Could the President Carry?

Coyote WT said:
One thing I haven't seen brought up yet as part of the theory is his/her role as an international figure. <snip>
I would assume that the laws of the host country would apply but then again, the president does travel with small army as has been pointed out.
Click to expand...
Following the laws and customs of the host country would be basic diplomatic courtesy...

Ever see the video of George W. Bush coming up behind Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, and grabbing her by the shoulders? A guy can probably get by with something like that in a bar in Texas, if he knows the woman well enough... but grabbing a foreign head of government at an international summit meeting? Not cool... she was way startled. He was lucky she wasn't packing. :p
 
Could the President carry?

Absolutely. Who could arrest or stop him? The USSS would prevent such.

However, why would he? He is surrounded by USSS and can pretty much do as he pleases personally (that includes overseas!)
 
Yeah, there's a lot to be said for diplomatic immunity...

I think a lot of people assume the POTUS would actually use the gun in a "situation"... Highly unlikely...

However, there's the principle of the matter... To carry just because it is your right, to say nothing of the actual "need" to do so.
 
I believe that it is settled law that Federal LEOs can carry without interference from State and Local Law Enforcement. SCOTUS made that decision in a California case were state LEO arrested a Federal Marshal. I don't remember the Case.

If POTUS wishes to carry I don't think it would violate any law. Since his carry would involve security he can issue an unpublished Executive Order and not advise anyone.

Historical Note: Andrew Jackson shot a guy off one of the Balconys of the White House. Old Hickory was a great shot and notorious duelist.
 
I would love it if he did and said, "I have a lot of agents to protect me, but it's the duty of every citizen to protect himself as a last resort instead of expecting others to stop a bullet in exchange for a paycheck and a pension." That might get some folks to think about it.
 
Above the Law?

Since the President lives in Washington D.C., wouldn't he have to abide and follow DC law about handgun posession and carry?

He may be the President, but that makes him neither king nor God (no matter what some might think), and not above the law.

Or does it?
 
He may be the President, but that makes him neither king nor God (no matter what some might think), and not above the law.

Or does it?
Click to expand...
He's the top cop. The commander in chief. It is from the authority of his branch of government, the executive branch, through the constitution, that police officers and federal agents get their powers of law enforcement and arrest. He has the authority to be armed, in my opinion. Exemptions for LE would apply to the president, as he is the head of federal LE.
 
Last edited:
As far as I know, all Federal LE, (e.g. Secret Service, the FBI, BATFE, DEA, et.al.) are all under the Judicial Branch, not the Executive Branch.

If he were going to carry legally, I would think it would have to be under the auspices of some sort of exemption applying to the military.
 
JohnKSa said:
As far as I know, all Federal LE, (e.g. Secret Service, the FBI, BATFE, DEA, et.al.) are all under the Judicial Branch, not the Executive Branch.
Click to expand...

Only a very few Federal LE work for the courts. Most Federal LE work for the Justice Department (FBI, DEA, BATFE, US Marshals) or the Department of Homeland Security (Customs, ICE, Secret Service), both of which are Executive Branch departments.
 
Last edited:
JohnKSa said:
If he were going to carry legally, I would think it would have to be under the auspices of some sort of exemption applying to the military.
Click to expand...
I'm under the impression that the main reason the President is the commander in chief of the armed forces is that in a democracy, it's a good idea to have the military under civilian control.

So the whole point is that he's a civilian, i.e. not in the military, and so not eligible for any military exemptions...
 
Only a very few Federal LE work for the courts. Most Federal LE work for the Justice Department...
Click to expand...
You are correct. I was confusing Justice with Judicial.
So the whole point is that he's a civilian, i.e. not in the military, and so not eligible for any military exemptions...
Click to expand...
So although he's the top ranking officer of the military he's not in the military. I guess I hadn't ever thought of it like that.
 
Vanya, as Commander in Chief, he is a lawful target for enemy military operations, so I don't think allowing him some military or LE privileges would be out of line.
 
