armoredman
New member
I most certainly hope two things, one, you are not in law enforcement, and two, if you are in law enforcement, you are not in my state. Anyone making an irresponsible statement like that should never have arrest powers.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Open Carry at Presidential Town Hall
- Thread starter Grimlok
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
maestro pistolero
New member
It was his right, I'm proud he used it, but you know the Secret Service was has on high alert.
I'd bet money they had this guy in the cross-hairs the whole time.
To be honest? If I had been in charge of crowd control and protection, I would have arrested him regardless of the legality of such an arrest. I'd "detain him". Say I smelled marijuanna or alcohol on his breath. Whatever it took to move him from the event. He must have been very far away from where the president was going to be and he certainly had a crosshair on him for the rest of the day.
So you would have made a completely illegal arrest for a man carrying a legal handgun, on private property with permission from the owner?:barf: I truly hope you are not a law enforcement officer.
To be honest? If I had been in charge of crowd control and protection, I would have arrested him regardless of the legality of such an arrest. I'd "detain him". Say I smelled marijuanna or alcohol on his breath. Whatever it took to move him from the event.
I missed this earlier but just wanted to confirm that you would 1) knowingly make an arrest under false pretenses, 2) expose yourself to civil/criminal liability, and expose your department to public ridicule and civil liability, 3) eliminated any chance you have of ever making an arrest stick again because you are willing to lie to make an arrest, and 4) openly admit that you will lie and commit criminal actions? All because you don't like the lawful actions of an individual?
I also hope that 1) you aren't an officer and thus have no concept of what you are talking about or 2) if you are an officer, your supervisor finds out about this attitude before you screw yourself, the department, and the public.
vranasaurus
New member
As long as the Secret Service keeps the secure area a reasonable size, I'm fine with declaring the area where the POTUS is to be a sensitive place. Assassination is a real threat for state leaders, and security manpower is limited.
This one seems a reasonable exception (LOS/200-1000yds from where the President is speaking).
Where the president is is certainly a sensitive area. I agree that as long as the designated sensitive area is reasonable I have no problem.
The problem arises as to what is a reasonable distance. I think LOS out to 1000 meters is reasonable. But you will certainly get someone to claim it should be LOS to 2400 meters because a .50 BMG rifle "is capable" of killing the someone from that distance.
Yep, the guy had the right to carry that gun. However, his doing so was not very smart. He will most likely encounter difficulty the next time he goes to buy a gun.
While the USSS was distracted by the man and his gun there could have been a real threat to POTUS that was not realized.
While the USSS was distracted by the man and his gun there could have been a real threat to POTUS that was not realized.
HuntAndFish
New member
While the USSS was distracted by the man and his gun there could have been a real threat to POTUS that was not realized.
While this might be a possibility, I doubt it. The SS has more sense than most politicians or the media when it comes to matters involving a gun. Likely, they recognized this for what it was quickly and moved on to more important matters.
No, I am not a cop.
I heard about this story as it broke, and well before any comments started pouring in on any of the articles. Once information started coming in, it seemed to me like he was obviously making a statement.
So it was in my head all day, and I checked the news throughout the work day for updates. Everyone was focused on the guy, the gun, freaking out (in the news) that he wasn't being arrested, and it was quite clear that he was on private property, given permission to be there, and was not inciting violence, and most importantly, was legally allowed to carry that way.
But we're talking about the first black president, getting something multiple times more death threats than the previous president, and a obvious anger on both sides of the isle.
With the president coming in to discuss a hot topic that's got the entire country arguing with each other, here you have a guy with a thigh holstered gun.
I don't think he'd do ANYTHING with the gun. He seemed like an intelligent peaceful protester besides the perceived threat of the gun combined with the sign.
I was much more worried about some crazy taking that guys gun. That's what really got into my head. The very first picture I saw, the gun is sitting far back from his thigh and looked very easily accessible by anyone angry* enough to take any opportunty they were given.
I don't know how close he was to the event. I hear he left way before Obama was anywhere around, and i'm sure the SS had him fully under their watch. I'm sure everything went the way it did because everything was in control.
