Did Rifle-Toting Obama Protester Help or Hurt Gun Rights?

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • BloodEclipse

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 3, 2008
    10,620
    38
    In the trenches for liberty!





    New Laws Allow More Guns in Public -- Liberals Say It's Gone Too Far

    By PATRIK JONSSON

    Aug. 23, 2009 —

    The appearance of weapons near the president at a speech and a healthcare town hall has been cast as either a danger to the president and public debate or a sign of that gun ownership is gradually losing its stigma.
    A man in a shirt and tie carried a shoulder-slung rifle near President Obama's entourage in Phoenix Tuesday. Since carrying a gun is legal in Arizona, police did not take action against him or any other gun-carrying protesters.
    Last week, however, a man was arrested near the presidential town hall in Portsmouth, N.H., for not having the proper permits for a gun. Another man wore a gun in a leg holster.
    To many liberals, such displays are a worrisome sign that the president's opponents are trying to intimidate public discourse. "Loaded weapons at political forums endanger all involved, distract law enforcement, and end up stifling debate," says Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in a statement issued Tuesday.
    But many gun-rights experts see another trend at work: the "re-normalization" of gun ownership in the United States. So-called "must-issue" laws, which mandate that anyone who meets the requirements for a gun permit must be issued one, are spreading to more states. Congress has broadened the rights of gun owners recently, for example allowing guns in federal parks. And the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller last year emboldened gun owners, experts say. It confirmed that the constitutional right "to keep and bear arms" is not a state right, as some gun-control advocates had argued, but an individual right.
    The recent furor over the presence of guns near the president is part of an effort to undermine these gains, says Brandon Denning, a law professor at Cumberland School of Law in Birmingham, Ala. It "is an attempt to somehow reverse the normalization of guns," he says. In actuality, the spread of laws that allow permit-holders to carry their weapons openly throughout much of the central, Southwestern, and Southern United States has gradually made the sight of people carrying guns less jarring, says Dave Kopel, a gun-rights expert at the Independence Institute in Golden, Colo.
    Yet the decision by the crisply dressed man in Phoenix to carry a rifle to an anti-Obama rally seemed to be intended as a provocative statement of Second Amendment rights, says Mr. Kopel.
    "This is really a form of expressive speech, and I think the fact that the Secret Service ... hasn't gotten particularly upset shows good judgement on their part," he says.
    Still, the man didn't necessarily do the Second Amendment cause any favors, Kopel says.
    "While I think it's really paranoid for some of the media to falsely characterize this as people trying to threaten the president, I think it shows bad judgement to carry [guns] near a presidential speech," he says. Protesters are "trying to make a statement about Second Amendment rights, but they're doing it in a way that probably sets back that cause."

    Another Gun Rights expert who is for gun rights as long as it doesn't contradict with what he thinks is good judgment. How do we find some who want to promote all forms of "lawful" carry? :dunno:
     

    Bubba

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 10, 2009
    1,141
    38
    Rensselaer
    Protesters are "trying to make a statement about Second Amendment rights, but they're doing it in a way that probably sets back that cause."

    Flat wrong. I'll admit that I'm fairly young and haven't been political for all that long, but this is the first time in my experience that the right to carry debate has been held at the national level instead of piecemeal state-by-state. I think there may be short-term backlash, but this is overall a very positive thing. Out of 300 million Americans, I feel sure that at least some will take the time to become educated on the subject of gun rights and laws. I doubt there will be many converts, but reasoned debate is useless against someone who has opinions based solely in emotion.
     

    El Cazador

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 17, 2009
    1,100
    36
    NW Hendricks CO
    I think all this worry about the guy is a tempest in a teapot. Only die-hard gun rights people and the loonies on the Left are worried about him. The general public's worried about the socialization of heathcare and "death panels", not gun rights right now. The Left is trying to use it as a diversion to get people focused away from Obama's plan to do away with private insurance. I hope we don't let the Left jangle the pretty bright keys over our heads to get us to forget what we were yelling about.
     

