Help: need source for law on shooting photo of president

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Monkeyleg

Member.
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
5,057
Location
Decatur, AL
Over on another forum, I made the comment that it is illegal to shoot at a target bearing the resemblance of the president. I also recall that such laws apply to photos of senators, etc.

This is what I've been told for years. Am I wrong? If not, does anyone have any idea where to find a credible source citing the law?

Also, I know that in MA it's illegal to shoot at a target that resembles a human being. Months back, I was told that it's also illegal to do so here in WI. I'm still combing through state statutes on that one.

If anyone has a lead, I'd really appreciate it.
 
I wouldn't be so quick to believe everything you hear. It might be marginally useful evidence supporting another charge (conspiracy or the like) but I can't see it being a crime in itself.

If such a law existed it might not be constitutinal -- just argue that you're "expressing" yourself under the first amendment. It would be a fun case to argue at any rate.
 
Concerning the issue of shooting at an image (target or whatever) of the President, I would check with the U.S. Secret Service, who are charged with the responsibility of protecting the President, and some other government officials - past and present.
 
...check with the U.S. Secret Service, who are charged with the responsibility of protecting the President...
Click to expand...



BUt make the call from a pay phone twenty or thirty miles from your house. While wearing gloves. And a big, floppy hat...:evil:
 
Old Fuff,

Wow! I really have a lot of respect for your opinions and advice, but I think this one might be a little off the mark.

How do you think the Secret Service might respond to such an inquiry? I bet it would involve a nice visit from some men in suits and sunglasses.:what:
 
Snake Eyes:

How do you think the Secret Service might respond to such an inquiry? I bet it would involve a nice visit from some men in suits and sunglasses.
Click to expand...

Given Monkeyleg's reputation within Wisconsin political circles I doubt they'd push any panic bottons.:cool:

What they'd more likely do is have somebody in Public Relations answer his question. I suspect that shooting up an image of the President might be considered an implied threat against Mr. Bush, but like Monkeyleg I'm not sure, and I wouldn't hesitate to ask. I've had visits from those "men in suits and sunglasses," before and even done some work for them on one occasion. ;)

But I don't think that our fellow member has any intention of doing that. (Shooting up "Bush targets.") He's simply asking about what the legal aspects are.
 
Old Fuff, thanks for coming to my defense.

I have no intention of shooting at photos of GW, Hillary, or any other powerful US political figure.

It's just always been my understanding that doing so is illegal.

Maybe doing so is not explicitly illegal, but borders on the powers of the Secret Service to investigate threats against the president, an ex-president, or an ex-First Lady.

All I'm trying to do is settle an argument between some folks over on another forum, and me. I maintain that using a photo of GW or Hillary is, if not illegal, then certainly an invitation to an investigation.

As for human silhouette targets in WI? I was told by someone whose depth of knowledge I respect that doing so is technically against the law. I know from doing searches on MA law that such targets are illegal.

Any further clarification is much appreciated.
 
So I guess that in MA this means no IDPA matches? What if I put up a human silhouette and shoot it with arrows or throw rocks at it? Am I still guilty of a crime under MA law? :banghead: :barf:
 
I would do it with a picture of the President and when the Secret Service comes up and asks what your doing say:

"What do you think?"

Then see what happens. (This is a joke.)

:neener:
 
So can he be burned in effigy? Can you make a little doll and stick pins in it? What about an inflatable punching bag?

I honestly don't know the answer, although I too, have heard somewhere, at some time that shooting photos can raise suspicions at the very least. Enquiring minds want to know........
 
<not serious>

Do you think it would matter if the target was of a politician's backside rather than face?

</not serious>
 
I've never heard that its illegal to do that in Wi, but it is an interesting question. I also never even thought about silhouette shooting as something that could possibly be against the law.

Especially since my little brother and myself sighted in his Mini-14 in on a caricature of Kofi Anan.
 
The idiotic MA law about "human form targets" aside, AFAIK, there's nothing illegal _per_se about shooting pictures of anyone.

But then, be warned that context is everything. What I'd heard is that mailing pix of the shot up target to the target gets interpreted as a death threat, and investigated accordingly.

It seems that if you wish to send a message, words work better.
 
Well, Old Fuff, let's hope the Secret Service folks are as benign as you say they are. I just sent an email to their public service office to ask if they could shed any light on the question.

If you don't see any further posts from me, you'll know they're not as benign as you thought. ;)
 
I believe the answer is, it *CAN* be illegal. If it's done as part of a threat, and the photos are sent to the white house, then the line is crossed. But if it's done as a protest I think the First would offer some protection. I'm not going to be the one on that test case though :D
 
The link goes to a SCOTUS decision, right? In that decision, SCOTUS sez you can shoot at any picture you want, per the First Amendment.

Remember the furor when Liddy ran his mouth during his radio show about how much better he felt after a range session with Clinton targets? Bad taste is not prohibited by the Constitution. :D

Art
 
How would the Secret Service feel if there was a shooting competition
where the "photos" were printed engravings of dead presidents on US
currency where the shooter won the bills he put holes through at long
range?

Would this be wrong for an implied threat to a president (though already
dead) and the wanton destruction of private property (federal reserve
notes)?
 
MA can censor what TARGETS you can use?
Click to expand...
A study was done awhile ago that showed that soldiers who were trained to shoot at human images were much much more likely to engage actual human targets that those trained to shoot using bullseye targets.

I read about this study in an article that was defending the banning of using human image targets so I assume that that is the logic used in MA as well
 
Joab, I have heard of this well. Believe it to be true. I was part of a study
group using specific concentration techniques that improved our shooting
skills while I was in college many years ago. Despite doing this for a number
of weeks and the promise that the results would be shared with us, the
researcher never did send us a final copy of the report. I thinked it worked
quite well, though :cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
  • Locked
Dobbs: Why is the president ignoring our laws?
Replies
1
Views
347
Car Knocker
C
T
  • Locked
This can't be true... can it?
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
stevelyn
S
T
  • Locked
FBI Raid over Baby-Shower Photos
Replies
8
Views
765
Preacherman
P
T
  • Locked
Brazil's personal disarmament law
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
jimpeel
J
D
  • Locked
Bill exempts aliens from California law
Replies
17
Views
868
Sir Aardvark
S
Back
Top