere where you may have read it was at or from VCDL - link in the post previous to yours.

    Please call!

  13. #13
    Regular Member thebastidge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    2519 E Fourth Plain Blvd, Vancouver Washington, USA
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    It's quite likely that Parker Vs DC (http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/...3/04-7041a.pdf)will be relevant in any case in the National Parks- hopefully it goes to the Supreme Court.

    Since it is federal land and the Fed is specifically prohibited from infringing, without getting into any issues of states' "rights" to make gun laws. I think I would wait to be a test case until after Parker goes all the way.

    http://www.gurapossessky.com/parker_vs_dc.htm
    Be prepared. Be very prepared.

    http://swwsurplus.com/ *** 2519 E Fourth Plain Blvd Vancouver WA 98661 *** 360.314.6687
    http://www.facebook.com/SouthWestWashingtonSurplus *** https://twitter.com/SWWSurplus

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Redmond, Washington, USA
    Posts
    618

    Post imported post

    jenzenk wrote:
    It's not legal in any park in the lower 48.
    Just wanted to clarify that sentance above. I'm sure what you meant was "National Park". Because in WA, it's perfectly legal to carry in a State Park, a County Park, or a City Park. Only National Park's are forbidden currently.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Oak Harbor, WA
    Posts
    44

    Post imported post

    gregma - Yes, National Parks is exactly what I meant.

    Still doesn't make sense to me, cougars and bears exist in the lower 48 National Parks (not to mention criminals) as well as Alaska. I guess gun owners either have a stronger voice up in AK or the liberals have trained all the bears and cougars in WA not to attack. Must have been the agreement they made with cougars after outlawing hunting them with dogs (unless that's changed since I left in 2004).

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Bellevue, WA, ,
    Posts
    144

    Post imported post

    Just to let you guys know, I went hiking on the Annette Lake trail in Mt.Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest this past weekend. I open carried my Glock 32 and had no issues at all.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Redmond, Washington, USA
    Posts
    618

    Post imported post

    jenzenk wrote:
    gregma - Yes, National Parks is exactly what I meant.

    Still doesn't make sense to me, cougars and bears exist in the lower 48 National Parks (not to mention criminals) as well as Alaska. I guess gun owners either have a stronger voice up in AK or the liberals have trained all the bears and cougars in WA not to attack. Must have been the agreement they made with cougars after outlawing hunting them with dogs (unless that's changed since I left in 2004).
    I think #1 is more accurate. More powerful gun lobby up in AK. And I doubt it will get better in the lower 48 anytime soon. But we do what we can do.

  18. #18
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887

    Post imported post

    gregma wrote:
    I think #1 is more accurate. More powerful gun lobby up in AK. And I doubt it will get better in the lower 48 anytime soon. But we do what we can do.
    I thought the National Park prohibition was generated by the NPS, and was national? Is neither the case?

  19. #19
    Regular Member Mainsail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,532

    Post imported post

    It might be beneficial to remember that in the NPs in Alaska, we are not at the top of the food chain. If they enacted such a prohibition it would either result in nobody visiting the parks at all, or everyone ignoring the rule entirely.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Redmond, Washington, USA
    Posts
    618

    Post imported post

    BB62 wrote:
    gregma wrote:
    I think #1 is more accurate. More powerful gun lobby up in AK. And I doubt it will get better in the lower 48 anytime soon. But we do what we can do.
    I thought the National Park prohibition was generated by the NPS, and was national? Is neither the case?
    You are correct in both statements. There is a movement driven by the VCDL to get that overturned, but hasn't been successful as of yet.

  21. #21
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887

    Post imported post

    gregma wrote:
    BB62 wrote:
    gregma wrote:
    I think #1 is more accurate. More powerful gun lobby up in AK. And I doubt it will get better in the lower 48 anytime soon. But we do what we can do.
    I thought the National Park prohibition was generated by the NPS, and was national? Is neither the case?
    You are correct in both statements. There is a movement driven by the VCDL to get that overturned, but hasn't been successful as of yet.
    Okay, I just wanted to clarify.

    A couple of people recently posted (evidently INCORRECTLY) thatthe NPS prohibition does not apply in Alaska - and it evidently does.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •