# Bear spray works , saves boy.



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

https://buckrail.com/boy-injured-by-bear-in-yellowstone/


"JACKSON HOLE, WYO –A boy was injured this morning in Yellowstone after a bear chased him and knocked him to the ground.

The incident occurred around 10am, Thursday, August 23. A family of four from Washington encountered a bear about a half-mile up the Divide Trail, southeast of Old Faithful.

The boy, 10, ran from the bear when it charged out of vegetation towards the family. The bear chased the boy and knocked him to the ground.

The parents effectively deployed bear spray about five feet from the bear’s face. The bear shook its head and left the area."


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> The boy, 10, *ran from the bear*


That was his first mistake.


----------



## Sourdough (Dec 28, 2011)

Three things RUN from a predator, and trigger a chase and subdue by the predator.
Breakfast
Lunch
Dinner


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Lol right how many 10 year old boys , Startled by the sight of 1000 pounds of charging Bear are going to stop raise a finger and tell it to bug off?
Thank God the parents showed good presence of mind.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> how many 10 year old boys


All the smarter, well educated ones.


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

Nature insure only strong genetics survive.....like a selective breeding program, on a side note....bear spray works really well on a crowd of people too.....


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Lol In this case nature is selected for the faster running to survive he was fast enough to get back to where his parents could protect him. 
Seems pretty smart to me


----------



## 4tu (Jul 24, 2018)

Seen it used in a bar full of people bears would be afraid of, it worked there too. One of those family sized ones


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Seems pretty smart to me


Smarter would be to carry your own protection so you don't have to run.
Bears can run 35 MPH when they want.
People can't outrun them.


----------



## montysky (Aug 21, 2006)

I can't fault a ten year old for running, even if that is the worst thing to do, glad the parents stayed calm and use bear spray. I carry either a .450 or 45-78 large loop level action rifle in Griz country; but if you cant hit a 900 pound paper plate running at you at 35mph with claws and fangs 100 at of 100 times. carry bear spray there is so many studies that back up spray.

That family is so lucky, it could have turn out so much worst.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

My Grampa taught my brothers and I how to handle an attacking bear. First, overcome your instinct to run. That takes some courage right there! Second, stand your ground facing the bear. Then just as he gets close you ram your fist down his throat, all the way til it comes out the other end, then grab his tail and yank really hard! Done correctly you will have turned the bear inside out and leave him running the other way! Bear spray might work too.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Everybody seems to think sticking your arm down the Bears throat is the hard part but don’t worry if you stick around long enough he’ll do it for you .....


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Bear spray is better than nothing but it does not always work. Some bears don't care. In fact each bear is an individual as is each attack. Bear spray, don't run, play dead, climb a tree, make yourself as big and threatening as possible, shoot the bear. We know people and there are also many news stories about using all of these methods which did not work to stave off an attack. The boy was lucky and happily so.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

You can carry a gun in the park but it is illegal to use it as self defense. I now expect this thread to go wild. Should be interesting.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

What are you supposed to do with them then? Use them for tent poles and hammers ?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> What are you supposed to do with them then? Use them for tent poles and hammers ?


They only allow them in the park because they don't want to hinder people's travel through the park when carrying one. They are not to be used as defense against an animal.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> You can carry a gun in the park but it is *illegal to use it as self defense*.


Please show us that statute.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Lol good luck with that. 
I’d pick my kid over the last bear on earth.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol good luck with that.
> I’d pick my kid over the last bear on earth.


I get where you are coming from just informing people about the rules.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I get where you are coming from just informing people about the rules.


Park "rules" aren't law.
Please show a statute making self defense "illegal" inside the park.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Park "rules" aren't law.
> Please show a statute making self defense "illegal" inside the park.


Educate yourself. Looks like you need it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Educate yourself. Looks like you need it.


SSDD, making claims you can't prove because they are false.
I've educated myself enough to know it's what you always do.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> SSDD
> Making claims you can't prove because they are false.


There you making claims you can't prove because they are false.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> *There you making *claims you can't prove because they are false.


You get incoherent when you're ranting.
It's your claim to prove, not mine.
I already know it's false.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You get incoherent when you're ranting.
> It's your claim to prove, not mine.
> I already know it's false.


