Whatever one's position on gun carry laws generally, this proposed law seems about as low on the priority pole as a resolution honoring National Arachnid Week.  (Not that there's anything wrong being pro-arachnid.)

George Allen has no worthwhile ideas.  He has no vision.  He is totally self-absorbed, as far as I can see, and cannot think of one good original idea that would help mankind. 

His proposal is just some silly symbolic sop to his campaign contributors.

I remember something about a carry law in Texas that let you bring your firearms into church.

I have several comments, not all of which will endear me to gun owners.  But bear with me.

1) I find no private right to ownership of firearms in the 2nd Amendment, nor has the Supreme Court to date.  Ther has to be some nexus with a militia, which is why a ownership offirearm that could not be used for the militia was not considered something gauranteed.  I read the Amendment with an eye on two things -  first, the issue of a well-regulated militia, which - people like the "militias" that sprung up in the past few decades not withstanding - means a militia under government control.
  Second, I note the use of the collective, the people's right, as also pointing in this direction.  I would think that some of the more conservative interpreters who insist on plain text interpretation get hoist by their own petard on this item.  Constrast this with the 5th Amendment which says that no person shall be denied life, libertyb or property without due process of law.  That is clearly an individual right.

2)  That said, I would allow some private ownership of firearms under the doctrine of unemurated rights as stated in the 9th Amendment.  We have to remember the 9th Amendment exists because Madison was originally opposed to a Bill of Rights because he was afraid that were we to list rights some would argue that any right not specifically enumerated was not guaranteed.  Now, the right to marital privacy as established in Griswold does not specifically reference the 9th Amendment, but Roie v Wade does,which makes some pro-gun conservative very uncomfortable about relying upon it. 

3) If we require a demonstrated ability to safely operate a motor vehicle before licensing someone to do so, I think it not unreasonable that a person be licensed for firearms similarly.  And as we require a specific license to operate a tractor-trailer or drive commercially carrying others for profit, methinks similar licensing for firearms with sepcificity is also warranted.  Thus I would require anyone who wishes to own operable firearms to be able to demonstrate two things  (a) that they can break down and reassamble into basic groups any firearm for which they are licensed, for if they cannot, they cannot properly clean and maintain the weapon; and (b) they can demonstrate some minimal level of accuracy in use the use of the weapon -  I worry that we will have people who are legally blind having no idea at what they are firing.

Of course, I kept this to myself during the campaign.

I do not like the idea of people who may not know what they are doing wandering parks with firearms.  Hunting is not allowed in national parks, and if the issue is one of safety, to me it makes more sense to hire more park rangers to provide it. But then that's me.

I have no trouble going hiking in forests and parks, even off trail.  My only worry is to remember to bring a walking stick, because I do remember one close encounter with a 3.5 foot timber rattler in the Joyce Kilmer forest when we were a good hour above the parking lot - had either of us been bitten the consequences could have been quite severe.

with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, most on the left seem to have given up on gun control.  Republicans were quite effective at using it as a wedge issue against us.

Well, at least not with the argument put forth.  It's just an extension of the usual fear tactics that Republicans use to justify everything they do.  Hell, I'm surprised Allen and friends didn't squeeze terrorism into the equation in order to try to scare people into supporting the bill. 

While there's a low chance of danger from wildlife (bears and other dangerous critters), I'd say they are a much more reasonable argument to carry than rapists and muggers. 

going on shooting sprees in the national forests since there's really nothing to stop them from doing so right now.  I am a little worried about what a park ranger encountering an armed stranger in the forest all of a sudden is likely to do, and also a bit worried about what a well-meaning but inexperienced in the woods armed hiker might do if confronted by the crash of something through the underbrush.  Right now Virginia has a very liberal carry statute for other places, and I can't say that there's been a substantial increase in shooting incidents since the law was put in effect; however, the national forests are a different environment for a lot of people, especially urban and suburban folks.  Got mixed feelings on this since I have country relatives whose guns are very important to them and a sister who was saved from a rabid attacking fox on her farm by her husband's .357.  If we're going to allow people to carry in the national forests I think they should be required to go through a thorough gun safety program and be certified every couple of years. 

I was hiking up a mountain in Maine (Katahdin) with some friends from my school days.  They had grown up in New York City, and of all of the things they thought important to bring with them on the hike up the mountain, they thought that a cannister of mace would be essential.  They were afraid of getting mugged on the Appalachian Trail!

I can add to this - they were afraid of getting food poisoning at a local eatery.  They were much more comfortable eating at McDonalds.

I suppose what this comes down to is that people fear the unknown.  If all you know is a city, then you have no idea what dangers lurk out there.  All they know is what they see on TV - all of those sensationalized things, or maybe they had just seen Deliverance. 

If you have lived in a rural area, then you have a better idea of what life is like out there, and what the dangers are (if any).

For that matter, how many people have seen a bear in the wild?  If you give guns to city slickers who are hiking in the woods, how many would just open fire if they saw a bear?

I have with the whole issue.  Frankly, rural people generally know when to pull a gun.  They don't freak at every noise in the woods.  It's the city slickers who worry me.  However, there have also been documented instances of people attacked on the AT, including a couple of brutal murders of women a few years back, and I'm not sure I want to have an absolute ban.  Added to that are the folks who are using the wilderness to grow their drugs, and poaching from gingko trees and taking bears' gall bladders, and you can't say that being out in the woods is necessarily always safe or every person on the trail is not a threat. 

It's a difficult issue.  I think there are plenty of people already running around in the woods armed.  They're just escaping notice. 

As a hiker, I'd rather not contemplate how many people might be carrying concealed firearms on the trail.