The President Belongs To All Of Us

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs answered questions yesterday about people bringing loaded firearms to protest events attended by President Obama, and Gibbs apparently gave the green light to this crazy practice.

Gibbs said, "There are laws that govern firearms that are done state or locally. Those laws don't change when the president comes to your state or locality."

Hearing this from someone who speaks daily from the podium in the James S. Brady White House Briefing Room - named after a press secretary seriously injured in an assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan - is bizarre.

In any event, the president's security isn't decided by his press secretary. The President belongs to all Americans, and we all have a stake in protecting his safety by keeping loaded firearms (not carried by law enforcement) away from presidential events.

As for the Secret Service, their response to gun carrying protesters yesterday was also strange: "We're well aware of the subjects that are showing up at these events with firearms," a spokesperson reportedly said. "We work closely with local law enforcement to make sure that their very strict laws on gun permits are administered."

Strict gun laws in Arizona? This is the state where two men openly carried assault rifles at a presidential event and didn't get detained. It's harder to get a job at a fast food restaurant than it is to get a gun in Arizona.

Gun permits? In most cases, people openly carrying firearms don't need permits, meaning that open gun carriers have no requirement to have their criminal backgrounds checked before they carry and no requirement even to have weapons training.

The Secret Service spokesperson should have said, "We work closely with local law enforcement to make sure that a state's weak gun laws don't lead to shooting injuries or deaths at these protests." That would have made some sense.

As for being "well aware" of gun carriers at these events, I sincerely hope that's true. I hope the Secret Service knew exactly where the dozen or more armed people were in the crowd protesting President Obama's Phoenix speech on Monday - including two men with military-style assault rifles.

As it happens, news reports reveal that law enforcement knew of at least one of the individuals with an AR-15 assault rifle, because his media handler notified the local police department in advance of the stunt they were going to pull.

But what about next time, when law enforcement is surprised by someone openly carrying an assault weapon near the president? Will the reaction be the same? We should all hope not.

Robert Gibbs' cavalier response to protesters carrying guns to presidential events was tone-deaf. This isn't a political issue and it isn't about the Second Amendment. It's about open and honest debate, using common sense and protecting the president of United States.

People can shoot their mouths off all they want at these debates. We need to do all we can to make sure that's where the shooting stops.

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

Comments

[jimtom]

Mike102 responding to my saying no one in the media had suggested those bringing guns to the rallies had done anything wrong.

"The media wouldn't be covering this nearly to the extent that they are (if at all), if they weren't trying to convince the public that this was all way beyond just plain "wrong". It's the subject of this very blog, for crying out loud."

He is correct, I used the word "wrong" when I should have been more precise and used the word "illegal" and hence wrong. I apologize for the confusion.

I'm still trying to determine how the media's inference that bringing such weapons to these rallies is inappropriate and therefore constitutes a "lie" as ThirdPower asserts, as opposed to a conclusion or judgment, on their part, which can be wrongheaded, but cannot be a "lie." Maybe he'll write and acknowledge that he might have chosen a better term....nah.

[Thirdpower]

The media is inferring that these individuals where in the same vicinity as the president and that the Secret Service could do nothing about it because it was 'legal'.

Do you deny that?

Why this very blog does it:

"people bringing loaded firearms to protest events attended by President Obama,"

That is a lie and nothing else but.

[jimtom]

I don't think the media was making such an inference at all. The gun toters were attending events attended by Obama or by Members of Congress. I don't know how physically close they got to Obama, clearly they would not get into the building where the event was held. We have the Secret Services' on record as saying these protesters did not pose a threat to Obama, and I'll take them at their word, though one could hardly expect them to say otherwise. The Secret Service to the best of my knowledge does not provide, as a routine measure, protection for legislators, but maybe now they should, especially for Democrats.

But at a minimum, this practice is a sad commentary on the current state of our Country and the illustrates the willingness of a minority to use the implicit threat of violence to insure that policies they oppose are defeated.

[benEzra]

The implication in a lot of reports and blogs is that there were "armed protesters in the vicinity of the President" that implicitly posed a threat to his safety, when in fact they brought guns to their own little protest offsite and were not, in fact, with the President.