Will you admit you are wrong if I provide the proof?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Will you admit you are wrong if I provide the proof?


It's your claim to prove.
I'm not playing your childish games.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Just as I suspected, you are playing games. You won't admit you are wrong and you won't educate yourself. I know exactly what your response to the truth will be. 

https://helenair.com/lifestyles/out...cle_5ab9e308-2dfc-5762-b42d-58e2c5077752.html
"WEST GLACIER -- Four times this year that authorities are aware of, guns have been discharged inside Glacier National Park -- where it’s been legal to carry a loaded firearm for more than four years, but where it remains illegal to fire one."

https://www.nps.gov/articles/firearms-in-national-parks.htm

"*Use of Firearms*
Unless authorized, the use or discharge of a firearm within a park area is prohibited. 36 CFR 2.4(b) and 13.30(c)."

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-i...7a4da5cc17e&mc=true&node=se36.1.2_14&rgn=div8


Bearfootfarm said:


> It's your claim to prove.
> I'm not playing your childish games.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> "Use of Firearms
> *Unless authorized*


Self defense is an "authorized" use under both state and federal laws.

I asked to see a statute that states using a firearm for self defense in Yellowstone is illegal, which is the claim you made.



painterswife said:


> You can carry a gun in the park but it is *illegal to use it as self defense*.





> Bearfootfarm said: ↑
> Park "rules" aren't law.
> Please show a statute making self defense "illegal" inside the park.


Neither of the links you posted mention "self defense" at all.
Still waiting...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> You won't admit you are wrong


Why would I when you haven't proven your claim?



painterswife said:


> I know exactly what your response to *the truth* will be.


The truth is what I stated above.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Yes as expected you won't admit you are wrong. You don't even bother to read the links provided. More games from you as usual.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's your claim to prove.
> I'm not playing your childish games.



You keep saying that but keep doing something entirely different, like playing your own silly games.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Yes as expected you won't admit you are wrong. *You don't even bother to read the links provided*.


I read them.
They don't say what you claimed.
If you think they do, copy and paste the parts that do.
Show where they say "self defense is illegal"


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> You can carry a gun in the park but it is *illegal to use it as self defense*.


*Still waiting* to see the statutes stating self defense is illegal.

Will *you* admit you're wrong when I show the the truth?


----------



## pairofthrees (Apr 28, 2016)

Bearfootfarm said:


> *Still waiting* to see the statutes stating self defense is illegal.
> 
> Will *you* admit you're wrong when I show the the truth?


The statute states using the firearm is illegal, you state self defense is 'authorized use'. Can you show that statute?

Maybe you can, maybe you will, maybe not, but your repeated pedantic arguments are just so predictable and petty that I'm starting to feel pity for a person with nothing better to do. I don't feel the need to argue this and you won't read another word about it from me because I truly don't want to play your little games.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

pairofthrees said:


> The statute states using the firearm is illegal, you state self defense is 'authorized use'. Can you show that statute?
> 
> Maybe you can, maybe you will, maybe not, but your repeated pedantic arguments are just so predictable and petty that I'm starting to feel pity for a person with nothing better to do. I don't feel the need to argue this and you won't read another word about it from me because I truly don't want to play your little games.


He is playing word games. It is his go to game playing pattern. Everyone else knows that I was discussing self defense with regards to a bear and that is proven in the material I provided. No need to say much more. He was wrong and will not admit it.


----------



## wy_white_wolf (Oct 14, 2004)

While I can't supply the statue I can supply this article that makes the claim.



> But why would you? It’s still illegal to discharge a weapon in Yellowstone National Park. Various laws, including anti-poaching initiatives from the 1880s, prohibit the discharge of weapons. President Theodore Roosevelt wasn’t allowed to discharge a firearm when he visited Yellowstone, and neither can you. There are no self-defense provisions to Yellowstone’s firearm restrictions, either, so making up some tale about a rutting whitetail threatening your personal space won’t fly.


https://yellowstoneinsider.com/2010...ne-gun-rules-you-can-pack-but-you-cant-shoot/

WWW


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

pairofthrees said:


> *The statute states* using the firearm is illegal, you state self defense is 'authorized use'. Can you show that statute?


