Jump to content
Basementdweller

Who carries a firearm on Scout Outings???

Recommended Posts

Desertrat77 writes: "Pack, finely crafted ideals...but what will you do if you run across the thug who doesn't care what you think of him? Or your view of the world? He's up to no good, pulls his gun on you. Or a knife. Or attacks you."

Like anyone in these forums cares about what I think of them? ;) Or my view of the world? :)

 

I admit that I try to backpack during seasons which sometimes coincide with hunting season - and if I encounter a hunter on the trail, I don't give that much concern. This is especially true if I'm in Montana or Wyoming or Idaho. But the AT is different. There is no reason for a firearm on the AT or in a National Park. I consider carrying on the AT to be dishonorable of the conference and of other backpackers. The thug scenario you seem to fantasize about is extremely unlikely. Those sorts of people are not known for their enterprising spirit so they tend NOT to be out in the woods...and anyway if he comes at me with a knife, I know for a fact that he will be at sufficient disadvantage so as to deter him from action. The ONLY way someone can really threaten me on the trail IS with a gun. And guess what? Now it seems the trail is crawling with gun nuts. I mean you guys sound like the lunatic fringe!

Oldscout448 tells us that LOTS of hikers on the AT carry. Good grief!

As far as I'm concerned you're making the whole experience less friendly than it should be. By the way, none of you should ever, EVER argue against ANY other violation of G2SS. Get a grip people!

 

Edit: I'm about as concerned about Fido and Bowser as I am about Miss Piggy.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pack, the very scenario you describe as highly unlikely has happened to me. And there have been several unsavory encounters with thugs that could have gone bad real quick, but thankfully didn't. Left quite an impression on me.

 

Despite conjecture to the contrary, there are thugs who are quite industrious and prowl the boonies looking for people to prey upon. I know. I've meet them. And it is quite unpleasant.

 

I don't carry 99 percent of the time, but there are parts of this world, yes, I do. Just got to know when/where. These days, I just stay away from those unsafe (read: unsafe because of humans) areas, not matter how great the flora and fauna are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pack, the very scenario you describe as highly unlikely has happened to me. And there have been several unsavory encounters with thugs that could have gone bad real quick, but thankfully didn't. Left quite an impression on me.

 

Despite conjecture to the contrary, there are thugs who are quite industrious and prowl the boonies looking for people to prey upon. I know. I've meet them. And it is quite unpleasant.

 

I don't carry 99 percent of the time, but there are parts of this world, yes, I do. Just got to know when/where. These days, I just stay away from those unsafe (read: unsafe because of humans) areas, not matter how great the flora and fauna are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MSNBC and da Beavah to the contrary.

 

Yah, this is just fascinatin' to me.

 

My dad started teachin' me to shoot when I was 9. .22s, also a .25 pistol. Was pheasant and duck huntin' with a 20 gauge by age 11. These days I don't get out much, but still do just fine skeet and sporting clays and on da range. I've said here repeatedly that I have long been a proponent of "shall issue" laws. For da folks who don't know, "shall issue" laws require authorities to issue CCW permits to anyone on a timely basis unless they can clearly establish legal reasons not to. CCW makes no sense for me personally, as I have to spend too much of my time in gun-free zones, but I don't mind it. Have had some fun shootin' semi-auto "assault rifles". And a few with mods. ;) Fun, but not my thing. I'm more an old traditionalist.

 

But if anyone suggest that perhaps we should be a bit thoughtful about da claims we make or how we approach our personal responsibilities as gun owners, it means that he must be an MSNBC liberal who is afraid of guns. Da suggestion that folks who are stockpilin' guns for fear of imminent economic collapse probably aren't stable enough to carry must mean that da fellow is out to ban guns from responsible hobbyists no matter how many times he says otherwise. Even though his very first post on da CT debacle started off with how no gun restrictions would likely have helped.

 

Yeh know you're a nutter when yeh can't even tell who your friends are anymore.

 

But keep it up. Yeh are startin' to convince me that until folks start showin' a bit better judgment and personal responsibility, broader public restrictions might be necessary. :p Plus now I gotta tell a bunch of BSA commissioners that they have to keep an eye out for scouters who don't have da judgment necessary to know when to leave their gun at home. Bad enough dealin' with da other nitwits who can't go an evening in da woods without a bottle.

 

Beavah

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basement, I remember the North Hollywood shoot out. Isn't that the one where the cops went to a local gun shop to borrow some high powered rifles to stop them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oldscout

 

In the situation you describe. I would carry a rifle or shotgun deemed acceptable in caliber for dealing with a predator that views humans as food. I know the tv shows showing salmon fishing in alaska show the guides with a 12 gauge slug gun and a side arm of unknown caliber

 

I would have several adults assigned to security.......but the boys and adults in that situation are different. Not some paranoid citydweller.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beavah, thank you for making your position a bit more clear. It just seemed to me that you were lumping me (us) in with the "world gonna end hoarders"

Then as I reread my post it seemed I did the same disservice to you

Sorry

Oldscout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I should also make clear that I have no hard data on the percentage of AT hikers, thru or section, that carry. Hikers on the trail have got to be some of the nicest,most helpful people I've ever met. I have never asked any one male or female if they were armed. You just get to talking at the shelters.

The ones that did carry seemed just as nice as everyone else.

One thru hiked told me he carried a small 22 from Springer to the south end of the blue ridge then decided he didn't need it and shipped it home.