I think there's also a misperception that they were there to threaten, when in fact they were there trolling for media attention to knock Obama's message off the air, and the media (both gullible and gun-obsessed) happily complied.

[Bill666]

"I'm suggesting that somebody who takes a gun to an event knowing that they'll be the only one doing so is fundamentally gutless."

But they were not "the only ones" . There were several. One was even an African-American man, with a (gasp) 'Military "Style"' assault weapon.

I think it takes 'guts' to do something you know is going to draw fire from the media, disdain, and AD HOMINEM,( no hyphen) attacks from those on your side of the fence. Your allies here seem to be a little more eloquent than you are. Perhaps that's why you are getting no love form them.

You present nothing but a bad comedy club act.

[Bill666]

"form"

I beg your pardon. That should be 'FROM'.

I wouldn't want you to confuse a typo with a lack of education.

Have a nice day.

[daedelus]

Kind of like tripping as you exit the stage, isn't it? Oh well, maybe next time.

[ProGunAmerican]

As a lawful gun owner over the last 15 years, I can say with certainty, the last thing I want to do is something stupid, that will A) get me shot, or B) get me arrested. I cherish my 2-A rights and don't want to lose them. 99.9% of the lawful gun owners in this country don't want to spend the rest of their life in prison, that's why these people aren't the ones going on shooting spree's. 9 times out of 10, its a career criminal who has illegally obtained a gun and doesn't care if he goes to prison.

I've been carrying concealed with a permit for 3.5 years now, my pistol has never left the holster. I sincerely hope it never has too.

I'm pretty sure Paul is an advocate of the federal govt usurping state's rights, i.e a federal concealed carry ban. That's a pipe dream, but Paul believe's in it. A law like that would never survive the Supreme Court.

Paul wants to talk about Arizona's weak gun laws and violence. How about Chicago, which has some of the most draconian laws in the nation, its one of America's most violent cities. Not a peep from Paul on this one. This tells me that guns don't correlate to crime rates.

[Thirdpower]

"I'm pretty sure Paul is an advocate of the federal govt usurping state's rights"

He is when it comes to gun control. He's an advocate for state/local rights for the same reason. If it comes to progressive firearm laws like CCW or Castle Doctrine, then it's the opposite.

[MajorTom125]

The tone goes as the wind blows.

[kaveman4]

Something to keep in mind...

With everybody talking about what is happening outside these town hall meetings, noone is talking about what is happening INSIDE these town hall meetings.

I think this was a calculated strategy to steal the spot light and it worked.

It's actually quite brillant. Shift the focus on which Obama considers a political winner to an issue where Obama is politically weak.

The media couldn't resist bashing gun owners, so they took the bait. Obama was hoping for wall to wall coverage of him talking to regular folks about how he's going to save health care and instead, we're all discussing 2A Rights.

[Tena]

Indeed the president does belong to all of us and I've been appalled by what has been going on. However, against that, you have to second-guess the Secret Service, and I kind of have a problem doing that since they're the experts and I'm not.

And the way things are now, the militias and 2d Amendment nuts really have no argument to make - for a PR move, it's pretty brilliant for the administration to go this route.

And it's a whopping huge risk. I hate everything about it. But what is the alternative?

[ProGunAmerican]

If you listen to the Brady's, the mere presence of guns at political protest's would cause bloodshed and carnage, but in this case, there was none? Why is that? Despite what the Brady's say, guns don't just jump out of holsters and start killing people. This is a perfect illustration of why the Brady's argument is crap. These are upstanding citizens, who have no intention of shooting anyone, they are just making a political statement. When, and if, Obama pushes gun control legislation, I sincerely hope that there are protest's all across the country, just like with Obama's garbage health care plan. You can count me in, on the open carry rally.

The mere fact that Obama will let Pelosi write the gun legislation, you're guarantee'd one hell of a fight on that one.

Lastly, who are the Brady's to tell me I can't have firepower? Firepower is good. As long as the Brady's keep talkin', I'll keep buyin', guns, ammo, and hi-cap mag's. Heee-heeee!