If he was closer, and the crowd more ruley, I'm sorry but if I was in charge of keeping the president safe I would have yes, broken the law, and had him detained. In a situation where thousands of people are there with cloaked intent, and there's someone there who presents a possible problem, you just don't need that. You have to be looking out for subtle stuff, and here's a sore thumb just asking to become a thorn in your side and make things difficult, and possibly volatile.
Stone me now if you wish.
*mods, don't know if you get alerts everytime a filtered word is used, but I'm not posting angry. That's two times in like two days. I apologize. I cuss like a sailor in the real world and don't even think about it.
I heard about this story as it broke, and well before any comments started pouring in on any of the articles. Once information started coming in, it seemed to me like he was obviously making a statement.
So it was in my head all day, and I checked the news throughout the work day for updates. Everyone was focused on the guy, the gun, freaking out (in the news) that he wasn't being arrested, and it was quite clear that he was on private property, given permission to be there, and was not inciting violence, and most importantly, was legally allowed to carry that way.
But we're talking about the first black president, getting something multiple times more death threats than the previous president, and a obvious anger on both sides of the isle.
With the president coming in to discuss a hot topic that's got the entire country arguing with each other, here you have a guy with a thigh holstered gun.
I don't think he'd do ANYTHING with the gun. He seemed like an intelligent peaceful protester besides the perceived threat of the gun combined with the sign.
I was much more worried about some crazy taking that guys gun. That's what really got into my head. The very first picture I saw, the gun is sitting far back from his thigh and looked very easily accessible by anyone angry* enough to take any opportunty they were given.
I don't know how close he was to the event. I hear he left way before Obama was anywhere around, and i'm sure the SS had him fully under their watch. I'm sure everything went the way it did because everything was in control.
If he was closer, and the crowd more ruley, I'm sorry but if I was in charge of keeping the president safe I would have yes, broken the law, and had him detained. In a situation where thousands of people are there with cloaked intent, and there's someone there who presents a possible problem, you just don't need that. You have to be looking out for subtle stuff, and here's a sore thumb just asking to become a thorn in your side and make things difficult, and possibly volatile.
Stone me now if you wish.
*mods, don't know if you get alerts everytime a filtered word is used, but I'm not posting angry. That's two times in like two days. I apologize. I cuss like a sailor in the real world and don't even think about it.
what really sucks is that thoes of you who are against him being there need a refresher course in the 2ND ammd.he has a lawful right to have the gun....a legal right to bare arms....and for you to say you would violate his rights pisses me off.
i joined this forum with the notion that you all were pro 2A.and from the previous posts i can see you are not.if this is the case i guess you would violate my rights as well.
what a bunch of "HYPOCRITES".
those of you who would violate him or those like him for doing what is legally right.... you make me sick.
ban me for this i don't care.but it needed to be said.
i joined this forum with the notion that you all were pro 2A.and from the previous posts i can see you are not.if this is the case i guess you would violate my rights as well.
what a bunch of "HYPOCRITES".
those of you who would violate him or those like him for doing what is legally right.... you make me sick.
ban me for this i don't care.but it needed to be said.
Trashcan-man
New member
Jofaba,
1. Yes B.H Obama is our first balck potus....he does not, however receive more death threats than any other modern potus. Those threats are more publicized by the media but believe it or not, everything you see on tv or read in a newspaper is NOT always true.
2. People 'freak out' about guns because they are villified in todays society and because not enough people have actually taken the time to actually go out and shoot one. People freaking out doesn't give le the right to take someone else's rights away.
3. It doesn't matter what you're protecting or how many people are there...YOU CANNOT ARREST SOMEONE BASED ON WHAT COULD HAPPEN!!! If that was the case then we could arrest every single person who is near a bar and has a car for fear that they would DUI and kill someone....doesn't make too much sense does it?
Thank god you aren't LEO...although with that attitude I think if you were you wouldn't be for long
1. Yes B.H Obama is our first balck potus....he does not, however receive more death threats than any other modern potus. Those threats are more publicized by the media but believe it or not, everything you see on tv or read in a newspaper is NOT always true.
2. People 'freak out' about guns because they are villified in todays society and because not enough people have actually taken the time to actually go out and shoot one. People freaking out doesn't give le the right to take someone else's rights away.
