There needs to be a law: people with guns need to

stay one mile away when they're near a president, any president.

Legal or not, too much emphasis has got to be directed at these people to the detriment of the president in power.

Does anyone think that's illogical?

Yes, thank you, Ms. Maddow, and it is concerning.

all they care about is having complete access to their phallic symbols at all times

but 10 people showed up with guns? Because 1 did in NH? We need to nip this in the bud. Period.

and no they weren't armed.

This is just nuts. I agree, and will write my congressman. Good idea.

a gun near Reagan. That worked out real good. :sarcasm:
In fact isn't there a gun law called the Brady Bill that Republicans shouted out for because of Hinckley?

Try to take this in--they love guns more than they love Reagan! These people are obsessed.

The only bullet that hit Reagan did so after ricocheting off the limo.

The Brady Bill was named after Reagan's press secretary, who took one of Hinckley's bullets in the head, but survived. His wife Sarah went on to become the figurehead of Handgun Control, Inc. since renamed the Brady Campaign.

Half the houses have guns in them. If anyone is home at the time, that makes them "armed" and thus in violation of your one mile law.

That said; this guy is an idiot on so many levels: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090817/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_protesters_guns

It's depressing.

And someone OUTSIDE the secure zone they set up is not a threat, firearm or not.

Straight from the U.S. Secret Service, via a CNN article today:



As I mentioned in the other thread, I had the privilege of eating lunch with a former Secret Service agent several times some years ago, and those guys take their job SERIOUSLY (and they are extremely good at it). Someone lawfully carrying a firearm outside the secured zone is NOT a threat (whether they are a quarter mile away or a mile), and the Secret Service tightly controls who is armed within the secured zone.

a distraction to the people tasked with keeping the president safe?

There were 10 people who had visible firearms yesterday. Certainly seems like a distraction to me.

Local law enforcement was watching to make sure there were no altercations, but their location made them no threat to the President; they were well outside the secure zone.

The Secret Service has to view everyone as a potential threat anyway; an assassin wouldn't be the guy walking around openly with a small-caliber rifle over his shoulder in a nonthreatening area outside the secure zone.

BTW, the Service is very, very good at setting up secure venues, securing potentially threatening vantages, and setting up the secure bubble in such a way that no one gets within a threat radius who has not been closely screened. The Secret Service protective-detail agents are very, very good at reacting to threats, but most of the Service's work is proactive and occurs way before anyone shows up.

I remember working on the flight line at an airport and talking with a few advance SS guys who were setting up for Carter to show up and give a speech.. Was interesting, even had a bulletproof limo rehearsing the route etc.

They better be damned good.

The Secret Service was tasked with presidential security only after the assassination of McKinley. Since then, we've had JFK killed, Ford threatened, and Reagan hospitalized. Which is a pretty decent performance over more than a hundred years, given how many people are investigated on suspicion of plotting to kill the president.

.. on such a hysterical panic? tsk tsk tsk ;)

But since I have no respect for you, I don't really care what you think.

There's actually a growing consensus among proponents of private firearms ownership that these guys OCing at these protests did a rather stupid thing. Suggesting that they regard health care reform as tyranny, to be resisted by force of arms, certainly doesn't make them look all that rational, and that reflects badly on other gun owners.

Maybe, if you frequently OC anyway, there's something understandable about OCing to an event like this, but let's not imagine Chris B., the chap in Phoenix, goes around with his AR carbine slung on his back with any frequency. Fire, so let's accept that it's not socially appropriate to openly carry a firearm to a protest at a presidential event. Does that mean it should be illegal?

I don't really see why.

It doesn't present a threat to the president; if it did, the Secret Service would have had hauled those guys in for questioning so fast their heads would have spun. Yes, the Secret Service already has the authority under federal law to arrest without warrant anyone they reasonably suspect to be engaged in trying to harm someone under their protection.

It doesn't make the Secret Service's job any harder. Given that handguns can quite readily be carried concealed, the Secret Service can't assume that any person is unarmed just because there's no weapon visible. And if historical examples are of any help, they teach us that assassins don't keep their weapons in plain view. Even Boothe used a single-barreled Deringer.

It's extremely implausible that it presents an actual threat (rather than a perceived threat) to counter-protesters. That's not the message they're trying to send, at least not in any direct context. Besides, they're still smart enough to figure out that if any of them were to open up on a bunch of unarmed counter-protesters, the damage they would do to the pro-RKBA cause and the open carry movement in particular) would be the worst thing to happen to gun rights since the Stockton schoolyard shooting of 1989.

