• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Carrying a firearm on the AT ?

Joined
Dec 28, 2007
Messages
33
Likes
1
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
Is carrying a firearm on the Appalachian trail prohibited ? I've heard that if you are caught your gun will be confiscated and you will be in big trouble . Does it depend on which state you are in ? Who would you call to find out .
I haven't hiked the AT yet but plan to in the near future . I'd hate to go unarmed but if it is prohibited I will not take the chance and carry anyway .
 
Is carrying a firearm on the Appalachian trail prohibited ? I've heard that if you are caught your gun will be confiscated and you will be in big trouble.

Unless any of it is like a national park, state law would be the
overriding factor. You'd have to check for each particular
state it passes through. If your licensed in those states, then
it shouldn't be a problem.

-Mike
 
You can and should carry a weapon on the AT. Your only restrictions are the fact that the trail itself passes through many states and National Parks. You must be able to legally carry in those states that you would be visiting and NPs do NOT allow CCW.

Concealment is a good idea b/c the AT is swarming with hippies and liberals.
 
I always carry when hiking. I don't hike very much, but on day hikes with my wife and kids, I will be CCWing, period. WAY too many opportunities for wackos to confront/harass/assault people on hiking trails even if only a few miles from "civilization". No way I take a chance with my family.

As far as the AT---beh. You can have it. Through hiking has no appeal to me. I prefer the comforts of running water, warm food, and solid shelter. Besides, I have a job and can not go off for several months at a time to hike.
 
I hunt in Pennsylvania on a portion of the trail which is located in State Game Lands from time to time. I often walk the trail to get in and out of the area I'm hunting. No restrictions that I'm aware of.
 


Sounds like some greasy hippies wrote that page, or something...

ATC strongly discourages hikers from carrying firearms. In areas of the Trail corridor where hunting is legal, hikers may see hunters carrying firearms. On National Park Service lands outside national recreation areas, possession of firearms by private citizens is illegal. The prohibition applies on many other public lands as well. Where firearms are allowed, state laws on licenses, registration, and related matters govern.
 
Would'nt the AT be a " national recreation area " whear it says firearms are permitted ?
" The ATC strongly discourages hikers from carrying firearms " . It says discourages [ yes probably written by very left wing , anti gun liberals ] doesn't say prohibits .
 
Would'nt the AT be a " national recreation area " whear it says firearms are permitted ?
" The ATC strongly discourages hikers from carrying firearms " . It says discourages [ yes probably written by very left wing , anti gun liberals ] doesn't say prohibits .

No, the entire AT is not a national recreation area. As stated before, firearms are only prohibited on NPS lands, Smokey Mnts NP Shenandoah NP, Harpers Ferry NHP, and the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal NHP. It is enough area though to be quite problematic if you want to thru hike with a firearm. I would suggest just carrying bear repellant. Be careful with bear repellant though because it falls under the same CFR as firearms. The CFR which prohibits weapons in parks outside of Alaska, is quite broad in what is considered a weapon. You could face the same legal problems as if you were carrying a firearm. I think that most law enforcement rangers would cut you some slack on this though.
 
Searchers in Georgia are looking for a lost hiker that is presumed dead and foul play is suspect. She wasn't on the AT, but can someone please explain to me why anyone would not take a firearm into the woods?
 
Or why anyone - especially a young woman - would go hiking alone? There are lots of things that can happen on the trail, and crime is not even that high on the list.
 
The only one time I have desperately wished I had a weapon on me was on day one of an overnight hike on one of Kansas' longest trails.

A couple of hours in my wife and I were accosted by a group of about four or five loose dogs. They were very aggressive and only backed down when I confronted the boldest one with a rather heavy branch that I luckily found near me on the ground.

I shudder to think what might have happened had we had our daughter then, as she is absolutely terrified by dogs.

At the time Kansas had no legal CCW and the hike was on Army Corps of Engineers land, where firearm possession for anything other than hunting is illegal. But after that experience, I have decided that defending my family against human and animal attack is more important than man-made considerations and restrictions.
 
Or why anyone - especially a young woman - would go hiking alone? There are lots of things that can happen on the trail, and crime is not even that high on the list.

Agreed. Solo outdoorsmen are one ankle sprain away from being screwed.
 
"Forty-seven lawmakers have signed a letter asking Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne to lift restrictions barring readily accessible firearms on National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service land...Thirty-nine Republicans and eight Democrats signed the letter, including both senators from 17 states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Wyoming."

Hmmm... Massachusettes is not on that list yet.

A 2002 census showed 10.6% of the US land mass as National and State parks and related recreational areas, national and State wildlife refuges and national wilderness and primitive areas. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EIB14/eib14.pdf

By states, the signatories account for 34% of states. By population, the signatory states account for 25% of the US population - so I can see the government holding back based on the just the numbers alone. But you have to start somewhere, and starting with the Fed gets all 50.

"The rules are intended to ensure public and wildlife safety he said, noting that previously, “people would go out and shoot wildlife in national parks.” He added many parks have large campsites. “If you have people start plinking around with weapons, then you have accidents.”

So just revise the law to prohibit shooting (other than self-defense or hunting, as permitted) and permit guns to be had by those with CCW and Open Carry as allowed by the state. I carry every day but don't plink at the wildlife in the streets of Boston. In fact, it's the "lowlife" that does all the plinking.
 
It drives me nuts as to why this is such a pain in the ass to
pass. This isn't about "plinking" in national parks, or any crap
like that.... it's just about providing a right which should never have
been restricted to begin with. It's really a farce, considering that
some of these parks probably abut lands owned by the state or
BLM or whoever, where those rules don't apply. Why is one forest
that's open to the public, "special" because it has a funny sign on
the road?

Not to mention, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the law/reg was very
frequently ignored. Many people probably cross over into NPS territory
thinking they are OK because they're licensed from the state they're in, or
whatever.

-Mike
 
Back
Top Bottom