Anyone gonna OC at McCain/Palin Rally 9/10 in Fairfax?

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

Empty holster? Now there is an interesting idea! Says something about who you (we) are - pro 2nd Amend et al, that you are not an eminent threat and an obviously noticeable statement. Might even garner some press coverage so you should dress and act accordingly - did I have to say that - YES.

Click to expand...

I have been wearing my Empty Holster for over six years into work in DC.

I have received lots of questions and comments over the years.

I remember someone in IL getting arrest for wearing an empty holster though.

imported post

I'd believe anything about Illinois. You'd probably get arrested for carrying a PICTURE of a holstered gun on your belt, or for "brandishing" a piece of fried chicken.

I've also wondered if Palin OC's in Alaska. While I seriously doubt she'd do something like that on the campaign trail now, maybe she will when she's president in 2012. It would be great just seeing a picture of her OC'ing back home. We could make 8x10 glossies and stand them on the tables when we have OC dinners.

imported post

OK. I am seeing a lot of flap about it being illegal- but this is OCDO!!!

Show me where a statutes states it is illegal to OC at a political rally or inside a SS 'security zone'.

imported post

VAopencarry wrote:

OK. I am seeing a lot of flap about it being illegal- but this is OCDO!!!

Show me where a statutes states it is illegal to OC at a political rally or inside a SS 'security zone'.

Click to expand...

Boy, cranky and lazy at the same time.

Forum member ShipAhoy posted this on a Mtn Jack thread:



USC Title 18, Section 1752

Sec. 1752. Temporary residences and offices of the President and
others


(a) It shall be unlawful for any person or group of persons -

(1) willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in

(i) any building or grounds designated by the Secretary of

the Treasury as temporary residences of the President or other

person protected by the Secret Service or as temporary offices

of the President and his staff or of any other person protected

by the Secret Service, or

(ii) any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area

of a building or grounds where the President or other person

protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily

visiting,
in violation of the regulations governing ingress or egress
thereto:

(2) with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of
Government business or official functions, to engage in
disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to,
any building or grounds designated in paragraph (1) when, or so
that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly
conduct of Government business or official functions;

(3) willfully and knowingly to obstruct or impede ingress or
egress to or from any building, grounds, or area designated or
enumerated in paragraph (1); or

(4) willfully and knowingly to engage in any act of physical
violence against any person or property in any building, grounds,
or area designated or enumerated in paragraph (1).
(b) Violation of this section, and attempts or conspiracies to
commit such violations, shall be punishable by a fine under this
title or imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both.
(c) Violation of this section, and attempts or conspiracies to
commit such violations, shall be prosecuted by the United States
attorney in the Federal district court having jurisdiction of the
place where the offense occurred.
(d) The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized -

(1) to designate by regulations the buildings and grounds which
constitute the temporary residences of the President or other
person protected by the Secret Service and the temporary offices
of the President and his staff or of any other person protected
by the Secret Service, and

(2) to prescribe regulations governing ingress or egress to
such buildings and grounds and to posted, cordoned off, or
otherwise restricted areas where the President or other person
protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily
visiting.
(e) None of the laws of the United States or of the several
States and the District of Columbia shall be superseded by this
section.
(f) As used in this section, the term "other person protected by
the Secret Service" means any person whom the United States Secret
Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title
when such person has not declined such protection.



Its posted on page two of this thread: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum46/15537-2.html

imported post

Not lazy, I was not the one making the claim, I had no reason to cite. Cranky...maybe.

I still do not see where it is illegal to carry.

The Sec. of Treasury can make up rules but nothing shall supersede the laws of the US or States.

imported post

VAopencarry wrote:

Not lazy, I was not the one making the claim, I had no reason to cite. Cranky...maybe.

I still do not see where it is illegal to carry.

The Sec. of Treasury can make up rules but nothing shall supersede the laws of the US or States.

Click to expand...

Check.

I wouldn't want to try it, even if I knew a statute somewhere expressly legalized it. Remember Olafson? The government went way out of its way to put him in jail. I wouldn't want to test it. Can't afford the legal fees.

imported post

I've said this before on here and I'll say it again for those of you who don't seem to "get" it. If you enter into any zone declared by the Service as a "secured area", which is always staffed by UD officers running metaltometers at the entrances to the zones, and are found to be armed but not authorized to do so, you will be charged in violation of 18 USC 1752. 18 USC 1752 provides that if you are found to have an unauthorized firearm within the secured zone, you will face up to 10 years in Federal prison. DO NOT be stupid. Its one thing to want to make a statement, however, keep it outside the secured perimeter and you shouldn't have any issues if you want to remain armed. If you want to come inside the perimeter, then you MUST play by the rules or be prepared to suffer the consequences. There are NO exceptions and NO games when it comes to the protective mission of the Service.

imported post

Nevermind.

imported post

Here is an example of some case law involving a man in SC who was charged in violation of 18 USC 1752. I think it provides a little insight as to how this statute is actually applied by the Federal courts.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/4th/044832p.pdf

Here it is in HTML for those who can't log into caselaw:

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:eWGC6FKFE1gJ:caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/4th/044832p.pdf+18+USC+1752&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=21&gl=us

More case law. This one involves a person who showed up to a Presidential rally carrying a starter pistol back in 1990 and was arrested for doing so by the Service.

