Guy carries firearm while attending town hall meeting

[27Thousand]

He says he was approached by a "detective," possibly a Secret Service Agent, who told him he could be arrested within 1,000 feet of a school with a weapon under a federal law. Kostric moved back to private property.

Something interesting I found out about all this, some states passed laws allowing students to carry guns onto campus if they have a concealed carry permit and if the university allows it.

Utah went a step further. The Utah Supreme Court ruled that a public school (K-12 & public colleges) can't stop someone with a concealed carry permit from carrying a loaded gun onto campus, since they're funded with tax money. The University of Utah tried to fight it, but were put down by the Utah Supreme Court. Utah's the only state in the nation where public schools are required to allow it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#Utah
http://www.utcourts.gov/OPINIONS/supopin/UnivofUtah090806.pdf

The Brady Campaign wasn't happy.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What has the world come to when a private citizen carrying a gun in public is automatically seen as a threat. You are associating stereotypes about lone gunmen like Timmy McVeigh with this guy; I could understand If he was part of some white-nationalist group or N.H. state laws prohibited citizens from carrying firearms in certain public places, but in NH you are allowed to carry a firearm , and he kept his gun in his pocket the whole time;

I'm not stereotyping based on his weapon. In fact I am an avid supporter of private gun ownership. I have a bunch of guns myself. I am making a judgement based on his lack of good judgment and his choice of words. The phrase that he referenced effectively calls for bloodshed. To do this while displaying a weapon rises to the level of being both idiotic and aggressive - a thinly veiled threat. Someone that is both that stupid and that aggressive almost certainly engages in other questionable activities.

If anything, actions like his can make even an avid supporter of gun rights wonder about that choice. Idiots like this guy make it a difficult position to defend. The first rule of private gun ownership is to act responsibly. He was being provocative. This only acts to threaten my right to own a gun.

 

[Chi Meson]

The guy wanted very much to be arrested, I suspect. That would "prove" his point of our "liberties being taken away." But he wasn't. Think of it, a guy was able to hang out in the presence of the President with a weapon, and holding a veiled threat, and he was watched, but left alone. Seems our rights are doing OK. So what's that guy complaining about?

 

[drankin]

I'm not stereotyping based on his weapon. In fact I am an avid supporter of private gun ownership. I have a bunch of guns myself. I am making a judgement based on his lack of good judgment and his choice of words. The phrase that he referenced effectively calls for bloodshed. To do this while displaying a weapon rises to the level of being both idiotic and aggressive - a thinly veiled threat. Someone that is both that stupid and that aggressive almost certainly engages in other questionable activities.

If anything, actions like his can make even an avid supporter of gun rights wonder about that choice. Idiots like this guy make it a difficult position to defend. The first rule of private gun ownership is to act responsibly. He was being provocative. This only acts to threaten my right to own a gun.

Yep, just because you have the right doesn't mean you should exercise it as a political statement. He is an idiot. Fortunately for him, being an idiot isn't crime in itself.

 

[noblegas]

I'm not stereotyping based on his weapon. In fact I am an avid supporter of private gun ownership. I have a bunch of guns myself. I am making a judgement based on his lack of good judgment and his choice of words. The phrase that he referenced effectively calls for bloodshed. To do this while displaying a weapon rises to the level of being both idiotic and aggressive - a thinly veiled threat. Someone that is both that stupid and that aggressive almost certainly engages in other questionable activities.

If anything, actions like his can make even an avid supporter of gun rights wonder about that choice. Idiots like this guy make it a difficult position to defend. The first rule of private gun ownership is to act responsibly. He was being provocative. This only acts to threaten my right to own a gun.

I think see what you mean. I think he put himself in danger because SS could have physically attacked and injured him and then had him arrested unnecessarily,even though what he was illegal; That thomas jefferson quote means that people will die in the name of liberty if the constitutional republic they established is replaced by a tyrannical regime; Thats what the 2nd amendment is all about , using violence to counterattack a violent regime; It could be debated why he needed to make a statement about statism at a townhall meeting about healthcare reform

 

[russ_watters]

What has the world come to when a private citizen carrying a gun in public is automatically seen as a threat.

I think you misunderstood: the gun itself is not a threat. The poster, on its own, could be considered a threat. The gun and the poster, together, are a pretty overt threat. I'm surprised he was allowed to be there - I wonder if people misunderstood the poster?

