D.C. delegate calls for ban on guns near Obama

... of the President and all the roads he will travel on.


That's doable.







The right wing would LOVE a hysterical, poorly-thought-out piece of hurried legislation written by people ignorant of the subject to pass and have Obama's signature on.

Come on Secret Service stop slacking.

Obviously a non voting delegate from one of the highest crime cities knows more about security then you guys do. Step it up.

Can't be more than 40,000 residences to check, maybe 10,000 cars or so. Two agents and dog, be done in a few hours.

But rather its an exclusion zone.

The inner perimeter would be secured as normal, and the outer perimeter enforcement would be on an exception basis based on reasonable suspicion.

To say that the entire outer perimeter would need to be searched, is tantamount to saying that all cars must only be driven with an officer in the front seat watching your dashboard to make sure you don't speed.

Having an exclusion zone without searching it and providing for controlled entry is nothing but a feel good law.

Having a controlled exclusion zone is a massive drain in resources of dubious value.

Maybe even profiling.

Which is something that all law enforcement does. Only in a police state is everyone under constant investigation.

Because statistically usually only white people carry guns openly.

http://ccwsaveslives.blogspot.com/

And the White House has pointed out that they take no issue with the people hanging around outside, armed or not. They're not a threat to the President.

through the lawmaking process.

That's all this this congresswoman is proposing. She is btw, in OUR side, which seems to be forgotten in this thread.

Or other multiple story building cities.

How many cubic feet of volume?

:P

if you count multi-level structures in the vicinity.

an expert sniper can be 900 to 1000 yards out and make a shot.

The gun nuts are nutty, but they're not planning on trying something stupid and dangerous. They know the president is protected. They know they're not even likely to see him or his motorcade. They just want the attention and the ability to make a public incoherent statement.

wtf does this dc delegate know about security? the SS does security for a living. they are competent. i have worked with them on numerous occasions, and they have their shit together. the areas where firearms were allowed were OUTSIDE the perimeter. SS sets up secure inner perimeters. they have always (as long as i have been alive at least) done this, and still do it.

wiley was nice. he should have said "leave the presidential security concerns to us". and if the SS considered the current laws inadequate they would lobby for a change in law.

i'm all verklempt! thx! :)

The RKBA Democrats gotta stick together.

:fistbump:

i suspect it was either a RKBA democrat, or a democrat that actually respects free speech.

either way, a big thanks to whomever did that for me.

as a guy recovering from surgery, unable to compete in sports (a huge passion for me and something i derive much meaning from), it really is wonderful these little things people do.

I was very grateful and it might have been an RKBA Democrat or someone who realizes that ALL of our rights are important! I hope they (whoever they are) are well.

I hope your recovery goes well, I sympathize. My dad was huge into working out and sports all his life but over the last ten years health problems now keep him from those activities. (He has four slipped disc's in his back and a wired-up knee) And he's always struggling to fill that void in his life. Stay positive!

:pals:

it takes something like an injury like this to make you realize how important your health is (cue that's why we need universal health care...)

as a competitive athlete, i live, breathe, eat, and sleep my sport ,and there is just this HUGE void.

also, i have phenomenal insurance, and they cover everything - surgery, 60 physical therapy appts a year, massage (60), chiro, etc. all FREE.

if i had NOT had insurance, this little incident would have cost me at least 15k so far... and im still doing therapy twice a week, massage, etc. and they are all free.

heck, if i didn't have insurance, i wouldn't even BE a competitive athlete. it's just WAY too risky.

"have worked with them on numerous occasions, and they have their shit together. "

If you are old enough to be working with the Secret Service, then you probably were alive during the Reagan shooting.

In that incident, as Reagan left the secure inner perimeter to enter his limo, Hinckley approached and shot the President in the outer perimeter.

They DIDN'T have their shit together then. Nor did they have it together in 1963.

The SS is good and professional, but they are not perfect.

Ron Regan was on TV just the other day denouncing these gun nut protestors and pointing out the danger to the President. I'm inclined to take his opinion on this a bit more than most people.

Think it through.

But the Secret Service can monitor and detain whoever they want for whatever reason. They don't need a new law, and the Secret Service has the right to ignore state and local laws anyway.

There's alot of straw being tossed about here.

Lets say the no guns zone around in the President is 1/4 mile. That does NOT mean that the secret service is going to search everyone in that 1/4 radius.

No, they'll do their normal thing which is secure the building or venue with metal detectors and the like, and search people within that inner perimeter.

People outside the inner perimeter, but within the 1/4 mile radius would still being banned from carrying guns that threaten the President, but not normally searched.

The result, if you are caught within that outer perimeter with a gun, either because you drew attention to yourself or appear suspicious and were searched, then you go to prison. Simple. Effective and preserves all of our rights.