And if it makes people uncomfortable or offends their sensibilities, well, there it is. I subscribe to John Stuart Mills' idea that freedom should be limited only insofar as its exercise would infringe upon the freedom of others, and by the latter I mean, to paraphrase Jefferson, that "it picks their pocket or breaks their leg." I wouldn't care to see gay pride parades, or even the Folsom Street festival, prohibited because it offends some people's sensibilities, or restrict black people wearing do-rags, exceedingly baggy pants and Timberlands from entering certain areas because they make the locals uncomfortable.

I certainly don't like the idea of prohibiting this kind of behavior because it shows "a lack of respect" for the president. In case anyone forgot, we just had another president, one who (in my book) wasn't exactly deserving of a whole lot of respect, and I strongly resent the idea that my freedom to diss (as in "disrespect" but also as in "dissent") the guy should in any way have been curtailed. Hell, I'm pretty damn certain I heard some let-leaning types mutter after the outcomes of both the 2000 and 2004 elections (and a few times since) that it was time to launch open revolt. Yeah, that's showing respect.

Moreover, when according powers to the executive branch of government, it really pays to look beyond the end of the present or next presidential term. It might seem a good idea to grant certain powers or protections to the president now that Obama's in power, but come 2017 at the latest, Obama won't be president any more, and are you sure you want the next guy--who might be a Republican--to have those same powers or protections?

The guns are outside of the Secret Services security zone, and are thus not a threat. Expanding the security zone out to one mile would severely strain SS resources. So yes, your idea is illogical.

That's what I was 'aiming' for.

Better yet, at an event like this, dis-invite anyone who's bringing a gun.

I don't believe any of the gun toters are 'at' the event. They are outside where protesters and supporters are gathering. They are also outside of the area the SS determines must be secure. I believe the one that caused all the stir last week was actually on private property.

Let's talk maximum effective ranges for a moment; maximum effective range (henceforth "MER") is the furthest you have a plausible chance of hitting what you're aiming at, even though the bullet may travel further.

For a "service" handgun, MER is maybe 50 meters, and that's pushing it.
For a standard-issue infantry rifle, it's 300 meters.
For a scoped "dedicated marksman" rifle in 7.62x51mm NATO or comparable caliber, it's 800 meters.
For a "magnum" rifle chambered in .338 Lapua Magnum, .300 Winchester Magnum or comparable, it's 1,100 meters.
For a rifle chambered in .50 BMG (12.7x99mm), MER is reportedly 1,800 meters (well over a mile), but it's worth noting that rifles of this caliber are designed to be "anti-materiel" (i.e. for putting holes in radar dishes, banks of radios and other electronic equipment, generators, and other targets that are larger than man-sized) and the MER likely applies to that class of target.

But MERs don't mean anything if the target it obscured. While it's not impossible to shoot what you can't see, your chances of hitting a specific man-sized target when you have at best a vague idea of where it is are minimal, to put it mildly. One thing at which the Secret Service excels is identifying possible sniper positions (such as nearby tall buildings, hilltops, etc. with a clear line of sight) and putting their own people there beforehand.

As Hugo in Tennessee pointed out above, people carrying handguns aren't allowed into these events. The OCers who caused all the kerfuffle were protesting outside the building in question, and had no clear line of sight/fire to the president at any time. If they had, the Secret Service would have hauled them for questioning in right sharpish, as they already have the authority under federal law to do.

And that's really the final word in this whole non-issue debate: the Secret Service already has the authority to arrest without warrant anyone they reasonably suspect might pose a threat to any person under the Service's protection. If the USSS had considered any of these Open Carry tpes to be a threat, they would have moved to neutralize that threat with extreme alacrity. The very fact that these guys could parade around with their weapons in plain view, despite being on every network, indicates that the Secret Service didn't consider them to be in a position to harm the president.

There is no protection from them. I wonder what would happen if liberals started arming themselves? Would it scare the shit out of these idiots? I seriously am thinking about going down to my local gun range (where they were very supportive of McCain, signs and all), and learn how to shoot a gun. On the last day I am there, I would love to declare that I am a liberal and see what they say. Then again, escalation of everyone arming themselves might lead to violence.

We've already had several cases of RW nuts hunting unarmed liberals. When the pro-reform group start to really significantly outnumber them at these events they will no longer be in control. How long before one of the real whack jobs who have been ginned up by RW radio and TV opens fire on "liberals" in order to reassert their control. After all, they really believe that we are trying to destroy America.

shoot the president (though they would like to).

They carry the guns for the same reason they worship them. The guns make them fell powerful and they are so insignificant as individuals that they want the guns to make them more threatening.

