Carrying a handgun on the AT

[BadIdea]

It's bizarre that over 25% of men in this poll say they carry but none of the people I'v spent time with on my thruhike or shorter hikes carried a gun. Says something about internet people.

[Lone Wolf]

It's bizarre that over 25% of men in this poll say they carry but none of the people I'v spent time with on my thruhike or shorter hikes carried a gun.

how do you know that? did you search these men?

[randyg45]

Folks, I've practiced law, and shot guns (including the 1911) for a long, long, time. "I didn't know it was loaded" and "The safety was on" are two of the saddest words anyone can hear, and I don't care how much "rangemasters" have done stupid things in your presence. I only have to be right once for a tragedy (and one that's avoidable) to happen. You can't afford to be wrong once.

Best advice about firearm safety that I've ever gotten was from a smart guy with even longer experience with guns, my Dad: "Every gun is loaded. Even if you're sure it's not. No gun has its safety on. Even if you're sure it is." A truly unloaded handgun in a backpack is impractical, and a loaded one is dangerous.

TW

I think it is worth noting first that no one- no one- here has suggested or really discussed carrying a handgun in a backpack. Except you.

But lets examine a minimum series of events that has to happen, in sequence, inside a backpack for a 1911 to fire in the condition in which most people would carry it should they chose to throw it into a backpack. That condition, in my opinion, is: fully loaded magazine, chamber empty, hammer down, thumb safety on. There are safer conditions, and less safe conditions, but I'm a slow typist and the tempus is a fugiting; so we'll only consider this one for now.

1. The thumb safety must be moved to the "off" position.

2. The slide has to be moved fully to the rear, a task some people are unable to do with both hands. This has to happen inside a pack filled with all kinds of stuff, none of which can be allowed to fall into the open, exposed chamber, thus blocking it. The weight of the gun alone is insufficient to do this, btw, regardless of how tightly the slide may be gripped by your... whatever... tent?; the slide must be pushed or pulled to the rear, and it takes significant force to do so.

3. The slide then has to come all the way forward and chamber a round while doing so. The most efficient way to do this is for the slide to come forward as rapidly as possible; a slowly moving slide virtually ensures a jammed firearm. This has to happen, as noted above, without anything dropping into the opened chamber.

4. The grip safety has to be depressed.

5. Simultaneously with #4, something must work its way into the trigger gaurd and pull the trigger.

6. Simultaneously with #3, #4, and #5, nothing in this crowded pack interior can be allowed to drop, slide, or bounce into the area between the hammer and the firing pin.

It's just not going to happen. #s 2 and 3 are essentially impossible under the conditions described. People are at far greater risk, in my opinion, not just from the drive to the trailhead, but also from rattlesnakes, falling limbs, falling off of cliffs, lighting, brown recluse spiders, drowing, alcohol poisoning, heart attack, and death by chigger attack. Among others.

Not only is it not going to happen, no one wants to carry a gun there anyway. Get a CCW, put the thing in your pocket, if appropriate for your model, or in a holster.

[randyg45]

It's bizarre that over 25% of men in this poll say they carry but none of the people I'v spent time with on my thruhike or shorter hikes carried a gun. Says something about internet people.

You searched them? Can you state for a fact you never met, I don't know, me? Most people who carry do so (very) discreetly.

[ShelterLeopard]

But Randy, even you have to admit that accidents can happen and idiots do exist. I know, they've happened around my home. And it is true that it isn't usual and that a responsible gun owner isn't very likely to have an accident like that, but it has happened. And also stupid people fool around or get drunk then use guns. We all know that you know what you're doing, but the FACT is that there are people in this world who do not know how to handle a firearm, and have killed people or been killed because of it.

Like Weasel said, it only has to happen once for it to be a tragedy, so even if the statistic of gun accidents are "much lower" than other causes of death, there are still accidental gun related deaths.

[The Weasel]

Randy:

I don't think you've followed the whole discussion. First, the question is whether a gun is practical for a thru hike for protection. If someone is carryig a handgun, they will either have it holstered or in a pack. Putting it in a pocket, given hipbelts, isn't going to work. Not for 2,000 miles. Holsters are difficult to arrange with hipbelts. Impossible? Of course not. But that's a challenge.

The other choice is carrying it in a pack. So while I'm the only one to raise that here, in other threads others HAVE. It's also impractical. Yes, if you're carrying a gun in your pack, I agree that it is risky to have the gun cocked, as I've mentioned. On the other hand, if it isn't, that's one more delay when someone needs to use it (1, open the pack; 2, fish out the gun; 3, find the gun; 4, chamber a round; 5, release safety; 6, hope your attacker has paused while you perform 1-5). So yeah, if it's not chambered, it's a lot harder for an accident to happen, if it's in your pack. (It also means never leaving your pack out of your hands; not just "nearby" but where someone can reach into it, but that's another problem.)

If that's something you think is practical for 2200 miles of hiking, including arranging for it to be "shuttled" around National Parks and other locations that still prohibit handguns (you think shuttling a dog is hard? can't wait to see "gun shuttles"!) then go for it. But one of the things that I think is remarkable here is that for all the blather about "I gotta carry heat on the trail to protect myself from all them nasties," I have not seen a single post from anyone who has completed a thru while packing a handgun, much less found it of benefit.

