Carrying loaded guns a few dozen metres from where President Obama is speaking.....

[Bloke 32]

while wearing "THE BLOOD OF TYRANTS!!!" placards is completely above board, while peacefully protesting the bankers who have enriched themselves by destroying your economy is something that merits arrest?

Am I understanding the situation correctly? I do try not to make assumptions about other countries, including yours. I have posed this question twice today, but as yet have not received a substantive answer.

I know that starting a thread before tacking 1000 posts can find one ejected from this website (I know three people here), but I merely wish to clarify if I am "getting," as it were, the events occurring in New York City.

[Dawson Leery]

1. It speaks poorly of the structure of the system.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Yes, you're exactly correct

Except we call them "job creators", not bankers.

Note that a year or so ago, people were also arrested for protesting in favor of *actual* health care reform.

Our country is totally bonkers.

[Coexist]

3. the gun lobby is powerful. JP Morgan is powerful

regular people are not.

[uppityperson]

4. No. The ones yesterday were on a roadway that they weren't allowed on.

The front ones heard the police warn them but proceeded on. The ones further back probably didn't hear the warning and assumed that since the police were walking in front of the group that it was ok. But it wasn't. More like entrapment, luring them into being somewhere that was against the law.

Technically.

There is the "spirit of the law" and the actual rule of the law.

Does this make sense?

[1monster]

25. According to one of our own, Ava, who was there, the people on the bridge were already

cordoned off and not allowed to leave when the "warning" that they'd better get off the bridge or be arrested was made.

And I'm pretty damned sure that the "warning" was made for PR purposes only. So they could CYA and make the demonstrators look bad.

[uppityperson]

26. I was wondering about that. Saw the vid and it could have been most anywhere.

Not enough details to tell.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

68. Yes. What a great answer. You have successfully shed enough reasonable doubt to invalidate the video

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[JDPriestly]

38. Here is the video showing the police entrapping the protestors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz172asCf2M

One of the officers -- a fat one -- literally faces the protestors and encourages them to follow him. It is just awful.

I think it was a way to get the ID info on the protestors for future reference.

The police may have been trying to find out if any of them had outstanding arrest warrants. It was a pretty low thing.

I tell you our country is turning into an authoritarian state as we speak.

I am 68, and I have never seen anything like it in all my life -- signs of an emerging police state are all around. It is as bad as the Southern states in the 1950s and early 1960s, and yes I was there.

[JDPriestly]

37. The police in NY lead the protestors onto the bridge and then

caged them in. It was entrapment -- quite literally. There is a video on Youtube that leaves utterly no doubt about what happened. The police did that deliberately so that they would have an excuse to arrest the protestors who actually entered the bridge on the walkway and were redirected by the police onto the street of the bridge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz172asCf2M

Watch it. It's incredible.

New York City just wasted a lot of money arresting all those marchers. Somebody's head should roll for the sheer waste of it.

I think they just wanted to get the names and ID all the protestors that they could -- so they can cause trouble for them. It's absolutely a violation of the protestors' rights.

[Shagbark Hickory]

5. Because the banksters are more powerful than the president.

When they want protesters dealt with, they deal with it.

Write a check for 4 million USD, problem solved.

[plumbob]

6. All you have to do is remember IOKIYAR.

"It's okay if you're a Republican."

You can call for the death of the President, call for old people to be put down, call for an end to public education, call for disable folks to be put on the streets - IOKIYAR.

On the other hand, not being the first to offer to suck John Orangeboy or Mitch the Chinless Wonders' dicks will you into Gitmo.

Perhaps this will help.

[Bloke 32]

27. That does seem to be the case, does it not?

In addition, there have been people in America who've made dreadfully racist comments about Mr Obama, and they don't seem to pay any penalty for this. Not suggesting they should be jailed, but surely a public shaming would be in order!

[Ikonoklast]

7. The PTB in this country know they have more to fear from a protest

than from a gun.

If you *need* a weapon to make your point, people with reasoning skills above that of an artichoke will think that you are unbalanced.

If you use *words* to make your point clear, thinking people will listen to what you have to say.


Fear can only work for so long.

Reason will win out in the long run.

[louslobbs]

8. I don't see a problem with your understanding of the current corporate America K&R n/t

Lou

[nashville_brook]

9. you are precisely right

[Ready4Change]

10. Would never have been allowed under Bush.

Yet Obama is the evil, gun grabbing denier of rights.