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/902/902.F2d.1580.36-3_18.html

imported post

Thanks for the case law. While I'm not sure arresting a nonviolent protester for being where he could 'see' the President is just, that is how the courts ruled. However, the notion that a gun owner could get hung up because they crossed over an unmarked security cordon is disturbing.

imported post

Don't see how those cases apply here.

The first the guy was told to leave multiple times and did not. The 2d guy was clearly acting like a nut and being disruptive.

It is NOT illegal to carry in a secured zone.

It is legal for the Secretary of the Treasury to make a regulation of No Firearms in the secure zone.

If one were to be lawfully carrying, they would not be admitted into the secure zone. As in the PA case the 'zone' was not breached, no violation.(For the SS)

If one were to make it into the secured zone with a firearm, then it would be illegal, maybe.

As stated in 18-1752 (2)(e): None of the laws of the United States or of the several states......shall be superseded by this section.

The regulation of the Sec of Treasury cannot supersede the law. If the 'zone' is breached, by a lawful carrier(doing nothing but minding his own business), the person is not breaking the law. They are breaking a rule. Similar to trespassing, they would be removed from the area. I am guessing, have an interview to determine if they are a threat. No violation of the law has occurred.

Could the person be arrested, sure, but not lawfully. Could the person be convicted of some made up charge under the umbrella of 18-1752, sure, but it wouldn't be lawful.

I won't be testing it, just saying.......:lol:

imported post

What is amazing to me is the continued berating/condemning of Mtn Jack for his "questionable" approach or activity. Do these posters not read or do they not care about the facts. I am going to stop short of using the T word only because I am in such an expansive mood today.

Someone asked the question as to when McCain/Palin were returning to Virginia - as of this time, there is no schedule shown with any new date(s) for our state.

Yata hey

imported post

LRS76251 wrote:

Here is an example of some case law involving a man in SC who was charged in violation of 18 USC 1752. I think it provides a little insight as to how this statute is actually applied by the Federal courts.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/4th/044832p.pdf

Here it is in HTML for those who can't log into caselaw:

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:eWGC6FKFE1gJ:caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/4th/044832p.pdf+18+USC+1752&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=21&gl=us

More case law. This one involves a person who showed up to a Presidential rally carrying a starter pistol back in 1990 and was arrested for doing so by the Service.

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/902/902.F2d.1580.36-3_18.html

Click to expand...

This case law is not really relevant to our discussion.

I am not saying that JBTs won't violate the rights of citizens, of course they will. They are, after all the S.S. But for a moment just pretend that we live in aRepublic where the law really means what it says so...

I ask a simple question: How again would a federalREGULATION trump state LAW when even the Federal law clearly states the federal regulation does not trump state law?

imported post

Its NOT a regulation. Federal regulations are located in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 18 USC 1752 and 18 USC 3056 are Federal LAW. There are other provisions of codified public LAW that strengthened both of these sections of Federal Code that became effective back in 2006. Also, the Service is no longer under the Treasury Department, but Homeland Security. The Service was also established as a standalone agency within DHS under the provisions of PL 109-177 (signed into law on March 9, 2006).
As far as the case law goes, there are many, many examples of violations of 1752 and 3056 that have been affirmed, even upon appeal by various Federal Circuits across the country. The point of the case law is that if you are around the secured perimeter and you are doing something that constitutes disruption or do anything that could pose a threat, you can be arrested and charged. There are other options that can be exercised by the PD depending on the degree of the threat and type of threat, including CS putting a bullet through said offender's noggin. When you are around a secured perimeter protesting, you are going to get some attention. When you are protesting AND carrying a firearm, you are going to get A LOT of attention and you can guarantee that it won't be positive. If you feel like protesting, then fine, but save yourselves the extra trouble and leave the guns at home. Protesters are dealt with on a regular basis by the Service and Service personnel are very well trained in handling protesters. Its pretty much something we expect to see on the job, and we typically do. We are a professional agency. As to the MTN Jack incident, the interviews conducted by the Service following his detainment was protocol. He was not charged by the Service. The charges were at the state level.
Sometimes I feel like I'm hitting my head against the wall when trying to educate some of you on this board as to how things work from a LE prospective. I think some of you want to argue just for the sake of arguing. The intent is to help and educate everyone here. God knows, I don't want to be one of the people having to arrest one of you for something that could have been prevented in the first place just by using a little common sense.

imported post

LRS76251 wrote:

There are other options that can be exercised by the PD depending on the degree of the threat and type of threat, including CS putting a bullet through said offender's noggin.

Click to expand...

Which part of the S.S. manual teaches you which citizens will be summarily executed? :what:

Sometimes I feel like I'm hitting my head against the wall when trying to educate someLEOs on this board as to how things work from a citizens perspective. I think some of you want to bully just for the sake of bullying. The intent is to help and educate LEOs here. God knows, I don't want to be one of the people having to sue one of you for something that could have been prevented in the first place just by using a little common sense.