Does The NRA Approve Taking Guns To Town Halls?

What does the National Rifle Association think about carrying loaded guns to "town hall" meetings, including presidential events? Do they think this would make us all safer?

Does their silence signal their consent?

At "town hall" meetings featuring members of Congress, and even the President of the United States, Americans have seen not only some heated exchanges with shouting and physical altercations, but also multiple examples of loaded firearms making their way into or near the debates. So far this month there have been reports of:

· A concealed weapon brought to a town hall in Memphis, Tennessee, hosted by Rep. Steve Cohen;

· A concealed weapon that fell out of its owner's holster at a "Congress on Your Corner" event in Sierra Vista, Arizona, featuring Rep. Gabrielle Giffords;

· A man openly carrying a semi-automatic handgun at a rally protesting President Obama's town hall in Portsmouth, New Hampshire on Tuesday;

· Another man in possession of a pocketknife who was arrested after sneaking past security at the president's Portsmouth event, was then found to have a concealed semi-automatic handgun in his car.

William Kostric, the man who openly carried his handgun at President Obama's Portsmouth event, held a sign that read, "IT IS TIME TO WATER THE TREE OF LIBERTY."

Kostric, who told Chris Matthews that he was not a violent man, said his sign referred to Thomas Jefferson's statement that, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Wonder who the "patriots" and the "tyrants" are in Kostric's world?

Speaking of disturbing signs, at a constituent event yesterday hosted by Maryland Sen. Ben Cardin, a man was reportedly detained after carrying a sign that read, "Death to Obama" and "Death to Michelle and her two stupid kids." The Secret Service is investigating the individual. There is no reporting (so far) that the man was carrying a gun.

As a mayor and candidate for office, I've been to a lot of heated and contentious public meetings and events -- including some where people were carrying guns. Those who carry guns to public forums have the potential to stifle debate as well as put others at risk of injury. And if some take to heart NRA boss Wayne LaPierre's statement that "the guys with the guns make the rules" (echoing Mao's statement that "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"), then we may be facing some real threats to our system of representative government.

The tense atmosphere surrounding the current "town hall" debates has all the earmarks of a tinderbox, and is exacerbated by the presence of loaded firearms. Encouraging gun owners to carry their weapons into these events -- much less to places where the president is expected to speak -- is an invitation to disaster.

The National Rifle Association is full of big talk about "gun rights."

Why don't they talk about gun responsibility and ask folks to leave their weapons at home before going to these public forums?

(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)

Comments

[Jadegold]

Too funny:

http://www.gunguys.com/?p=3479

Yeah, this is the kind of publicity the NRA wants!

[djcrsn]

The faux gunguys and Jon Stewart--S­hirley-you can do better than that

[Thirdpower]

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

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.”

"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. "

[Jadegold]

I'm all for it.

As we're discovering, many of these gun-toters are kooks of the highest order. This is getting great media attention and really cements the image of gun-carrying crazy in the mind of the public.

That's the reason you don't see the NRA bloviating about this. They're media-savvy, they know this hurts.

I know the Obama admin understands this as well and is pretty happy to see it play out.

[Thirdpower]

It's getting 'media attention' all right. And the only ones freaking out about it are more media people and anti-gun activists.

The media tried the same thing during the 90's. All the while more and more states passed concealed carry laws, semi-auto's became very common, and the influence of the anti-gunners diminished day by day.

I'm all for it.

[molonlabe]

Bwahahahaha!!!!

jade must have been trapped under a rock for the last couple decades. The cement has been dry for about 20 years, jade. The MSM's demonization of guns and gun owners is certainly nothing new. This is just another rung in their ladder to emotionalism.

But now the stakes are higher. Facing growing opposition to Obamacare, slipping popularity in the polls, apathy toward gays, looming tax increases, bloating budgets, ect.... the left is simply showing its desperation by trying to latch onto a non issue in order to shift the focus away from O's broken promises and an ineffective 10 months.

Not sure why the NRA would be compelled to 'bloviate' about law-abiding citizens NOT breaking any laws.

[fishyjay]

Jadegold: "That's the reason you don't see the NRA bloviating about this. They're media-savvy, they know this hurts."

You mean the NRA isn't behind this? Unlike you to say that, Jade.

[Jadegold]

Old NYTimes article about the Viper Militia:

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/05/us/volatile-mix-in-viper-militia-hatred-plus-a-love-for-guns.html

It's amazing these folks repeat the same views and excuses as many commenters on this forum.

[Ohio9]

And your evidence of this is........?

[Jadegold]

Turns out the gun-toters in AZ were organized by a member of a whackjob militia. This militia had a number of its adherents sent to prison for plotting to blow up federal buildings.

Remember this when you hear "law-abiding citizens."

[Thirdpower]

And those people went to see a movie starring an actor that had once worked w/ Kevin Bacon.

[Thirdpower]

"This militia had a number of its adherents sent to prison for plotting to blow up federal buildings."

No it didn't.

