The first respondent in this group of messages said the only things to fear in the forests is certain animals and anyone with a handgun. They are overlooking the fact that some animals have two legs and are much more predatory than ANY four legged animal ever considered being. Why should I, as one who has complied with the law,  have no criminal record, am proficient and safe in the handling of my weapons and have no criminal intent be left defenseless before these  two legged predators? Is anyone so simple minded to think that robbers, rapists and other criminals never set foor in the forest? Why should I be expected to leave myself and my family defenseless?

If our policy makers honestly represent us, if they do their duty as sworn to "Protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic". The Second Amendment is part of that document they have sworn to protect and defend. The Supreme Court has ruled  that it is an individual right, not a collective right that pertains to the military. Therefore, is it reasonable to tell us that our Constitutional rights cease at the boundary of a state forest? Using the logic of some, does this mean that we must check all other rights such as freedom to speak freely, have a newspaper of our choice, or pray to God in a state forest? One line of thought is as logical as the other. If you can ban my right to defend myself or my family, you can ban what I say, read or the freedom to worship God! 

Concealed or open carry should be allowed!