Carry as POTUS, Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quoheleth

Quoheleth

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
3,195
Location
The Land of Bowie, Crockett, Travis & Houston
I just checked the previous thread on this, http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=72616&page=7&highlight=President, and it has been locked with Art's final instructions to start a new thread if someone wanted to try it again.

Here we go.

I saw this story on Yahoo a few minutes ago. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...h8dml0YWxpdHkEcHQDc3RvcnlwYWdlBHRlc3QD;_ylv=3

The writer, Chris Moody, says, "f he were elected president, could Perry hypothetically continue to pack heat on his morning run? You're damn right he could."

The article discusses local as well as Federal law, Presidential options (e.g., Executive Order), and the Secret Service --- all topics that were discussed in our last thread.

Thought it was interesting. Any further comments that weren't already made in the previous thread?

Q
 
The comparison with O's blackberry was really inane. A gun couldn't be used to send security-sensitive information. Nor could a gun be attacked by a hacker. There's simply no comparison between the national security implications of a firearm and a communications device that uses servers in another country.
 
No reason he shouldn't if he wants to. But if the secret service doesn't get it done, I can't believe having his own will make much difference. Might even make the secret service a little nervous about friendly fire.
 
The article linked in Post #1 above starts:

He also packs a concealed .380 Ruger loaded with deadly hollow-point bullets, fully equipped with a laser-sight for precise killing.
Click to expand...
Right off the bat, the author uses such gross sensationalization that he loses credibility with me.

"Deadly hollow point"

"Laser for precise killing"

This author is not willing to sit down and write a straight forward article without being overly dramatic.
 
I didn't read the other thread, but if the POTUS can carry open or concealed in D.C., (or anywhere else) then the residents of D.C. (and everywhere else) should be able to as well. I'm all for the POTUS being pro-gun, pro-carry, but only to the extent that the citizens who elect him/ her having equal right to carry.

No CC in DC for average joe? No CC in DC for the Prez.
 
USAF_Vet said:
I didn't read the other thread, but if the POTUS can carry open or concealed in D.C., (or anywhere else) then the residents of D.C. (and everywhere else) should be able to as well. I'm all for the POTUS being pro-gun, pro-carry, but only to the extent that the citizens who elect him/ her having equal right to carry.

No CC in DC for average joe? No CC in DC for the Prez.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The President is not above the law. If it's not legal for everyone else, then he shouldn't be able to do it either.
 
No CC in DC for average joe? No CC in DC for the Prez.
Yesterday 01:37 PM

If it's not legal for everyone else, then he shouldn't be able to do it either.

The President is not the average joe and DC law is local jurisdiction which does not apply to the Federal government. It would be legal for him based on only one premise.

The President is the Commander in Chief as per Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. Military personnel may be armed on duty (or off duty in some cases), open or concealed, when authorized by their commander. So:

1. The President is always on duty. Even when the POTUS is "on vacation" he spends several hours a day conducting presidential business. If a crisis developes the POTUS doesn't say "as soon as I finish the back nine" or "I'll be there when the fish stop biting".

2. Being CinC he can authorize himself to do so.

I am not an esteemed law professor but I can read and understand the Constitution. The President can carry wherever and whenever he wants to in the US. As a Head of State he would have diplomatic immunity anywhere in the world without anyone checking his passport..

Let's put the legality issue to rest.
 
I liked the closing statement "And really, who would ever check?" More accurate, who would ever get through the Secret Service to check?
 
Right off the bat, the author uses such gross sensationalization that he loses credibility with me.

"Deadly hollow point"

"Laser for precise killing"

This author is not willing to sit down and write a straight forward article without being overly dramatic.
Click to expand...
This.
Is exactly what I thought.
 
Umm, if someone can get past the army of Secret Service agents and the entire US Intel community then he's jacked anyway. If I walked around with a 70-250 highly armed and trained bodyguards I doubt I'd feel the need to carry. Jus sayin' ;)
 
In this day and age I think he should carry. If his convoy fell under attack and agents killed, he at least would have a chance in that armored car, I would have an AR in 308, in the car and vests for my family. It's just a matter of seconds until more help shows up, why take the chance? The car could be disabled, but unless they had a javalin they aren't getting in, but he could shoot out if the fortified bullett proof glass was penetrated. And if he did have to move, at least he would have a weapon of some magnatude.
 
Funny thing with some people, Bradys wife probablly never gave a crap about all of the people killed or wounded Civillian and Military, but her husband get's shot, "terrible thing", and all of a sudden she wants everybodys guns, "of course they are using her", but still, what if he got hit by a car, would she want everyons car?
When you take a risky job, you choose to put yourself at risk, it's a decision he made.
 
The President is not the average joe and DC law is local jurisdiction which does not apply to the Federal government. It would be legal for him based on only one premise.

The President is the Commander in Chief as per Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. Military personnel may be armed on duty (or off duty in some cases), open or concealed, when authorized by their commander. So:

1. The President is always on duty. Even when the POTUS is "on vacation" he spends several hours a day conducting presidential business. If a crisis developes the POTUS doesn't say "as soon as I finish the back nine" or "I'll be there when the fish stop biting".

2. Being CinC he can authorize himself to do so.

I am not an esteemed law professor but I can read and understand the Constitution. The President can carry wherever and whenever he wants to in the US. As a Head of State he would have diplomatic immunity anywhere in the world without anyone checking his passport..

