Open Carry at Presidential Town Hall

[OuTcAsT]

It is a simple question of decorum and maturity.

So, exercising my 1A or 2A rights, or both, is somehow immature?

Open carry is legal, okay. Yet exercising that right in an area with lots of armed and alert law enforcement makes about as much sense as going into a bar with a loaded AR when you intend to get absolutely sloshed.

That is an illogical argument as one describes a perfectly legal act, the other an illegal one.

Now if they organized an open carry march on the other side of town to let Obama know that they will defend their rights.

Had you researched this a bit, you would have discovered that these men were no where near any secured area.

Carrying a firearm in the open anyplace an elected federal official is at just feeds into the fear mentality that the Brady nuts propagate! Want to open carry? Lets get a few thousand outside a Brady convention in AZ, that I would be down with. Though I fear someone would lose control and it would get ugly

It would seem that the very fear the Brady's propagate, has found you. As I stated earlier, if you let your fear dictate whether you exercise a right, you have already lost that right.

[azredhawk44]

TP: I wasn't arguing the pro/anti angle of carrying around the Prez, whomever he may be and whatever policies he may be stumping.

I was arguing the use of the term "2nd amendment privilege."

Regardless of where you stand... no one with a proper understanding of our Bill of Rights calls any of those enumerated restrictions on our government a privilege of the people.

I hope you can agree with me on that issue, regardless of where you stand on open carry at political events.

[OuTcAsT]

It can also be argued that it is disrespectful to the people that have died to defend this country to open carry around its elected leader.

Sorry but swords cut both ways.

No, it does not. Please explain to me how it is "disrespectful"
to exercise a right that the president himself has ?

[VinnyT]

Guys, I misspoke and corrected it. Good grief, no need to go off on a tangent.

[azredhawk44]

Thanks for fixing, Vinny.

[bradofhill]

My guess is that this thread could go on like this for weeks, and in the end two truths come together to form an unfortunate circumstance. That is:

1) The guy was explicitly exercising his right to openly bear arms.
2) Some people will never be comfortable, or otherwise okay with that.

It is nothing short of naive to suggest otherwise, or to expect that all instances of someone exercising their rights would go unremarked. It is what it is whether we like it or not. To me, the only question that remains is ... how does this change?

[Homerboy]

I just want to tell those of you who think this was a "bad" are wimps.

So we're wimps, eh? Ever stop to think that MAYBE some of the people who are against this idiot's actions are military veterans?

This guy was looking to get on camera. Hey, the college kid who was tazed at the presidential rally was just excercising his first amendment right, also.
"Don't taze me, bro!".

Some people are just diks, and they want to stire ****e up. If this was a rally for the 2nd amendment, MAYBE I would support him, but he put that gun on (and did you notice the "mall ninja" type holster he had on? What a tool.) for the express purpose of making a statement that didn't need to be made. While he has the right to open carry, others have the right not to be intimidated. And I don't care what the law says, how about using some common sense?. You're telling me that if you were at the mall, and some idiot walks in with an AR over his shoulder, that you're not gonna be alarmed?

I would prefer some educates person make such a statement. As a long time gun owner and gun rights supporter, I don't agree with what he did. If you're at Gunsite or something, walk around like Rambo. For a public forum, leave the AR at home.

[azredhawk44]

For a public forum, leave the AR at home.

Yeah... bayoneted muskets have no place on Lexington green.

[OuTcAsT]

Ever stop to think that MAYBE some of the people who are against this idiot's actions are military veterans?

Just as an aside, did you even consider the possibility that some of us who support these peoples activism have served as well ?

Or, have you considered that; as veterans, we see that this type of activism is necessary to help defend the Constitution, You know, that whole "oath" thing ?

Just something to stop and think about.

[Homerboy]

Just as an aside, did you even consider the possibility that some of us who support these peoples activism have served as well ?

Or, have you considered that; as veterans, we see that this type of activism is necessary to help defend the constitution, You know, that whole "oath" thing ?

Just something to stop and think about.

Sure I have. I was responding to the outlandish comment that anyone who disagrees with what this guy did are "wimps".

Tell me, WHAT was the point of his statement? Was this a rally having ANYTHING to do with the right to keep and bear arms? As much as I hate Chris Matthews, and he obviously attacked this guy (and I think the guy WAS the wimp for taking it. I would have not been so kind had Matthews been talking to me). Why is it that EVERY political event has to turn into a 2A debate? I didn't vote for Obama. I don't support him at all. But not everything is about the 2A. it's not going anywhere. Nobody is taking our guns. This would have been a REAL statement if a couple of thousand guys showed up like this guy did.

