PDA

View Full Version : Volokh: Could President Perry LTC?


choprzrul
08-22-2011, 9:25 AM
Chris Moody attempts to analyze the issue for The Ticket. The analysis could have been improved by reading the laws of the District of Columbia.

Moody describes D.C. as “a city that bans carrying firearms.” That’s not exactly correct. The D.C. Code generally prohibits carrying a firearm “without a license issued pursuant to District of Columbia law.” D.C. Code § 22–4504. It is true that in practice, the D.C. government virtually never issues carry licenses to citizens. However, the Code makes various exceptions to the license requirement, including that “The provisions of § 22–4504 shall not apply . . .to officers or employees of the United States duly authorized to carry a concealed pistol . . .” § 22–4505(a).

Thus President Perry could simply authorize himself to carry a concealed pistol. For good measure, he could likewise authorize the entire White House staff, or indeed every single employee of the United States government, to also carry a concealed pistol in D.C.

Full Article Here. (http://volokh.com/2011/08/19/could-president-perry-carry-a-gun/)

.

sholling
08-22-2011, 9:58 AM
I'm not for special rights for federal employees but I think a pistol packing POTUS would set a great precedent. I think it also likely that he would rescind the Clinton ban on on-base carry that made things so easy for the Ft Hood shooter.

choprzrul
08-22-2011, 1:53 PM
I'm not for special rights for federal employees but I think a pistol packing POTUS would set a great precedent. I think it also likely that he would rescind the Clinton ban on on-base carry that made things so easy for the Ft Hood shooter.

I believe that Teddy Roosevelt carried, so why not Perry? I would really like to see a commander-in-chief mandate that military personnel go armed at all times, along the lines of IDF.

.

a1c
08-22-2011, 1:58 PM
As much as I think there is something cool to a pistol-packing POTUS - akin to Harrison Ford telling a terrorist to "Get off [his] plane" before kicking him off Air Force One - it's a very silly and redundant concept.

The Secret Service agents are highly trained and in charge of POTUS protection. They would haul his *** immediately just a fraction of a second after any assassination attempt before he would get a chance to even reach for his weapon.

Just like I don't see anything practical nor logic about a president who would physically lead his armed forces into combat. Even Alexander or Napoleon knew better than lead the first wave into enemy fire.

BigDogatPlay
08-22-2011, 2:00 PM
When Teddy Roosevelt was president the Secret Service was in it's infancy in the protective mission. Today, while a POTUS certainly could, I can't imagine the Service would be very happy about it as it would be a gun they could not control.

yellowfin
08-22-2011, 2:12 PM
IMO, a president who isn't personally armed is unfit for the job and has no place to be there as he isn't taking upon himself the same role and responsibility as the citizens he represents.

Window_Seat
08-22-2011, 2:14 PM
When Teddy Roosevelt was president the Secret Service was in it's infancy in the protective mission. Today, while a POTUS certainly could, I can't imagine the Service would be very happy about it as it would be a gun they could not control.

While true, it would certainly be very interesting to see how they act with the President carrying, and at the same time, an individual carrying in the same venue in DC after Palmer is decided and we get a carry case decided in the USSC.

Erik.

BigDogatPlay
08-22-2011, 2:20 PM
While true, it would certainly be very interesting to see how they act with the President carrying, and at the same time, an individual carrying in the same venue in DC after Palmer is decided and we get a carry case decided in the USSC.

Erik.

I doubt we'd ever know as even if a POTUS was carrying I can't imagine the Service would ever say a word about it.

No one but on duty, assigned law enforcement can carry inside the actual venue at an event where POTUS or VPOTUS is attending. That's been the case for a long time. A SCOTUS carry case in our favor could indeed be far reaching, but I'd be willing to make a large wager executive protection is almost certainly going to stand as a reasonable restriction on the right regardless of how good a ruling we eventually get.

GaryV
08-22-2011, 2:37 PM
I think it also likely that he would rescind the Clinton ban on on-base carry that made things so easy for the Ft Hood shooter.

?????

I left the service in '84, under Reagan, and lived on military bases from 1963 until then. I don't remember any time during that period when on-base carry was ever not banned. Clinton had nothing to do with it.

taperxz
08-22-2011, 2:45 PM
JMO but if the president wants to carry, who has a right to stop him and likewise why not the same for all law abiding citizens?

