|
Post by boxhead on Jul 24, 2010 19:52:23 GMT -5
While I really had few problems with the Canadian gun laws for the 5 years I lived there the one that really did "tweak" me was the fact that I could not carry in the woods. We would go on hikes all of the time where folks had been chased, munched, etc., by grizzly's. We'd wear our bells, make noise and carry spray but darned if my 500 L wouldn't have made me feel a might bit better.
|
|
|
Post by bigbore442001 on Jul 25, 2010 6:55:19 GMT -5
I guess the Canadian authorities figure you are a sacrifice. I seem to recall a story about a special unit from Denmark that patrols the island of Greenland. These soldiers carry a bolt action rifle and a Glock in 10mm.
|
|
|
Post by nonpcnrarn on Jul 26, 2010 1:02:46 GMT -5
In Canada they have nationalized health insurance. If you die from a bear attack you cost less to the government. If you are wounded but survive because you were able to shoot the bear you will cost the government more money. Hence they would rather have you dead.
|
|
|
Post by nonpcnrarn on Jul 26, 2010 1:27:46 GMT -5
I can see where a 5" sized 1911 would be considered adequate for "most" needs that a PPP would be called upon to handle. I would set the gun up for Buffalo Bore's 255 gr 45 Super to retain the same sized gun. If a bigger auto is OK with you the 460 Roland is a better choice. However the weight, recoil and blast will be significantly more. This is where a 44 mag or 45 Colt revolver shooting heavy WFN bullets would excell. In the case of a grizzly charge a box of baby wipes and a change of underwear would be handy.
|
|
|
Post by steveb on Jul 29, 2010 8:32:49 GMT -5
Dave needs to go hang out in Yellowstone. Got some hungry bears there. Another death and some wounded there on news this am.. steve b
|
|
|
Post by Gary @ R&G on Jul 29, 2010 9:31:44 GMT -5
I think the average hiker would be better suited with a Glock 9 or 45 acp than the biggies. Again the average person is going to be able to get a Glock-1911-sig or other similar CCW weapon into service quicker and more efficiently during the stress of a bear attack than a 500 SW. Whats the old army addage, a BB that hits is more effective than a howitzer that doesnt. The last few times I have hunted bear country I carried a 3.5" Vaquero in 45 Colt. My partner armed his wife with a model 65 357 mag as she shoots it well.
|
|
|
Post by eagle55 on Jul 29, 2010 9:43:28 GMT -5
It looks like after the park service investigation of this bear killing that no charges are going to be pressed for the hikers who "illegally" discharged a firearm in a national park. Now hopefully there will be some sort of sanity over the issue of defending ones self from a bear attacks on federal park lands. The law needs to be further changed allowing for the legality of firing a gun when it is in defense of life in a national park.
|
|
|
Post by steveb on Jul 29, 2010 10:35:41 GMT -5
You do have to be alive to be fined or taken to court..... steve b
|
|
|
Post by paul105 on Jul 29, 2010 19:12:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by paul105 on Jul 29, 2010 19:21:33 GMT -5
It looks like after the park service investigation of this bear killing that no charges are going to be pressed for the hikers who "illegally" discharged a firearm in a national park. Now hopefully there will be some sort of sanity over the issue of defending ones self from a bear attacks on federal park lands. The law needs to be further changed allowing for the legality of firing a gun when it is in defense of life in a national park. I don't know exactly what the "national parks" law says, but in Montana, for example, it is illegal to discharge a firearm within city limits (and certain other designated areas), except in defense of your life. My understanding was that the "parks" law supposedly followed the laws of the state(s) adjacent to the park in question. FWIW, Paul
|
|
|
Post by eagle55 on Jul 29, 2010 19:57:13 GMT -5
It looks like after the park service investigation of this bear killing that no charges are going to be pressed for the hikers who "illegally" discharged a firearm in a national park. Now hopefully there will be some sort of sanity over the issue of defending ones self from a bear attacks on federal park lands. The law needs to be further changed allowing for the legality of firing a gun when it is in defense of life in a national park. I don't know exactly what the "national parks" law says, but in Montana, for example, it is illegal to discharge a firearm within city limits (and certain other designated areas), except in defense of your life. My understanding was that the "parks" law supposedly followed the laws of the state(s) adjacent to the park in question. FWIW, Paul My understanding is that until Feb of this year it was illegal to carry firearms in a NP. Now it is legal to carry, but still cannot fire them. I may be wrong about this but that is my understanding as it stands now.
|
|