Calls for ban on guns near Obama (Homeland Security Department and the U.S.S.S.)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 1, 2003
Messages
796
Location
Tennessee
Calls for ban on guns near Obama (Homeland Security Department and the U.S.S.S.)

By Jordy Yager Posted: 08/19/09 05:51 PM [ET] Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) called on the Homeland Security Department and the U.S. Secret Service on Wednesday to provide tighter restrictions on citizens carrying weapons, openly or concealed, while in the vicinity of President Barack Obama.Norton, who sits on the Homeland Security Committee, made the request after numerous news reports have shown groups of people brandishing firearms while outside of events held by Obama over the past several weeks.

“It is clear that if the Secret Service can temporarily clear all aircraft from air space when the president is in the vicinity, the agency has the authority to clear guns on the ground that are even closer to the President,” Norton said.

But the Secret Service says that Obama was never in danger when a group of about a dozen protesters brandished their firearms outside the Phoenix convention center earlier this week where he was speaking.

One man carried an AR-15 assault rifle, but Arizona law allows people to carry unconcealed guns and police made no arrests.

“This doesn’t change what already exists for Secret Service,” said Secret Service spokesman Malcolm Wiley of Norton’s request.

“Whenever the Secret Service travels somewhere in the country, we are able to determine what the security parameters will be for any particular site and anything within those parameters fall under federal law as far as being able to control what happens there.”

“So even if the state law says that you can have a gun as long as it’s not concealed, it doesn’t mean that you can bring a gun into a protected site.”

Norton has been battling with gun rights supporters for years because of the District’s former ban on handguns, which was struck down by the Supreme Court last year. More recently, a bill to grant the District a representational vote in Congress has stalled in the House because of an amendment that would make it easier to own a gun in D.C.

The Arizona event followed a similar instance in New Hampshire – which has open-carry laws – last week when police arrested a man for having a loaded, unlicensed gun in his car near where Obama was set to hold a healthcare-related forum. Another man outside of that event had a licensed handgun strapped to his leg and held a sign that read: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

“In both instances, those guys were outside of the outer-most perimeter of security, so what would apply is state law,” said Wiley. “They never had any proximity to the president at any time. They weren’t trying to gain access to the event and they weren’t in a position outside the event where they could have affected the president.”

But the Brady Campaign, a gun control group, said that these increasing instances of brandishing firearms in public could lead to escalated scenarios in the future that put the president at risk because it stretches law enforcement thin.

“Law enforcement has to keep an eye on these people,” said Paul Helmke, president of the group. “So the more people [who] carry guns, the more people you need to keep an eye on them, which stretches limited resources further. You get an event like in Phoenix with maybe 12 or 13 people, what if at the next event there are 100? And when you take the law enforcement resources away, that makes the president more vulnerable.”

Larry Pratt, executive director of the Gun Owners of America, a gun rights group in Virginia, said that this is nothing new nor is it different than law-abiding gun owners bringing their weapons into restaurants, as they have been known to do periodically in the Commonwealth.

“There have been a few calls to the police and the police have come to the point now where they ask one question: ‘What are these gun carriers doing?’ And they get the response that they’re eating and say, ‘Well, if they start doing something, let us know.’ So when somebody goes to a rally, obviously if the president is there it’s going to get more attention, but I don’t think we’re really dealing with anything different.”
 
Aint gonna happen without a comprehensive ban on firearms in genral. The Secret Service and FBI commented on Obama coming to AZ and armed people "near" him..and they actually gave gun owners/carriers props---

It was done to get recognition, but it went far to show that a "armed society is a polite society".

I don't like Obama, but I think he knows that going hard against guns is suicide for the deomcratic party... IMHO..
 
I am not surprised at all. I suspect the people carrying guns at these events are sleepers for anti-2A groups.
 
Not surprised either. The system will always move to protect itself.

I suspect the people carrying guns at these events are sleepers for anti-2A groups.