Yep.

[lib2DaBone]

11. People in Ohio can now carry guns in a bar....

Alcohol and Guns.

What could POSSIBLY go wrong?

Oh..btw.. some poor person smoking a harmless marijuana cigarette will be NAILED to a jail cell for 50 years. Carry on.

[TheWraith]

39. Actually, that's the law in almost all states.

44 states now allow carry in places that serve alcohol. It hasn't been a problem, since almost all of them also forbid people from drinking while carrying. Kind of like driving a car. Those who are going to do it won't be deterred by a law saying they can't drive to the bar. ;)

[xoom]

53. +1,000

[reggie the dog]

41. in ohio 100 grams or less of cannabis is a civil citation,

punished by 100 dollars fine, possession of 101 to 200 grams is a misdemenor punished by a fine of up to 200 dollars. you can be a small time dealer and not worry about much at all in ohio

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

65. realiastically, how much weed is "100 grams"?

is that like a joint or a few bowls?

[reggie the dog]

69. 1 gram is about 2 cigarette sized joints

so 100 grams is 100 fat assed joints or about 200 ciggie sized joints, it is a lot of weed,

small time dealers buy a quarter pound (114 grams) and usually break even on the investment by selling 2 of their 4 ounces or about 57 grams.

if you buy weed an "eighth" is 3.5 grams, many users just buy this small quantity for a week and can smoke a joint a day each day of the week off of it, so 100 grams is a shitload that will get you jail in most states. in california only 28 grams is depenalized (an ounce) so in ohio having 200 grams and getting a ticket for 200 dollars is basically defacto acceptation of small time dealing and using.

[spin]

54. People in many states can carry guns in a bar or a restaurant that serves alcohol ...

More States Allowing Guns in Bars
By MALCOLM GAY
Published: October 3, 2010

NASHVILLE — Happy-hour beers were going for $5 at Past Perfect, a cavernous bar just off this city’s strip of honky-tonks and tourist shops when Adam Ringenberg walked in with a loaded 9-millimeter pistol in the front pocket of his gray slacks.

Mr. Ringenberg, a technology consultant, is one of the state’s nearly 300,000 handgun permit holders who have recently seen their rights greatly expanded by a new law — one of the nation’s first — that allows them to carry loaded firearms into bars and restaurants that serve alcohol.

***snip***

Tennessee is one of four states, along with Arizona, Georgia and Virginia, that recently enacted laws explicitly allowing loaded guns in bars. (Eighteen other states allow weapons in restaurants that serve alcohol.) The new measures in Tennessee and the three other states come after two landmark Supreme Court rulings that citizens have an individual right — not just in connection with a well-regulated militia — to keep a loaded handgun for home defense.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/us/04guns.html

(Note the map is outdated since Ohio now allows carry in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol.)

I rarely hear of any problems caused by such laws. While Floridians with a concealed carry permit have been able to carry their weapons into restaurants that serve alcohol since 1987 but not into the bar portion of the establishment, you would think that if there was a serious problem, I would have heard of it by now. I don't hang in bars but I don't fear shootouts in bars if Florida ever does allow concealed carry in them. Imagining the sky will fall is fun but reality is boring.

By the way, I believe that marijuana should be legalized.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

66. I've yet to carry mine into a bar. Maybe tonight.

It will be refreshing not to have to leave it unattended in a car.

[The Doctor.]

12. Institutionalized Insanity.

Read "The Assault on Reason" by Al Gore. You'll get it.

[gristy]

13. Carrying loaded guns a few dozen metres from where President Obama is speaking????

I'll need some pretty good documentation that this ever happened. Can you provide? I doubt it.

[PDJane]

16. Google is your friend.

of course, I remember the incident.

http://www.bvblackspin.com/2009/08/11/obama-town-hall-protester-with-gun/

It's happened more than once:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/17/man-carrying-semi-automat_n_261279.html


An apology to the OP might be in order.

[gristy]

18. Two years ago?

If someone wants to rant about something, and certainly about something that might have happened two years ago, I would expect a link that tells us what he's talking about.

Further, AngkorWot tells us someone might have been several hundred yards away. Certainly NOT a few dozen.

[Bloke 32]

30. Your avatar is quite ironic

Exactly how close would you allow armed men to the president? In Maine, they were outside the building where Mr Obama was speaking. That it was two years ago is irrelevant in its entirety.

