White House Backs Right to Arms Outside Obama Events...

[spin]

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."

***snip***

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.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/18/AR2009081803416.html?hpid=topnews

Interesting. Obviously, Obama is not trying to limit state firearms laws. I, however, would never bring a firearm anywhere near a Presidential event that I was aware of, either concealed or open carry.

[villager]

1. Gibbs has been shitting his pants over taking a strong stance on anything today, it seems....

n/t

[benEzra]

7. No, he took a strong stance. It just wasn't the stance you or Helmke wanted him to take.

Guns aren't allowed inside the secure zone. They ARE allowed OUTSIDE the secure zone subject to the same restrictions that they are at any other public gathering in the state, under state law.

[villager]

13. No -- he's mollycoddling rightwing extremists

...who are using the guns, deliberately, to bully and intimidate.

Which, I guess, you seem to "like..."

[spin]

15. I don't believe that most responsible gun owners...

would open carry a weapon anywhere near a Presidential event.

Obviously these idiots that do, have an agenda. Obama hasn't been anti-gun enough for them, so they are trying to provoke a response.

Obama is one shrewd dude. He refuses to play their game. Since they present no real danger, he can ignore them.

No ammunition for the NRA-ILA to use to get donations.

[benEzra]

17. No, just avoiding the trap that a lot of DU'ers seem to have fallen into.

As I mentioned in a couple of other threads, I think the people lawfully carrying guns was a calculated move to stir up the media and generate publicity. They succeeded, got themselves on some talk shows IIRC, got their pictures in the national news, probably got a few of their political opponents to say dumb things. It wasn't about "intimidation" so much as it was about publicity, and the MSM and a whole lot of DU'ers fell right into it.

More significantly, Rifle Guy got the media to largely ignore what Obama was saying at the event and instead focus on the ZOMG SCAWWY GUN WITH A PROTRUDING HANDGRIP!!!! That's probably exactly what the guy was after, and plenty of Dems here and elsewhere are playing right into it.

I believe Obama saying "nobody's in danger, state laws apply" does successfully defuse the resurrection of the gun-control albatross as well, which is a good thing (and which the repubs would LOVE to see Dems resurrect).

[kelly1mm]

19. I think I and others don't "like" it or support the gun carrying protesters

and some may even support changing state/local laws concerning open carry. However, we don't believe it would be right and/or smart to take the bait and have the federal executive branch dictate to states how to regulate their citizens rights to bear arms. Especially since the SS says these protesters are not a threat to the President.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

30. I believe this should be the end of the rantings on this topic

[gorfle]

36. I like freedom of expression.

No -- he's mollycoddling rightwing extremists...who are using the guns, deliberately, to bully and intimidate.

Which, I guess, you seem to "like..."

I like freedom of expression.

Bearing a firearm as part of a political demonstration is an act of defiance. Just like burning a flag, or hanging someone in effigy.

Is it a strong act? You betcha. Is it bullying and intimidating? Quite possibly.

Is it protected freedom of expression? Absolutely.

[gorfle]

35. Exactly so.

From the article:

"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.""

Sounds like a strong stance to me. Presidential visits don't trump state and local firearm laws.

What a refreshing change from "free speech zone" Bush.

[villager]

38. Well, I guess if there's a quotation of Gibbs backing down, that settles it!

And while I realize that pro-gun folks see the world in entirely black/white terms, the two polarities here aren't between the free speech restrictions of the Bush junta versus the deliberate rightwing harassment and intimidation of "open carry" at Obama events....

[gorfle]

43. Unable to parse.

I don't know what you are trying to say.

[quiller4]

39. He took the appropriate constitutional stance.

[villager]

41. see item about acolytes in lockstep with NRA about what constitution "actually" "means"

n/t

[DonP]

47. Is Gibbs an NRA member too?

Damn, I must have missed that news conference where he was outed as an "acolyte of the NRA".

He's obviously doing the bidding of the "powerful gun lobby" in this issue.

Maybe the President is a secret member too and directed poor Gibbs on what to say.

