Open Carry at Presidential Town Hall

Status
Not open for further replies.
Precisely why I for one say the Secret Service should be abolished. No government agency at any time should be above the law, nor any elected official. The entire basis, at least in theory, of our government as it was designed to be was that the elected officials all the way up to and including the president are to be ordinary citizens and not elected royalty. A president is replaceable. Goodness knows we didn't pick this one on any rigid criteria of experience and expertise. Under express limited powers of government, he isn't supposed to be some all powerful semi-god--he's not supposed to be powerful enough to be excessively important. There is absolutely no compelling interest to give him some exalted and elevated priveledge, and it is in fact to the contrary of liberty and the proper relationship of government to the people that any president, Congressman, or any other similar person be treated as anything but ordinary. It is abundantly clear the president has little or nothing to do with serving the people-his purpose when yours and my tax dollars pay his salary- when he himself has so many people going to ridiculous lengths to serve him. It is clear that this aura of power and, thanks to the SS, invincibility, that he for one takes it that he is ABOVE the people, and that is a dangerous thing indeed which we have seen for too long from others in office. He's supposed to be a clerk, a dinner host, a historian, and occasionally a leader, but none of this rock star crap--but clearly the latter has taken vast priority over the former.

Make the guy walk on foot and carry his own sidearm like the rest of us. Make him have every single legal obstacle we do--make him have to be part of a lawsuit to have a NYC and/or NJ non resident CCW if he wants armed protection there. Make him have to be limited to 10 round magazines in CA and NY and FMJ in NJ. Make him have to take 12 hour classes for a NM permit. Make him have to wonder whether he can OC in TX or not and if not show up at the steps of the capitol in Austin as one of the crowd to hold up a sign saying "Yes We Can...Open Carry!" Make him have to open carry unloaded in CA and have to take a snake route around all the 1000' school zones.

MAKE HIM NOT ABOVE THE LAW OR THE LIFE OF AN EVERYDAY CITIZEN. He has no right or cause whatsoever to be any different than one of us, and it is clearly to our detriment that he is treated and regarded and thereby led to believe that he is above everyone and can do no wrong. There's a reason the Magna Carta is the oldest basis we have for our government and it's about time we stopped neglecting its central precepts.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

Sorry if i sickened you, but hey, that's my 1st amendment right (comes just before the 2nd).

Not sure you should consider that every single person here shares your views though. I'm sure that I am in the extreme minority, but this isn't an all or nothing club. At least not to my knowledge. Disagreement is allowed, and opposing ideas are allowed. At least to my knowledge.

I am entirely 2nd amendment. I will admit though, open carry rubs me in the wrong way. Most people that I've talked to, both in this site and in person, admit that they'd almost exclusively rather conceal carry, and not trouble themselves with open carry. Also, open carry carries less requirements than concealed. So, basically anyone can open carry. And previous to this discussion, I've seen an overwhelming agreement that open carry scares the crap out of people.

I am not hypocritical, though I am sorry that you view my statements as such. My statements which have been the center of debate here are about a man making a statement with open carry display at a presidential event. I don't think it added to the conversation, others do. That's the bulk of it.
 
"I am entirely 2nd amendment. I will admit though, open carry rubs me in the wrong way. Most people that I've talked to, both in this site and in person, admit that they'd almost exclusively rather conceal carry, and not trouble themselves with open carry. Also, open carry carries less requirements than concealed. So, basically anyone can open carry. And previous to this discussion, I've seen an overwhelming agreement that open carry scares the crap out of people."

-while it is certainly true that open carry does scare a lot of people, i think that is in part, because so few people practice open carry. People that know nothing of firearms and get their only information about firearms from a horribly baised media that demonizes firearms, will have fear when they first see one on a person. They will assume this person is carring to rob or kill as they read and see so much in the news. I feel that for this very reason open carry should be practiced. Open carry should be practiced to combat this incorrect view, if people see that good, polite, upstanding citizens are open carring perhapse they will then have a better view of the firearm community. I feel that this is one reason why this young man did indeed carry. In my view open carry should be done, and "open carriers" are actually ambassadors of the firearm culture to those outside of it, and thus should act in an exemplory manner. Sorry for the ramble
 
That was not a ramble, it was a well formed argument. I may be naive, and I entirely admit that, and have throughout this discussion, but my experience is that such an action does not open anti's to change their minds. Open carry is so rare, and quizically so legal in most states, that its just a straight up phenomenon. It's not "wrong", but it's rare and, thus, unfamiliar.

I am slowly turning more conservative with each and every day, but I refuse to hold back any of my thoughts when it comes to these debates. I am willing to be the bad guy if that's what I am to be painted as. I have no greater control over my own opinions than anyone else does.

As I've said, I am here to learn. I am not here to make friends. Nor am I here to make enemies.

I slide, daily, closer to most of your ideals (I believe). But some things hold me back through very drastic means.