[OdinsEye]

"If you listen to the Brady's, the mere presence of guns at political protest's would cause bloodshed and carnage, but in this case, there was none? Why is that?"

The firearms were obviously malfunctioning. ;)

[daedelus]

Either that, or the owners were gutless.

[jimtom]

PGA: On people bringing guns to recent political events: "These are upstanding citizens, who have no intention of shooting anyone, they are just making a political statement."

So far.

And, how on earth, short of being a mind reader, are police and other attendees of such events going to know what the intentions of such individuals are? Sometimes not doing something, even if you have a legal right to do so, makes more sense than doing it. My own view is that wearing guns at these events is going to turn out to be politically counter-productive. Relatively few people applaud such actions as simply demonstrating a Constitutional right. More, I think, see it as an attempt to intimidate those around them who hold different views or as a nascent threat against elected officials who hold political views contrary to the gun bringers. In both cases, they will generate a kind of guilt by association that will apply to opponents of the legislation at issue even if they are not bringing guns, which most are not, to these events.

[Thirdpower]

"More, I think, see it as an attempt to intimidate those around them "

That's what the pundits in the media keep spouting. Repeat a lie often enough.

[valkyrie607]

Okay, Djrsn, I'm barely following your "logic" here, but I'm trying. So you think that health care reform is about people control. See, arguments like this strike me as particularly delusional, given that there are ACTUAL "people control" policies already in place, i.e. the Patriot Act, the illegal wiretapping, the erosion of our 4th amendment rights, and so on--no outrage from you. But let someone propose passing a law that forces Americans to buy health insurance, and it's "Tyranny! Blood! You can't control me! But I'm fine with being forced to buy car insurance."

But let's imagine for a second that the push to expand access to health care is really about people control.

Most polls show Americans support a public option with a solid majority. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/public-support-for-public-option.html

When you insist that health care reform = people control, and 50% - 70% of your fellow citizens favor what you call "people control," what are you going to do? Bring a gun to the protest to show them "You can't control ME!" The other option is the bring a sign, a flyer, and a well-thought-out argument to the effect that health care reform is people control. The former is NOT helpful to the democratic process. The latter most definitely is.

Is bringing a baseball bat and brass knuckles to a public forum ALSO a legitimate form of political protest?

[Thirdpower]

"the Patriot Act, the illegal wiretapping, the erosion of our 4th amendment rights, and so on--no outrage from you."

And you would be wrong.

What those polls show (like all polls) is that wording determines the answers.

[valkyrie607]

Question answer = fail

[kaveman4]

Valk, you do realize that Obama voted to nenew the Patriot Act and that Eric Holder said he was going to expand the warrantless witetapping program in Obama's administration, right?

[valkyrie607]

Yes. And I detest that about him just as much as I detested it when Bush did it. It's called having principles rather than hero worship.

[djcrsn]

Look at Obama's history--he has a long history of supporting unconstitutional gun laws (like the ones in DC and Chicago). Being a veteran of the US Army medical corp--it was a fight to get the disability from VA to which I am entitled, so I do have cause to be doubtful of Obama's motives--and judging from the townhall meetings I have seen--there is far less support for the Dem plan than you claim

[valkyrie607]

Did you answer the question? No.

Fail.

[OdinsEye]

"Is bringing a baseball bat and brass knuckles to a public forum ALSO a legitimate form of political protest?"

So long as they are carried IAW all federal, state, and local laws.

[valkyrie607]

So what you're saying is that intimidating your fellow citizens with threats, whether verbal or non-verbal, of bodily harm, for voicing opinions contrary to yours, is a legitimate form of political protest.

I rest my case.

[valkyrie607]

A morality that is limited to what is merely legal is a truly impoverished, faded, and useless morality.

[djcrsn]

When the end result is people HAVE to go to the governmental policy--yes it is people control. I am sure that you are aware that if money is tight for small businesses--they will go for the cheaper option (which is the government plan from what I have seen)

[valkyrie607]

This is a discussion about the first amendment.