Common
08-22-2011, 2:55 PM
While Wellington was not a Commander in Chief, he led a mounted charge at the Battle of Assaye. The Naval actions of Nelson leading is well documented from his exploits at Aboukir Bay and Trafalgar. Of course they weren't Commanders in Chief but there are some similarities.

I like the idea of a fighting president.

a1c
08-22-2011, 3:00 PM
IMO, a president who isn't personally armed is unfit for the job and has no place to be there as he isn't taking upon himself the same role and responsibility as the citizens he represents.

That's a dangerous slope right there. Then you have people who think that only a good God-fearing man who goes to church can be a president. Or a guy who is married with children. Or a guy who is a landowner. And so on.

There are lots of roles and responsibilities one can take out there. The president needs to lead. If someone attacks him, he's got the Secret Service there to do a much better job than he ever would. I want the guy to focus on leading the country, not ape whatever version of a "citizen" others seem to think he should be.

nicki
08-22-2011, 3:11 PM
The President is not a "King", he is a replacable and expendable government servant.

Even though I think we will have President Ron Paul, should we have President Perry, I think he should carry.

In fact, if he really was pro gun, he would declare all laws that restrict our rights to carry as a violation of our rights and have the justice department prosecute accordingly.:43:

Nicki

sholling
08-22-2011, 3:21 PM
?????

I left the service in '84, under Reagan, and lived on military bases from 1963 until then. I don't remember any time during that period when on-base carry was ever not banned. Clinton had nothing to do with it.

I'll take your word for it. I'm just going by a same day news report that credited Clinton.

choprzrul
08-22-2011, 4:04 PM
Elect me president. I will carry my hog leg low in a western holster with a second in the cross draw position. Bullet loops full of course. I will take vacations @ training facilities to get my skill level up where it should be for a person in the company of the Secret Service. I will then direct my AG to seek strict scrutiny for 2A civil rights before the Supreme Court.

I will advocate for a return of the shooting sports as a national past time. Perhaps an NCAA 'Range Games' season and national championship could be arranged.

Remember, vote 'Choprzrul' for prez in '12.....

.

**EDIT**

Can someone comment on the proper shootin' iron attire and gun choice for state dinners?

.

jwkincal
08-22-2011, 4:15 PM
Can someone comment on the proper shootin' iron attire and gun choice for state dinners?

.

I'd go with nickel or stainless matched 1911s with pearl grips in gator-hide holsters... but you could opt for the Peacemaker if you wanted to go classic.

JALLEN
08-22-2011, 6:30 PM
JMO but if the president wants to carry, who has a right to stop him and likewise why not the same for all law abiding citizens?

It is my impression that the Secret Service has a great deal to say about how the President conducts himself, where he can and cannot go and when, and how. I believe the President cannot drive a car, and does not carry any money, ever. I think the days when (s)he could just saunter off on his/her own are long gone, like LBJ had a reputation for trying to do. He referred to the WH as the "Big White Jail." Security is MUCH tighter now, maybe because of that.

I can't cite a statute but I doubt the President would be allowed to carry, any more than he would be allowed to walk out the front door of the WH over to Lafayette Park for a smoke.

jwkincal
08-22-2011, 6:37 PM
The POTUS is CinC of the Armed Forces, as such he is specifically exempted from all state, county, municipal, and local Federal regulations regarding the carry of arms, as long as he is doing so in the "course of his duties..." Since he is the Commander in Chief, he can authorize himself to carry while on-duty and it will not be within the purview of any jurisdiction to do anything about it.

