Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Ban on guns near Obama

  1. #1
    Regular Member AB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    ACTIVIST Cheyenne, Wyoming
    Posts
    240

    Post imported post

    D.C. delegate calls for ban on guns near Obama

    http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...009-08-19.html

  2. #2
    Regular Member Thos.Jefferson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    just south of the river, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    288

    Post imported post

    Never happen.
    He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent which will reach to himself. -- Thomas Paine (1737--1809), Dissertation on First Principles of Government, 1795

  3. #3
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    D.C. delegate calls for ban on guns near Obama
    By Jordy Yager
    Posted: 08/19/09


    Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) called on the Homeland Security Department and the U.S. Secret Service on Wednesday to provide tighter restrictions on citizens carrying weapons, openly or concealed, while in the vicinity of President Barack Obama.

    Norton, who sits on the Homeland Security Committee, made the request after numerous news reports have shown groups of people brandishing firearms while outside of events held by Obama over the past several weeks.

    “It is clear that if the Secret Service can temporarily clear all aircraft from air space when the president is in the vicinity, the agency has the authority to clear guns on the ground that are even closer to the President,” Norton said.

    But the Secret Service says that Obama was never in danger when a group of about a dozen protesters brandished their firearms outside the Phoenix convention center earlier this week where he was speaking.

    One man carried an AR-15 assault rifle, but Arizona law allows people to carry unconcealed guns and police made no arrests.

    “This doesn’t change what already exists for Secret Service,” said Secret Service spokesman Malcolm Wiley of Norton’s request.

    “Whenever the Secret Service travels somewhere in the country, we are able to determine what the security parameters will be for any particular site and anything within those parameters fall under federal law as far as being able to control what happens there.”

    “So even if the state law says that you can have a gun as long as it’s not concealed, it doesn’t mean that you can bring a gun into a protected site.”

    Norton has been battling with gun rights supporters for years because of the District’s former ban on handguns, which was struck down by the Supreme Court last year. More recently, a bill to grant the District a representational vote in Congress has stalled in the House because of an amendment that would make it easier to own a gun in D.C.

    The Arizona event followed a similar instance in New Hampshire – which has open-carry laws – last week when police arrested a man for having a loaded, unlicensed gun in his car near where Obama was set to hold a healthcare-related forum. Another man outside of that event had a licensed handgun strapped to his leg and held a sign that read: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

    “In both instances, those guys were outside of the outer-most perimeter of security, so what would apply is state law,” said Wiley. “They never had any proximity to the president at any time. They weren’t trying to gain access to the event and they weren’t in a position outside the event where they could have affected the president.”

    But the Brady Campaign, a gun control group, said that these increasing instances of brandishing firearms in public could lead to escalated scenarios in the future that put the president at risk because it stretches law enforcement thin.

    “Law enforcement has to keep an eye on these people,” said Paul Helmke, president of the group. “So the more people [who] carry guns, the more people you need to keep an eye on them, which stretches limited resources further. You get an event like in Phoenix with maybe 12 or 13 people, what if at the next event there are 100? And when you take the law enforcement resources away, that makes the president more vulnerable.”

    Larry Pratt, executive director of the Gun Owners of America, a gun rights group in Virginia, said that this is nothing new nor is it different than law-abiding gun owners bringing their weapons into restaurants, as they have been known to do periodically in the Commonwealth.

    “There have been a few calls to the police and the police have come to the point now where they ask one question: ‘What are these gun carriers doing?’ And they get the response that they’re eating and say, ‘Well, if they start doing something, let us know.’ So when somebody goes to a rally, obviously if the president is there it’s going to get more attention, but I don’t think we’re really dealing with anything different.”



    Thos.Jefferson wrote:
    Never happen.
    I dunno. Might.

    It's an interesting situation. As Drudge says: Developing....


  4. #4
    Regular Member AB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    ACTIVIST Cheyenne, Wyoming
    Posts
    240

    Post imported post

    These operatives work this way, trying to get something done without the required legislative process!

    The Obama Administration doesn't want the battle right now because of the high profile fight during the Power Grab Health-Care push.

    But don't think they haven't made the phone calls to others, to get the dirty work done.

    Never say never.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    166

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    The Arizona event followed a similar instance in New Hampshire – which has open-carry laws – last week when police arrested a man for having a loaded, unlicensed gun in his car near where Obama was set to hold a healthcare-related forum. Another man outside of that event had a licensed handgun strapped to his leg and held a sign that read: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
    Is anything about this paragraph accurate?

