• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

McCain visiting Museum in Virginia

swillden

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Messages
1,189
Location
Firestone, Colorado
imported post

steveforopen wrote:
I would not be willing to put my life on the line to find out -- just to find an over-diligiant new Secret Service agent looking to make his name in history by offing McCain's "potential assasin" before he can make his move :shock: You know what I mean.
Based on my interaction with secret service agents, I don't think you'd be at much risk of getting shot unless you looked like you were making a move toward your gun.

They're extremely professional. Smart, very well-trained, and intensely focused when on the job. They know how to prevent threats without escalating to deadly violence, as evidenced by the distinct lack of secret service shootings, beatings, etc.

They are also very thorough and I guarantee that you wouldn't get in with your weapon. If you weren't actually interested in going to see McCain, but just in finding out how the secret service handles such situations, and in testing to see what they'll do if you exercise your right not to talk to them, it could be educational. AFAIK, they have the right to keep you out of the event area, but not to detain you, disarm you or search you. I'm not sure whether or not they can legally require you to identify yourself.

In short, if you were to try this, you would only end up testing how good the secret service is at properly observing your legal rights. If they're not very good at it, you may be in for a very unpleasant experience. I suspect they'd handle it well, but that's just a guess.

If you were enough of an activist to be okay with the risk (for little, if any, gain) then my suggestion would be to first consult your attorney to be sure that you know exactly what your rights are so that you can stay scrupulously within them. Bringing your attorney with you would be a good idea. Also, make sure you have the next few days off work, and some money to pay your lawyer because even if you're completely in the right, things could get a little bit ugly, and I wouldn't be surprised if the judges were very unfriendly to your cause.

I don't think you'd really be risking life and limb to try this, but you'd be risking a lot of inconvenience, expense and legal hassle.

Oh, and McCain would probably never even hear about it unless it made the papers, which would probably be very bad.
 

possumboy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
1,089
Location
Dumfries, Virginia, USA
imported post

swillden wrote:
Based on my interaction with secret service agents, I don't think you'd be at much risk of getting shot unless you looked like you were making a move toward your gun.

They're extremely professional. Smart, very well-trained, and intensely focused when on the job. They know how to prevent threats without escalating to deadly violence, as evidenced by the distinct lack of secret service shootings, beatings, etc.

They are also very thorough and I guarantee that you wouldn't get in with your weapon. If you weren't actually interested in going to see McCain, but just in finding out how the secret service handles such situations, and in testing to see what they'll do if you exercise your right not to talk to them, it could be educational. AFAIK, they have the right to keep you out of the event area, but not to detain you, disarm you or search you. I'm not sure whether or not they can legally require you to identify yourself.

In short, if you were to try this, you would only end up testing how good the secret service is at properly observing your legal rights. If they're not very good at it, you may be in for a very unpleasant experience. I suspect they'd handle it well, but that's just a guess.

If you were enough of an activist to be okay with the risk (for little, if any, gain) then my suggestion would be to first consult your attorney to be sure that you know exactly what your rights are so that you can stay scrupulously within them. Bringing your attorney with you would be a good idea. Also, make sure you have the next few days off work, and some money to pay your lawyer because even if you're completely in the right, things could get a little bit ugly, and I wouldn't be surprised if the judges were very unfriendly to your cause.

I don't think you'd really be risking life and limb to try this, but you'd be risking a lot of inconvenience, expense and legal hassle.

Oh, and McCain would probably never even hear about it unless it made the papers, which would probably be very bad.

Thanks! This is close the the information I was looking for.

What I really want to find the code that allows them to supercede state laws.
 

swillden

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Messages
1,189
Location
Firestone, Colorado
imported post

possumboy wrote:
Thanks! This is close the the information I was looking for.

What I really want to find the code that allows them to supercede state laws.
I can't find any such code. The relevant law would seem to be Title 18 §1752 and it explicitly states in paragraph (e) that the section does not supersede state law.

I still wouldn't want to try it, though, and especially not without an attorney at my side.
 

