Gun Crazy or Just Plain Crazy?

With all of the hostility directed at the President at town hall meetings around the country and the incitement being created from persons such as Sarah Palin with her idiocy about "death panels", I was dumbfounded to see a person armed with a handgun awaiting the arrival of the President at a meeting in New Hampshire. The explanation was that the person was permitted to carry the weapon so long as it was not concealed. (I can understand the wisdom and the necessity of the prohibition on concealed weapons. I just wonder how how such a sensible restriction slipped past the NRA.) Of course, having the weapon exposed in a holster makes it easier and quicker for the person or someone else to grab and use it. The next explanation was that he was standing on church property with permission. Well that certainly gave comfort. Whoever heard of some religious fanatic killing somebody----like an abortion doctor for instance?

So looking for an explanation, I ran through the litany justifying the possession of weapons. It does not appear that the person involved was a member of "a well regulated Militia". He was not defending his home, because he was not at home; he was on church property. The likelihood that he would need to defend himself against a potential robber seems remote. Likewise, the appearance of a grisly bear in that crowd was also very unlikely. He certainly was not defending himself from the untold menaces of a national park.

So is this what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they adopted the Second Amendment---that anyone or everyone (with few exceptions) could stand along a presidential parade route armed with a handgun! I don't know the end of the story, but if the Secret Service did not order this man to go home and leave his gun there, our nation's legislatures should not bother returning after vacation and merely turn their keys over to the NRA.

Comments

[Judge H. Lee Sarokin - Huffpost Blogger]

I think we should close this one down. Thank you all for your comments, patience and politeness. I look forward to hearing from you when next I post.

[Jadegold]

Druid 9: "Did George Washington and Thomas Jefferson cringe at the sight of citizens bearing guns in their streets?"

No. Because they didn't see them.

Presidents, beginning with Washington, had bodyguards. Further, firearms weren't frequently carried in urban areas in the late 1700s and early 1800s. There was no need. Firearms were largely carried in rural areas, mainly for hunting--sometimes for protection against Indians.

Further, the firearms of Washington and Jefferson's day were matchlocks and, later, flintlocks--neither of which really lent themselves well to assassination.

[Jadegold]

BTW, if you look at drawings and paintings of events attended by Washington or Jefferson, made at the time of those events--you don't see firearms.

[Thirdpower]

There's also drawings and paintings of people working the fields in heavy coats during the summer, of headless men in South America, and whales skeletons vertical in the ground.

[legaleagle 45]

"Presidents, beginning with Washington, had bodyguards­."

The first president to have full time bodyguards was Franklin Pierce who served from 1853 to 1857. Prior to that there was no real bodyguards except in time of war. In lieu thereof, the doorman doubled as a security guard and admitted persons freely if he felt it safe.

"Further, the firearms of Washington and Jefferson's day were matchlocks and, later, flintlocks--neither of which really lent themselves well to assassinat­ion."

Matchlocks were almost totally replaced by flintlocks by the beginning of the 1700's. Matchlocks were introduced in the mid 1400's followed by the wheellock in the early 1500's and the flintlock in the early 1600's. In 1805, the percussion cap system was introduced and soon replaced the flintlock.

"neither of which really lent themselves well to assassinat­ion."

Pistols of the day were quite capable. Gustav III of Sweden was assinated in 1792 by a shot fired by a pistol.... and while not an assination, we do have the famous case involving Burr and Hamilton demonstrating the effectiveness of pistols.

[Jadegold]

Your history is almost as bad as your legal dabblings.

George Washington had bodyguards, even before becoming President. A simple google search will even produce some of the names who seved Washington. Similarly, Thomas Jefferson had bodyguards even while serving as Secretary of State.

Re matchlocks and flintlocks, you could not be more wrong. One only need read Lewis and Clark's journals to educate yourself.

GustavIII is not a good example for you. He was shot at point blank range, but the shot didn't kill him. Infection of the wound claimed his life several weeks later. Duelling doesn't help your case much either; most duels of the era were kabuki theater.