    This is why nobody trusts the media any more.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    az, ,
    Posts
    685

    Post imported post

    dont be BRANDISHING your LOADED UNLICENSED GUNS around you crazy cowboys.

    clearly your LE cant handle you guys so we're going to step this up to a federal level!!!


    f***in democratic libtards...

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    274

    Post imported post

    I have no problem personally for there to be a gun free zone around the President, even if I don't like the guy personally or any of his cronies.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    316

    Post imported post

    Crossfire Jedi wrote:
    I have no problem personally for there to be a gun free zone around the President, even if I don't like the guy personally or any of his cronies.

    Gun-free zones don't work for any other location or 'protected' group.What makes the Messiah so special that it *would* magically be a functional practice just for him?


    Far more important, however, has to be that even the White House (via captain Gibbs) doesn't seem t be bothered in the least by guns being nearby. Much like I don't need the government telling me what is safe, what I can do, etc. I see no reason to tell Obama that he should take away my rights in order to add to his level of security when even he doesn't seem to care.

    I just find it really interesting how the left wing media, democrats, and this 'Eleanor Holmes Norton' seem to all think they know how best to protect our commander in cheif than the secret service does. =) If they had seen any threat in the open-carriers (or better yet, the concealed-carrying folks which were never spotted) they would've acted upon that threat. The liberals are simply creating a threat out of simple expression of the first two amendments.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    274

    Post imported post

    Thoreau wrote:
    Crossfire Jedi wrote:
    I have no problem personally for there to be a gun free zone around the President, even if I don't like the guy personally or any of his cronies.
    Gun-free zones don't work for any other location or 'protected' group, what makes the Messiah so special that it *would* magically be a functional practice just for him?

    Exactly :shock::celebrate

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Arizona, ,
    Posts
    431

    Post imported post

    gun free zones only apply to people who obey the law. How is this so hard to understand.
    Freedom isn't free, but this is America! We will find a way to outsource it and save some money - Jeremy

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    274

    Post imported post

    jeremy05 wrote:
    gun free zones only apply to people who obey the law. How is this so hard to understand.
    Exactly :shock::celebrate

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    316

    Post imported post

    Crossfire Jedi wrote:
    I have no problem personally for there to be a gun free zone around the President, even if I don't like the guy personally or any of his cronies.
    Oh, and for the record, there IS a 'gun free' zone around the president already, which is inforced to the level of personal searches, metal detectors, etc. If Chris and his AR15 had been within that zone, then there would've been problems. Luckily, the SS doesn't see any need to designate the whole city surrounding the president as a gun-free zone (well, unless you're in D.C.) =)

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    274

    Post imported post

    I think everyone is misunderstanding my statement. Whatever law they decided to do or change doesn't impact the bad guy. So if they want a gun zone that is as large as phoenix, it's more harm than anything to the president. Obama is not exactly my buddy thus the sarcasm.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    316

    Post imported post

    Crossfire Jedi wrote:
    I think everyone is misunderstanding my statement. Whatever law they decided to do or change doesn't impact the bad guy. So if they want a gun zone that is as large as phoenix, it's more harm than anything to the president. Obama is not exactly my buddy thus the sarcasm.
    Just because it's a pointless 'law' that doesn't work doesn't mean we should be complacent with said law existing =)

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    274

    Post imported post

    yeah I agree, in some places it's illegal to spit on the street. Some laws from the 1800's are still in affect today that are crazzy.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    Let Obooba arm himself 'n open carry. After all... it's a Right.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    316

    Post imported post

    Sonora Rebel wrote:
    Let Obooba arm himself 'n open carry. After all... it's a Right.

    Hell, if ONLY we the people could be HALF as well armed/guarded as he is.

    The biggest thing that gets me about this story in the news still has to be how everyone out there thinks they should be making decisions on how to protect a president who already has a perfectly good security detail (2nd to none.)


    Guess it's all a part of the continuation of the nanny state where the left wingers know better how to keep our president safe than anyone else, and by god do they intend to legislate their ideas into law!


  18. #18
    Regular Member MarlboroLts5150's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    407

    Post imported post

    I don't see a problem with SS having a "sterile" area where the President ( whoever he/she may be) is speaking, meeting, whatever. Been that way for years. The "incidents" everyone is talking about in NH and AZ are non-issues. Even SS didn't have a problem with it, the White House released a statement saying they didn't have a problem.

    For Ms. Norton, the Brady-Bunch, and anyone else getting thier panties in a bunch....read The Constitution, the go back to English class and learn the defination of the word "brandishing".
    "My dedication to my country's flag rests on my ardent belief in this noblest of causes, equality for all. If my future rests under this earth rather than upon it, I fear not."

    -Leopold Karpeles, US Civil War Medal of Honor Recipient

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •