Hi James,
Thanks for the reply. Tony's first post was a quote of
the NRA discussion. If you read it carefully you will see
that the main intent is to have NP gun laws comply with the
gun laws of the state the park is in. This directly affects
CHL holders who are licensed to carry concealed in that state. If you think about it, it doesn't make much sense
to limit their license there but let them carry in the largest cities in the state. If they don't shoot up the
citizenry or the animals outside the park why would they do
it inside the park? I think, not sure, that the law would
only apply to CHL holders or perhaps others to carry in
their cars if the state permits that. Some do.
I doubt that unlicensed visitors will be granted any privileges not now in effect.

I certainly do not advocate that everyone pack a gun when visiting a NP but when I visit mine will always be in my
car and accessable. The only time I might want one would be if I were hiking and camping in the backcountry. Not so much as bear protection but thug protection. If truth be told I bet that a huge percentage of visitors have a gun in their cars now under the present system and do not have a CHL. I've never heard of the NPs having a problem with it.

James, with the exception of 2 posters everyone strongly
opposed the proposed new law. Several imagined tragic
secenarios were cited as good reason the law should not be
inacted. Although you don't care for the stereotype "liberal", that kind of rhetoric sounds exactly
like that of the anti-gun people and if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck----------------------
As lovers of wildlife I can see how folks might over react
to this proposal if they did not fully understand what is
really being proposed. I respect you all, especially Tony, but I must disagree with the assumptions made in most of the posts.
Kindest Regards,
Tom