Well, why don't we then prohibit citizens from carrying guns in public places since apparently, having a gun attached to your shorts is a threat to humanity if it is a threat to the president. It doesn't make any sense to me for the gun laws to change just because the president is present at an event; Had this been any other event in N.H., it would not have gotten the media coverage this event has received...

The combination of the gun and the poster says 'I have a gun and I think I should use it to kill the President'.

That thomas jefferson quote means that people will die in the name of liberty if the constitutional republic they established is replaced by a tyrannical regime; Thats what the 2nd amendment is all about , using violence to counterattack a violent regime; It could be debated why he needed to make a statement about statism at a townhall meeting about healthcare reform...

The natural conclusion is that he made the statement because of who was attending the meeting (which makes it a pretty specific threat) - the statement may not have had anything to do with healthcare. He's the patriot and the President is the tyrant.

 

[Huckleberry]

The guy wanted very much to be arrested, I suspect. That would "prove" his point of our "liberties being taken away." But he wasn't. Think of it, a guy was able to hang out in the presence of the President with a weapon, and holding a veiled threat, and he was watched, but left alone. Seems our rights are doing OK. So what's that guy complaining about?

He's probably grumbling that he didn't have his liberties violated. He wanted to create an incident and shame Obama publicly. His plan backfired I think.

He has been accused of being a team member of a group that filed a claim challenging Obama's citizenship. People are already digging through his past trying to connect any negative material to him.
http://www.newser.com/story/66736/gun-toting-obama-protester-is-a-birther.html

edit- I don't put any stock in the site. Just making a point that people are looking. Check out the site's slogan "Read Less Know More". That's classic!

 

[Al68]

It's funny that everyone is concerned about an obvious non-threat, as if someone who might harm the President would carry a gun openly, instead of real threats that may have been present. The people keeping an eye on this guy should have been keeping their eye on everyone, including him, but mostly looking for real threats.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Exactly. Which is why this guy will have had extensive background checks run on him before the decision to allow his "peaceful protest" to go ahead was made. It's naive to think that any old joe will be allowed to run around next to the president with a weapon.

I hope this nut enjoyed not having the Secret Service or the FBI watching his every move. For the next seven and a half years he will probably be on a watch list. It is also hard to believe that someone who would put on such a display doesn't have something to hide in the form of illegal activity. If he does have anything to hide, he probably just hung himself.

From what I understand the neo nazis have been trying to keep a low profile so they can avoid being flagged on background checks and more of them can acquire jobs in law enforcement and such. I think even the skinheads are starting to try to dress more respectably and have gone back to more of the original English skinhead fashion. Whether or not a neonazi would be able to pass an actual thurough background check by the feds I have no idea but I think they would like to aim for this.

Note that I have no reason to believe that this guy is a neonazi or KKK member but if anyone were to try to assassinate Obama I think they would be the most likely candidates.

It seems to me that might legally qualify as a threat. Displaying a gun and effectively calling for bloodshed could easily be seen as threatening behavior.

I was wondering about that. I'm not much for historic quotes so I know I would never have recognized it myself. New Hampshire being New Hampshire I'm assuming more people there would have recognized it though perhaps no one caught the reference.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It's funny that everyone is concerned about an obvious non-threat, as if someone who might harm the President would carry a gun openly, instead of real threats that may have been present. The people keeping an eye on this guy should have been keeping their eye on everyone, including him, but mostly looking for real threats.

That's part of the problem really. You can't ignore the obvious potential threat just because its obvious. Having this guy present means they have to keep an eye on him and may be less likely to be paying enough attention to everyone else.

 

[drankin]

It's been blown out of proportion. The guy was making a statement and meant no physical harm to the Prez. The media loved it. Time to move on...

 

[russ_watters]

It's been blown out of proportion. The guy was making a statement and meant no physical harm to the Prez..

You're probably right, but the secret service doesn't have the luxury of making such judgement calls. They have to address threats at face value because probably isn't good enough.

 

[drankin]

You're probably right, but the secret service doesn't have the luxury of making such judgement calls. They have to address threats at face value because probably isn't good enough.

