Open Carry at Presidential Town Hall

[Poseidon28]

off topic

[Hkmp5sd]

20 years ago you could attend a political rally for a presidential candidate without undergoing a million degrees of patriot act surveillance, magnetometer scanning and wanding, nitrocellulose puffer detection... and still be able to demonstrate for or against an issue without having to be in a "designated free speech zone."

According to a new book on the Secret Service, 21 years ago, President Ronald Reagan carried a personal gun during his trip to the USSR.

[Hkmp5sd]

Why do I think this might be a good thing? I think the public needs to get used to seeing folk with guns and not freak out. Maybe something like this will help the perception.

Well, here is the perception most Americans are hearing about.

Fear for Obama's Safety Grows as Hate Groups Thrive on Racial Backlash


Experts who track hate groups across the U.S. are growing increasingly concerned over violent rhetoric targeted at President Obama, especially as the debate over health care intensifies and a pattern of threats emerges.

Contentious health care debate heightens concerns for Obama's safety.The Secret Service is investigating a Maryland man who held a sign reading "Death to Obama" and "Death to Michelle and her two stupid kids" outside a town hall meeting this week. And in New Hampshire, another man stood across the street from a Presidential town hall with his gun on full display.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=8324481&page=1

So do you think the perception is a guy advertising his 2nd Amendment rights or someone tied to death threats?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Poseidon28

Have any facts to back up that the majority of Americans don't own guns?What % actually do?

Actually, no one has an exact number because we don't register them. The NRA says about 50% of all households have a gun in them. One may suspect some bias there.

Here is a study that I believe is a bit more objective that shows there are a lot of guns in the US but they are highly concentrated among a small percentage of owners. http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/...t/full/13/1/15

Kind of like the members of this forum.

Their conclusion is about one third of all households have at least one gun in them. So two thirds do not. Therefore I submit most Americans do not own guns.

Originally Posted by Poseidon28

The best thing possible for presidential protection is one of two options:
One: no one but Secret Service is allowed within shooting distance of the president.

Actually what the USSS does is not allow anyone with a gun (other than themselves and others they have cleared) within shooting distance of the President and that has worked quite well.

Originally Posted by Poseidon28

The SS is NOT capable of protecting the president, at least the % of times they have managed to stop an actual attack are NOT good.

They have stopped far more than you may know of. Also, most of their protective measures are done during their advance work and not readily seen by the public.

Originally Posted by divemedic

I have always wondered what legal authority they do that under.

There is a lot of Law written to protect the President. Here is one place to look: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL34603.pdf and you might try their website. Too much here for me to post but a LOT of Federal legislation written on their behalf.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by rickyjames

can you imagine that guy when bush was in office? he probably would have been in gitmo before bush finished his speech. of course he probably would'nt have gotten any further than those caged "free speach zones" they set up for people blocks away from the actual site.

Good point Ricky! Especially if he were of middle eastern extraction.

[Poseidon28]

possibly off topic.

[spodwo]

Chris Mathews went after him again and again and again - I have to say - that guy held his ground and he was pretty informed. NOW - consider the sound bite I saw of him from a newscast - he looked a little goofy - but I think Mathews was set back by his knowledge of US history and government. Intriguing....

I don't agree though that 1000 people should be bringing firearms to a place where the POTUS is.....as I have said before - there are people that shouldn't have firearms. They are the same ones that shouldn't probably drive autos or operate electrical appliances either...

[MLeake]

... in both the media and in politics... of LOUD = RIGHT.

I don't like it with Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, or Paul Begala. I also don't like it with Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, or Ann Coulter (who isn't loud in volume, but in outrageousness).

If you have to shout over the top of me to make your point, then your point obviously can't speak on its own merits.

While I'm not violent by nature, I do have to admit to wondering if these loudmouths would behave in the manner they do if we had never banned honor duels. Kind of like I often wonder if some of the worst of the internet loudmouths would pipe up the way they do if they realized the relative ease with which somebody with computer savvy and governmental authority wanted to track them down. (Note: really good hackers don't need governmental authority...)