Now, I am sure that there would be many protestations on the part of the Secret Service, but there also isn't much that they could do about it. The smart move on their part would be "Of course, Mr. President, our armorer will provide you with the best arms and ammunition available!" Said implements being capable of remote disabling by the commander of the security detail...

yellowfin
08-22-2011, 7:54 PM
That's a dangerous slope right there. Then you have people who think that only a good God-fearing man who goes to church can be a president. That should be an understood minimum.Or a guy who is married with children. Or a guy who is a landowner. And so on.Perhaps that should be a requirement as they should be as mad as we are at being overtaxed, overregulated, and having as much to dislike about the disaster of the education system as we do.There are lots of roles and responsibilities one can take out there. The president needs to lead. If someone attacks him, he's got the Secret Service there to do a much better job than he ever would. I want the guy to focus on leading the country, not ape whatever version of a "citizen" others seem to think he should be.Having higher standards for what kind of person they should be goes a long way towards seeing to it that they accomplish those tasks. We've been in the mess we're in because of doing the opposite, going with steadily lower standards.

taperxz
08-22-2011, 9:40 PM
It is my impression that the Secret Service has a great deal to say about how the President conducts himself, where he can and cannot go and when, and how. I believe the President cannot drive a car, and does not carry any money, ever. I think the days when (s)he could just saunter off on his/her own are long gone, like LBJ had a reputation for trying to do. He referred to the WH as the "Big White Jail." Security is MUCH tighter now, maybe because of that.

I can't cite a statute but I doubt the President would be allowed to carry, any more than he would be allowed to walk out the front door of the WH over to Lafayette Park for a smoke.

So what you are saying is that the secret service won't allow the president of the United States the ability to exercise his second amendment right????

Pleeezzz!!! How would the president packing affect the ability of the Secret Service from doing their job? So i guess when George Bush was down in Crawford, they took his guns from him????? I don't think so!

Peter.Steele
08-22-2011, 10:16 PM
While Wellington was not a Commander in Chief, he led a mounted charge at the Battle of Assaye. The Naval actions of Nelson leading is well documented from his exploits at Aboukir Bay and Trafalgar. Of course they weren't Commanders in Chief but there are some similarities.

I like the idea of a fighting president.


First off, you have to look at the historical context.

Arthur Wellesley was a Major General at Assaye. He wasn't Viscount Talavera yet, and he certainly wasn't Duke of Wellington. An MGEN of that day and age - and for several decades thereafter as well - was expected to be on the battlefield, a visible presence. A good (or bad) general's example, leadership and visible presence on the battlefield could be and frequently was the deciding factor in that era. Also you should remember that Washington led troops in the field while President during the Whiskey Rebellion - 12 years earlier than Assaye - and Madison was at Bladensburg in 1812.

Nelson was in command of a fleet engaged in a battle. Admirals have died in sea battles for millennia. Relatively recently, look at RADM Isaac Kidd (Pearl Harbor), RADM Daniel Callaghan (1st Guadalcanal), RADM Norman Scott (1st Guadalcanal), and RADM Theodore Chandler (Off Manila Bay).



I'd go with nickel or stainless matched 1911s with pearl grips in gator-hide holsters... but you could opt for the Peacemaker if you wanted to go classic.

Patton would slap the **** out of you and call you a pimp out of a New Orleans whorehouse. You want ivory grips, not pearl.

Trailboss60
08-23-2011, 12:12 AM
?????

I left the service in '84, under Reagan, and lived on military bases from 1963 until then. I don't remember any time during that period when on-base carry was ever not banned. Clinton had nothing to do with it.

I used to carry my 22 rifle to practice on the grounds of Ft. Carson as a kid in the 60's, I was wearing .50 cal belts across the chest "Pancho Villa" style.
I never saw anyone carrying in the sense of "Legal" CCW or openly, it wasn't unusual for my dad to carry though, even when he wasn't suppose to.

I remember visiting my dad's buddy who lived outside FT.Sill Ok., "Indian Jim" could hang from a tree by his toes, had a .50 cal machine gun in his living room, all kinds of grenades, assorted guns including a BAR...I remember my dad telling me that "Luke the gook paid a heavy price when Jim went into the jungle"....:D

Meplat
08-23-2011, 4:34 AM
it's a very silly and redundant concept.

The Secret Service agents are highly trained and in charge of POTUS protection.

CCW; it's a very silly and redundant concept.

The police are highly trained and in charge of your protection.

Kharn
08-23-2011, 8:17 AM
IIRC, Reagan stated he kept a handgun on his nightstand when he was visiting the USSR.

choprzrul
08-23-2011, 8:50 AM
IIRC, Reagan stated he kept a handgun on his nightstand when he was visiting the USSR.