[beevul]

44. Interesting.

Whom would you say you agree with then?

The Obama administration, or paul helmke?


Inquiring minds would like to know.

[SteveM]

2. Excellent post. The gun presence is bait. Some are going for it...

In other posts on this subject, some folks have advocated disarming these people, arresting, jailing for a week, etc., without a clear understanding of both what the law says and the GOP's baiting tactics. The GOP WANTS to turn this into a government-suppression event, esp. centered around Second Amendment rights. Yet, some of our fellow Democrats want to waltz right into the trap and convert the health care debate into a gun-rights debate -- just what the GOP ordered.

The biggest problem is us: we don't have a health plan to fight for, one that will work for everyone, one that can be paid for. So what do we do? Scream at the gun-toters at rallies, and scream at our fellow Democrats who point out a different viewpoint.

Wanna talk about what is wrong with health care? We need to talk about what is wrong with the Democratic Party and what it stands for.

[spin]

8. Yes, heathcare reform is the important issue...

and no matter how you cut the issue, the concept of healthcare for profit is the problem. Insurance companies are the middle man and do everything that they can to stop reasonable healthcare for their members.

Today I went to my doctor to discuss a hip problem that I have had for several years and is gradually growing more severe. An X-ray I had two years ago showed substantial deterioration and his quick examination today on his table indicated that any twisting motion of my left leg causes sharp pain. So he decided to order a CT scan. Walking any distance is extremely painful and is ruining my retirement.

But my insurance company has to approve. So now I am waiting for a phone call from the doctor's office saying the test has met the insurance companies approval. So the doctors office has to take time to contact the insurance company and some employee of the insurance company has to take the time to grant approval. Time is money. (And the insurance company may decide that the test isn't necessary.)

The doctor listened to my symptoms and wants a better view of the problem to determine if a hip replacement is necessary or if steroid shots may be worth a try. Sounds reasonable to me. If we could bypass the bureaucrats in the insurance company who are doing their best to screw me, maybe I could get this problem resolved without a lot of unnecessary hassle.

But the Republicans and many of the Democrats are beholden to the insurance companies and feel that it's far more important to preserve their profit than help the average sick individual. If some asshole in the insurance company can find any excuse to reject my test and the tests of other people, then they may get a promotion and an increase in pay.

Well fucking wonderful. They may make money off the fact that I'm hobbling along in pain and the CEO of their company will get a fat bonus because of their effort.

I run into this bullshit constantly. This year I was told they would no longer approve my medication for acid reflux. I called my doctor and they still refused. I called my gastrointestinologist, and it was approved. My time was wasted, my doctor's office and my gastrointestinologist's office time was wasted, some clerk at the insurance company wasted his time. I ended up with two prescriptions for the medicine and canceled one. My doctor's office told me that they go through this crap at the beginning of every year.

We need real change. Real change involves taking the profit out of healthcare.

[elocs]

3. Let them bring their guns, they just can't let that red dot of light on their foreheads bother them.

[Tim01]

9. You mean because you are bringing your rifle with the laser sight? nt

[elocs]

16. Naaa, I'll leave that to the Secret Service. They may as well be ready. n/t

[gorfle]

37. The second shot heard around the world?

You may want to read up on how the American Revolution started. Do you long for another "shot heard 'round the world"?

[TheWraith]

4. Good. The Secret Service knows what it's doing.

The guys bringing guns to the crowd are morons, but they're morons like the guys who claim fluoride is a communist plot. They're ONLY looking for attention, thus they need to be ignored.

[Xenotime]

48. They just need to leave their guns at home.

[TPaine7]

5. Wow! K&R

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."

Obama is striking exactly the right tone! I am impressed. Of course Obama being right, the Brady Campaign is obliged to oppose him.

[Henryman]

6. The WP headline is just wrong!

"Backing" something means you support and encourage it.

[spin]

10. Perhaps the White House does...

takes the wind out of the sails of the Repubs and the NRA, doesn't it.