The statute states "unless authorized"
There are exemptions to those restrictions when it comes to self defense.
Read the self defense laws for the three states. (WY, MT, ID)

One simply has to read the statutes *as written*, and nothing posted so far prohibits self defense.



pairofthrees said:


> Maybe you can, maybe you will, maybe not, but your repeated pedantic arguments are just so predictable and petty that I'm starting to feel pity for a person with nothing better to do.* I don't feel the need to argue this* and you won't read another word about it from me because I truly don't want to play your little games.


Evidently you do, because here you are. 
If you don't like my posts, you aren't compelled to read them.



painterswife said:


> He is playing word games. It is his go to game playing pattern. Everyone else knows that *I was discussing self defense with regards to a bear* and that is *proven in the material I provided*. No need to say much more. He was wrong and will not admit it.


There are no word games needed.
You made a claim and when asked to show proof you did what you always do.

Actually, the material *you* provided refutes your own claim, but you didn't bother to read it and understand what it was saying, because you thought you could "prove me wrong".

"Self defense" is self defense, whether against an animal or a human.
The first link you posted explains it quite well:



> Perhaps the best way to understand it is to consider that *the applicable gun laws in Glacier aren’t much different than those that would be applied to a person on Main Street Montana.*
> 
> Just because you’re allowed to carry a firearm there doesn’t mean you’re allowed to discharge it at will. The same goes for the park.
> 
> *If you need to use one to defend your life, however -- whether on Main Street or inside a national park -- that’s often another matter.*





> “The firearm was discharged outside of their reason for being there, *but they did it to save lives,*” says Olson, who adds such incidents are investigated at the park level. “*That’s kind of the standard” for discharging a weapon in a national park*, he says.





> Importantly, Olson notes, the law only governs the possession of firearms in national parks. It does not change existing federal law restricting the use of firearms in national parks, which is *generally prohibited* by the Code of Federal Regulations *except in rare circumstances.*


https://helenair.com/lifestyles/out...cle_5ab9e308-2dfc-5762-b42d-58e2c5077752.html



wy_white_wolf said:


> While I can't supply the statue I can supply this article that makes the *claim*.


The article makes the *claim*, as did PW.
Case law, along with state and federal statutes refute the claim.
If the facts show it was truly "self defense" then it's not "illegal".



painterswife said:


> *He was wrong* and will not admit it.


You've yet to show anything to confirm that.
You just keep repeating yourself as always.

Reality is one can even *legally* kill an endangered species if it's in self defense.
If you can show a statute to refute that, now would be the time.
So far you've mostly only shown biased opinions which are misleading.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...ar-sprayhandgun-self-defense-in-glacier-park/


> In July, 57-year-old Brian D. Murphy defended himself against a charging grizzly in Glacier National Park. The case is interesting for a number of reasons.
> 
> Two months after the attack, Murphy was charged with discharging a firearm in the park, a misdemeanor that carries a $500 fine. On October 9, a motion to dismiss the charge was put forward by the U.S. Attorney’s Office after Murphy’s attorney said that they would raise the defense of self-defense. Judge Keith Strong granted the motion last Thursday.


https://www.nps.gov/articles/bearsprayfirearms.htm


> If a firearm is used in self-defense against a bear, contact park authorities immediately.Federal regulations prohibit the use or discharge of any weapon within a park area. *The applicability of a state statute pertaining to self-defense in a wildlife encounter may vary state to state *and by park area and will generally take into account any provoking or negligent actions by the person.


https://www.idahocriminaldefenselaw...self-defense-law-clarified-stand-your-ground/


> Idaho’s law protecting a person acting in self-defense gets clarified by the passage of Senate Bill 1313 – which goes into effect July 1st. The real impact is to consolidate and codify existing law to clearly protect the *inherent right of a person to defend themselves and others. *
> 
> Idaho law permits a law-abiding citizen to stand their ground and protect themselves and families *anywhere they have a right to be*.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The following law is applicable in the United States:
> 
> The Endangered Species Act, Section 11 [16 U.S.C. 1540], Subsection (a)(3) as follows:
> 
> ...


https://www.quora.com/Endangered-Species-Am-I-allowed-to-kill-a-protected-animal-in-self-defense


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> https://www.quora.com/Endangered-Species-Am-I-allowed-to-kill-a-protected-animal-in-self-defense