[legaleagle 45]

"Re matchlocks and flintlocks, you could not be more wrong. One only need read Lewis and Clark's journals to educate yourself."

Funny, the Journals of Lewis and Clark are available online and the complete works are available for an online key word search. Doing such a search for either matchlock or matchlocks produces "no matches".

http://lewisandclarkjournals.unl.edu/read/?_xmlsrc=lc.toc.xml&_xslsrc=LCstyles.xsl

Nor are matchlocks mentioned in the official inventory compiled for the expedition, although Kentucky Rifles and "Model 1803 muzzle-loading .54-caliber rifles" as well as an air gun are mentioned.

http://www.pbs.org/lewisandclark/inside/idx_equ.html

Your reading comprehension is as bad as your historical knowledge. What I said was that the first president to have "full time" bodyguards was Franklin Pierce. That any other president employed bodyguards occasionally is besides the point. Here is a site which explains just how lax security was for the President during the early years of the USA:

http://www.prop1.org/clues/951018/rev7.htm

"GustavIII is not a good example for you."

You wish, LOL

"most duels of the era were kabuki theater."

Tell that to Alexander Hamilton.

[OdinsEye]

You need to double check your facts there, Jade.

[djcrsn]

Jade always does

[SamEllison]

Not only do I agree with you Judge but
I'm glad you are still posting after the
Sotomayor hearings and vote have concluded.
It's not that you blog it's where you blog.

[Judge H. Lee Sarokin - Huffpost Blogger]

SamEllison - Thanks. I am getting the hang of it. I am also learning that it is easier to give than receive.

[Jadegold]

Well, let's take William Kostric as an example.

Here's a man who shows up at a forum where healthcare is to be discussed. He wears a tee shirt saying the tree of liberty needs to be watered, presumably with the blood of tyrants. He's wearing a gun. His website expresses admiration for various white supremacists and a visceral disdain for all things having to do with the Government. He even posts that police ought to be murdered.

Yet, pro-gun entusiats believe he should be able to come within arms length of our first black President because they believe the 2A is about letting anyone have a gun and do whatever they wish with it?

[Ohio9]

He wasn't within an "arm's length of the president". He wasn't even within visual range. He didn't show up at the forum. He was outside the building on private property with the owner's permission.

But never let facts get in the way of a good rant, right? That's the gun control way.

[Jadegold]

So much for civil and reasoned discourse.

[mamalisa38]

I agree with you 100%, Judge.

[Judge H. Lee Sarokin - Huffpost Blogger]

Thank you. I was beginning to feel all alone.

[OldSFMJT]

Your Honor,
I want to take a moment to offer you a sincere & heartfelt "Thank You" for engaging in an honest, open & continuing dialog, mostly with folks who vehemently disagree with you on this subject. Unlike most who post here on these pages (whose names shall remain nameless), you don’t write your article then run off. You willingly jump into the arena with the rest of us. It gets contentious. It gets heated. We disagree with you a lot! Folks here like me tend to think that THE WHOLE Bill of Rights is worth defending!

I think I speak for most of the pro-2A folks here when I say that it’s a pleasure. And again, thank you!

(And now, back to our regularly scheduled programming!)

Old SF MJT
(Martin)

[Judge H. Lee Sarokin - Huffpost Blogger]

OldSFMJT - Martin Thank you. I had a blog for a number of years called X-Judge, and no one was reading it (except maybe my relatives). Now someone else appears to be listening. For me the whole purpose of these blogs is to exchange ideas and be educated. I have been in the law more than 50 years, and one thing I have learned is that there are two sides (if not more) to every argument. I enjoy the exchanges. I wish some of them weren't quite so personal or angry, but I understand that is part of the risk of putting myself out there. I appreciate your comments and enjoy our exchanges. Please resume regularly scheduled programming.