Again, I love the discussion and the passion. I regret nothing, and respect every sane point of view presented thus far.
 
Isn't the whole point of the constitution and the gov't to PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE FEW FROM THE WILL OF THE MANY? I was always taught that the smallest minority is the individual, so the gov't is supposed to protect individual rights. This guy was exercising his 1st and 2nd amendment rights, protesting and bearing arms, and the gov't should be there to keep others from trying to take that away.
I absolutely agree that the SS had him closely watched and so they should. You never know what someone's intentions are, but that doesn't mean that they should have detained him. I also agree that the POTUS should have a "safe zone" of 200-1000 meters around him.
 
Not sure what you're so stunned by, Jofaba...

... about the "a president is replaceable" quote.

He did NOT say that anybody should be harmed. What he said was that all of our elected and appointed officials are supposed to be on the same plane as the rest of us, which is historically and Constitutionally accurate.

The framers would probably have been aghast at Secret Service protections for elected officials; most of them were actively involved in the American Revolution, and were at personal and financial risk throughout.

Their idea was to make strong institutions, that answered to and worked for the People, and not to create a new aristocracy. They had worked too hard to get rid of the old one.
 
Jofaba

Also, open carry carries less requirements than concealed. So, basically anyone can open carry.
Click to expand...

Let us get down to brass tacks, as it were.

There are two states that allow concealed carry without: an application, a permit, any testing, fingerprinting, etc...; just as a resident of the state you have this right. (Note: there are a few exceptions, but generally every adult allowed to own a firearm can CC.) Do you know which two states these are? Has the media shown you that these two states have proven that they are filled with "gun nuts" who go off half cocked and wreak havoc and mayhem at every chance?

I would guess that you don't know which two states these are; and even if you did it is not from the media portraying them in the light above. Guess what? These states also allow open carry to their residents. Again, no media frenzy about "gun nuts" crawling out of the woodwork. Why?

It is not usually the average "law abiding" citizen who creates problems involving guns. Most of these folks that do are called "criminals". And by definition, they really don't care about any gun laws; except trying not to get caught with their "hand in the cookie jar". They want to carry, openly or concealed, they carry. (The smarter ones generally concealed.)

If I see someone open carrying, I am generally not to concerned. I open carry from time to time too. Most of the time I CC. I personally believe that it does give me an advantage that I lose with OC.

Regardless, I am far more concerned with the "criminals" carrying than any average citizen carrying. Restricting the average citizen's right to keep and bear arms is just downright dangerous and directly opposing the framers intentions.
 
Last edited:
A president is replaceable.
Click to expand...

I completely agree.

An assassin, willing to trade his life for that of a hated elected official, should be able to accomplish his goal with little fuss.

This would have two benefits:
1. Elected officials would fear the plebes a bit more... this is good.
2. Elected officials would avoid policies that riled up the plebes.
 
hear hear azredhawk44....i agree.
but what cannot be replaced is those who fought and died
for our rights that are being trampled every day.

for that reason we need to stand ever vigilant in our fight to
keep our rights as afforded to us by our forefathers.
 
Replaceable politicians

Jofaba reread Yellowfins post you are missing a couple points.
One of the things becoming crystal clear in the healthcare debate is that a large number of our elected leaders seems to feel they are smarter than us and get upset when we hold them accountable. They place themselves on a pedestal and exempt themselves from a variety of laws or use their position as leverage for receiving special treatment. Yellowfin is proposing a way to counteract that superiority complex by saying hey congresscritter or president you aren't so special, let's have you live by the laws you pass and see how that works for them.
 
Ohh! I know! I know!

There are two states that allow concealed carry without: an application, a permit, any testing, fingerprinting, etc...; just as a resident of the state you have this right.
Click to expand...

Vermont and Alaska

As far as I know, VT does not issue CWP's. If you can own it, you can carry it, period. However, their statutes do not have a preemptive statement (I think that's what it's called?). Their counties/cities/towns/etc can restrict CC to the point of it being illegal in their respective jurisdictions.

Alaska adopted the VT method with a few modifications. They implemented an availability of CWP's in order to establish reciprocity (sp?) with other states. Alaska also included a preemptive statement (again, not sure if that's the right term) that says something to the effect of 'Citizens have the right to carry a concealed weapon, and that right shall not be infringed by any municipality.' As far as I know, municipalities may restrict open carry, but no city/town/borough/etc can make CC illegal. Alaska also extends this right to all non-residents. However, you must be a resident of the state to apply for a CWP.
 
From the framers:

Men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, and to protect those rights, mankind has formed Government, which has power because it is given that power by its citizens. The president is the chief of the executive branch of the government that is there to protect the rights of the citizens.

Every law that the Government passes has to respect and safeguard the rights of the individual, whether that individual is the President or the guy standing there protesting the President.

