Carrying firearm in umpqua national forest

ras · Dec 28, 2017

is it okay to carry firearm in umpqua national forest and having one in the tent while sleeping. If not is it okay to keep it locked up in vehicle. Any advice is greatly appreciated?

Hop Sing · Dec 28, 2017

ras said:
is it okay to carry firearm in umpqua national forest and having one in the tent while sleeping. If not is it okay to keep it locked up in vehicle. Any advice is greatly appreciated?

According to this you will be fine with a firearm as long as you are not shooting it on hiking trails.

Umpqua National Forest - Search

DirectDrive · Dec 28, 2017

ras said:
is it okay to carry firearm in umpqua national forest and having one in the tent while sleeping. If not is it okay to keep it locked up in vehicle. Any advice is greatly appreciated?

National forests are where we hunt and target shoot.
If this is a handgun, then you can't carry concealed unless you have a permit of course.

308 · Dec 28, 2017

Better tried by 12 than carried by 6

thorborg · Dec 28, 2017

It is a sign of the times that question even had to be asked!

Try as you will, it is not going to get better.

308 · Dec 28, 2017

thorborg said:
It is a sign of the times that question even had to be asked!
Try as you will, it is not going to get better.

Amen to that!!

wired · Dec 28, 2017

thorborg said:
It is a sign of the times that question even had to be asked!
Try as you will, it is not going to get better.

It actually has gotten better. There were about 50 years there where you couldnt legally carry in National Forests or Parks. It wasnt until 2009 that that changed.
Most of what Ive seen in the last 50 years is expansion of gun rights with a few notable setbacks.

orygun · Dec 28, 2017

wired said:
It actually has gotten better. There were about 50 years there where you couldnt legally carry in National Forests or Parks. It wasnt until 2009 that that changed.

Half correct. It was the National Park Service that put the smack down on firearms. National forest lands (US Forest Service/BLM) no problemo carrying, just some areas where target shooting was prohibited. It's still that way. As mentioned before, Concealed carry still requires a carry permit. The only time I carried concealed in the National Forest was handgun hunting when my long barreled Ruger and holster fit better under my coat than over. Made for interesting conversations when other hunters asked what I was hunting with.

thorborg · Dec 28, 2017

wired said:
It actually has gotten better. There were about 50 years there where you couldnt legally carry in National Forests or Parks. It wasnt until 2009 that that changed.
Most of what Ive seen in the last 50 years is expansion of gun rights with a few notable setbacks.

You and I definitely have a different set of eyes.

wired · Dec 28, 2017

thorborg said:
You and I definitely have a different set of eyes.

The low point was '68. That GCA has been unwound quite a bit since then especially with the 86 FOPA although it banned new machine guns. Massive expansion of concealed carry throughout the country, NFA expansion in Washington especially in big ways. Silencers and SBR's went mainstream with the Trust route giving NFA to millions. The almost universal acceptance of "Modern Sporting Rifles" with relatively little pushback despite some real threats. . The US Supreme court ruled the 2nd amendment does apply to individuals and us much as we all knew that it hadnt been settled in law. Lots of minor victories at the state and Federal level.

thorborg · Dec 29, 2017

wired said:
The low point was '68. That GCA has been unwound quite a bit since then especially with the 86 FOPA although it banned new machine guns. Massive expansion of concealed carry throughout the country, NFA expansion in Washington especially in big ways. Silencers and SBR's went mainstream with the Trust route giving NFA to millions. The almost universal acceptance of "Modern Sporting Rifles" with relatively little pushback despite some real threats. . The US Supreme court ruled the 2nd amendment does apply to individuals and us much as we all knew that it hadnt been settled in law. Lots of minor victories at the state and Federal level.

