An article from CNN.com. Primarily the bold part, I don't recall that legal status being codified, but who knows these days...
QuoteMan carries assault rifle to Obama protest -- and it's legal
PHOENIX, Arizona (CNN) -- A man toting an assault rifle was among a dozen protesters carrying weapons while demonstrating outside President Obama's speech to veterans on Monday, but no laws were broken. It was the second instance in recent days in which weapons have been seen near presidential events.
A man is shown legally carrying a rifle at a protest against President Obama on Monday in Phoenix, Arizona.
A man is shown legally carrying a rifle at a protest against President Obama on Monday in Phoenix, Arizona.
Video from the protest in Phoenix, Arizona, shows the man standing with other protesters, with the rifle slung over his right shoulder.
Phoenix police said authorities monitored about a dozen people carrying weapons while peacefully demonstrating.
"It was a group interested in exercising the right to bear arms," police spokesman Sgt. Andy Hill said.
Arizona law has nothing in the books regulating assault rifles, and only requires permits for carrying concealed weapons. So despite the man's proximity to the president, there were no charges or arrests to be made. Hill said officers explained the law to some people who were upset about the presence of weapons at the protest. Video Watch the rifle being legally carried at rally ยป
"I come from another state where 'open carry' is legal, but no one does it, so the police don't really know about it and they harass people, arrest people falsely," the man, who wasn't identified, said in an interview aired by CNN affiliate KNVX. "I think that people need to get out and do it more so that they get kind of conditioned to it."
Gun-toting protesters have demonstrated around the president before. Last week, a man protesting outside Obama's town hall meeting in New Hampshire had a gun strapped to his thigh. That state also doesn't require a license for open carry.
Don't Miss
U.S. Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan acknowledged the incidents in New Hampshire and Arizona, but said he was not aware of any other recent events where protesters attended with open weapons. He said there was no indication that anyone had organized the incidents.
Asked whether the individuals carrying weapons jeopardized the safety of the president, Donovan said, "Of course not."
The individuals would never have gotten in close proximity to the president, regardless of any state laws on openly carrying weapons, he said. A venue is considered a federal site when the Secret Service is protecting the president and weapons are not allowed on a federal site, he added.
advertisement
In both instances, the men carrying weapons were outside the venues where Obama was speaking.
"We pay attention to this obviously ... to someone with a firearm when they open carry even when they are within state law," Donovan said. "We work with our law enforcement counterparts to make sure laws and regulations in their states are enforced."
So I guess this means, if one were to steal someone's purse at a presidential speech, it's a federal crime.
I wonder if flowers wither and die in his wake, too. :cool:
I also wonder if the President's Federal Aura deals damage per tick to all enemies of the state in a 30 yard radius. :nerd:
QuoteAsked whether the individuals carrying weapons jeopardized the safety of the president, Donovan said, "Of course not."
I'd love to see the fed snipers take one of the open carry nuts out. On live TV.
I might start watching Obama speeches again.
Quote from: Martinus on August 18, 2009, 07:30:57 AM
I also wonder if the President's Federal Aura deals damage per tick to all enemies of the state in a 30 yard radius. :nerd:
A 'tick' is not a unit of time.
Making a political statement by carrying their guns to a Presidential speech? I guess. But I'm glad to see that, apparently, the gun toting dudes can still be kept away due to the Federal location status thingy. I don't have too much a problem with legal gun ownership, but this stuff of carrying guns to a Pres speech has me shaking my head. I guess they can legally but that doesn't mean they should or that it's a cool idea.
Quote from: Neil on August 18, 2009, 08:06:01 AMA 'tick' is not a unit of time.
I think 'tick' is the generally accepted name for the smallest unit of time of a computer's system time.
Of course it becomes a federal site in the presence of the sovereign. L'etat, c'est Obama. :frog:
If you clobber someone to death with one of Obama's firmer turds you're going to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison?