You want to make a statement? I've been hearing for YEARS about the "Million Gun March" in Washington. It never happened. Appoint a educated spokesperson to speak for us, organize an event, have a huge turnout. THAT'S making a statement.

Look, I love guns. I love shooting them, cleaning them, carrying them, even just holding them. Most people are kind of ambivalent about them. Putting some blinky dude wearing a "tacticool" holster and holding a sign that calls for shedding the blood of tyrants (and I know that wasn't written on the sign, but the average person KNOWS what comes after that famous quote) does NOT benefit us in any way.

He was looking for his 15 minutes. he got them. Now he'll fade away, only to be replaced by someone else. And nothing changes.

[OuTcAsT]

Tell me, WHAT was the point of his statement?

I believe that he was making a very broad statement to our elected officials that some of the citizenry understand that we still have rights, and as such, are still able to bring about a change if they quit listening to "We the people". The great thing is, that it is happening more and more, folks are starting to wake up to the notion that government only exists to serve the people.

These guys simply sent a subtle reminder, that one of the boxes that can bring about change in a government gone amok, is the ammo box. At least that was my impression. YMMV

This would have been a REAL statement if a couple of thousand guys showed up like this guy did.

Oddly enough, it is becoming more common for this kind of activism to be seen, and I support it. If the trend continues, and more people do show up, you may yet see that "real" statement come to fruition. It takes only a small spark to encourage a roaring fire.

[gc70]

While both the New Hampshire and Arizona appearances were probably intended to garner attention and make a statement, the one in Arizona was much more blatant due to the choice of weapon.

I would have much preferred to see someone open carrying a pistol and some kind of sign related to the health care debate. It would have been so sweet if the response to the media was "I am interested in the health care debate. The gun? I always wear it."

[rburch]

VCDL just linked me to a couple youtube videos with this guy:

This one shows Kostric speaking with a detective, it seems from what the video show the police told him he couldn't carry on the school grounds, but they seem to have asked around to find a place he could stand.

http://tinyurl.com/oybdwz

So out of curiousity, those who don't agree with his open carrying...

Does the fact the detective told him he was fine to stay as long as he was on the Church property affect your views on the situation?



This seems to be some of those thugs that are harassing protestors trying to do the same to Kostric and some guys around him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUxjahek0f8

Americans will not stand for intimidating displays of weapons being part of public political dialogue.

I find this statement odd when comparing the actions of Kostric with the guys accosting him. I really only see intimidation coming from the unarmed guys here. Well, one could argue the sight of the gun intimidated the thugs into choosing another target.



As for myself, I agree the man was in his legal rights to carry, and it seems there is validity to the argument that he may need to defend himself even with so many police around. I also applaud his keeping calm during the interview.

But I also have to say he's a lot braver than I am, and I don't think I'll be carrying if I make it to any of the town halls...

[olyinaz]

At first I was appalled, probably because like many people I'm a polite guy and I just want other people to leave me the hell alone and I'll do the same. But as I thought about it I have come to the conclusion that those who are saying either USE your rights or LOSE your rights have a very good point.

Regards,
Oly

[Poseidon28]

As I just pointed out to azredhawk in another thread, there really isn't a place to discuss politics on TFL anymore.

For many of you that are here now, you might not know the history of the older Legal & Political forum. Suffice it to say that it was shut down (last year about this time) and closed for the reason that the members here could not discuss politics in a polite manner with each other. The last election cycle brought out the worst in our members, many of whom are no longer with us.

With that being said, we have, on occasion, allowed political threads since this forum opened in January.

I'm leaning on allowing the continuation of this thread in the direction it seems to be going, but at the first sign of any impolite posts, it will be closed and the member posting such will be banned. Should the other mods of L&CR object to continuing in this direction, it will be closed.

With that understanding, carry on.
__________________
Al Norris

A public service message to members joining from another thread...

I am kind of wondering about the entire open carry in Arizona issue? Isn't there a border war going on down there, that we are loosing?
Seems they called in the National Guard awhile back, but didn't give them any bullets? Might the person carrying the AR-15 be pointing out there is a really bad border situation, and, the government is failing to protect people that try and protect themselves from illegals coming across the border? And worse, when they are shot at, and shoot back, they are prosecuted for protecting themselves, us, and the United States border? Do we, as citizens, have the right to bring up other topics at these town hall meetings?