The man on the corner who is protesting the President is exercising his right to free speech. If he happens to be wearing a sidearm while doing so, he is simultaneously exercising his right to bear arms. As long as he threatens no one, he is not violating anyone's rights, and to molest him is to violate his rights of both speech and arms.

Yes, the SS has the duty to protect the President, but nowhere in the COTUS are they granted the power to trample the rights of the citizens in the name of protecting the man who is SUPPOSED to be making sure that those very rights are protected, nor does the COTUS grant power to Congress to delegate that power to the SS.

The President is both a man and a symbol. The man has rights, the symbol has powers. The man has no more, nor fewer, rights than any of us. The symbol has power, and those are specifically laid out in the COTUS.
 
So....

How do you all reconcile what you feel is the right way to interpret the laws and how it is handled in reality, today?

What Mr. Kostric did was legal. I think we all agree with that statement. But, was it smart?

Protesting is one thing. Armed protesting raises the stakes to a new level. Given the stakes, it was downright stupid. Foolhardy is another term that comes to mind.

These are just my observations and opinions. We can agree to disagree on that.

Where we part ways, is where some of you think you can parade your rights in situations where doing so compromises the integrity of gun-rights in general.

Openly wearing a gun with a sign that specifically promotes a message of insurrection (one of my favorite Jeffersonian quotes, by the way) at a Presidential "Town Hall" meeting, does nothing to promote an image of responsible gun ownership, but does promote an image of gun-owners being kooks.

That's the bottom line.
 
I see your point, and i raise you this. William Kostric offered that sometimes a point can be made that's intentionally outrageous, in order to pull folks from the opposite side a little to the middle. (paraphrasing). Antipitas makes the point that it drives public opinion away from our cause because it's too outrageous and foolhearty.

I think there may be a little of both. One thing is undeniable, the world got to see yesterday, perhaps for the first time, that a man with a gun, even at a presidential event, does not necessarily spell disaster. And with their chicken-little hand-wringing, calls for emergency injunctions, and Matthews referral to Kostric's "G.D. gun", that the media looked almost as ridiculous as the oddly demeanored William Kostric. And we are accustomed to the media looking ridiculous.

I think, on balance, this was a win. I do wish Kostric's sign had a more peaceful message. But there may be a lot of folks, even in the government who have somehow escaped hearing that Tom Jefferson quote. If it renews a healthy fear of watchful patriots, I'm not sure that given the rampant mischief underway in our gub'mint, that it is such a bad thing.
 
Last edited:
"Openly wearing a gun with a sign that specifically promotes a message of insurrection (one of my favorite Jeffersonian quotes, by the way) at a Presidential "Town Hall" meeting, does nothing to promote an image of responsible gun ownership, but does promote an image of gun-owners being kooks." quoted Antipas.

I respectfully disagree & believe that the interpretation is in the eyes of the beholders. People with no strong opinion either pro- or anti-gun control could take that image either way depending on what they have previously been exposed to, IMO.
 
Where we part ways, is where some of you think you can parade your rights in situations where doing so compromises the integrity of gun-rights in general.

Openly wearing a gun with a sign that specifically promotes a message of insurrection (one of my favorite Jeffersonian quotes, by the way) at a Presidential "Town Hall" meeting, does nothing to promote an image of responsible gun ownership, but does promote an image of gun-owners being kooks.
Click to expand...


I think he was the poster boy for Responsible gun ownership, he obeyed the law, made a statement in a non-violent manner, and even rationally and calmly explained it to the drive-by media kooks.

As for the "what if" or the "now as a result" I would say that the next, time there should be 100 or 1000 folks show up and do what this man had the courage to do, and that is to remind everyone of what the second amendment is truly about. What is "irresponsible" is to profess to be a "responsible" gun owner, and activist, and "tuck tail" when you have a chance to use your rights for fear that if you do, they might be somehow restricted further. If that is the result, then perhaps Jefferson's statement should become a beacon.
 
What is "irresponsible" is to profess to be a "responsible" gun owner, and activist, and "tuck tail" when you have a chance to use your rights for fear that if you do, they might be somehow restricted further.
Click to expand...

One could argue that by refusing to exercise the right due to fear, it has already been relinquished.
 
Protesting is one thing. Armed protesting raises the stakes to a new level. Given the stakes, it was downright stupid. Foolhardy is another term that comes to mind.
Click to expand...

Essentially, your position boils down to this:

In order to exercise my 1A rights, I must forgo my 2A rights, because we all know that armed people who protest ALWAYS use their weapons to get their point across.
 
Protesting is one thing. Armed protesting raises the stakes to a new level.
Click to expand...

How so ? How is a citizen, who happens to be armed, and peacefully protesting, any more of a threat than the armed SS guys ?


One could argue that by refusing to exercise the right due to fear, it has already been relinquished.
Click to expand...

Spot-on !
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top