Nobody's second amendment rights are under attack. If anybody thinks so, well, I count them among the deluded fools who sincerely believe that Obama was born in Kenya, is a secret Muslim, hates whitey, and wants to kill old people.

People are exercising their second amendment rights in a context which is damaging to the first amendment. The health care discussion has no bearing on gun control laws or the second amendment. Only in the minds of people who perceive the push to expand health care as a radical grab for power (while ignoring ACTUAL radical grabs for power by the previous administration as well as this one: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/07/23/detention/index.html) can these be remotely related.

It's somewhat akin to being refused entry to a public forum because you're drunk as a skunk, then complaining that your 21st amendment right to consume alcohol is being violated. Only nobody has actually arrested or tossed out any gun-toting protesters--we've only expressed our extreme disapproval. This is us exercising OUR constitutional rights.

Is this clear enough for you, or do you need a diagram?

[jbritt]

Why would carrying a weapon at a protest not be considered expression and protected under the first amendment (and the second naturally)? Carrying a weapon is legal. It's obviously being done to make a statement not because anyone is planning an assassination given that they are open carrying. How is this any different from other forms of expression some people find detracting or distasteful a la burning a flag or hanging an effigy? Those are protected speach (although I'm still not clear on how burning the flag does not violate the US Flag Code). Maybe it is an odd forum to express support for gun rights, but this is constitutionally protected speech, and no amount of what ifs or hand wringing can change that. You're free to bitch and moan just don't expect results from it.

[OdinsEye]

Exactly!

[valkyrie607]

Can you please explain to me exactly what statement is being made by bringing a gun to a protest that has nothing to do with guns? Pretend I'm a slow child and explain it clearly. Help me understand how having a gun helps one get one's political point about health care reform across.

[legaleagle 45]

jbritt wrote: "although I'm still not clear on how burning the flag does not violate the US Flag Code"

If one can pass a code which violates a constituionally protected righst, what good is a constituionally protected right? The point is, and to the extent the Flag Code violates the Constituion, it is void.

I do not dispute that the protestors violated no laws and can not be punished for their form of protest.

The next issue is whether I endorse this type of protest... I do not, nor do I endorse flag burning, or burning a person in effigy. I believe that it does much more harm to the cause of 2nd Amend rights than it helps. Hand in hand with court actions, it is necessary to fight a public relations battle. Brady and VCI attempt to paint gun rights supporters as a radical fringe for good reason. If they are able to scare the electorate in this manner, their job becomes much easier. These types of protest hand them that victory, and it does little good to argue that these protestors had a legal right under both the 1st and 2nd Amend to do so, because such arguments will not be understood by the general populace. I can guarantee you that Alan Gura, Dave Kopel, Don Kates, et al are ALL wishing that this type of protest would disappear. I can also guarantee you that Heninger, Helmke and Cornell just LOVE this type of protest.

[legaleagle 45]

The next issue, is whether regulations can be created to curtail this type of protest... My answer is yes, so long as they are directed at reasonable time, place and manner restrictions and are content neutral.

[twogunmojo]

JimR I'm a Fan of JimR I'm a fan of this user 33 fans permalink

Just once I would like gun nuts to acknowledge that the word "regulated" appears in the Second Amendment...
Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:35 AM on 08/21/2009­..........­....
----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­-------
just once i would like to see the anti-gunners admit that what they would like to see is guns more regulated than they already are until they are no longer available to the common person....

[kaveman4]

Can't locate the original so I'll reply here.

The word "regulated" meant something quite different in 1791 than it does today. Back then it meant trained or exercised. So "well regulated" meant well trained and well exercised"

Words change definitions over time. The word "gay" used to mean happy and carefree. Not so much today.

The SCOTUS knows this all to well, which is why they have colonial era dictionaries at their disposal when hearing cases which stretch back to the very formation of the Bill of Rights.

[dfranz]

I have been deeply disturbed by the photos of gun toting anti Obama protesters. I really believe that the purpose for this public showing is to provoke some action so they can justify their lying rhetoric that Obama wants to take their guns away.

