Correction, and more bad news!

I stand corrected on my prior post about being allowed to carry in all National Parks & forests. The way it's actually worded is that it depends on the policy of the state where that park resides. So if the state allows gun carry in their parks, so will the National Parks. But if they don't then neither will the National Parks. Still, it's a better deal than it used to be.

Now for the bad news. Remember the famous assault weapons ban a number of years ago? Well, it's back again! A group in Congress is pressing to put it back. I haven't yet found the details in order to compare the new proposal with the old, but after what happened last time I am not a happy camper about this potential change. Does anybody out there know more about this particular version, who could clarify it for us?

Allowing guns in National Parks & Forests

I was pleasantly surprised by that change by the Secretary, and equally I was dismayed when I started seeing people voicing their concerns with statements to the effect of "an unloaded gun locked in the trunk should be more than adequate protection". How on Earth could an unloaded gun, locked away, protect anyone? If some drug-crazed wacko, or even a bear or wolverine comes into camp, do you really think they'll give you the time and access you need to get that gun out of your trunk, load it, and prepare to defend yourself? That sounds more like someone speaking from emotion rather than logic. Someone who simply has an irrational fear of guns. I mean really, think about it. The only people affected by the laws and regulations regarding where you can or cannot take a gun are the people who are law-abiding good citizens to begin with. Are these people really THAT naive that they think the bad guys will respect any law at all? Or that bears and other predators (cougars, wolverines, etc.) will stand and wait for you to get everything together to shoot them? Come on!! Can you spell "G-E-T-A-C-L-U-E"??