[Tim01]

11. Very smart move by the white house.

"You brought your gun, so what. You are not flustering us, and we are not going to give you a reason to scream that we are infringing on your rights. Now back to more important issues."

[rrneck]

12. A far cry from free speech zones. nt

[rd_kent]

14. Gun Grabbers- are you paying attention? An administration supporting Constitutional rights.

Perhaps you should too! After all, its the progressive thing.......

[JonQ]

20. Just proves that the obama administration

is filled with racists.

Or something. . .

[friendly_iconoclast]

25. No, they're dupes of racist, misogynist right-wingers

I have it on good authority...

[proteus_lives]

18. Good for Obama!

He's not giving to fear.

[Duende azul]

21. "Right to Arms Outside Obama Events" Interesting. What amendment is that ?

A new one?
Ah, I get it. It only wasn't known much before because there never was a black President before?

[JonQ]

22. I don't think presidents get to determine where citizens may use their rights

so yes, around obama counts, so long as he's in the US.

There are limitations of course, like if he were in a government building or they had reason to fear for his safety. But in general no, he can't say yes or no to your constitutional rights.

And it's not because he's black, it's because we have a constitution, and rule of law rather than a dictatorship.

[spin]

23. State law allows concealed and open carry in many states...

just because a Presidential event is occurring in a city, the local and state rights of the citizens to carry firearms in areas close to the event are not curtailed.

The Secret Service sets up a secure zone where firearms are not allowed.

Is it possible that some individuals will attempt an assassination on Obama? Yes. In fact threats to Obama are up considerably over threats to Bush the Junior.

Does some idiot with a firearm in plain view pose a serious threat to Obama? Hell no. He's just a fool looking for his fifteen minutes of fame.

Is the Secret Service up to the task? I sure hope so. I seriously believe they are much better trained and competent than in the Kennedy days.

And for any gun loving assholes considering an attempt with a firearm on the President, consider what happened after the Kennedy assassination. Any attempt on Obama's life would lead to truly draconian firearms law. The government may well end up taking your firearms from your cold dead hands. Ask yourself this question punk, "Is it worth it?" (Slight alteration of a Dirty Harry quote.) An assassination attempt on Obama would make the day for the Brady Campaign.

I'm not as worried about "freedom loving" militia members as I am about the big corporations and the military industrial complex. If Obama causes too much change, they will be very upset.

[villager]

34. The 2nd Amendment means whatever the NRA says it does -- and their acolytes obligingly fall in line

n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. Still teabagging the NRA, I see.

You really don't have any sources to back up your claims about the NRA, do you?

Were one to take your posts at face value, you might think you had gotten ahold of The Protocols Of The Elders Of The NRA.

I guess you intend to make up in frequency what your posts lack in substance..

[friendly_iconoclast]

42. I support equal access to marriage for all, therefore I am an acolyte of GLAAD

I support the right of a woman to do as she wishes with her own body, therefore I am an acolyte of NARAL.

I support the right of anyone to spout political bullshit in a public space, therefore I am an acolyte of the ACLU.

See how this works?

[apacherose]

24. this is so fucking stupid

I'm getting pretty sick of Obama playing everything off like its all gravy when there are clearly seriously disturbed people hanging around at his events

[friendly_iconoclast]

26. Not disturbed, clever. Offering bait to distract Dems away from the health care debate

As SteveM pointed out, it seems to work on some people...

[X_Digger]

27. No kidding.. what, 40-50 threads in total? n/t

[jeepnstein]

28. Ha ha ha ha!!!

Obama's not taking the bait. Imagine that. I wonder what legal but whacky tactic they insurance bund will try next? Give 'em enough rope and they'll do the job for themselves.

We have a very smart man as President right now. I like that.

[spin]

32. One big change from the last President! (n/t)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

29. I believe this belongs in General Discussion.

[spin]

31. I agree but it would have ended up here anyway....

just saving the mods the effort.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

45. None of the anti-gun carry at Presidential events have ended up here.

[spin]

46. You make a good point...

maybe on my next similar post, I'll put it in GD and watch what happens. At the worst it will end up here.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!