White House Backs Right to Arms Outside Obama Events

Status
Not open for further replies.

davec

Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2004
Messages
302
Location
Bayonne, NJ
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/18/AR2009081803416.html

White House Backs Right to Arms Outside Obama Events
But Some Fear Health Talks Will Spark Violence

By Alexi Mostrous
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 19, 2009

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."

Anti-gun campaigners disagreed with Gibbs's comments, voicing fears that volatile debates over health-care reform are more likely to turn violent if gun control is not enforced.

"What Gibbs said is wrong," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "Individuals carrying loaded weapons at these events require constant attention from police and Secret Service officers. It's crazy to bring a gun to these events. It endangers everybody."

The past week has seen a spate of men carrying firearms while milling outside meetings Obama has held to defend his health-care reform effort. On Monday, a man with an AR-15 semiautomatic assault rifle strapped to his shoulder was outside a veterans' event in Phoenix. He was one of a dozen men who reportedly had guns outside the forum.

Phoenix police made no arrests, saying Arizona law allows weapons to be carried in the open.

Last week, a man with a gun strapped to his leg held a sign outside an Obama town hall meeting in Portsmouth, N.H., that read: "It's time to water the tree of liberty."

Before the same meeting, Richard Terry Young, a New Hampshire resident, was arrested by the Secret Service for allegedly having a loaded, unlicensed gun in his car. Young was stopped inside the school where Obama held the forum, having reportedly sneaked past a security perimeter.

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.

Lawmakers holding tense town hall debates about health-care reform also have seen armed constituents. The staff of some, including Rep. Stephen I. Cohen (D-Tenn.), have taken precautions to guard against guns being brought into gatherings.

"We asked everyone with firearms to check them with the sheriff before we began the meeting," said Marilyn Dillihay, Cohen's chief of staff, describing an Aug. 8 town hall debate in Memphis. "We've never done that before." The decision was made because the number of people at the event and the subject of the debate created a "potentially a volatile situation," she said.

"Obviously there's a lot of emotion with health care," Dillihay said. "Feelings are very tense, and we were just trying to make sure that things were safe."

One man at the meeting disclosed that he had a firearm and complied with a request to put it in his vehicle, she said.

Other lawmakers said they intended to take no precautions in future town hall meetings or to ask the advice of local law enforcement. C.J. Karamargin, a spokesman for Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), said the congresswoman will "balance rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment and providing her constituents with a safe forum to share their views."

Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University at San Bernardino, said concern about whether Obama will enact new gun restrictions may also be contributing to the tense political climate.

"There's a lot of anger out there," Levin said.

"A key thing that's been bubbling under the surface is what's going on with President Obama and guns," he said. "There is a real question mark not only for extremists but for gun rights advocates in the mainstream."
 
The immediate area occupied by Obama on such trips is considered a federal site where weapons are not permitted, Donovan said.

Since when is Obama a king? He does not command an area of sovereign soil around him at all times. The notion that he does is disgusting.
 
Since when is Obama a king? He does not command an area of sovereign soil around him at all times. The notion that he does is disgusting.
The President is considered a Priority level 1 resource the same as nuclear weapons and therefore his presence becomes a National Defense Area but instead of being a DoD area of responsibilty it is a Secret Service AoR.
 
It's a stupid policy but it's been in place for long, long before Obama. Heck under GW the SS were taking it upon themselves to arrest people for wearing the wrong tee-shirts.

I think we should give the Obama administration its due for not making anti-gun hay with this.
 
If someone with a gun does something stupid and has an accidental or intentional discharge at one of these events, we can count on some really bad legislation in response.
 
National Defense Area: Definition: (DOD) An area established on non-Federal lands located within the United States or its possessions or territories for the purpose of safeguarding classified defense information or protecting DOD equipment and/or material. Establishment of a national defense area temporarily places such non-Federal lands under the effective control of the Department of Defense and results only from an emergency event. The senior DOD representative at the scene will define the boundary, mark it with a physical barrier, and post warning signs. The landowner's consent and cooperation will be obtained whenever possible; however, military necessity will dictate the final decision regarding location, shape, and size of the national defense area.

Just take out DoD and replace with Secret Service-same thing.
 
The President is considered a Priority level 1 resource the same as nuclear weapons and therefore his presence becomes a National Defense Area but instead of being a DoD area of responsibilty it is a Secret Service AoR.

National Defense Area? In other words, "your rights are suspended while near this person"? So much for the land of the free, eh?
 
National Defense Area? In other words, "your rights are suspended while in this area"? So much for the land of the free, eh?

If no one forces you to go to the event, then you are voluntarily surrendering your rights in return for being allowed near the president. So I do not see this as a big deal.
 
You are exactly right Geoff, it happened a few decades ago to some eastern NC land owners when a plane carrying nukes lost its load over the swamps. Imagine that the goverment taking your rights of a property owner away on your property because of their mistake.
 
