Homeland Security Officials to Restrict Gun Carrying

[Guest beefcakeb0]

Steve Jackson Games v. US Secret Service

[Guest beefcakeb0]

www.talkleft.com/howardscomplaint.pdf

[Guest justme]

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?

No really...you are kidding right?

Agents of the federal government--which the Secret service definitely is--are not immune to the laws just because of their jobs. They commit a crime, they can be prosecuted just like anyone else can--just ask former FBI SA Robert Hanson if he was immune to laws because he worked for the government...

It is irregardless of where in the agency they work--the agents are still employed by the Secret Service, still in the United States and still under United States and local laws--they are not above them because of the nature of their work.The SS is just as liable for criminal infractions committed as anyone else, and are just as liable in civil court as well.

That is like saying a particular branch of the federal law enforcement can do whatever they please, hurt anyone they please and they can't be touched--that is ridiculous.

Here is one story about a Presidential security detail agent who was sued ...http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5039230,00.html

This is a by far better article on the same story...http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/us/18colorado.html?pagewanted=all

I also found two news stories of where one uniformed SS agent was arrested in a prostitution sting: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/10/AR2008111000586.html

another agent was arrested in Waco: http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/3448481.html

just because they work for the SS does not make them arrest proof, or sue proof.

Edited August 26, 2009 by justme

[Guest beefcakeb0]

what he was hinting at was that the actual presidential detail has immunity, still not true.

[Guest 3pugguy]

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...

I did a quick search and believe they have qualified immunity and there is some case law, especially regarding arrests, investigations, etc, resulting from threats on a President's life. I would think more info could be found if you have the time to go thru findlaw or other such sites.

Since I am not a lawyer but do think I am a fairly reasonable person, I would think shooting an innocent bystander accidentally (while tragic) would not automatically infer the agent(s) would be charged criminally and would also hope they have protection for any potential civil tort actions.

That said, given the lawsuit happy times we live in and because the Secret Service has such an incredible responsibility, I would HOPE the agents do have some stronger protection than LEOs (no offense to LEOs); of course, from my non-LEO layman view, I think it ridiculous the extreme scrutiny provided for any shooting by law enforcement agencies.

Again, that is simply my non-LEO view that our police get grilled for doing their jobs, due the aforementioned "let's sue" mentality of so many in our country. And my opinion is not some fringe view asserting the police should be allowed to shoot folks willy-nilly - whether local or federal.

My two and a half cents.

[Guest 3pugguy]

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.

That was what I was referring to when I first replied in this thread, i.e. the Secret Service was not concerned because they had it handled - as they do so well.

But, I find it equally interesting MSNC did not show the race of the person only the gun. Plant, anyone?

Frank Rich of the NYT wrote one of his typical left-leaning articles about it.

[Guest justme]

I did a quick search and believe they have qualified immunity and there is some case law, especially regarding arrests, investigations, etc, resulting from threats on a President's life. I would think more info could be found if you have the time to go thru findlaw or other such sites.

Since I am not a lawyer but do think I am a fairly reasonable person, I would think shooting an innocent bystander accidentally (while tragic) would not automatically infer the agent(s) would be charged criminally and would also hope they have protection for any potential civil tort actions.

That said, given the lawsuit happy times we live in and because the Secret Service has such an incredible responsibility, I would HOPE the agents do have some stronger protection than LEOs (no offense to LEOs); of course, from my non-LEO layman view, I think it ridiculous the extreme scrutiny provided for any shooting by law enforcement agencies.

Again, that is simply my non-LEO view that our police get grilled for doing their jobs, due the aforementioned "let's sue" mentality of so many in our country. And my opinion is not some fringe view asserting the police should be allowed to shoot folks willy-nilly - whether local or federal.

My two and a half cents.

I don't see how qualified immunity can extend to a person that hurts an innocent person, and that is the gist of what is being got at here--that regardless of what they do--the agents of the SS--regardless of whether they are on the Presidential security detail or not--that they can get away with anything--violations of civil rights, assaults, abuse, shooting an innocent person--and all they have to claim is they were doing their job...and everything is automatically ok, and no lawsuits can be filed, and they can't be arrested--and I don't see how it is true. The SS is just as subject to local and state laws as are anyone else--commit a state crime, and they can be arrested, assault a person and they can have charges pressed against them, get intoxicated and they can be arrested, get caught up in a sex sting--and they can be arrested. No special protections apply to them when they commit a crime...

if I am wrong, then by all means I would like to see where.

I don't want them to have any additional protective measures against lawsuits--and it would just overjoy me to no end to see the "doctrine of qualified immunity" rescinded--so that it can never again apply to anyone in the public service for them to hide behind.

Having a sue-happy society is a good thing--it might make the "protective services" more inclined to think before they act in a way that would get them sued.

[Guest 3pugguy]

Well, that wasn't what I was getting at - thus qualified, as in the injury or death was unforeseeable and accidental.

Rights abuses - different topic and a rabbit hole I have no intention of going into.

But I would disagree that a "sue happy" atmosphere benefits anyone other than lawyers.

Just one guy's opinion.

[Guest justme]

Well, that wasn't what I was getting at - thus qualified, as in the injury or death was unforeseeable and accidental.

Rights abuses - different topic and a rabbit hole I have no intention of going into.

But I would disagree that a "sue happy" atmosphere benefits anyone other than lawyers.

Just one guy's opinion.

I disagree--I think a sue happy society can make the "public services" sector more inclined to watch their steps. That is one reason why I am for expanding civil rights protections to gun owners--incorporate the 2nd Amendment, make it more difficult for the police or the feds to simply disarm you just because they want to--but make them have a legitimate reason that can be articulated. I would like to see handgun possession decriminalized for the law abiding people. I would like to see carry without a permit--both OC and CC allowed. I would like to see all Constitutional rights strengthened.

As for rights abuses--that is the gist of what is being discussed by wanting to expand protections to the SS, as well as to the police. They should not be protected for rights abuses. But I agree to not step into that hole here.

"qualified" meaning that the events were unforseeable or unintended--I still disagree. If a police officer/fed shoots a suspect, and the round passes through the suspect and strikes an innocent bystander--then that officer/agent should be held to account, financially and/or criminally--because they shot an innocent person without cause, whether it was intended or not. It would be that way for the people. shoot an innocent person while defending yourself--round pass through the criminal for example and strikes an innocent person--even though you never intended for that to happen--and you can bet--you're gonna get sued and you are more than likely to be arrested and charged with a crime.

No special protections unless those same protections extend to the people at large. I would like to see qualified immunity rescinded--unless qualified immunity also extends to the people--if that was the case--then I would be fine with it..

Edited August 28, 2009 by justme