Man With Open Carry Near Obama – Horrors, Gasp, Awful!

[Bunkins]

Wow, That guy did a better job holding his tongue better than I would have.. If anyone spoke to me like that, I'm afraid I'd probably go off. If anyone did that to my face there would be more than words.... He did a good job...

Although I didnt like his answer to the question of why he brought a gun.. My answer would have been to practice my rights, and protection ( those are 2 of the biggest reason's we carry isnt it? )...

He stayed a lot calmer than I would have, I dont take people shouting at me very well..

[Frost]

Independent interview(link) with much more useful information.

[Purplehood]

Those were some of the most level-headed responses that I have ever seen to a blatant badgering fool.

[Dave01]

The man, it is said, had a permit, had a registered gun, and had permission from the property owner (church property) to be on the property with his open carry gun.

It is my understanding that NH is an unlicensed open carry state. What is this business about a permit (I don't think they have registration either)? It doesn't seem the author knows much about the NH firearms laws either.

Dave

[A-R]

Got into a discussion on Facebook last night after posting one of these videos. The opinions expressed by people who claim to be "pro-gun" (and those who are obviously anti-gun) are eye-opening. I always find it informative to discuss gun-related topics with the "general population" (friends, family, acquaintances who are not necessarily as pro-gun as I). I've purposely removed names to protect privacy of all involved. What follows is the word-for-word transcript of the debate (all three of the "others" work for major newspapers - as I once did) ...

CB C'mon. Legal or not, having a gun anywhere near the President is idiotic. I'm overall pro-gun rights, but there's just no need in that situation. It's almost like he was hoping to get in the news.

CB As a matter of fact, after watching the Matthews clip, I'm convinced that guy is a nut job. I might have shot him if I was Secret Service.

ME (AustinRealtor) It probably was a media "stunt". But why is it idiotic to carry a gun around an elected leader? I was carrying a gun just last week standing right next to Rick Perry. Nobody seemed bothered by that. And yes, I'm serious. And since when do you or anyone else get to determine another law-abiding citizen's "need" to carry a gun?

ME (AustinRealtor) If you had shot him - Secret Service or not - you'd rightfully be going to prison for murder.

PM Yeah, I would to side with CB on this one. It's like texting and driving or coming home with a blonde ... some things should just be common sense not to do.

ME (AustinRealtor) Look, the only reason this is even a story is because he was "open carrying" which is LEGAL in New Hampshire, where "concealed carry" is illegal. Flip this scenario and put the President in Texas and I guarantee you there are people legally "concealed carrying" near politicians all the time. But it's "concealed" so the tepid amongst us don't get their panties in a twist at the sight of - oh my gosh - a person who is not a police officer possessing a gun.

ME (AustinRealtor) Folks in New Hampshire don't have the option to "concealed carry" so - if they choose to defend themselves by legally carrying a firearm - their only option is to do so "openly". Should this guy give up his God-given right to self-defense because a politician is in town?

CB I'd rank "carrying a gun in the vicinity of a President" probably No. 1 on the list of most idiotic things you could do. It would be close between that and having unprotected sex in Haiti.

CB that guy even picks up a scratch on his leg or cocks his knee up and he's dead when the motorcade comes by. guarantee there were sights on him.

ME (AustinRealtor) If you're carrying said gun legally, and following all relevant laws at all times, there is nothing "idiotic" about it. Now, if the Secret Service had asked the guy to leave or to relinquish his firearm while the President was there, then he should do so (whether or not the SS has the legal right to even make such request/demand). It's important not to let a righteous stance turn into you getting the **** kicked out of you by men with guns AND badges.

PM Dude.... "legal" doesn't always mean "right"

ME (AustinRealtor) PM, explain that one to me. I didn't say this guy was "right" (nor did I say he was "wrong"). I'm not even saying I would do the same thing in his shoes. But that's the whole point. We're not in his shoes. We don't know why he did what he did. And frankly, it doesn't matter ... and here is where the "legal" part comes .... BECAUSE it is legal, it doesn't matter whether we would do it or whether we think it was a "good idea" or not. As you said, some may think taking home a blonde from a bar is not a good idea ... but it's legal, so live and let live.

ME (AustinRealtor) But I do draw the line at calling it "idiotic"; carrying a gun in and of itself is not "idiotic" regardless of what dignitary may be nearby ..... now, if he had made a motion toward the gun while the Prez was in vicinity, then yeah that would be "idiotic" and he would deserve two .357 Sig HPs right in the chest from every SS agent within 25 yards.