Any one who really thinks of guns as a proper and civilized tool would decry carrying them to a town meeting. They would find it outrageous. But that's not who we are dealing with. These are seriously unhinged creeps. You get a hundred unhinged creeps together and all civil discourse is pointless.

Thank you for the post. What should be a no-brainer is hard to understand for those with no brain.

still, one "U" too many for a post that, what, on a Democratic board expresses concern about the safety of our president?

We have had DUers banned for lighter "voting."

People defend these nutcases with guns but I'm not sure they realize how much they are gambling that these gun people are mentally and emotionally sound and will not flip out at any given moment if provoked or suddenly enraged by the hate mob, that they are acting alone and are not part of a conspiracy, that they are not suicide assassins, that they actually know how to handle their weapons, that their weapons are functional and will not accidentally discharge into the crowd, etc., etc. No one really knows what is going on with the gun or the individual behind the gun. It's crazy.

:scared:

http://washingtonindependent.com/55411/we-will-forcefully-resist-people-forcing-their-will-on-us#more-55411

‘We Will Forcefully Resist People Forcing Their Will On Us’
By David Weigel 8/18/09 10:35 AM


The man carrying an AR-15 at yesterday’s presidential speech in Arizona participated in a video project by RP4409, a channel of Ron Paul fans from the far right; Ernest Hancock, who designed the “Ron Paul rEVOLution” logo, appears in the video, too. The man, identified as “Chris,” and identified elsewhere as “Chris B.,” gets into a series of arguments about how “all taxation is theft” and how it’s the duty of patriots to “forcefully resist people forcing their will on us.”

“If the burden of all this thievery gets too thick,” says Chris, “and you can’t make it anymore? If that’s what’s necessary, that’s what’s necessary.”

In an interview at the Freedom’s Phoenix web site, Hancock conducts a longer interview with Chris and other protesters carrying guns at the rally.

“I’m almost always armed,” says Chris. “Sometimes when I take a shower I leave it on the sink.”

Video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63GiXzpfGhA&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwashingtonindependent.com%2F55411%2Fwe-will-forcefully-resist-people-forcing-their-will-on-us&feature=player_embedded

What a whack job. And it is the whack jobs who think that way who are the most dangerous in society. Who knows what it would take for him to feel threatened enough to pull that hing off his back and start shooting?

Do they get to carry guns within a mile of the Pres? What if one of them has a screw loose and decides to let loose?

And how will this be enforced? Metal detectors? Free speech cages a mile away from the event for protesters (sound familiar?)?

Not trying to be rude. To an extent I actually agree with your sentiment. But I don't think it's so cut-and-dry.

Several political assassinations have been carried out by local security personnel. I hope the Secret Service is also very careful in screening the local authorities. How long would it take a determined assassin to get through police training and get assigned to a security detail?

Sometimes certain members of a police force are requested to 'take a day off', or they get duty far, far away from where the president may be.

They do not take anything or anyone for granted, and that includes LEO.

did to democratic citizens during the * years. They will be able to carry all the guns they want. Why should the rest of us feel threatened in a public place?

Their 2nd right ammendment won't be violated and the public (for the most part is safe).

On the one hand, I understand that the threats to the president are real and many.

On the other hand, I never want us to become a nation with a de facto king--a supercitizen. I still hold it to be self-evident that the President of the United States of America and the crack addict living under the bridge are created equal and have equal standing under the law.

Perhaps the president will have to only appear at private venues where the Secret Service will have virtually full sway--as they would if you gave them full sway at your house, for instance.

Sometimes the President wants to go to a restaurant and get burgers--I watched it on CNN. No one knew he was coming, from what I understand. He showed up, bullet proof limosines, Secret Service, and entourage. He personally ordered burgers. By your law, a woman, legally armed and sitting down and eating with her family would have to get up and leave.

Bottom line: two people wanted to get burgers at the same time. The President and our heroine. They are equal before the law--one cannot impose conditions on the other for being there. One has no more rights than the other.

Another case. By your law, if the President drove in front of our heroine's house on the way to get burgers, would she have to empty it of guns?

Now if the President were appearing at the Civic Center and the woman wanted to come in, that would be a different story altogether. So would be the case where the President calls the owner and the restaurant closes and serves only the President for a time. Even then, not allowing a CCW permit holder to go about his normal business in the next building would not be within the President's legitimate authority, IMO. He can, after all, send some one out to get his burgers without disrupting the lives of innocent Americans with citizenships equal to his own.

America is not a kingdom.