Well done.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Self defense is self defense, whether it's against an animal or a human:
https://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi...tEenBA-&httpsredir=1&article=1802&context=mlr



> In the leading case on the subject, State v. Rathbone,3 the Montana court stated:
> 
> If one may kill a human being or attack him in defense of his property, it would be an unreasonable doctrine to hold that the right of defense of property as justification for the killing of wild beasts of the field and forest does not exist.
> 
> ...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

There you go again! Mucking up perfectly good fantasies with facts and evidence! You should be ashamed of yourself.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Have never seen any two people argue that much without being married.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

barnbilder said:


> Have never seen any two people argue that much without being married.


I'm not arguing.
I'm educating.


----------



## Sourdough (Dec 28, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm not arguing.
> I'm educating.


Mostly your just annoying.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

You can post all the court cases and opinion pieces you want. I posted the Federal regulation. That is what you asked. Some might decide not to enforce it but it still stands and I provided it. I proved you wrong.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

painterswife said:


> You can post all the court cases and opinion pieces you want. I posted the Federal regulation. That is what you asked. Some might decide not to enforce it but it still stands and I provided it. I proved you wrong.


That's been happening a lot lately. LOL


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Sourdough said:


> Mostly your just annoying.


You said you were putting me on ignore, which obviously wasn't true, so you're not a credible witness.



> painterswife said: ↑
> You can post all the court cases and opinion pieces you want. *I posted the Federal regulation. That is what you asked.* Some might decide not to enforce it but it still stands and I provided it. I proved you wrong.


You posted a regulation that *didn't* say what you claimed.
I asked:


> Bearfootfarm said: ↑
> Park "rules" aren't law.
> Please show a statute making self defense "illegal" inside the park.


I'm still waiting to see it.



Irish Pixie said:


> That's been happening a lot lately. LOL


Only in your fantasies.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Only in your fantasies.


From the member who has made a lot of "creepy uncle" posts lately.  Eww.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You posted a regulation that *didn't* say what you claimed.


You stated your opinion as fact in another thread, tried to substantiate it and failed miserably. Lucky for you it was moved.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> From the member who has made a lot of "creepy uncle" posts lately.


You're the only one who has those thoughts, not me.



Irish Pixie said:


> *You stated your opinion as fact* in another thread, tried to substantiate it and failed miserably. Lucky for you it was moved.


LOL

You keep pretending I didn't post data that supported what I said.

Are you now trying to get this thread bounced too?


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

I also think you're the creepy uncle of HT


Pixie can play the mean aunt


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

I love animals but I would not hesitate to shoot to defend me and mine. Domestic or wild animal.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

emdeengee said:


> I love animals but I would not hesitate to shoot to defend me and mine. Domestic or wild animal.


Same here. I think that's why the self defense rule applies even when it illegal to discharge a firearm.... Except for when it's not.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

FWIW, you can and most likely will be charged for discharging a firearm in the park, which is illegal according to the NPS.
https://www.nps.gov/articles/firearms-in-national-parks.htm
the actual statute:
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?rgn=div8&node=36:1.0.1.1.2.0.1.4
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-i...5d5d144d3&mc=true&node=se36.1.13_130&rgn=div8

No where in the statute is there a section for self-defense. However, you can take the case to court where you might be found guilty or the judge might grant you an exception due to circumstances.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

If I saved my life or the life of another and was then charged for an illegal firearm discharge and/ or the wounding or killing of an animal that I had no legal right to kill I would accept the charges, fight it in court and be very happy to be alive or have saved another whatever the legal outcome. The law can be an ass but we still need laws.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

I imagine this has been litigated numerous times with statutes stating it is only with "authorized" use that a firearm be discharged in a national park, state park or inside the city limits. Since, I couldn't care less what the legality is, I'll leave it others to research. I will say that I don't recall reading of anyone prosecuted while in the process of defending themselves being prosecuted for discharging a firearm in the city limits anywhere I have lived. And it is/was unlawful to discharge a firearm in the city limits every city that I have resided in.....which fortunately has been some decades.

Anyway....please carry on.....


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Danaus29 said:


> *No where in the statute is there a section for self-defense*. However, you can take the case to court where you might be found guilty or the judge might grant you *an exception due to circumstances*.