You prompted me to go looking. I found this:

One story was early on in Presidency the President came out of his room with a side arm attached to his hip. The Agent in charge said “Why the pistol Mr. President.” Ronald Reagan replied, “In case you boys can’t get the job done, I can help.” It was common for him to carry a pistol. People do not know that when he met with Gorbachev, he had a pistol in his briefcase.

Full Article Here. (http://usa.goooh.com/2011/06/09/barrack-hussein-obama/the-truth-about-presidents-and-their-secret-service-agents/)

Something tells me that Ronald Reagan would go down shooting before allowing himself to be killed/captured by someone.

.

a1c
08-23-2011, 9:20 AM
CCW; it's a very silly and redundant concept.

The police are highly trained and in charge of your protection.

Flawed analogy. The President is constantly surrounded by Secret Service personnel. if he were under attack, they would whisk him away before he got a chance to even reach for his weapon.

Listen - I'm not saying POTUS shouldn't carry. I would find it cool if he did. But the chances that that would turn out to be useful are probably nil. If anything, the Secret Service would probably tell him that he shouldn't, for fear that in public someone manages to get close and take his own gun to shoot him - that's probably what they would argue. That it would create more threat than safety.

A pistol-carrying POTUS is a nice concept. We all like the idea. But it's also completely impractical.

taperxz
08-23-2011, 9:31 AM
Flawed analogy. The President is constantly surrounded by Secret Service personnel. if he were under attack, they would whisk him away before he got a chance to even reach for his weapon.

Listen - I'm not saying POTUS shouldn't carry. I would find it cool if he did. But the chances that that would turn out to be useful are probably nil. If anything, the Secret Service would probably tell him that he shouldn't, for fear that in public someone manages to get close and take his own gun to shoot him - that's probably what they would argue. That it would create more threat than safety.

A pistol-carrying POTUS is a nice concept. We all like the idea. But it's also completely impractical.

Oh, so there is a chance the secret service can't do their job? If i were the prez., i would carry if i wanted to.

Meplat
08-23-2011, 4:17 PM
Flawed analogy. The President is constantly surrounded by Secret Service personnel. if he were under attack, they would whisk him away before he got a chance to even reach for his weapon.
Not flawed. The differences are ones of degree and scale not concept and philosophy.

Listen - I'm not saying POTUS shouldn't carry. I would find it cool if he did. But the chances that that would turn out to be useful are probably nil. If anything, the Secret Service would probably tell him that he shouldn't, for fear that in public someone manages to get close and take his own gun to shoot him - that's probably what they would argue. That it would create more threat than safety.
That is what they would argue, similar to the arguments of LE antis. But the real reason would be that they don’t want to be shot in the back by mistake by a dufus POTUS. (That’s pig latten for idiot president).

A pistol-carrying POTUS is a nice concept. We all like the idea. But it's also completely impractical.

In the end we are each responsible for our own safety, and that of our loved ones. Often national leaders are taken down by close associates who are allowed inside the inner circle of security. If I were POTUS I would damn sure carry, and the SS would just have to get over themselves, the way a lot of LEO’s need to get over themselves. Again it’s the same argument just a matter of scale.

Fictitious Simily
08-24-2011, 12:32 AM
Executive order, federal trumps state.

Maestro Pistolero
08-24-2011, 12:42 AM
The president is the top cop. Head of the executive branch. He can carry anything he wants, anywhere he wants. To think otherwise is kind of silly, IMO.

Mulay El Raisuli
08-24-2011, 6:24 AM
While Wellington was not a Commander in Chief, he led a mounted charge at the Battle of Assaye. The Naval actions of Nelson leading is well documented from his exploits at Aboukir Bay and Trafalgar. Of course they weren't Commanders in Chief but there are some similarities.

I like the idea of a fighting president.


The difference is that generals have the option of being safe while admirals don't.


Can someone comment on the proper shootin' iron attire and gun choice for state dinners?

.


Same hogleg, but in a smooth black leather shoulder holster. Because that'll go best with the tuxedo. :)


I can't cite a statute but I doubt the President would be allowed to carry, any more than he would be allowed to walk out the front door of the WH over to Lafayette Park for a smoke.


Because there is no such statute. A POTUS can ignore the Secret Service any time he wants. Its just that they usually don't.