Also, what are the facts of the AR-15 carry, and where did you find them?

[AZAK]

Putting some blinky dude wearing a "tacticool" holster and holding a sign that calls for shedding the blood of tyrants (and I know that wasn't written on the sign, but the average person KNOWS what comes after that famous quote) does NOT benefit us in any way.

I personally do not recall TBofR excluding "blinky dudes" wearing...
What I am seeing here is the fact that perception of an event can be linked to appearance. Shiny=Good. Dirty=Bad. (And we all know just how that can work out... "Oh, my precious!")

A right is a right. If we begin down the road that starts with, "This does not make it look good..." ,when in fact are adhering to the truth/given right, we are on a slippery slope. Then we have begun to negotiate away the right for convenience and appearance.

"Blinky dudes" with Rambo holsters in t-shirts carrying politically charged signs have the same rights as the lawyer in a three-piece suit, and as the POTUS.

[Homerboy]

Because in the real world, perception is everything, and while nobody on here is saying this man does not have the right to carry (and the fact he wasn't arrested proves it), his apperance doesn't improve the perception people have toards gun enthusiasts. Matthews shreaded him. This guy wasn't prepared for the questions he was asked, and he allowed Matthews to disrespect him.

I work with several people who really had no feelings about guns one way or the other. They were appalled at this guy's behavior. He came across as a nut to me, and I AM a gun person.

[Poseidon28]

"Blinky dudes" with Rambo holsters in t-shirts carrying politically charged signs have the same rights as the lawyer in a three-piece suit, and as the POTUS.

No, we don't. I don't have SS protection, a lifetime pension, and medical, and a 'office' forever in Harlem, paid for by the tax payers, oh, that's me.

I don't have the right to buy any gun made in any gun store, in New York, as police do, or retired LEO do.

I don't have the right to qualify, and CCW in all 50 states, on the basis of a Federal Law for LEO, and retired LEO.

For nearly 40 years, with AA, I have not had the 'same rights' as others.

The legal issue is our rights have been limited, or taken by our elected officials, and, they have tried, and we allowed it, the creating of different classes of people, in what should be a classless society.

Under the 14th amendment, and equal protection, these situations should NOT exist.

HOW DO WE GET THOSE RIGHTS BACK?

This is NOT "If you want to throw up veiled references to revolution and bloodshed - then this tread is going nowhere. " as is posted by Meyer below. It is plain language, period.

I will go out on a limb and say these folks have a point. Now is a different time then when all these laws where passed, and our sensibility has changed. Bin Laden woke us up on 9/11, as did the Rodney King riots.
Our LEO are not capable of protecting us all the time, or in the case of the King riots, themselves. In fact, even with real threats, the Supreme Court has held the LEO's are under no Constitutional obligation to protect a citizen. This current SC has realized that in view of that ruling, we have to protect ourselves, and, the Second Amendment states arms are the way it is to be done. We have become 'comfortable', secure, and, 9/11, and the southern invasion have changed that situation, and, slowly people are becoming aware of that.
By bringing the issues to the front, with OC, perhaps people will realize that what worked for the last 50 years will not work now. Perhaps these patriots are right, and that now is the time to return to the roots, and founding principles of this country.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

HOW DO WE GET THOSE RIGHTS BACK?

The legislative process and electing folks who will implement laws that reflect your point of view? Court challenges to laws that seem to violate the BOR?

How about that!

If you want to throw up veiled references to revolution and bloodshed - then this tread is going nowhere.

The issue, again, is if we have to convince folks that the RKBA needs to be implemented more strongly - did this type of action influence folks outside the choir in the direction that is productive to the cause?

It's not whether you get all hot and bothered by seeing it. Is it productive?

So talk to nongunners or undecided on the issue. Were they positively influenced?

I would remind you all of another well known process called the innoculation effect. Make a weak or offensive argument for something and later better arguments are not valued.

So do guns at the rallies, with an implicit threat of violence, help - or do they hurt?

Saying it is their right may be correct but does it work? Subtle point that passes folks by. The gun world is know for being enamoured with the righteous tantrum as compared to being effective in some instances.

I recall such tantrums against CCW bills - we don't need them, we have the 2nd Amend. Well, did that do any good? Or did a rational legislative process work better?

[Poseidon28]

Mr. Meyer:

Your perspective leads you to imply from my comments, meaning that is not present. I ask simple questions, in straight forward language. If you want to create implied meaning, it's your creation, not mine. In the future, at least have the respect to question me, either PM or on the forum, if my writing makes you 'uncomfortable'.

