Open Carry in Wilderness Areas

Mike W.

Active member
My thoughts on the entire thread. If a animal attacks my family, friends or myself I'm going to kill it..with a gun if possible. I don't care if it's a Bear, Cat, Dog or a Crackhead. If it's in the woods, the Walmart parking lot or my backyard. Once my family, friends are safe I will worry about ramifications. The safety of those I care for or the innocent who by no fault of their own comes first..

I would rather be alive and fighting then 6ft under..
 

09Busaman

Member
In the open wilderness, miles from anyone, I carry on my person. Now in a campground, with lots of other people around I may not, but it may be in the truck. I feel safer when camping in the middle of a camp ground with other people around, but out by ourselves where no one can help, no one can hear, I am condition one and ready at all times. You never know who/what you will run in to and I am simply not willing to take the chance. Dont get me wrong, I dont have an itchy finger, the bear spray comes out first, but if that doesnt work you know the rest.
 

waveslider

Outdoorsman
Such a surprise...

Paul just deleted all of his posts in this thread.

Carry on.
Wait, what? Good grief.

I guess after this whopper....well.

BritKLR said:
I was a public servant for over 30 years. I don't need you to explain who I worked for and served or my relationship with the citizens that put in that office. Remember your basic Civics class and who elects a Sheriff and appoints his Deputies and how a Police Chief is appointed.
I can also tell you that if anyone of the men and/or women that worked for me we're responding to a high risk hostage/citizen rescue, Bank robbery, sexual assualt, murder, child abduction, mass shooting...fill in the blank...said "it's not my responsibility to protect them" then they wouldn't have job anymore, because they failed at the fundamental job description. What you are confusing is tort law to right a perceived wrong not employee responsibilities.
What is also insulting is your broadbrushing of all the brave men and women of law enforcement who have given everything to serve their communities and citizens as some form oppressive entity.
 

deserteagle56

Adventurer
In the open wilderness, miles from anyone, I carry on my person. Now in a campground, with lots of other people around I may not, but it may be in the truck. I feel safer when camping in the middle of a camp ground with other people around, but out by ourselves where no one can help, no one can hear, I am condition one and ready at all times. You never know who/what you will run in to and I am simply not willing to take the chance. Dont get me wrong, I dont have an itchy finger, the bear spray comes out first, but if that doesnt work you know the rest.
And I'm exactly the opposite. I DO NOT feel safer in a campground with other people around. MAN is the most dangerous animal around. Conversely, alone out in the middle of nowhere I feel pretty safe.
 

NevadaLover

Forking Icehole
In the open wilderness, miles from anyone, I carry on my person. Now in a campground, with lots of other people around I may not, but it may be in the truck. I feel safer when camping in the middle of a camp ground with other people around, but out by ourselves where no one can help, no one can hear, I am condition one and ready at all times. You never know who/what you will run in to and I am simply not willing to take the chance. Dont get me wrong, I dont have an itchy finger, the bear spray comes out first, but if that doesnt work you know the rest.
I'm with deserteagle56 on this subject, I never camp in campgrounds or around large groups because I just don't like to be around large groups, most people are decent enough but there are always exceptions to the rule.

There are no animals in Nevada that are truly dangerous enough to make me carry except humans, so when I camp I usually carry or at least keep a gun close!
 

plainjaneFJC

Goofball
So what are you referring to?

CCW or open carry?

'cause at the end of the day a dead dude is a dead dude. So which would you rather be? The dead dude, or the one still standing with the chance to explain things?
And dont forget, ANY regulations for carry, regardless of CCW or open, is an infringement upon our 2A.
Thank God someone gets it!
 

borison

Adventurer
While the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, it makes no mention of the regulation of said arms. The right is protected, regulating the right is up to the people. Your statement is easily debated.
 

zimm

Expedition Leader
While the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, it makes no mention of the regulation of said arms. The right is protected, regulating the right is up to the people. Your statement is easily debated.
It's really not. your willingness to argue a point because you dont like reality, is no different than antivaxers, or climate deniers. that doesnt make it a debate. Sometimes **** just is what is, and you get over it.

Shall not infringe, is rather straight forward. If you wanted to build a case for regulation that stays within the bounds of th constitution and the framers intent, youre limited to the legal tradtions of the times. Common Law.

so while youll find felon restrictions, and such, novel ides floated today, like bullet, magazine, and part restrictions wouldnt be any different than telling a fella in 1776 he could not purchase or own gunpowder or lead, for his then cutting edge military technology musket. clearly, the intent was not to own a fancy club. it is therefore an infringement.

your redress is simple, real simple. garner support for an amendment. participate in, and accept the rules of, the democracy you purport to support. you do that successfully, i will disagree, and be fearful of the eventual outcome, but, i will obey. Im a loyal citizen and we do have the right to vote ourselves to hell. but, it takes an amendment to do so.
 

zimm

Expedition Leader
It also says the well regulated militia and we’re kind of leaving that open to interpretation. People use the parts of the statement that are most convenient to their particular argument.
Theres no interpretation for that either.

in the 1700's 'well regulated" meant equipped.

in the 1700's a militia was every able bodied white male deemed fit. thru the 5th and 14th, that definition was expanded to minorities and women.

today, people have an immage of goofy guys running around the SC mountains as a "militia". because people call themselves that, doesnt mean thats the definition in the constitution.

if you take the time to read the federalist papers, and writings of the times, you'll notice a clear distinction between a standing army and a militia. the militia being drawn up by the states, in defense against an outside threat or federal occupation, such as what happened under king george.

so, what are we left with?