But your comment got me thinking about Obama & his smoking. If I were Prez, I would issue an Executive Order designating a 'bubble' 10 feet across (that followed me everywhere) as being exempt from the no smoking rules. :)


The Raisuli

Icypu
08-24-2011, 4:49 PM
I believe that Teddy Roosevelt carried, so why not Perry? I would really like to see a commander-in-chief mandate that military personnel go armed at all times, along the lines of IDF.

.

Also note that Teddy Roosevelt was the first president to use suppressors. He had two lever action '94s with maxim sound devices. He used these to plink squirrels in his backyard.

yellowfin
08-24-2011, 5:52 PM
Something else worth noting is that several times in history we know of heads of state being assassinated by their own guards, which makes for a very strong reason for a president to be armed. Quite frankly I'm very surprised we haven't seen it happen here yet. (Though it's entirely plausible that JFK might have been, historical examples abound where we know for a fact it happened.)

five.five-six
08-24-2011, 7:55 PM
The Secret Service agents are highly trained and in charge of POTUS protection. They would haul his *** immediately just a fraction of a second after any assassination attempt before he would get a chance to even reach for his weapon.

Just like I don't see anything practical nor logic about a president who would physically lead his armed forces into combat. Even Alexander or Napoleon knew better than lead the first wave into enemy fire.

I don't think that real life always plays out exactly like it does on TV, having POTUS armed is a good thing

five.five-six
08-24-2011, 7:59 PM
The President is constantly surrounded by Secret Service personnel.

come now, we all know that is simply not true


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_UHyxer334bk/TEieMMeoQ8I/AAAAAAAAAYA/GFTcf3P-6UM/s1600/Monica-Lewinsky.jpg

?

Trailboss60
08-24-2011, 11:16 PM
I certainly don't think that it is silly for a president to arm himself because he has professionals around to protect him. I think that it says a lot about a man that chooses to take his own personal security seriously by carrying a weapon if he chooses to do so and not relegating it only for others to do.

Michael Reagan has told the story about when he had a SS detail in a camper on his thousand Oaks property before the house next door became vacant. He walked into the camper unannounced to see a picture of him on a bulletin board with a knife embedded in his face...:eek:a good reason to carry a gun right there.:D

If I were president and a ss agent complained about me being armed, I would remind him that I have the nuclear codes.

yelohamr
08-25-2011, 9:24 AM
Didn't Clinton have a negligent discharge...on a blue dress?

DocSkinner
08-25-2011, 9:35 AM
I'd go with nickel or stainless matched 1911s with pearl grips in gator-hide holsters... but you could opt for the Peacemaker if you wanted to go classic.

"They're ivory. Only a pimp from a cheap New Orleans whorehouse would carry a pearl-handled pistol."

DocSkinner
08-25-2011, 9:37 AM
come now, we all know that is simply not true


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_UHyxer334bk/TEieMMeoQ8I/AAAAAAAAAYA/GFTcf3P-6UM/s1600/Monica-Lewinsky.jpg

?

The first rule of POTUS squad is you don't talk about POTUS sqaud.

Wouldn't be surprised at all if a couple of agents were in the room. Clinton loves to play to an audience!

five.five-six
08-25-2011, 3:36 PM
The first rule of POTUS squad is you don't talk about POTUS sqaud.

Wouldn't be surprised at all if a couple of agents were in the room. Clinton loves to play to an audience!

ok, I could see Clinton being all about the sick ars kinky crap, but to get a 16 year old intern to go along with it... not a chance, they were alone

five.five-six
08-25-2011, 3:38 PM
The first rule of POTUS squad is you don't talk about POTUS sqaud.


that's not true either

nAs0KaKEzUc

dantodd
08-25-2011, 3:39 PM
ok, I could see Clinton being all about the sick ars kinky crap, but to get a 16 year old intern to go along with it... not a chance, they were alone

She was NOT A minor. Hyperbole is not a tool that should be used wheyou awe confident of your corrctness,

five.five-six
08-25-2011, 4:39 PM
my bad, how old was she? I just remember she was young and about the same age as Chelsae

She was NOT A minor. Hyperbole is not a tool that should be used wheyou awe confident of your corrctness,