As some of you may know, I have spent the summer working for a company that manages certain campgrounds in the Mt. Hood National Forest. Several times, we have been treated to the sound of gunfire close to the campgrounds late at night (drinking time). Several families with children have packed up and left. The company sought out the Forest Service policy on firearms and campgrounds. The rules are surprisingly lenient.

Of course, anybody can have and carry a firearm anywhere at any time,In fact, a number of horse people carry them for bears and cougars and in case their horse breaks a leg on a trail ride. As to where and when they can open fire is an open question. Forest Service policy says only that a firearm can only be fired into some kind of a backstop, like a dirt bank. No rules about proximity to a populated campground.

I'm just wondering it anyone has opinions about this.

Your assuming that those shooting the guns were drinking.
The shooting didn't happen on he campgrounds so maybe the proper authorities should be notified to ievestigate whether someone is breaking the law.

If no rules or laws were broken then I don't see a problem.

The current laws should cover it. Carrying and being armed are different from actually FIRING A WEAPON. There is nothing in the constitution that really addresses tht as a 'right' specifically.


It would merely come down to endangering others. For instance, I have the right to drive a car if I have a drivers license, but that doesnt mean I have the right to drive it ANYWHERE I wish.

With a gun, because of how far bullets can travel, I think that exception would go even further depending upon the potential harm it could cause.

no opinion but i'd ask what this has to do with the second amendment? the amendment does not restrict government from enacting laws restricting the use of firearms. until a year or so ago several national parks, mt. lassen in california for one, yellowstone another, banned firearms. now a new federal law allows firearms so long as they are registered with state and local authorities. none of this happened because of a challenge based on the second amendment to my knowledge.

Well I would technically argue that "the right to bear arms" and "the right to own a gun" are not the same thing when you look at the language of the time.

I found a supreme court case once that was a few years after the constitution was written and the judge ruled that "a man who cared a gun everyday to hunt for food would NOT have been said to bear arms"