[gristy]

33. I certainly would not allow anyone within "a few dozen metres"

And neither does the Secret Service. The OP is full of it.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bloke 32]

55. "Just outside the building" is the phrasing of the report I've heard

You're parsing in terms of distance measuring is what I believe Americans refer to as "a strawman argument."

By the by, why was my initial response to "gristy" deleted?

[Hoopla Phil]

64. Just because it was in print does it make it fact? I've "heard" any number of

outlandish cob-swallow. I'm intelligent enough to know better. You may want to look up the definition of 'strawman'. You don't seem to understand it too well. If you want to know why a post of yours was deleted, you should contact the mods by way of PM.

[AngkorWot]

17. Yeah. William Kostric.

IRRC, he was standing several hundred yards away, was standing on private property, never entered the building where Obama was speaking, and obeyed cops when asked to step back off the sidewalk.

So he never resisted arrest, never blocked traffic, etc.

[RKP5637]

14. It's all very strange, isn't it. I don't get it either, most of the time. The events

demonstrate to me once again that wall street and the banksters run this country, the gov. serves at their pleasure.

[butterfly77]

15. K...

[Hoopla Phil]

19. That never happened.

During the election process there was a legally armed protester outside the secure area that got a lot of press. But he was never anywhere close to "a few dozen metres from where President Obama (was) speaking". Actually, he was never in sight of then candidate Obama.

[Matariki]

20. We wish we knew.

[krispos42]

21. Different states have different laws

New York States does not local firearms preemption, so counties and cities can make their own laws above and beyond the state and federal level.


I would presume that either NYS or NYC has a law against open-carry, so what was legal in New Hampshire or Vermont would not be legal in Manhattan.


However, if many of the protesters were openly carrying, the cops might not be inclined to get so easy with the pepper spray.

:shrug:

[Nye Bevan]

22. Different countries have different peculiarities.

British people find it strange that in America the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution.

Americans find it weird that the head of state of the UK is an unelected monarch, who has the absolute power to veto any law passed by the elected parliament, and that there are still 92 hereditary (unelected) lawmakers in the House of Lords, who have full voting rights on legislation.

And while I don't especially like having a Second Amendment, I would absolutely hate not having a First Amendment, as is the case in the UK. The UK parliament could pass a law tomorrow saying that no newspaper was allowed to criticize the Government, and there would be bugger all anybody could do about it.

[lbrtbell]

24. That's not peculiarity, so much as stupidity

Why would they support the right to bear arms (=armed revolution being what freed us from Britain), when they're dumb enough to let pampered "royalty" have a say in their government?

It's a sheeple mentality that makes even modern-day America look revolutionary, in comparison.

[Bloke 32]

32. Positively hilarious!

"...absolute power to veto any law passed by the elected parliament???"

The Queen is a figurehead, my friend. It has literally been centuries since a British sovereign held such power!

That being said, I find myself in agreement with you in that my country's monarchy is a ludicrous anachronism.

[Nye Bevan]

44. "the Royal Assent is the final step required for a parliamentary bill to become law".

In the United Kingdom the Royal Assent is the final step required for a parliamentary bill to become law. Once a bill is presented to the Sovereign or the Sovereign's representative, he or she has three formal options. Firstly, the Sovereign may grant the Royal Assent, thereby making the bill an Act of Parliament. Secondly, the Sovereign may withhold the Royal Assent, thereby vetoing the bill. Finally, the Sovereign may reserve the Royal Assent, that is to say, defer a decision on the bill until a later time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_assent

[Bloke 32]

56. Have you ever BEEN to the UK?

If the Queen refused assent to any bill passed by Parliament, there'd be a bloody Revolution here!

[Nye Bevan]

58. Maybe, maybe not.

I don't think there was a revolution last time the Royal Assent was refused (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Militia_Bill_1708)

But the point is that as things stand now, no bill actually becomes law until it receives the assent of an unelected, hereditary monarch. Which is just as peculiar as, and probably more so than, the US Constitutional right to bear arms.

[Bloke 32]

59. 1708???

Sixty-eight years before your country even existed! Just come clean and admit you hate England. (I won't be offended: Half the countries on the planet hate us, many of them with bloody good reason!)

[Nye Bevan]

67. I'm actually a big fan of Ed Balls.

I don't know much about his policies, I just love the name.