Quote from: KRonn on August 18, 2009, 08:13:27 AM
I don't have too much a problem with legal gun ownership, but this stuff of carrying guns to a Pres speech has me shaking my head. I guess they can legally but that doesn't mean they should or that it's a cool idea.
Yeah I can't think of any precedent or any but the worst of possible messages they're trying to send :mellow:
Apparently Obama'll be the first President to not get lifetime Secret Service protection. I think it was cut in the 90s to take effect in 10 years or so. So W Bush is the last to have it. I think Obama gets it for the 10 years after he leaves office.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 18, 2009, 01:29:07 PM
Quote from: KRonn on August 18, 2009, 08:13:27 AM
I don't have too much a problem with legal gun ownership, but this stuff of carrying guns to a Pres speech has me shaking my head. I guess they can legally but that doesn't mean they should or that it's a cool idea.
Yeah I can't think of any precedent or any but the worst of possible messages they're trying to send :mellow:
Apparently Obama'll be the first President to not get lifetime Secret Service protection. I think it was cut in the 90s to take effect in 10 years or so. So W Bush is the last to have it. I think Obama gets it for the 10 years after he leaves office.
W's will cut off after 10 years but they are talking of extending it for him, since he is #1 on the Islamic fruitcake hitlist.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 18, 2009, 01:29:07 PM
Quote from: KRonn on August 18, 2009, 08:13:27 AM
I don't have too much a problem with legal gun ownership, but this stuff of carrying guns to a Pres speech has me shaking my head. I guess they can legally but that doesn't mean they should or that it's a cool idea.
Yeah I can't think of any precedent or any but the worst of possible messages they're trying to send :mellow:
Apparently Obama'll be the first President to not get lifetime Secret Service protection. I think it was cut in the 90s to take effect in 10 years or so. So W Bush is the last to have it. I think Obama gets it for the 10 years after he leaves office.
IIRC, Obama will have lifetime protection. Some SS official said so back in September.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 18, 2009, 01:45:00 PM
IIRC, Obama will have lifetime protection. Some SS official said so back in September.
I thought that was standard.
As stated by Sheilbh in the quoted post. Now they are suppose to only get 10 years after they leave office.
This seems a strange time to reduce the protection extended to former presidents, probably seemed reasonable when the decision was taken of course.
Bizarre. It would make more sense to just claim the presence of the POTUS makes it federal jurisdiction and a national security issue. :blink:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on August 18, 2009, 10:59:50 PM
Bizarre. It would make more sense to just claim the presence of the POTUS makes it federal jurisdiction and a national security issue. :blink:
That's exactly what the SS rep said. Though I presume they limited it to the "venue" (i.e. inside the building).
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 18, 2009, 02:03:50 PM
This seems a strange time to reduce the protection extended to former presidents, probably seemed reasonable when the decision was taken of course.
The decision was based on the recent trend of former Presidents getting book deals, speaking engagements, and whatnot after they leave office. These activities generate lots of personal income for them as a result of having been President, as well as increases the demands of the Secret Service to protect them. Therefore, it was decided that former Presidents should have to pay for their own security 10 years after they leave office.
Quote from: Tonitrus on August 18, 2009, 11:21:04 PM
That's exactly what the SS rep said. Though I presume they limited it to the "venue" (i.e. inside the building).
Jurisdiction for federal officers is not the same as transposing federal law- the federal officers wouldn't necessarily be acting on specific ordinances, but following their departmental rules without hindrance from the local level.
What if some of those nuts carried mortars that had enough range to go from state to federal territory?
Quote from: DGuller on August 19, 2009, 08:24:01 AM
What if some of those nuts carried mortars that had enough range to go from state to federal territory?
Another reason I'm suggesting jurisdiction should be following the operation, not be a transposition of federal law to a fixed site.