That means self defense is not "illegal".

From your links:



> (d) *Firearms may be* carried, possessed, and *used within park areas in accordance with applicable State and Federal laws*, except where such carrying, possession, or use is prohibited or otherwise restricted under §13.50.
> 
> The superintendent may issue a permit to carry or possess a weapon, trap or net under the following circumstances:
> 
> ...


Since there are no mention of "self defense", it's not specifically "restricted" and certainly isn't "illegal" if guns are allowed for "emergency use".

Still waiting to see that statute stating "self defense in the parks is illegal".


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Still waiting to see that statute stating "self defense in the parks is illegal".



How productive


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 16, 2009)

the boy did the correct thing. he didn't have to outrun the bear, he had to only outrun the rest of the family.
I would shoot and pay the fine..
........jiminwisc.......


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Hiro said:


> I imagine this has been litigated numerous times with statutes stating it is only with "authorized" use that a firearm be discharged in a national park, state park or inside the city limits. Since, I couldn't care less what the legality is, I'll leave it others to research. I will say that I don't recall reading of anyone prosecuted while in the process of defending themselves being prosecuted for discharging a firearm in the city limits anywhere I have lived. And it is/was unlawful to discharge a firearm in the city limits every city that I have resided in.....which fortunately has been some decades.
> 
> Anyway....please carry on.....


It's been litigated in several locations. Most states now allow discharge of a firearm in cases of self defense. Even so, sometimes people get charged with and jailed for illegal discharge until it gets sorted out. 

Given the choice of allowing an endangered animal to consume me or a family member, or even some poor hiker who provoked said animal, or getting jailed for shooting the animal I would gladly take the jail and fight through the legal system. Although the animals would probably let you off easier.

I did a little research and found cases where people were charged then the charges were dropped, also cases of no charges filed and cases where people were charged and sentenced. It all depends on the circumstances. I also found cases where bear spray was not effective but it was sprayed when the bear was too far away to be affected. My hat is off to a person who can stand their ground while a grizzly is charging then wait until the bear is 15 to 10 feet away before spraying it with bear spray!


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That means self defense is not "illegal".
> 
> From your links:
> 
> ...


Oh, you want to see the law that requires you to lay down and get eaten. But that would be a violation of the "don't feed the wildlife" law. I'm not a lawyer, not currently involved in a self defense shooting, and certainly not a judge who "interprets the law". 

"(2) To carry firearms for persons in charge of pack trains or saddle horses *for emergency use.*"

Apparently horses are more valuable than people. And even then a permit is needed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Danaus29 said:


> Oh, *you want to see* the law that requires you to lay down and get eaten.


No, I simply want to see a statute that actually supports the claim that was made.
None has been show so far. (Because none exists)



Danaus29 said:


> Apparently horses are more valuable than people. And even then *a permit is needed*.


Read what it says. The permit is to "carry" a firearm. 
It's not saying it's "illegal" to use it for self defense.
I suspect that's just an old regulation left over from before firearms were allowed in the parks.



> We can look to the Montana Constitution for guidance:
> _“*All persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights*. They include the right to a clean and healthful environment and the rights of pursuing life’s basic necessities, enjoying and *defending their lives* and liberties, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and seeking their safety and happiness in all lawful ways. In enjoying these rights, all persons recognize corresponding responsibilities.”_ MONT.CONST. art. II, § 3





> The federal law has actually had the foresight to specifically provide that *a person may kill an endangered animal in self-defense*, such as the regulations concerning the Red Wolf in *50.C.F.R. Sec. 17.84(c)(4)(i),* the Mexican Wolf in *50 C.F.R. Sec. 17.84(k)(7)(i)*, or the Grizzly Bear in *50 C.F.R. Sec. 17.40(b)(i)(B)*.
> 
> Specifically, with regards to grizzly bears, the law provides:
> 
> _(B) *Grizzly bears may be taken in self-defense or in defense of others*, but such taking shall be reported by the individual who has taken the bear or his designee within 5 days of occurrence . . ._





> Under the federal *Endangered Species Act*, the law is a little more succinct and provides:
> 
> _Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, _*no civil penalty shall be imposed* *if *_it can be shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed an act based on a good faith belief that _*he was* *acting to protect himself or herself, a member of his or her family, or any other individual from bodily harm*_, from any endangered or threatened species._ *16 U.S. Code § 1540(a)(3)**.*





> Therefore, if you are carrying your concealed handgun *in a national park *and you find yourself face to face with an aggressive Grizzly Bear, *you can use your gun to protect your life.*


https://www.uslawshield.com/tag/federal-self-defense-law/


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

You are the one who brought up "emergency use". That is the only place where "emergency use" is specified. 

