Homeland Security Officials to Restrict Gun Carrying

[Guest redbarron06]

Norton Calls on Homeland Security Officials to Restrict Gun Carrying Outside Public Events Where President and Federal Officials Appear in D.C. and Nationwide

August 19, 2009

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), who sits on the Homeland Security Committee, today called on the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and U.S. Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan to restrict the carrying of weapons openly or concealed in or around the areas where the President of the United States and cabinet officials are appearing, following reports, photos, and videos of people carrying guns outside of an Obama town hall meeting in Arizona earlier this week. Norton said that this restriction is particularly necessary in the nation's capital, where recently filed litigation seeks to overturn D.C. law in order to allow residents and visitors to carry concealed guns in public.

The President, cabinet officials and other top foreign and domestic officials regularly travel in motorcades in the nation's capital. The risks of public shootings, which threaten homeland security, have been minimized by gun laws in the District that restrict both open and concealed gun carrying in public. After a Norton hearing last session that revealed that a similar bill would have allowed the open carrying of weapons in the District, even the National Rifle Association voluntarily withdrew the dangerous provisions.

Norton said that a reported 10 to 12 people were carrying weapons in Arizona on Tuesday in the vicinity of President Obama's appearance. "I seek no change in the local laws of other jurisdictions, and ask only respect for gun laws in my own district," Norton said. "However, it is clear that if the Secret Service can temporarily clear all aircraft from air space when the President is in the vicinity, the agency has the authority to clear guns on the ground that is even closer to the President."

The Congresswoman said that she hopes that increasingly brazen NRA attempts to nationalize its no-holds barred approach to guns has finally gotten the attention of federal authorities. "The NRA's most recent actions show that the NRA intends to go national on the Ensign amendment approach, the amendment attached to the Senate version of the D.C. Voting Rights bill that would abolish all gun laws in the District," Norton said. She cited the recently defeated Thune amendment to permit the carrying of weapons openly as evidence that the NRA is pressing nationwide its view that there should be no local limits on guns in the nation's capital or elsewhere. "The NRA is using the District as a test case because it is uniquely subject to Congressional dictates. Both in the courts and in Congress, beginning with the violation of D.C.'s home rule right to enact its own gun safety laws, the NRA is on a national gun campaign," she said. However, the NRA suffered a surprise setback in the defeat of the Thune amendment to the defense authorization bill, which would have allowed gun owners to carry concealed weapons across state lines, violating restrictions in other jurisdictions. A similar but even more radical section in the Ensign amendment would make a unique exception for the nation's capital to become the only U.S. jurisdiction where people could cross state lines to purchase handguns and bring them back, facilitating gun running by criminals, terrorists or gangs intent on breaching homeland security in the National Capital Region or public peace in neighborhoods.

Here we go again, "we be de Gubment and your state laws doen mean **** to us". On top of that the beech knows she cant make it a law so she is just going to circumvent the Constitution and make a "regulation".

Ohh I forgot to cite the scorce of teh story incase sombody thinks it came off of WMD or something like that.

http://www.norton.house.gov/index.php?opti...4&Itemid=88 it came off of her officical web site provided by your tax $$.

[Garufa]

Well who didn't see this coming?

[BrasilNuts]

I think there should be a regulation stating that the President of the United States and cabinet officials can not move openly or concealed in or around the areas where my guns are appearing.

Sounds like a common sense reg. to me.

Edited August 22, 2009 by BrasilNuts

[Guest crotalus01]

Two words: BULL $H1T!!!

[Guest mcgyver210]

No one has done anything so where is the problem? Federal Government doesn't respect the States or the US Constitution period & every-time something doesn't go the way the crooks sorry politicians want it they just create a new law. Besides all the laws do is prevent honest law abiding people from doing things since dishonest people don't care either way.

Edited August 22, 2009 by mcgyver210

[Guest jth_3s]

I said this about the guy carrying the AR-15 and people thought i was crazy.

This man wanted attention and he got it, but He did more to hurt the 2A than Help it. If people keep Open Carrying at these Presidential events it is likely to swing alot of moderates to antis. If he wanted to make a statement by legally carrying his Long Gun he should have done it when the president was out of town. If he was concerned about his safety he should have CC and not got on a Camera for the MSM to make us look like a but of wackos. I know some say a right not exercised is a right lost but actions like this could lead to new Federal Gun Laws. With the power that the Anti's have gained since November I dont think we should be giving them ammo! The Brady Bunch is already using this as a rally cry.

[Guest PapaB]

Norton said:

"However, it is clear that if the Secret Service can temporarily clear all aircraft from air space when the President is in the vicinity, the agency has the authority to clear guns on the ground that is even closer to the President."