SIGguy229

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
349
Location
Stafford, VA, , Afghanistan
imported post

I thought only party nominees (not party candidates runningin primaries) received USSS protection. Him being Senator does not automatically give him the privilege of having USSS protection--only when he becomes the GOP presidential nominee.
 

glocknroll

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2007
Messages
428
Location
Hampton, Virginia, USA
imported post

I may be mistaken, but I thought all senators had a SS bodyguard. I remember reading somewhere that some of the senators/ congressmen insisted that their BG's keep their jackets buttoned. It supposedly made the SS agents angry that they couldn't gain access to their weapons in an expedient manner. (Please, I don't mean SS as in Schutzstaffel. Let's not even go there).
 

kaiheitai17

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
619
Location
Islamabad, Pakistan
imported post

SIGguy229 wrote:
I thought only party nominees (not party candidates runningin primaries) received USSS protection. Him being Senator does not automatically give him the privilege of having USSS protection--only when he becomes the GOP presidential nominee.
I beleive that you are correct SIGguy. I have a buddy on WHCA and he deals very closely with USSS. He has told me that only Hillary, because she is the wife of a former President and Obama, becasue he has explicitly asked for USSS detail (played the race card apparently) have USSS details assigned to them now. He also said the agents on Obama's team really don't like the guy. He wouldn't go into specifics.
 

les_aker

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
221
Location
Springfield, Virginia, USA
imported post

glocknroll wrote:
I may be mistaken, but I thought all senators had a SS bodyguard.
Nope.

Flashback to that ugly event where Jim Webb forgot to take his gun out of the briefcase. And then made comments about having to take care of his own safety.

In general, the US Capitol Police have the duty to protect members of both houses of Congress. Hillary is an exception since she has USSS protection for life as a former First Lady. That has since been changed to only provide protection for 10 years after leaving office, starting with George and Laura Bush.
 

glocknroll

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2007
Messages
428
Location
Hampton, Virginia, USA
imported post

les_aker wrote:
glocknroll wrote:
I may be mistaken, but I thought all senators had a SS bodyguard.
Nope.

Flashback to that ugly event where Jim Webb forgot to take his gun out of the briefcase. And then made comments about having to take care of his own safety.

In general, the US Capitol Police have the duty to protect members of both houses of Congress. Hillary is an exception since she has USSS protection for life as a former First Lady. That has since been changed to only provide protection for 10 years after leaving office, starting with George and Laura Bush.
Thanks for the clarification.
 

swillden

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Messages
1,189
Location
Firestone, Colorado
imported post

SIGguy229 wrote:
I thought only party nominees (not party candidates runningin primaries) received USSS protection. Him being Senator does not automatically give him the privilege of having USSS protection--only when he becomes the GOP presidential nominee.
USC Title 18 §3056:
(a) Under the direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security, the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect the following persons:
...
(7) Major Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates and, within 120 days of the general Presidential election, the spouses of such candidates. As used in this paragraph, the term “major Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates” means those individuals identified as such by the Secretary of Homeland Security after consultation with an advisory committee consisting of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the minority leader of the House of Representatives, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, and one additional member selected by the other members of the committee.
So when candidates get protection is determined on a case by case basis.

I know that Barack Obama has had USSS protection for quite some time due to concerns about racially-motivated assasination. According to Wikipedia, he's had protection since May 3, 2007, which is earlier than any other candidate, ever.

McCain, however, may not have protection yet. On November 18th, he said (and had said previously) that he'll refuse Secret Service protection if nominated, and even if he's elected President.

Hillary Clinton has had Secret Service protection since 1991, obviously, and will have it until 2010 unless she's elected President. <shudder>

Edit: Fixed grammar.
 

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
imported post

For anyone who has any legit questions...

U.S. SECRET SERVICE FIELD OFFICES

VIRGINIA
  • NORFOLK 757-441-3200

  • RICHMOND 804-771-2274

  • ROANOKE 540-857-2208

Happy Birthday Presidents Washington (Feb 22)& Lincoln (Feb 12)
 

Attachments

  • s%20collection%20010.jpg
    s%20collection%20010.jpg
    25.2 KB · Views: 157

LRS76251

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
118
Location
Right Coast
imported post

swillden wrote:
SIGguy229 wrote:
I thought only party nominees (not party candidates runningin primaries) received USSS protection. Him being Senator does not automatically give him the privilege of having USSS protection--only when he becomes the GOP presidential nominee.
USC Title 18 §3056:
(a) Under the direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security, the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect the following persons:
...
(7) Major Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates and, within 120 days of the general Presidential election, the spouses of such candidates. As used in this paragraph, the term “major Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates” means those individuals identified as such by the Secretary of Homeland Security after consultation with an advisory committee consisting of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the minority leader of the House of Representatives, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, and one additional member selected by the other members of the committee.
So when candidates get protection is determined on a case by case basis.