    Jeremiah

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    14   0   0
    Aug 26, 2008
    1,772
    36
    Avilla, IN
    "Loaded weapons at political forums endanger all involved, distract law enforcement, and end up stifling debate," says Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in a statement issued Tuesday.


    but at nearly any event he attends I'm sure there are armed men close at hand, and any discussion you have with a government agency or police officer has a gun involved or close at hand.
     

    HICKMAN

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    22   0   0
    Jan 10, 2009
    16,762
    48
    Lawrence Co.
    But many gun-rights experts see another trend at work: the "re-normalization" of gun ownership in the United States.

    Yup, same reason I OC sometimes.

    For far too long this country has hidden away it's guns, when not all that long ago they were common, another tool. Now if a kid wear's a shirt with a gun on it to school, they get suspended.... even if it's a National Guard t-shirt.

    I'm glad it's a topic of discussion again.
     

    Prometheus

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 20, 2008
    4,462
    48
    Northern Indiana
    Time to bring the guns out the closet. It's long over due.

    Anyone who says differently is a FUDD.

    We have Rights, what good are they if you can't use them? None and you wind up losing them anyway.

    We don't need excuses and we don't need to apologize.

    To hell with the fudd's. They either get on board the Liberty Express or stop the charade and join up with the brady bunch!
     

    RCB

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Aug 17, 2009
    496
    43
    Near Bedford
    It's a tough call. As long as there aren't any accidents, it can be a positive thing.

    However, if even one weapon should accidentally discharge, one person get hurt or gun control advocate be assaulted, it would be a very, very bad thing.
     

    SavageEagle

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 27, 2008
    19,568
    38
    This coming from ABC isn't a suprise to me. Anti-gun to the core. But again, they are demonizing people for exercising their rights. Political Rally or not, it shouldn't matter. And it doesn't. And people are showing it in the polls people are taking across the internet.

    True, one accident can cause much damage. But in every case that people have carried openly at a Rally or anywhere for that matter, has there EVER been a case that has had any ADs?
     

    RCB

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Aug 17, 2009
    496
    43
    Near Bedford
    No, but as well all know accidents happen. But as more participate... Plus there are some who have anything but accidental intentions. They could use this movement as a cover to garner their 15 minutes of fame.

    And, (with my paranoia speaking) you always have to face the potential for plants. They government has done worse in the past.
     

    SavageEagle

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 27, 2008
    19,568
    38
    Plants are not a concern because only those who plan to attend and have contacted me with an email address will know where we are going to meet. Anyone not on that list that shows up will go through much scrutiny.

    Also, everyones firearms will be checked for safety before we leave. Also note that if they decide to carry with a loaded magazine, no long arm will be allowed to have a bullet in the chamber. None. Not one. For any reason. Pistols are a different story, but are under no circumstances to be removed from their holster.

    Anyone caught not obeying the rules will be asked to leave. If they refuse the police will be called in on them for disturbing the peace. If they truly have the events best interests in mind it will never come to that.
     

    cubby

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Nov 5, 2008
    2,266
    48
    LaGrange, IN
    Plants are not a concern because only those who plan to attend and have contacted me with an email address will know where we are going to meet. Anyone not on that list that shows up will go through much scrutiny.

    Also, everyones firearms will be checked for safety before we leave. Also note that if they decide to carry with a loaded magazine, no long arm will be allowed to have a bullet in the chamber. None. Not one. For any reason. Pistols are a different story, but are under no circumstances to be removed from their holster.

    Anyone caught not obeying the rules will be asked to leave. If they refuse the police will be called in on them for disturbing the peace. If they truly have the events best interests in mind it will never come to that.


    um. just HOW can someone go about putting these restraints on people? wouldn't you telling someone this be the same as some Joe off the street telling YOU the same if you open carry?

    i'm not picking a fight, but i don't understand the logic. whats good for the goose, and all.............

    (and no i don't think anyone needs to be carrying a condition one long arm at a rally.)
     

    NateIU10

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 19, 2008
    3,714
    38
    Maryland
    Anyone caught not obeying the rules will be asked to leave. If they refuse the police will be called in on them for disturbing the peace. If they truly have the events best interests in mind it will never come to that.

    Um, what? How can you call the police and get a person removed from a public place, while you are not having an event/rally?
     

