Obviously, I'm for carrying ANY firearm ANYWHERE on public property. Its my property and its my right. The Forestry Service administers its use and certainly has obligations to protect my property by regulating its use.  For instance, I'm sure the Forestry Service requires that nobody burn the forest down. That would protect the Forest.

I can't really see how forbiding the owners of the forest to carry firearms is protecting the property. Law or no law. Regulation or no regulation. I will not go into any woods and not carry a firearm with me. I live in Sussex County and I've seen Bobcats, Wild Dogs, and Bears in the woods and if needed to I would have used my firearm to defend myself from them.

Maybe I missed the point of why I shouldn't carry a firearm into the woods. I just can't see any reason why I shouldn't.

When I was a youngster, I was around firearms all the time and was shown how to use them and how not to use them. We even had a rifle club at our school. It was perfectly OK for a 12 year old to bring an unloaded 22 rifle into the school to show at the club meetings.

There were no shootings because children were taught all about weapons and how to handle them.  Appearently, somebody has convinced much of the public that todays children shouldn't even be allowed to say GUN.

I think my point here is, "Why do I have to tell you that I think its OK to carry any weapon into the State Forest?". The opposite is true. "Someone should tell me why I shouldn't." The world is turned upside down.

Telling the Public that they can't carry a firearm into the state forests is like telling the motoring public that they can't carry a firearm on state highways. It is way beyond the regulatory authority of the regulating organization.

"PK" Veazey
VDOT Transportation Engineer, Retired