The use is prohibited, plain and simple. Regardless of Montana statues, federal rules/laws hold precedence. And even in your link quoting the endangered species act, the term "preponderance of the evidence" relates to a person being on trial in court.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Danaus29 said:


> You are the one who brought up "emergency use". That is the only place where "emergency use" is specified.


It's in the statutes which were posted before.
I pointed out it's allowed, which is the opposite of saying it's "illegal".
If there was no crime, it's not illegal.



Danaus29 said:


> Regardless of Montana statues, federal rules/laws hold precedence.


State and Federal laws allow self defense.
When I showed statutes earlier referring to self defense against people, the OP claimed she was only "talking about bears", so I showed that killing endangered animals is still allowed.

If you read all the links posted you will see both state and federal laws apply, and they all allow self defense.



Danaus29 said:


> "preponderance of the evidence" relates to a person being on trial in court.


It means if the evidence shows it was truly self defense, there was no crime.
It has nothing to do with "trials".



Danaus29 said:


> *The use is prohibited*, plain and simple.


Then show the statutes that *say* "self defense is illegal".
Plain and simple.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

A few overlooked the original federal law change, in the Credit Card Act.of 2009.
It DOES address the *use, * legally*,* of firearms in the state parks.



> (a) CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: (1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution provides that ‘‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
> 
> not be infringed’’.
> (2) Section 2.4(a)(1) of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations,
> ...


Look at both bolded sections.
In the first it states the regulation at the time of this change.
The next part is the amended change, rejecting that restriction under the authority of the 2nd Amendment, as it should be.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

It was hidden way down in the wildlife regulations but I finally found the specific wording on this.......



> *The possession, use and transporting of firearms is authorized for hunting and personal protection* in accordance with State and Federal laws unless pro- hibited or otherwise restricted by the Refuge Manager in accordance with the provisions of § 36.42.


Page 539 for above 

Same link
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2012-title50-vol9/pdf/CFR-2012-title50-vol9-chapI-subchapC.pdf

On page 564 there is another similar provision for self defense, paragraph 14.

I think this was an Alaska section, but the intent of the federal laws should be clear by now.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> (3) Section 27.42 of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, provides that, *except in special circumstances*, citizens of the United States may not ‘‘possess, use, or transport firearms on national wildlife refuges’’ of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.


Some need to read that part in red until it sinks in.
Self defense is "special circumstances".


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

It seems to me if you have to go to court and rely on the whim of a judge to decide if you go to jail or not it must be a crime. It’s just typical legal system stuff where they decide if they want to ruin your life based on politics , media coverage, cuteness of the attacker etc.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

A national park and a national wildlife refuge are not the same thing and have different laws. A small point but one to be noted when trying to use the laws for one section to prove a point about the laws for another section.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> It seems to me if you have to go to court and rely on the whim of a judge to decide if you go to jail or not *it must be a crime*.


If it "must be a crime" then there must be a statute which say it is.
None shown so far say self defense is an illegal use of a firearm.

In fact, most of the statutes shown say it's allowed, or don't mention it at all.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 16, 2009)

doesn't it strike anyone as odd that the stand your ground law allows people to shoot in the city limits at another human being, but you are not supposed to stand your ground against a grizzly bear ??
where has common sense gone ??


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Well standing your ground against a big ole brown bear has never struck me as common sense.
I think I’d prefer to “sit my tree “or better yet “drive my car” outa there. !


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Well standing your ground against a big ole brown bear has never struck me as common sense.


It's better than running away, which triggers their "prey response".



[email protected] said:


> doesn't it strike anyone as odd that the stand your ground law allows people to shoot in the city limits at another human being, but you are not supposed to stand your ground against a grizzly bear ??
> where has common sense gone ??