    SavageEagle

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 27, 2008
    19,568
    38
    If these people do not intend to follow the safety rules, they are being dangerous and therefore disturbing the peace. I think that's pretty clear and self-explanatory.

    If not, let me explain. Guy A asks Guy B to see his pistol. Guy B whips it out and starts "waving it around". The gun is loaded and being pointed at people. Disturbing the peace is better than intimidation or unlawfully pointing a firearm.

    Or, Guy A asks Guy B to see his rifle. Guy B un-slings his rifle and it gets pointed at a crowd of people across the street.... You see where I'm going with this.

    People will get one warning about inappropriate behavior and not following the rules. After that they will be asked to leave. If they refuse to leave that will be making a scene. Therefore disturbing the peace. This is still an event that will be coordinated with IMPD. "Event" being the key word. Just because it's not a permit-required event doesn't mean that illegal behavior is going to not be without punishment.

    Again, it better not come to that because it will be a big black mark on the whole thing.
     
    Last edited:

    NateIU10

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 19, 2008
    3,714
    38
    Maryland
    If these people do not intend to follow the safety rules, they are being dangerous and therefore disturbing the peace. I think that's pretty clear and self-explanatory.

    Safety rules where? You mean in public? I don't see how it is possible for you, a normal guy, to establish rules that the police will follow and arrest/detain people for. Also, I cannot seem to find the statutory code defining "disturbing the peace", nor can I fathom how what you're describing constitutes it in any form.

    ETA: I find it dangerous for you carry a handgun in any circumstance, can I call the police and have you removed so my feelings aren't hurt? Yeah...good luck with that.
     

    SavageEagle

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 27, 2008
    19,568
    38
    :facepalm:

    Whatever. There will be rules. If they don't follow the rules they will not be welcome and if they don't follow the rules they will be most likely breaking the law.

    You know what, forget it. It doesn't matter.
     

    NateIU10

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 19, 2008
    3,714
    38
    Maryland
    :facepalm:

    Whatever. There will be rules. If they don't follow the rules they will not be welcome and if they don't follow the rules they will be most likely breaking the law.

    You know what, forget it. It doesn't matter.

    Dude, I'm just trying to understand what you are saying. Are these rules going to be "enforced" on your march? Welcome at what? There's no event or rally or protest correct? I just don't understand how you think arbitrary rules by random people can be enforced by officers of the peace, as carrying a loaded long gun is not illegal :dunno:
     

    SavageEagle

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 27, 2008
    19,568
    38
    The rules are simple and by not obeying the rules, laws will most likely be broken. I.E. Pointing a Firearm at people. The rules are there to make sure the walk goes off without a hitch. I'm not setting rules for the police to follow but for the participants. IF the police have to intervene it will be because the person is being unruly and causing trouble. Like them making a scene about not leaving. Therefore, disturbing the peace.

    If someone carries a long gun with one in the chamber they will be asked to leave. Its about safety. Anyone off the street could see them load it and pull the trigger while we walk. Yes, they would get arrested, but they would have done irreparable harm to the walk. If someone doesn't plan on following the rules that shows they are not there for the reasons the rest of us are and those are the people we don't want there.

    I hope this all makes sense. If people can't follow the rules, they need not come.
     

    6birds

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 15, 2008
    2,291
    36
    Fishers
    So first you say:
    ABC... Anti-gun to the core... demonizing people for exercising their rights

    And then you say:
    no long arm will be allowed (Loaded)...For any reason.
    Its about safety
    Whatever. There will be rules.
    The rules are simple
    will go through much scrutiny.

    Dude, really, step away from the keyboard! You're a RAMBLING $%^&&&.

    You ever wonder why people are jabbing you? Does your neck ever just "snap" from spinning around?
     

    SavageEagle

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 27, 2008
    19,568
    38
    If you can't see the importance of why they can't be loaded, don't come. If you don't like it, don't support it. I'm not taking the chance that the FIRST EVER open carry walk in Indiana will get ruined because some anti-gun nut wants to run up and pull someone's trigger.

    If you have a better idea, lets hear it.

    Oh, and save the insults for someone who cares.
     
    Top Bottom