As I was saying before, the Presidency should avoid public uncontrolled forums. Every President that has been assassinated was in such a place. It's unfortunate and shouldn't be so in the US but the SS can only do so much. Wearing a gun openly as opposed to wearing a gun concealed, how many people were legally carrying that they did not know about in NH? People are armed in are society. Between those who legally carry openly and concealed, who is more of a threat? The Presidents who have been assissinated (if I have my history right) were shot by people who did not wear their gun openly. That would be a statistical fact to be considered.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

As I was saying before, the Presidency should avoid public uncontrolled forums. Every President that has been assassinated was in such a place. It's unfortunate and shouldn't be so in the US but the SS can only do so much. Wearing a gun openly as opposed to wearing a gun concealed, how many people were legally carrying that they did not know about in NH? People are armed in are society. Between those who legally carry openly and concealed, who is more of a threat? The Presidents who have been assissinated (if I have my history right) were shot by people who did not wear their gun openly. That would be a statistical fact to be considered.

We don't have any exact info on the set up for the event but as I mentioned earlier the Secret Service generally close down the area for at least a block and only allow people in through the check points who have been cleared. The likelihood that anyone made it into the area close enough to the president to take a shot at him with a concealed weapon is virtually nill. From what it says in these stories I'm not sure if the guy was actually within the controlled area or not. The Secret Service does not make available any information at all regarding their procedures and strategies so its hard to figure out exactly what went on and where what was without having actually been there. I've also looked a bit for information on what exactly their scope of power and authority is in such situations but I haven't found anything that wasn't just a vague outline of general authority for the Secret Service as a whole.

 

[drankin]

We don't have any exact info on the set up for the event but as I mentioned earlier the Secret Service generally close down the area for at least a block and only allow people in through the check points who have been cleared. The likelihood that anyone made it into the area close enough to the president to take a shot at him with a concealed weapon is virtually nill. From what it says in these stories I'm not sure if the guy was actually within the controlled area or not. The Secret Service does not make available any information at all regarding their procedures and strategies so its hard to figure out exactly what went on and where what was without having actually been there. I've also looked a bit for information on what exactly their scope of power and authority is in such situations but I haven't found anything that wasn't just a vague outline of general authority for the Secret Service as a whole.

You are speculating. If they let an openly armed person in, what makes you think there weren't any people with concealed handguns there? I carry concealed in public regularly. Are you saying someone like me would be turned away but another with a gun in his leg holster would be allowed in? I don't follow that logic. He was allowed in because he wasn't breaking any laws. Which means that anyone who was licensed to carry concealed would not have been turned away.

 

[WhoWee]

I watched an interview with the man. I don't think his intentions were to harm anyone, he had an agenda and wanted to be as dramatic as possible. The gun, like his sign, was a prop.

However, the reality is that someone with a different ideology could have easily taken his gun away from him and done serious harm. Guns and crowds don't generally mix very well - too many variables.

My advice, next time hire a graphic artist to help you put your ideas on a really cool (and big if you like) sign - it's safer.

 

[wildman]

Arizona too restrictive on guns? He must live in a different Arizona than I do. They even allow people to carry heat in bars here. There are no restrictions in Arizona worth speaking of...?

 

[kyleb]

The phrase that he referenced effectively calls for bloodshed.

The phrase on his poster called for watter, not blood.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The phrase on his poster called for watter, not blood.

Yes and the Tree of Liberty. I doubt that the Tree of Liberty is even any where near there.

 

[kyleb]

Well the original Liberty Tree was just over in Boston, but the Redcoats chopped that down. Any tree can be considered symbolic of liberty though, and back in the early days of the US nearly every town had one. I think the tradition should be revived, at least figuratively if not literally, and that is what I gather the man and was getting at rather than expressing any interest in bloodshed. Had he wanted bloodshed, surely he would have tucked his gun under his clothing and would not have made the sign.

 

[skeptic2]

In 1992 when George H. W. Bush was running for president, he spoke outdoors on the campus at Motorola. The area for spectators was cordoned off and to get into the cordoned off area we had to go through metal detectors.

 

[Hans de Vries]

Man carries assault rifle to Obama protest -- "and it's legal"

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/index.htmlWhat next? Gangs of ku klux klan members and white supremacists armed with
loaded guns and assault rifles surrounding the president of the USA intimidating
him out of his right of free speech?

and it's legal?

 

[cristo]

Gangs of ku klux klan members and white supremacists armed withloaded guns and assault rifles surrounding the president of the USA intimidating
him out of his right of free speech?

Hardly. There's no chance this guy was allowed anywhere near the president. It's probably a good move from Obama not to have these people locked up to keep them sweet.