Of course they can. Everyone knows that there's a Constitutional Amendment on using airspace. Do they clear the airspace between her ears when Obama is nearby?

[Guest HexHead]

Weren't the individuals with the guns nowhere near where Obama was expected?

[Guest 3pugguy]

Here we go again, "we be de Gubment and your state laws doen mean **** to us". On top of that the beech knows she cant make it a law so she is just going to circumvent the Constitution and make a "regulation".

Ohh I forgot to cite the scorce of teh story incase sombody thinks it came off of WMD or something like that.

http://www.norton.house.gov/index.php?opti...4&Itemid=88 it came off of her officical web site provided by your tax $$.

It's interesting the Secret Service, whom I don't think play games, don't seem as concerned as the asshats like this Congresswoman.

The safety of a U.S. President is not a joke nor something viewed lightly. So my view is if the folks charged with that serious task are not concerned, then others should sit down and STFU. Especially the sissies on TV who would scream like a scalded squirrel if someone said boo to them, yet they decry the fact citizens can have gun. And this is a group who expect an armed and immediate response from LEOs if the aforementioned BOO is said to them and they are wetting their pants.

[Guest 3pugguy]

I think there should be a regulation stating that the President of the United States and cabinet officials can not move openly or concealed in or around the areas where my guns are appearing.

Sounds like a common sense law to me.

There you go!

Kind of like my idea that is the politicians and Soccer Mommies are hiding behind "children" as the reason to ban guns in parks, then BAN THE KIDS (and my disclaimer as when I wrote this elsewhere, just kiddin' - mostly).

[Guest 3pugguy]

Weren't the individuals with the guns nowhere near where Obama was expected?

Secret Service didn't seem too upset, Hex and I agree with you - not like they were next to the podium.

[Guest H0TSH0T]

*uck all that, people make laws to make actions they can't control illegal, the other reason is to protect stupid people, in this case both are applicable, they, law enforcement cant control the speed of peoples cars, they cant control the behavior of people, sure they can try, however the more pressure to push the citizens to their knees to submit to the stupidity of someone else, the more people will resist and will result in a death spiral of human reasoning. If nobody was hurt, threatened, and no real law was broken what is the problem, after all this is the SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF THE AMERICAS? or are we free people that do as we wish as long as it harms nobody but our selves. I am afraid that the lack of respect of the government towards the everyday people that elected them, is the sole reason why these assembly are taking place, if they were doing as they said this would not be an issue. I don't blame any law abiding citizen for standing up for what is right or wrong to them, I do wish people would think beyond just them selves as far as resolve and the perception of their resolve.

But if your taxed beyond the means to take care of your family, your taxes are squandered on irrelevant crap like, to count the stars in the sky, or sands on our beaches, or global stupidity, sorry warming, and scamming people with carbon credits, and other out right bull ****, then turn around and dictate what someone must spend their hard earned money on, like the 8% tax for supporting this national health-care crap. i can see why people are going to show off a strong opposition.

after all we just got though seeing the government destroy the housing market by controlling the standards of banks, and risky loans with the irresponsible citizens.

then force into the hands of the banks, thus destroying good banking standards, they had to seek help with the insurance companies.

thus destroying some large firms, like aig, and seeking a bailout from the citizens, the government forced though the stimulus bill and further pushed the citizens onto their knees. And other than that have done no real good.

now we are being told on how our health would be better in the hands of the government, heck i cant even agree on telling my neighbor what to eat, or drink, or what color to paint his home, and this is someone that knows me very well, and i am supposed to let someone that has taken every action to destroy anything that would have otherwise improved my standard of living, i call bull ****

i will just not support a system that makes the citizens the enemy, i don't want a fight, i don't want my rights trampled on, but i will still defend my life, but i will not finance other peoples stupidity, i will finance my own first.

sorry for the rant, here is the bottom line, If our leaders were so respected and admired by the citizens, why do they need 24hr protection, is it for the non-citizens in this country? just gonna point this out that in some other countries, the leader walks freely amongst the people, travels freely among the people, and believe it or not the people care for the well being of the leader, we don't have a leader we have a poster boy of what a leader should look like, but down to the core of a leader must care about its people if the leader wishes to be cared for. step after wobbaly step we are not lead but pushed out of fear and imaginary issues that don't matter so we will destroy our own freedoms.

[Guest HexHead]

I'm in favor of these guys that show up at the rallies armed. It serves as a reminder of the real meaning of the 2nd Amendment, to give the people the means to resist a tyrannical government. And Zer0bama is certainly leading us down that path.