[djcrsn]

It is nice to deal with a gun control supporter that does not claim that support for the individual RKBA automatically makes the proRKBA person insane or a major felon

[JDeriter]

Actually, John McEnroe famously said: "You cannot be serious." And it is difficult to take your comments seriously when they contain such glaring factual errors.

[Judge H. Lee Sarokin - Huffpost Blogger]

JDeriter - I sit corrected. The great philosophers are frequently misquoted.

[molonlabe]

"I can understand the wisdom and the necessity of the prohibition on concealed weapons."

"It does not appear that the person involved was a member of "a well regulated Militia". "

Two very telling statements. So Judge, how would you ENFORCE a restriction on concealed carry against the individuals most guilty and most responsible for violent crime? You certainly don't expect career criminals to abide by a CCW restriction do you? You do realize that there is a restriction on CCW and basically a gun BAN in Chicago, and in July '09 alone they had 225 shootings, right? CCW restriction might make those on the left all warm and fuzzy, but in reality, it would be about as effective as alcohol prohibition in the 20's-30's.

There is simply no excuse for your Militia statement. SCOTUS ruled 9-0 in favor of an individual right unconnected to any militia. Even the most liberal of scholars have concurred with this. That is one that you 're just going to have to let go.

[LtBromhead]

Perhaps His Honor is forgetting his US Code. Almost all of us are in the 'Unorganized Militia'.
However, that's really a moot point, after Heller.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

[Judge H. Lee Sarokin - Huffpost Blogger]

molonlabe - My only purpose for mentioning "a well regulated militia' was to include it in a list of proffered reasons why citizens should possess guns. I could find none of those reasons present at a health care meeting with the President. I don't agree that most liberal scholars concur with the Heller decision, but I certainly concede that it is the law as enunciated by SCOTUS. But the late, great Fred Friendly was fond of saying: "There is a difference between what you have a right to do, and the right thing to do."

[molonlabe]

Judge,

I understand the "concern" (although i feel that much of it is based on emotionalism and hypotheticals) that some may have for individuals exercising their RKBA at a function where the POTUS is attending, but the larger picture is being missed. The person carrying the weapon in NH was completely within his rights to do so. Nothing happened. The left and MSM have blown this issue way out of proportion.

Do you think that someone who had serious thoughts of killing the POTUS would adhere to a "no guns" law? Would such a law have saved Kennedy? Protected Regan?

The individual in NH may not have shown the best judgement, but not because of the gun. Mostly, because of the sign he was carrying while carrying an exposed gun. I believe his actions were mostly symbollic.

The left are wetting themselves over this issue for no reason. We're constantly hearing tales of "extremism", militia organization, safety concerns, icky guns, etc.... Has anyone stopped to think that maybe quite simply, a good majority of American citizens are just fed up with big government, looming tax increases and a socialist agenda?

[molonlabe]

This issue is a mircocosm of the larger gun debate. So much attention and concern being focused on a law-abiding citizen exercising his rights and well within his rights to do so, while losing site of the fact that the regulation being posted by anti-gun organizations does not affect criminals who have serious intentions of harming someone or committing crime.

[OldSFMJT]

So, in other words, judge, what you're saying is that, while I may have a Right, folks of your ilk will decide whether I SHOULD exercise that Right or not! We, the great unwashed masses are too stupid to figure that out for ourselves!

Pretty damned arrogant, don't you think? Glad to see that you are a staunch supporter in the notion of "Individual Liberty!"

Old SF MJT
(Martin)

[djcrsn]

And there are many on the left that think that it is NEVER the right time to have firearms available for ANY purpose including self defense. But there are certainly liberal scholars like Lawrence Tribe and others that have emphasized for years that there is an individual RKBA. And for what it is worth, the liberal scholars that still deny that there is an individual RKBA are being a bit childish after the Supreme Court ruling that way 39 times

[twogunmojo]

dear judge.....­if you could list what you consider to be reasonable restrictions that are not already law i would appreciated it....i will address your concerns honestly and openly from my point of view...not anyone elses...