We've already lost one progressive President. This country will collapse if it happens again.

There is an entire rest of the country for gun nuts to parade around with their metal penis's. But surely we can keep the gun nuts disarmed when they are near our Obama.

Its really just common sense.

Honestly, the terms "reasonable" and "common sense" are so routinely misused in the gun control debate--especially when prefixed to the word "regulation"--as to have been rendered practically meaningless. Actually, let me correct that: it's frequently an indication that the regulation being proposed is ill thought-out, based on flawed premises, or just plain hare-brained.


Well, since I'm outside the inner perimeter, and therefore almost certainly don't have clear line of sight to the president, any gun I'm carrying isn't threatening him. So am I free to go now, officer?

Oh, you mean any gun within 440 yards of the president is ipso facto deemed to be "threatening" him? Gosh. If that's the case, then how come you haven't cordoned off the area and conducting searches? I mean, if it's supposedly a genuine threat, shouldn't you be looking a little harder than you're doing?


Apart form the ones about unreasonable searches and seizures, due process, and oh yeah, a fricking trial, apparently.

And call me naive and out of touch, but in my book, for an activity to be made illegal, it has to be demonstrated that some plausible harm to others is likely to directly result from it. Frankly, the implication of the sign that guy in New Hampshire was holding--"It is time to water the tree of Liberty," apparently implying that Obama is a tyrant whose blood needs to be spilled--creeps me the fuck out, but I'm not prepared to curtail the guy's freedom of expression just because I find it alarming. And maybe it's because I'm a naturalized immigrant, and therefore somewhat suffused with the fanaticism of the convert, but it strikes me as downright un-American to advocate that the mere presence of an elected public servant justifies the suspension of any item in the Bill of Rights to any greater extent or distance than is necessary to reasonably guarantee his safety.

Your case is utterly incoherent: if you genuinely think a firearm presents a threat to the president by dint of the fact alone that it is within 440 years of the president, without regard to intervening barriers etc., then why aren't you advocating a full cordon? Why is the weapon a threat only if the cops happen to find it? Unless the reason is that you tacitly acknowledge that the weapon isn't a threat outside the "inner perimeter" but you just want to see OCers locked up because you find them distasteful.


The plural of "penis" is "penises" in English, and "penes" in Latin; take your pick. If you're going to make gratuitous and puerile aspersions with regard to other people's genitalia, you could at least spell it correctly.

There is a balance, and we have rights in the country guaranteed by the bill of rights. Those include privacy, due process and freedom from overly intrusive searches. It also include the rights to certain firearms as regulated by law(i.e. Heller decision)

The fact of the matters are that guns near the President are a threat to the President and the security of our entire nation. This issue goes far beyond the immense value of him as a person. Harm to the President harms the entire nation and puts the entire nation at risk. Societies have been overturned when its leader has fallen.

Another fact is that there are practical and civil limits as to how far you can effectively search. If the President were to give a search in say downtown Dallas. It is simple not a practical, nor constitutional, nor moral matter to spend 6 months searching every space in the vicinity for guns. While it is certainly practical and consitutional to perform vigurous searches of people extremely close to the president, as that radius expands the practicality and constitutionality diminishes, but not before the actual threat level is non-existant.

So we have two problems at odds with each other. The threat is real, yet there are limitations.

However there are thousands of laws on the books that are only partially enforceable. It is illegal to murder for instance, yet we have not yet found a way to make it impossible. Nonethless it is still illegal and when we learn that it has occurred, about to occur, or is being planned to occur, we take swift and immediate action.

As for you cou de grai attack on my spelling of plural of penis. I happily cede to spelling expertise. It has been my experience that those who resort to spelling attacks have generally ran out of idealogical ammunition.

The Secret Service is good at its job, and takes it seriously, and they have pretty darn good threat assessment skills. They already have the authority under federal law (18 USC § 3056, to be precise) to arrest anyone they reasonably suspect is engaged in trying to harm the president (or anybody else under their protection). The basic problem with all these cries for summary arrests (and more) for anyone in possession of a firearm is that, if the Secret Service though such a person presented a threat, they already have the authority to arrest him.

This is remarkably reminiscent of respondents in opinion polls who say they favor stricter gun control measures, but who, when asked what measures they favor (which Gallup, Zogby et al. rarely bother to ask), prove to be utterly ignorant about what measures already exist.


A potential threat, yes. But you're pulling a bit of a bait and switch by leaving the meaning of "near" rather vague. It doesn't matter how near of far a firearm is there's no clear line of sight. A person with a handgun on one side of a concrete wall is no threat to the president on the other.