He was thinking about getting it again when he started the hundred mile wilderness. I have no idea if he did.

At a guess I'd say only 5-10 percent go armed, and that's a guess I may be way off the mark.

 

Pack, Just to reassure you, I do NOT have a gun when am with scouts on the AT or anywhere else.

If I'm solo hiking way out in the sticks...

Oldscout

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that is why departments today carry rifles.

When my father-in-law was a cop back in the 60's he carried a revolver. I don't think any departments carry revolvers any more.

 

And in my state, and I believe in most states, it is unlawful to use body armor in commission of a crime. Also in the case you stated the perps illegally converted semi-automatic firearms into full auto.

 

 

(This message has been edited by Eagle732)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

eagle that is the issue.

 

It is way to easy to convert them to full auto.

 

One of the fellows I work with did just that. SKS. He went to one vendor and bought one part, then another for another then another vendor for the final piece.

 

Earlier you compared owning an mini 14 to an AR or AK. I know that full auto kits are available for the AR and AK, Never seen one for a Mini 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and no. There is no legal way for a private party to legally make a rifle into a full auto since 1986 with the Firearm Owners Protection Act which Reagan signed into law. I don't own AKs or SKSs but I do know about the AR-15.

 

There are Drop In Auto Sears (DIAS ) which are considered an independently registered Machine Gun and are their OWN registered part. You can legally use one of these registered parts in an AR-15 to make it shoot full auto. The AR-15 stays an AR-15 and the registered part (the DIAS or sear) stays the registered part. Last time I looked they ran about $10,000 if you can find one. In addition you need the $200 Federal tax stamp for each full auto or full auto sear you own, Fed. form 4 and background check. Also some states require registration for each full auto (MA is $100). The problem with all of this (besides the expense) is that your AR-15 is only full auto with the DAIS installed or semi-auto without it where as a M-16 (military counterpart to the AR-15) is select fire meaning that the M-16 has a lever on the side which allows you to change from semi to full.

 

But to go to a gun show and buy a part here and a part there and then go home and put together a full auto firearm, without machine work, I would say is impossible. And if you had the capabilities to do this it would be highly illegal. Not only would I recommend not doing it, I would recommend not even associating with anyone who would even consider doing this outside of the law. Of course criminals don't pay any mind to the law. Case in point is the North Hollywood shootout referenced to earlier. These guys converted weapons to full auto and I doubt they had the proper permits. Also just trying to make and sell them will get you tossed in the slammer for a long time. See this article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/26/AR2009062604108.html

 

The guy who said he did this, is he the same guy who told you he bought 100 round magazines?

 

And by the way, I don't advocate carrying on scout trips. I have a PD detective who is an ASM and he doesn't even carry on our trips but that's his choice. Come to think of it since our meeting hall is in PA and half our families are from PA and PA residents have the right to carry (unlike MD where I live) I wouldn't be surprised if some parent has carried concealed during a meeting. I wouldn't know since CCW is by definition concealed. I never thought of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't quite finished the thread but I would like to add...

I grew up camping and hiking in the CO wilderness. When I was young we needed a four-wheel drive to get to the best campgrounds and trailheads. It was a rarity to see more than two or three other groups during the trip. We took fishing poles, food, cameras and camping gear. No need for firearms. The only other people who were going to be out that far were outdoor enthusiasts and scout troops; safe people no doubt.

 

Over time, the state and federal governments have made the backcountry more accessible. Roads that were once dirt, rock or treacherous are now paved, lined and offer guard rails. It no longer takes a Jeep, truck or other 4WD vehicle to access the remote area. Anyone with a vehicle with four wheels and a well maintained brake system can get to these spots. Retirees are driving their Winnebagos and setting up month long sites for goodness sakes. There's nothing worse than thinking you are going into backcountry and pulling into Dorchester and seeing Grandma and Grandpa Bean sitting there with their hummingbird feeders and windchimes hanging off the canopy of their multi-extension trailer. (That's a whole other issue, though).

 

Places that once saw maybe two to three hundred people over a summer are now seeing 200-300 people a weekend. These individuals are not just up there to enjoy the aspen trees or to summit a 14,000 mountain. The rangers have all noted increased criminal activity. Campers, tents and cars are broken into and personal items are stolen and/or destroyed. Certain areas have become known as teenage party areas and the rangers will encourage family campers to avoid those sites.

 

As more and more people venture into the backcountry to enjoy nature they are encountering more and more people. It leads to frustration and increased opportunities for altercations. I have seen people argue over whether or not one group was being too loud and boisterous and disturbing the peace. I have heard stories of people arguing over the proper use of ATVs.

 

I have even been on the receiving end of vandalism. Our group parked the cars at a backcountry trailhead and went on our hike. When we returned every car had been vandalized. Rocks (which are plentiful in CO) and been thrown through the windows and each car had been ransacked. Stereos, cassettes (yes, this was in the 80's and before CD players were affordable) spare tires, jacks, etc., everything was taken. We drove to the nearest DNR station and reported the crime. The ranger told us that this was not a unique occurrence and that it happened most every weekend. They were looking for the group responsible. I don't know if they ever found out who was doing it but I do remember feeling violated and frightened.

 

--

Granted no one was hurt in any of these examples but I wanted to share the idea that not everyone in the backcountry has everyone else's wellbeing in mind. There are ornery, misguided people in the wilderness just as much as there are happy, honest folk. With increased access comes increased opportunity, both positive and negative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×