Quote from: Martinus on August 18, 2009, 07:30:57 AM
I also wonder if the President's Federal Aura deals damage per tick to all enemies of the state in a 30 yard radius. :nerd:
:lol:
It is a bit like that isn't it?
Makes you wish that laws across the US were a bit more diverse. Say...Someone is fucking a sheep in the woods of a state where such is fine but then the president walks by and...he's off to jail.
QuoteWhat if some of those nuts carried mortars that had enough range to go from state to federal territory?
I wonder how that would work- if you shot someone from over state (or national...) lines which law would count?
Logically to me it seems you would only get unlawful discharge on your side...the bullet on the other side wasn't fired by you there so things should be good.... Lawyers probally know this isn't the case though :(
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 18, 2009, 01:45:00 PM
IIRC, Obama will have lifetime protection. Some SS official said so back in September.
Schutzstaffel? :unsure:
Quote from: Warspite on August 19, 2009, 10:58:22 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 18, 2009, 01:45:00 PM
IIRC, Obama will have lifetime protection. Some SS official said so back in September.
Schutzstaffel? :unsure:
Social Security, obviously.
Quote from: Tyr on August 19, 2009, 10:41:03 AM
QuoteWhat if some of those nuts carried mortars that had enough range to go from state to federal territory?
I wonder how that would work- if you shot someone from over state (or national...) lines which law would count?
Logically to me it seems you would only get unlawful discharge on your side...the bullet on the other side wasn't fired by you there so things should be good.... Lawyers probally know this isn't the case though :(
Real expertise would be appreciated, but IIRC, in case of such an incident, feds and state authorities come to an agreement on who has jurisdiction, and if the crime is completed (the shell impacting) within federal jurisdiction, it'd almost certainly go to the feds.
Quote from: DGuller on August 19, 2009, 08:24:01 AM
What if some of those nuts carried mortars that had enough range to go from state to federal territory?
They are carrying weapons that are legal to carry within the jurisdiction they are carrying them. I suspect there would be plenty of reason to intervene if people started toting around mortars or RPGs because that would not be kosher whether the President was nearby or not.
Quote from: Tyr on August 19, 2009, 10:41:03 AM
It is a bit like that isn't it?
Makes you wish that laws across the US were a bit more diverse. Say...Someone is fucking a sheep in the woods of a state where such is fine but then the president walks by and...he's off to jail.
Except that those kinds of laws are not Federal laws, but state laws. Federal crimes are pretty specific.
QuoteI wonder how that would work- if you shot someone from over state (or national...) lines which law would count?
Logically to me it seems you would only get unlawful discharge on your side...the bullet on the other side wasn't fired by you there so things should be good.... Lawyers probally know this isn't the case though :(
Interstate crime comes under Federal jurisdiction.
Ok smart guy, what if the bullets used to shoot at the president from state territory were covered with some sort of ablative-state material...so even after entering the presidential force field they were still state weapons? Who gets jurisdiction then, huh?
Quote from: PDH on August 19, 2009, 04:35:59 PM
Ok smart guy, what if the bullets used to shoot at the president from state territory were covered with some sort of ablative-state material...so even after entering the presidential force field they were still state weapons? Who gets jurisdiction then, huh?
I do.
Quote from: PDH on August 19, 2009, 04:35:59 PM
Ok smart guy, what if the bullets used to shoot at the president from state territory were covered with some sort of ablative-state material...so even after entering the presidential force field they were still state weapons? Who gets jurisdiction then, huh?
Do the bullets get covered with that ablative-state material, or just the gun?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 19, 2009, 02:54:56 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 19, 2009, 08:24:01 AM
What if some of those nuts carried mortars that had enough range to go from state to federal territory?
They are carrying weapons that are legal to carry within the jurisdiction they are carrying them. I suspect there would be plenty of reason to intervene if people started toting around mortars or RPGs because that would not be kosher whether the President was nearby or not.
Actually, mortars are kosher; RPGs are trayf.