Under the previous regulation, the possession of a loaded and readily available firearm was regarded as prima facie evidence of intent.
And, yes, of course that will still apply to anyone with a loaded weapon and no CCW, and yes, of course we'd like to think that no CCW holder would ever take an animal illegally.
Can I imagine a poacher applying for a CCW in order to be able to carry a loaded gun in an NP? It's a bit of stretch, but I can imagine it. "No, sir, officer, this here 44 mag is strictly for personal protection..."
But, yeah, the poaching thing is probably a bit of a red herring -- I think the "self-defense" killing of wildlife is a more legitimate concern vis-a-vis the new regulation.
|