[druid9]

"So is this what the Founding Fathers had in mind..." That's exactly what it means. Along a parade route, in a church, at home, on a street corner...a­nywhere.
For a judge, you seem to have a fair amount of difficulty understanding 2A; something I would've figured was mandatory for a lawman. Let's take a look: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.­"
A "militia" is a body of citizens or all able-bodied people (yes, it used to be males; now know the women are as able as the men), as distinguished from professional soldiers. Well-regulated means set to some standard, at the time that meant having a clean, working firearm.
"Being necessary to the security of the state-" having been oppressed by professional soldiers, the founding fathers had no trust of dedicated armies. The state would not become tyrannical if the threat of armed revolt was present.
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.­" Anyone who can interpret that to mean people should not "keep and bear arms" then one either has a serious lack of toehold on reality or one is, well, not going to recognize or concede the truth.
It is lawful to carry a gun because 2A has affirmed that right. Maybe you would be less "dumbfounded" if everyone exercised that right.

[djcrsn]

What is rather surprising is that a judge would not recognize the implications of Heller.

[Judge H. Lee Sarokin - Huffpost Blogger]

druid9 I am not at all challenging the right to bear arms under the 2d Amendment. I am merely interested in knowing why someone who has the right to bear arms (and a permit to do so) chooses to exercise that right by showing up at a town hall meeting on health care when the President of The United States is present. What purpose was the gun serving at that time and moment? And frankly I would be more "dumbfounded if everyone exercised that right". We all have rights, but is it unreasonable to expect that we use some judgment when exercising them.

[druid9]

You may not be challenging the right to to bear arms, but you seem to be saying that it's not OK to do it around the President. And why would this be? Why is he different? Is he not the epitome of American citizenry? And as such, should he not have the keenest appreciation of the application of citizens' rights? Should he not be positively aglow with pride that Americans are exercising those rights? Or is he something different? Perhaps you are implying that he is apart from the rest of us; on a different plane of existence that neither recognizes nor approves of the rights of the people he serves and the rights he has sworn to uphold and defend. Did George Washington and Thomas Jefferson cringe at the sight of citizens bearing guns in their streets? I think not. When did the display of inalienable rights become distateful to the Chief Executive? And why should it be so? You ask if it unreasonable to expect that we use some jusdgement when exercising those rights. Did the man in the church act in any way other than civilized? Did he brandish his weapon and fire shots wildly into the air? Attending an event armed does not sound like lack of judgement to me, any more than attending with a placard displaying your personal opinion.

[Ohio9]

"So is this what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they adopted the Second Amendment---that anyone or everyone (with few exceptions) could stand along a presidential parade route armed with a handgun! I don't know the end of the story, but if the Secret Service did not order this man to go home and leave his gun there, our nation's legislatures should not bother returning after vacation and merely turn their keys over to the NRA."

What utter nonsense. Like it or not, what the man outside New Hampshire did was perfectly legal! No crime was committed, no one was harmed, and nothing significant happened. Neither the secret service or any other law enforcement agency had any right to order that man to go anywhere or confiscate his gun, seeing as he committed no crime and made no actions to suggest he was going to do so.

Where is your respect for the law? Or does the rule of law not apply to places where the president visits?

[Judge H. Lee Sarokin - Huffpost Blogger]

Ohio9 - I have great respect for the law. But do I think that the law is affected when the President is present---you bet I do. Let me understand your position. Assume the President is speaking at a town hall meeting and a 1000 persons want to attend all carrying guns or rifles with legal permits and licenses. No one (yet) has committed a crime "or taken any action to suggest he was going to". Do you seriously contend that the Secret Service would have to let everyone into the room with their weapons. In the words of the great philosopher John McEnroe: "You must be kidding". People who legally possess guns have been known to use them illegally and shoot people. The Secret Service can take reasonable and sensible precautions to protect the President.