Now none of what I said in any way conflicts with my belief that carrying an AR15 to a protest rally is stupid in the extreme. Some things are within one's rights but tactically insane. MLK would have been ill advised to show up for his "I Have a Dream" speech with a blue-eyed blond on his arm. Within his rights, yes, but ultimately self-defeating. It would have excited prejudice and told people struggling to find their better natures that the civil rights movement was about interracial sex--a highly emotional caricature of reality.

Showing up to a political rally with an AR15 tells people that gun rights are about intimidation, overthrowing a legitimately elected president and imposing who-knows what on the populace. That is a highly emotional caricature of reality as well.

that you need to worry about, not the open carry. And neither of them are getting through security to get near the president.

In a stunning amount of irony, Mansonite Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme was released from prison this week, after 34 years in prison. The gun she pointed at President Ford had no bullet in the firing chamber-- unlike Sarah Jane Moore, she never even pulled the trigger or fired. Presumably, these gun nuts showing up for the health care events have their weapons actually loaded. I repeat, Fromme did *34 years in prison.*

Read more: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/08/where_are_the_limits.php/

It's illegal to brandish a firearm at the President, fake, real, loaded or unloaded.

You want the secret service to be a mile away, because they have guns?

Yeah, that's broken thinking.

...a little much regardless if it's legal.

though it is legal to OWN that camera.

Many things are LEGAL, but NOT ALLOWED in each and every environment (cigarette, anyone?).

However, if you organize your own little protest for the media, nowhere near the President, on private property, you are allowed to bring whatever is legal to possess in public as allowed by state law and local ordinance. Which is what occurred here, agree or disagree with it.

Let's say I'm just walking down the street, minding my own business, carrying a .40-caliber Smith & Wesson pistol under my jacket (with a valid CHL) in one of those secure holsters from Uncle Mike's or Blackhawk - I can't fathom this whole craze of guys tucking their guns into the waistband of their trousers - and I just happen to bump into President Barack Obama all by his lonesome. No Secret Service, no military, no nothin'. He's got half an hour to kill, and so do I, so we grab some food from a street vendor and share a park bench, feeding the pigeons with some of our breadcrumbs.

We discuss health care, Iraq, renewable energy, and science education. And we do so like rational, mature human beings.

Then comes the point when Obama finally notices the butt of my handgun peeking out from under my jacket. "You know," he tells me in a more serious tone, "I'm not a big fan of concealed carry. No offense to you, but that's just not part of the value system I grew up with."

"No harm done," I respond. "It's admittedly a complicated issue, but I still hold out hope for a workable nationwide reciprocity system."

Obama then shares with me a couple of incidents where children in his Chicago neighborhood were gunned down by gangsters and thugs, telling me how their deaths spurred his community activism and shaped his political career. I listen patiently, knowing full well that no parent should have to bury their child.

Finally, the half hour is up. Obama's limousine arrives, his agent on duty snaps a picture of the two of us with my camera, we shake hands and wish each other well, and I head down the street while Obama heads back to his official duties.

That's just me, of course. Obviously, it's highly unrealistic to expect this sort of contact with a sitting President in today's world, especially in light of all of the fear-mongering by the insurance companies and their hired lackeys who disrupt townhall meetings with an endless stream of anger and BS. It's safe to say that at least 80% of those anti-reform bully boys, had they been in my position, would have responded to Obama's presence by trying to inflict harm on him.

All I ever wanted during the past eight years was to see George W. Bush hauled off in handcuffs to stand trial for his crimes against America. But there is so much anger and hatred in our nation today - and so many people behind the scenes who have a vested interest in keeping it that way. These disruptors don't want civilization or decorum. Many of them aren't even capable of wanting something - instead, they wait for someone to tell them what they're supposed to want.

And that is not the sort of citizenry you can trust with concealed handguns in front of the President.

When I first spoke up on this subject a few days ago, someone asked me what my point was. Did I just want to vent about Bush? If so, what did that have to do with my hypothetical afternoon in the park with Obama and a concealed handgun?

My point is that we need to take a hard look at what kind of citizenry we want to be. That guy in Portsmouth may have had a legal right to wear his pistol at the site Obama's townhall, but from what I could tell, his presence was all about intimidation and bluster. I try to aspire to a mindset that's more mature and pensive than that - something that evokes Lincoln's timeless remarks about "the better angels of our nature."

I hope most of my fellow Americans feel the same way as I do about striving for civility and forethought. I know my fellow Democrats do - even the ones who think I should never be issued a CHL.

What am I supposed to do when Air Force 1 flies over my house on its way to land at my city's airport?