[in_cog_ni_to]

23. Welcome to DU, Bloke 32! It's pretty bizarre, isn't it? This country is so messed up

right now. Liberals = Bad and Rw Wacko nutjobs = Good. The Corporate owned MSM is complicit in our demise by ignoring the things you question. Now, if the tables were turned and it was a Liberal carrying a gun within 10 freakin' MILES of a RW President, they would be arrested and thrown in jail (under the Patriot Act) immediately and if the protesters were protesting Democratic policy, the MSM would be camped in NYC covering every second of it. Look at how they cover Teabaggers. Look how they tail behind Sarah Palin like she's worthy of news coverage!

Just be happy to be on the other side of the pond. This isn't a good place to be currently.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[Bloke 32]

36. I tried to brush away the fly!

Excellent graphic! And thanks for the warm welcome!

[GreenStormCloud]

28. Hundreds of meters, NOT a few dozen.

When the POTUS goes anywhere a strongly enforced security zones is established around him. Unless you are part of the security detail you will not be allowed to have even an unloaded gun. I strongly suggest that you research the incident.

The protesters were blocking traffic. There was a pedestrian lane that they could have been in but they tried to take over the bridge itself. Other folks do have a right to peacefully go about their business too.

[Bloke 32]

40. More rationalizing?

I thought this was a Democratic site, which is to say, one NOT supportive of repression. These protesters are merely exercising their rights, yet you seem to be taking the side of the power structure, rather than the people. Why is this?

[Tejas]

43. "merely exercising their rights"

That's fine, until they trample the rights of others. It really is that simple.

[GreenStormCloud]

46. What about the right of people to travel on the roads?

Your freedom to protest does not trump my right to travel.

[Bloke 32]

49. Where in your constitution is "freedom to travel" mentioned?

I have read the first amendment to said document, and cannot recall seeing that provision.

[spin]

52. In Florida you can carry a loaded handgun in your car without a license ...

as long as it is "securely encased", for example in your glove box.

The 2011 Florida Statutes

790.25 Lawful ownership, possession, and use of firearms and other weapons.—

***snip***

5) POSSESSION IN PRIVATE CONVEYANCE.—Notwithstanding subsection (2), it is lawful and is not a violation of s. 790.01 for a person 18 years of age or older to possess a concealed firearm or other weapon for self-defense or other lawful purpose within the interior of a private conveyance, without a license, if the firearm or other weapon is securely encased or is otherwise not readily accessible for immediate use. Nothing herein contained prohibits the carrying of a legal firearm other than a handgun anywhere in a private conveyance when such firearm is being carried for a lawful use. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to authorize the carrying of a concealed firearm or other weapon on the person. This subsection shall be liberally construed in favor of the lawful use, ownership, and possession of firearms and other weapons, including lawful self-defense as provided in s. 776.012.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.25.html

Section 790.001(17) defines the term "securely encased" to mean "in a glove compartment, whether or not locked; snapped in a holster; in a gun case, whether or not locked; in a zippered gun case; or in a closed box or container which requires a lid or cover to be opened for access."
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/news/concealed_carry.html

Also individual states have their own Constitutions.

CONSTITUTION

OF THE

STATE OF FLORIDA

AS REVISED IN 1968 AND SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED

***snip***

SECTION 8. Right to bear arms.—
(a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.
(b) There shall be a mandatory period of three days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, between the purchase and delivery at retail of any handgun. For the purposes of this section, “purchase” means the transfer of money or other valuable consideration to the retailer, and “handgun” means a firearm capable of being carried and used by one hand, such as a pistol or revolver. Holders of a concealed weapon permit as prescribed in Florida law shall not be subject to the provisions of this paragraph.
(c) The legislature shall enact legislation implementing subsection (b) of this section, effective no later than December 31, 1991, which shall provide that anyone violating the provisions of subsection (b) shall be guilty of a felony.
(d) This restriction shall not apply to a trade in of another handgun.
History.—Am. C.S. for S.J.R. 43, 1989; adopted 1990.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?Mode=Constitution&Submenu=3&Tab=statutes&CFID=159851843&CFTOKEN=62440497#A1S08

[Hoopla Phil]

60. Where is the right to privacy? The Bill of Rights does not 'grant' any rights

nor are the rights inherent to all Americans all mentioned in the Bill of Rights. You are showing a serious lack of understanding of the U.S. Constitution. Just because a 'right' is not mentioned in the Bill of Rights, does not mean that the right does not exist.