MLeake said:
Vanya, as Commander in Chief, he is a lawful target for enemy military operations, so I don't think allowing him some military or LE privileges would be out of line.
Click to expand...
It's tempting to agree, but I think "allowing him military privileges" is the thin end of a dangerous wedge...

The balance of power between the three civilian branches of government and the armed forces was, and rightly, a significant concern for the founding fathers, which is why the Constitution not only puts the ultimate authority in the hands of the civilian branches, but divides it between them, with the power to make war resting with Congress, and the power of command resting with the President.

That's a line that's been blurred enough in recent decades, with the way the Presidency has usurped the war-making powers of Congress, and with G.W. Bush adopting military-style clothing ("Mission Accomplished" -- remember that?).

I'm old enough to remember when it was considered improper for the President to return military salutes, because he was a civilian and not in uniform. That, IMHO, was the right idea.
 
JohnKSA said:
As far as I know, all Federal LE, (e.g. Secret Service, the FBI, BATFE, DEA, et.al.) are all under the Judicial Branch, not the Executive Branch.
Click to expand...

The police power is an executuve function. This is why, for instance, the director if the FBI is nominated by the executive.

There have been some delegations of authority that were dubious. Specifically, the special prosecutor appointed by Congress, involved an executive function not a legislative one. There are other examples in which the Congress arguably delegates its own authority to the exec impermissibly, but these transgressions of the rule tend to illustrate that each branch is limited to its own function.

So although he's the top ranking officer of the military he's not in the military. I guess I hadn't ever thought of it like that.
Click to expand...

WJC attempted an "active duty military" defense to a civil suit against him. It was rejected, if I recall correctly.


I suppose the answer to "Can the POTUS carry?" invites an intermediate question, "Who is going to stop him?".

Stopping him involves an executive function, as does prosecuting him. Since neither Congress nor courts have a role in execution of laws, the hand of POTUS should be free on this issue.
 
Last edited:
Say 'someone' decided the president could not legally carry... there is no one who can arrest him for it other than the congress impeaching him for it.....

read the constitution.

like some folks have already pointed out.... I think he or she could carry if they so choose.... I personally would not.... got enough folks around with guns that are better trained than me....

I've actually spent time in, under and on top of the White House when the president was not even there and there are so many folks with guns...most you can't see unless you watch the same area for an hour or more, that if a bad thing happened all I was planning to do was dig a hole.....
 
Twobit: It's true, Reagan carried. I never heard that he carried in a briefcase though. The insane thing would have been if he was carrying when he was shot and returned fire to Hinkley. Seriously, the rest of the world would have an opinion of Americans that we are a nation of cowboys!
 
I think the prez should absolutely ccw! In theory he could be alone in a room with that one (implausible, I admit) "bad" secret service dude. Assassination-by-trusted-bodyguard is a time-honored tradition worldwide!
 
EricReynolds and Twobit

Twobit: It's true, Reagan carried. I never heard that he carried in a briefcase though. The insane thing would have been if he was carrying when he was shot and returned fire to Hinkley. Seriously, the rest of the world would have an opinion of Americans that we are a nation of cowboys!
Click to expand...

I know this is an older post, but in Ronald Kessler's book, In The President's Secret Service, It actually states that Reagan had a pistol on him a few times. It mentioned that he had one in a briefcase during some of the talks with Khrushchev.

...not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing. Wonder if Khrushchev had one in his?
 
The reason you carry a weapon is to protect yourself from the unforeseen. Yes, the President is surrounded by multiple layers of security and hundreds of security staff. BUT the Boy Scout motto doesn't stipulate that you stop being prepared once you are surrounded by a Secret Service detail. No one can predict future events and the same reasons why you and I, private citizens, carry concealed is the same reason why a President should. Not that he should return fire in an attack, there are people for that, but to be prepared for the unexpected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top