Carry as POTUS, Part II
- Thread starter Quoheleth
- Start date
- Status
doom said:
Lots of people that do not want other people or commoners to have or carry guns are in favor of carrying their own firearm.
Senator Diane Feinstein, one of the primary anti-gun movers in Congress for decades has famously carried a gun around with her. Being one of the only people in the entire city of San Francisco to have a permit (San Francisco voted and passed by popular vote a ban on even owning handguns within the home, that is how anti-gun it generally is.)
There is a lot of anti-gun individuals that either like their own firearms for protection, or like to have armed bodyguards protect them or loved ones. Someone carrying a gun does not say what you may assume about their firearm beliefs based on that fact alone.
Lots of people that do not want other people or commoners to have or carry guns are in favor of carrying their own firearm.
Senator Diane Feinstein, one of the primary anti-gun movers in Congress for decades has famously carried a gun around with her. Being one of the only people in the entire city of San Francisco to have a permit (San Francisco voted and passed by popular vote a ban on even owning handguns within the home, that is how anti-gun it generally is.)
There is a lot of anti-gun individuals that either like their own firearms for protection, or like to have armed bodyguards protect them or loved ones. Someone carrying a gun does not say what you may assume about their firearm beliefs based on that fact alone.
Last edited:
mortablunt
Member
If I were president, I might carry anyway simply as a last line of defense. The threat that the Secret Service fears the most is a lone nutjob gunman jut suddenly pushing through and attacking out of nowhere at random.
Even though the chances of needing it would be around .1x1000%, I would if only to put a positive light on CC. As to what I would probably carry what I do now a Commander sized 1911, but from a nice American owned custom shop that used only American made parts. Wouldn't want to support a foreign company as POTUS now would you?
sarduy
Member
that's the end of the story....
TexasBill
Member
The President is the Commander-in-Chief, but he is not a member of the military. We have civilian control of the armed forces as one of our basic government tenets.
The Attorney General is actually considered the "top cop." The President is his boss. However, neither of these positions is a sworn law enforcement position that would be armed under existing regulations. The federal government is real funny about who it considers a law enforcement officer when it comes to carrying weapons.
The President is immune from prosecution while in office, so if he (or she) wanted to carry a gun, openly or concealed, there wouldn't be much anyone could do about it.
Presidents have owned and carried firearms in the past, but I don't recall any of them making a big deal about it. Not so much for the tender sensibilities of the anti-gun crowd but because most foreign heads of state and ambassadors do not carry weapons and their security people might get a bit nervous if they were to meet with the "Pistol-Packing President." In addition, the President has to be mindful of the international reputation of the office. No matter what our opinion might be of those outside the U.S. or of our foreign policy, the fact remains we do have to deal with them.
So, if the President did decide to carry, it would certainly be discretely concealed and we probably would never hear of it. At least until he left office....
The Attorney General is actually considered the "top cop." The President is his boss. However, neither of these positions is a sworn law enforcement position that would be armed under existing regulations. The federal government is real funny about who it considers a law enforcement officer when it comes to carrying weapons.
The President is immune from prosecution while in office, so if he (or she) wanted to carry a gun, openly or concealed, there wouldn't be much anyone could do about it.
Presidents have owned and carried firearms in the past, but I don't recall any of them making a big deal about it. Not so much for the tender sensibilities of the anti-gun crowd but because most foreign heads of state and ambassadors do not carry weapons and their security people might get a bit nervous if they were to meet with the "Pistol-Packing President." In addition, the President has to be mindful of the international reputation of the office. No matter what our opinion might be of those outside the U.S. or of our foreign policy, the fact remains we do have to deal with them.
So, if the President did decide to carry, it would certainly be discretely concealed and we probably would never hear of it. At least until he left office....
In the book "In the President's Secret Service" by Ronald Kessler, the author mentioned that Reagan carried. If I remember correctly, he stated that Reagan had a handgun (make and model not mentioned) in his briefcase on his first trip to Russia.
mortablunt
Member
@zdc1775
You said .1X1000%. That comes out to 100%.
You said .1X1000%. That comes out to 100%.
CoRoMo
Member
I would prefer that the president carry as a matter of habit and belief.
I still say there should be vests and a hi powered auto, either a carbine sbr, type weapon and pistol with a fold down ammo reserve in the vechicle. If it's a well planned attack they are going to lose a lot of agents off the bat. He may be pinned down in that tank "car" for a few minutes. If the have larger stuff than an rpg, he might have to exit with a couple of agents. Sounds like a Harrison Ford movie, but truth is sometimes stranger than fiction. I bet Sadam had some stuff on his Camel.Maybe a couple heat seekers, kneel and fire.
Actually, the President is no different than anyone else, we simply put him up on a pedestal. If we start allowing, strike that, continue allowing society to have different levels of authority, we are creating our very own caste system. We've already got enough class warfare to deal with without granting special privilege to people we consider above us.
We let lawmakers set the constitution aside to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms. Oh, but for the President who has an army of SS, we can exempt him from the laws we've created to disarm or limit everyone else? Sorry, I'm waving the BS flag all over that hot stinky mess.
__________________
I'm not putting the POTUS on a pedestal, mentioning some of the authority he derives dircetly from the Constitution and what legal authority I feel he has to carry whatever, wherever, and whenever he wants.