The militia is the people, all people.
the national government cannot infringe individual ownership of military arms because they are for the militia, not a standing army .
the 5th and 14th amendments unequivocally extend the bill of rights to all and includes the states, so the state has no more power than the feds when consitering restrictions that affect the militia.

the issue isnt people using parts of the amendment, its people not knowing what words mean.
 

shade

Well-known member
in the 1700's 'well regulated" meant equipped.
So "well supplied" wasn't a phrase in use at that time? Were Washington and the Continentals in regular need of being "well regulated"?

I believe "well regulated" means that a militia shouldn't be a mob of untrained, disorganized, armed morons, and that "well regulated" applies to those militias, not personal ownership of arms. It's unfortunate that the 2nd Amendment doesn't break out the right of personal defence from the bit about militias. Both were important then and now, but having them connected as they are puts just enough mud in the water for people to come up with all sorts of tortured logic, such as "well regulated" meaning "equipped". It also helps stall any discussion about regulating personally owned arms, which is a shame.
 

NevadaLover

Forking Icehole
So "well supplied" wasn't a phrase in use at that time? Were Washington and the Continentals in regular need of being "well regulated"?

I believe "well regulated" means that a militia shouldn't be a mob of untrained, disorganized, armed morons, and that "well regulated" applies to those militias, not personal ownership of arms. It's unfortunate that the 2nd Amendment doesn't break out the right of personal defence from the bit about militias. Both were important then and now, but having them connected as they are puts just enough mud in the water for people to come up with all sorts of tortured logic, such as "well regulated" meaning "equipped". It also helps stall any discussion about regulating personally owned arms, which is a shame.
Can't speak for the rest of the users here on the forum but untrained, disorganized, armed morons may apply to you and yours but it doesn't apply to me or my core group of friends, we may not be a branch of the military but we definitely aren't "untrained, disorganized" or "morons", basically we are what the founding fathers had in mind when they penned the phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Now you may "believe" whatever you want but the current consensus of the phrase "well regulated militia" means every able bodied citizen of this country should be armed and ready to take up those arms in defense of said country to maintain said "free state" and if that thought scares you then maybe canada would be a better place for you!
 

robert

Expedition Leader
So "well supplied" wasn't a phrase in use at that time? Were Washington and the Continentals in regular need of being "well regulated"?

I believe "well regulated" means that a militia shouldn't be a mob of untrained, disorganized, armed morons, and that "well regulated" applies to those militias, not personal ownership of arms. It's unfortunate that the 2nd Amendment doesn't break out the right of personal defence from the bit about militias. Both were important then and now, but having them connected as they are puts just enough mud in the water for people to come up with all sorts of tortured logic, such as "well regulated" meaning "equipped". It also helps stall any discussion about regulating personally owned arms, which is a shame.

You really need to read more of the founding father's writings, they would help explain what you don't understand. Not trying to be a smartass here, you really will gain a better understanding of where they were coming from, what the terms meant in their times, how the states viewed the Bill of Rights (and how states adopted various forms of them themselves), etc.
 

shade

Well-known member
You really need to read more of the founding father's writings, they would help explain what you don't understand. Not trying to be a smartass here, you really will gain a better understanding of where they were coming from, what the terms meant in their times, how the states viewed the Bill of Rights (and how states adopted various forms of them themselves), etc.
Ok. Please point out the specific writings that refer to "well regulated" meaning "equipped", and I'll give them a look.

If you're referring to Federalist 29, Hamilton does not equate those two phrases as Zimm has, and he also makes a point about the need for some basic organization of the "people at large":

"Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."

I wish such a basic requirement was in place, and that there was such a limited burden placed on the people at large that have chosen to bear arms. If Americans had spent over two hundred years doing so, maybe we wouldn't now find the subject to be such a polarizing topic.

Hamilton goes on to speak to the organization of militias at length, and the absolute need for the people at large to possess arms - they form the militias, after all. The legitimization of militias was at the core of keeping power in the hands of the people so that a despotic federal government would have little hope of turning itself against the citizens. It was a very wise decision made by people that had recently suffered at the hands of a government that saw things differently.

But I'm not seeing "well regulated" meaning "equipped".
 
Last edited:
Top