Legal Question


PDA






Cyborg
June 27, 2009, 08:29 AM
If someone were to print out one of the easily available pictures of Barak Obama and tape it to a dart board - would he/she be committing a crime? To a shooting target?

Please note that I have done neither. I just want to know. Would either act constitute an offense under state or federal law? How about if the person followed up that taping with use of the dartboard/target in the usual and customary manner?

TO THE MODS: this is not a specious question. Nor is it intended to start any sort of flame war or other acrimonius discussion.

If you enjoyed reading about "Legal Question" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Art Eatman
June 27, 2009, 11:25 AM
Given the very wide range of court decisions concerning "free speech", no charge would hold up. I know of no law against it, but that doesn't mean some local type might not think there is.

G. Gordon Liddy on his radio show, back in the Clinton daze, yakked about doing just that for his rifle practice.

NukemJim
June 27, 2009, 12:19 PM
JMHO because IANAL

Throwing darts at a picture of President Obama, I doubt that there would be a problem.


Using a picture of President Obama for target practice might get interesting depending on who saw what.

My limited understanding is that the Secret Service has a wide range of powers if they choose to utilize them. I will let someone else try to find the boundries set the the SS. From my understanding the SS is busier than normal currently due to idjets (that's a technical term :neener: ) with hypertrophic mouths and atrophied minds.

NukemJim

gbran
June 27, 2009, 01:43 PM
The house has passed HR 1966, a new fed hate crimes law, which still has to be passed thru the senate.

It may apply to something like this, if passed.

Tim the student
June 27, 2009, 02:50 PM
It definitely would be under the UCMJ.

Not sure under civilian law, but if it is, I wouldn't want to find out.

Call up the SS and find out. Let us know how that goes.

nc76
June 27, 2009, 03:05 PM
I know you can buy dart boards with Obama's face on it. Just try google. Or I'm sure Bush, Clinton (both), ect if you look hard enough.

For a shooting target. Might be humorous among friends out on a private piece of property. Probably wouldn't do it at a public range.

LibShooter
June 27, 2009, 03:11 PM
Nope, not a crime. Mailing it to the White house afterward; that would be a crime.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. The preceding legal advice may be worth as much as you paid for it.

divemedic
June 27, 2009, 03:23 PM
I seem to remember a turkey shoot in 1993 or so that was using Clinton's picture as a target, and the secret service shut it down.

The Lone Haranguer
June 27, 2009, 04:15 PM
The mere act of putting a likeness of someone, even the President, on a target - even shooting it, throwing darts at it or whatever - is not a crime. I would still use discretion - a private gathering is one thing, but to do it at a public range, post pictures of the target on the internet, etc., would be foolish.

gun&knifecountry
June 27, 2009, 04:31 PM
Don't think it would be illegal under free speech might get into the hate laws.

Also I think G. Gordon Liddy might have suggesste others using Clinton face for target practice but he never does rifle practice due to him having a felony conviction and not owning any guns. Yes I know his wife owns several.

ConstitutionCowboy
June 27, 2009, 04:39 PM
The house has passed HR 1966, a new fed hate crimes law, which still has to be passed thru the senate.

According to thomas.loc.gov, it is still in committee - the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

Woody

divemedic
June 27, 2009, 05:43 PM
I seem to remember a turkey shoot in 1993 or so that was using Clinton's picture as a target, and the secret service shut it down.

The mere act of putting a likeness of someone, even the President, on a target - even shooting it, throwing darts at it or whatever - is not a crime.



According to the Secret Service, it is. I knew I could find it:


http://tinyurl.com/lfh8ru

The man who was the chief organizer of the November, 1992 shoot was the Vice President of the Central Florida chapter of the Young Republicans, a man by the name of Abrami.

Two years later, he was found dead with two other high ranking members of the Florida and Georgia Republican party. The three deaths fueled many conspiracy theories about the tail of dead bodies that plagued the Clinton Presidency.

Oro
June 27, 2009, 05:58 PM
Because of the controversial nature of this, I have seen many ranges expressly forbid using ANY likeness of a person as a target. Thus, doing it could get someone booted from a private or public range depending whether or not it's actually illegal.

2RCO
June 27, 2009, 06:05 PM
Call up the SS and find out. Let us know how that goes.

That call probably wouldn't end with a whole bunch of laughter but rather a friendly visit to check out your home etc..

I dealt with the Secret Service when in banking on some issues of counterfeit bills they are OK folks and for the most part just like anyone else doing their job.

I would guess that the Presidential detail doesn't have much of a sense of Humor.

EOD Guy
June 27, 2009, 09:28 PM
It definitely would be under the UCMJ.

Only for officers, not for enlisted. The UCMJ article about showing contempt only applies to officers.

Tim the student
June 27, 2009, 09:44 PM
Only for officers, not for enlisted. The UCMJ article about showing contempt only applies to officers.

You're right, but don't forget about the great catch-all, 134. I would say that shooting a likeness of the person that the chief of staff salutes is prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the armed forces, and would bring discredit upon the armed forces.

t165
June 27, 2009, 09:48 PM
A local gun shop owner was trying to convince me that all domestic federal firearms classes are now mandated to use silhouette targets which are dark green instead of black. I never bit but he never conceded. He said the ATF told him they had to stop using the black ones. :rolleyes:

Jim K
June 27, 2009, 09:50 PM
Since President Obama (may the angels sing His praises and the heavens resound with His Holy Name) and the Attorney General are reported to have absolutely no sense of humor, I suspect the feds would ignore the free speech business and there would be a new resident at Gitmo.

Jim

ConstitutionCowboy
June 27, 2009, 10:51 PM
Most targets have a big "O" in the middle, or in the case of silhouette targets, the big "O" is right in the center of mass. Are we gonna have'ta reprint all targets with squares now?:what:

Woody

kentucky bucky
June 28, 2009, 01:01 AM
Just remember, the Govt. can charge a person with anything they want and it will be you that spends their life savings trying to fight it, even if it is a bogus charge. With the crap in DC that is going down, I wouldn't give any of the Bast*rds a reason to harrass me. The chances of the wrong person seeing it are remote, but all it would take is a phone call by a cleaning lady, etc., to have a ladder climbing Secret Service rookie knocking on your door, especially if they've been told you have one of those dreaded "arsenals" in your closet.

Bookworm
June 29, 2009, 10:28 AM
Since President Obama (may the angels sing His praises and the heavens resound with His Holy Name)

That was worth a LOL :)

If you enjoyed reading about "Legal Question" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!