Bernard Kerik

[Texgun]

I am not comforted by these comments. How do the members of this forum feel about this article?

Armed Protests Jeopardize the President, Public

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 1:13 PM

By: Bernard Kerik Article Font Size




According to a number of press reports, about a dozen people carrying guns, including one with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle slung over his shoulder, stood among protesters outside a convention center in Arizona where President Barack Obama was giving a speech Aug. 17.


This appears to be the latest incident in which protesters have openly displayed firearms near the president.


In Arizona and several other states, it happens to be legal for people to purchase and carry these types of weapons without a permit. Gun-rights advocates say they are exercising their constitutional right to bear arms and protest; others who argue for more gun control say it could be a disaster waiting to happen.

I happen to be a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and strongly believe in our constitutional right to bear arms. However, I also have had the responsibility of overseeing the protection of several heads of state, including at one of the world’s largest gatherings — the Millennium Summit of the United Nations in September 2000.

I believe that there is no greater responsibility in this country than that of the men and women in our federal, state, and local law enforcement organizations charged with protecting the life of our president.

In order to protect the president, the Secret Service recruits other federal, state, and local agencies to assist them daily. The military supports the Secret Service through the use of explosive ordnance disposal teams and communications resources. When the president travels, an advance team of Secret Service agents works with host city and state law enforcement, as well as public safety officials, to jointly implement the necessary security measures.


Knowing and understanding the threats we face from terrorism alone is reason to ensure that the security arrangements for the president is of the highest standard. In addition to those possible threats, there are reports that the threats against this president are 400 percent higher than that of any other. If the threat and vulnerability assessments are accurate, this president and vice president should have the highest levels of security in the history of the Secret Service whether they like it or not.


There are reports that the vice president has ordered his protective detail be minimized during certain travel. We have also seen President Barack Obama mix it up with a crowd from time to time, and I assure you it was against the wishes of their detail leaders responsible for keeping them safe.


What principals like the president and vice president sometimes do not understand is that they have the responsibility to stay alive, just as the Secret Service has the responsibility to keep them alive.


If they intentionally or unintentionally interfere with or preclude the Secret Service from doing its job, they jeopardize their own lives as well as the lives of those charged with protecting them. Perhaps more importantly, they could jeopardize the stability of our country if something were to happen to them.


Allowing armed protesters to show up where the president is speaking is irresponsible and could cause a catastrophic security nightmare for those charged with protecting him.


It endangers the protective agents, the protesters, the public, and the president. It creates an immediate distraction as each armed protester then becomes a focus of observation for the agents.


Although Arizona and other states may allow the possession of these weapons, who can tell that the person carrying them at the time is not a threat to the president or others? An unidentified man who had a rifle slung over his shoulder told a reporter for the Arizona Republic, that “I still have some freedoms,” and he may be right. But freedom to create alarm and a possible threat to the president is not one of them.


Use some common sense.


That man may have no ill intent and possess his weapon legally, but what if someone not so nice takes it away? Why create scenarios where the protective agents focus is instinctually aimed at the weapon’s carriers? What if there is an accidental discharge by someone who is not that proficient with his or her weapon that creates a stampede or serious distraction?


No responsible gun owner, law enforcement executive, or public official should endorse or allow these armed protests anywhere near the president.


The president and his staff should let the Secret Service do its job, regardless of political correctness, and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano should ensure that the president is protected at all cost . . . and if that includes stepping on some protester’s toes, so be it.
I’m all for the Second Amendment and our right to bear arms, but not at the cost of endangering the president. This is a dangerous practice and it must be stopped.


The job of protecting the president is hard enough. . . let’s not make it any harder for the men and women who have to do the job.


Bernard Kerik served as the 40th police commissioner of the City of New York and Iraq’s interim minister of interior following the fall of Saddam Hussein. Today he is the chairman of The Kerik Group LLC. Visit his Web site at: http://www.thekerikgroup.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.















© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

[Purplehood]

But freedom to create alarm and a possible threat to the president is not one of them.

Are we going to start restricting behaviors that "might" lead to other behaviors now? Those individuals are violating the law, or they are not. If they are not then the security folks are just going to have to focus on them and be distracted. I guarantee that just as many folks that are not carrying (openly or concealed) are also going to be the focus of attention for security agents.