[Jadegold]

Doing Third's homework:

LATimes:

January 01, 1997

Five members of the self-styled paramilitary Viper Militia, accused initially by government officials of plotting to blow up federal buildings, changed their pleas to guilty. Four members admitted to conspiracy and weapon charges in U.S. District Court in Phoenix as part of a plea agreement. Finis Walker, 42, and David Belliveau, 28, each pleaded guilty to three felony counts. Ellen Belliveau, 27, faces two counts and Donna Williams, 44, one count for their role in the group. A fifth member, Dean Pleasant, 28, chose not to be part of the deal with prosecutors, although he too changed his plea on three felony charges to guilty. The pleas brought to 10 the number of militia members to decide against going to trial. All will receive time in prison when sentenced in March. A trial for the two remaining defendants was scheduled for Jan. 28. Twelve militia members were arrested July 1, prompting President Clinton to praise the effort as averting "a terrible terrorist attack."

[DMeadows]

NEWSFLASH: People are carrying guns at town halls and . . . NOTHING BAD is happening.

That's completely, 180 degrees, opposite of what gun-control advocates predict happens.

Got truth?

[Jadegold]

"NEWSFLASH: People are carrying guns at town halls and . . . NOTHING BAD is happening."

If "nothing bad" means intimidating people trying to discuss healthcare--you are correct.

[DMeadows]

Nope, "nothing bad" meaning strictly what gun-control advocates run around with their hair on fire about.

It's not happening. Got truth?

[molonlabe]

I think if there were legitimate charges for intimidation, they would have been filed.

Were any laws broken?

Nope.

[Jadegold]

Let's see; Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme got 34 years in prison for waving a handgun at President Ford. The gun did not have a round in the chamber.

Yet, we see pro-gun enthusiasts showing up at healthcare discussions. They wear tee shirts saying it's time to "water" the tree of liberty. One gun-toter says, " "We will forcefully resist people imposing their will on us through the strength of the majority with a vote."

As someone who believes the NRA is a domestic terrorist group, I say 'keep it up.' You wouldn't believe how many folks--some who are extremely pro-gun--are really rethinking their stances.

[durnik123]

She broke the law because she did not just "wave" the gun. She pulled a loaded gun on the President and pulled the trigger. Fortunately for President Ford she was too stupid and did not put a round into the chamber.

Jade. Please recognize the difference between "keep and bear" and "use". There is a big difference.

[djcrsn]

Durnik--don't forget Jade thinks all gunowners are nutter criminals by definition

[Jadegold]

She never pulled the trigger. Plus, during her trial, it was established she had deliberately left the chamber empty.

In essence, she did nothing more (well, she did shout at Ford) than the gun-toter at the healthcare discussions.

[benEzra]

Straight from the U.S. Secret Service, via a CNN article today:

"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."

The media-manufactured controversy is NOT about people lawfully carrying weapons into Presidential venues; it is about people lawfully carrying weapons in the general vicinity of Presidential venues, but NOT in the zone designated by the Secret Service as the secure area.

I had the privilege of eating lunch with a former Secret Service agent some years ago, and those guys take their job SERIOUSLY (and they are extremely good at it). Someone lawfully carrying a firearm outside the secured zone is not a threat, and they control who is armed within the secured zone.

[kaveman4]

Here's the article...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/18/obama.protest.rifle/index.html


Not sure if the NRA approves of open carry at an Obama protest, but the police and Secret service do.

[durnik123]

So Paul, Your questions is really " Does the NRA approve of a lawfully owned item being used in a lawfull manner? Well Duh, I hope so or I will cancel my membership.

[molonlabe]

http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/release.php?release=1172

Translation: The Obamas should be able to enjoy their time in National Parks with armed security. You are foolish if you think that you should be afforded the same opportunity.

[djcrsn]

ML--Isn't that always the way with the Brady bunch--the rich and powerful have guns, everyone else is a different story

[TardisJockey]

If everyone else was POTUS and had the inarguable expectation of being shot at, then of course they'd be special.

I enjoy going to the range for target practice. I don't own a gun myself, but I have no problem with the members of my family and my neighbors who do. (all the more reason for me to learn how to handle one.) I would have a problem, though, with one of them bringing it to a town hall where it's a sure bet tempers will be running high. I would question why they felt the need to.

[DMeadows]

Open carry is permissible in most states. Know your states' laws and exercise your right to keep and bear arms so you don't lose it.

www.opencarry.org

[jimtom]

"jimtom--you are not very observant--djkrlsn posted several times supporting prison time several times and shedances went into a full hissy fit about how that was cruel and unusual punishment."

Nearly everyone on this blog who advocates from the gun supporter position supports increasing prison time for crimes involving gun use. But are silent, like you, on the other half of the proposition, spending tens of billions annually in "boot camps," for youthful offenders.