You must have noticed there have been, are, and will be established levels of authority granting "priveleges". That is how a government, society, or military organization runs.
I can't understand how one can take the 2A to mean we should be able to be armed at all times (which I generally agree) and don't think being CinC means the POTUS can carry when and where he wants to.
I believe the Constitution is a total package. You take it for everything it says. If some rights are being infringed upon that doesn't negate the other rights and authority granted by it. People should work on restoring those infringed rights. By your reasoning we should just wave that flag over the stinky mess and forget about it.
Although I believe the POTUS has the authority to carry whatever and wherever I don't think it would do much good. They teach you in basic training to get out of the kill zone in an ambush and that's the best way to deal with any scenario in which the POTUS may be attacked.
We let lawmakers set the constitution aside to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms. Oh, but for the President who has an army of SS, we can exempt him from the laws we've created to disarm or limit everyone else? Sorry, I'm waving the BS flag all over that hot stinky mess.
__________________
I'm not putting the POTUS on a pedestal, mentioning some of the authority he derives dircetly from the Constitution and what legal authority I feel he has to carry whatever, wherever, and whenever he wants.
You must have noticed there have been, are, and will be established levels of authority granting "priveleges". That is how a government, society, or military organization runs.
I can't understand how one can take the 2A to mean we should be able to be armed at all times (which I generally agree) and don't think being CinC means the POTUS can carry when and where he wants to.
I believe the Constitution is a total package. You take it for everything it says. If some rights are being infringed upon that doesn't negate the other rights and authority granted by it. People should work on restoring those infringed rights. By your reasoning we should just wave that flag over the stinky mess and forget about it.
Although I believe the POTUS has the authority to carry whatever and wherever I don't think it would do much good. They teach you in basic training to get out of the kill zone in an ambush and that's the best way to deal with any scenario in which the POTUS may be attacked.
Last edited:
USAF_Vet
Member
The POTUS is just a man, same as any other. Yes, his job allows him certain leeway, but he is not above the law he has sworn to uphold. My reasoning is that he should be held to the same standards by the same laws that we are subject to, and if no civilian has the right or authority to carry a concealed weapon in the District of Columbia, neither should he. Just because he CAN circumvent the law, or be immune to the law, doesn't mean he should. What message does that send?
I too agree that the 2A means we should be able to carry whatever, whenever and wherever we choose. However, until all the local, state and federal laws that prohibit that are repealed, everyone one of us, including the President, should abide by them. I'm not one of the people advocating that 'concealed means concealed' where by doing so is in fact illegal. A Concealed Carry Permit is not a trump card, it is actually an infringement of the 2A. But as a law abiding citizen, I follw these laws even when I disagree with them. If I must do this, why shouldn't we all, including the President?
I agree.
I don't see where you picked that out from. Waving the BS flag is calling attention to an issue to get it resolved, not to point it out and walk away from it. If we are all equal in the eyes of the law, then we should all be treated as such and maintain the law, or repeal them. I'm all for repealing purchase permits, registration, carry permits, FOIDs, etc. but as long as they do exist, I'm not going to break the law and try to circumvent them. I write to my congressmen and senators on both the state and federal levels, expressing my concerns, not only on gun control, but a lot of issues. I do get involved. That is hardly just waving a flag and forgetting about it.
I really don't think it's too much to ask that those in power follow the laws of the land. It's more important for them to do so, as they are under constant watch and scrutiny. Well, maybe not the current POTUS, he seems to get away with a lot without question. But that's beside the point. The Office, and whomever holds it, is held to a standard higher than that of the average citizen, but that does not in fact make him anything special. The Office is special, and it holds certain privileges, but it does not place one outside the law. The POTUS is not sworn Military or Law Enforcement, he is a civilian, and should be held to the same legal standard.
I too agree that the 2A means we should be able to carry whatever, whenever and wherever we choose. However, until all the local, state and federal laws that prohibit that are repealed, everyone one of us, including the President, should abide by them. I'm not one of the people advocating that 'concealed means concealed' where by doing so is in fact illegal. A Concealed Carry Permit is not a trump card, it is actually an infringement of the 2A. But as a law abiding citizen, I follw these laws even when I disagree with them. If I must do this, why shouldn't we all, including the President?
I agree.
I don't see where you picked that out from. Waving the BS flag is calling attention to an issue to get it resolved, not to point it out and walk away from it. If we are all equal in the eyes of the law, then we should all be treated as such and maintain the law, or repeal them. I'm all for repealing purchase permits, registration, carry permits, FOIDs, etc. but as long as they do exist, I'm not going to break the law and try to circumvent them. I write to my congressmen and senators on both the state and federal levels, expressing my concerns, not only on gun control, but a lot of issues. I do get involved. That is hardly just waving a flag and forgetting about it.
I really don't think it's too much to ask that those in power follow the laws of the land. It's more important for them to do so, as they are under constant watch and scrutiny. Well, maybe not the current POTUS, he seems to get away with a lot without question. But that's beside the point. The Office, and whomever holds it, is held to a standard higher than that of the average citizen, but that does not in fact make him anything special. The Office is special, and it holds certain privileges, but it does not place one outside the law. The POTUS is not sworn Military or Law Enforcement, he is a civilian, and should be held to the same legal standard.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