ALL of them? Wow. I'll believe that when I see any evidence of such. I think most people in this forum would do the same thing, I know I would.
 
ALL of them? Wow. I'll believe that when I see any evidence of such. I think most people in this forum would do the same thing, I know I would.


Maybe not any, I am just speculating. I don't think most people on this forum would do the same thing.

I don't think they need a law to prevent people from carrying guns at these events, they simply need to redefine the protected area around the president to be larger. All that would take is a bureaucratic rule change, not a law.
 
The problem with that is you are shoving aside states rights with federal muscle............. it don't take a history scholar to figure this one out ;) I figure if he doesn't want to be around my legal guns and my 2nd ammendment rights stay home. I never invited him anyways ;)
 
Washington Post article.

Armed men seen mixing with protesters outside recent events held by President Obama acted within the law, the White House said Tuesday, attempting to allay fears of a security threat.

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said people are entitled to carry weapons outside such events if local laws allow it. "There are laws that govern firearms that are done state or locally," he said. "Those laws don't change when the president comes to your state or locality."

Ed Donovan, a spokesman for the Secret Service, said incidents of firearms being carried outside presidential events are a "relatively new phenomenon." But he said the president's safety is not being jeopardized.

"We're well aware of the subjects that are showing up at these events with firearms," he said. "We work closely with local law enforcement to make sure that their very strict laws on gun permits are administered. These people weren't ticketed for events and wouldn't have been allowed inside and weren't in a position outside to offer a threat." The immediate area occupied by Obama on such trips is considered a federal site where weapons are not permitted, Donovan said.
 
Let me start by saying I think the Presidency of The United States of America is far greater than any one person and should be protected at all costs. For this reason I am opposed to using a presidential event to try and draw attention to 2A rights by openly carrying firearms to such an event. I am equally opposed to attempting to assert 1A rights by trying to speak over the President. I consider both actions to be extreamely rude and in poor taste and anyone who does this doesn't represent me. On the other hand as the last paragraph of the OP states "“There have been a few calls to the police and the police have come to the point now where they ask one question: ‘What are these gun carriers doing?’ And they get the response that they’re eating and say, ‘Well, if they start doing something, let us know.’". This leads me to belive that gun owners throughout these United States are gaining the respect of law enforcement personnel if not the general public.
 
From the Article said:
By Jordy Yager Posted: 08/19/09 05:51 PM [ET] Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) called on the Homeland Security Department and the U.S. Secret Service on Wednesday to provide tighter restrictions on citizens carrying weapons, openly or concealed, while in the vicinity of President Barack Obama. Norton, who sits on the Homeland Security Committee, made the request after numerous news reports have shown groups of people brandishing firearms while outside of events held by Obama over the past several weeks.

A lie and a scandal.

The lie is the claim of "Brandishing". No one brandished their arms in any of those "close encounters" with the Obama.

The scandal is the calling on a couple of bureaucracies for regulations rather than passing a law in Congress. She wants laws without them being onerous for our elected representatives come election time. (Of course, I'm considering the Second Amendment notwithstanding for the sake of discussion.)

If she is so concerned about the Obama, she can join the Secret Service and be a human shield for him. Then again, she needn't bother. None of these events have been any threat to the President, and I doubt any such events in the future ever will be.

Besides, the presence of the President and the Secret Service does not make it safer for the rest of us. We need to cover ourselves.

Woody

There is a current wave of freedom being expressed in this great country of ours. We can join that wave in the political arena now or be forced to join it on the battlefield later.
 
The word brandishing means many things. In some states, it simply means visible display of a weapon. In other states, it means threatening display of a weapon. Since she was from DC, I suppose she means that any public display is brandishing.
 
These events can swing either way as far as more or less 2A restrictions are concerned.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with responsible gun owners joining the crowd outside of all political events. Great, make your point.