[djcrsn]

JImtom--we are talking about 2 sides of the same coin--one big reason many minorities drop out of school is that gangbanging and drug dealing is good money--and if the kids know that dropping out of school to deal drugs will rethink their position if they know that dropping out will get them increased LEO attention and get them put in the juvie justice system. Also you would be far more believable if you focused on the people that cause 80% of the problem (criminals) and not people causing a fairly small portion (I have a suspicion that a good sized piece of the 20% with no records have not been caught--and not really law abiding gun owners that have just snapped). For instance, I am guessing you are mid 40's or older and rather doubt you will start committing crimes just because--same thing with the pro RKBA people here.

[jimtom]

I somewhat agree with you that gun violence and socio-economic problems endemic in poor African-American and Latino communities go hand-in-hand. But from reading letters to the Editor and listening to the public debate over the last thirty years and more, most Americans in general and political conservatives in particular are fine with building more and more prisons and "throwing away the key" as the way to deal with gun violence, few support building lots of schools, significantly increasing teacher's salaries as a means of inducing the best teachers to work in these communities and creating after school and school weekend programs for academical­ly-challen­ged kids. I know very well that "throwing money" at the problem is not the solution, but I know of very few "boot camp" type intervention programs of the type I'm suggesting.

[jimtom]

Thirdpower: "Reminds me of the assertion made that all police support biometrics." Yet another example of misquoting what I said, which was that all four of the police officers that I had spoken to about biometric handguns supported their development.

Inadvertent misquotes are just that, inadvertent. But at what point do deliberate misquotes become part of a deliberate campaign to distort or lie about my positions and my arguments? Sort of like the how end of life counseling becomes a "death panel"? Same tactic?

[Sivispacemparabellum]

Then your four cop buddies are fools . Every major survey or article I've ever seen from the major Law Enforcement Officers groups have consistantly come down on the side that they DO NOT support " smart gun " technology because its yet to be proven 100 % reliable under all circumstances and they arent about to risk their lives on finding out . NJ was stupid enough to pass legislation years ago that mandated " smart guns " be the only thing sold in the State when the tech became feasible . Guess what ?? ALL the Law Enforcement groups in the State lobbied for and got a complete EXEMPTION from officers having to use " smart guns " . Gee I wonder why that might be ?? Maybe because they know it wont work as advertised ? If " smart gun " tech is all that then there no reason for Govt agencies to be exempt . There isnt one special set of rules for all the citizens and then another different set for the elite and the enforcers

[fishyjay]

Perhaps some LE officers support "smart guns" becuse they are exempted.

There are many more types of taxes that I would support -- if I was exempted.

[legaleagle 45]

jimtom wrote: " all four of the police officers that I had spoken to about biometric handguns supported their development."

As do I. When the technology is advanced enough sufficiently so that such firearms are as reliable as conventional firearms and the cost differential is not significant, then I will have no trouble requiring such technology on future firearms so long as firearms currently in private hands are grandfathered. The first proof of the advancement of such technology will be when the police adopt them as standard issue across the nation. I wish the developers the best of luck as there are some substantial technical hurdles in their way in reaching that goal. In the interim, I will not hold my breath.

[Thirdpower]

And as usual, your story has changed from the beginning. Now it's only four officers you've spoken to.

And again you go off on unrelated tangents hoping something will stick.

[jimtom]

I never said it was more than four.

[jimtom]

djcrsn: "You would have a far better case for biometrics if they were not legislatively mandated but won out in the open market. Based on what is happening here in Cali, unless the biometrics go nationwide, the firearms manufactures will just write off those markets that require biometrics==and on a national level, the HEller decision will provide a good basis for challenge in the courts"

I wonder if manufactures will simply write off markets that require biometrics if the markets include California, New York, Maryland, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and perhaps other states as well? That's an awful lot of people to write off to competitors will to manufacture biometric handguns.

Heller will provide a good basis for challenging mandatory biometric handgun requirements. But it's not cut and dried that the Court will strike down such laws once these guns enter the market.

[djcrsn]

Several manufacturers have already written off California because of the "not unsafe " gun laws. Laws written to specifying safety standards for firearms by people that are gun ignorant make about as much sense as car safety standards written by people who know nothing about engineering requirements for cars.

[hansulrichrudel]

Fun with Acronyms:
Let's see if we can combine "Gay Rights" and "Gun Rights".
C.C.W. D.A.D.T. 24/7.
(Carry a concealed weapon but don't tell others about it or ask them whether they are carrying all the time).

[Sivispacemparabellum]

Thats one of the most nonsensical posts on this whole thread , and thats saying something

[HisXLNC]

"Does The NRA Approve Taking Guns To Town Halls?"

I hope so. It's their job.

[legaleagle 45]

"I hope so. It's their job."

I would think that the intent of the person is relevant here. If the intent is to provide themselves with protection from unlawful attack, then no problem. If their intent is to intimidate others who disagree with the political views of that person so as to shape the political debate, then I would disagree. That is not a legitimate purpose whatsoever.

Further, I would have no problem if metal detectors were installed and all weapons banned from such sites so long as adequate security is provided so as to protect all the participants from unlawful force or threat of force.