TW

[mweinstone]

if i carry my gun on the at in pa legaly with my carry permit only where allowed, and if while doing so i happen to stop a mass murderer who pops into camp killing folks, then im still a jerk for bringing a gun. and if that mass murderer has a bomb on him that dosnt go off cause i stop him, and if that bomb was going to take out the eastern seaboard, then im still a jerk for bringing a gun to the trail.
the reason is, because as long as their are anyu places where humans with guns volentarily dont carry them, then those places are regaurded as sacred or special in some way. and it is only when nothing anymore is sacred or special, that guns become the least of our problem. for now, mankind has hope . proff of this hope is his willingness not to carry when he could.

[bronconite]

Randy:

I don't think you've followed the whole discussion. First, the question is whether a gun is practical for a thru hike for protection.

TW

Actually, the original poster said nothing about "thru" hiking.

I do agree on the point that thru hiking the AT, with a handgun, legally, would be very difficult.

[LimpsAlong]

Randy:

I don't think you've followed the whole discussion. First, the question is whether a gun is practical for a thru hike for protection.
TW

Actually the poll question is, Do you carry a handgun on the AT?
Not thru hike.

[bronconite]

Daydream -- the topic comes up quite often on the forum and there are most have a pretty firm opinion one way or the other. I am of the belief that it is very valid and even responsible consideration to arm one's self. It's certainly not a question of being fearful but a realization of the fact that you and only you are responsible for your own protection and self-defense. NO other soul has the responsibility or obligation to protect you.

I do not believe that those who do choose to arm themselves are not skittish people that live in fear of aspects of society. Those that I know are responsible people who see having a piece as merely a tool to protect themselves should it ever arise to that point.

Weasle -- I read your article and realize that from a legal standpoint, as well as the reality that there are 50 different state laws to contend with, but I was wishing there was more to section #5 on weapons. You may want to note for example that Federal law will change in February 2010 to bring National Park Service regulations on weapons in line with state laws making concealed weapons legal in NPS sites located states where concealed carry is legal.

Tuckahoe, I fully agree with this, but would like to add to the very last part about the new Federal law that goes into effect in February. If your state does not prohibit open carry, then it will not prohibited on NPS land, making legal carry without a permit an option. This is the case in PA and I believe in VA as well.

[LimpsAlong]

Randy:

I don't think you've followed the whole discussion. First, the question is whether a gun is practical for a thru hike for protection. If someone is carryig a handgun, they will either have it holstered or in a pack. Putting it in a pocket, given hipbelts, isn't going to work. Not for 2,000 miles. Holsters are difficult to arrange with hipbelts. Impossible? Of course not. But that's a challenge.

The other choice is carrying it in a pack. So while I'm the only one to raise that here, in other threads others HAVE. It's also impractical. Yes, if you're carrying a gun in your pack, I agree that it is risky to have the gun cocked, as I've mentioned. On the other hand, if it isn't, that's one more delay when someone needs to use it (1, open the pack; 2, fish out the gun; 3, find the gun; 4, chamber a round; 5, release safety; 6, hope your attacker has paused while you perform 1-5). So yeah, if it's not chambered, it's a lot harder for an accident to happen, if it's in your pack. (It also means never leaving your pack out of your hands; not just "nearby" but where someone can reach into it, but that's another problem.)

If that's something you think is practical for 2200 miles of hiking, including arranging for it to be "shuttled" around National Parks and other locations that still prohibit handguns (you think shuttling a dog is hard? can't wait to see "gun shuttles"!) then go for it. But one of the things that I think is remarkable here is that for all the blather about "I gotta carry heat on the trail to protect myself from all them nasties," I have not seen a single post from anyone who has completed a thru while packing a handgun, much less found it of benefit.

TW

I call BS on couple of statements. First-Holsters are difficult to arrange with hipbelts. Impossible? Of course not. But that's a challenge.
El Wrongo- Got a Granite Gear, Large, hip belt pouch. Works great, weapon out in a couple of seconds (string extension on zipper)

Second, I have not seen a single post from anyone who has completed a thru while packing a handgun, much less found it of benefit.
I think you told Randy he has not been following the discussion, well maybe you ain't been following the poll question. Where are the words "Thru Hike" in the poll question?

Your position on the poll question is clear and I can mentally see you folding your arms and stomping your foot while blathering (your word) about the uselessness of handguns on the trail.

BTW, Josh at Hiker Hostel did a "gun shuttle" for me and didn't even know it. Ask him if he minds.

[Red Beard]

Who says holsters have to be worn on the hip? I have a couple of pocket holsters that work very well with my Ruger LCP & Kel Tec P3AT. These weapons are so light and small you'd have very little trouble concealing them with some lightweight nylon cargo shorts.

This being the case, it would be extremely difficult to keep the weapon dry and ready at all times. I love my guns, but I don't carry on the trail.