I know that Barack Obama has had USSS protection for quite some time due to concerns about racially-motivated assasination. According to Wikipedia, he's had protection since May 3, 2007, which is earlier than any other candidate, ever.

McCain, however, may not have protection yet. On November 18th, he said (and had said previously) that he'll refuse Secret Service protection if nominated, and even if he's elected President.

Hillary Clinton has had Secret Service protection since 1991, obviously, and will have it until 2010 unless she's elected President. <shudder>

Edit: Fixed grammar.
Anyone who is elected President of the United States who refuses Secret Service protection is an IDIOT. If McCain actually said that, then he's one step from the looney bin and should NOT be elected as our President. One can only hope he wasn't being serious if true. By the way, someone earlier commented that Secret Service was using FN 5.7's as their sidearms. This is not true. The issued handgun is a Sig P229 in .357 sig. Duty ammo is Speer Gold Dot 125 gr. There are members of SRT and CAT using P90's chambered in 5.7 however.
 

swillden

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Messages
1,189
Location
Firestone, Colorado
imported post

LRS76251 wrote:
Anyone who is elected President of the United States who refuses Secret Service protection is an IDIOT.
Either that or he's willing to risk his own life, and really trusts his VP.

The most in-depth article I can find on the issue says that he wouldn't completely reject USSS protection, but that he would keep it very minimal.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/11/18/mccain_entry.html

The other articles I find are clearly soundbite-oriented rhetoric, probably intended to jab at Obama for accepting such heavy protection, and in those McCain just said he preferred to take his chances.
 

armedinrichmond

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
31
Location
Richmond, Virginia, ,
imported post

For the record, I CCed at the rally. I was debating OCing to make a statement, but decided against it. There were no metal detectors, no frisks, no nothing. I was fairly surprised.
 

Marco

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
3,905
Location
Greene County
imported post

Hillary, because she is the wife of a former President and Obama, becasue he has explicitly asked for USSS detail (played the race card apparently) have USSS details assigned to them now.
No card played.

He received numerous death threats when he announced his candidacy and was offered protection, which he rightly excepted. (This is public knowledge and can easily be researched)

He probably isn't the first person the USSS has had to protect which they dislike.
 

kaiheitai17

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
619
Location
Islamabad, Pakistan
imported post

Agent19 wrote:
Hillary, because she is the wife of a former President and Obama, becasue he has explicitly asked for USSS detail (played the race card apparently) have USSS details assigned to them now.
No card played.

He received numerous death threats when he announced his candidacy and was offered protection, which he rightly excepted. (This is public knowledge and can easily be researched)

He probably isn't the first person the USSS has had to protect which they dislike.
That was how my buddy phrased it, he is a person of "color".
 

Marco

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2007
Messages
3,905
Location
Greene County
imported post

Not trying to derail the thread.
Do not take my comments as a attack,they weren't meant to be.
Just wanted to clarify the statement.

[line]
I would OC at a rally depending on the location/candidate and legality.
I would also have someone else video/audio record the incident in the event things went wrong.

Edit:
No, I'm not an Obama supporter.
Voted for Ron Paul Yesterday.
The General election looks like it will be a vote for the lesser of two evils.
 

Skeptic

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Messages
585
Location
Goochland, Virginia, USA
imported post

I wonder if it makes a difference if the space is being rented by a private organization who are setting their own rules for the event?

For example, if someone rents a lodge in a county park somewhere, could they not (stupidly, IMO) exclude anyone carrying a weapon?
 

LRS76251

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
118
Location
Right Coast
imported post

When the Secret Service is protecting a human asset, state CCW laws are moot point. Nobody carries except active LE and they need something visible to identify themselves so that they don't become CS bait. Their orders are to put a round through the target if a threat is detected.
 
Top