I can only penalize the boorish behavior of the current set of media talking heads by ignoring them to the best of my ability, and not adding to their ratings. It's too bad in a way, because many of them make good points from time to time (with the exception of Begala, whom I think exists primarily to remind us all that once upon a time, in elementary school, there were tattletales and hall monitors); but if they take up a cause, I have to fight not to oppose it from simple knee-jerking distaste for the messenger.

Politics is much the same way. I find it amazing how many people are upset about alleged threats against President Obama, when those same people had no problem with the ugliest of things said about President Bush.

Note 1: I'm a registered Republican, but I do vote across party lines depending on issues. I did NOT vote for President Obama, but I have found myself agreeing with many of the stances he has taken since assuming office. I think some of those stances were inevitable, but they do prove he's more pragmatist than ideologue. I don't think he's a scourge, or the downfall of the nation, and I do think he's a citizen - despite all the Birthers. If invited to have a beer with the man, I'd be happy to do so. This doesn't mean I like his health care plan, his tax plans, or any number of other things. It does mean I am not into demonizing people unless their intentions really merit such.

Note 2: I think an awful lot of our problems when it comes to politics stem from the school systems weakening history curricula, and in many cases dropping any requirements for Civics or government classes. This went hand in hand with the removal of phys ed requirements. Hence, we are fast becoming a nation of fat desk-jockeys with little understanding of Constitutional law or how it was shaped.

[OuTcAsT]

I would implore you all to keep to the discussion about the OP and, the legal and civil rights aspect of it. This is an interesting discussion, let's not turn it political and get it locked....mmmmkaaaayyy.

[MLeake]

Because a lot of people are concerned about the possible ramifications of a case of open carry in NH.

Why are they concerned? Because of the potential for shrill overreaction by the media (really, the likelihood of it, as we've already seen), not to mention the antis, and because of the stupefying number of Americans who really don't understand how the Amendments to the Constitution came to be. If people were still required to study Civics and American History pre-Reconstruction, they'd have a much better grasp of the importance of 2A.

And if discussion of conflicts between the watchdogs of the 1st Amendment (IE the media) and the guardians of the 2nd Amendment (IE us) can't be introduced in Law and Civil Rights without being considered thread veer, then where can they be introduced?

[Al Norris]

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.

[TheNatureBoy]

Obviously he was within his legal right to open carry, however, I don't think he accomplished much of anything by doing it. I think he played to the fears of the general public and came off looking like a nut job even though he "handled himself well".

[One way or another]

Five pages

112 (113 counting this) replies

I'm baffled by some (most?) of the comments being made by so many for what is a non-issue

1. NH is an open carry state PERIOD

2. William Kostric isn't an "armed protestor" He is a "protestor" PERIOD

3. He was on private property PERIOD

4. He was 75 yds(?) from where the town hall was being held PERIOD

5. The MSM "tried" to make an issue of this, and FAILED PERIOD

6. Nothing more, nothing less PERIOD

7. Listen to Ron Paul's response to this (seeing how this "protestor" is a Ron Paul supporter http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YpM60Kvwmk

8. Why are so many here trying (continuing) to make an issue out of a NON-ISSUE????

[divemedic]

As for Federal authority: If a Federal law is in conflict with a state law, on the same issue, then under the Supremacy Clause, the Federal law trumps.

Of course assuming that the Federal Law is Constitutional in the first place. Which I am not sure that the law prohibiting weapons in the vicinity of the POTUS is, nor is any law (should one exist) that allows people to be searched for weapons merely because they are in the presence of POTUS. IMO, this violates your due process AND protections from unreasonable search rights.

Actually what the USSS does is not allow anyone with a gun (other than themselves and others they have cleared) within shooting distance of the President and that has worked quite well.

I wouldn't call it overwhelming success. Of the 21 Presidents who have been protected by the USSS, one was killed, and another was seriously wounded.

There is a lot of Law written to protect the President. Here is one place to look: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL34603.pdf and you might try their website. Too much here for me to post but a LOT of Federal legislation written on their behalf.

