Denali park bear shooting

[jim in Anchorage]

http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=12572124
You can carry it but you can't use it? What?

So what this person was doing something legally in terms of carrying the weapon," said the park's public information officer, Kris Fister. "What is still not legal -- and this has been a federal regulation for a long time -- is the use of the weapon, and so we are looking, again, at whether that shooting was justified."

 

[wishin]

Everybody knows that people CCW only because they can; besides, it's harder for someone to steal the gun while it's on your person. Self defense is just some silly notion....

 

[CZ223]

I think it was just poorly worded.

They probably just have to investigate before they wirte it off as self defense. On another note, it sounds like the guy was carrying a a 45 ACP. Since he fired 9 shots and the bear was stilll moving, I think it is safe to say that he was probably empty. Sounds likely he was carrying a 1911. Not exactly my idea of Grizzly medicine, but it beats a sharp stick in the eye.

 

[Sam1911]

You can carry it but you can't use it? What?

No real mystery here.

"Using" a weapon, trap, or net -- outside of specifically defined permitted hunting seasons and in accordance with prevailing hunting regulations is prohibited in National Parks.

The new federal change to allow the carrying of weapons in National Parks (in accordance with state law in the state where the park is located) does NOT allow you to FIRE your gun in the park. This is similar to how a state license to carry a concealed weapon does not give you permission to shoot that gun within city limits, etc.

The new change is specifically geared toward self-defense carry of weapons. You still can't go plinking in a National Park, set up an informal target range, shoot varmints, or other things that may be legal even in National Forests.

Further, many of these bears are a protected species under the Endangered Species Act. Shooting one is a BIG no-no.

Now, just as the laws against manslaughter and firing a weapon within city limits may be allowed to be broken with enough justification (if your shooting is ruled justified self-defense) -- shooting a bear in a National Park may be ruled permissable if the hiker was actually about to be attacked. They'll investigate, though, to satisfy themselves that this wasn't a case of someone shooting a bear just because it was nearby.

 

[NMGonzo]

Grizzly shot with a 9 rounds of .45 acp and died a bit later.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2011999954_grizzly01.html

"ANCHORAGE — A backpacker shot and killed a grizzly bear with his handgun in Alaska's Denali National Park, officials said.

A man and woman reported that they were hiking Friday evening when the bear emerged from trail-side brush and charged the woman, park spokeswoman Kris Fister said in a statement.

The man fired nine rounds from his .45-caliber semiautomatic pistol at the animal, which then stopped and walked into the brush. On Saturday, rangers found the dead bear about 100 feet from the shooting site.

Rangers said it was the first known instance of a grizzly being shot by a visitor in the park's wilderness"

I would love to know what load was he carrying.

 

[CoRoMo]

Charged eh? Maybe. I expect a lot of "charging" bears will be dying now that the ban in NPs has been lifted. I would not choose a .45acp as bear protection, but YMMV.

 

[Sam1911]

Merged.

 

[BCCL]

Notice it says he "fired 9 rounds", but have they said how many times he actually hit it?