Diane Feinstein argues that allowing armed permit holders in the parks would encourage poaching.  She has already convicted and pre-judged permit holders by those remarks.  She puts forth an assumption that permit holders are not law-abiding and are prone to poaching in national parks.  Her remarks sound like the dire predictions of Dodge City-style shootouts over parking spaces when Florida liberalized its concealed carry laws.  The shootouts never happened and the antis had to eat crow.  The same will be true when armed permit holders are allowed the parks.  If fact, Mrs. Feinstein has or had at one time a concealed firearm permit, all the while opposing concealed carry for ordinary citizens.  She supposedly surrendered her firearms and had them melted down for some peace memorial. 

National parks are not crime-free paradises either.  Pot growers and drug dealers have been known to shoot at or kill hikers who just happen upon the growers' "terrain".  And let's not forget the two nurses murdered by the psycho in Yosemite National Park a few years ago.

Additionally, I know from experience that in remote mountain areas cell phone reception is low or non-existent.   You're essentially on your own in those areas.  If you're attacked are you gonna call the park ranger for help?  How? 

Now, with what I have to say now, you'll probably say I'm advocating poaching.  However, in isolated areas two-legged attackers aren't the only threat.  Large bears are a danger.  It seems ludicrous to prohibit backpackers from carrying some form of protection (something more potent than pepper spray) in the back country.  Anyone familiar with history knows about how mountain men, Jedediah Smith and Hugh Glass were attacked and nearly killed by grizzley bears.  Impossible in our day and age, you may say?  Wrong!

I work with someone who lived in Alaska for several years.  When he went fishing in the mountains, he always carried a .44 magnum handgun.  Most anyone with any sense also did.  Reports of persons defending themselves in such situation were not unheard of. 

As in the cities, criminals who carry illegally will always have the advantage where law-abiding citizens are prohibited from carrying firearms.  Gun control and gun bans could best be termed, "victim disarmament".   Bad guys never respect the law why the law-abiding citizens dutifully go unarmed---often with tragic results.    

Of course the anti-gun argument will always thrive on half-truths, exagerationis and emotion-ridden scare tactics, because that's all the anti-gun folks have to back themselves up. 

Thomas