I don't think that I would personally have the gumption to exercise my rights in this manner. I foresee Gestapo-like tactics being used against them sooner or later to discourage this behavior. I don't want to experience it. But I do support the right to exercise your rights as long as you are not violating the law.

[WildBill]

I do not give credence to anything that this man says. Bernie Kerik is a self-agrandizing crook and a disgrace to LEOs everywhere.

[lonewolf]

As a police commissioner for NYC, he probably gave birth to a bazooka when he saw (or heard about) armed people at a Presidential rally. After all NYC has the finest set of gun control measures in the country don't they? They have limited ownership to cops and crooks only. He makes his money protecting heads of state and such. Bah humbug. That's what the Secret Service does. Why does the government have to keep contracting out jobs like this? Ridiculous.

As far as openly armed citizens, where legal, it should not be a problem. There may be a wacko among them. Control the situation and it should be just fine. No access.

With regards to concealed carry, no problem there. Background checks and such have all been performed. Not likely to be any wackos there. Even if they are not pro-Obama, they carry for personal protection, not vendetta. I say "they carry" because my plastic has not arrived yet.

NYC is on top of my list of places to avoid. At the very apex of the list. This gentlemen was part of the problem, not part of any solution......

Just another 2 cents worth, really more considering inflation.......

[casingpoint]

Kerick probably knows a thing or two about executive protection. The Founding Fathers obviously knew something about gun rights. All that is needed now is for Congress to get in the middle and muddy the water.

[KC5AV]

The same Bernard Kerik who

... is currently under Federal investigation: A grand jury issued a multi-count indictment on November 8, 2007 alleging conspiracy, mail fraud, wire fraud and lying to the Internal Revenue Service.

[A-R]

Texgun to you have a web hyperlink to the original posted article from original source? I'd like to post this article on my Facebook in hopes of starting another "discussion"

[android]

Are we going to start restricting behaviors that "might" lead to other behaviors now?

Unfortunately, we already do that all the time.

You can't carrry a knife over 3" long because you MIGHT stab somebody.
You can't drive drunk, without insurance or over the speed limit because you MIGHT cause an accident.
You can't buy spray paint because you MIGHT commit vandalism.
You can't take glass bottles anywhere because you MIGHT break them.


This seems like the typical bureaucratic cop attitude. Since I enforce the law, I should be allowed to make it up and implement it as I see fit rather than as legislated. (Our own DPS CHL application processing delays is yet another fine example of this.)

[Purplehood]

When I was writing that last little snippet I thought to myself, "Yes, we already do that".

Isn't that a shame?

[WildBill]

The same Bernard Kerik who

... is currently under Federal investigation: A grand jury issued a multi-count indictment on November 8, 2007 alleging conspiracy, mail fraud, wire fraud and lying to the Internal Revenue Service.

and the same Bernard Kerik who

in 2006, pled guilty to two unrelated ethics violations after an investigation by the Bronx District Attorney's Office, and was ordered to pay $221,000.

[nitrogen]

The white house doesn't mind people carrying arms outside Obama events.

That pretty much settles it for me, and should settle it for anyone else, too.

[Purplehood]

The immediate area occupied by Obama on such trips is considered a federal site where weapons are not permitted,

I wonder what statute that is covered under?

[GaryAdrian]

The immediate area occupied by Obama on such trips is considered a federal site where weapons are not permitted,

I wonder what statute that is covered under?

And what is considered "Immediate Area? " 1000ft? 1000 yards? 1000 miles?
Did anyone notice that this is a black man carrying the AR15? Does that make a difference? Not to me. A law abiding citizen is a law abiding citizen.
If the State Law says it's legal, then it's legal!
That being said, I would not wear my AR slung over my shoulder. I'm afraid someone would offer me money for it and my wife would make me take it!

[lonewolf]

Based on the indictments, I guess this guy can't get a concealed carry license here in Texas. We try to limit those to good, law abiding citizens......He doesn't appear to merit a CHL, but runs a huge, multi-national presumably armed corporation? And here I am, trying to find a job after being laid off twice in a year, just went on an interview at a place that likely will not hire me simply because I smoke.... Big sign in the entrance that says if you have used tobacco products in the last 24 month, you will not be considered for employment. Cigarettes are still legal aren't they? Will this affect my CHL app?

Gotta love big corporations and big governments.........

[boomerang]

I wonder if he would get equally upset if Muslims were carrying copies of the Koran at Obama rallies.