[twogunmojo]

police and government officials have been known to break laws also...eve­n judges....­.

[Ohio9]

But this case just involved one guy OUTSIDE the building where the President was making a speech. That's a far cry from one thousand guys with guns inside the building.

I really don't see the issue here. The guy wasn't breaking any laws. He wasn't within shooting distance of the President with his handgun. Heck he wasn't even within visual range.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/11/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5235445.shtml

Portsmouth police spokesman Lt. Frank Warchol told the Boston Globe that because Kostric was on private property -- it belongs to a church near the school with the town hall meeting -- he would not be arrested. "We can't do anything about it," Warchol said. "Obviously he's on our radar screen at this time."

Kostric was there around 11 a.m. ET, before Mr. Obama even left the White House en route for the Granite State, and there's no indication he ever laid eyes on the president.

[Judge H. Lee Sarokin - Huffpost Blogger]

Ohio9 - Yes-I believe the rules are different when the President is present. See my reply to Druid9 above..

[Ohio9]

"The next explanation was that he was standing on church property with permission. Well that certainly gave comfort. Whoever heard of some religious fanatic killing somebody----like an abortion doctor for instance?"

Excuse me? Did Scott Roeder have permission to go into Tiller's Church with a gun? I must have missed that.

Far from an anti-CCW example, the Tiller murder shows why citizens SHOULD be able to protect themselves from criminals on church property if the owner allows it. Roeder had no regard for church policy or gun laws. Only lawful citizens do.

[Judge H. Lee Sarokin - Huffpost Blogger]

Ohio9 - You miss my point entirely. I nowhere suggest that Roeder had permission to go into the church with a gun. What I am suggesting is the mere fact that he was on church property with its permission does necessarily assure me that he is not a danger to the President. Persons with strong religious convictions can be assassins; indeed those very convictions can be the motivation.

[Dimensio]

" What I am suggesting is the mere fact that he was on church property with its permission does necessarily assure me that he is not a danger to the President.­"

As Mr. Obama did not travel to or near the church property, it should be evident that there existed no danger from any armed individual on that church property.

[Ohio9]

Well then why did you make the comparison of an assassin going to church to kill someone with a person legally carrying a gun on church grounds with permission from the owners?

Here is what you said:

"The next explanation was that he was standing on church property with permission. Well that certainly gave comfort. Whoever heard of some religious fanatic killing somebody----like an abortion doctor for instance?"

It seems to me like you were equating the man in your article with Roeder simply because both of them at one time or another were on church grounds with a gun. If that was not your intention, you should have worded it better.

[superfrog]

A church should be a sanctuary what was he so afraid of ? Why would a church allow him to carry a gun on their property ? I heard that this church is also a school since when do schools allow guns on their property?

[djcrsn]

Superfrog--do not forget that high school had rifle teams that actually shot real rifles in my lifetime

[LtBromhead]

Google Jeanne Assam.

[Jadegold]

Google George Tiller

[gallery]

Amen Judge.
I just watched him interviewed by Chris Matthews, and although he seemed somewhat rational, he still spooked the hell out of me.
How is it that a lawyer in Louisiana was taken into custody for HOURS for yelling "you should be ashamed of yourself" at Cheney, but this guy is not detained or questioned by the secret service?
This is gonna be joe the plumber times ten.

[Judge H. Lee Sarokin - Huffpost Blogger]

gallery - Thanks. I also watched the Chris Matthews interview. It is astonishing to me that gun advocates having won a major victory in the Supreme Court cannot tolerate the most reasonable and sensible restrictions regarding guns---even when it comes to protecting the life of the President of The United States.

[OldSFMJT]

Your Honor,
Please explain how this individual, who was not even within eye-shot of the town hall venue, at a time when the President was still in DC constitutes a threat to the President's life.

To paraphrase a line from 'gallery,' your notion of 'reasonable and sensible' spooks the hell out of me!

Old SF MJT
(Martin)