Then I read multiple forum posts about the sheer stupidity of some gun owners at the range, in gunshops, in their overly confrontational relations with the police and in their published letters, and I think - Do I really want these nuts to have free-range inadvertently representing me before the general public? Would I trust them to get near a politician they disagreed with?

It only takes one full-blown nut to lose our 2A rights forever.
 
Balrog said:
The word brandishing means many things. In some states, it simply means visible display of a weapon. In other states, it means threatening display of a weapon. Since she was from DC, I suppose she means that any public display is brandishing.

Brandish(ing) vt (a weapon, etc) to wave or flourish in a threatening manner.

No other definition found.

What ever she thinks it means or how she is using the word exposes her as ignorant or a liar.

I demand honesty and a modicum of knowledge from elected officials.

Woody
 
Brandish(ing) vt (a weapon, etc) to wave or flourish in a threatening manner.

No other definition found.

It don't much matter what Webster says, it matters what the law says.

Nonetheless, it does have other definitions in common usage.

Check out the following link, and look at definition 2:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/brandishing

bran·dish (brndsh)
tr.v. bran·dished, bran·dish·ing, bran·dish·es
1. To wave or flourish (a weapon, for example) menacingly.
2. To display ostentatiously. See Synonyms at flourish.

The 2nd definition is an exact description of what these people were doing at the political events. They were certainly displaying their weapons in an ostentatious manner.
 
Well since I found a defnition in common use of the word brandish that describes what they were doing, and you said there was not one, I dont feel obligated to keep on digging things up for you.

The second defnition I provided says brandishing is merely the showy display of a weapon. No menacing necessary.
 
Helmke: "You get an event like in Phoenix with maybe 12 or 13 people, what if at the next event there are 100?"

One can only hope.

Obama is smart. He knows that no one in their right mind carries a gun openly if they are going to assassinate someone. So he's playing it cool. Before he was President, he had a HUGE campaign rally in Houston. He told the Houston police NOT to check people for weapons, as it was taking WAY too much time for people to get into the building. He shows people that he is not afraid of gun owners, but when those who are complain, he can try to take the guns away saying "They asked me to do it, it wasn't my idea. I'm fine with them." And come out smelling like a rose.
 
Maybe Norton should focus on her city o' crackheads and less on people lawfully carrying in other states:banghead:
 
Let me start by saying I think the Presidency of The United States of America is far greater than any one person and should be protected at all costs. For this reason I am opposed to using a presidential event to try and draw attention to 2A rights by openly carrying firearms to such an event. I am equally opposed to attempting to assert 1A rights by trying to speak over the President.

OK someone outside the protective barrier for the president is not a threat to the president. If they were the Secret Service would take care of them. So this argument shows that you weren't really paying attention to the reports rather having a knee jerk reaction.

On the 1A issue I don't believe the president has the right to silence anyone in a free society. The will of the people should be what rules. The Government should only be a tool of the People --This is America, the President is not an absolute Monarch and the Freedom of Speech from the 1A and Right to Bear Arms from the 2A are our most important rights. Hence the Reason they were the First 2 Amendments the Founders added.

I really do not like the way this country is going with the belief in the all powerful God King President...There are 3 Branches of Govt that were designed to share power and balance each other. When one of these 3 gets out of control the other 2 need to stand up and put them in their place. It should have happened in the last adminsitration and it needs to happen in this one. I'm sick of losing my freedoms and personal security at the will of one branch.

We need to elect legislators with some Backbone and Honor.

I'm sick of what is going on with this country and will spend my personal wealth and time to change it for the better.

Any time someone makes a statement that No one should be able to speak over the president I'm pretty sure the Founders spin in their graves.
 
I am pro 2A and don't think that bringing guns to Presidential events helps the cause at all. Even Tom Delay from Texas (strong pro-gun) said he thinks this is wrong. Even thoough it is legal I think it crosses the common sense line. Just my opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top