[napster]

So how many expired people on the AT have been accidently capped in the ass before? None i suspect! How many capped on purpose and still living? .You really believe that turning tail and running will save your ass? I believe in gut instinct and God given clubs, no matter what caliber.

[toenail]

Other than our single experience of seeing a handgun on the trail (POST # 35),we have NEVER seen any other handguns. Anyone else have any experiences?

[mweinstone]

if i brought my gun on a pa hike with my concealed carry permit, i would loose friends, dignity and my peace of mind. carrying a weapon demands protocal above and well beyond fun. leaveing a weapon unnatended is illegal outside your home. and letting anyone even catch a single quick glimpse of a weapon while changeing, is brandashing witch is a felony ofence. guns are only for those of us who know when not to carry them. if you even want your gun on my trail, i wont be hikeing or pitching anywhere near you. gun boasting and love of guns is for jerks. respect and skill are required combined with an absolute understanding of each gun law. how many of you can name without remiss, each place in your city you may not carry your leagaly permitted carry weapon. in philly it is a large and mostly unstudyed list. and far from town, even at small doctors offices along the trail, their can be signs dissallowing them in offices where doctors and patients meet. the thread should be,...whos affriad of the big bad woof and the boogie man. not matthewski.and im armed to the molars.at home.

[Jack Tarlin]

If I lived where you do, I'd do the same!

[mweinstone]

if someone did carry on the trail on a longer hike, they eventually would run into the situation where they must go into a gun restricted space while hikeing and might then easily rationalize stashing it in the woods. but then kids playing unawasres to you might find and misuse it.palmerton jail is one place i know you would not be allowed. fontana dam. and what about hostels? dont they get the respect of being asked? or do you shower with it? all in all , we got cops and soldiers to carry guns for us at times like when were hikeing. they do fine.i think a thread poll should be, would you hike with someone knowing they had a gun? answer, never. sept mountain dew and other cop hikers.

[bfitz]

But Randy, even you have to admit that accidents can happen and idiots do exist. I know, they've happened around my home. And it is true that it isn't usual and that a responsible gun owner isn't very likely to have an accident like that, but it has happened. And also stupid people fool around or get drunk then use guns. We all know that you know what you're doing, but the FACT is that there are people in this world who do not know how to handle a firearm, and have killed people or been killed because of it.

Like Weasel said, it only has to happen once for it to be a tragedy, so even if the statistic of gun accidents are "much lower" than other causes of death, there are still accidental gun related deaths.

Accidents happen all the time whether you have a gun or not. What is fair and what ought to be legal doesn't always represent the safest option. I'm sure we'd all be a lot safer if the bill of rights was mostly repealed.

[bronconite]

leaveing a weapon unnatended is illegal outside your home.

Can you provide a link to that law

and letting anyone even catch a single quick glimpse of a weapon while changeing, is brandashing witch is a felony ofence.

This is absolutly false. Pennsylvania is an open carry state. Being able to "see" someones firearm does not constitute brandishing. And furthermore Pennsylvania doesn't even have a "brandishing" law.

[Montana AT05]

Wow. So much hand-wringing and panty-bunching over the 2nd Amendment.

Is this the result of 24/7 American Idol worship? Or generations of soft Liberal Arts?

You can have your Adam Lambert and male eyeliner; I'll take my Johnny Cash and my .45.

Bottom line: It's not just "legal" to own and carry, it's a Constitutional right for a reason--no level Govt bestowed this as legal, we the People asserted it as a right prior creating our system of Govt.

Do you need a gun on trail? Who knows? It's your decision. Do I deride the man who decides no? No, I don't. I myself don't carry. So why must some people call people call those who decide to carry a gun "jerks" or "braggarts"? Is the non-carrier's manhood at stake? Judging by some of reasoning above, I advise such people to not worry, your loss will not be great.

If you want to carry on a trail, go ahead, if you want to wear it on your hip like many hikers out west do, go ahead, if you choose to conceal it, go ahead. If you chose not to own and/or carry, go ahead.

But good Lord almighty this metrosexualization of American men is a sad thing to behold.

Do you know who else started to think that weapons were bad after a few generations of luxury and security? Who thought only paid mercenaries or conscripts should have them? Yes...that would be a people who had gone from rugged individuals to a collective of perverse imitations of men more prone to back aches acquired in bath houses than on the field. That would be increasingly effiminate Romans of the 3rd and 4th century.

Ya. That worked out well for them.

<...time warp...>

Perfumed Roman Man: "Oh hi thar Visigoth! Wanna go for a splash? No? Huh? Wassdat you have in your hand? Eeeeeeiiiieeee!!"

And now, a note from our sponsor:

"The heavy weapons of their ancestors, the short sword and formidable pilum, which had subdued the world, insensibly dropped from their feeble hands...[]...and their pusillanimous indolence may be considered as the immediate cause of the downfall of an empire."
--Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, The Modern Library. p.520,521

"This diminutive stature of mankind, if we pursue the metaphor, was daily sinking below the old standard, and the Roman world was indeed populated by a race of pygmies; when the giants of the North broke in, and mended the puny breed."
--Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, The Modern Library. p.37