Ammo For Sale

« « Where Great Britain Used to Be | Home | Scoutten and New Media » »

Guns in National Parks

Guns are OK. But you better not load it with any environmentally unfriendly ammunition. After all, if you have to defend yourself, your first priority should be concern about discharging an infinitesimally small amount of pollution.

NSSF says to reconsider because the ban is stupid.

6 Responses to “Guns in National Parks”

  1. Alcibiades Says:

    Where the heck are they going to purchase steel ammunition?

    (Insert rant about soft steel bullets.)

  2. Eagle 1 Says:

    You could argue that the person you’re defending yourself from is suffering from an acute lead deficiency and therefore no pollution has occurred.

    Eagle 1

  3. Kristopher Says:

    Tell them you are using copper solids. If they get nosy, tell them to get a warrant.

    Or just get copper solids … and then open carry in groups, and make it clear that we won’t stop until they remove this crap.

  4. Kristopher Says:

    Oh, and the ban isn’t stupid … it works as intended: It discourages carry in National Parks.

  5. Sigivald Says:

    The rule plainly applies to sporting use rather than defensive use, so I wouldn’t get too noisy about that. It’s far more reasonable to write NPS a nice note asking them to clarify their rule change to make it clear who it applies to, and to ask about what rifle hunters are meant to use.

    (And contra Kristopher, I don’t think NPS needs a warrant to tell a hunter to show that he’s in compliance or cease, any more than a game warden does.

    Until I see something suggesting that carry is actually relevant to this rule I’m going to assume, following Hanlon and Ockham both, that this is merely a case of a rule drafted by someone who didn’t even consider carry weapons*, rather than a Sneaky Underhanded Way To Disarm Us.

    * After all, their being allowed in the Parks is new, and rule changes at NPS take forever since it’s a State bureaucracy. I wouldn’t be surprised it this rule started its life as a proposal before carry was allowed.

    The enviroweenies worried about the lead from bullets aren’t trying to disarm someone with a defensive handgun… because he isn’t likely to be shooting, and as enviroweenies they thus don’t care much**.

    ** Unless of course they’re also a hoplophobe, and that’s very common.)

  6. Jake Says:

    It’s also worth pointing out that some states either restrict or outright ban non-lead bullets. In Virginia they’re “restricted” ammunition – while there are no actual restrictions on buying, possessing, or using them, if you “use or attempt to use restricted firearm ammunition while committing or attempting to commit a crime” it “shall constitute a separate and distinct felony and any person found guilty thereof shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony.” (Va Code §18.2-308.3 (emphasis added)) A class 5 felony is 1-10 years in jail.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if states like Kalifornia banned non-lead bullets because “if they’re not lead, they must be armor piercing.”