3. It doesn't matter what you're protecting or how many people are there...YOU CANNOT ARREST SOMEONE BASED ON WHAT COULD HAPPEN!!! If that was the case then we could arrest every single person who is near a bar and has a car for fear that they would DUI and kill someone....doesn't make too much sense does it?
Thank god you aren't LEO...although with that attitude I think if you were you wouldn't be for long
Trashcan-man
New member
Javabum.
I don't think that there is a bunch of hypocrites here...just one. I think he got the wrong url in his browser. I only saw 1 guy posting about arresting him...everybody else was supportave
I don't think that there is a bunch of hypocrites here...just one. I think he got the wrong url in his browser. I only saw 1 guy posting about arresting him...everybody else was supportave
why do you say i wouldn't be for long?i believe we have the right to carry according to the law.such as he was doing.seems like your putting me down.
(i stand corrected if your no)but for those of you who would violate him for his legal right to carry regardless where your at (but legally)have some soul searching to do.your either pro or anti.you cant have it both ways.
(i stand corrected if your no)but for those of you who would violate him for his legal right to carry regardless where your at (but legally)have some soul searching to do.your either pro or anti.you cant have it both ways.
Hey, I felt kinda dirty when I said it, but it'd be disingenuous for me not to admit it.
I'm sure if I had gone through the training and had the help of the SS I would have done as what occurred. I was just sharing a thought that I couldn't beat out of my head with any logical argument regardless of how much I've tried.
I'm curious, if this had turned out ANY OTHER WAY, how would we be reacting as a community? If someone had gained control of his gun? If someone had screamed "he has a gun!" and caused a stampede?
I don't blindly believe everything I read or hear on the news. I just don't find it that hard to believe given the circumstances.
It may not be true, but:
I don't know the man but a quick search seems that he's got a credible history and has lead to some arrests and policy changes.
Regardless, I'm not looking for a fight that I know that I will lose, because I KNOW that I am less informed than most of those on these boards. You have greater life experience than I do to draw from, and I am still very wet behind the ears in everything gun.
I wanted to share a thought and get your response, and that I've done and received. I am happy to have the discussion and, as all the discussions I have on this board, I learn and am inspired to further research.
This is why I love this site. Access to so many viewpoints and great inspiration for further education.
--
Additionally, this site (and being a member) has helped sculpt many viewpoints and answers many questions that I had before coming here. If I didn't share my concerns and say what some may consider stupid, then I'd never get the answers that I was looking for. I'm not here to be popular or run with the herd. I'm here to learn.
I am well aware of what URL I am posting in. My current views may be polar to yours but that doesn't mean that I don't belong here. I got my first gun just around 2 years ago, joined this site just a bit over four months ago, and just got my carry permit about 2 months ago.
Just because it says "senior member" under my name doesn't mean that I ride the line. I've got my opinions and as I've earlier admitted, I am entirely still wet behind the ears. There's a lot of feelings I have now towards different subjects that I probably felt completely different about before joining here.
I have 2 friends in real life who are into guns and I rarely get to chat with them about this kind of stuff. The rest of the people around me are pretty anti gun, or not willing to talk about it. This is the background that I come from.
I'm sure if I had gone through the training and had the help of the SS I would have done as what occurred. I was just sharing a thought that I couldn't beat out of my head with any logical argument regardless of how much I've tried.
I'm curious, if this had turned out ANY OTHER WAY, how would we be reacting as a community? If someone had gained control of his gun? If someone had screamed "he has a gun!" and caused a stampede?
I don't blindly believe everything I read or hear on the news. I just don't find it that hard to believe given the circumstances.
It may not be true, but:
Since Mr Obama took office, the rate of threats against the president has increased 400 per cent from the 3,000 a year or so under President George W. Bush, according to Ronald Kessler, author of In the President's Secret Service.
I don't know the man but a quick search seems that he's got a credible history and has lead to some arrests and policy changes.
Regardless, I'm not looking for a fight that I know that I will lose, because I KNOW that I am less informed than most of those on these boards. You have greater life experience than I do to draw from, and I am still very wet behind the ears in everything gun.