Certain examples do come to mind; the Macedonian empire after the death of Alexander, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia after the death of Tito. Of course, those were in effect autocracies. The United States was designed not to rely on the physical well-being of its head of state alone; eight presidents have died in office, and while each was a loss, the republic has survived every time, because it is under the Rule of Law, not the rule of one man. Frankly, a state that can't survive the death of its leader has to be fundamentally flawed to begin with.

That's not to say it doesn't matter if the president is assassinated; a presidential assassination is the supreme act of undemocratic behavior (as the assassin thinks his desire outweighs that of the entire electorate), which is reason enough to prevent it. But I don't see how prosecuting and imprisoning people who don't present a realistic immediate threat to the president is actually going to do any good.


So speaks the person who was already reduced to "penis substitute" aspersions, so depressingly commonplace with gun "control" proponents. It may be your perception that criticism of spelling denotes lack of substantial argument, but given your use of puerile locker room taunts, I'm not exactly prepared to view you as an authority on matters of intellectual rigor.

And it's coup de grâce; you could also use the English, which is "mercy stroke."

to a penis fixated moronic statement like this one...

"The result, if you are caught within that outer perimeter with a gun, either because you drew attention to yourself or appear suspicious and were searched, then you go to prison. Simple. Effective and preserves all of our rights."

All our rights except the rights of the person/people you have just summarily put in prison, huh?

"But surely we can keep the gun nuts disarmed when they are near our Obama.

What part of, 'they fucking are disarmed when they are near Obama' do you fucking not fucking under fucking stand?

about wasting your time.

No one is advocating summary imprisonment.

Anyone caught with weapons of death near the President would be entitled to due process just as any other criminal is entitled to.

These weapons have a range of miles. Read the side of the box of 22mm bullets. Furthermore 50 caliber rifles can penetrate brick walls and still kill victims on the other side. (there are videos of soldiers killing Iraqis in just that manner using infrared scopes)

This Congress woman is right and I applaud her efforts to keep Obama safe.

:dunce:

But I suspect you know exactly what type of bullet I'm talking about.

Far more important than technical details.

to know how to kill people with my hands and feet.

I guess, if I walk within 1/4 mile of the President, I should go to jail?

"weapons of death" What are your limitations?

Pencils, backpack straps, rolled up newspapers?

Or are you only talking about projectile weapons? Firearms, bows/arrows, trebuchets, slings?

I didn't know that the President was going to be in Pheonix until two days before the event. What if I had been walking down a street (I am a normal daily Open Carrier), and unknowingly wandered through a cornor of your proposed security zone? Heck, what distance IS your proposed zone? You don't seem to have specified other than "near". They don't usually mark these out with hi-vis tape or paint.

As I eluded in the above post.

Maybe it should be smaller. Or bigger.

I'm quite satisfied to let our elected lawmakers determine the actual radius.

Given that you are a law abiding licensed gun carrier, I presume you would be responsible enough to know of this area before hand.

FWIW, Private Pilots have the same concern. A Private pilot who accidental wanders within a certain radius of Air Force One will lose his license. This has happened a number of times, although I don't know if it has happened to Obama's Air Force one yet. Nonetheless, when you are licensed with a privilege license like a pilots license or CCW, you have responsibilities.

have no idea what you're talking about.

Then again, the fact that you used the phrase "weapons of death" indicate you're not just clueless, but bigoted as well.

Eleanor Holmes Norton is an idiot on a good day.

Oh - just a clue: there is no such thing as a 22mm bullet, it's .22 caliber - and that DOES make a HUGE difference. 22mm is nearly an inch in diameter. .22 caliber is under 1/4 inch.

Just because they can travel a mile or so does not mean they are effective at that range, or that any human being who has ever lived can make a shot at that range.

I didn't think so.

So Eleanor Holmes Norton and you know more about Presidential safety than the Secret Service? Is that what you are saying? Whose side are you on here? Are you really wanting to fuck Obama's health care reform with this nonissue? You do know that is the hopes and intentions of the freeps don't you?

Is there an online list of the calibers outside that were stalking Obama?

Certainly there was nothing stopping anyone from bringing one. Now or in the future.

This has nothing to do with Healthcare, but Obama is quite capable of dealing with more than one issue at a time.

Eleanor Holmes Norton is a representative of fellow citizens. She was elected to bring concerns and participate in the law making process on things that affect everyone. The Secret Service is a fine organization, but they do not replace Democratically elected representation.

Nonetheless, don't worry about me. I'm not a member of Congress so I'm not crafting laws. If you have an issue with Eleanor's efforts, you should talk to her yourself. As for me, I support her and thank her.