Except that there is nothing there that authorizes the USSS to detain a person who is not even suspected of committing a crime, and no federal law of which I am aware that makes it a crime to have a weapon in the vicinity of POTUS. How can you detain or search a person who is not breaking the law without violating several constitutional rights?

[5whiskey]

I really don't understand the great big debate over this. What is sad, to me at least, is that America has been reduced to making this a debate. 50 years ago no one would have thought anything of it. Back then you could still order a rifle out of a sears catalog and have it shipped to your door. My oh my I wish I would've lived back then.

I agree with everyone that expresses the view that intentionally refusing to excercise your rights because media goons have made it appear "kookish" with their banter, will only lead to further erosion of those rights. I wish 200 people would've been there, armed, with a fully peaceful turnout. And then the next rally I wish 2000 would show up armed, with a wholly peaceful turnout. Guns are tools. There are tools that carry guns, so I understand why those unfamiliar with firearms seem to be concerned. I maintain that the more of us that choose to peacefully excercise our rights, the more protection we will have from the tools AND the uninformed.

[MLeake]

Kostric didn't let Matthews fence in his responses, or make him look like a nut.

Ron Paul didn't let Ed steer the discussion, or make Kostrick look like a nut.

Isn't it nice to have pro-2A people who can frustrate the media by speaking on point, politely, without heat, while making cogent arguments?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by divemedic

I wouldn't call it overwhelming success. Of the 21 Presidents who have been protected by the USSS, one was killed, and another was seriously wounded.

We would disagree. I am not sure you realize how difficult it is to protect a public figure such as the President who is exposed to large crowds frequently and have a fair number of nuts/terrorists/BGs who would like to kill them. I think the USSS has done a very very good job protecting the President and I would challenge you to find some other agency or way to protect the POTUS better than the USSS within our system of governance. Additionally, many plots against the POTUS are foiled that the public never knows about.

Originally Posted by divemedic

Except that there is nothing there that authorizes the USSS to detain a person who is not even suspected of committing a crime, and no federal law of which I am aware that makes it a crime to have a weapon in the vicinity of POTUS. How can you detain or search a person who is not breaking the law without violating several constitutional rights?

I believe there are such laws that allow detention and questioning of those the USSS feel might be threats to the POTUS. Whenever the President speaks at any event the attendees are checked thru magnetometers and if they are carrying they are detained for questioning. I also believe that the USSS can declare areas where the President is restricted for things like guns, aircraft overflights etc. However, you brought up the challenge and so you can go look it up, I do not wish to at this time.

However, if the USSS were acting without any legal authority as you seem to think they are, then I suspect the courts would have stopped it a long time ago from lawsuits.

You do know BTW that it is against Federal law to threaten the POTUS (1st Amendment?) verbally or in writing and that law has withstood court challenge?

See none of the BoRs are absolute but we have debated that one before I think.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by One way or another

I'm baffled by some (most?) of the comments being made by so many for what is a non-issue

I think the issue for many is whether Mr. Kostric's actions helped or hurt public perception concerning gun rights and gun owners.

As I have stated many times before, the battle to keep and/or restore our gun rights (and we may disagree on what those are) will be waged in the public meeting place of ideas and policy.

Since most Americans don't own guns then we must articulate our gun rights arguments with them well or not obtain the results we desire.

[MLeake]

but that some of the Federal laws that guide agencies such as USSS, DEA, and BATFE might not have passed a close Constitutional review by SCOTUS, if people had really gone after them via the courts.

Typically, such agencies, or new functions of existing agencies, and the laws controlling their efforts are created when the public is whipped into a furor over a recent Presidential assassination (USSS as bodyguards), or increased drug violence, or the uncovering of a violent, radical militia plot. At such times, Congress can pass potentially questionable laws, without much organized opposition, due to the political climate created by those events.

It also depends on how SCOTUS is comprised at the time of any such challenge and review.

It could be argued that in creating several Federal agencies, and the laws and rules that govern their operations, the government has repeatedly overstepped Constitutional bounds (after all, originally the Federal government's two primary functions were the common defense, and the regulation of interstate commerce; all authorities not explicitly given to the government were assumed to fall under state and local jurisdictions). The fact that the politics of the times allowed it to do so doesn't mean that it was Constitutionally correct.

