|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
August 21, 2011, 09:20 PM | #1 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Could the President Carry?
Here's an interesting article that explores the theoretical possibility of a President carrying a gun for protection.
Teddy Roosevelt was known to carry a revolver, and he kept an FN 1900 at his bedside in the White House, but that was a different time, before attitudes about firearms changed, and before DC all but banned handguns. The author of the article proposes three ways the President could legally do so:
Any of those options could be viable. A narrowly defined executive order might raise some political hackles, but I doubt it would merit a court challenge. Convincing the courts might seem odd, but it could be argued that it makes real sense for the Commander in Chief to be armed. While the local police chief might not be fond of the idea of deputizing the President, I imagine he'd love the photo op too much to resist. And what if we did have a President who carried? Would it change public perception in our favor, or would most people just assume that it was purely the prerogative of political figures? (I really don't want this to get political. The article mentions Rick Perry by name, but we don't need to discuss the person. I'm more interested in the concept.) <<<The statement in red is not just a good idea, let's consider it the rule for participation on this thread. JohnKSa>>>
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe Last edited by JohnKSa; August 21, 2011 at 10:19 PM. Reason: Epmhasis and warning added. |
August 21, 2011, 09:22 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
I wouldn't think it would be that far of a reach as Executive Orders go.
After all, as head of the Executive Branch, the President is already the boss of the FBI, DEA, Secret Service, US Marshals Service, DOJ... So who exactly would protest? |
August 21, 2011, 09:30 PM | #3 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,970
|
Quote:
|
|
August 21, 2011, 09:45 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
As commander in chief, he could qualify as active military carrying.
|
August 21, 2011, 09:52 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 14, 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 2,045
|
With the metric sh@%^ ton of Secret Service around me, if I were president, I would think I would be way more of a liability then otherwise.
__________________
"Is there anyway I can write my local gun store off on my taxes as dependents?" |
August 21, 2011, 10:08 PM | #6 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
I thought it was a pretty interesting article and I posted it, and it was something to talk about and everything but then my thread got locked
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=460209 |
August 21, 2011, 10:17 PM | #7 |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,967
|
This one will get locked too if it becomes a discussion about politics/the upcoming election/the current president and his policies/etc. instead of a discussion about the legalities of a president carrying.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
August 21, 2011, 10:19 PM | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
|
Quote:
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864 |
|
August 21, 2011, 10:49 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
|
Could he carry? Probably and of course hell would freeze over also...
__________________
Molon Labe |
August 21, 2011, 10:58 PM | #10 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
From the majority of the country, I imagine it'd be a two-day "event" in the papers, but maybe that would help in the long run.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
August 21, 2011, 11:07 PM | #11 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
|
The best thing for the President and the country, when there is threat of the president being shot - is for the president to hit the ground and then be surrounded by agents.
I can see the president being armed for maybe a last resort, but for the president to stand and return fire - he (or she ) is either going to shoot a Secret Service agent or end getting shot by a Secret Service agent or end up getting shot by the assasin. |
August 21, 2011, 11:16 PM | #12 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 14, 2010
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 1,824
|
Interesting look at POTUS being a Special Deputy U.S. Marshal. Although It doesn't say he can be one, just that a Member of Congress cannot due to "separation of powers". If there is a loophole for the President being able to carry, this is the one I would exploit.
Quote:
EDIT: My highlighting.
