Carrying at political speeches

[seamusTX]

Please allow me to state a few facts.

Providing Secret Service protection to presidential candidates is governed by federal law, passed by Congress and signed by various presidents.

The Democratic and Republican nominees get automatic protection after the conventions.

Other candidates can get protection before the party conventions when a congressional committee approves it. That is the case with Sen. Obama.

Robert Kennedy was killed by an assassin before the convention in 1968. George Wallace was shot and permanently disabled before the convention in 1972. At that time, Gov. Wallace had both Secret Service and Alabama State Highway Patrol protection. A Secret Service agent and an Alabama trooper were injured in that incident.

http://www.secretservice.gov/protection.shtml

- Jim

[PetrucciFan]

I went to see Bill Clinton* in Galveston Monday. There was no security except (apparently) three Secret Service men who stood behind him most of the time, some state police, and a lot of local police officers. Anyone in the crowd could have been carrying a concealed weapon.

- Jim

A couple of weeks ago (2/16), Bill Clinton was here in Amarillo doing a rally at the Civic Center.....the same day that the civic center was hosting a gun and knife show. I never saw the prez, but I did see scores of people walking around the concourse carrying all kids of guns. I'm sure the SS was a little "worried". I thought it was funny.

[stevie_d_64]

I do not attend political rallies unarmed...If the facility is restricted then I adjust accordingly, or don't go...

I am not a Personal Protection Specialist, nor do I expect someone to assume I should act as one...I carry for myself and others around me per the law...

I happen to be very good friends with many politicians in our area...They know me to be very well rounded politically and have a good handle on issues that makes them feel pretty comfortable with me being around...One or two know that I carry...Thats it...And it is not an issue with them or their capitol security details, I do not give them a reason to have an issue...Unfortunately I feel I somehow earned that, dispite the philisophical quandry and irony that puts me in...So my admission is somewhat hurtful at times because I do not, as a citizen want to ask permission, or live a "please sir, may I have another" type existance...

None of us do...

As someone mentioned in a post to which I most ardently support and believe is dead on the money..."Why should I trust a politician who doesn't trust me with my firearm..."

That is pretty much the litmus test I put to a candidate or elected official before I finally decide to vote for them...

The Wife Unit aqnd myself early voted today...And on our ballot, there were two guys I know for a fact that I would have coin tossed a primary vote for because of their respect for me and you all's position on the issue...I feel extremely good about it, because the shlup who is going to be the nominee did not get my support or vote in the primary...But I feel I will unfortunately have to give him that in November...We all may have to do so...

Unless you vote for the other sides nominee in that race...

I still think we'll have a good check on that job for at least two years, and then decrease the margin even more in 2010...

Its not all over, but we need to remain on top of what is going on, and be prepared for rough seas in the near future...I believe we can weather it together...

[Liberty]

I do not attend political rallies unarmed...If the facility is restricted then I adjust accordingly, or don't go...

I am not a Personal Protection Specialist, nor do I expect someone to assume I should act as one...I carry for myself and others around me per the law...

I happen to be very good friends with many politicians in our area...They know me to be very well rounded politically and have a good handle on issues that makes them feel pretty comfortable with me being around...One or two know that I carry...Thats it...And it is not an issue with them or their capitol security details, I do not give them a reason to have an issue...Unfortunately I feel I somehow earned that, dispite the philisophical quandry and irony that puts me in...So my admission is somewhat hurtful at times because I do not, as a citizen want to ask permission, or live a "please sir, may I have another" type existance...

None of us do...

As someone mentioned in a post to which I most ardently support and believe is dead on the money..."Why should I trust a politician who doesn't trust me with my firearm..."

That is pretty much the litmus test I put to a candidate or elected official before I finally decide to vote for them...

The Wife Unit aqnd myself early voted today...And on our ballot, there were two guys I know for a fact that I would have coin tossed a primary vote for because of their respect for me and you all's position on the issue...I feel extremely good about it, because the shlup who is going to be the nominee did not get my support or vote in the primary...But I feel I will unfortunately have to give him that in November...We all may have to do so...

Unless you vote for the other sides nominee in that race...

I still think we'll have a good check on that job for at least two years, and then decrease the margin even more in 2010...

Its not all over, but we need to remain on top of what is going on, and be prepared for rough seas in the near future...I believe we can weather it together...

Standing in front of a crowd, to present ones perspective, and point of view is to be vulnerable. There isn't a lot of security at most local political events. Many Candidates pack. The smart candidate hopes there are CHLers in the crowd.

[45 4 life]

Why not?

It's not as if no one has ever whacked a presidential candidate before.

If We the People have to spend a few bucks here or there to prevent wanton violence from distorting our process of selecting our next president, I have no problem with that.

This could be a topic by itself, but not on this forum. Misuse of public funds has nothing to do with CHL.

The old slippery slope argument. First we can't hang around presidential candidates while armed to the teeth. Next thing you know, we'll need a permit to tie our shoes.

We pro 2A supporters must rely on politicians to help with the laws that govern were we can and cannot carry. That is our state leadership that supposedly is working for us. It does not set well with me when anyone else whether it was Obama or the SS comes in and over rides out state laws. The laws that we live with day in and day out. That being said, if licensed carry was allowed in and all others were denied I would have no issue. When working as a LEO I was good enough to provide escort service. Know someone wants to tell me I am not worthy.

That's not exactly how it works under the constitution.

Which constitution are you using as reference. The one I use is the one that says we have the right to keep and bear arms. No where in that contitution does it reference citys or states where this right is forbidden.

[frankie_the_yankee]

That's not exactly how it works under the constitution.