This is one reason why we are beginning to see more and more states pass laws that challenge Federal authority, such as medicinal marijuana in CA or intrastate gun regulation in Tennessee. It will be interesting to see what happens next.

With regard to my earlier post about States' Rights, one of the major problems with past States' Rights movements being associated with protecting segregationist policies (aside from the moral aspect; my dad's best friend was black, and I was NOT brought up to condone racism, so I find the abuse of the States' Rights platform to be truly abhorrent) is that it has conditioned a lot of knight-errant lawyers to NOT take interest in advancing current States' Rights arguments.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by MLeake

but that some of the Federal laws that guide agencies such as USSS, DEA, and BATFE might not have passed a close Constitutional review by SCOTUS, if people had really gone after them via the courts.

Leake, I think the USSS is bound by all the laws that any Federal LE Agency is bound by. They do get special authority because of the nature of their protective mission (like traffic control, moving people out of hotel rooms, counterintelligence etc) that other LE agencies do not have but they are still bound by all Federal law and SCOTUS precedent. However, they have been given a lot of power to protect the safety of the President that other agencies do not have. I beleive there are laws that authorize them to do so and I used to know them once a long time ago but don't want to look them all up again. Too lazy

[MLeake]

... which is that while they may be bound by the same laws as other Federal LEO agencies, there are many who feel that some of those laws and regulations were a major overstepping of Constitutional Federal authorities.

And it's not unheard of for SCOTUS to change their minds with regard to what is or is not Constitutional. Look at internment of Japanese in WWII, for instance.

By the way, I'd prefer M. "Leake" is not something I've been called since officer candidate days.

Cheers,

M

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by MLeake

there are many who feel that some of those laws and regulations were a major overstepping of Constitutional Federal authorities.

And they are certainly free to believe such. However, the courts do not agree with them (at least concerning the USSS issue we are speaking of).

Anyway, Mr. Kostric did not violate any USSS doctrine so he was legal. However, had he tried to enter the meeting thru the mags he would have been detained and questioned and it would withstand a court challenge I believe.

Originally Posted by MLeake

And it's not unheard of for SCOTUS to change their minds with regard to what is or is not Constitutional. Look at internment of Japanese in WWII, for instance.

Actually, Korematsu is still technically a legal precedent that has not been overturned. However, your point is correct except until they change their minds it is the Law of the Land. I would not suspect many changes to (diminishing) the powers of the USSS to protect the POTUS anytime soon however.

[MLeake]

... when we can debate stuff in the forums without name-calling and rancor? Wonder how long this one will go that way? Hopefully, for a while.

Cheers,

M

[Poseidon28]

...

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I see nothing out of line, yet.

The issue of appearance is raised as a pragmatic concern in convincing folks to support the RKBA. It is easy to state that the right is God given or the law clearly states such and such (infringed, infringed, ad infinitum). However, we all know or should know that laws and rights are social constructs and a power structure implements them.

You can have a statement of XY and Z but without social consensus or power to implement that statement - operationally it is worth spit. Also, the social consensus changes.

So did this gentleman aid the cause or not? To the different choirs, all prone to information selection biases, the case is clear. He is a nut or his is a shining example within his rights. Arguments to the contrary will not be processed.

However, the game is to play to the middle of folks undecided or mildly swaying one way or another. Influencing critical decision making is under lots of study - esp. since we have seen such glaring examples of supposedly intelligent people being idiots in face of evidence - think Challenger or WMDs in Iraq.

It seems that logical arguments (based on evidence - in the trade called System II) are not as effective as more emotional vivid arguments (called System I) for most people (even smart ones).

Thus, the empirical question and operational one is that if you wanted to convince the undecided about the validility of the RKBA, did this approach and subsequent appearances add up to a pro or con with the population that needs evaluation. The choirs are irrelevant in some respect.

The righteous rant can be at odds with the pragmatic. Do you prefer a righteous but counterproductive presentation?

I think this one will blow over and have little long term effect on the debate. However, the media will just play to choirs.