Of course, it's ridiculous that you should be allowed to carry such a weapon in the middle of the crowded places anyway. You can hardly claim you're acting in self defence unless you're incredibly paranoid. Still, that's another topic.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It's probably a good move from Obama not to have these people locked up to keep them sweet.

I agree. The best thing a protester can ask for is to be arrested. Then they look like a victim instead of just a weirdo with a sign. These guys not getting hassled or arrested just look like weirdos with guns.

 

[WhoWee]

Man carries assault rifle to Obama protest -- "and it's legal"

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/index.html


What next? Gangs of ku klux klan members and white supremacists armed with
loaded guns and assault rifles surrounding the president of the USA intimidating
him out of his right of free speech?

and it's legal?

How do you possibly make a jump from this particular photo to "Gangs of ku klux klan members and white supremacists" - why not "bus loads of over-worked ACORN workers bused into rally support - armed with AK's"?

The Secret Service will never allow the type of behavior you described.

 

[drankin]

Man carries assault rifle to Obama protest -- "and it's legal"

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/index.html


What next? Gangs of ku klux klan members and white supremacists armed with
loaded guns and assault rifles surrounding the president of the USA intimidating
him out of his right of free speech?

and it's legal?

Of course it's legal. How are they intimidating him out of his right to free speech? "Watch what you say or we'll shoot ya!". LOL

 

[Sorry!]

Man carries assault rifle to Obama protest -- "and it's legal"

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/index.html

That's awesome. I'm sure most Americans are proud and happy with the fact that this guy can carry that weapon whenever wherever lol but as a Canadian I must say that is messed up.

From the article:

Arizona law has nothing in the books regulating assault rifles

...really? I mean like come on. I knew America was different and all but like ... wow.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That's awesome. I'm sure most Americans are proud and happy with the fact that this guy can carry that weapon whenever wherever lol but as a Canadian I must say that is messed up.

Its a clear case of "I have the right therefore I choose to abuse it at the expense of responsible gun owners". These guys apparently think they are making some kind of statement. What they are really doing is proving that they are idiots who shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.

I didn't think mentally challenged people were supposed to be able to buy a weapon.

 

[Sorry!]

I didn't think mentally challenged people were supposed to be able to buy a weapon.

If they put intelligence restrictions on owning weapons in America I'm sure
a) Most of Americans who currently own weapons would not be allowed to.
which in turn leads to
b) MANY people in America would be mad

 

[drankin]

Because of the distrust of the current administration, I still can't find any .45 ACP ammo. Everywhere is sold out. People get on waiting lists at places like WalMart and buy everything before it hits the shelves. Damn hordes.

 

[cristo]

People get on waiting lists at places like WalMart and buy everything before it hits the shelves. Damn hordes.

What, because they're going to go to war with their own government? ok..

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What, because they're going to go to war with their own government? ok..

That is a point that I would defend, actually. That is the ultimate reason for private gun ownership - the last hope in the face of an oppressive government.

The irony is that the Republicans are the ones who have trashed the Constitution - Patriot Act, secret wire taps, refusing to answer to Congress, and so on.

Obama believes in the Constitutional right to private gun ownership.

 

[drankin]

What, because they're going to go to war with their own government? ok..

No, because they think that someday they won't be able to buy ammo anymore. I never said anyone was going to war. Wow, you sure read into things.

This got me thinking. Personally, I have more issue with a lone gunman than if everyone was openly carrying. Or in this case of the AZ event where there were numerous people carrying.

 

[rootX]

I think in some places it is culturally/religiously acceptable to carry swords/daggers/other weapons. I wanted to know if those people can legally carry swords/daggers as a symbol of their culture/religion in the US?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No, because they think that someday they won't be able to buy ammo anymore.

The bullet manufacturers are loving it. Look at the up side: It is a bright spot in the economy!

This got me thinking. Personally, I have more issue with a lone gunman than if everyone was openly carrying. Or in this case of the AZ event where there were numerous people carrying.

To me this gets into the limits of the 1st Ammendment. We don't have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. Carrying a weapon into a crowd at a political event, esp one that includes the President, is much like yelling fire. It is provocative and potentially endangers innocent bystanders. If nothing else it could create a panic.

What if some other nut grabbed the gun and began threatening or shooting people?

When I was a kid, we sometimes went hunting with a neighbor who lived a block away. I always got a charge out of walking up the block with my guns. The funny thing is that back then, no one thought twice about a twelve year old openly carrying a high-power rifle or two up the street. Obviously we were going hunting and no one worried about it.