Poseidon28
Moderator
off topic
Last edited:
20 years ago you could attend a political rally for a presidential candidate without undergoing a million degrees of patriot act surveillance, magnetometer scanning and wanding, nitrocellulose puffer detection... and still be able to demonstrate for or against an issue without having to be in a "designated free speech zone."
Why do I think this might be a good thing? I think the public needs to get used to seeing folk with guns and not freak out. Maybe something like this will help the perception.
Fear for Obama's Safety Grows as Hate Groups Thrive on Racial Backlash
Experts who track hate groups across the U.S. are growing increasingly concerned over violent rhetoric targeted at President Obama, especially as the debate over health care intensifies and a pattern of threats emerges.
Contentious health care debate heightens concerns for Obama's safety.The Secret Service is investigating a Maryland man who held a sign reading "Death to Obama" and "Death to Michelle and her two stupid kids" outside a town hall meeting this week. And in New Hampshire, another man stood across the street from a Presidential town hall with his gun on full display.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=8324481&page=1
Poseidon28 said:Have any facts to back up that the majority of Americans don't own guns?What % actually do?
Poseidon28 said:The best thing possible for presidential protection is one of two options:
One: no one but Secret Service is allowed within shooting distance of the president.
Poseidon28 said:The SS is NOT capable of protecting the president, at least the % of times they have managed to stop an actual attack are NOT good.
divemedic said:I have always wondered what legal authority they do that under.
rickyjames said:can you imagine that guy when bush was in office? he probably would have been in gitmo before bush finished his speech. of course he probably would'nt have gotten any further than those caged "free speach zones" they set up for people blocks away from the actual site.
As for Federal authority: If a Federal law is in conflict with a state law, on the same issue, then under the Supremacy Clause, the Federal law trumps.
Actually what the USSS does is not allow anyone with a gun (other than themselves and others they have cleared) within shooting distance of the President and that has worked quite well.
There is a lot of Law written to protect the President. Here is one place to look: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL34603.pdf and you might try their website. Too much here for me to post but a LOT of Federal legislation written on their behalf.
divemedic said:I wouldn't call it overwhelming success. Of the 21 Presidents who have been protected by the USSS, one was killed, and another was seriously wounded.
divemedic said:Except that there is nothing there that authorizes the USSS to detain a person who is not even suspected of committing a crime, and no federal law of which I am aware that makes it a crime to have a weapon in the vicinity of POTUS. How can you detain or search a person who is not breaking the law without violating several constitutional rights?
One way or another said:I'm baffled by some (most?) of the comments being made by so many for what is a non-issue
MLeake said:but that some of the Federal laws that guide agencies such as USSS, DEA, and BATFE might not have passed a close Constitutional review by SCOTUS, if people had really gone after them via the courts.