[timcalhoun]

I'm in favor of these guys that show up at the rallies armed. It serves as a reminder of the real meaning of the 2nd Amendment, to give the people the means to resist a tyrannical government. And Zer0bama is certainly leading us down that path.

+1

Plus if administrations would focus on reform that an overwhelming majority of americans can support they wouldn't need to fear the people. And this is a reaction due to fear.

[Guest Ghostrider]

I tried to send her an email through her site and it reject it and reset the connection.

Very interactive site....

[DaveTN]

It's interesting the Secret Service, whom I don't think play games, don't seem as concerned as the asshats like this Congresswoman.

The safety of a U.S. President is not a joke nor something viewed lightly. So my view is if the folks charged with that serious task are not concerned, then others should sit down and STFU.

Certainly they are concerned. Have you talked to them? But they don’t play politics. They will deal with any threat with extreme prejudice. They have immunity.

[Guest GunTroll]

They (DC Types) should just stay in their bubble in the land of BS (DC) and rub elbows with each other. Every time they go out in the real world and mingle with the common folks (you and me). They get all scared and hatch up new ideas to keep "us" safe from ourselves. Hell its was AZ! Land of guns! I was just there in early June. Great place for firearm freedom. Mexican food too. Freshly made from freshly illegal aliens.

[Guest 3pugguy]

Certainly they are concerned. Have you talked to them? But they don’t play politics. They will deal with any threat with extreme prejudice. They have immunity.

so I haven't talked to the Secret Service lately - if you have, will you share any non-classified info? I have had the honor of meeting some of them in the past - very impressive people. I was simply stating my opinion from what I have read and heard in news reports and about this overreaction of a congresswoman (and others such as some media types).

But thanks for clearing this up and letting me know these things; stupid me, I thought the Secret Service guys with the radios, guns, and extensive training on how to protect our President - even to the point of giving their own life - (and who I dealt with when in Coronado when Clinton was in office and visiting his late pal Larry Lawrence) were just there for show.

And gosh, who would think they would deal with an imminent threat with "extreme prejudice" and remain neutral (non-political).

Hopefully someone can tell me what those guys with the neat rubber boots and big red ladder trucks do next time.

I'll stay tuned. I learn so much in this forum.

[Guest justme]

Certainly they are concerned. Have you talked to them? But they don’t play politics. They will deal with any threat with extreme prejudice. They have immunity.

Since when does the SS have immunity? Even they can be sued if they injure an innocent bystander, and even a member of the SS can be arrested for commission of a crime.

They did not seem too concerned about the guys carrying outside the secure perimeter. I am all for carrying at these events--and wish more would. Just because the President is coming does not mean the Constitution is automatically suspended...

[DaveTN]

Since when does the SS have immunity? Even they can be sued if they injure an innocent bystander, and even a member of the SS can be arrested for commission of a crime.

Do you know that? Do you know that the Presidents Security detail is not immune from criminal or civil liability? If so, how do you know that?

[Guest beefcakeb0]

i have read of all sorts of lawsuits on the secret service. and this is total fn bs, first step to total revockation, sorry to say

[DaveTN]

i have read of all sorts of lawsuits on the secret service. and this is total fn bs, first step to total revockation, sorry to say

You have read of all kinds of lawsuits against individual Agents of the Presidential Security Detail?

Post one.

[USMCJG]

Certainly they are concerned. Have you talked to them? But they don’t play politics. They will deal with any threat with extreme prejudice. They have immunity.

From this article- Man carries assault rifle to Obama protest -- and it's legal - CNN.com :

Asked whether the individuals carrying weapons jeopardized the safety of the president, (Secret Service spokesman)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.

In both instances, the men carrying weapons were outside the venue where Obama was speaking.

"We pay attention to this obviously ... to someone with a firearm when they open carry even when they are within state law," Donovan said. "We work with our law enforcement counterparts to make sure laws and regulations in their states are enforced."

The Secret Service doesn't seem all that concerned to me. Duly diligent yes, but certainly not overly concerned.

[USMCJG]

You have read of all kinds of lawsuits against individual Agents of the Presidential Security Detail?

Post one.

Search for Secret Service sued on Yahoo and you can find dozens and dozens of cases where individual agents of the Secret Service and the Secret Service itself have been sued. Nearly all of the lawsuits I saw were brought by anti-Bush protesters.

[Guest beefcakeb0]

thanx i was just about to say that

i dont have a pc, so it will take me a bit to post links, because my ppc's battery is dead, but if you just google: secret service sued like he said there are many suits