Let's put the legality issue to rest.
Click to expand...

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.
 
As the one who started the original thread years ago I have a good perspective on this.

Please, enough with the politics! We've all heard about what Obama thinks about firearms. He will probably be like Jimmy Carter in that he has one term. Moving on. Instead, spend your time and energy educating the "on the fence" and the clueless on the reality of self defense, crime, and firearms. Use a light touch and don't be pushy. It works.

Considering the state of the world if I was president right now I would carry a pistol with a full magazine, but not much more. Likely the only way I would ever remove the pistol from it's holster for defense would be a worst-case scenario of a planned attack on me which compromised most of the secret service. This would cost the attackers dearly since they would lose most of their thug companions to the Secret service fighting back.

So in the end it would be me and one or two secret service agents making our escape and only one or two (likely wounded) bad guys still attacking us. In that situation my unholstering and helping to fight back against the bad guys would very likely help turn the tide. Even if to just hand the gun to an agent who was out of ammo or had a damaged gun. Whatever helps the team.

A pistol/rifle/machine-gun does not make you Rambo so you can save the day.
Even if you were the President of the USA. (TM by me)
It's there just in case, like the worlds most practical insurance or a fire extinguisher.

Keep it realistic and go easy on the fantasy in this thread folks. :)
 
Last edited:
USAF_Vet said:
Actually, the President is no different than anyone else, we simply put him up on a pedestal.
Click to expand...
Except for the two bullet points you quoted regarding his capabilities and responsibilities.
The President is the Commander in Chief as per Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. Military personnel may be armed on duty (or off duty in some cases), open or concealed, when authorized by their commander. So:

1. The President is always on duty. Even when the POTUS is "on vacation" he spends several hours a day conducting presidential business. If a crisis developes the POTUS doesn't say "as soon as I finish the back nine" or "I'll be there when the fish stop biting".

2. Being CinC he can authorize himself to do so.
Click to expand...
 
Feel free to check me on this, but I believe I'm correct.

POTUS is not a member of any military organization, not subject to or protected by the UCMJ. POTUS is technically, however, a LEO, for on his or her shoulders falls execution and enforcement of all Federal law. He or she could carry based on that.
 
Most attackers a president would encounter are are likely to be going for the president. This means the president hiding, being covered, or being led away, and drawing the attention of the attacker as a more difficult to acquire target will help the Secret Service more than if he engaged the threat himself and was a visible or stationary target.
The attacker is likely to focus almost exclusively on the president, to their own detriment, and so the harder the president is as a target to hit the more time the Secret Service have to respond and the less likely the shooter is to be successful.
Lead does need to fly in the attacker's direction to make them less effective, but one more gun from the primary target is unlikely to be beneficial in stopping the attacker before he is successful or does additional damage, and more likely to make the president an easier target.
Let the bodyguards do the shooting while the attacker focuses their attention on trying to take out the evading target and so is a sitting duck for the bodyguards.

It rarely would make sense for the president to participate in stopping the threat, even if they were very capable. As a result what gun they have means very little.
 
Last edited:
The Point

As president, the most meaningful point made by carrying a pistol of his own would be the public endorsement of firearms carry.

He sets the example.

Hey, America, I carry a pistol, and I support that concept for any citizen who wants to and who is eligible.

The likelihood of his ever having to act in his own defense with a sidearm is vanishingly small.

But the impact on the culture of a president who carries, who takes range trips instead of golf outings, who promotes shooting as a national sport . . . that would be a worthwhile endeavor.

 
I agree with Arfin here, the chance that the president carrying would ever have the chance to defend himself, or make a difference in his defense, are so tiny, most SHTF scenarios are more likely. If any attackers are able to get through all the secret service can throw at them, what are the odds a single middle aged man with a handgun is going to stop them? On top of that, what are the odds of the secret service LETTING him as they dogpile on top of him and then rush him into his limo/other secure area?

I'd love to see a president carry and endorse it for the PR factor that would follow, but, as far as using it in self defense? I don't see it being at all likely he stands a chance if he has the opportunity to draw it.
 
Elect Perry and maybe we'll get the answer to this question once and for all.

By the way, those "deadly hollow points" are just that. You should see the cans we left on the range this weekend. :neener: Deader'n a fence post.
 
The odds of the POTUS employing a personal or issued arm in self defense are exceedingly small, but so are my chances of walking into an armed robbery on the way home. I still carry every day. There are several scenarios that could play out where the POTUS might need a personal arm in a semifantastical sort of way. I still say Bush 2 was wearing a shoulder holster during the reelection debate, when a line was visible across his back and some accused him of having an electronic aid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
  • Locked
Obama Shooting Himself in the Foot with Anti-gun Stance
Replies
15
Views
1K
Larry Ashcraft
Larry Ashcraft
S
  • Locked
Trying to make it easier for your voice to be heard. Info/inks
Replies
2
Views
606
SoCalNoMore
S
2
  • Locked
If I Ran The Circus -by L. Neil Smith
Replies
0
Views
304
2dogs
2
2
  • Locked
The Democrats' Assault (on) Weapons
Replies
6
Views
517
AJ Dual
A
G
  • Locked
Thoughts on a complete rewrite...
2 3
Replies
73
Views
9K
Robert
Robert
Back
Top