People who feel the need to show their power by brandishing guns are really small people who think it somehow makes them seem big. Guns were invented for one purpose only and it wasn't for target practice.

I have already written my congress reps demanding that some additional steps be taken by the Secret Service to ensure the Presidents safety.

[Dimensio]

Please explain why you are more qualified than are members of the United States Secret Service in establishing appropriate security measures for the President of the United States. Additionally, explain who, specifically, has brandished a firearm.

[kaveman4]

Correct.

Open carry and brandishing are two seperate issues.

[giorgiana]

Thank you very much. You are entirely correct. I, too have written my congress reps about this same thing. It is very disturbing, to say the least. What if someone grabs their guns and shoots everyone in sight?? I guess the rightwingers haven't though of that. They really don't care, do they?

[iblogleft]

I have no problem with the right to own guns. i wouldn’t have it any other way.

I am smart enough to understand that these people that flaunt those weapons are lacking the mental ammunition to carry on a productive conversation, and statistically, the dangerous ones are not the ones that lawfully have conceal permits.

There is a problem with these people bringing weapons to town halls, because town halls are for conversation.

That said, these gun toting crazies do not represent the majority of law abiding gun owners, any more than the freaks with nazi obama signs represent the republican party.

Why this was moderated off is beyond me, no matter, its posted. You go newbie mod :-)

[djcrsn]

Remember--the people carrying guns were not trying to enter the town hall meetings

[lippylaroux]

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty".
Thomas Jefferson

[valkyrie607]

And what about when citizens fear their fellow citizens? What would you call that state of affairs?

[lippylaroux]

Arm up...An armed society is a polite society.

[Dimensio]

I would suggest that fearful citizens should assess the rationality of their fears. Citizens who fear individuals who have neither committed violent acts nor stated an intent to commit violent acts are likely irrational.

[mike102]

These people are law-abiding citizens who were pulling what amounts to a publicity stunt. They are not people to fear.

If you want to fear someone, fear the armed criminals who got their guns illegally, and who ar responsible for most of the homicides in the US. Fear the gangbangers in Washington DC and Chicago, those two fine examples of 'Gun Free Utopias'.

[djcrsn]

Since I have been the victim of at least one attempted robbery and multiple assaults--I know for a fact that it is very appropriate for the criminal to be sufficently intimidated by the intended victim that the criminal needs a change of clothing

[giorgiana]

Oh so correct you are...

[vie2012ne]

How many shots have been fired at these meetings?

[djcrsn]

last time I checked--NONE

[truthandvalues]

Once again Mr Helmke you are intellectually dishonest on two fronts:

1) No one was carrying "military style assault weapons". A military assault weapon is classified as being fully automatic. A private citizen must have a class 3 license to purchase such weapons, which require extensive background checks far beyond a simple concealed carry permit. And under no circumstances is it legal to carry in public in any of the 50 states. What were being carried were the civilian semi-automatic versions in a much smaller caliber.

2) Either you believe in the constitution or not. The rights protected therein either apply equally across the board or they don't. You would selectively apply the protections of the constitution merely on your personal whim to suite your agenda.

To be completely honest you must acknowledge, whether you agree with int or not, that these individuals were completely within their rights! Until you acknowledge that fact you cannot be trusted have any meaningful debate on the subject.

[djcrsn]

And one of Paul's long term supporters (shedances) thinks that I should not be able t own several of my rifles or any of my handguns (because they are either milsurp (WW 1 and 2 bolt action rifles) or standard police issue handguns

[iblogleft]

I have no problem with the right to own guns. i wouldn't have it any other way.

I am smart enough to understand that these people that flaunt those weapons are lacking the mental ammunition to carry on a productive conversation, and statistically, the dangerous ones are not the ones that lawfully have conceal permits.

There is a problem with these people bringing weapons to town halls, because town halls are for conversation. They only bring weapons because they understand how utterly ignorant they are, and they need some sense of self confidence.

That said, these gun toting crazies do not represent the majority of law abiding gun owners, any more than the freaks with nazi obama signs represent the republican party.