Lastly, I don't agree that its a non-issue. Look at the attention that this matter has garnered from both sides of the isle. It has been discussed vigourously on both left and right leaning forums as news outlets. Its hardly a non-issue

allowing it to be. Many on our side are wetting themselves just as those who are doing this had hoped. If...If the SS felt there were any danger to the president either by the proximity to the president or by the weapons brought, they don't need Eleanor's legislation to deal with it. A 50 cal. isn't easily concealable, they are 4' long and weigh 30 pounds.

You are wrong, it has everything to do with healthcare and derailing the debate....it's working...there are damned near as many threads on this shit as there is about healthcare here.

Is there an online list of the calibers outside that were stalking Obama?

Why would there need to be an online list? You can bet your ass that those who need to know, know what guns were in plain sight and who were carrying them. If anyone had a 4' long 30 pound bulge in their trousers they would know about that too. The only rifle I heard about was a .223 which will barely penetrate 3/4" plywood.

After all, they place their own snipers on likely rooftops and other vantage points that could target the President.


There is also a huge difference between the maximum ballistic range a bullet could go and the effective range. Yeah, if I point a .22 rifle up at 30º to the horizonal it might go about a mile, but you couldn't pick out where it's going to land within more than a couple of hundred yards. You're trying to use it like field artillery at that point, only without all those nifty ballistics computers and precise training and elevation controls.


The effective range of a rifle is the lesser of two factors: the distance at which it transits from supersonic to subsonic flight, or the distance you can hit an 8"-diameter circular target (the approximate size of human vitals, about a big as a dinner plate.

With the former, the transistion from supersonic to subsonic flight creates a shock wave that randomly alters the flight path of the bullet somewhat. For your typical .308-caliber sniper rifle, this distance is in the region of 850 yards, depending on the specific bullet.


With the latter, it depends on the combination of ammunition, rifle, and shooter. A good rifle with consistant ammuntion in the hands of a skilled shooter might be able to consistantly accomplish this feat at 400 yards. A real sniper with an expensive rifle and match-grade ammunition can take this up to about 800 yards.

However the longer the shot the more external variables start to really affect shooting. You start to need really accurate range information. Overestimating range by 5% might make your bullet fly right over your target's head; underestimating by 5% might result in a leg wound. And wind errors start to really add up as well. Keep in mind that wind speed and direction varies greatly between your gun barrel and your target, so you have to judge that as well.


And this doesn't even address time-of-flight issues. Trying to estimate where a moving target will be in a second or two isn't particularly easy. Especially if the target is milling around with other people in a crowd.



It looks easy in the movies. But it's not. Anything past about 300 yards with a rifle you start having to seriously compensate for these factors. It's not so much a science as an art.

That makes way too much sense.

The packaging of .22LR rounds does indeed warn that the bullet can travel a mile. It does not say that you can hit what you're aiming at at that distance. In fact, the maximum effective range of a .22LR rifle, even with a scope, is about 100 meters, 150 at the outside (in really advantageous conditions).

Why am I having a sense of déja vu here? Oh, that's right: because I already told you this after the first(/?) time you'd committed this stupidity!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x248674#248896

unless you believe that they vaporize in flight.


btw, just because you said something once before, that does not confer any authority to your words.

I could easily say the same thing about what I've told you.

To get a .22LR bullet to travel that distance, you're going to have be aiming at a serious degree of elevation. As I wrote previously, at 100 yards a .22LR already impacts at eight inches below point of aim. Given that bullet trajectories are parabolic, at 1760 yards it's going to be much, much more. Plus, at that distance you've got wind deflection to think about. Long story short, if you take a shot at a specific man-sized target (i.e. the president) with a .22LR rifle at a mile, your chances of hitting that specific target is, for all practical purposes, zero.

Yes, those bullets are going to hit something, which is why the warning is on the box. That something may however (depending on terrain) be a tree, a house, a hillside or just the ground.

And I acknowledge that repetition does not convey authority. You've proved that by making that "22mm" howler at least twice, and citing the legal CYA lingo as proof that (ZOMG!) you can hit the prez at a mile with one of these. Rather, I pointed out I had written this before to get across that you're not really paying attention.

:argh:

:mad:

stirring in policy which effects California (and Kansas for that matter) I am sure she will fall off everyone's radar...'til then her idiocy will be followed by many outside her district.

I follow firearm issues, generally not individual politicians.

It might be fun. But it would mostly just piss off a bunch of people.

For someone on the HS Committee. Probably should read the Law before opening her mouth. Makes her look like an idiot.

the media and DLC hangers-on would be bleating about "people carrying guns near the President" again, and they'd be looking to expand it more.

Guns are already prohibited in the vicinity of the President; this proposal is either grandstanding or ignorance (I'm not sure which).