I wanted to share a thought and get your response, and that I've done and received. I am happy to have the discussion and, as all the discussions I have on this board, I learn and am inspired to further research.
This is why I love this site. Access to so many viewpoints and great inspiration for further education.
--
Additionally, this site (and being a member) has helped sculpt many viewpoints and answers many questions that I had before coming here. If I didn't share my concerns and say what some may consider stupid, then I'd never get the answers that I was looking for. I'm not here to be popular or run with the herd. I'm here to learn.
I am well aware of what URL I am posting in. My current views may be polar to yours but that doesn't mean that I don't belong here. I got my first gun just around 2 years ago, joined this site just a bit over four months ago, and just got my carry permit about 2 months ago.
Just because it says "senior member" under my name doesn't mean that I ride the line. I've got my opinions and as I've earlier admitted, I am entirely still wet behind the ears. There's a lot of feelings I have now towards different subjects that I probably felt completely different about before joining here.
I have 2 friends in real life who are into guns and I rarely get to chat with them about this kind of stuff. The rest of the people around me are pretty anti gun, or not willing to talk about it. This is the background that I come from.
Last edited:
Trashcan-man
New member
Java, I'm with you. I think he hs the right to be there and am glad he was. Maybe next time therre will be 100 people with guns...the more the better. I was talking to the guy above you who wanted to detain/arrest him. When I started typing your response wasn't there.
On a side note the guy at the rally should open his own bowling alley...he already has 10 lb. Balls...lol
On a side note the guy at the rally should open his own bowling alley...he already has 10 lb. Balls...lol
I have no problem with his open carry, but his choice of t-shirts does leave something to be desired. It just happens to be the same quote that Timothy McVeigh had on his t-shirt when he blew up the the Murrah Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City.
So you saw the video of the bombing then?
The Secret Service has a dual mission: Investigative and Protective.
It is its Protective mission that we are discussing here: "...to protect national leaders, visiting heads of state and government, designated sites and National Special Security Events."
Are they proactive in protection of the President? Highly. Given the nature of their job and the immediate concerns due to national security, yes, they can and probably do skirt the law. They are empowered by Congress to make arrests under mere reasonable suspicion (they don't need probable cause and the Court has upheld this power).
Like what they do or how they do it, or not, they are completely within lawful means to "spirit away" anyone who they feel would be a threat to the President... To the point of using lethal force.
Your rights - Constitutional or otherwise - mean nothing to them, in performing their duties. The reality is, that it can't be any other way.
Some of you can whine all you want about this, but at the end of the day, the Secret Service will protect their charges in whatever manner they see fit to do.
Saying all of this, does not make me, or anyone else holding this view, anti-gun. It is what it is. Deal with it.
It is its Protective mission that we are discussing here: "...to protect national leaders, visiting heads of state and government, designated sites and National Special Security Events."
All of the above can be viewed, here.By law, the Secret Service is authorized to protect:
- The president, the vice president, (or other individuals next in order of succession to the Office of the President), the president-elect and vice president-elect
- The immediate families of the above individuals
- Former presidents, their spouses, except when the spouse re-marries
- Children of former presidents until age 16
- Visiting heads of foreign states or governments and their spouses traveling with them, other distinguished foreign visitors to the United States, and official representatives of the United States performing special missions abroad
- Major presidential and vice presidential candidates, and their spouses within 120 days of a general presidential election
- Other individuals as designated per Executive Order of the President and
- National Special Security Events, when designated as such by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security
Are they proactive in protection of the President? Highly. Given the nature of their job and the immediate concerns due to national security, yes, they can and probably do skirt the law. They are empowered by Congress to make arrests under mere reasonable suspicion (they don't need probable cause and the Court has upheld this power).
Like what they do or how they do it, or not, they are completely within lawful means to "spirit away" anyone who they feel would be a threat to the President... To the point of using lethal force.
Your rights - Constitutional or otherwise - mean nothing to them, in performing their duties. The reality is, that it can't be any other way.
Some of you can whine all you want about this, but at the end of the day, the Secret Service will protect their charges in whatever manner they see fit to do.
Saying all of this, does not make me, or anyone else holding this view, anti-gun. It is what it is. Deal with it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.