|
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 |
January 10, 2011, 04:30 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
This brings up an odd legal question...
...but is it legal for non-LEO to carry at political gatherings in UT and NC?
http://content.usatoday.com/communit...ngress-guns-/1 Two Congressman, one R one D for those who worry about politics, intend to carry their own handguns at future gatherings, in reaction to Tucson. Wonder if other government officials plan on doing the same, but haven't told the press? And how would the rules apply, in states where carry at a public gathering or political rally is banned? Would make one take another look at the haves vs have-nots. |
January 10, 2011, 07:38 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 13, 2006
Location: western north carolina
Posts: 1,641
|
Under North Carolina laws He would be committing a crime, unless he goes to the USMS and is sworn in as a deputy which members of Congress can do.
__________________
Every day Congress is in session we lose a little bit more of our Liberty. |
January 10, 2011, 09:15 PM | #3 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 3,062
|
Quote:
__________________
Need a FFL in Dallas/Plano/Allen/Frisco/McKinney ? Just EMAIL me. $20 transfers ($10 for CHL, active military,police,fire or schoolteachers) Plano, Texas...........the Gun Nut Capitol of Gun Culture, USA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE |
|
January 10, 2011, 09:23 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 14, 2010
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 1,824
|
Only reference I could find. A Senator no, member of a Senators staff is allowed:
On May 25, 1994, this office issued an opinion advising that the appointment of a United States Senator as a DUSM would be inconsistent with separation of powers principles.(1) We primarily based that conclusion upon "the principle recognized in Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714 (1986), that Congress may not exceed its constitutionally prescribed authority by playing a direct role in executing the laws." 18 Op. O.L.C. at . Although such an appointment might raise additional problems under the Incompatability Clause of Article I, section 6, we did not reach that issue in the earlier opinion. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 6, cl. 2. We were subsequently asked whether the deputation of an employee on the personal staff of a U.S. Senator, for purposes of providing protection and personal security against threatened violence(2), would be constitutionally permissible. We concluded that it would. Our views on that issue were reflected in a Memorandum from the Director of the United States Marshals Service ("USMS") to you, reviewed and endorsed by this office, dated January 26, 1995. Memorandum for the Deputy Attorney General, from Eduardo Gonzalez, Director, United States Marshal Service, Re: Continued Deputation (Jan. 26, 1995) ("Joint Memorandum"). In concluding that deputation of the congressional staff member would not violate the separation of powers, the Joint Memorandum stated: The deputized staff person is not a Member of Congress and exercises no legislative power under Article I of the Constitution; nor would Congress (or any member thereof) have the authority to grant or revoke his appointment as a special DUSM, or to control or supervise his official duties as such. http://www.justice.gov/olc/usmsdep_sa1.htm
__________________
Chief stall mucker and grain chef Country don't mean dumb. Steven King. The Stand |
January 10, 2011, 10:00 PM | #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,902
|
Quote:
As to North Carolina law, a political gathering, by itself, does not appear to be a prohibited location. Restricted places include:
Interestingly, NCGS § 14‑269(b)(2) contains an exemption from concealed carry and prohibited places restrictions for "Civil and law enforcement officers of the United States." I wonder if a member of Congress or Congressional staff members would qualify as 'civil officers' of the United States. |
|
January 11, 2011, 07:57 AM | #6 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Quote:
|
|
January 11, 2011, 08:07 AM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
+1 Aguila Blanca
|
January 11, 2011, 08:41 AM | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,351
|
Quote:
You cannot hamper them going to or from Congress when their house is in session. |
|
January 11, 2011, 08:46 AM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,902
|
Yes, it is sad. There always has been - and probably always will be - a gap between the ideal and the reality. It is difficult enough to prevent legally recognized differences, without seriously expecting to stamp out all implicit differences.
|
January 11, 2011, 09:19 AM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
|
Do you think it would make any difference to the safety of the elected official?
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds. |
January 11, 2011, 09:31 AM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,902
|
Quote:
|
|
January 11, 2011, 11:29 AM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
|
Just answer the question. Do you think it would have made any difference had the congresswoman been armed? It didn't seem to make any difference that there was a legally armed citizen in the crowd.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds. |
January 11, 2011, 11:36 AM | #13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
|
Maybe not for the Congresswoman.
But wasn't a CCW person running out of Walgreens towards the sound of the shots one of the 3 reasons the reload was unsuccessful? He could have been closer, farther, or run the other way. Flip side of the coin might be if he had been standing 3 feet behind the guy while 30 some shots were being fired. I couldn't speculate either way, this event happened the way it happened.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
January 11, 2011, 11:53 AM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,351
|
While we are a nation of laws, the Constitution gives the Congress Critters a lot of leeway.
Quote:
|
|
January 11, 2011, 02:26 PM | #15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,902
|
Quote:
With respect to the Congresswoman - who knows. I have not seen enough details to know whether she was approached from the back, side, or front, or was aware or unaware that she was being threatened. Being armed only helps if a person is aware of, and can react to, a threat. |
|
January 11, 2011, 03:08 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Since her wound went from back to front...
... it would seem he approached from the rear. Not sure what his sequence of targets was, or if she ever knew the threat was there.
|
January 11, 2011, 05:15 PM | #17 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,902
|
A more recent report:
Quote:
|
|
January 11, 2011, 05:30 PM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Good catch, gc70
Hadn't seen that report, yet. The reports I have seen, that I like even better, are the ones saying she's capable of breathing on her own; she's still resposive to verbal stimuli; and she has shown no indications of further swelling.
Here's hoping she keeps up this trend, and pulls a Bob Woodruff. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|