Actual law allows the only common sense solution.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 16, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's better than running away, which triggers their "prey response".
> 
> If they are coming at you , they are already in the hunt mode. no amount of stand your ground is going to make them turn around or change their mind.
> 
> ...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

painterswife said:


> A national park and a national wildlife refuge are not the same thing and have different laws. A small point but one to be noted when trying to use the laws for one section to prove a point about the laws for another section.


Exactly, and it's a rather desperate attempt to prove said point.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Exactly, and it's a rather *desperate attempt* to prove said point.


My point was proven long ago through multiple sources.
You've not shown anything at all.



[email protected] said:


> If they are coming at you , they are already in the hunt mode. no amount of stand your ground is going to make them turn around or change their mind.


Many charges are bluffs and they will often stop if you don't run.
Firearms are allowed for when they don't.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> painterswife said: ↑
> A national park and a national wildlife refuge are not the same thing and have different laws. A small point but one to be noted when trying to use the laws for one section to prove a point about the laws for another section.


You didn't read what was posted.
If you had, you'd have seen it mentioned both parks and refuges.

Read Post #65 slowly and carefully.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

I avoided this thread for several days because I was busy. I wondered why it kept popping up in the new posts. 

Y’all are amusing.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> It seems to me if you have to go to court and rely on the whim of a judge to decide if you go to jail or not it must be a crime. It’s just typical legal system stuff where they decide if they want to ruin your life based on politics , media coverage, cuteness of the attacker etc.


Exactly the opposite, it's a non crime as we've tried to tell y'all.
If it WAS a crime, you'd go to jail every time and nothing the judge could do about it.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

painterswife said:


> A national park and a national wildlife refuge are not the same thing and have different laws. A small point but one to be noted when trying to use the laws for one section to prove a point about the laws for another section.


Yeah and the 2nd amendment applies to every square inch of the country, no small detail when you're trying to prove a point.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> doesn't it strike anyone as odd that the stand your ground law allows people to shoot in the city limits at another human being, but you are not supposed to stand your ground against a grizzly bear ??
> where has common sense gone ??


Yeah.
And it always amuses me to find how uncommon, common sense is in this country.
This thread proves it.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Actually, the second amendment does NOT guarantee the right to carry everywhere in the US. 

https://www.tabc.state.tx.us/laws/sign_requirements.asp


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> Actually, the second amendment does NOT guarantee the right to carry everywhere in the US.


There are places where firearms are not allowed.
That's not being disputed.

In all the places firearms *are* allowed, their use for self defense is not illegal.
It's silly to claim they only allow firearms to be carried in National Parks "for the convenience" of the owners.

If they are not to be used *ever*, they could have required they be carried in a locked case without ammunition.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> Actually, the second amendment does NOT guarantee the right to carry everywhere in the US.
> 
> https://www.tabc.state.tx.us/laws/sign_requirements.asp


I figured someone would start to refute what I said by giving all the examples of where firearms are currently prohibited - gov't buildings, banks, bars, etc.
I was in a hurry when I typed it and had to run a quick errand, but I'll still stand by my post, because it _doesn't_ say
"you can carry everywhere" and I knew THAT when I typed it.
Here's what I DID say............



farmrbrown said:


> Yeah and the 2nd amendment applies to every square inch of the country, no small detail when you're trying to prove a point.


The 2nd DOES *apply* everywhere, just as every other amendment does.
You simply have to know where the rights intersect and what your choices are when they do.
For instance, public vs. private property which this thread discusses the right on public land only.

If you enter someone else's *private property* then their 4th amendment rights take over.
You haven't lost your right to keep and bear your arms, but you do need their permission to do so on THEIR land. If not you can go somewhere else or if you DO have their permission, carry at will.
All rights apply, yours and his.

On *public property* the rights have been restricted as we all know, unfortunately most people don't know or don't care that it's unconstitutional.
Unconstitutional laws exist all over the place only because it takes someone with the guts to challenge them.
Doing so usually results in charges and arrest, then the battle begins.
It's rare, but it does happen.
The best example is the 6th amendment.


> In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


Do you know how long it existed in this country before it was actually enforced?
If you guess "200 years" you'll be real close.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/155

Slavery was ALWAYS unconstitutional in this country, but it took 100 years and a terrible civil war to actually make it a reality.