Seems to me peaceful, organized protest has been an effective means of changing public perception in the past. Martin Luther King and Ghandi come to mind. They argued for the rights of human beings, and, the Right to protect yourself in your own home, or your wife from rape, etc. is the most basic of human rights.

In California, we have managed to defeat a number of gun rights issues by peaceful protest at the state capital. By being present, and voicing our opinions, our legislators listened, and voted down a couple of proposed gun laws restricting our freedoms further. The group was NOT quiet, but, was not violent, either.

"The legislative process and electing folks who will implement laws that reflect your point of view? Court challenges to laws that seem to violate the BOR?

How about that!"

The legal process has been nearly impossible, since the courts had held a collective right to bare arms, which, since no one had standing to challenge, has resulted in over a 100 years of local, and federal laws. I'll most likely be dead before this mess is cleaned up.

The legislative process is influenced by a liberal media, that dominates the major source of information for this generation, television. Between that, and, our schools, people who even know what the BOR is, or what it's about are few and far between. The ACLU has long had a BOR that had no Second Amendment, as does the State of California. Also, it seems that regardless
of what they state during the campaign, our legislators become anti-gun
when they have won.

I guess my question is how can any sort of support for the Second Amendment occur with our current media, and teaching?

These two gentlemen have managed to peacefully protest in their own way.
Prior to Heller, such action has been pretty much the only method open to address these issues. Perhaps now is the right time.

Perhaps we should take a page from Ghandi and Martin Luther King, using peaceful demonstration, without any sort of firearm present.

[hogdogs]

If legal in the state, go for it. But large gathering areas are often off limits...
Brent

[publius42]

I would have much preferred to see someone open carrying a pistol and some kind of sign related to the health care debate. It would have been so sweet if the response to the media was "I am interested in the health care debate. The gun? I always wear it."

Do it enough, it becomes unremarkable, as it should be.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

If the legislative process is ineffective - how come we now have 40 states with shall issue legislation?

The legislative process was part of the system that built in the sunset to the AWB.

All other groups that have received increased civil rights made their case through demonstrations, etc. But the legislative and court processes then responded.

That is because the case made swayed enough of the public that the legislatures and courts responded. As far as time scale - African-Americans fought hundreds of years of discrimination and negative legal processes to get where they are today. SCOTUS decisions that support slavery and segregation were overturned. So they carried the day. But NO, for the gun guys, wailing and lamentation that we can't win with argument and legislation. The media hates us - wah, wah, wah, wah. Why are gun folks so easy to be cowed and give up - and then murmur of revolution? Bah.

As far as my view of the implications - I stand by them. Watering the tree of liberty, etc. - it is naive to assume that is not a threat of violence on some level.

Carrying a weapon to a rally is because it is your right is fine but it is naive to think that it doesn't carry the implicit or a touch explicit threat that such will be used. If you don't think so, I opine that those outside of the choir may not view it 'your' way.

I return to my point - does such work? It is the case that the Black Panthers have carried weapons to make the point that they would defend themselves. It can be argued that they were effective in making their point and contributing to the overall civil rights struggle. Maybe carrying guns will convince politicians that is a strongly held belief of enough of a vote slice not to mess with. Some Democrats have made that analysis. The AG was shut up for babbling about the AWB.

The Stonewall riots seemed to be a motivator for gay rights and helped make their point against discrimination.

To conclude - seeing that I know a great deal about aggressive ideation due to weapons priming (sorry to put on that hat but that's the way it is) - the presence of the weapons carries both the hint of violent use and the risk of priming negative attitudes outside of the choir.

Is that productive? An empirical question.

PS - and 'current teaching '- well, pardon me for wasting my time being a proponent of the 2nd Amend. in academia. I guess I should just go belly up and whine.

[Hkmp5sd]

For those wondering the basis for the Secret Service banning guns in the presence of POTUS......

U.S. Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan acknowledged the incidents in New Hampshire and Arizona, but said he was not aware of any other recent events where protesters attended with open weapons. He said there was no indication that anyone had organized the incidents.

Asked whether the individuals carrying weapons jeopardized the safety of the president, Donovan said, "Of course not."

The individuals would never have gotten in close proximity to the president, regardless of any state laws on openly carrying weapons, he said. A venue is considered a federal site when the Secret Service is protecting the president and weapons are not allowed on a federal site, he added.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/...fle/index.html

Technically, that is not true.

[Hkmp5sd]

Here's something I bet you didn't expect. The guy with the AR-15 was African-American.