None of those people were there before the president.

If they were, then they would need to be removed if they would not leave on their own, as it would be a threat to national security.

This is of course assuming the gun bearers were near the actual location of the president. None of the people who have shown up with their guns so far have actually been close to the President.
 
What other constitutional rights do you lose (or as you put it, volunteer to give) when the President arrives?

Free speech, peaceable assembly, redress of grievance? Check
If in your home town, can the SS commandeer your home for use as a command post or observation point?
If he drives through your neighborhood, can the SS search your home in violation of the 4A?
Do you still have the right to due process if you are suspected of being a threat to the POTUS?
How about a jury trial?

Just which rights are you giving up in his most exalted presence?
 
Just the fact that the white house issued a statement that pissed off Helmke makes me all fuzzy inside. Shoot, if Obama keeps this up I might switch parties (OH, CRAP! Did I just say that out loud???!!!) It's gonna be fun watching Helmke's head explode. I mean think about it: His dream come true-a Chicago, gun hating, democratic president in office. And his office just came out with a statement saying he's cool with people bringing AR-15's to his meetings. That's gotta be screwing with his paradigm.
 
More empty talk from Helmke about blood flowing in the streets. That's been his story for too many years to change it I guess.

He knows it's not true, he knows most of the people working for him know it's not true, but keeps on spewing it.

I'm still waiting for the blood to flow in the streets when we went from a 3 day waiting period to instant background checks.

They claimed then we'd have massacres daily. It's almost comical.
 
I've said it before, I'll say it again. He wants to do bad, bad things to us, but he CAN'T. We have him PETRIFIED, especially right now when half of the nation is trying to decide if they made a mistake in electing him.

Gibbs wants this to go away, and doesn't want ANYONE to say the 'G' word at all.

This does not mean we have won. It means we are winning AT THIS MOMENT. We must work even harder and not leave him ANY wiggle room at all.
 
Heck under GW the SS were taking it upon themselves to arrest people for wearing the wrong tee-shirts.

I know Bill Clinton had protest zones far away from where he was but I never heard about Bush doing it, In fact protesters were allowed into speeches given by GW, with signs and projectiles they even threw at him, he also tollerated hecklers.
 
Come on Guys. Four US Presidents have been assassinated. Others have been shot and survived. A whole bunch of people on this site are willing to post comments and threads stretching through many pages on the stupid behavior of other people with guns yet they think it's OK for these "stupidos" to be armed around the President? Get real - President Obama is confirming our constitutional rights in public in a way no other president in the last 100 years has had the guts to do and you guys still whine.

I think its great that individuals take it onto themselves to confirm our rights in the proximity of the president but I hope the first one making a stupid move gets cut-off at the knees by the Secret Service.

The loss of a US President has international and domestic implications you are not even bothering to consider.
 
Of course you're right. Banning law-abiding citizens from carrying will stop everyone who planned on taking a shot at the president, because we all know, these are people very concerned with following the law and the inevitable consequences of firing a gun illegally cose to the most protected person on the planet. (?!)
 
I agree with Mr. Rogers. An assassin takes away the rights of everyone in the country to elect a president. This outweighs the rights violated by not allowing an individual to approach the president with a gun.
 
Master Blaster, GWB did not knowingly allow protesters into his events any more than Clinton or Obama. How do I know? I ran production for a number of GWB events. I was there. I also worked production for a number of Clinton events. USSS security protocols don't vary based on party.

And if anyone wants to push the Secret Service on "rights" (beyond the beneficial "this is a non-issue" that they've been telling the media thus far, which is GOOD for our cause), then please do us a favor and when arrested tell the media you are with the Brady Bunch, because you're not on MY side.

Be realistic. Presidents are targets. USSS is going to set up a protection zone around that person, and I have no problem with that. The murder of a leader would be nothing more than wiping your butt with the Constitution.

-Mark
 
Mr. Rogers:

You have a good point, but it is my understanding that the incident in Phoenix occurred after the individual (or someone) had made prior arrangements with the Phoenix Police Department, and that the Secret Service was aware of his intentions.

Apparently he was well covered by both the city police and Secret Service agents. I highly doubt that his firearms were loaded, and while the president was in the area, no one has said that ever came close to that particular spot.

All-and-all it would appear that it was a staged event for the media, and the president was never in danger. This is a far cry from any assassination attempt. They real question is who set it up, and why?
 
This outweighs the rights violated by not allowing an individual to approach the president with a gun.

Apparently, the people on this board are no more familiar with prior restraint than the Brady bunch.

After all, people with guns kill people all the time, and that scares the public. The public has a right to feel safe. This outweighs our right to own a gun. Only the police and military should own guns near the President They are the only ones who can be trusted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top