That's the thing about your rights, they are always there - whether you are willing to use them is up to you.
If it was easy, everybody would do it.

The point of this debate is simple.
The Founding Fathers and anybody else with a lick of sense wouldn't venture into bear country without a loaded firearm and skills to use it if necessary.
It was an obvious right so it would seem, but they put it in writing just in case. I guess they knew somebody wouldn't have the sense to figure it out themselves, lol.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Nice essay.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

farmrbrown said:


> Exactly the opposite, it's a non crime as we've tried to tell y'all.
> If it WAS a crime, you'd go to jail every time and nothing the judge could do about it.


 A judge is allowed to ignore a crime especially if there are extenuating circumstances. 
That’s what makes it so obvious it IS a crime. 
Remember at this point prettty much everything is a crime.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> A judge is allowed to *ignore a crime* especially if there are extenuating circumstances.


Self defense is not a crime.



AmericanStand said:


> Remember at this point prettty much everything is a crime.


Then show the statute.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> A judge is allowed to ignore a crime especially if there are extenuating circumstances.


Not if he wants to keep his job.
I guess that's another area people are uneducated about.
A JURY can ignore a crime, but a judge cannot if it is presented to him.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

"(b)(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section and parts 7 (special regulations) and 13 (Alaska regulations), the following are prohibited:

(i) Possessing a weapon, trap or net

(ii) Carrying a weapon, trap or net

(iii) Using a weapon, trap or net

(2) Weapons, traps or nets may be carried, possessed or used:

(i) At designated times and locations in park areas where:

(A) The taking of wildlife is authorized by law in accordance with §2.2 of this chapter;

(B) The taking of fish is authorized by law in accordance with §2.3 of this part.

(ii) When used for target practice at designated times and at facilities or locations designed and constructed specifically for this purpose and designated pursuant to special regulations.

(iii) Within a residential dwelling. For purposes of this subparagraph only, the term “residential dwelling” means a fixed housing structure which is either the principal residence of its occupants, or is occupied on a regular and recurring basis by its occupants as an alternate residence or vacation home."

Using a firearm for self defense is still *use*, which is prohibited except as specified in 2 i A & B. Funny though how you are allowed to use a firearm in a house.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Danaus29 said:


> Using a firearm for *self defense is still* *use which is prohibited *except as specified in 2 i A & B*.*


I don't know why you think repeating the same thing again and again will change the outcome.

If "self defense" isn't specifically listed as "prohibited", it's not "illegal".

Several statutes have been shown directly stating it is in fact legal.
None have been shown that actually *say* it is not.


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

About every large city in the USA has an ordinance which prohibits the discharge of a firearm within its jurisdiction. These ordinances do not allow an exclusion for self-defense. Guess what, people in these cities are protecting themselves all the time with firearms and are not being accused of ordinance violation.

Self-defense is an inalienable, God-given right. The right of self-defense trumps all local, state, and federal laws that might be interpreted to exclude it.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 16, 2009)

the right to bear arms was intended for citizens to protect themselves from a government that has gone amuck and uses it's army against the population.

where can I get the hand book which describes a bear charging is a bluff or not ??


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> where can I get the hand book which describes a bear charging is a bluff or not ??


There's no way to predict the outcomes 100% of the time, but it's still a fact that many charges are bluffs, and running triggers their "prey response".

You stand your ground and hope for the best, but remain prepared to do what it takes to stop them if needed.

But don't take my word for it.

Listen to the National Park Service:
https://www.nps.gov/articles/bearattacks.htm

*



Never run

Click to expand...

*


> from a surprised bear because *it can cause a predatory reaction* from the bear. Do not try to climb a tree. *You cannot outrun or out climb a bear.*


*



Do NOT run

Click to expand...

*


> during a bluff charge, it may trigger the bear to attack. Stand your ground. Be ready for the bear to make contact in case the charge is not a bluff charge. *Know how to protect and defend yourself* in case the bear turns aggressive.





> *Use any available weapon* to fight the bear (sticks, rocks, bear spray, even your fists). If a predatory bear attacks you, no matter the species, *fight back with everything you have.*


----------