__________________
Chief stall mucker and grain chef Country don't mean dumb. Steven King. The Stand |
|
August 22, 2011, 10:45 AM | #13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 29, 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO area
Posts: 4,040
|
Quote:
POTUS travels with a fairly significant group of people tasked to his own personal protection. There's advance groups, scouts, precision marksmen, bodyguards in his immediate vicinity, and a few trucks loaded with stuff that we can only speculate at (but we're probably sure to be impressed by if we ever found out). Set against that Secret Service entourage, exactly what would the President himself (or herself, in that eventuality), hope to accomplish? Any attacking force sufficient to overwhelm the protective detail isn't going to be stopped by any weapon in POTUS' own hands (and even then, the Prez could just pick up any gun dropped by a now-fallen guard). Furthermore, the President has other things to worry about than scanning for threats; there's no shortage of actual professionals doing that for him. The one threat that everybody understands would be the worst (lone nutcase) is not something that even the President would likely spot first. I'm a proponent of carry, I carry myself, etc. But if I were in the Oval Office, have to say that I probably just wouldn't mess with it. There's nothing I would be able to do that the detail couldn't. Even so, I still chuckle at the horror expressed by people over the President carrying a handgun. There's a bunch of people with handguns around him. There's folks with significantly better armament right nearby. Oh, and lest we neglect it, that dude with the briefcase has plans and communications gear sufficient to start the process of burning anyplace on earth to a radioactive cinder, and the President himself has a card with verification codes to begin a nuclear launch. Freaking out over the President having a pocket mousegun when he could wipe places off the map with a phone call is a little silly. |
|
August 22, 2011, 01:57 PM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Are there mechanisms by which a President could, in effect, declare himself above the law, and carry a gun if he wanted to? As Tom Servo notes in the OP -- of course there are.
As a practical matter, does it make any sense for a President to do so? As others have pointed out, probably not, given that he's surrounded by professional gun-toters. So it seems to me that this is the interesting question: Quote:
So public perception wouldn't really change -- most people have very short memories. But suppose he weighed in, as an interested party, on the specific issue of D.C. gun laws -- and on the right to bear arms in general? I'd love to see a President say, "Hey, this is ridiculous, as a resident of the District of Columbia, even I am not allowed to carry a gun under the current laws! What about all the people who don't have the kind of protection I get? Why is their right to defend themselves being denied?" Whatever happened to the "bully pulpit?" It would be nifty to have an activist President, and I think he could be a lot more effective in that role if he didn't simultaneously put himself above the law.
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
|
August 22, 2011, 03:16 PM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 25, 2010
Location: Coyote Creak, SW Texas
Posts: 597
|
I read somewhere the other day that Reagan carried a handgun in a briefcase.
__________________
Twobit, Strive to live up to the opinion that your dog has of you. |
August 22, 2011, 03:43 PM | #16 |
Member
Join Date: June 25, 2011
Location: SE Michigan, near Detroit.
Posts: 40
|
Sure he could carry.
As to whether it is a good idea or not: -On the one hand he has no business shooting at BGs, that's what the Secret Service is for and he'd only get in the way. -On the other hand, if he understands that, I don't see the harm in being armed for a "last ditch, worst case scenario." [Politics redacted]
__________________
There are basically two kinds of people in this world. Those that believe in the Moon Landing and those that don't. http://unistat76.blogspot.com/ Last edited by Al Norris; August 22, 2011 at 06:29 PM. Reason: partisan politics |
August 22, 2011, 06:50 PM | #17 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
Quote:
|
|
August 22, 2011, 07:01 PM | #18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 12, 2006
Location: NKY
Posts: 12,463
|
Quote:
__________________
"He who laughs last, laughs dead." Homer Simpson |
|
August 22, 2011, 07:46 PM | #19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 29, 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO area
Posts: 4,040
|
Quote:
|
|
August 22, 2011, 07:49 PM | #20 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
Quote:
|
|
August 22, 2011, 07:59 PM | #21 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
Quote:
However, having a President bring the issue forth in the public arena the way you've described? That would be incredible, to see the fight being waged from the top down.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
||
August 22, 2011, 08:15 PM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 28, 2006
Location: South Central Michigan...near
Posts: 6,501
|
It seems to have been overlooked that no one is likely to try and stop a president from carrying a gun. Therefore, the answer is yes, he could. Could he carry legally is a different question.
|
August 22, 2011, 08:43 PM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 31, 2009
Posts: 642
|
To carry on federal property it just has to be for official purposes. So the president can easily get a permit to carry on any federal land or installation by writing a short memo. I do not think that memo would work for non-federal carry in states that restrict concealed weapons.
|
August 22, 2011, 09:02 PM | #24 |
Member
Join Date: August 15, 2011
Location: Midwest
Posts: 51
|
are you talking about our current president?
|
August 22, 2011, 09:04 PM | #25 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
Let's please not go there.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|