[patrick t. cakes]

72. brilliant

welcome to DU. :thumbsup:

[GreenStormCloud]

75. Case law. Freedom to travel on public roadway is a very important right. N/T

[AngkorWot]

63. So you're saying Democrats aren't capable of rational thought?

Or are you just upset that somebody mixed up rational thought with your outrage?

"one NOT supportive of repression."

Yet you appear to want to repress the right to the open carrying of firearms.

[malaise]

29. Good post

Rec

[kentuck]

31. Excellent question Bloke....

There are some laws for some and there are other laws for others...

[Bloke 32]

61. Thank you, kentuck and malaise

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

[spin]

35. 853,272 people in Florida currently have valid concealed carry permits ...

Therefore it is quite likely that everywhere the President goes in Florida, there are people in the vicinity who are carrying loaded firearms that are hidden from sight.

If you shop in a mall or a store in Florida, it is also quite possible that one or more people near you may have legally concealed firearms. The same applies if you are walking down the street in any Florida city.

Florida has had "shall issue" concealed carry since 1987 and in that period of time only 168 concealed weapons permits have been revoked for a crime involving a firearm after the license was issued. source: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.pdf

You have a higher chance of getting struck by a bolt of lightning in Florida than you do being shot by a person with a concealed weapons permit (assuming that you do not attack such a person with the intention of severely injuring or killing him).

The President has excellent security and therefore is even far less likely than you of being shot in Florida by a person legally carrying a firearm.

It's hard for many people in this country, let alone other nations, to understand that honest and responsible citizens can carry lethal weapons and present very, very little threat to other people. People legally carry firearms all over this nation and no state that has allowed this practice has decided to overturn the law.

[Tejas]

42. Welcome to Mayor Bloomberg's world.

[fasttense]

45. Teabaggers are funded and supported by tyrants such as the Koch brothers, Wal-Mart billionaires and

JP Morgan. Occupy Wall Street is an unauthorized protest and it will be suppressed at every opportunity by the landlords of our democracy. It is not authorized by our billionaire banksters, lord and masters of all our national wealth, like the teabaggers are authorized to spit on congressmen, carry weapons at Presidential rallies and beat up counter-protesters.

[GreenStormCloud]

47. No one, not even a teabagger, can carry a loaded gun at a POTUS rally. N/T

[Bloke 32]

57. I have made no such claim, sir

But it is permissible "just outside the building" where the president is making an appearance. (Your news reportage, not ours.)

[Hoopla Phil]

62. Hundreds of yards and out of sight does not equate to "a few meters".

Just because it appears in print, does not make it so. (I have found that your "reportage" is just as accurate as ours.)

[Bloke 32]

70. A few DOZEN metres, sir!

Once again, I ask: Why are you seeking to justify the racist, lunatic fringe in your country?

[GreenStormCloud]

74. To protect my rights I must also protect theirs.

Rights are NOT dependent upon the political stance of the person. If he can lose his rights to a legal activity because of he political views, then so can I when the political climate changes. I have a Concealed Handgun License and routinely carry a gun everywhere I go, with the exception of those places where it is forbidden.

[Hoopla Phil]

76. A few hundred metres more like - NOT dozen. AND it was out of sight,

down the block, around the corner and way the Hell away from the secure area from then candidate Obama.

You are asking questions from a straw man perspective and assume many things not established. As you did not link to any incident in your O.P. I will fill in the blank with two incidents of people openly bearing arms in the area of candidate Obama. Both individuals were later interviewed and well investigated after the incidents. Neither was found to be connected to any "racist" or "lunatic fringe" organizations. In fact, one of the individuals was an African-American. I bet you didn't know that because the reporting of that individual cropped all the photos to only display the rifle, and never allowed view of the persons skin color. (race agenda maybe?)

As far as a person exercising their rights go, I support that. Do you?

[GreenStormCloud]

73. I was responding to poster #45 who does make that claim. N/T

[DirkGently]

48. Rightwing threats of violence are patriotic. Liberal protest is subversive. Uh, we heard.

[aikoaiko]

50. Getting arrested while protesting depends on where one is standing, literally and figuratively

such is the way of the world.

[Iggo]

51. "Metres"? Don't give it to me in Nazi distance!

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.