MC "I was carrying a gun just last week standing right next to Rick Perry."
And you didn't cap him? what the heck???
Seriously, handguns in populated areas are for one thing only: killing people. If you think it's fine to "carry" a gun in that situation, then by extension you think it's fine to kill people. Not only is that against God's law and man's law, but for guys like PM and me, who are old enough to actually remember the Kennedy assassination(s), a guy casually bearing a gun within easy shooting range of a U.S. president of any stripe is an abomination.

PM I simply mean that it may be legal to drive 65 on U.S. 290, but in the midst of a driving rainstorm it may not be advisable. Sometimes you have to take the situation into consideration.

ME (AustinRealtor) MC, that is a HUGE leap in logic to suggest that simply by carrying a gun in a populated area the ONLY possible motivation is "killing people" .... how about "saving people"??? Police carry guns - are they all just murderers waiting to happen? Or do they carry a gun in case they may need it to save their life or the lives of others by stopping a violent criminal who is unlawfully using force (or deadly force) against innocent people .... the fastest way to stop an aggressive attack by a living/breathing attacker is to shoot that attacker with a gun (and even this won't immediately stop the attack like you see in the movies) ... this goes for wild animals and violent, criminal people

ME (AustinRealtor) Again, I'm not necessarily saying I would have done what this guy did. But I won't label him idiotic for doing so. There are legitimate reasons he may have done so.

MC Name one. And no, it's no leap in logic at all. If you want to save people, be a lifeguard. Feed 'em salads and tofu. Cure cancer. How many murders are committed with handguns, vs. how many are prevented by killers being shot with handguns every year? The ratio is something like 500 to 1. Pretending you're going to be Captain America and shoot someone before they shoot you or someone else is born of watching too many Westerns and cop shows. Handguns are made for shooting people, pure and simple.

CB lol ... name a single legitimate reason.

ME (AustinRealtor) The legitimate reason he may have been carrying a handgun is obviously for self-defense. As for your reasoning NOT to carry a gun for self-defense, you make valid points and if you choose not to carry a gun because of those reasons, then I have no qualms with your decision. But some people feel the need or the responsibility to do all they can to protect themselves and their family from crime. The whole "Captain America" and "too many Westerns" comments are simplistic cop-out. Again, if it was not possible to shoot a bad guy before he shoots you, then why do LEOs carry guns? With proper training, a handgun can be an incredibly powerful self-defense tool that often does not even need to be fired to fend off a potential threat. But there's not enough space in a FB post to continue to explain why a handgun is a perfectly legitimate means of self-defense ....

ME (AustinRealtor) Oh and there are many handguns that are specifically made for shooting pieces of paper. I own a few handguns and none of them has ever shot a person (or another living thing for that matter), but I've shot many many pieces of paper.

CB I'll just end it on this. Carrying a gun within the vicinity of the President is "100% Idiotic," and you defending that action is pretty lame and shocking given your inspiring reaction to 9-11. I'll support having the gun to protect the family or keeping it in your car, but lines must be drawn.

ME (AustinRealtor) CB, do you even know for sure the guy had the gun anywhere near the President? I don't. He had it while carrying a sign near where the President "would be speaking in two hours" ... if the Secret Service asked him to leave or turn over his gun temporarily and he did so, is he still an idiot? Frankly, if this is NOT what happened, then it is the SS and the President's planners who are idiots for not holding this town hall meeting in a "secure" venue. I don't know NH law, but in Texas all that is required is for the owner of the property to say "no guns allowed" and/or post the proper sign banning guns on the private property and then no civilian can legally carry a gun there (the penalty for violating this is criminal trespassing).

CB the level of media attention it received leads me to believe that it was a legitimate security risk. definitely fault of the SS and planners to let it happen. 100% media stunt.

ME (AustinRealtor) just because some talking heads on MSNBC got frazzled does not make this a "legitimate security risk"

ME (AustinRealtor) a different interview with the guy who was carrying the gun by some sort of YouTube wanna-be reporter does shed some light on a few of the questions. He WAS asked to leave, and was in process of leaving, when a preacher at a church offered to let him stand on the church's private property. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0Tas00WZ0Q" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[frazzled]

-Legal? sounds like it.
-Dangerous? only if within range of el Presidente
-I agree if the SS asked him then he should have immediately put it away or gone into the church (church right? ). I imagine they would have been all over him if they thought he was a threat. As I don't think they did then there's no issue. Whats the issue again?