Almost none of your comments on my comments, have anything to do with the original OP's post. that which does, is incorrect as pointed out by @orygun referring to the big difference between National "Forest' and "Parks"
I responded to the Op's query within the national forest, Of which we have many where I , My father, My grandfather have been free to carry, cruse and shoot pretty much as we may, as far back as 1914 (In Oregon and Washington.) During much of this time within the forest, a gun covered by your coat meant it was cold out and not that you were illegally carrying and subject to fine , confiscation or arrest.
In addressing some of the other beneficial regulations unappreciated by me, Now, 90% of the roads we traveled up to about 20 years ago are closed, essentially shutting out access for the old and less than fit among us. Camping in many areas are limited to improved camp grounds only along with severe limitations on firearms some areas with parking fees also required. A boy may no longer ride his bike (as I did) 10 miles from Beaverton to Hillsboro with a 22 over his back to shoot and compete in the high school basement. I did not have to pay over three hundred dollars to fulfill all the legal tags available to me and then find my big game hunting grounds filled with cows and endure their round up spooking all game including the birds. (the cattle withdraw dates are set by Oregon state to coincide with Opening deer season according to the local ranchers of Wallowa)
Most of the benefits you claim we are being blessed with I see as one step ahead and two steps behind.
Each and every one has come with reams of regulations, paperwork and fees. Quickly ensuring our continued access to firearms will be only for the affluent. I cannot even recoup purchased value to many firearms I own Due to transfer regulations and fees. Just the regulations alone have stifled many acquaintances to avoid firearms because of the complexities. example; the simple question the OP asked. and my retort: (It is a sign of the times that question even had to be asked!)
As an un Umpqua forest related aside,
I'm sincerely glad you find solace in the preponderance of overwhelming and complex gun related regulations and are able to consider them beneficial or entitling. I do not.
I have followed much of the related so called advances not just locally but nationally all my life. As an aggregate, most are not only divisive in their purpose, but then ultimately made impudent through other regulations.
This benefit, and progress, I consider superfluous .
Considering all the supposed political gun related advancement over the last half century, in my mind which to form a truer amalgamation of citizens rights verses government interference is to simply juxtapose my life experiences from the past, with what is available to me today, and I find it now severely regulated, limited, legally complex, stifling, invasive, and wantonly expensive.
Evidently removing laws are un-patriotic, Lets make some more Federal, State, County, City laws, that will clear things up and fix everything!

wired · Dec 29, 2017

thorborg said:
Almost none of your comments on my comments, have anything to do with the original OP's post. that which does, is incorrect as pointed out by @orygun referring to the big difference between National "Forest' and "Parks"
I responded to the Op's query within the national forest, Of which we have many where I , My father, My grandfather have been free to carry, cruse and shoot pretty much as we may, as far back as 1914 (In Oregon and Washington.) During much of this time within the forest, a gun covered by your coat meant it was cold out and not that you were illegally carrying and subject to fine , confiscation or arrest.
In addressing some of the other beneficial regulations unappreciated by me, Now, 90% of the roads we traveled up to about 20 years ago are closed, essentially shutting out access for the old and less than fit among us. Camping in many areas are limited to improved camp grounds only along with severe limitations on firearms some areas with parking fees also required. A boy may no longer ride his bike (as I did) 10 miles from Beaverton to Hillsboro with a 22 over his back to shoot and compete in the high school basement. I did not have to pay over three hundred dollars to fulfill all the legal tags available to me and then find my big game hunting grounds filled with cows and endure their round up spooking all game including the birds. (the cattle withdraw dates are set by Oregon state to coincide with Opening deer season according to the local ranchers of Wallowa)
Most of the benefits you claim we are being blessed with I see as one step ahead and two steps behind.
Each and every one has come with reams of regulations, paperwork and fees. Quickly ensuring our continued access to firearms will be only for the affluent. I cannot even recoup purchased value to many firearms I own Due to transfer regulations and fees. Just the regulations alone have stifled many acquaintances to avoid firearms because of the complexities. example; the simple question the OP asked. and my retort: (It is a sign of the times that question even had to be asked!)
As an un Umpqua forest related aside,
I'm sincerely glad you find solace in the preponderance of overwhelming and complex gun related regulations and are able to consider them beneficial or entitling. I do not.
I have followed much of the related so called advances not just locally but nationally all my life. As an aggregate, most are not only divisive in their purpose, but then ultimately made impudent through other regulations.
This benefit, and progress, I consider superfluous .
Considering all the supposed political gun related advancement over the last half century, in my mind which to form a truer amalgamation of citizens rights verses government interference is to simply juxtapose my life experiences from the past, with what is available to me today, and I find it now severely regulated, limited, legally complex, stifling, invasive, and wantonly expensive.
Evidently removing laws are un-patriotic, Lets make some more Federal, State, County, City laws, that will clear things up and fix everything!

A lot of the stuff you used to back in the good old days wasnt even legal then but no one cared. Whether you recognize it or not your legal opportunities have expanded greatly in the last 50 years after some pretty major setbacks in the 60s due in large part to complacency from gun owners who didnt recongize that they needed to fight to keep their rights.