Which constitution are you using as reference. The one I use is the one that says we have the right to keep and bear arms. No where in that contitution does it reference citys or states where this right is forbidden.

Read the rest of it.

[boomerang]

Which constitution are you using as reference. The one I use is the one that says we have the right to keep and bear arms. No where in that contitution does it reference citys or states where this right is forbidden.

Read the rest of it.

Especially the 9th and 10th amendments.

[45 4 life]

Read the rest of it.

Supplement: [P. 1514, add to text following n.42:]

Reversing this trend, the Court in 1995 in United States v. Lopez 1 struck down a statute prohibiting possession of a gun at or near a school, rejecting an argument that possession of firearms in school zones can be punished under the Commerce Clause because it impairs the functioning of the national economy. Acceptance of this rationale, the Court said, would eliminate “a[ny] distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local,� would convert Congress’ commerce power into “a general police power of the sort retained by the States,� and would undermine the “first principle� that the Federal Government is one of enumerated and limited powers.2 Application of the same principle led five years later to the Court’s decision in United States v. Morrison 3 invalidating a provision of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) that created a federal cause of action for victims of gender–motivated violence. Congress may not regulate “non– economic, violent criminal conduct based solely on that conduct’s aggregate effect on interstate commerce,� the Court concluded. “[W]e can think of no better example of the police power, which the Founders denied the National Government and reposed in the States, than the suppression of violent crime and vindication of its victims.� 4

This is from reserch on the 10th I am working on the 9th

[45 4 life]

This is the best desription I could find regarding the 9th. It appears to me that the founding fathers felt the need of this ammendment as an umbrella to cover the peoples right that are not clearly listed as out individual rights.

Aside from contending that a bill of rights was unnecessary, the Federalists responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing that inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights it would be dangerous to list some because there would be those who would seize on the absence of the omitted rights to assert that government was unrestrained as to those.1 Madison adverted to this argument in presenting his proposed amendments to the House of Representatives. “It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.�2 It is clear from its text and from Madison’s statement that the Amendment states but a rule of construction, making clear that a Bill of Rights might not by implication be taken to increase the powers of the national government in areas[p.1504]not enumerated, and that it does not contain within itself any guarantee of a right or a proscription of an infringement.3 Recently, however, the Amendment has been construed to be positive affirmation of the existence of rights which are not enumerated but which are nonetheless protected by other provisions.
The Ninth Amendment had been mentioned infrequently in decisions of the Supreme Court4 until it became the subject of some exegesis by several of the Justices in Griswold v. Connecticut.5 There a statute prohibiting use of contraceptives was voided as an infringement of the right of marital privacy. Justice Douglas, writing the opinion of the Court, asserted that the “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.�6 Thus, while privacy is nowhere mentioned, it is one of the values served and protected by the First Amendment, through its protection of associational rights, and by the Third, the Fourth, and the Fifth Amendments as well. The Justice recurred to the text of the Ninth Amendment, apparently to support the thought that these penumbral rights are protected by one Amendment or a complex of Amendments despite the absence of a specific reference. Justice Goldberg, concurring, devoted several pages to the Amendment.

“The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments. . . . To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep–rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth[p.1505]Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment. . . . Nor do I mean to state that the Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of right protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government. Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution’s authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive.�7 While, therefore, neither opinion sought to make of the Ninth Amendment a substantive source of constitutional guarantees, both did read it as indicating a function of the courts to interpose a veto with regard to legislative and executive efforts to abridge other fundamental rights. In this case, both opinions seemed to concur that the fundamental right claimed and upheld was derivative of several express rights and in this case, really, the Ninth Amendment added almost nothing to the argument. But if there is a claim of a fundamental right which cannot reasonably be derived from one of the provisions of the Bill of Rights, even with the Ninth Amendment, how is the Court to determine, first, that it is fundamental, and second, that it is protected from abridgment?8


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[frankie_the_yankee]

Have fun with all those 9A and 10A arguments guys.

Just make sure you never put yourselves in the position of being the test case.

If anyone thinks that the constitution prohibits the federal government from taking whatever security measures deemed necessary to protect either those who hold federal office or those who are running for federal office, they should carefully think again.

For my own part, I'm not going to get drawn into a discussion of whether we have 2A rights to wear suicide bomber vests while standing at a rope line to greet the president because, "..if he won't trust us not to push the button he is not worthy of our trust...", or whatever the absolutist argument of the day happens to be.

[boomerang]

Wow! That explains why you prefer McClinton over a pro-RKBA candidate. You're going to love the next four years!

[tarkus]

Cut him some slack. He's trapped in a Yankee's body.

[anygunanywhere]

Why should we cut yankees some slack?

We are still suffering from the carpetbagger's language in Texas' constitution.

Anygunanywhere
Second Amendment Absolutist

[KBCraig]

If anyone thinks that the constitution prohibits the federal government from taking whatever security measures deemed necessary to protect either those who hold federal office or those who are running for federal office, they should carefully think again.

Whether the Constitution prohibits anything not explicitly authorized is without question. While lawyers may argue it, and even get courts to agree with them, the underlying black-letter law is inarguable.

[stevie_d_64]

For my own part, I'm not going to get drawn into a discussion of whether we have 2A rights to wear suicide bomber vests while standing at a rope line to greet the president because, "..if he won't trust us not to push the button he is not worthy of our trust...", or whatever the absolutist argument of the day happens to be.

Now that is an interesting situation! And no, I am not drawing you into a discussion there...I agree that it is an extreme, but an interesting risk to have to take on both sides of the issue, both a a candidate, or incumbent, and the general spectator...

We see this happening overseas a lot...But fortunately not here...