[Frost]

It is my understanding that NH is an unlicensed open carry state. What is this business about a permit (I don't think they have registration either)? It doesn't seem the author knows much about the NH firearms laws either.

There is an exception to the federal gun free zchool zone law for people that have a license from the state to carry. There might be a bit of a grey area since he had a concealed license and he was carrying openly. You are correct that there is no license needed for open carry in NH; in the interview i posted he states that he has a CHL. The gun registration comment is erroneous i believe.

[blc]

For the media, this is easy:

Person with Gun = Criminal (or wacko).

Done.

[jimlongley]

-Legal? sounds like it.

No sound needed. It's legal, the Chief of Police stated as much.

-Dangerous? only if within range of el Presidente

How, and to whom, is it dangerous? Maybe it's dangerous to the law abiding citizen whose rights are in jeopardy because the media and secret police, oops, Secret Service, want to take his gun away, but he's no danger to bam-bam just because he's wearing a gun.

-I agree if the SS asked him then he should have immediately put it away or gone into the church (church right? ). I imagine they would have been all over him if they thought he was a threat. As I don't think they did then there's no issue. Whats the issue again?

I disagree well beyond respectfully. The SS has no right to ask him to put it away and he shouldn't have to obey them just because they feel like it, he was breaking no laws.

The gun registration comment is erroneous i believe.

All the media see to believe that gun registration exists throughout the country, and when told otherwise they get all whiney and want to know why, just as those idiots did about why he was allowed to be carrying in close proximity to where the president might be arriving in an hour and a half. It's incomprehensible to me that these people do not recognize their own stupidity and hypocrisy.

[jimlongley]

I have carried arms length from Rick Perry and in as close proximity to several presidential candidates, including bam-bam, as the person in question.

[texxas guy]

Wow! What an angry man.

Chris Matthews was wanting to rattle this guy - but instead Chris was rattled because the guy was very well spoken and would not allow himself to be shaken. This guy did an amazing job!

+ 1000

[tarkus]

That Chris Matthews guy is nuts. I was waiting for him to demand they tear down the church because it's near a school.

[Rex B]

There was a time I watched Hardball, but I got disgusted about the time the last election cycle started up.
Matthews was frothing at the mouth. He seemed to be just about to go Carpet Muncher!

But the open carry guy (what was his name?) did a great job!

[TheArmedFarmer]

But the open carry guy (what was his name?) did a great job!

William Kostric is the name of this heroic patriot.

[frazzled]

-Legal? sounds like it.

No sound needed. It's legal, the Chief of Police stated as much.

I agree

-Dangerous? only if within range of el Presidente

How, and to whom, is it dangerous? Maybe it's dangerous to the law abiding citizen whose rights are in jeopardy because the media and secret police, oops, Secret Service, want to take his gun away, but he's no danger to bam-bam just because he's wearing a gun.

Its a simple statement. If he's within a pistol shot of the President they are going to remove the gun or him. We've had multiple Presidents assassinated. Presidents get death threats daily. This is not your normal situation. USSS routinely perform security requests of people nearby to protect the President. There was an instance at a golf course where the USSS asked those with houses on the course to pull down their blinds for a period of time. For every right there is a responsibility, and in this instance its the responsibility of the carrier to not to act like an idiot.

Clearly the USSS did not believe he was within threat distance, and clearly he was not acting like such, so this is an argument about nothing.

-I agree if the SS asked him then he should have immediately put it away or gone into the church (church right? ). I imagine they would have been all over him if they thought he was a threat. As I don't think they did then there's no issue. Whats the issue again?

I disagree well beyond respectfully.

**** Go off the deep end much? Looking to start a fight for no reason with someone who agrees with the rights of the carrier?

The SS has no right to ask him to put it away and he shouldn't have to obey them just because they feel like it, he was breaking no laws.

See above. He has the duty not to be less than intelligent and flash a gun within effective range of the President. As stated above, the USSS routinely ask people to take certain measures to protect the immediate safety of the President. These abridgements are temporary and reasonable, just as when police stop traffic for a motorcade. Clearly in this instance he was using both his First and Second Amendment rights in an appropriate responsible manner and again, there's no issue.